So I gotta ask ... Why so many 1911s??
- Thread starter Tikka223
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. Neither classic looks or the sleek lines of new stuff has anything to do with performance, so both are the same as 1911 fans, aesthetic based decisions.
TDC
Technically one could argue that with the invention of the semiauto so is the wheel gun, pump, bolt action and break action self-contained shell firearms; along with all blackpowders, bows, crossbows, compound bows and other non-centrefire autoloading means of advancing a projectile at a target. Also, one could argue that with the new hybrid and electric vehicle technology the vehicle with a purely internal combustion engine, transmission driven system is also obsolete.
There are so many 1911's because of the same reason there are so many purely internal combustion engine, transmission driven system vehicles out there: options, availability, tried and true technology, variety of use.... the list is as diverse.
I personally, due to having shot the 'new polymer framed fangle-squirt trenty' firearms, know I don't shoot light handguns well: I have noted in other posts that I like the 'old-style clunky heavy bottom all metal" firearms because with the same ammo at the same distance I shoot faster better groups with less problems, less FTE/FTF/jams and with more confidence. I would take a 1911 I have practiced with for a month into a 'life or death' any day over a Glock I have practiced with for years.
In the end, and my opinion, there are so many 1911's because they are an option for those that can shoot better with them and about a million other reasons... the same reason someone else with a different shooting style/ability/stance/grip/etc chooses a Glock over a 1911.
There will always be mindless fan-geeks, I mean, look at all the fools with a Desert Eagle...
My 1911 collection just caught up with the 9mm in numbers, yeah.
Guns are tools, gonna shoot well in your hands.
1911 always tag along to the range, luv how they feel and shoot.
In SHTF taking the G22 with 9mm barrel for 40 and 9mm versatility. Glocks are tough, 1911s are pretty.
Guns are tools, gonna shoot well in your hands.
1911 always tag along to the range, luv how they feel and shoot.
In SHTF taking the G22 with 9mm barrel for 40 and 9mm versatility. Glocks are tough, 1911s are pretty.
Well said.
I'm not implying, I'm saying as a matter of fact. 1911's don't hold a hope against modern double stack autos, specifically those with fewer controls, fewer parts, and more than double the capacity at just over half the weight. Nothing there to debate, those are facts. The 1911 had its time, and its time is long since past.
TDC
As does Walter Sobchak. You may note that he grips with a low thumb which may lead to the safety being accidentally left on, as TDC alluded to in one of his earlier posts. Although it doesn't look like it is on in this case. Poor Smokey!
New Camper
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lurking in the woods near SFRC.
The Colt model 1911 was adopted by the US military in 1911, it was designed years before: If I'm not {cough}mistaken the P51 Mustang (a brilliant plane) and Sherman tank were designed during WW2 which was twenty-five years after WW1. The M1 Garand was designed for, and accepted by the US military in the years leading up to WW2. To say they were designed in the same era is to say that the Glock was designed in the Vietnam war era, or even Korean war era. Is the Glock then, not an inferior and outdated design? I am inclined to agree that there is always some fluff, chest pounding and emotion without any rational thought in everything, even the debate of Glock versus 1911, but there is rational thought both ways as well.
Incidentally, there are advantages enjoyed by piston powered propellor aircraft where a jet engine would fail miserably: If the jet engine was invented first, then the piston and propellor aircraft would be an advancement? The M1 Garand is not obsolete: To argue otherwise would be to argue with every target shooter (who can waste hockey pucks at a mile) with an antiquated bolt action design of earlier vintage than the Garand.
My bias: I don't think Glock would be the winner of the Miss Firearms International pageant (the winner could be nothing less than a revolver) but I'd still own one as each design has it's desirable idiosyncrasies. No single design wins in every category and so long as a gun does what it's supposed to, I don't make a habit of knocking someones preference for it, but still retain my preferences and the periodic necessity to regurgitate something that I can't stomach.
having said that...
Aniest said:
You mean Desert Beagle: The only people I ever hear raving about that mutt, are video gamers with no experience... cult. If they weren't so expensive, I'd buy one to see if it has any redeeming features in functionality. Otherwise, it's a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip welded on the receiver, sawed off barrel and slab of metal that moves like a slide. I probably despise it more than it deserves because of the cult like raves from ignoramus'. 
There's something about a classic. The new camaros look cool partly because they are trying to look similar to the original. They are far more advanced in every way but i would still rather have a 67-69 than a 13.
I wouldn't take the old one on a long road trip over the new one just like i probably wouldn't carry a 1911 in a dangerous situation over an m&p. But i enjoy shooting the 1911 more.
I wouldn't take the old one on a long road trip over the new one just like i probably wouldn't carry a 1911 in a dangerous situation over an m&p. But i enjoy shooting the 1911 more.
Them's be be fightin' words boy!
I love my 1911 because it has a timeless appeal, a great trigger, and a heavy frame that soaks up recoil.
All of your chest beating is stupid for 90% of the people on this forum, with the exception of military and LEO, and even then, many still chose the 1911 platform.
How many people in Canada can make use of the doubled capacity of double stack handguns when we are pinned to 10?
How critical is it to get your gun out of the holster and not have to remove a thumb safety to shoot it, when we are not even allowed to use holsters except at ranges for good natured competition? I would take a good trigger and a thumb safety over a lousy trigger and a built in safety trigger every day of the week, and twice on weekends.
I find the weight to be a great thing, it makes the handgun very soft shooting. I am far from saying polymer handguns hit hard, but they have a totally different, more "snappy" feel to them when it comes to recreational shooting. I don't have the option of CCW, so this weight is not an issue for me.
There is a reason that the M1911 is still such a popular platform, and it is because it is still a very good platform.
In addition, there are a lot of people currently 6 feet underground, who if they could talk, would strongly argue with you on your point that the 1911's time was over.
My .02.
Gun owners, like sailors, are a conservative crowd; when they find something that looks good and works well, they are reluctant to abandon it. As the last several dozen posts have pointed out, 1911s are physically and tactilely attractive and have outstanding triggers. On the other hand, they are large and heavy (both qualities desirable to many), have limited magazine capacity, and are a pain in the @$$ to field strip.
Compare, for example, a Steyr: flip the takedown lever, move the slide forward, pull out the spring and barrel ... done. And the procedure is as quick as you just read.
Still, the only serious semi-autos before Browning were the Mauser and Luger designs, both nightmares to strip. No wonder 1911s look so good.
- Status
