Of all the modern handguns, why trust your life with a 1911?

lsw · Jan 22, 2014

It's good to see some posters who had good luck with their 1911s out of the box. My own experience is not so good. I have a Springfield Government model, about 1985 vintage. I have friends over the years who have purchased maybe 6 or 8 1911s from various manufacturers including Colt. All of them needed attention before they could be considered reliable. I'm not saying a 1911 isn't a good SD pistol, but I would never feel comfortable with one until I had tested and practiced with it much more extensively than other pistols I own.

rbird7282 · Jan 22, 2014

Indiana Jones said:
Because my Grandfather did on Guam, Bouganville, and Iwo Jima.

That's why.

Combloc · Jan 22, 2014

There is the HK P7..........and then there is everything else.

thai · Jan 23, 2014

501st said:
Yes, totally unreliable. (and in 9mm at that)

http://pistol-training.com/archives/8839

In your link I got this quote from the 50K round reliability part of the article:

"First, let’s get the harsh reality into the light.*This gun was less reliable*than the*Smith,*HK P30,*HK45, and even the troubled*gen4 Glock. No matter how you massage the data, the other guns proved more reliable. In some cases, the other guns were*substantially*more reliable."

Funny how on first glance everything looks rosey. But again to my initial question; with all the available modern pistols available, why chose a 1911?

I feel to have an utterly reliable 1911 that runs like a "raped monkey", as Chad so eloquently put it, you have to invest in 2-4 times the amount of money to ensure complete utter reliability. Also I feel they are somewhat more complicated than modern handguns. To make a 1911 as reliable as modern pistols and affordable I believe the tight tolerances and accuracy has to be sacrificed.

501st · Jan 23, 2014

thai said:
In your link I got this quote from the 50K round reliability part of the article:

"First, let’s get the harsh reality into the light.*This gun was less reliable*than the*Smith,*HK P30,*HK45, and even the troubled*gen4 Glock. No matter how you massage the data, the other guns proved more reliable. In some cases, the other guns were*substantially*more reliable."

Funny how on first glance everything looks rosey. But again to my initial question; with all the available modern pistols available, why chose a 1911?

I feel to have an utterly reliable 1911 that runs like a "raped monkey", as Chad so eloquently put it, you have to invest in 2-4 times the amount of money to ensure complete utter reliability. Also I feel they are somewhat more complicated than modern handguns. To make a 1911 as reliable as modern pistols and affordable I believe the tight tolerances and accuracy has to be sacrificed.

Todd's standard is 2000 rounds for mean rounds before stoppage. The 9mm 1911 did 4305. Significantly exceeding that standard. Also many of the stoppage issues were due to magazine selection. Once good mags were found, problems decreased significantly.

Tod summed it up best:

But as I’ve said before, suffice to say that this gun has completely transformed my opinion of — and belief in — the 1911 as a dependable sidearm.

Which is why it’s on my belt as I type this post, and why I’ll be carrying it until the next 50,000 round test begins.

I'm have a feeling that if the 1911 was chambered in .45, it would have done even better.

And I don't believe that you have to give up reliability or accuracy in a 1911.

Proven examples of this are the Springfield Range Officer, TRP and Trophy Match.

And if you are willing to accept external extractor 1911's, add S&W and SIG to that list.

Blaster229 · Jan 23, 2014

Mega said:
In your dreams.

The ones I know do. Maybe you know different ones.
They certainly don't use 1911's.

Not sure what you're saying here?

Blaster229 · Jan 23, 2014

So, everyone here, take the worst 1911 ever, load one round into it. Now, use it on a bad guy when he breaks in the house. You honestly think it won't fire??

rico903 · Jan 23, 2014

Combloc said:
There is the HK P7..........and then there is everything else.

I have a PSP and a P7 M8 andBest trigger of all my guns. BUT, they heat up fast, need to be cleaned after not all too many rounds and the cocking/sear lever has broken in each one and my armorer friend's. HK will not sell you the parts so you have to spend a lot to send them back for repair. I don't know of anyone locally who will even consider working on them. I would not trust my life to them.

Biggfoot44 · Jan 23, 2014

(Tongue slightly in cheek)
No , 1911 is too new fangled and untested , when K Frames have been getting 'er done since 1899 , and N Frames since 1908 .

But more in the theme of this thread , I don't trust anything new out of the box, period. ( Heck , I rarely have new, new pistols - inbetween liking classic guns , and being frugal , I prefer(ed) "pre-broken in" pistols. ) Any firearm ( any manufactured product with more than one part) will have an occasional product with a defective or ill fitted part.

One a pistol has fired (debatable # ) of rounds and proven itself individually reliable , go with it. There are high quality pistols of every flavor so far discussed , and a lot more.

If Thai doesn't have warm fuzzy confident feelings about his 1911 , then don't carry one. Don't listen to us convince you that 1911's are indeed reliable , go with what YOU have confidence in. As long as it is actually reliable of course.

FWIW , a true 1911 ( with honerable mention to true Commanders ) is as reliable as any design. The importance of weight and capacity varies from person to person , and their perceptions more than their realities. If I were issuing to a force of minimally trained nsmf's , I would probably issue somthing with simplier manual of arms.

Indiana Jones · Jan 23, 2014

lsw said:
It's good to see some posters who had good luck with their 1911s out of the box. My own experience is not so good. I have a Springfield Government model, about 1985 vintage. I have friends over the years who have purchased maybe 6 or 8 1911s from various manufacturers including Colt. All of them needed attention before they could be considered reliable. I'm not saying a 1911 isn't a good SD pistol, but I would never feel comfortable with one until I had tested and practiced with it much more extensively than other pistols I own.

The original 1911s issued were stone cold reliable out of the box. It's the companies making then for civilians that require. But the M1911 pistol made during WW1 and WW2 were the reliable pistol you hear of.

Rattlesnake46319 · Jan 23, 2014

Blaster229 said:
So, everyone here, take the worst 1911 ever, load one round into it. Now, use it on a bad guy when he breaks in the house. You honestly think it won't fire??

It'll fire. Load two rounds and it will probably fire both without a hiccup. Definitely better than meeting a bad guy with my d**k in my hand.

Love my Springfield, Brazilian frame and all. It's eaten everything I've fed it and out of all my pistols, that's the one I shoot the best. Therefore, I carry it. If I find something else that I shoot better or if it becomes unreliable, I'll change.

Uncle Duke · Jan 23, 2014

thai said:
I have a 1911 made by Sig. It is a GSR TTT Revolution. Got it 8 years ago pretty as hell and is more accurate than I can shoot. But having read and seen some going south on its shooter, makes me really question the reliability of 1911. I've heard heard from credible people who have taken combat pistol course where they shoot 1200 to 1800 rounds in two to three days, I keep hearing horror stories of Kimbers and a few custom 1911 malfunctioning.

Add this to my own lack of competence with changing out springs, replacing extractors and firing pins, I have an insecurity with 1911. So personally I feel modern handguns would be the best option for me. I also believe that 1911s are inherently finicky and sensitive to alot of factors that would not ordinarily affect pistols like Glocks, Sig P series or HKs.

So, if given a choice between a 1911 and a Sig or HK, which would you trust your life on? Out of the box?

To me, I'd only trust my life to whatever it is that I'm confident in that I've shot the living hell out of and maintained. There isn't an out of the box firearm made that meets that definition.

dist1646 · Jan 23, 2014

browning guy said:
Sorry Lord Chad I have too...

View attachment 108349

joppaj · Jan 23, 2014

Indiana Jones said:
Because my Grandfather did on Guam, Bouganville, and Iwo Jima.

That's why.

He probably carried a Garand or an M-1 carbine too, going to war with one of those?

browning guy · Jan 23, 2014

On this holy day!! this thread should be use to reflect on the great works on John Moses Browning!

I will leave this here for you sinners to think about.

rdc · Jan 23, 2014

Happy birthday Mr. Browning.

fidelity · Jan 23, 2014

browning guy said:
On this holy day!! this thread should be use to reflect on the great works on John Moses Browning!

Cool, January 23, 1855. I'm disappointed Google hasn't done something creative with their logo today ...

ma_deuce · Jan 23, 2014

501st said:
Out of curiosity were any of the ones you owned NM prefixed? Or higher end models? (TRP/Trophy Match)

None were higher-end. I've had a GI, a Mil-Spec and a Loaded. All had IMBEL frames. The GI was flawless with ball ammo but had problems with hollowpoints, not that it mattered much to me. But I did have the feeding ramp polished and slightly re-contoured by a smith, and that solved that problem. The Mil-Spec was similar but not so pronounced; polishing took care of it, no issue with ramp contour. The loaded had very occasional stovepiping; I sent it back to Springfield and they tuned the extractor and no problems after that.

BTW, as for running 2,000 rounds w/o issue, I've got at least that many through my S&W E-Series and not an issue. I was skeptical of the external extractor, too, but this one works fine.

aquaman · Jan 23, 2014

CZ-75 BD, my favorite pistol. low bore axis, ergonomic, reliable, solid

VikingFan65 · Jan 23, 2014

Biggfoot44 said:
(Tongue slightly in cheek)
No , 1911 is too new fangled and untested , when K Frames have been getting 'er done since 1899 , and N Frames since 1908 .

But more in the theme of this thread , I don't trust anything new out of the box, period. ( Heck , I rarely have new, new pistols - inbetween liking classic guns , and being frugal , I prefer(ed) "pre-broken in" pistols. ) Any firearm ( any manufactured product with more than one part) will have an occasional product with a defective or ill fitted part.

One a pistol has fired (debatable # ) of rounds and proven itself individually reliable , go with it. There are high quality pistols of every flavor so far discussed , and a lot more.

If Thai doesn't have warm fuzzy confident feelings about his 1911 , then don't carry one. Don't listen to us convince you that 1911's are indeed reliable , go with what YOU have confidence in. As long as it is actually reliable of course.

FWIW , a true 1911 ( with honerable mention to true Commanders ) is as reliable as any design. The importance of weight and capacity varies from person to person , and their perceptions more than their realities. If I were issuing to a force of minimally trained nsmf's , I would probably issue somthing with simplier manual of arms.

Well stated.

Of all the modern handguns, why trust your life with a 1911?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

לא לדרוך עליי

Ultimate Member

Stop Negassing me!!!!!

Active Member

Ultimate Member

God loves you, I don't.

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Wolverine

Curmidget

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Sheepdog

SCRUFFY NERF HERDER

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics