1911 vs ?the world? Why do you like it?

I have to say what a previous poster said: Magnum PI was/is a huge influence. I fell in love with that pistol, the magic is still there haha.

Turns out it also works for me, its comfortable, shoots well, etc. I like the SA trigger. Yes the narrow magwell is less user-friendly than a funnel shaped double stack, but I'm not in combat situations very often :).
 
The first time I picked up and used a 1911, it just felt natural in my hand, and that translated into more confidence and control in hitting what I'm aiming for.

I also have a CZ 75 that I like, but I don't have the same confidence in it as holding a 1911. For whatever reason, the 1911s just fit better. Love the SA and the recoil of a .45. I haven't picked one up just because of the ammo cost, but have changed my mind about that. You only live once. :)
 
1911 is the Harley Davidson of guns. Perhaps not the grandfather of modern motorcycles, but it has a huge following and appeal. The 1911 design is the heart of the gun like the 45' V-twin, everything else is custom...

I love them, but in practical and Canadian terms, it would not be my duty or CC gun. They just look so beautiful.
 
The good, even the worst ones ussually have a decent trigger, and that trigger makes it easy for new shooters to start grouping well and feel like they're improving.

The huge aftermarket is a big plus, you can make your dream pistol, assuming you don't just find it in someone's cataloge.

The 45, despite all the BS is a big baby in 45, a very gentle rolling gun in a steel frame.

The down side?

Unless you've got good sized mits, you have to roll the gun around in your hand to reach mag and slide release.

Up untill the 80s the colt made guns where frankly crap. And i've owned a few and quickly sold/traded them off to suckers who had to have a prancing pony. You had to work on em if you wanted them to feed anything other then 230 hardball, and even then, they had so many sharp edges trying to shoot them fast out of the box was an exercise in blood donation. My series 70 Combat elite was frankly pretty junk. Colt single handedly supplied the market that allowed Springfield and then Kimber to take off, and they fueled the massive popularity increase in the last 20 years, suddenly you could get a great gun that didin't need a huge investment in smith work to make it accurate and reliable.

I might carry a 1911 if i had CCW in Canada, but given a choice i'd take an XD/M&P/Glock as a carry/duty gun. Simpler, more reliable, more tolerant of abuse and easier on both the pocket book and the hips.
 
dlau said:
The first time I picked up and used a 1911, it just felt natural in my hand, and that translated into more confidence and control in hitting what I'm aiming for.

I also have a CZ 75 that I like, but I don't have the same confidence in it as holding a 1911. For whatever reason, the 1911s just fit better. Love the SA and the recoil of a .45. I haven't picked one up just because of the ammo cost, but have changed my mind about that. You only live once. :)
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat, first time I picked it up, it just fit. I also have a m&p 9 right now and it doesn't get the use the 1911 does. Just prefer it. Really like the .45 over the nine.
 
Cocked&Locked said:
The good, even the worst ones ussually have a decent trigger, and that trigger makes it easy for new shooters to start grouping well and feel like they're improving.

The huge aftermarket is a big plus, you can make your dream pistol, assuming you don't just find it in someone's cataloge.

The 45, despite all the BS is a big baby in 45, a very gentle rolling gun in a steel frame.

The down side?

Unless you've got good sized mits, you have to roll the gun around in your hand to reach mag and slide release.

Up untill the 80s the colt made guns where frankly crap. And i've owned a few and quickly sold/traded them off to suckers who had to have a prancing pony. You had to work on em if you wanted them to feed anything other then 230 hardball, and even then, they had so many sharp edges trying to shoot them fast out of the box was an exercise in blood donation. My series 70 Combat elite was frankly pretty junk. Colt single handedly supplied the market that allowed Springfield and then Kimber to take off, and they fueled the massive popularity increase in the last 20 years, suddenly you could get a great gun that didin't need a huge investment in smith work to make it accurate and reliable.

I might carry a 1911 if i had CCW in Canada, but given a choice i'd take an XD/M&P/Glock as a carry/duty gun. Simpler, more reliable, more tolerant of abuse and easier on both the pocket book and the hips.
Click to expand...

i couldn't disagree more- but mine's a 70 series gov't model- it's had a few mods done to it, but it feeds 200 grain swcs like butter- and did so right out of the box- smae deal for my '43 remington rand, although it will bite your hand b/c it's still full stock;all of my misfeeds were either poor mags ( follower springs esp) not once have i ever had an swc hang up on the feed ramp
 
The perceived reliability issues with 1911s is a combination of an over-saturation of aftermarket parts combined with end users with insufficient knowledge of the platform and maintenance how to. A properly built and maintained 1911 is just as reliable as anything else and for anyone who disagrees, see the last half of my previous sentence :p.

I do echo what others have said though and I love my 1911 but if poop hits the fan, I would grab something else (M&P) just because I likely won't be able to perform the needed maintenance (for example will I even have access to lube?).

As with every rule there are exceptions but I don't need to look any further than my former workplace (a rental range). The 1911s (STI Trojans and Ranger II) are the top 3 in terms of most rented guns (along with Glock 17/34s and CZ Shadows). ~1,000,000 rounds of 9mm a year and prob over half of that is through these top 3 rented guns and the 1911s are 2nd place in terms of reliability and durability (Glock being #1). While other guns have parts breakages and start to fall apart, the Glocks and STI 1911s keep on going with barrel rifling wearing out before any other part. It's pretty crazy to see, especially considering range guns are not treated as nice as most people would treat their personal guns. Big difference is the 1911 does need to get lube regularly whereas the Glocks are rarely lubed.
 
padawan said:
What are/might be some of the reliability issues with a 1911? Lets use the Ruger SR1911 as an example.
Click to expand...

1911s in general have more frequent and complex maintenance requirements compared to more modern designs. They require gunsmithing skill to service, as opposed to simple armourer parts-changing.

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Reliability,-Round-Counts,-and-Longevity-in-1911s.html

The above presupposes a pistol initially set up properly. Any modern mass-produced 1911 tends to cut corners to some extent on materials and/or hand-fitting required. A true duty-grade 1911 is an expensive custom proposition in this day and age.

A 1911 can be a reliable choice for the dedicated end user willing to spend considerable time and money. Something like a Ruger 1911 might be a OK hobby-grade gun, but I would not expect one to be as trouble-free as a Glock, M&P, or whatever. Something has to give when building a skilled labour intensive design for that price.

I like 1911s, but one must be realistic about what they are and are not.
 
tjhaile said:
1911s in general have more frequent and complex maintenance requirements compared to more modern designs. They require gunsmithing skill to service, as opposed to simple armourer parts-changing.

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Reliability,-Round-Counts,-and-Longevity-in-1911s.html

The above presupposes a pistol initially set up properly. Any modern mass-produced 1911 tends to cut corners to some extent on materials and/or hand-fitting required. A true duty-grade 1911 is an expensive custom proposition in this day and age.

A 1911 can be a reliable choice for the dedicated end user willing to spend considerable time and money. Something like a Ruger 1911 might be a OK hobby-grade gun, but I would not expect one to be as trouble-free as a Glock, M&P, or whatever. Something has to give when building a skilled labour intensive design for that price.

I like 1911s, but one must be realistic about what they are and are not.
Click to expand...


Understood. thanks:cheers:
 
t-star said:
i couldn't disagree more- but mine's a 70 series gov't model- it's had a few mods done to it, but it feeds 200 grain swcs like butter- and did so right out of the box- smae deal for my '43 remington rand, although it will bite your hand b/c it's still full stock;all of my misfeeds were either poor mags ( follower springs esp) not once have i ever had an swc hang up on the feed ramp
Click to expand...

Actually, the 200 swc tend to feed better then even hardball, I agree there.
 
I don't think the Americans would place so many accolades on their beloved 1911 if it wasn't for its amazing military service record from 1911 - 1985.

WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. This is one solid and battle proven pistol.

I've come to hate DA/SA pistols. The DA pull on my wartime Walther P38 is about 14 lbs!!! I think I'd rather have carried a 1911 on my belt!
 
I choose the 1911 because of its proven track record. It feels the best in my hand. They are made by all of my favorite manufacturer's. There are tons of aftermarket parts that are readily available. They are out of the box accurate and reliable. You can get one from $300-$5000 depending on budget. They come in numerous calibers and different barrel lengths. I like that they are made of steel not polymer. I shoot them better than any of my other pistols. Last but not least the triggers are absolutely perfect. In case of emergency I dial 1911.
 
Wow great thread, lots to read, and good solid opinions. I'm glad I asked, thanks for those who have posted, keep 'em coming.

I was asking so I could get a true feel of what people think of the 1911s and I think I'm seeing it now.
I'm also glad I mentioned reliability because while it may not be the top by today's standards it still does very well. I also didn't consider the customization that many of these guns go through.

I think given a chance I may hold on (try if the chance is there) and see what I think, it may not be a first gun but I need to add this to a list of 'must haves' that seem to exist in the firearms world.

Any company to stay away from (should I just start a new thread?) with the range from 300-5000 as was mentioned they can't all be the same quality. Or would a cheaper one just be a good base to start with, 5k being perfect out the box?
 
most of the so-called poor performers have been weeded out by now- almost everybody makes a fairly decent 45 now, save para-ord; just be sure and get a single stack as there's no advantage to getting a 14 shooter and mags are hard to come by- norincos don't fit paras and vice versa; 300 ( actually, it's a bit over 3) for a norinco, but even not all the customs work right every time right out of the box- about 12-1500 buck range should get you most of the "features" you want- there's numerous articles on how and what to put on your 45- chances are you're going to end up with a "custom" suited to you;
my personal wears a lot of wilson stuff- but it's also set up for a left hand; some of the stuff i have is controversial- full length guide rod, extended slide stop, pachymr grips( some folks like hogue) commander hammer, adjustable trigger,
if i was going to go the route with an unlimited budget, i'd go les bauer or ed brown, or maybe wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom