Obselete 1911 & Modern Glock Pistols
- Thread starter The Observer
- Start date
What is the point of all these "my hammer is better than your hammer" debates?? My Granddad's (God rest his soul) hammer is 75+ years old. It does just as good a job as the "modern" hammer that I have in my toolbox. So what if you have a hammer with a 2in head that weighs 2lbs. My hammer has a 1.5in head and weighs 1.5lbs. They BOTH pound nails. I might have to hit the nail a few more times, but I get the same job done. 
I don't "like" the .45ACP. I prefer the 9mm. They BOTH do the same job!!! No the 1911 is not obselete.
------------------
Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent
"Glock 26: 17 rounds of concealed carry DEATH comming your way from out of nowhere!!! THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY!!!"
I don't "like" the .45ACP. I prefer the 9mm. They BOTH do the same job!!! No the 1911 is not obselete.------------------
Yeah, I got a permit to carry,it's called the friggin Constitution.---Ted Nugent
"Glock 26: 17 rounds of concealed carry DEATH comming your way from out of nowhere!!! THAT'S FIREPOWER, BABY!!!"
Eric of IN
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 355sigfan:
parabellum
your right of coarse but he could do the same with an auto if he chose.
PAT
[/quote]
Actually, he couldn't. All auto's have a fixed cycle time. It doesn't matter how fast you pull the trigger, it can't fire until it's back in battery. Revolvers do not have a fixed cycle time, so how fast you pull the trigger determines how fast it shoots. Most (if not all) of the people on this board will never have problems with an auto's cycle time, but I believe Jerry Miculek was averaging a shot every .15 seconds, and an auto just can't go that fast.
Eric
parabellum
your right of coarse but he could do the same with an auto if he chose.
PAT
[/quote]
Actually, he couldn't. All auto's have a fixed cycle time. It doesn't matter how fast you pull the trigger, it can't fire until it's back in battery. Revolvers do not have a fixed cycle time, so how fast you pull the trigger determines how fast it shoots. Most (if not all) of the people on this board will never have problems with an auto's cycle time, but I believe Jerry Miculek was averaging a shot every .15 seconds, and an auto just can't go that fast.
Eric
Eric of IN
Your right however some auto's have a very fast cycle time. The glock 18 a full auto version of the 17 will shoot 1200 rounds a minute. I am not sure how much that is a second but thats probably as fast a Jerry. Now as fast as he is he should be able to make the 17 go as fast as the 18.
PAT
------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
Your right however some auto's have a very fast cycle time. The glock 18 a full auto version of the 17 will shoot 1200 rounds a minute. I am not sure how much that is a second but thats probably as fast a Jerry. Now as fast as he is he should be able to make the 17 go as fast as the 18.
PAT
------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
Glock, 1911, I have both, I love both.
The Glock is indestructible - after a nuclear war there will be 2 things left, cockroaches and functioning Glocks.
The 1911, FOR ME has the ergonomic advantage. I believe the gun is inherently faster to pull and shoot rapidly and accurately. It has a lower capacity; but spares aren't this double-stacked fat block - yeah I know the double-stack mag holds more; but we're not talking about fighting WW3 with ammo capacity; but dealing with jams etc. and Mr. Murphy.
A 1911 can often take some work to get just right; but it can be tuned to run even better than all right, and customized to the user.
If there were a weapon that I would want to seal in a box with cheap spares for a future when (yes when) handguns are banned, it would be the Glock.
I like both for their good points. Remember, the most important thing is not that any particular person choose one as being inherently better than the other; but for future generations to be permitted to buy both and decide for themselves.
Only reason I have knowledge of both is because I payed for both. And I wouldn't have it any other way!!
Battler
NRA, GOA.
The Glock is indestructible - after a nuclear war there will be 2 things left, cockroaches and functioning Glocks.
The 1911, FOR ME has the ergonomic advantage. I believe the gun is inherently faster to pull and shoot rapidly and accurately. It has a lower capacity; but spares aren't this double-stacked fat block - yeah I know the double-stack mag holds more; but we're not talking about fighting WW3 with ammo capacity; but dealing with jams etc. and Mr. Murphy.
