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

Para USA PXT 1911 SSP 1000 Round Challenge by Todd Jarrett:

[youtube]Q7wL2QuFTLQ[/youtube]
[youtube]kFF0TbhgQMY[/youtube]
[youtube]tfZ9AdOWUNw[/youtube]


Glock 19 1000 Round Torture Test by James Yeager of Tactical Response:

[youtube]0_JuF23qazI[/youtube]
[youtube]CyZxQfIBXDc[/youtube]
 
Myself I'm no big fan of Para products, but regarding the background of this video, I
found part of the story online from the archive of Tactical Life dot com:

“We put 1,000 rounds through the pistol on Friday and cleaned the gun in preparation for the torture test. Then after completing the 1,000 round high-speed torture test we shot an additional 3,000 rounds. This is where having the more durable design of the Power Extractor really shines,” said Jarrett. The Para Power Extractor was specifically designed by Para’s engineers to address the one weakness in the original 1911 design. The PXT technology of the massive Power Extractor delivers improved feeding and positive extraction round after round – even through 5,000 in a day. “A test like this will expose any weakness in a gun’s design and there’s no doubt in my mind that the Power Extractor was a key part of the pistol’s reliability. Should someone break my time, I’ll be ready with another PXT to reclaim the record,” declared Jarrett.

^Pretty darn good endorsement from a highly successful shooter. Maybe since they've moved south, something changed?
 
Brutus said:
Myself I'm no big fan of Para products, but regarding the background of this video, I
found part of the story online from the archive of Tactical Life dot com:

“We put 1,000 rounds through the pistol on Friday and cleaned the gun in preparation for the torture test. Then after completing the 1,000 round high-speed torture test we shot an additional 3,000 rounds. This is where having the more durable design of the Power Extractor really shines,” said Jarrett. The Para Power Extractor was specifically designed by Para’s engineers to address the one weakness in the original 1911 design. The PXT technology of the massive Power Extractor delivers improved feeding and positive extraction round after round – even through 5,000 in a day. “A test like this will expose any weakness in a gun’s design and there’s no doubt in my mind that the Power Extractor was a key part of the pistol’s reliability. Should someone break my time, I’ll be ready with another PXT to reclaim the record,” declared Jarrett.

^Pretty darn good endorsement from a highly successful shooter. Maybe since they've moved south, something changed?
Click to expand...


That was actually done before Para left Ontario (and more importantly before Ted Szabo died) - I'm not doubting the extractor design, it's probably the best thing Para has done (that and the LDA) - it's every other component on the gun that I'm figuring was worked. I would buy an LDA if I didn't have to get it from Para.
 
Canuck44 said:
TDC Every once in awhile you make statements that defy logic. Read what you wrote and ask yourself are all Bullseye shooters using the 1911 platform using bad form? Are all IPSC Open Shooter who use the 1911 Platform all bad pistol shooters using "bad form".

Your second statement is even less logical. Two World Wars, the Korean Conflict and Vietnam and the gun is "far from ideally suited for real work"? Are you serious? Or should I ask, "How would you know?"

Takr Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Bob,

Let me explain this for all who are reading/watching this thread.

My statement regarding bad form applies to many shooters, if not most. The system they choose to run doesn't really factor in. That being said, many who do shoot 1911's have poor form and it shows if/when they shoot a different system. An accomplished shooter who understands the fundamentals of marksmanship can make good hits on demand with any system.

The fact that many top competitors choose a 1911 is the result of many factors. The short crisp SA trigger being one of them. Oddly this is often the same reason new/inexperienced shooters choose a 1911. Other factors for the top competitors include the availability of accessories, the ease at which they are modified and the fact that they can be run in several calibres that make major. Open class IPSC 1911's are so far removed from the 1911 pedigree that they should be a whole new make/model. Compensators, reddots, cocking handles, and mag funnels are far from practical and have nothing to do with the classic/traditional 1911 design. All are designed to improve or rather cover up a shooters inability. In the ISPC arena that's what needs to be done to remain competitive. In the real world, its crap.

deadman said:
This is a contradictory statement.

