This guy says 1911s suck

Handgun discussions - Handgun ammunition selection, gun modifications, pictures. Tell us about your handgun.

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby CCFan » Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:50:25

gunderwood wrote:How is that unfair to compare to firearms in the same price range? I'd still bet good money that most $300 tupperware firearms will function much better than most $500 1911s. The 1911 can be a good gun, but it's expensive to build compared to more modern offerings. That's the whole point, for a given price you get less gun. Most people are not in the market for a $3k 1911.

In a way you make my point for me by pointing out that to get a decent assembly-line 1911 requires 1.5-2x the cost of a decent assembly-line produced modern firearm.


You're ignoring the cost of the frame. Most tupperware frames are polymer injection molded frames with very little metal (slide rails?). If you price a 1911 frame, you run ~ $300 for cheap ones, on up. Brownells has steel frames for a Glock that run, guess what - $300. Pay $550 for a glock, add a steel frame, and viola - you're up to $850. Yes, I'm aware you can get $500 metal framed 1911s, but where are they passing that cost on? By skimping on other stuff - same as $200 polymer frames are cutting corners to fit into a particular price point.

I just checked Brownells for parts, too. A BUL MIM slide stop is $15. A machined Wilson Combat slide stop is $30. You're not convincing me that all those parts add up to $500 in savings from a $1000 1911 to a $500 1911. Even the Sig pistols are hundreds less for their polymer framed versions. I have an old SP2340 Sig that most "Sig" lovers can't stand because it's not a traditional steel frame Sig, but guess what? I love it. That's all that matters. Even polymer framed firearms require a certain amount of QC and work to ensure they are reliable. All I am saying is that to compare bare bone $500 1911's to a polymer firearm, you need to compare lower end polymer firearms, not $550 Glocks.

gunderwood wrote: However, I'm knowledgeable enough to understand that most of the market does not value that and once a products been commoditized, it's lifespan is intentionally short. Everything from cars to cell phones.


I mentioned Hondas, but a lot of cars on the road today last longer than they did in the past. Technology plays a part in that. No, there are no electronics on Glocks (yet) but it would stand to reason that we SHOULD expect more lifespan out of certain things, due to advances in metallurgy, polymers, etc. - I'm not buying into the argument that we need cheaper guns because they'll outlast us, and that's just good enough. I would agree that most of the market doesn't value that either - it's sad in a way, we've become such a disposable society, and there's an overabundance of junk out there.

gunderwood wrote:First, Glocks aren't perfect. Second, yes I do have a problem with MIM parts in guns costing nearly 2x what a Glock or similar plastic, striker fired gun does. Third, MIM isn't a bad process per se, but does produce bad parts much more often than forgings or even good old castings. You have to have really good QC with MIM, but that offsets the cost savings or at least most of it.

The problem I had with SIG/Kimber and MIM wasn't that they decided to use it. The problem was they used it, didn't institute good QC, and then kept raising prices. Thus, for more money we were purchasing an inferior firearm and their marketing tried hard to convince everyone otherwise. I don't care who you are, that's unacceptable. More people are coming to that realization and SIG/Kimber reputations are now being tarnished.


Back to MIM parts - I still don't buy that MIM parts is why a Sig SP2022 can be found for > $400 and a P226 costs ~$800, given that the P226 has MIM parts as well. Given the skyrocketting price of ammo, the steel in the frames of firearms has to have increased - and even then, a good steel frame is going to cost a lot more than some polymer frame any day. Colt (depending on who you ask, again, opinions are...well, opinions) uses MIM but there are a lot of folks who say modern Colts are some of they best they've ever owned. I don't know that I can speak to that, as I don't have any of the old ones.

None of this detracts from the fact that both John Browning and Gaston Glock invented great firearms. I don't hate Glocks, nor am I a 1911 fanatic - but comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.


CCFan
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:35
First Name: none

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:53:55

CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote:How is that unfair to compare to firearms in the same price range? I'd still bet good money that most $300 tupperware firearms will function much better than most $500 1911s. The 1911 can be a good gun, but it's expensive to build compared to more modern offerings. That's the whole point, for a given price you get less gun. Most people are not in the market for a $3k 1911.

In a way you make my point for me by pointing out that to get a decent assembly-line 1911 requires 1.5-2x the cost of a decent assembly-line produced modern firearm.


You're ignoring the cost of the frame. Most tupperware frames are polymer injection molded frames with very little metal (slide rails?). If you price a 1911 frame, you run ~ $300 for cheap ones, on up. Brownells has steel frames for a Glock that run, guess what - $300. Pay $550 for a glock, add a steel frame, and viola - you're up to $850. Yes, I'm aware you can get $500 metal framed 1911s, but where are they passing that cost on? By skimping on other stuff - same as $200 polymer frames are cutting corners to fit into a particular price point.

I just checked Brownells for parts, too. A BUL MIM slide stop is $15. A machined Wilson Combat slide stop is $30. You're not convincing me that all those parts add up to $500 in savings from a $1000 1911 to a $500 1911. Even the Sig pistols are hundreds less for their polymer framed versions. I have an old SP2340 Sig that most "Sig" lovers can't stand because it's not a traditional steel frame Sig, but guess what? I love it. That's all that matters. Even polymer framed firearms require a certain amount of QC and work to ensure they are reliable. All I am saying is that to compare bare bone $500 1911's to a polymer firearm, you need to compare lower end polymer firearms, not $550 Glocks.

So you're saying that if you attempt to build a Glock like a 1911 it will cost just as much? That's the whole point! If you build a Glock how it was intended to be built, this includes high school educated workers just pulling any random part out of the bin and slapping it together, aka mass manufacturing, and you build a 1911 the way it was intended to be built, due to the design (which includes materials choices) the 1911 costs much, much more. Due to inflation, producing a 1911 the way it was intended has now gotten so expensive that only very fortunate people actually purchase them. It's not that you can't try to produce a 1911 with mass manufacturing methods, but statistically it doesn't work because the design wasn't intended for that! As the video notes, you can get one that works fine, but that's not the point.

The point is that mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced! The whole point of mass production processes is to produce lots of things cheaply! Depending on how cheaply we are talking they may or may not be of lower, similar or higher quality. Lots of smart gunsmiths have modified the original design attempting to fix some of the design issues when mass producing 1911s. The WC mags are one such example. That's pretty much the point. Glocks and other similar modern designs were designed for the manufacturing processes available at the time. In time, I suspect even their designs will age like the 1911 has.

Parts is only one piece of the cost. It's the easiest to quantify though. The average assembly worker on a Glock, SIG, S&W, <insert mass produced brand here> might not have the faintest idea how the firearm actually functions. They just know to put these parts together like this and they get paid. Modern designs have this built into their design, they are intended to be assembled as such. The 1911 wasn't. Mass production methods have changed the design of nearly everything!

QC is another area where companies cut costs. We've discussed this at length when comparing AR15s. The "correct" way to QC a AR15 bolt is with a high pressure proof test and magnetic particle inspection (MPI). Lower cost brands skip these steps because they add substantial cost to the firearm. Odds are still pretty good that the low cost AR15 will work just fine. However, the military rejects that idea as do the higher end brands because their tolerance for failure is much less than the average civilian AR15 purchaser. Some designs require more QC than others, the 1911 is one such design.

CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote:However, I'm knowledgeable enough to understand that most of the market does not value that and once a products been commoditized, it's lifespan is intentionally short. Everything from cars to cell phones.


I mentioned Hondas, but a lot of cars on the road today last longer than they did in the past. Technology plays a part in that. No, there are no electronics on Glocks (yet) but it would stand to reason that we SHOULD expect more lifespan out of certain things, due to advances in metallurgy, polymers, etc. - I'm not buying into the argument that we need cheaper guns because they'll outlast us, and that's just good enough. I would agree that most of the market doesn't value that either - it's sad in a way, we've become such a disposable society, and there's an overabundance of junk out there.

You've misread me and I know you have been around long enough to know my love of overbuilt things and willingness to pay for them (underline). However, most of the market does not value that. Most people would prefer five different $500 guns than one $2,500 gun. Heck, how many threads do we have about the difference between a $300 and $400 gun? I'm fortunate enough that I don't care about a $100 on a $500 purchase if it's what I want, but most people are not. Thus, there is a market for lower priced firearms and manufacturers compete to fulfill it, some accomplish that better than others. The modern designs like the Glocks, Springfield XDs, S&W, etc. gained the reputation they did because of how successful they were at building a quality firearm in this price range. That same can not be said of 1911s competing in this price segment.

Building a 1911 the way it was done 100 years ago leads to a firearm costing thousands rather than hundreds. If we had not advanced technologically, there wouldn't be any quality $500 guns!

Please note that I'm not suggesting the economic fallacy of cost to produce + X% being the market price. On the contrary, the price is set by what people are willing to pay for them. However, anyone not turning a profit quickly goes out of business.

Yes, in some ways I'm not a fan of a disposable society, but in many cases it makes sense. When technology moves rapidly, there isn't a need or desire to build items that last a long time. Computers are a good example. Buy a quality monitor and keyboard sure, but people spending $10k on a fancy computer aren't the norm. The Dell's of the world made their mark on the computer market by commoditizing computers. Remember when even an entry level computer was $5k? Surely you don't want to return to that!

CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote:First, Glocks aren't perfect. Second, yes I do have a problem with MIM parts in guns costing nearly 2x what a Glock or similar plastic, striker fired gun does. Third, MIM isn't a bad process per se, but does produce bad parts much more often than forgings or even good old castings. You have to have really good QC with MIM, but that offsets the cost savings or at least most of it.

The problem I had with SIG/Kimber and MIM wasn't that they decided to use it. The problem was they used it, didn't institute good QC, and then kept raising prices. Thus, for more money we were purchasing an inferior firearm and their marketing tried hard to convince everyone otherwise. I don't care who you are, that's unacceptable. More people are coming to that realization and SIG/Kimber reputations are now being tarnished.


Back to MIM parts - I still don't buy that MIM parts is why a Sig SP2022 can be found for > $400 and a P226 costs ~$800, given that the P226 has MIM parts as well. Given the skyrocketting price of ammo, the steel in the frames of firearms has to have increased - and even then, a good steel frame is going to cost a lot more than some polymer frame any day. Colt (depending on who you ask, again, opinions are...well, opinions) uses MIM but there are a lot of folks who say modern Colts are some of they best they've ever owned. I don't know that I can speak to that, as I don't have any of the old ones.

None of this detracts from the fact that both John Browning and Gaston Glock invented great firearms. I don't hate Glocks, nor am I a 1911 fanatic - but comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

If you're not a 1911 fanatic, why can't you criticise it? I hate some of the cheap plastic parts, not the frame, that Glock uses to save $50 total. I'd rather pay more and end up replacing those parts any ways. E.g. plastic sights when they sell steel ones for very little more. The 1911 was and still is a great design for what it is. Building it correctly isn't cheap.

In a way they are apples and oranges, but...they fundamentally perform the same function and whenever they compete in the same price segment it's a valid comparison. That's what he did here. He admits that if you spend the monies you can get a great 1911 that works just as well as a modern mass produced firearm. However, even Kimber and SIG, which are charging north of $1k for most 1911 models, had to resort to cutting corners to make the line profitable (e.g. MIM and no additional QC...again, I'm not suggesting that's all they did, but it's one example). Yet, modern, mass produced designs like Glock, Springfield XDs, etc. have earned great reputations for function at half the cost.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby CCFan » Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:22:15

gunderwood wrote:The point is that mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced!


And my point is that you're completely ignoring the cost of raw materials needed to mass produce hundreds of thousands of steel frame pistols. He's comparing one brand (Glock) against however many brands of 1911 manufacturers, but admits that there are several he'd purchase. Same as I said earlier, compare cheap 1911s to cheap polymer firearms.

And, I'll bite.

If mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced where is the statistical analysis?? There's not been a single post in this thread that goes back to an actual study that can back any of this up. All these mass produced 1911s should be sending their respective companies to the grave, if they're so unreliable! (Yes, I'm joking, there's a lot of companies out there selling junk, we've already covered that...)

gunderwood wrote: I'd put good money on a statistically significant, random sample of $500-$600 Glocks going bang faaaaar more than a similar random sample of any manufacturers $500-$600 1911.


Given that there are more parts, more machining, and more $$$ spent on raw material, would you be willing to say there's a statistically significant number of Glocks that go bang faaaaar more than $900 Colts?

Glocks vs. 1911s has to be the most active thread on the inter-webs... Until I see a study and a statistical analysis by oh, John Lott or someone, it's all heresay anyways. A while back, I was at dinner with a guy that writes for a number of national firearms publications, and he was talking about the number of "glock kabooms" he's seen in his years in various police departments - he won't carry one now because of that. Do I believe him? Absolutely. Did that make me stop carrying mine? Not in the least. Same as this guys experience is his reality, but his reality ain't my reality. I haven't had a problem with either platform yet, and hopefully, I never will.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.


CCFan
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:35
First Name: none

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:10:25

CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote:The point is that mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced!


And my point is that you're completely ignoring the cost of raw materials needed to mass produce hundreds of thousands of steel frame pistols. He's comparing one brand (Glock) against however many brands of 1911 manufacturers, but admits that there are several he'd purchase. Same as I said earlier, compare cheap 1911s to cheap polymer firearms.

That's like saying we should compare my Honda S2000 to a Ferrari 458 because both are high end models within their brands. You're making up a comparison to justify the high costs associated with the 1911. How many people comparison shop a $3000 Les Baer and a $500 Glock? They both are excellent firearms with the same basic function, but with vastly different value propositions. The Glock is pretty much function only, while the Les Baer is not.