A 1911 can often take some work to get just right; but it can be tuned to run even better than all right, and customized to the user.
If there were a weapon that I would want to seal in a box with cheap spares for a future when (yes when) handguns are banned, it would be the Glock.
I like both for their good points. Remember, the most important thing is not that any particular person choose one as being inherently better than the other; but for future generations to be permitted to buy both and decide for themselves.
Only reason I have knowledge of both is because I payed for both. And I wouldn't have it any other way!!
Battler
NRA, GOA.
Many good points above. I'd just like to comment on the apparent slam against the GSSA matches. Considering the Glock is the one manufacturer which sponsors "fun" matches, at which they provide free armorer checks, low-cost sight installation, etc., I'd say that that's a slam against the other manufacturers. When was the last time Colt or S&W did anything customer-friendly?
IPSC is a gun-game, no more, no less. Not having your choice of weapon come in first at IPSC probably has little to do with your self-defense capabilities. Guys like Jim Cirillo carry Glocks, and I guess he knows a little bit about gunfighting, so maybe its not the gun?
IPSC is a gun-game, no more, no less. Not having your choice of weapon come in first at IPSC probably has little to do with your self-defense capabilities. Guys like Jim Cirillo carry Glocks, and I guess he knows a little bit about gunfighting, so maybe its not the gun?
The Observer
New member
To all:
Thanks for your good explanations in differentiating what is obsolete and a modern gun. In any topic - the 1911 and Glock always on top of the conversation - would it not because the glock is trying to make at par with the mystical 1911 so that there is a good comparison to it. Very rare that the HK, the Sig are very well discussed. Even when it comes to revolver the S&W, Colt, rugger are very much discussed and the Taurus is gaining popularity also. I seldom hear about the manurhim. Would it not because also that the HK, Sig in pistols and Manurhim in revolver has few owners - perhaps due to the price, Or the trend now is the 1911 and the Glocks which are mostly purchase by the majority.
At any rate, thanks again indeed for the good feedbacks from all of you.
Thanks for your good explanations in differentiating what is obsolete and a modern gun. In any topic - the 1911 and Glock always on top of the conversation - would it not because the glock is trying to make at par with the mystical 1911 so that there is a good comparison to it. Very rare that the HK, the Sig are very well discussed. Even when it comes to revolver the S&W, Colt, rugger are very much discussed and the Taurus is gaining popularity also. I seldom hear about the manurhim. Would it not because also that the HK, Sig in pistols and Manurhim in revolver has few owners - perhaps due to the price, Or the trend now is the 1911 and the Glocks which are mostly purchase by the majority.
At any rate, thanks again indeed for the good feedbacks from all of you.
juliet charley
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 355sigfan:
Quote
Now I am not saying the 1911 is obsolete but I think its getting there. and the Da revolver is already there.
PAT
[/quote]
PAT -
If I took a modern DA revolver into a gunfight against any other handgun (Colt, Glock, Ruger, HK, Walther, whatever--you name it), I would not lose the fight because of the weapon. I guarantee it. A modern DA revolver is by no means obsolete.
Now, if I took a SA revolver into a gunfight, I would be at a very slight disadvantage to the weapon (maybe). As a fighting the weapon, the SA revolver is probably obsolete. If I took a cap and ball revolver into a gunfight, I would be a significant disadvantage. The cap and ball revolver is obsolete.
Quote
Now I am not saying the 1911 is obsolete but I think its getting there. and the Da revolver is already there.
PAT
[/quote]
PAT -
If I took a modern DA revolver into a gunfight against any other handgun (Colt, Glock, Ruger, HK, Walther, whatever--you name it), I would not lose the fight because of the weapon. I guarantee it. A modern DA revolver is by no means obsolete.
Now, if I took a SA revolver into a gunfight, I would be at a very slight disadvantage to the weapon (maybe). As a fighting the weapon, the SA revolver is probably obsolete. If I took a cap and ball revolver into a gunfight, I would be a significant disadvantage. The cap and ball revolver is obsolete.