I'm all for individual preference, the world would be a boring place if everyone had the exact same thing. However, I'm seeing some 1911 hate here, without explanation. Time and time again from this cgn member (who often has some good, solid input on various topics).
Click to expand...

How well you shoot or rather your grouping on target, is a direct result of the shooter not the gun. Are some guns inherently more accurate than others? Sure, but the difference will not be noticeable by the vast majority of shooters. A 0.5 MOA pistol is still a scattergun in the hands of a first time shooter. On the flip side, a heavy DAO pistol in the hands of an experienced competitor will still print respectable groups.

If performance/accuracy was the result of gear, then everyone who shoots/shot an IPSC open gun should be printing crazy tight groups. Oddly enough, the same gun(any gun) shot between several shooters will print different groups. Being that the pistol is the fixed/controlled variable, and the shooters the independent variable. That makes the dependent/resultant variable the group.

A better system or modified system can aid in performance, but it alone does not do anything to improve performance. As I stated above, an ISPC open gun should be about as mechanically perfect as you can get, it should be the easiest most natural shooting gun available. So why do experienced and inexperienced shooter alike still miss shots and/or lose matches with them?

Lets look at it from another angle. Stock car(NASCAR) is a test of the drivers more than the cars. The cars are heavily regulated and nearly identical in performance. the difference between winning and losing isn't whether Ford or GM built your car, its who's driving it.

TDC
 
Brutus said:
I would really like to see a side by side 6000 round test. Glock vs 1911. Just like the one carried out by the US Army way back when, with the Savage & a Colt. I think it would be pretty darn conclusive.
Click to expand...

Chuck Taylor has had a lot of rounds through his Glock 17 but I'd like to see uncut video footage. I might have to do that myself though :D

100,000-Round 9mm Torture Test
By Chuck Taylor

On four occasions since 1990, I've written articles about a continuing evaluation I've been conducting to ascertain the longevity of the Glock Model 17 9mm pistol. The first of these, appearing in the February, 1993, issue of Combat Handguns, contained my findings as to the weapon's performance and durability after 33,000 rounds fired. At this juncture, I stated:

"I carried it in the rain, snow, dust and mud. I carried it when the temperatures were over 100 degrees and when they were 40 below.
I presented the gun more than 10,000 times from it's plastic slide holster, speed loaded it 2,000 times, performed over 5,000 tactical loads, shot it weak-handed in excess of 2,500 times and field-stripped it 250 times.
From the beginning, I resolved to grind it into the dirt, abuse it like no gun I ever had.
Why? To find out the truth about Glocks, for once and for all...
And I succeeded in doing just that. In a 30-month period, I fired 33,000 rounds, all factory loads, of every imaginable type made-- and it ate them all, almost without a single malfunction. I say 'almost' because on the 32,994th round, I finally had one-- a failure to feed! And this in spite of the fact that I cleaned the gun every 10,000 rounds whether it need it or not!
100 rounds short of the 5,000th shot, both factory-provided magazines ceased to hold the slide open after the last shot, although they both continued to function normally otherwise. At round number 11,000 a second set did the same and was replaced by another.
By the 500th holster presentation, the left side of the front site was so badly worn that a proper site picture was no longer possible. It was subsequently replaced with a steel version.
By round number 16,000, I could see steel through the finish-- but it never did rust, although it was exposed repeatedly to rain, snow, perspiration and even blood.
The trigger pull, originally 5.5 pounds, got smoother and a bit lighter, but it never did double or demonstrate a glitch of any kind.
And after all this, it still shoots into 3 inches at 25 meters, not much different than when it was new."

Impressed, to say the least, I was still determined to see the test though to the point where the gun failed. So, although the piece had passed the 33,000-round mark without significant negative results or breakage, I continued the test.

The months went by and the test continued. By the end of the summer, 1993, the gun had shot 50,000 rounds without a hitch. Among my additional observations published in Glock Autopistols 1995, were these:

And now, after 50,000 rounds, nothing has really changed. It still:

  • Functions reliably. In fact, not a single additional stoppage has occurred.
  • Prints inside the 9-ring of a 25-meter pistol target, exactly as it did when it was new.
  • Shows no additional finish wear.
  • Exhibits no bore corrosion.
Clearly, the Glock M-17 is a heck of a pistol and, as a survival instrument, is well worthy of our consideration. It is well-designed, well-made and capable of surviving a wide variety of environmental conditions. It will feed the entire spectrum of bullet shapes and functions reliably with virtually all power levels of 9mm ammunition. In addition, it resists corrosion magnificently and its design causes minimal wear on working parts, giving it an unbelievable long service life.

Ugly? Maybe, maybe not! It depends on what's important to you-- cosmetics, or function. Regardless, it's my opinion that the Glock 17 is not only a winner, but may well be the world's best 9mm pistol. Obviously, only time will tell, but in the meantime, I've got 25,000 more rounds of 9mm ammunition to run through it to find out.

25,000 more

And the test continued. By February, 1995, the 25,000 rounds were expended, bringing the total to an unbelievable 75,000! Yet, the gun was still going strong, showing no indications whatsoever of impending failure. I replaced nothing-- no springs, firing pins, connectors or any other parts. In fact, viewed from the broad perspective, the gun had actually outlived it's magazines-- six two-mag sets at that point.

Truthfully, I had run out of things to do to the gun. Short of running over it with a car or freezing it into a solid block of ice-- both which I regarded as silly, since they fail to mirror real-world conditions and therefore prove nothing-- I had repeatedly exposed the gun to everything. In the July, 1995, issue of Combat Handguns and Summer, 1995, issue of Glockster, I said:

"After more than 70,000 holster presentations, I can detect no additional finish wear from that which appeared by 20,000 presentations.
The bore is still without corrosion or excessive wear; the piece still shoots inside the 9-ring of a 25-meter pistol target, using the offhand Weaver Stance. In fact, to determine if any deterioration of intrinsic accuracy had occured, I fired it from 35 meters in a Ransom Rest-- the worst groups were 2 inches!
As an example of its practical accuracy capability, I offer the following. With the test gun, I was able to perform the following:

  1. Reliably get center-hits on a 18 x 30-inch steel silhouette target at 75 meters, knocking down five such silhouettes in under ten seconds.
  2. Take a whitetail deer with a single shot behind the shoulder at a laser-measured 70 meters.
  3. Successfully pass the ASAA Handgun Combat Master test with it, presenting it from concealed carry, shooting a score of at least 383 out of a possible 400."
My other observations at that time included:

  • Internal parts exhibited no real wear or deterioration.
  • The polycarbonate frame, though it had at one spot worn smooth from holster contact, appeared intact and without discernible deterioration.
  • After more than 50,000 speed loads and an equal number of tactical loads, the magazine well was scarred somewhat but still serviceable.
  • While the 56,103rd round blew a primer, the gun was undamaged. The resulting stoppage, a Type 3 (Feedway) was quickly cleared and the weapon returned to service.
  • The trigger remained at 5.1 pounds, a reduction from it's original poundage of only 0.4 pounds. It was still smooth and had a crisp let-off.
  • It was discovered that magazine service life could be dramatically increased by loading only 15, rather than the rated 17, rounds of ammunition. If a 'Plus-Two' floorplate is utilized, then-- and only then-- should a full 17 rounds be loaded. This prevents the follower spring from being fully compressed, thus causing it to soften and finally 'set', as the expression goes.
  • The Trijicon (tritium) sights installed early in the test were still completely serviceable.
It looked like the test was over. The pistol had survived an incredible 75,000 rounds and was completely intact. I had my desired data-base-- the Glock M-17 was irrefutably a terrific pistol. In fact, I was so impressed that I concluded my article in Combat Handguns with this statement:

"Pretty, it ain't, especially after all it's been through. On the other hand, beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder, and to me, the Glock is a tool, not an objet d'art. This being the case, we must view it differently-- function, not aesthetics, is the prime criteria. Viewed from this perspective, there can be no doubt that the Glock M-17 looks mighty good indeed."