Your whole line of thinking begs the question why no one builds a quality plastic 1911 if that were the only reason 1911s cost so much (i.e. materials). RRA's doing it, but they are hardly a budget line. The truth is most of the costs associated with quality 1911s is in paying a good gunsmith to build it right, a craftsman. Slapping them together hasn't yielded great results...some work, most sort of work, and more than a few don't work at all without being reworked.

CCFan wrote:If mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced where is the statistical analysis?? There's not been a single post in this thread that goes back to an actual study that can back any of this up. All these mass produced 1911s should be sending their respective companies to the grave, if they're so unreliable! (Yes, I'm joking, there's a lot of companies out there selling junk, we've already covered that...)

There are extensive military and LE trials run every year. Kimber was the only lower cost 1911 to ever come out reasonably well in reliability compared to guns costing half as much. Informally there are a lot more my cheap 1911 doesn't work so I sent it to a gunsmith threads than there are for Glocks despite the huge numbers of Glocks sold. Neither is perfect, but 1911s are famous for timing issues and needing everything from polishing feed ramps to new mags. How many mags are out there which were designed and marketed to fix Glock FTF issues? None. Practically anyone who sells a quality 1911 has such a mag for it though because they can be fickle things.

CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote: I'd put good money on a statistically significant, random sample of $500-$600 Glocks going bang faaaaar more than a similar random sample of any manufacturers $500-$600 1911.


Given that there are more parts, more machining, and more $$$ spent on raw material, would you be willing to say there's a statistically significant number of Glocks that go bang faaaaar more than $900 Colts?

So if you spend more money you may buy a higher quality product? Real genius there.

With enough money you can build a quality anything. You can even make really odd or disadvantages designs work. Seems to me that Porsche has made a living doing just that, a very profitable one I might add. However, most people can't afford and don't buy Porsche's or Ferraris, they buy Honda's, Ford's, etc. The guy even noted there were 1911s he'd buy, but they are built by craftsmen (and cost a small fortune). Give a craftsmen $5k (yes I've done it and some multiple times) and they can build you some really neat stuff. So that proves what? Lot's of money can buy nice things, that's it.

You're trying to make his argument out to be all 1911s suck (see the thread title) rather than the 1911s most people can afford and actually purchase suck compared to alternatives in the same price. For illustration he uses Glocks, but there are plenty of others...ironically mostly Glock copies, but whatever.


CCFan wrote:Glocks vs. 1911s has to be the most active thread on the inter-webs... Until I see a study and a statistical analysis by oh, John Lott or someone, it's all heresay anyways. A while back, I was at dinner with a guy that writes for a number of national firearms publications, and he was talking about the number of "glock kabooms" he's seen in his years in various police departments - he won't carry one now because of that. Do I believe him? Absolutely. Did that make me stop carrying mine? Not in the least. Same as this guys experience is his reality, but his reality ain't my reality. I haven't had a problem with either platform yet, and hopefully, I never will.

Yes, kabooms are a real problem. It's because most, not all, don't have a fully supported chamber. It's something Glock has fixed on a few models. Reloaded brass exacerbates the situation.

There are statistical studies done by large government organizations looking to purchase a huge number of firearms. Granted most don't even bother testing the cheap 1911s were talking about, despite the fact that many of them actually cost more than guns they do test.

How's this for a test...you're in a war zone (yup, been there multiple times although admittedly not for long stays) and you have the choice of an out of the box Glock chosen from the armory at random and a similarly priced out of the box 1911 also chosen at random. Caliber is your choice. I'd bet nearly all the 1911 fanatics would choose the Glock and anyone who didn't ends up dead within the first month cause their cheap 1911 "malfunctioned."
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby M1A4ME » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:08:42

Don't buy a personal defensive gun based on low cost. No matter what it costs, when you use it to save your life you'll find its worth it.

Buy a gun that shoots big bullets. Big and slow has worked for a long time and small and fast depends on everything happening just right (which it doesn't, not every time).

The number of rounds in the magazine? What you feel comfortable with. I realize there are lots of folks who need 1/3 of a box of pistol ammo in their pistol, because they either don't practice enough or they get shook up and scared. I just read a post on another forum where a guy said he shot a pitbull at 5 ft. He hit it with the first shot, missed with the next 9 or 10 and it ran off aways and laid down and died. He really only needed the first one since the next batch only tore up the dirt in front of him and around the pit bull - but what if the first shot had not hit the dog?

I'm trying to get excited about Glocks but the groups aren't good enough to suit me. Maybe an XDM next time, I don't know. I'd hate to spend that kind of money on a gun and still not have one that shot any better than my 1911's. Shot placement is important, the most important thing along with reliability. And actually having the gun on you when you need it.

There is no realy answer to what is best - or there would only be one handgun model, caliber, etc. We all like what we like.

This has probably been seen a few times here but even revolvers can be fast and accurate at speed.


User avatar
M1A4ME
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat, 01 May 2010 08:27:56

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby CCFan » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:06:39

gunderwood wrote:
CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote:The point is that mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced!


And my point is that you're completely ignoring the cost of raw materials needed to mass produce hundreds of thousands of steel frame pistols. He's comparing one brand (Glock) against however many brands of 1911 manufacturers, but admits that there are several he'd purchase. Same as I said earlier, compare cheap 1911s to cheap polymer firearms.

That's like saying we should compare my Honda S2000 to a Ferrari 458 because both are high end models within their brands. You're making up a comparison to justify the high costs associated with the 1911. How many people comparison shop a $3000 Les Baer and a $500 Glock? They both are excellent firearms with the same basic function, but with vastly different value propositions. The Glock is pretty much function only, while the Les Baer is not.


Who brought price into this? YOU did. Not me and not the guy in the video. He said "prodution 1911s", which you took upon yourself to mean "$500 to $600 range". I don't recall him ever mentioning price. If you want to say "Glock is a better firearm for the money" then by all means, please do so - but YOU are introducing contraints on the comparison that no one else brought into the argument.

His video @ 6:45 says a Glock will always work out of the box, and a 1911 "rarely". That's BS. Nothing but complete and utter BS. That's like (given your comparison) saying Ferraris always run and Hondas rarely do.


gunderwood wrote:Your whole line of thinking begs the question why no one builds a quality plastic 1911 if that were the only reason 1911s cost so much (i.e. materials). RRA's doing it, but they are hardly a budget line. The truth is most of the costs associated with quality 1911s is in paying a good gunsmith to build it right, a craftsman. Slapping them together hasn't yielded great results...some work, most sort of work, and more than a few don't work at all without being reworked.

I didn't say that's the only reason 1911's cost so much, I said it's one of the reasons, and the only reason I said it is because you tried to compare a $500 plastic to a $500 steel 1911. Again, you're going at this from a cost basis, which YOU introduced. If you want to state dollar for dollar it's a better value, go right ahead!! HIS video is replete with splinter after splinter he's picking out of his @$$ about why he doesn't like production 1911's - not railing against $500 1911s.

gunderwood wrote:
CCFan wrote:If mass produced 1911s tend to have many more problems than firearms designed to be mass produced where is the statistical analysis?? There's not been a single post in this thread that goes back to an actual study that can back any of this up. All these mass produced 1911s should be sending their respective companies to the grave, if they're so unreliable! (Yes, I'm joking, there's a lot of companies out there selling junk, we've already covered that...)

There are extensive military and LE trials run every year. Kimber was the only lower cost 1911 to ever come out reasonably well in reliability compared to guns costing half as much. Informally there are a lot more my cheap 1911 doesn't work so I sent it to a gunsmith threads than there are for Glocks despite the huge numbers of Glocks sold. Neither is perfect, but 1911s are famous for timing issues and needing everything from polishing feed ramps to new mags. How many mags are out there which were designed and marketed to fix Glock FTF issues? None. Practically anyone who sells a quality 1911 has such a mag for it though because they can be fickle things.


Magazines "can" be fickle things in LOTS of firearms. Sure, Glock magazines are great! Unsupported chambers aren't. (We'll get to that later.)

gunderwood wrote:
CCFan wrote:
gunderwood wrote: I'd put good money on a statistically significant, random sample of $500-$600 Glocks going bang faaaaar more than a similar random sample of any manufacturers $500-$600 1911.


Given that there are more parts, more machining, and more $$$ spent on raw material, would you be willing to say there's a statistically significant number of Glocks that go bang faaaaar more than $900 Colts?

So if you spend more money you may buy a higher quality product? Real genius there.

What part of raw materials do not understand? I gave the specific example of Sig firearms (which I knew you loved to pick on for their MIM parts) but you glossed over it. Most freakin plastic gun out there costs relatively less than most freakin steel guns out there. :bangin: Does that mean a higher quality product? If we revisit your "Glocks are are only good for 50k rounds" then I guess it does!! If you run over a 1911 and mar up the grips a little bit, and you run over a Glock and crack the frame, you tell me which is a better choice for combat? See, you can come up with any example where one bests the other. To each his own.

gunderwood wrote:With enough money you can build a quality anything. You can even make really odd or disadvantages designs work. Seems to me that Porsche has made a living doing just that, a very profitable one I might add. However, most people can't afford and don't buy Porsche's or Ferraris, they buy Honda's, Ford's, etc. The guy even noted there were 1911s he'd buy, but they are built by craftsmen (and cost a small fortune). Give a craftsmen $5k (yes I've done it and some multiple times) and they can build you some really neat stuff. So that proves what? Lot's of money can buy nice things, that's it.


And for a little more money than you spent on the Honda, you can by an Acura. Are they inferior pieces of machinery because they have more bells, whistles, and cost a little more? Again, I'm not the one making the cost argument, that's all you. You love Glocks, great. I do too! That doesn't mean 1911s are crap, like this guy says they are.

gunderwood wrote:You're trying to make his argument out to be all 1911s suck (see the thread title) rather than the 1911s most people can afford and actually purchase suck compared to alternatives in the same price. For illustration he uses Glocks, but there are plenty of others...ironically mostly Glock copies, but whatever.

There you go again. Please give me the time reference of the video when he mentions price AT ALL. He says "1911s". I'm not trying to make his argument out to be all 1911s suck, just the production ones he's got so much disdain for - maybe you should rewatch the video again. Colt is production, Kimber is production, SA is production, SIG is production... He doesn't mention brands. He doesn't mention price. He DOES mention production 1911s. He's got a chip on his shoulder for whatever reason, and some of his statements (a 1911 that works is as rare as a Glock that doesn't? come on.... ) are just complete crap.



gunderwood wrote:
CCFan wrote:Glocks vs. 1911s has to be the most active thread on the inter-webs... Until I see a study and a statistical analysis by oh, John Lott or someone, it's all heresay anyways. A while back, I was at dinner with a guy that writes for a number of national firearms publications, and he was talking about the number of "glock kabooms" he's seen in his years in various police departments - he won't carry one now because of that. Do I believe him? Absolutely. Did that make me stop carrying mine? Not in the least. Same as this guys experience is his reality, but his reality ain't my reality. I haven't had a problem with either platform yet, and hopefully, I never will.

Yes, kabooms are a real problem. It's because most, not all, don't have a fully supported chamber. It's something Glock has fixed on a few models. Reloaded brass exacerbates the situation.


Wait, Glock has fixed this on a few models?? If this was the epitome of the perfect uber-gun, there'd be nothing to fix. The however many millions of rounds my buddy witnessed over his career weren't reloads - they're forbidden from using them. So, it exacerbates an already existing bad situation.
gunderwood wrote:There are statistical studies done by large government organizations looking to purchase a huge number of firearms. Granted most don't even bother testing the cheap 1911s were talking about, despite the fact that many of them actually cost more than guns they do test.

How's this for a test...you're in a war zone (yup, been there multiple times although admittedly not for long stays) and you have the choice of an out of the box Glock chosen from the armory at random and a similarly priced out of the box 1911 also chosen at random. Caliber is your choice. I'd bet nearly all the 1911 fanatics would choose the Glock and anyone who didn't ends up dead within the first month cause their cheap 1911 "malfunctioned."



'Cause we all trust those government studies. :whistle: I'm not saying 1911s are perfect, but how many SEAL teams FBI teams, yadda yadda yadda have a 1911 as their official sidearm?? If it was as horrible as this dude says they are, it wouldn't exist in government service...And while Glock is certainly popular among law enforcement communities, you'll find SWAT teams that use 1911s, combat teams that use 1911s, and on and on and on. Bottom line: this dude hates 1911s and tries to paint them as an antiquated relic not fit for service. I don't agree. I've reached for my Delta Elite just as often as I've reached for my Glock. Probably put my Delta through more types/brands of ammo than I have my Glock. Never a hiccup. And guess what? I haven't polished a ramp, changed out springs, had to spend $$$ on magazines - nothing.

And oh, those folks who as you put it end up dead 'cause their cheap 1911 malfunctioned? Would be laying along side those who purchased their cheap plastic gun. Just sayin'.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.


CCFan
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:35
First Name: none

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:36:03

M1A4ME wrote:Don't buy a personal defensive gun based on low cost. No matter what it costs, when you use it to save your life you'll find its worth it.

Cost is always a factor. For example, there are some very fine firearms out there, but you and I won't buy them because they cost more than our cars. If you really want, I'm certain I can find something brand new that will eclipse the cost of your house too. Certainly at some point additional money may enhance quality, but how much quality is enough depends on the buyer and their requirements. Cost is a factor, but it shouldn't be the only factor.


M1A4ME wrote:Buy a gun that shoots big bullets. Big and slow has worked for a long time and small and fast depends on everything happening just right (which it doesn't, not every time).

Let's not derail the thread by turning it into a caliber debate. 1911s have been and will continue to be made in everything from .50 cal to .22 cal (there might even be one chambered in a .17 or something smaller too). FYI, one of the calibers 1911s are still chambered for is .357Mag, which is one of the best practical self-defense rounds around for decades...it's the antithisis of your myth though.

M1A4ME wrote:The number of rounds in the magazine? What you feel comfortable with. I realize there are lots of folks who need 1/3 of a box of pistol ammo in their pistol, because they either don't practice enough or they get shook up and scared. I just read a post on another forum where a guy said he shot a pitbull at 5 ft. He hit it with the first shot, missed with the next 9 or 10 and it ran off aways and laid down and died. He really only needed the first one since the next batch only tore up the dirt in front of him and around the pit bull - but what if the first shot had not hit the dog?

You may be a bigger man than I, but statistically EVERYONE misses more than they hit in an actual gun fight. Even when they do hit, lot's of people survive or are barely slowed down from a bullet wound. Lots of variables. If you really feel that way I suggest you get a single shot target pistol.

M1A4ME wrote:I'm trying to get excited about Glocks but the groups aren't good enough to suit me. Maybe an XDM next time, I don't know. I'd hate to spend that kind of money on a gun and still not have one that shot any better than my 1911's. Shot placement is important, the most important thing along with reliability. And actually having the gun on you when you need it.

These are self-defense pistols, not target guns. Even with a high dollar 1911 from a great manufacturer, there are some of their models I would not take into a demanding environment; their target guns only and are way to tight for dirty places. You can see this in their product lines where they have two similarly priced 1911s, but radically different setups. That being said, ransom rests with Glocks/XDMs/Etc. regularly yield groups around 2" at 25 yards. One of the difference you find is that many 1911s come with target sights (obviously not all!) which helps target shooting/groups. Self-defense pistols often come with larger sights to aid sight acquisition speed at the expense of precision aiming. Same thing happens with scopes/reticles too.

The bottom line for a self-defense pistol is finding the balance between firearm handling, cartridge capabilities (.45, .40, .357 and hot 9mm are all very, very close which is why we debate them endlessly), sight acquisition speed, accuracy, etc. What matters is getting the most good hits as quickly as possible for the individual who will use the firearm, what works for me might not for you. That's one reason it's so important to educate people on the why we choose A vs B.

The problem is, and the whole discussion of this thread, that while nearly anything can be made to work well with enough money and time, some designs achieve good results with less money. The 1911 is a great firearm, if it's built right and that takes money and/or gun smithing skills.

M1A4ME wrote:There is no realy answer to what is best - or there would only be one handgun model, caliber, etc. We all like what we like.

Agreed, but that's not the thread topic of the video posters point. His point was that given the money people are spending in 1911s and showing up at his class, reliability of those 1911s isn't very good. That's a very different argument than saying it can't ever be good, which he doesn't because he even admits there are 1911s he would buy and use no problem.

M1A4ME wrote:This has probably been seen a few times here but even revolvers can be fast and accurate at speed.

Absolutely! However, the action of a semi-auto changes/absorbs the recoil in such a way that most people shoot them better (speed & accuracy for SD) than revolvers. If a revolver works for you best, run with it and don't look back. Some revolvers can even have better reliability per dollar spent than even a Glock. E.g. Most $250 revolvers seem to have better reliability than $250 semiautos. Spend double that and it mostly becomes mute point, just as spending 10x of that makes it a mostly mute point for 1911s.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:16:03

CCFan wrote:Who brought price into this? YOU did. Not me and not the guy in the video. He said "prodution 1911s", which you took upon yourself to mean "$500 to $600 range". I don't recall him ever mentioning price. If you want to say "Glock is a better firearm for the money" then by all means, please do so - but YOU are introducing contraints on the comparison that no one else brought into the argument.

His video @ 6:45 says a Glock will always work out of the box, and a 1911 "rarely". That's BS. Nothing but complete and utter BS. That's like (given your comparison) saying Ferraris always run and Hondas rarely do.

He wasn't basing this simply on any 1911 produced, but rather on what people actually purchase and bring to his class. The average 1911 is not $3,000 or even $1500 no matter how much you want it to be. His comparison was to Glocks, which are primarily in the $500-$600 dollar range new and is much more in line with what the average pistol purchased is, 1911 or otherwise. In fact, one of the complaints against Glocks is they cost too much! That's why brands in the $300-$500 range make a killing and sell a boat load of firearms. Cost is always a factor in what real people purchase and use, which is where his experience comes from...what people actually purchase and show up to use.

Can you get a 1911 that's as good as a $500 Glock/XDM/Etc, yes, but it's going to cost at least twice as much. Glock is more or less average, the $1500 Kimber or whatever you want to compare against is not the average production 1911. Even then, people are always posting about malfunctions and you need to polish this or that, change the mag, etc., etc.

The biggest problem is people needing to justify why the spent $1000+ on a pistol that had to be sent back multiple times just to get it to function correctly. It's about e-penis and somehow justifying the bills they laid down. I can appreciate nice things and purchase them as often as I can...the difference is I'm not disillusion to suggest that because I have paid multiple thousands of dollars for a 1911 that it's somehow more functional than a $500 Glock. I bought it because I liked it.

The genius of Gaston was this. He was a tool manufacturer, therefore he understood modern manufacturing/engineering very well and designed a pistol around it. That's why is looks, feels and operates the way it does...it's a tool designed to provide the up-most in functionality with no frills. That design permits him to produce a high quality firearm for lower prices compared to other designs. If that doesn't float your boat, by all means buy whatever you want. However, until recently because of patents, you'd be hard pressed to find a more reliable or quality firearm at the same price exactly because they weren't designed as Gaston did. That said, they aren't perfect.

The average production 1911 fails often out of the box because the average 1911 actually purchased isn't your very expensive models. It takes a lot of skilled labor to build a quality 1911, which is why they cost so much and the average person doesn't buy one. The other reality is that most people treat this stuff like range toys, so they never see dirty environment or hard use.


FYI, I glossed over the SIG comment because I was trying to be nice and not point out your ignorance concerning SIGs. The traditional P series is aluminium alloy, not steel like you said. By the way, I also have lots of those too. That's how I know about the lower quality internals, which includes MIM, that they are using on the new ones. No contest in quality and low and behold QC problems start popping up with newer SIGs. It's not that the old ones never failed, but that they failed less. I pick on them because I don't feel like paying more for less gun.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby CCFan » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:19:08

My apologies for using the word "steel" in the heat of crafting a response. I'm not ignorant of the fact, even though you may wish to portray me as such. I should have used the term metal, as there are numerous 1911s with aluminum frames as I'm sure someone as intelligent as yourself realizes. It's an honest mistake, which you are focusing on. The minutea of that does not change the gist of the idea.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.


CCFan
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:35
First Name: none

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:31:44

CCFan wrote:My apologies for using the word "steel" in the heat of crafting a response. I'm not ignorant of the fact, even though you may wish to portray me as such. I should have used the term metal, as there are numerous 1911s with aluminum frames as I'm sure someone as intelligent as yourself realizes. It's an honest mistake, which you are focusing on. The minutea of that does not change the gist of the idea.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Perhaps if you weren't so heated about defending your firearms honor it wouldn't be a problem.

Do you honestly not understand that engineers design things for function, cost, materials, manufacturing, etc
? The materials and manufacturing technology that was available to JMB in the early 1900s has been eclipsed. Even JMB did not design his other great pistol, the Browning Hi-Power, like the 1911 because even in those few years technology changed. You often can't swap out materials willy nilly. For example, when Honda/Acura designed the NSX, which was the first real aluminium production car, they spent nearly the entire decade of the 80s running finite element analysis on a Cray because aluminium, despite being "metal," is not steel. They simply couldn't swap one metal for another without inducing problems; to make it work they had to redesign the whole concept of car manufacturing! The same is true for polymers, composites, carbon fiber, titanium, etc. I wish RRA the best of luck on their plastic 1911, but they have their work cut out for them and I suspect their plastic frame will be "custom," aka not a true JMB/1911 design, in order to pull it off well.

That being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing things differently or even requiring more resources to achieve the same function...often even less function. For example, the last motorcycle I purchased as a BMW HP2 Sport. It has a air/oil cooled boxer twin, a dry/hydraulically actuated clutch, shaft drive, a telelever suspension, single-sided swing arm, etc. It was built as a demonstration of what they could do with the traditional BMW configurations. However, after all of that and the fact it cost twice as much new as a Japanese super sport bike, it's still slower. Even BMW sells a water cooled inline-4, wet clutch, front forks, chain drive monster called the S1000RR for half the money that blows it away on a track. Purely as a matter of function, I spent more money to accomplish less. However, I don't care because I like the bike, it's different and has lots of character. Furthermore, it's plenty fast for my purposes. In a lot of ways it's like a good 1911. Water cooling eclipsed air/oil cooling decades ago which is why despite having more displacement is generate much less HP. The telelever is a cool suspension setup, especially for the road, but on a smooth race track forks will dominate it every time. Etc.

The 1911 has the same quirky design going on. Why the h3ll do you need a special wrench to disassemble it for cleaning? Don't even get me started on the guide rod. Today, why would you ever use a long recoil operation with requires a toggle link? Furthermore, that's not an efficient way to design a breach lock up either. Control-feed designs are sort of like that telelever suspension, technically superior given the right constraints, but way more complex. Practically no modern pistol design is using it now exactly because it assumes too much about ammo/feed geometry! 1911s are cool, but just like my BMW bike, you are not going to build a quality product for the same money as something designed from the beginning to leverage those manufacturing technologies. If you redesigned the 1911 to take advantage of those newer materials and manufacturing processes, surprise, it would turn out a lot like a Glock. There's a good reason so many of those modern tupperware pistols are very, very similar.

You wanted facts/stats so here are a few: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/1 ... vs-taurus/
Image
Take or leave it. Glocks failed and even a Wilson Combat failed! Everything fails, the question is how often. Despite some high dollar names on that list, 1911s failed about twice as often as Glocks. FYI, that wasn't a hand picked result either. It's the first result when I searched for 1911 vs Glock stats.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby Chasbo00 » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:02:53

gunderwood wrote:Spend double that and it mostly becomes moot point, just as spending 10x of that makes it a mostly moot point for 1911s.


Fixed it for you.
Competition is one of the "great levelers" of ego.


Active, Reserve or Veteran of the United States Army   National Rifle Association (NRA) Member   United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) Member   International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) Member   Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) Member  
User avatar
Chasbo00
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:34:29
Location: Northern VA
First Name: Charlie

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby OleMan » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:13:09

gunderwood wrote:
OleMan wrote:Well, all I can tell him is to talk to all the WWII and Korean War combat veterans I have talked to and read. If their M1, Carbine or was broken or out of ammo, the next thing they wanted was a M1911. If they couldn't get a 1911, they would ask Dad back home to send them a big old .45 Long Colt revolver - decidely not "modern".

Sure 1911s are not modern, are heavy and hard to handle, especialy if you have small hands like me - but they are a 100 year old piece of history saved a lot of American lives in three wars and still are in demand.

I have a relative who is a career LEO and a 1911 is his off duty carry when he is dressed to conceal it. He is a good combat shooter and shoots a 1911 in competition. His other off duty carry is a nice compact polymer frame .40 S & W.

Nothing against Glocks or all the other good polymer framed pistols - love to fire them and expect to buy one in the next several months.

You're confusing the argument. It's not newer is better because it's new. It's given the cost of producing a 1911 the correct way, as JMB intended it, newer guns can accomplish the same thing with much, much less money. I would not mind carrying a 1911 at all (and have), but I would much prefer a $500 modern design over a $500 1911 as a matter of function. In order to get a 1911 down to that price, manufacturers have to "cut" more corners due to the many complex parts. Engineers actually design systems and parts to be made on certain processes.

As a side note, but definitely related to the discussion. When doing a reliability analysis, every piece of a system has a probability of failure. Analyzing the design, those pieces are serial or parallel configurations and you can calculate the predicted reliability of the system. In general, firearms don't have many parallel functions. I.e. there isn't an A-side and a B-side barrel. One area they do is safeties. The 1911 has a grip safety and a thumb safety; both prevent (if working correctly) the successful firing of the system. Thus, two systems made with similar manufacturing processes, the one with less parts and less complex interaction of parts will always be more reliable. The 1911s problem is complex interaction, which is why so many require a competent 1911 gunsmith to get them to work well.

That being said, part of the 1911's allure is it's complexity.

Edit: Strictly speaking, most 1911s aren't even operating how JMB intended them too. Most are not control-feed systems any more. Control-feed was too picky about HPs, depending on tolerances, so things like Wilson Combat's mags (which have a reputation for fixing feeding issues on 1911s) intentionally remove that feature of the 1911 system. Some ammo designers even modified their HPs so as to present a 230gr hardball profile to the 1911 system so they would control-feed better.


Hi,
I wrote a post last night and apparently didn't submit it. Getting older and have a condition that saps my energy so I can forget.

I wasn't getting into the debate about manufacturing methods, materials, etc although the points are well taken - hadn't even read most of those posts. I was saying that the guy in the video was over the top in his arguments, and came across as an ass - like 'if it ain't what I say it is junk'. I find all that offputting and self aggrandizing without justification, especially since he put it on the web for even children to see and hear his profanity.

I have no problem with "old" or "new" designs that go bang when you really, really need it! And there are obviously valid complex issues, pros and cons about manufacturing methods, materials, workmanship, QC, etc. I'm not well qualified to debate those and choose to not do so.

Also, I was introducing the "historical" aspect to 1911 ownership. It is valid that the 1911 was a very good weapon in it's time and loved by a lot of guys in combat. I know for a fact that they are still in the arsenal of US spec ops forces, so the good ones obviously have a place.

A lot of people like and buy a piece of history such as 1911s, M1s, M14s, 1903 Springfields, Mausers, etc - or a "copy". Hopefully they are getting a copy that works well. If I could I would own about every historical piece around.

All that said, I'll soon replace my older, heavy, all steel .40 cal home defense pistol with a .40 cal or 9 mm with a polymer frame because they are lighter and easier for me. So far, the two I have fired and like are Glock and Ruger - if I get a compact I can use it for CC, so it has those advantanges over a 1911. However, I would also like to find a good 1911 design that goes bang with every drop of the hammer, just for fun and having a piece of history.

I think the comes down to what is the purpose and use of any gun. I imagine there are a lot of people who have both "new" and "old" technology firearms which satisfy different wants, needs and purposes of the individual.

Regards and :wave:

Oleman
I Love This Country! It's The Government That Scares The Hell Outta Me!


National Rifle Association (NRA) Member   Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA) Member  
User avatar
OleMan
VGOF Silver Supporter
VGOF Silver Supporter
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:57:50
First Name: Oleman

My Arsenal:
Somewhat modest, but highly effective

Next Firearm:
What I decide when I decide

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby WRW » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:26:45

There are some very intelligent folks on this board, but how folks can argue about the quality of one manufacturer of pistols versus the quality of one design of pistol and all of it's variants by several manufacturers is beyond me. I'll chalk it up to spring fever unless proven otherwise.


User avatar
WRW
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:21:31
Location: 11 miles from Thornburg
First Name: Bill

My Arsenal:
Daisy Legacy .22

Next Firearm:
9mm maybe

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby Chasbo00 » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:47:46

Yeager (the guy in the video) is mainly projecting his opinions. You or I may disagree, but they are his opinions. He hawks his experience to give his opinions added weight. He provides some rationale to also boost his opinions such as his example of stacking tolerances. However, he also makes an error when he states that the original design of the 1911 had an arched mainspring housing (about 5:30 in the video). The original 1911 had a straight mainspring housing and it was changed with the 1911A1. The A1 included several other changes:

Image

Additionally, JMB's original design lacked a thumb safety (just like a Glock) and not the grip safety. The Army asked for the addition of the thumb safety.
Competition is one of the "great levelers" of ego.


Active, Reserve or Veteran of the United States Army   National Rifle Association (NRA) Member   United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) Member   International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) Member   Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) Member  
User avatar
Chasbo00
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:34:29
Location: Northern VA
First Name: Charlie

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:47:33

Chasbo00 wrote:
gunderwood wrote:Spend double that and it mostly becomes moot point, just as spending 10x of that makes it a mostly moot point for 1911s.


Fixed it for you.

Yes, thanks for the correction.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:07:15

OleMan wrote:I was saying that the guy in the video was over the top in his arguments, and came across as an ass - like 'if it ain't what I say it is junk'. I find all that offputting and self aggrandizing without justification, especially since he put it on the web for even children to see and hear his profanity.

Fair enough. Yes, he did state it rather emphatically, the 1911 zealots are usually far worse though. I choose to take it as a bit of irony.

OleMan wrote:I have no problem with "old" or "new" designs that go bang when you really, really need it!

Absolutely true.

OleMan wrote:Also, I was introducing the "historical" aspect to 1911 ownership. It is valid that the 1911 was a very good weapon in it's time and loved by a lot of guys in combat. I know for a fact that they are still in the arsenal of US spec ops forces, so the good ones obviously have a place.

A lot of people like and buy a piece of history such as 1911s, M1s, M14s, 1903 Springfields, Mausers, etc - or a "copy". Hopefully they are getting a copy that works well. If I could I would own about every historical piece around.

History, tradition, etc. are all great reasons to pick up a 1911. If you're picking it up for SD though those things don't really matter, see previous quote.

OleMan wrote:I think the comes down to what is the purpose and use of any gun. I imagine there are a lot of people who have both "new" and "old" technology firearms which satisfy different wants, needs and purposes of the individual.

Yes, it's important to realize where the guy is coming from too. He's a SD instructor, good or bad is your call. SD isn't about having the biggest or prettiest or most traditional firearm. It's all about function, it's a tool. Reliability is one of the primary concerns and in his experience the 1911s people bring to his class fail more often than others. The design and manufacturing is merely a discussion of why that old design is so hard to produce quality at price points consistent with other SD tools.

It should tell you something that no-one is integrating key 1911 features into their modern designs. Just like the boxer motor on my bike, there are very good reasons everyone else quit making motorcycle engines that way! Heck, even BWM tried to kill it off, but the traditionalist thankfully complained. The character of a boxer engine makes it lots of fun as does the character of a 1911.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby gunderwood » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:31:42

WRW wrote:There are some very intelligent folks on this board, but how folks can argue about the quality of one manufacturer of pistols versus the quality of one design of pistol and all of it's variants by several manufacturers is beyond me. I'll chalk it up to spring fever unless proven otherwise.

Since the patents expired there are lots of "Glocks" on the market. Open up half the striker fired tupperware firearms within $200 of the Glocks price and the internals are very similar. A few of them you can practically exchange parts with! Practically, the Glock design is being manufacturer by lots of people just like the 1911. Some of them have tried to go even cheaper than an actual Glock (e.g. S&W Sigma series) with moderate success. The reduction in quality and price of that specific firearm compared to an actual Glock has yielded a few more problems. Most work fine, but there have been more than a few that had to be sent back for rework...I don't have the numbers, but my impression was it's much more than actual Glocks. It seems that you can't shave much off the price of a Glock without impacting the reliability, but some people have tried selling more expensive variants too.

If the cheaper Glock knockoffs actually were as good as the original, Glocks sales would crash. No one, except the irrational Glock zealots, wants to pay $500 when they can get the same thing for $350. Yet, no manufacturer has really accomplished that. S&W did alright, but not great. Same with 1911s. How long do you think WC or Les Baer or etc. would stay in business if someone actually built a 1911 of their reliability for $500 or even $1000? Not long. Remember when SIG annouced their 1911? Finally, someone with high quality manufacturing facilities (presumed although cracks were starting to show there) besides Kimber, who already was having issues, would build a reasonably priced 1911! Then reality hits...tossing a bunch of relatively high quality parts together does not make a good 1911.
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.


User avatar
gunderwood
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby WRW » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:52:16

gunderwood wrote:
WRW wrote:There are some very intelligent folks on this board, but how folks can argue about the quality of one manufacturer of pistols versus the quality of one design of pistol and all of it's variants by several manufacturers is beyond me. I'll chalk it up to spring fever unless proven otherwise.

Since the patents expired there are lots of "Glocks" on the market. Open up half the striker fired tupperware firearms within $200 of the Glocks price and the internals are very similar. A few of them you can practically exchange parts with! Practically, the Glock design is being manufacturer by lots of people just like the 1911. Some of them have tried to go even cheaper than an actual Glock (e.g. S&W Sigma series) with moderate success. The reduction in quality and price of that specific firearm compared to an actual Glock has yielded a few more problems. Most work fine, but there have been more than a few that had to be sent back for rework...I don't have the numbers, but my impression was it's much more than actual Glocks. It seems that you can't shave much off the price of a Glock without impacting the reliability, but some people have tried selling more expensive variants too.

If the cheaper Glock knockoffs actually were as good as the original, Glocks sales would crash. No one, except the irrational Glock zealots, wants to pay $500 when they can get the same thing for $350. Yet, no manufacturer has really accomplished that. S&W did alright, but not great. Same with 1911s. How long do you think WC or Les Baer or etc. would stay in business if someone actually built a 1911 of their reliability for $500 or even $1000? Not long. Remember when SIG annouced their 1911? Finally, someone with high quality manufacturing facilities (presumed although cracks were starting to show there) besides Kimber, who already was having issues, would build a reasonably priced 1911! Then reality hits...tossing a bunch of relatively high quality parts together does not make a good 1911.


Well, hell. Why didn't knucklehead just say that polymer framed striker fired pistols are the cat's meow and metal framed hammer and pin designs are so last century instead of singling out one group?


User avatar
WRW
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:21:31
Location: 11 miles from Thornburg
First Name: Bill

My Arsenal:
Daisy Legacy .22

Next Firearm:
9mm maybe

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby WRW » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:02:41

BTW, you are more knowledgeable on this matter than I:

How many tolerances are actually getting stacked in each individual function of a metal framed pistol? Is it realistically enough to be a concern?


User avatar
WRW
VGOF Platinum Supporter
VGOF Platinum Supporter
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:21:31
Location: 11 miles from Thornburg
First Name: Bill

My Arsenal:
Daisy Legacy .22

Next Firearm:
9mm maybe

Re: This guy says 1911s suck

Postby CCFan » Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:29:07

gunderwood wrote:
CCFan wrote:My apologies for using the word "steel" in the heat of crafting a response. I'm not ignorant of the fact, even though you may wish to portray me as such. I should have used the term metal, as there are numerous 1911s with aluminum frames as I'm sure someone as intelligent as yourself realizes. It's an honest mistake, which you are focusing on. The minutea of that does not change the gist of the idea.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Perhaps if you weren't so heated about defending your firearms honor it wouldn't be a problem.


What part of "I love my Glock too" did I not write in English??

Just in case you missed it, from before:
You love Glocks, great. I do too!


I think everyone that reads this would agree I didn't write that in Farsi. I wasn't nearly as heated in my exchange with you that I felt the need to increase my font size in the hopes that maybe if i wrote my words bigger they'd carry more weight. I said Steel when I should have said Metal. My apologies. I clarified that point, over and above your assertation that I'm ignorant by pointing out that many 1911s also use aluminum alloys for their frame material.

What I'm defending against is your brilliant idea that comparing a premium, low cost modern day polymer firearm by a specific company to 1911s (all brands) in a specific price range ($500) is a viable comparison for statistical analysis. That clear enough for you? You don't seem to have gotten that specific point.

gunderwood wrote:Do you honestly not understand that engineers design things for function, cost, materials, manufacturing, etc? The materials and manufacturing technology that was available to JMB in the early 1900s has been eclipsed. Even JMB did not design his other great pistol, the Browning Hi-Power, like the 1911 because even in those few years technology changed. You often can't swap out materials willy nilly. For example, when Honda/Acura designed the NSX, which was the first real aluminium production car, they spent nearly the entire decade of the 80s running finite element analysis on a Cray because aluminium, despite being "metal," is not steel. They simply couldn't swap one metal for another without inducing problems; to make it work they had to redesign the whole concept of car manufacturing! The same is true for polymers, composites, carbon fiber, titanium, etc. I wish RRA the best of luck on their plastic 1911, but they have their work cut out for them and I suspect their plastic frame will be "custom," aka not a true JMB/1911 design, in order to pull it off well.


I appreciate your history lesson, but Honda running analysis on a Cray and redesigning the concept of car manufacturing still doesn't change the fact that you're fundamentally flawed in trying to compare a single manufacturer (glock) against an entire line of manufacturers in a specific price point. I've said it multiple times so lets be clear - if YOU want to compare $500 1911s to another class of firearms, feel free to compare them to the $250 polymer pistols. If you want to compare American Classic to Kel-Tec, knock yourself out. If you want to compare Glock to Springfield, or Glock to Colt, or Glock to Sig, please do so! What part of anything that I have written gives any credence to your questioning my understanding of engineering?? I haven't argued with you at all over any aspect of the engineering of either platform of firearms.

gunderwood wrote:... you are not going to build a quality product for the same money as something designed from the beginning to leverage those manufacturing technologies. If you redesigned the 1911 to take advantage of those newer materials and manufacturing processes, surprise, it would turn out a lot like a Glock. There's a good reason so many of those modern tupperware pistols are very, very similar.


But you're the one that, from the beginning, wanted to compare a specific price range of multiple manufacturers to a Glock. Given that I have such an inferior understanding of engineering from your point of view, I'm not sure how I understood that 1911s don't lend themselves to mass market assembly line produciton at the same price point as a Glock, which is why I have continuously and unabashedly raised the issue of "compare a Glock to a major manufacturer's $900 firearm such as SA, Colt, etc" vs "Compare a $500 1911 to $250 polymer firearm."

gunderwood wrote:You wanted facts/stats so here are a few: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/1 ... vs-taurus/
Image
Take or leave it. Glocks failed and even a Wilson Combat failed! Everything fails, the question is how often. Despite some high dollar names on that list, 1911s failed about twice as often as Glocks. FYI, that wasn't a hand picked result either. It's the first result when I searched for 1911 vs Glock stats.


9 different 1911s were on the list. 1 polymer brand. Add 8 more clones of Glocks, and then lets see what the statistical significance is.

And where in any of my postings have I stated 1911s are perfect? You won't find that, either.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.


CCFan
Sharp Shooter
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:51:35
First Name: none

PreviousNext


Return to Handguns/Pistols

Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, jdonovan, Majestic-12 [Bot], SHMIV, skeeterss0, SpanishInquisition, Yahoo [Bot]

cron
Shop Here!
Help support VGOF!


AIG Tactical - Do it now!
Red Stitch Tactical