So I gotta ask ... Why so many 1911s??

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't read past the first page but can guess its the usual debate...

1911 guys: its old, served us in WW2, its pretty, its heavy so real men use it, jebus himself handed the design down to mr browning etc etc etc
Glock guys: its modern, its light, it holds way more ammo, it goes bang every time, all the tacticool kids on youtube use it etc etc etc

So without getting into any of that BS, here is why I prefer 1911/2011s over glocks (or any other striker fired designs)...

  • well balanced, shooting 9 is like shooting a 22
  • triggers can be tuned for a sublime pull (think sub 2 lb)
  • when tuned properly, they are reliable and quick
  • extremely customizable, kinda like an AR
  • if pinned mags float your boat, get a 2011 (1911 with double stack mags)*

as for people that complain about FTF/FTEs on 1911s - keep it lubed and get it tuned by a competent smith or fix your reload to match the gun. my year old STI with 10k plus rounds has not had a single issue after the initial break in (it was pretty painful during break-in though)

tI've seen way more Glocks break during a match than 1911/2011s. Not to say it doesn't happen but the ratio really surprised me for one. That being said I own a M&P 9 as well (and i consider them same as Glock cuz its plastic, safe action, horrible trigger) and I have never had any issues with it, ever.
 
Our weaponry has always been a reflection of our self-esteem. Look at the high level artwork that was lavished on weapons throughout the ages and the "best quality" British guns during the Raj.
We all invest in (a) what we can afford and (b) what is appropriate for the application. Who among us would not shoot only high end and engraved guns if money were no object?

Mark Twain once said: "The height of insolence is to denigrate another man's god." The same might be said of denigrating someone's else's choice in firearms. We love 'em all and the antis hate 'em all!

GunGuy34 said:
people invest their ego in their guns, so no matter what you cant get an honest assessment on here. You have to take a large case study to get decent facts. Why the Glock stands out. However, Beretta 92fs is my second choice. For reliability.
Click to expand...
 
Sharps '63 said:
Our weaponry has always been a reflection of our self-esteem. Look at the high level artwork that was lavished on weapons throughout the ages and the "best quality" British guns during the Raj.
We all invest in (a) what we can afford and (b) what is appropriate for the application. Who among us would not shoot only high end and engraved guns if money were no object?

Mark Twain once said: "The height of insolence is to denigrate another man's god." The same might be said of denigrating someone's else's choice in firearms. We love 'em all and the antis hate 'em all!
Click to expand...

Love it!! Just love it....... that's a quote from him I haven't heard before, very appropriate for this thread.
 
Wow! Really everyone?

It's amazing how much of what I have read on here is untrue. If you like a certain gun that's great! They all have their good points and their drawbacks. And these depend on who your talking to. But why post half truths or outright lies about what pieces of crap the ones you don't like are just to try to back up the one you do like.

Heck, I'd even go so far as to bet that if you shot one of the guns you don't like that was well maintained and had quality ammo in it, you'd enjoy it. You may not run out and buy one, but you'd enjoy it. Why do I say that? Because shooting is just plain fun!

Shoot what you like and you'll like what you shoot.

I will now step down from my soapbox. :p
 
TDC said:
There's the gem that keeps this dinosaur alive. Ignorant American patriotism. What I find odd, is that there seems to be a massive shift towards 1911's chambered in "the Euro pellet" 9mm. Talk about sacrilege. The excuse I hear is ammo costs, but if 45 was so popular then why is it so much more money? Oh wait, its not a NATO cartridge, and its not that popular. The real answer is that 45 has near zero gain over modern 9mm ammo as far as penetration is concerned, and that is the only concern when discussing terminal performance. So a lighter recoiling 9mm with an increase in capacity for similar results means huge gains for the user. Its not magic, its logic and science.

