Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

DOH!

Just when I thought I had a representative collection, somebodyhas to go and come up with a whole new category.

Oh, well,................... guess i got no choice, here...........

That's what I originally said about any 1911 that wasn't .45ACP, too. But I got broader-minded as my collection expanded.

I've got a few Glocks that I've picked up over the years. They're not bad guns, if you don't count ugly and dangerous (the trigger safety scares the CRAP out of me). I just vastly prefer the 1911. So since I don't refuse to own plastic guns that are Glocks, why should I refuse to own a plastic gun that's a 1911? Being a 1911 model ought to make up for a lot, right? Of course, I know what you guys are talking about - - something along the lines of making a 1911 out of plastic is like peeing on John Moses Browning's grave. Maybe - maybe not. Ole John Moses may very well have embraced plastic if it had appeared when he was churning out guns. Besides, ain't it comforting to know that the model 1911 won't be finally obsoleted by the advent of plastic guns; that the venerable old war-hoss will survive yet another seminal innovation in weapons technology?

Jakeiscrazy wrote:There is a Wilson Combat version also


I think I saw a Kimber polymer 1911 for sale on VaGunTrader but can't find it now. It was...... not exactly pretty. Everyone was calling it a Gimber, Glock Kimber. It must have been before they changed over to the new site.

Wilson's and one other polymer-framed 1911s I've seen have non standard sized frames. The proposed Rock River pistol appears to have a standard sized frame. It's the first polymer I've seen that actually looks like a 1911.

My preference in a 1911 is a heavy all steel pistol. I'll stick with Glocks or M&Ps for carry guns. They are lightweight, high capacity, reliable and accurate enough. But as has been mentioned, Glocks are butt ugly pistols.

OakRidgeStars wrote:Does it feel top heavy with the steel barrel and slide?.

..................................
Good question. However, Karl Lippard, of Karl Lippard Designs, maintains that the 1911 needs 7.1 ounces brought forward to balance the pistol at the trigger, and that's the primary reason for that 6.7 oz nose piece on his Combat NCO 1911 A2; plus he went to composite for the mainspring housing to finish balancing the pistol. So if you buy Mr. Lippard's statement (and I certainly think the guy knows whereof he speaks - I can tell you my Combat NCO is accurate and easy to shoot) it's possible that a plastic 1911 with a steel barrel and slide might have its center of gravity shifted such that it would be better balanced than an all-steel one. Of course, it's also possible that it would be worse balanced, too. Only way to know is to shoot one. Only way most of us can do that is to buy one. <sigh> ..... Such a bitter pill to swallow .......

M1A4ME wrote:I'm reminded of the Cooper statement about double action semi-automatic pistols...

An ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.

If you can't handle the weight of a steel framed 1911 how are you going to handle the recoil?

But, being new, being different, folks will buy them. A lot of them will end up being sold with very few rounds put through them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Seems to me that if you can handle a steel framed 1911, you can handle a better-balanced one a little better; and if you can't handle a steel framed 1911, you can't handle a plastic one either. In fact, I'd think more folks couldn't handle the recoil than the weight; and the recoil is likely to be worse with a plastic pistol; even if better balance mitigated muzzle rise.

Partial as I am to the 1911, it ain't plumb perfect (just closer to it than any other pistol). But somehow a plastic framed one doesn't offend me as much as a tac rail or a double-stack maged one does.