Well, I just couldn't leave it alone. My curiosity about just how long the gun could survive continued to be intense. So, from my stores, I broke out an additional 25,000 rounds of assorted 9mm ammo and continued the test.

And now, the fall of 1995, after having fired a total of 100,000 rounds of virtually all kinds of ammunition...

Nothing has changed! The gun looks the same, feels the same, functions the same as it did before. I've done everything within reason to this gun. I've carried it all over the world, quite literally in every environmental condition known to man-- the steaming jungles of Latin America, the windblown deserts of the southwestern U.S., the 40-below zero tundra of Alaska in the winter.

And it worked-- every time. In fact, since I discovered that loading 15, rather than the rated 17, rounds into the magazine prevented the follower spring from softening, I haven't had a single malfunction. Both magazines used in this last 25,000 portion of my test remain strong and completely serviceable. And, by way of confirmation, I replaced the old springs in the magazines that failed during the test with new ones from Glock, and they, too, function perfectly.

I am especially impressed by the lack of apparent finish wear, even after over 100,000 holster presentations. The gun looks exactly as it did at 20,000! I've actually worn out several holsters, finally selecting the M-D Labs "Thunderbolt" (which I codesigned with M-D honcho Kevin McClung) and matching mag carrier as the best. It's super-fast, yet secure and highly concealable, and being made of Kydex, it's by far the toughest rig now in existence.

The magazine well, although slightly scarred from in excess of 100,000 insertions, also remains entirely functional and looks much like it did in the early stages of the test.

Internal parts, too, look the same. I just can't find any discernible signs of deterioration. The piece shoots just as accurately as it did before and functions flawlessly.

So, in conclusion, the Model 17 9mm continues to defy wear, tear, corrosion and...well, me! I've thrown the whole book of tricks at this gun and yet, as this is written, it continues in service. Obviously, the Model 17 is a terrific handgun-- so terrific that I'd quite willingly bet my life on this one, even after all it's been through. What better recommendation can I give, eh?

Copyright 1995 by Harris Publications, Inc.
Click to expand...
 
Brutus said:
I would really like to see a side by side 6000 round test. Glock vs 1911. Just like the one carried out by the US Army way back when, with the Savage & a Colt. I think it would be pretty darn conclusive.
Click to expand...

The Glock would simply melt. It was sef distructing in the above video with less than 1K thru it

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
The Glock would simply melt. It was sef distructing in the above video with less than 1K thru it

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...
I suspect you are correct, because yes it's plainly obvious in the youtube video the guide rod detached itself from the Glock. I believe that the long triad from chuck did not include a long string of shooting that would build up destructive heat during one short & brutal test of endurance. I notice too in chuck's own words, the front sight of his Glock had to be replaced. (with a steel one no less)
 
I like 1911 because:
1) they fit my hand well and most peoples hands well too (i think)
2) I like 45acp.
3) I like single action triggers.

I don't like about 1911s:
1) I have owned 4 of them and the only one that didn't destroy brass was a norinco.
2) sharp edges! I'd hate to be a in a stressful shooting situation with stock series 70 or something. I'd end up with hamburger for hands.
3) loctite; Why is it that the XCR sucks because it needs loctite but my 1911s keep on unscrewing themselves and they still have a golden reputation??
4) why should I spend 1000+ on a 1911 just to pay more to have it tuned? (see problem #1 and brass getting ding'd)
 
Canuck44 said:
The Glock would simply melt. It was sef distructing in the above video with less than 1K thru it

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

You're right bob, the downside to polymer is that heat will destroy it. The torture test was done to prove it could be done, and it proved the Glock reliable. The same test done by Todd Jarrett proved that specific brand could do it. Such excessive round counts are not normal for any system and are nothing more than extremes. Excessive round counts over a short period of time or nominal lifespan without failure and/or stoppages is more akin to reality. That being said, and with the videos involved the question still stands. Can all 1911's do that? The answer is no. Manufacturing tolerances and materials prevent such from being the case. Other considerations are price point, magazine capacity, ease of use and maintenance, weight, and ability to accessorize(with appropriate items such as night sights and weapon light). All of these play against or for any system.

Freyr_255 said:
I'll stick to revolvers. Because you just can't chamber things like 45-70 in a semi-auto.
Click to expand...

Very true ^^^

Brutus said:
I suspect you are correct, because yes it's plainly obvious in the youtube video the guide rod detached itself from the Glock. I believe that the long triad from chuck did not include a long string of shooting that would build up destructive heat during one short & brutal test of endurance. I notice too in chuck's own words, the front sight of his Glock had to be replaced. (with a steel one no less)
Click to expand...

Steel sights are a must, the factory plastic crap from Glock is an embarassment.

TDC
 
TDC said:
You're right bob, the downside to polymer is that heat will destroy it. The torture test was done to prove it could be done, and it proved the Glock reliable. The same test done by Todd Jarrett proved that specific brand could do it. Such excessive round counts are not normal for any system and are nothing more than extremes. Excessive round counts over a short period of time or nominal lifespan without failure and/or stoppages is more akin to reality. That being said, and with the videos involved the question still stands. Can all 1911's do that? The answer is no. Manufacturing tolerances and materials prevent such from being the case. Other considerations are price point, magazine capacity, ease of use and maintenance, weight, and ability to accessorize(with appropriate items such as night sights and weapon light). All of these play against or for any system.
Click to expand...
Don't know. What I do know is the Glock didn't. Are there any clone Glocks out there?

You are right though these torture tests don't mean much. Glock has been selling guns for years by dropping them out of helicopters, burying them in mud and dragging them behind vehicles. There are folks who consider that reality too.

Only been in a helicopter once and had no real desire to toss a M&P out the window at the time either.

Take Care

Bob
 
I have read all the posts and enjoyed the thread. I thank everyone for being civil to each other. The newspaper comments sections are getting downright ugly these days. Not sure of the reasons but think the libbers are just desperate now.

I own a low end STI 1911 in .45ACP. I love the gun because it is so pretty. Is that a reason? It is for me. I just plug paper. It is also one of my most accurate guns, the revolvers are as good or better but for an auto it is the best. I think it is due to the weight and stock trigger that I like it.

I guess I have enough guns now but I may buy one more. A high end 1911 in .45ACP. I'm leaning toward the Dlask because it is Canadian EH! Now I need to save up my pennies and decide what I want in the gun. Govermnent model for sure, .45 for sure, I would like a light rail, stainless I think, custom serial number not likely, Canadian symbol etched on it for sure. I have time to decide as I have not saved the $3000 plus for the gun but will enjoy the hell out of the exercise.

I guess one more thought. If I had to buy 100,000 new factory ammo to shoot a Glock I would be poorer than I want to be. I can reload a 1911 without undue fear. That is one hell of a savings.

Jimmiea.
 
James Howlett said:
So my question, given we can only sport shoot or punch paper, why have/would you still choose a 1911 over anything else? Or Would you not buy a 1911 and stick with Glocks, Sig p226, CZ etc etc etc?
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding my love affair with 1911s, my answer to the OP is I will choose a Smith and Wesson L or K frame or GP100 over a 1911. Reason is that I can shoot wheelguns more accurately, and the fact that it is easier to police my brass, seals the deal for revolvers.
 
1911 is a classic. Just look at the profile of a 1911A1. It has a ###y look to it like a 1928 Thompson.

My first pistol over 30 years ago was a 1911. There have been several in between,........

My last pistol to date is a Glock 22 Gen 3.5, .40S&W. Natural progression? Maybe, maybe not.

I will own a 1911 again, as a matter of fact, my screen saver for the last few months, shows a Springfield Armory 1911 mil-spec. It looks so classic, except for the forward angled serrations and a few other subtle upgrades, I yearn for it. Even a Norinco copy:eek: may satisfy the classic feel and give me a cheap fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom