This guy says 1911s suck

[Chasbo00]

Caution: Not family friendly for language

[Kory]

[gunderwood]

He really only makes two points. First, 1911s were designed during with a manufacturing processing in mind and in general, we don't build them that way any more. I've made that comment on multiple occasions. The same is true with virtually every manufactured item, the difference is we are still building Glocks in they way they were designed to be made. He even states that there are a few places, craftsmen, who still build a quality 1911. The obvious objection is, they cost a fortune. Part of modern manufacturing is designing the item so it can be built well, but without costing an arm and a leg.

The second is an opinion of the average 1911 owners ego...that appears to be valid more often than not in my experience.

That said, I do own a 1911, but it cost an arm and a leg...I own a lot more Glocks.

[grumpyMSG]

He is welcome to his opinion, just remember "Opinions are like @$$holes, everybody has got one and they all stink" I don't know who originally said it, but he was a genius. Some of what he said had truth to it. If it doesn't cycle properly when it fires, it is a malfunction, you may know the type of malfunction, be it a failure to feed, failure to extract or a failure to eject. That is the hard truth for all firearms Colt, Glock or any other manufacturer. While there is only one or two manufacturers of Glocks (I can't remember who, but somebody makes a steel frame for Glock pieces), There are a plethora of 1911 manufacturers. Some of those manufacturer's quality control leaves a lot of room for improvement. Funny how he seems to think Glocks always go boom when you pull the trigger, but a bunch of people have their doubts and complaints about the Gen. 4 Glocks because "Oh, you just limp wristed the hold and it caused it to short stroke!" and go back to the Gen. 3 that never had that problem. Then there is the comment about the mainspring housing being arched vs. flat. The original Model 1911s had a flat mainspring housing it was changed to the arched housing along with a shorter trigger and the frame was milled slightly different on the M1911A1s. The various manufacturers have chosen to use a mixture of 1911 and A1 type parts on their pistols. Do some of those manufacturers make sub-par pistols, they sure do, but some pistols have been around for a hundred years and are still banging away, Glocks have a while before they match that kind of record.

[WRW]

Not too bright to offend potential customers.

As far as 1911s go, unless he can list the brands and their variants his comments are akin to stating that cars are less dependable than Hondas

[Chasbo00]

I don't care for his presentation technique, but I'll concede that he does have some valid points. One point he makes that I agree with is that most folks don't shoot their handguns enough to know whether they really work well or not.

[gunderwood]

Funny how he seems to think Glocks always go boom when you pull the trigger

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.

"Oh, you just limp wristed the hold and it caused it to short stroke!" and go back to the Gen. 3 that never had that problem.

Limp wristing is a problem for any semi-auto pistol. Yes, I have seen Gen3's FTE because of a limp wrist too. The slide and spring are a tuned system, too little spring so it cycles all the time and you beat the he11 out of the frame, too much and it malfunctions if you don't hold it correctly. Springs wear, thus there is only a finite window where the system (regardless of who makes it) will function properly without maintenance. I don't own any Gen4's as I'm not sold on this whole new grip idea. KISS and all.

some pistols have been around for a hundred years and are still banging away, Glocks have a while before they match that kind of record.

Not a fair comparison. Glocks and quite of few other modern firearms are intentionally designed to not last forever. Most owners will never shoot their firearms enough to wear them out, so why should they 2-3x the cost for something they'll never use? I understand the sentiment though, I like purchasing things that are designed to last longer than I'll live. In general, it's my preference. 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.

[OakRidgeStars]

I'm not seeing what his gripe is with 1911's. Is someone forcing Mr Tacti-Wienie to buy a 1911?.

Maybe a pink Glock is more his style.

[CCFan]

I'm not seeing what his gripe is with 1911's. Is someone forcing Mr Tacti-Wienie to buy a 1911?.

Maybe a pink Glock is more his style.

Plus, you know, 1911's just aren't as tacti-cool....

[CCFan]

Funny how he seems to think Glocks always go boom when you pull the trigger

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.

That's an unfair comparison. Most assembly-line 1911's are in the $800-$1000 range. If you want to compare $500-$600 1911's to a firearm, choose a $300 tupperware firearm.

Limp wristing is a problem for any semi-auto pistol. Yes, I have seen Gen3's FTE because of a limp wrist too. The slide and spring are a tuned system, too little spring so it cycles all the time and you beat the he11 out of the frame, too much and it malfunctions if you don't hold it correctly. Springs wear, thus there is only a finite window where the system (regardless of who makes it) will function properly without maintenance. I don't own any Gen4's as I'm not sold on this whole new grip idea. KISS and all.

I decided against a new Gen 4 for that very reason, and ended up going with a 35+ year old design instead.
At least they did voluntarily agree to change out the recoil spring assembly on the Gen 4's, from all the flack they got:
http://us.glock.com/customer-service/re ... g-exchange

Not a fair comparison. Glocks and quite of few other modern firearms are intentionally designed to not last forever. Most owners will never shoot their firearms enough to wear them out, so why should they 2-3x the cost for something they'll never use? I understand the sentiment though, I like purchasing things that are designed to last longer than I'll live. In general, it's my preference. 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.

So are you saying that the 1911's were designed to last forever? A long time, sure, but you believe they were intentionally designed to last for hundreds of years? And the last time I checked, the Honda's on the road today last farrrr longer that those I saw imported back around 1982... I can still smell some of the smoke from the ones you would see on the side of the road.

[Chingon]

This is a guy who's comfortable with his 15 rounds. That's my only gripe. I love my 1911. I can hit with that thing ALL day. I can't say much about other pistols because I cannot stand the triggers. I had an USP that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Switch to my RIA 1911 and can put them into a three inch group at fifteen yards. I do like the point and shoot of a Glock though.

[WRW]

This is a guy who's comfortable with his 15 rounds. That's my only gripe. I love my 1911. I can hit with that thing ALL day. I can't say much about other pistols because I cannot stand the triggers. I had an USP that I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Switch to my RIA 1911 and can put them into a three inch group at fifteen yards. I do like the point and shoot of a Glock though.

There is my sticking point with Glock. I understand they have a single stack .45 but it doesn't have a thumb safety, and that for me is a requisite. If it were offered in that configuration (which probably would bring the price more in line with 1911s) I would have one. The Glocks I have fired I could find no other complaint. As it is, I have 1911s. The two from one manufacturer have been dead on reliable. The one from a different manufacturer has been a disappointment and is gone from my hands (not sold...).

[OleMan]

Caution: Not family friendly for language

Maybe he is just someone who finds a target, so he can spout off a diatribe for all the world to see.

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.

[grumpyMSG]

Not a fair comparison. Glocks and quite of few other modern firearms are intentionally designed to not last forever. Most owners will never shoot their firearms enough to wear them out, so why should they 2-3x the cost for something they'll never use? I understand the sentiment though, I like purchasing things that are designed to last longer than I'll live. In general, it's my preference. 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.

Aren't you the same person who had issues with Sig and Kimber using MIM (Metal Injection Molding) parts instead of forged and machined parts? That was done to cut the cost of manufacturing. So it is OK for "Glock Perfection" to have a finite life, but not for a Sig or Kimber to need a replacement part once and a while? Boy that seems like a double standard.

Understand that I have nothing against people who like Glocks and recognize they are good firearms in a competent shooter's hands. I would never discourage someone from trying a Glock and have actually encouraged people to try them and compare them to other pistols when they are contemplating a purchase. I also understand there are scrap metal 1911s on the market, but that guy was a serious fan-boy. Instead of saying all 1911s suck like he did. I think he could have said which manufacturers he thought you should shy away from and which manufacturers make a quality pistol.

[thekinetic]

You know he is welcome to his opinion and I am welcome to mine, that's why if I happen to see him I'll tell him that if he says one more bad thing about 1911s I WILL EAT HIS LIMBS!

[M1A4ME]

1. maybe he should get a good 1911 and not a copy
2. maybe he should learn to shoot it
3. maybe he should read some history rather than some "scientific studies"
4. recoil, limp wristing? the first time my 5'5' (or so) 110 lb. wife fired a 1911A1 should put all 5 rounds in the black at 25 yds. and every round fired had recoil that put the pistol and both her hands up over her head. My buddy stopped going shooting with me when she went because he couldn't shoot a 1911A1 as well (and he was 6'4" and weight about 230 lbs.) If you want to shoot it you can shoot it.

I can buy any pistol I want. I have one Glock (.357 SIG). One Browning (9mm BDM) and we won't discuss how many Colt 1911 type pistols I have, but they all work. The only one that has ever been ammo sensitive is the Series 70 if the reloads are short. If loaded to regular length it runs like all the rest (none of them care about OAL).

As someone said above, opinions are like......well, you know.

[dorminWS]

I think this guy's clearly and undeniably a dumbass.

Not because he doesn't like 1911s. A lot of people don't. And not because he does like Glocks. A lot of people do. I think they're good guns if you're comfortable with what they use for a safety and don't mind that they're butt-ugly. I own a few Glocks, and I own several 1911s. I prefer the 1911. But that doesn't mean EVERYBODY ought to like 1911s just because I do. I concede a cheap 1911 may not be a perfect pistol out of the box (but I've got some lower-end 1911s that perform well, too). But the happy truth is that, although I have acquired some lower-end 1911s as a part of my collection, I have been able to scratch up sufficient funds to also buy some of the good ones. And I guess it's true that Glocks are pretty idiot-proof. But I'd like to think I'm not an idiot. I certainly do not sneer contemptuously at Glocks the way our YouTube speaker does at 1911s. Seems to me it is no less folly to be contemptuous of a weapon than it is to fall in love with one. But like the assertions made on both sides of the Glock/1911 discussion, I acknowledge that THAT is also just one man's opinion.

Back to my main premise: He's a dumbass because he has gone on YouTube as a representative of his employer and said things that are sure to alienate a vast number of people. I can't imagine that anyone who prefers to shoot a 1911 would pay money to take classes from Tactical Response. In fact, I wouldn't pay money to take instruction from anybody with such a wiseass attitude even if he LOVED 1911s. If I owned Tactical Response and he worked for me, I'd fire him and post THAT on YouTube.

[gunderwood]

Funny how he seems to think Glocks always go boom when you pull the trigger

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.

That's an unfair comparison. Most assembly-line 1911's are in the $800-$1000 range. If you want to compare $500-$600 1911's to a firearm, choose a $300 tupperware firearm.

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.

Not a fair comparison. Glocks and quite of few other modern firearms are intentionally designed to not last forever. Most owners will never shoot their firearms enough to wear them out, so why should they 2-3x the cost for something they'll never use? I understand the sentiment though, I like purchasing things that are designed to last longer than I'll live. In general, it's my preference. 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.

So are you saying that the 1911's were designed to last forever? A long time, sure, but you believe they were intentionally designed to last for hundreds of years? And the last time I checked, the Honda's on the road today last farrrr longer that those I saw imported back around 1982... I can still smell some of the smoke from the ones you would see on the side of the road.

It's nothing but a common phrase. In general it's used for things that, with proper care, will outlast the purchaser. I.e. as far as the purchaser is concerned, it might as well be forever since they won't be around to to see it wear out. Last I heard the Marines were still rebuilding 1911s at Quantico with forged frames that have seen 100+k rounds over the better part of a century. If I am not mistaken, a fair deal of those are pre-WWII. They soldiers who were issued those firearms are long dead.

Glock only claims at most 50k rounds before wearing out. For some of the high pressure cartridges, which typically have higher slide velocities, that number is more like 25-35k. Most of their guns will never see that many rounds in the owners lifetime. However, there are people who shoot that much and apparently they do wear guns out. Low cost castings will probably never compare to a good forging. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it was manufactured better. A lot of manufacturing processes, particularly in the firearm market, are used to reduce cost, not improve quality. E.g. MIM; under the right conditions it can approach a forging, but without good QC checks (i.e. throwing away the bad ones) you end up with a ton of broken parts.

[gunderwood]

Not a fair comparison. Glocks and quite of few other modern firearms are intentionally designed to not last forever. Most owners will never shoot their firearms enough to wear them out, so why should they 2-3x the cost for something they'll never use? I understand the sentiment though, I like purchasing things that are designed to last longer than I'll live. In general, it's my preference. 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.

Aren't you the same person who had issues with Sig and Kimber using MIM (Metal Injection Molding) parts instead of forged and machined parts? That was done to cut the cost of manufacturing. So it is OK for "Glock Perfection" to have a finite life, but not for a Sig or Kimber to need a replacement part once and a while? Boy that seems like a double standard.

Understand that I have nothing against people who like Glocks and recognize they are good firearms in a competent shooter's hands. I would never discourage someone from trying a Glock and have actually encouraged people to try them and compare them to other pistols when they are contemplating a purchase. I also understand there are scrap metal 1911s on the market, but that guy was a serious fan-boy. Instead of saying all 1911s suck like he did. I think he could have said which manufacturers he thought you should shy away from and which manufacturers make a quality pistol.

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.

Personally, I would rather pay more to get a gun of the old SIG quality.

[gunderwood]

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.