yes or no..Glock or Colt 1911- which has the better service life???

Is this the new 9mm vs .45 thread?

Glock vs 1911?

I wish to add my trollesque contribution. And before anyone gets their panties in a knot, I own a 1911 and have owned a Glock. Personally, I like the 1911 much more, and actually have no love for Glocks at all. But for sheer reliability/durability, I would have to say Glock, just too simple. Its uglyness alone is a testament to its utilitarian ability.

45sogood.jpg
 
Stainless_smith said:
What is the ''best'' option then????
Click to expand...

As posted, the "best" for what? Overall, competition, home defense, CCW What are we searching for?

My opinion, Glock puts out the best overall design for a handgun(to date) for most uses and/or situations. The one I can think of that it isn't well suited for would be handgun hunting or dangerous game protection. Then again, there isn't an auto around that excels in said roles. Large calibre revolvers are the clear choice if you must run a handgun for dangerous game.

TDC
 
TDC said:
As posted, the "best" for what? Overall, competition, home defense, CCW What are we searching for?

My opinion, Glock puts out the best overall design for a handgun(to date) for most uses and/or situations. The one I can think of that it isn't well suited for would be handgun hunting or dangerous game protection. Then again, there isn't an auto around that excels in said roles. Large calibre revolvers are the clear choice if you must run a handgun for dangerous game.

TDC
Click to expand...

Extremely poor grip ergonomics would be another that comes to mind, especially in the large frame Glocks.
 
As a 1911 lover who primarily shoots Glocks, I will be the first to admit the 1911 "feels nicer".

Here is my approximate list of critical aspects of a fighting gun, roughly in order:

1) Reliability - it absolutely must go bang when required
2) Accuracy (to a degree...if the gun will do 3" at 25m in the hands of a skilled user that is plenty)
3) Must be capable of incapacitating with a well-placed shot
4) Durability...not interested in guns that are on their last legs at 2000 (or 20,000 for that matter) rounds

For the sake of brevity I will skip a few here

83) Colour...can't be a ### colour
84) must feel nice in my hands
85) must impress my friends...well, my internet friends. I don't have in-person friends.

Glock's ergos aren't the best...I would prefer a more 1911-like grip angle. But it doesn't seem to be a major hindrance to shooting them effectively for most people. And feel...well, I just don't really care about if it feels nice.

The person who should care about the feel of a gun is the person forcing you to shoot him. And then the gun should be really uncomfortable, ideally to the point that he stops doing whatever he's doing.

I say this in the context of this thread, which seems to be primarily oriented towards duty gun usage. I have no problem with people who want a gun to feel like porsche designed it specifically for their hand...I would just hope that they recognize that is not relevant to a gun's performance as a weapon.
 
TDC said:
Feel has no bearing on performance or reliability... Just saying;)

TDC
Click to expand...

You're right, but the person shooting the gun tends to do better with a gun that "feels right".

I suspect that the biggest factors in the Glock topping 1911's as service pistols are low price, no parts are fitted to the individual pistol, low price, ease of maintenance due to space age polymer(aka plastic) parts and lastly, low price. :D
 
bearkilr said:
You're right, but the person shooting the gun tends to do better with a gun that "feels right".

I suspect that the biggest factors in the Glock topping 1911's as service pistols are low price, no parts are fitted to the individual pistol, low price, ease of maintenance due to space age polymer(aka plastic) parts and lastly, low price. :D
Click to expand...

As usual, the ignorant comments about price come out. Please come up with something significant to debate. An economical tool is not a bad thing, why do so many insist on believing a more expensive option is better? The ability to interchange parts between any two or more guns is also a good thing. Why are custom one offs so much better? If the gun doesn't run out of the box you bought a lemon.

As for improved performance due to "feel". You'd be wrong. If you think or believe that feel will improve your performance, you need professional training and more rounds down range. The "feel" of anything is a PERSONAL perception. It is not a scientific or logical method of measuring a pistols ability to perform. You believe Glocks don't feel right. I know they are very reliable. Big difference between what you feel/think and what you know and can prove.

TDC
 
bearkilr said:
You're right, but the person shooting the gun tends to do better with a gun that "feels right".
Click to expand...

In my experience that is not actually true. Most people shoot best with heavy guns with light triggers, and "feel" is practically irrelevant.

LE and Mil units have adopted Glocks in part because they are cheap to buy, but more importantly because they are cheap to maintain, because they don't require $500 in parts and labour per year of service like a 1911 will if it's being shot.

And most importantly, of course, because they work.

I am continually amazed that in Canada you can still find people who are apparently unaware that Glock, generally speaking, builds an effective, reliable, durable pistol. I assume these people are engaged in what I would call "willful ignorance" because by this stage of the game, if you are still telling yourself glocks suck, man, you are so far out of the loop, you must not want to be in it.


I remember back in the mid 90s in the US there were lots of guys who thought Glocks were junk. Most of my friends carried Colt 1911s. But that was a long time ago now...fifteen years and a lot of shooting later, every single one of those guys owns a Glock. Most still own nice 1911s as well, but not one of them would ever pretend Glock can't build a pistol.

Glocks work. If you don't know it, well, you have clearly been keeping yourself intentionally ignorant of anything going on in the mainstream of pistol shooting for at least the last decade and a half.

I can understand people not liking Glocks...they aren't pretty or anything. But man...it is just hard to imagine anybody SERIOUSLY making the claim that they don't work - in particular the 17/19.

On the other hand there are some dumbass bubbas out there that will still tell you that no japanese car will ever hold a candle to its American counterpart.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the bell curve is real, and while the sides get slimmer and slimmer, there's still people out there.
 
misanthropist said:
Anybody saying that at this point is guessing at its longevity...and also apparently unaware of the issues the M&P is having.

It may develop into a superior pistol but it is definitely not there yet.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to highjack this thread but what are the problems with the M&P?
 
I love the 1911.. i own a 1911.. my 1st gun was a 1911.. but polymer IS the future.
here are my problems with the glock..

if you can mold plastic into shapes you couldn't hope to get out of metal.. why oh why are they so damn fugly and NOT ergonomic AND SOOOOOOO small?

my natural pointing angle lends me to an almost 45 degree grip

I have big hands and can barely get my baby finger to NOT hang off the bottom of any of these polymer guns.. (some are ring finger and baby finger!!)..
my buddy's Walther is a microscopic kids TOY even with the big grip pad, glock 22 = similar

POLYMER IS THE FUTURE.. so far the future is for tiny handed guys who like shooting at the ground.

1911 double stack.. i change my vote
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom