This guy says 1911s suck

[Chingon]

[grumpyMSG]

From about 1:05 into the video: "A 1911 that works correctly is just as rare as a Glock that doesn't Now I know that is going to make a lot of these 1911 guys mad because they have invested their ego into their gun, and you can read any text about combat you want going all the way back Musachi and one of his quotes is "Warriors should not have a favorite weapon and weapons should not be decorative they should be hardy. 1911s are pretty guns I'll give you that..."
That 30 seconds of his diatribe sums up why I think he is a pompous sphincter. So let's just take his words at face value. If 1% of Glocks had problems (I honestly think it would be lower than that) then 1% of 1911s function properly, I think one out of a hundred of the cheapest 1911s would function correctly, let alone the better quality pistols.

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."

I will say I have been there and for more than few days. I will also tell you that you are fool and idiot if you went into a war zone with an untested firearm. If it were as a U.S. service member or contractor, your weapon would have received a T.I. (technical inspection) by a qualified small arms repairman, a level above a unit armorer, before it was issued to you. You would have done familiarization fire and qualified with the weapon that you are carrying into theater, then upon arriving in theatre you would have done a test fire there.

I don't understand one thing about gunderwood's and this gentleman's understanding of the 1911. If the stacking of tolerances cause the pistol to fail to function properly more often and most people who carried the real deal pistols built before the end of WW II, whether it be a Singer, Colt or Remington Rand, remark about them rattling and being loose. Wouldn't the wear and tear add to the stacking of tolerances? I think Mr Browning also took into account the manufacturing processes of the time and probably designed it to be far looser than modern manufacturers try to make them. After all look at the number of different manufacturers that hadn't made a firearm before WW II, that made it during the war. It is the attempt to make them tighter that creates the binds and jams when any dirt gets in the pistol. I can remember 20+ years ago when people were shooting the rack grade 1911s competitively, one of the tricks was to leave the pistol dirty, only locking the slide to the rear to clean the barrel with a patch. Folks felt the carbon went where it needed to tighten the pistols up a little. They wouldn't clean them until they started to malfunction. As for the Wilson Combat magazines, nobody has touched on the main reason the modified feed magazines came into existence, the change in ammunition. the 1911 was designed to feed and fire round nosed full metal jacket (something sticks in my mind that it was lighter than 230 grains, 200 or 205 I think).

[Chasbo00]

I believe 230 grain ball was always the bullet.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/11/22/r ... ever-made/

[Chasbo00]

This thread has gone on long enough to invoke Godwin's Law:

[gunderwood]

@grumpyMSG - that particular comment was tongue in cheek. Of course no one would actually do that.

As for tolerances, it depends. Tolerances matter if you are trying to build something tight, which most 1911 manufacturers are now doing. Even a cheap RIA has much tighter frame to slide (just one illustration) than those old 1911s. Now that the USMC has gunsmiths rebuilding them (e.g. MEUSOC Pistols), they are much tighter and using match grade components. The 1911s problem with tolerances is timing, parts don't just have to move, they have to move in a specific sequence/timing. That's one of the reasons so many other designs dropped many of the 1911 features, they've isolated the various firing sequences. E.g. the barrels toggle link illustrates the the concept.

If everything is really loose, tolerances don't mess up your timing.

[gunderwood]

Let's cut the English... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Event A = Glock Failure
Event B = 1911 Failure
Event C = Firearm/Trainee showed up for his class

His argument is: P(A | C) << P(B | C)

Everything else is just rationale as to why that statement is valid.

The condition of event C, which was ALWAYS part of the discussion, is critical. It, not you, sets the qualifications on what is to be compared. I argue that event C is heavily dependant on cost; if it were not, everyone would buy $5,000 Les Baer's and be done with it. The vast majority showing up at class with a firearm, event C, will cost far, far less (about 1/10th). The conditional event C narrows down the sample space to firearms people actually purchase and show up to class with, not firearms simply for sale or that rarely, if ever, leave the safe.

It's not that hard to understand that an average guy shopping around for an average SD pistol is much better off avoiding 1911s (in this trainers experience). Now if he has (well?) above average money to spend, a quality 1911 can be a great option. If he must have a 1911, some low cost options are better than others, but the probability of failure is much higher than his alternatives.

[gunderwood]

I believe 230 grain ball was always the bullet.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/11/22/r ... ever-made/

It was and it's part of the problem. Browning designed the 1911 as control-feed for that specific bullet! Lots of work-arounds exist to "fix" that problem since even a 230gr HP isn't 230gr ball. Many .45 HP profiles were changed to be closer to ball, not because it made a better HP, but because it was thought to help feeding issues. Several manufacturers, Wilson Combat being the foremost, sell mags well known to fix feeding issues. Why? The design of the mag changes the 1911 from a control-freed to a kinetic-feed like virtually every other SD pistol being sold today.

If you make assumptions about the ammo and it's tolerances, control-feed can be technically superior. However, that's an awfully big assumption to make today; it wasn't for Browning since he knew what they were going to shoot and only that.

[Chasbo00]

Prior to 1905, Colt was experimenting with a .45 Automatic Pistol round that had a 200 grain bullet. Perhaps this is what grumpyMSG was recalling. By 1905 Colt had a new auto pistol developed and it used the .45 caliber 230 grain bullet.

[WRW]

Let's cut the English... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

Event A = Glock Failure
Event B = 1911 Failure
Event C = Firearm/Trainee showed up for his class

His argument is: P(A | C) << P(B | C)

Everything else is just rationale as to why that statement is valid.

The condition of event C, which was ALWAYS part of the discussion, is critical. It, not you, sets the qualifications on what is to be compared. I argue that event C is heavily dependant on cost; if it were not, everyone would buy $5,000 Les Baer's and be done with it. The vast majority showing up at class with a firearm, event C, will cost far, far less (about 1/10th). The conditional event C narrows down the sample space to firearms people actually purchase and show up to class with, not firearms simply for sale or that rarely, if ever, leave the safe.

It's not that hard to understand that an average guy shopping around for an average SD pistol is much better off avoiding 1911s (in this trainers experience). Now if he has (well?) above average money to spend, a quality 1911 can be a great option. If he must have a 1911, some low cost options are better than others, but the probability of failure is much higher than his alternatives.

So...his title could have read that certain 1911s suck. Statistically, some of the the 1911s tested could be equal to or superior to the Glocks but we don't know unless we have access to the testers data. As well, we don't know if the failures occured during the manufacturers "break-in" period. While his contention may be valid for his classes, it is a generalization and an oversimplification of data.

[BW1911]

The two day Defensive Handgun class I was at in November of 2011 was interesting. The instructors definitely like Glocks (their argument seemed to be the reliability and market penetration) and recommend them to their undecided students; however, they happily teach to what you brought. I would guess that about half the class had Glocks, several more had XD's or M&P's, a couple had 1911's (one Commander and one compact), and my friend and I both had single action CZ-75's. The only failures I noticed were the Glocks (I'm NOT saying they're not reliable, just way more of them there TO fail, and PERHAPS they were more attractive to some less experienced shooters). None of these failures were mechanical part failures and most were probably operator-induced (grip interfering with slide, hitting the slide lock, limp-wristing, etc. A couple of them jammed up tight and immediate action was not so immediate. Another Glock was taken off the line for a half hour or so because the sights were wildly out of line. Based on just limited (and faulty) statistics though, one could say that on THAT weekend, the Glocks had a much higher failure rate than any other platform there...actually than all other platforms there. I wouldn't place too much faith in one guy's memory based impressions of failure rates... nothing to even discuss unless he has actual written records, based on round counts or something measurable, and his records could accurately sort out the mechanical failures (probably not too many in ANY platform) vs. the operator induced errors (probably the far greater of failures, and one might assume any basic class would include a lot of newer shooters), and the maintenance/cleanliness of, and mods to, the firearm were known. Also, his students may all be exceptionally below average... after all, they decided to attend his class and put up with him, right?

I personally prefer 1911s (Colts, Para's and Kimbers) to butt-ugly Glocks and the only reason I don't shoot them at these classes is that I prefer the cost for 750 rounds of 9mm instead of .45, plus I like having mags with 16 or 17 rounds, rather than 7 or 8, when you're standing on a firing line away from your range bag. I think it is probably true that tightly toleranced 1911's don't do as well when they're filthy dirty (oh, say, 750 rounds over 2 days!) or when they're not properly lubed, and I would probably tend to a 1911 more (quick clean and re-lube on breaks) than the tupperware guys do over an extended shooting outing. Score one for the Glock guys, who NEVER clean or lube their guns, right? Except when we were intentionally inducing malfunctions (e.g. loading spent brass randomly into our mags) our CZ's were happy the whole weekend!

[Kory]

Gotta get one of these BLUE gun

[sigster]

I would not want to be in the same county as that dude with a real weapon in his hand. He has more twitches than carter had liver pills.

I khow what I say to be a fact because I've watched twitching videos from 6 different websites.

[Kory]

I khow what I say to be a fact because I've watched twitching videos from 6 different websites.

[WRW]

I would not want to be in the same county as that dude with a real weapon in his hand. He has more twitches than carter had liver pills.

I khow what I say to be a fact because I've watched twitching videos from 6 different websites.

Well...he is the only one in that video qualified to handle a blue gun.

[dorminWS]

I couldn't stand to watch it all.

[Chasbo00]

@Kory, great parody video! "Pull the gun." - Hilarious.

[grumpyMSG]

That parody was awesome. The funny part is I didn't even notice the twitch in the original, because of all of the "talking" he did with his hands. out of five for that one!!

I gotta git me on o' them blue guns!!

[Chingon]

Glock Gen 4 meeting aftermarket discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 3u6QboDjog

[9MM92FS]

I've read all the material in this thread indicating that to get a decent 1911 requires more, i.e. $$$$$, in the way of manufacturing/assembly techniques than Glocks, etc. Could someone please explain exactly what it is about a 1911 that makes it that much more expensive to produce? More parts? More complicated mechanisms involved between the trigger and firing pin? My RIA 1911 seems to go bang every time just like my Beretta 92FS. Maybe I'm just lucky.

[WRW]

I've read all the material in this thread indicating that to get a decent 1911 requires more, i.e. $$$$$, in the way of manufacturing/assembly techniques than Glocks, etc. Could someone please explain exactly what it is about a 1911 that makes it that much more expensive to produce? More parts? More complicated mechanisms involved between the trigger and firing pin? My RIA 1911 seems to go bang every time just like my Beretta 92FS. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Apples to apples, the Glock 36 lists around $550. It should go bang every time, just like your RIA. Hope this helps.