In addition to the above comments, it was also mentioned in another thread that yes, loose sloppy 1911's were the norm for issue guns. For those who understand service guns know that they were sloppy for an increase in reliability. So I have to ask, for all the pro 1911 fan boys, why the desire for hand fitted stupid tight guns? If you want the original that is "dead reliable" then you want the sloppy model, yet more and more blind followers are running custom guns like Nighthawk, STI, even Kimber. All of which cost a stupid amount of money for no gain in performance or reliability. Oddly enough many of these custom guns also sport "match" barrels and target sights. So what are you after? A reliable copy of the old work/war horse, or a precision pistol that was neither designed nor intended for accuracy based shooting? Sounds like a lot of confused owners out there buying the trend of the week, looking for approval from others.

TDC
Click to expand...


Thanks for your insight TDC.

I dunno if it's just me but I find the 1911s in .45 to be more accurate and consistant than any 9s that I own or that I have shot. Streyr, Glocks, M&P9, and my CZ 75 Shadow. I can attribute the lack accuracy cuz of striker fire triggers, but my .45ACP out of any of my 1911s are just more accurate - more so at longer ranges. I perform much better in IDPA matches shooting CDP than I would SSR or ESR. Maybe its the longer sight radius and crisp SA trigger - the last match accuracy winner with a mere 8 points down was shot with a Norinco 1911 45ACP. I believe that the .45 is inherently more accurate - sure it's doesn't have the penetrating power of and 9 but what good is that bullet after it goes thru material. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think .40S&W is the caliber of choice for most LEOs.
 
triplepete said:
Thanks for your insight TDC.

I dunno if it's just me but I find the 1911s in .45 to be more accurate and consistant than any 9s that I own or that I have shot. Streyr, Glocks, M&P9, and my CZ 75 Shadow. I can attribute the lack accuracy cuz of striker fire triggers, but my .45ACP out of any of my 1911s are just more accurate - more so at longer ranges. I perform much better in IDPA matches shooting CDP than I would SSR or ESR. Maybe its the longer sight radius and crisp SA trigger - the last match accuracy winner with a mere 8 points down was shot with a Norinco 1911 45ACP. I believe that the .45 is inherently more accurate - sure it's doesn't have the penetrating power of and 9 but what good is that bullet after it goes thru material. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think .40S&W is the caliber of choice for most LEOs.
Click to expand...

Sight radius is a gimmick for starters, and the triggers on striker fired guns require the user to apply the fundamentals, they are not forgiving. The short and often dangerously light triggers on some 1911's coupled with their weight allows them to cover up a lot of poor trigger control and other bad habits. This is the most prominent attribute spouted by both new shooters and 1911 fans alike. Its also no surprise that most 1911 fans complain endlessly about how crappy the triggers are on striker fired guns and DA/SA guns. I don't think anyone is disputing that short single action triggers are often crisp and a pleasure to shoot. However, the service triggers on striker fired guns(for the most part) and even DA/SA guns like a SIG or HK are more than capable of performing.

The accuracy you're experiencing with your 1911 is not the gun, its you. The inherent accuracy of any modern pistol is pretty well the same. At extreme distances(for a handgun) that difference may well be noticeable, but at standard handgun ranges, its not. The other factor most fail to consider is the INTENDED PURPOSE of the pistol. Both Glocks and 1911's are service guns, not competition guns. In fact any and all guns used for action events are service guns or derived from them. they're the wrong tools for the job. That being said they're still more than accurate enough for competitive work. Sadly, a lot of the 1911 market is consumed by "match" this and that, and excessively tight tolerances under the disguise of "improved accuracy". Same is being done to Glocks and SIGs.

As for 40, its losing its fan base as well. It isn't a benefit over 9mm, and its just as snappy as 45. Terminally it shares similar numbers with the other two. Its hard on guns, and expensive to feed. It is still the current choice, but its not all its hyped up to be.

TDC
 
mshundal said:
I haven't read past the first page but can guess its the usual debate...

1911 guys: its old, served us in WW2, its pretty, its heavy so real men use it, jebus himself handed the design down to mr browning etc etc etc
Glock guys: its modern, its light, it holds way more ammo, it goes bang every time, all the tacticool kids on youtube use it etc etc etc

So without getting into any of that BS, here is why I prefer 1911/2011s over glocks (or any other striker fired designs)...

