1911 tests - enough to make TDC's head explode.

Your forgetting that most LE departments want longer travel triggers or DAO guns as they decrease liability of ADs or inadvertent shootings when the officer is under stress- something that would be harder to manage with a single action 1911 with little travel. Plus most departments transitioned over from wheel guns to Glocks so the Glock with no external safety and a long trigger travel made retraining "easier". That and large discounts to LE made the Glock popular.

As usual the price point is the only argument the anti Glock crowd can come up with. Yeah, it played a part. You don't think S&W didn't put together a sweet deal for the RCMP?? Its called marketing, and they(gun makers) are in business to make money. The long trigger pull is 0.5 inches. Hardly a drastic length of pull. The 5.5 lb trigger pull is hardly a heavy one as well. The notion that a pistol was selected solely based on its reduced liability attributes is insane. Nevertheless such attributes are considered. Poor training is the catalyst for such ignorant criteria.

The absence of external/positive safeties is a huge benefit from both the training side and tactics side. It takes less time to train someone when they aren't required to operate a positive safety and it reduces the potential of failing to disengage a positive safety. Disengaging the safety on a 1911 is part of the draw stroke which means it plays no part in the "safety" of the firearm.

TDC
 
i don't own a 1911 and never have. I have shot many rounds through several 1911's including a Norinco(don't tell anyone I handled Chinese goods;)). I'm not sure owning one would qualify one to have an informative opinion.

Well, I'd say actually owning and shooting one would credit a higher opinion than one who hasn't


The 1911 can get the job done, bit it isn't the best suited pistol for combat or personal defense. There is nothing a 1911 can do that another brand can't do as well or better.

The Glock can get the job done, but it isn't the best suited pistol for combat or personal defense. There is nothing a Glock can do that another brand can't do as well or better.

The track record of the 1911 is based on many years of service where the 1911 was a sign of rank as opposed to being viewed as a capable tool of the trade. Not to mention the 1911 has been around for nearly 100 years.

How about:
The 1911s track record has been proven over 100 years of near continual service in one form or another, and looks to continue this service for many years to come....
 
Well like any sensible person on CGN I own a 1911, I also own a Glock, Sig and HK pistols. Glock is a mass produced relatively simple and robust design that does well in 9mm. People get confused in regards to the 1911 though. The original design was very simple and meant to have sloppy tolerances to feed ball ammo, which it did well. People often have issues with 1911s when they run JHPs are close up the tolerances.

Its incorrect to say that Glock is a better gun and a better design. Its more correct to say that if a Glock shoots well for you and say a 1911 doesnt than perhaps for you the Glock is a better gun.

That being said if you dont own a 1911 go buy one, the trigger is great and gun has a very solid balance to it that most polymer guns lack due to them being top heavy with only 10 round mags in them.

Here we go. You just admitted that 1911's have issues feeding JHP. Glocks don't have any issues with the exception of birdshot, but who runs birdshot in a handgun???

If you can shoot one pistol well and not another, its the shooter that need work, not the choice in pistol. A solid understanding of the fundamentals of marksmanship will transfer between systems with no appreciable decline in performance. Thats why they're called the fundamentals. Same can be said for Balance. Its a comfort thing, not an accuracy or reliability thing.

TDC
 
As usual the price point is the only argument the anti Glock crowd can come up with. Yeah, it played a part. You don't think S&W didn't put together a sweet deal for the RCMP?? Its called marketing, and they(gun makers) are in business to make money. The long trigger pull is 0.5 inches. Hardly a drastic length of pull. The 5.5 lb trigger pull is hardly a heavy one as well. The notion that a pistol was selected solely based on its reduced liability attributes is insane. Nevertheless such attributes are considered. Poor training is the catalyst for such ignorant criteria.

The absence of external/positive safeties is a huge benefit from both the training side and tactics side. It takes less time to train someone when they aren't required to operate a positive safety and it reduces the potential of failing to disengage a positive safety. Disengaging the safety on a 1911 is part of the draw stroke which means it plays no part in the "safety" of the firearm.

TDC

are you aware that many LE depts. such as NYPD go with heavier pull triggers for their Glocks soley due to liability reasons? Many depts specifically state no 1911s due to perceived liability issues with the single action. Again many who were in the past using revolvers went to Glock specifically because it had no external safety and a similar "longer" trigger pull like a revolver. Also the fact that alot of police only shoot infrequently if at all made the Glock a good choice for its ease of use. Dont confuse simplicity with being the best tool for the job.

I dont follow some of your circuitous logic. Where did I say I was anti-Glock? Your perceive any criticism of poor old Gaston as defacto Glock bashing. :)

I own a Glock 20 and its one of my favourite guns. I also had a generation 1 17 for almost a decade. Another great gun. I use a USP in IPSC, also a great gun that is flawless and well built.
 
Here we go. You just admitted that 1911's have issues feeding JHP. Glocks don't have any issues with the exception of birdshot, but who runs birdshot in a handgun???

If you can shoot one pistol well and not another, its the shooter that need work, not the choice in pistol. A solid understanding of the fundamentals of marksmanship will transfer between systems with no appreciable decline in performance. Thats why they're called the fundamentals. Same can be said for Balance. Its a comfort thing, not an accuracy or reliability thing.

TDC



lol- the 1911 was specifically designed to shoot ball ammo. Thats how it was engineered.
 
Well, I'd say actually owning and shooting one would credit a higher opinion than one who hasn't




The Glock can get the job done, but it isn't the best suited pistol for combat or personal defense. There is nothing a Glock can do that another brand can't do as well or better.



How about:
The 1911s track record has been proven over 100 years of near continual service in one form or another, and looks to continue this service for many years to come....

Again, owning the pistol has nothing to do with rounds down range. I have shot many rounds through 1911's. As for other brands offering the same advantages that a Glock does, feel free to list the advantages.

TDC
 
and yet the Glock doesnt seem to be gaining wide acceptance with the Military. I heard some elite US units recently got rid of their Glock 40s after having alot of issues with them. 1911s are still used, even the Beretta is there, Sig is represented as well, yet Glock not so much.

I think maybe your clouding the issue. The 1911 perhaps has a higher training curve than the simpler controls free Glock, however the end result can be rewarding. I still suggest you buy a 1911 and shoot it for a couple of years and then re-evaluate what youve posted.


I would suggest also that if life gets so dangerous you think only having 7 or 8 rounds isnt enough, maybe you should move :D

I heard the started carrying G17's and 19's instead! ;)
 
Why? I am not attacking you or jumping on you personally?

You challenged the statement so I asked why. Sorry if it came across harsh.

I am saying that that statement is pretty damn clear, and very well worded. It comes from one of the nations leading experts and expert witnesses in defensive shooting and handgun instruction.

Intent to terminate the person, rather than behavior is a question from court, reasonable force, etc..

If you disagree, then lets discuss.

No hard feelings?

:)

Sure,part of what I don't understand and feel that it poorly worded is the part about "terminate hostile behaviour" how no hand held weapon can do this
"instantly." Behaviour being a action,you can "instantly" teminate action with a .22lr ,as in "F**k-off or I'll shot you, see action stopped.

Now,if it said "Adversary" or hostile target it would make more sense, the stoping of a person doing the action. If you're pointing a weapon at somebody in defence of yourself and loved ones,well you'd better be ready to end that life.
 
Last edited:
are you aware that many LE depts. such as NYPD go with heavier pull triggers for their Glocks soley due to liability reasons? Many depts specifically state no 1911s due to perceived liability issues with the single action. Again many who were in the past using revolvers went to Glock specifically because it had no external safety and a similar "longer" trigger pull like a revolver. Also the fact that alot of police only shoot infrequently if at all made the Glock a good choice for its ease of use. Dont confuse simplicity with being the best tool for the job.

I dont follow some of your circuitous logic. Where did I say I was anti-Glock? Your perceive any criticism of poor old Gaston as defacto Glock bashing. :)

I own a Glock 20 and its one of my favourite guns. I also had a generation 1 17 for almost a decade. Another great gun. I use a USP in IPSC, also a great gun that is flawless and well built.

My anti Glock comment wasn't directed towards you, it was just a statement regarding many who are anti Glock that rest their entire distaste on the "cheap" factor.

You hit it on the head, the Glock is often viewed as a pistol that fits the bill for dept's who fail to train their officers adequately. They also fit the bill for dept's that do train their officers adequately. Ease of use and simplicity go hand in hand. Who wants to think about more than they have to when competing or defending life?

TDC
 
Sounds like a poor design given the evolution of ammunition.

TDC

your right its important to design a gun that will shoot ammo which wasnt even invented back then...and make sure the gun is able to feed this ammo flawlessly. :rolleyes:

Come on, do you really believe some of the stuff you type?

Furthermore being as it was a military gun design, and the military only uses ball ammo in their handguns.... :D
 
Well, I'd say actually owning and shooting one would credit a higher opinion than one who hasn't




The Glock can get the job done, but it isn't the best suited pistol for combat or personal defense. There is nothing a Glock can do that another brand can't do as well or better.



How about:
The 1911s track record has been proven over 100 years of near continual service in one form or another, and looks to continue this service for many years to come....

The posts here are getting much better.

"The Glock can get the job done, but it isn't the best suited pistol for combat or personal defense. There is nothing a Glock can do that another brand can't do as well or better."

Ok... But BEST is pretty subjective.

Assuming you can't afford a wilson combat 1911? Then what would you carry. Considering the number of premiere instructors with far more experience than us combined that carry glocks, perhaps you are missing something.

If an average person cant afford a functional, reliable pistol, then they have NO pistol for personal defence.

So how about most reliable pistol for under 1k?

They aren't choosing norinco's, and I have already posted multiple times that a strong majority of top and ex SF instructors shoot and carry glocks.

So we have to compare apples and apples, mission to mission, and so on.
 
what did we aready say about ammo? why start with small JHP and hope it exspands to .45 ,just start with the .45 .:p

I don't run JHP nor do I care about its potential advantage. Hits count, bullet construction and design are questionable at best. We don't need larger holes, we need well placed hits and lots of them. I strongly doubt anyone would fire two rounds of 45ACP with full confidence it would stop the threat. High stress and multiple shots are universal. If you fired 5 rounds rapidly(as can be done with most semi autos in a short period of time) you are now left with 4 rounds with which to re-engage the threat or engage another threat. With a Glock you'd have 10-13 rounds available.

TDC
 
Ok beat this....

If you run out of ammo which will give you a stronger pimp hand for the inevitable pistol whipping?

Clearly the 1911 wins :)
 
Sure,part of what I don't understand and feel that it poorly worded is the part about "terminate hostile behaviour" how no hand held weapon can do this
"instantly." Behaviour being a action,you can "instantly" teminate action with a .22lr ,as in "F**k-off or I'll shot you, see action stopped.

Now,if it said "Adversary" or hostile target it would make more sense, the stoping of a person doing the action. If you're pointing a weapon at somebody in deffence of yourself and loved ones,well you'd better be ready to end that life.

Because a hostile person, within a defensive context, and good shoot, is defined by the actions :Behaviour.

You are absolutely correct a .22 will immediately stop hostile behaviour sometimes, and also a .45 sometimes will not, and vice versa. Brandished, fired, or fired multiple times. As such the statement is 100% percent correct and accurate as there is no pistol round that will achieve the stated result 100% of the time.

There are 3 ways to stop aggressive behaviour. But that is for a PM or another thread. Or see the old knife fighting thread. ;)
 
a quote that may shed some light.....

There is no system or place in a system which is absolute, so that by reference to it we may determine absolutely the velocity of a movement. Yet to measure the movement of any system we must adopt a standpoint. This is Einstein's principle of relativity. Every observer of nature measuring phenomena takes a frame of reference and whatever frame he chooses it must be for him a system at rest. Thus just as we saw in Bergson's theory when we considered the subjective factor, or mind, or intellect, so in Einstein's theory when we consider the objective factor, the world, or universe, we have nothing absolute to refer to


EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE


Nothing is as it seems to be and all things are subjective realties to the observer. Everything is relative to each person from the viewpoint of the only ultimate reality.

There is no absolute time, time moves differently from one object to the next and in one location to the next. For example, time moves slower on massive objects like the Sun or Jupiter and faster on smaller objects like our Earth. It moves even minutely faster in space. This is no longer a theory, but proven fact.

Extremely accurate precision atomic clocks on fast moving spacecraft have detected this strange phenomenon and proven Einstein’s theory of relativity to be true.

Stop all the clocks in the universe and movement will continue unaffected.

Stop all movement and the illusion we call time will stop and nothing ever happen again.

Time is elastic with in one moment in only one direction, namely into future moment. The twin paradox describes what happens. One twin boards a spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light, on a voyage for Alpha Centauri, some four light years from earth. Ten years he returns having aged only one year compared to his now twenty-year-older twin brother. An enigmatic paradox but absolutely true and real.

One exciting, but far distant use of this effect is the real possibility of reaching any moment in the future. Given enough speed, one could reach the Olympic Games of the year 2108, in a matter of a few subjective days. Backward times travel to the past, is a fantasy and if this were possible, a person could do the impossible and go back and murder their younger self. There is no universal now!

Events are simply there, hanging in space-time. Time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time. We only conceive of time by the movement of an object through space, so space and time are different realities of the same thing and can only exist where movement is allowed.

For example, stop all movement in the universe and you have stopped time, have you not? Therefore, these three things are one "spacetimemovement" reality. There is simply no universal now and each moment is unique to the observer. Maybe there is an eternal obsever peceivng the whole reality of our universe, like unraveled frames of a movie story, depicting the life of the universe, from its birth until its demise like separate billions of moments, recorded on each frame of the film of existence.

Time is a measurement we have created to track how we move through space.

It should be obvious that something that is eternal cannot exist in three-dimensional reality. It must exist outside of what we call time and space in an “ever-changing moment”

By Alan McDougall 29/8/2007

As to the price point of the glock being under $500 there are plenty of pistols in the USA under that price point, from kahr to lorcin to bryco... even ruger's and a lot of other "brand" names.
 
Your forgetting that most LE departments want longer travel triggers or DAO guns as they decrease liability of ADs or inadvertent shootings when the officer is under stress- something that would be harder to manage with a single action 1911 with little travel. Plus most departments transitioned over from wheel guns to Glocks so the Glock with no external safety and a long trigger travel made retraining "easier". That and large discounts to LE made the Glock popular.

Ah, Boss,I don't think they use AD any more as it implys no fault,the new term I believe is ND -Negligent Discharge,not sure if thats PC or not.:p
 
your right its important to design a gun that will shoot ammo which wasnt even invented back then...and make sure the gun is able to feed this ammo flawlessly. :rolleyes:

Come on, do you really believe some of the stuff you type?

Furthermore being as it was a military gun design, and the military only uses ball ammo in their handguns.... :D


I apologize, my post was unclear. The design was intended for ball ammo, correct. What I meant was that the design is dated when considering the advancements in ammunition. Its an old dinosaur that struggles to compete with modern designs. For pistol whipping, the 1911 is my first choice. The way tomato sauce stains tupperware, I can only imagine what blood would do. 1911 all the way.

TDC
 
Back
Top Bottom