  • well balanced, shooting 9 is like shooting a 22
  • triggers can be tuned for a sublime pull (think sub 2 lb)
  • when tuned properly, they are reliable and quick
  • extremely customizable, kinda like an AR
  • if pinned mags float your boat, get a 2011 (1911 with double stack mags)*

as for people that complain about FTF/FTEs on 1911s - keep it lubed and get it tuned by a competent smith or fix your reload to match the gun. my year old STI with 10k plus rounds has not had a single issue after the initial break in (it was pretty painful during break-in though)

tI've seen way more Glocks break during a match than 1911/2011s. Not to say it doesn't happen but the ratio really surprised me for one. That being said I own a M&P 9 as well (and i consider them same as Glock cuz its plastic, safe action, horrible trigger) and I have never had any issues with it, ever.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that out of the box its a piece of sh*t and needs to be tuned. Sounds like a quality design. Let me ask this, can you take two different 1911's and swap parts without filing or fitting them? Will both guns run the same afterwards?

jdvass said:
Wow! Really everyone?

It's amazing how much of what I have read on here is untrue. If you like a certain gun that's great! They all have their good points and their drawbacks. And these depend on who your talking to. But why post half truths or outright lies about what pieces of crap the ones you don't like are just to try to back up the one you do like.

Heck, I'd even go so far as to bet that if you shot one of the guns you don't like that was well maintained and had quality ammo in it, you'd enjoy it. You may not run out and buy one, but you'd enjoy it. Why do I say that? Because shooting is just plain fun!

Shoot what you like and you'll like what you shoot.

I will now step down from my soapbox. :p
Click to expand...

Been there and done that. Fun to shoot, sure. Useful, practical, or optimized for what I use my handguns for? Nope, not at all. If you want to pull wrench and tinker all day, buy a Harley, a boat, or a 1911.

TDC
 
Capacity means nothing in this country. We are limited to ten, so they may as well be ten big ones. The 1911 can be had with some pretty good ten round mags. Hard to beat the ergos on a 1911. The sight radius with the 5" barrel is very good. Most new 1911's are perfectly reliable with any ammo. They point like your middle finger in a traffic jam. They have over 100 years of history behind them which means something to some folks ...
 
TDC said:
That's not old school, that's ignorant..

TDC
Click to expand...

When I use the term "clip", are you really confused, and don't know that I am refering to the other name for magazine?
Now, when I am talking about a "stripper clip", rest assured, I will say "stripper clip".
Amen!
 
Seems to be a cultural thing more than anything. Likewise folks from other places are much more likely not to be enamoured with the 1911s and gravitate to other guns they grew up with.
 
trebor2880 said:
When I use the term "clip", are you really confused, and don't know that I am refering to the other name for magazine?
Now, when I am talking about a "stripper clip", rest assured, I will say "stripper clip".
Amen!
Click to expand...

Seeing as how this is a firearms forum, I can deduct that you're alluding to a magazine for a firearm. If you said clip on the street I would presume you were discussing a device used to hold your hair back, or affix several sheets of paper together. Knowing the proper terminology goes a long way to looking knowledgeable about the topic.

TDC
 
Next time I'm in Cabelas I'll take a picture of all of the magazines on the shelves with the words "clip" on the packaging. We can write vitriolic letters to those manufacturers, chastising them soundly and demanding conformity to our pedantry.

I'll also be sure to jackslap some sense into my 71 year old father the next time he holds up a modular bullet retaining and feeding device and dares to call it a "clip"

Back in reality now, we mostly call it a clip if it goes inside a gun and mostly a magazine if it hangs out from it, and we don't get our panties in a bunch when someone uses the terms interchangeably, because we really DGAF.
 
TDC said:
Seeing as how this is a firearms forum, I can deduct that you're alluding to a magazine for a firearm. If you said clip on the street I would presume you were discussing a device used to hold your hair back, or affix several sheets of paper together. Knowing the proper terminology goes a long way to looking knowledgeable about the topic.

TDC
Click to expand...

How often do you get punched in the face?

Would you say:
a) Not enough;
b) Just enough; or
c) You can not understand why so many people punch you in the face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom