Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Do you consider the 1911 obsolete for concealed carry

It's no wonder people hate 1911s if holding the gun correctly is such a challenge.

You do as you were trained to do, or trained on your on to do, when the SHTF. If you didn't train to manipulate the safety when the SHTF, you won't manipulate it at all. You don't need to complete all the tactical handgun courses at Gunsite to just manipulate a safety. You can do that during dry-fire practice. Then go to the range and reinforce your training. Then, when the SHTF you'll flick the safety off and won't even realize you've done it.

I may have to try one of those new fangled Hi-Powers someday

I think the motto of the Wiley's Colts is "Everything you need and nothing you don't". The two features I like the most are the sights and the safety lever. The sights are Novak "wide slot" rear and gold bead front. A lot quicker for me with my aging eyes. If needed just front sight placement, it works well for that too. The safety is small . With the correct holster , cocked and locked is the set up for this gun. Plus all the Wiley's are Colt Custom shop guns. Real custom shop unlike Kimber custom shop which is just plain bullshit marketing.

That Hi-Power has the best hammer. No bite like the other.

Beautiful gun. For the Wiley, it speaks for itself.

It's a mechanical step between initiating the draw and firing. What you're talking about is conditioning oneself to do that step thoughtlessly, which is great when it works, and not so great on the rare occasions when it doesn't. By doing this, however, you're not (as you suggest) eliminating a step. You're conditioning a step. The step still has to occur or the gun won't fire.

It's simple mechanics, and no amount of snarky dismissals will alter that fact. You're fooling yourself in order to increase your comfort level over it, is all.

Failure to disengage the thumb safety during a sudden surprise attack has happened, and even to those who've conditioned themselves in the way you're speaking of.

All this talk of obsolescence and having no more than what is needed in the way of archaic tools, got me thinking. I guess I prefer obsolescent tools after all. The Ruger LWT Commander is now a 38 Super (sometimes a 9x23) and the WC is a 45ACP, as intended by JMB & confirmed by Wiley Clapp

A modern pair of obsolete 1911s

Agree that the Colt WCs are just about right out of the box. But as a loony, leaving well enough alone is not in my nature. I've found that a couple of minor changes make the ergonomics perfect for me and accommodate my old eyes:

Low TS fits my grip, every time

A concession to old eyes with a need to simplify the sight picture and rapidly acquire the FS

Both of these mods are on all my obsolete 1911 EDCs.

When it mattered, I never failed overcome a retention holster, hit the safety on a 1911 or see a 'flash' sight picture. I studied and/or investigated LE shootings for a couple of decades and that's pretty consistent with what I saw. Train hard for muscle memory* and stay cool in a fight. Dive the OODA loop like a dragster.

* Some of you change guns & holsters like you change your socks. I can't do that and keep the 'autopilot' reflex. If you can, more power to you.

Let's ratchet up the fun. A better case can be made that it's the Glock that's in danger of obsolescence, not the 1911. The Glock pistol was a product of manufacturing innovation much more than bringing anything new to pistol design. It took over 20-years for other manufacturers to catch up, but they have, and we're now seeing pistols at least the equal of Glock that are being manufactured cheaper. When Glock first came to the US they raised the price of the pistol lest Americans think of their pistol as cheap - those days are sure over. The repercussions of Glock losing the US Army pistol contract will be immense.

Meanwhile, the 1911 just keeps cruising along as one of the most popular and functional designs of all. Folks have been predicting its demise for decades, but it just keeps getting more popular with more manufacturers jumping on board.

That's a sound approach. If you've trained all your life with one system, stick with it. It will likely work just fine for you.

That's a sound approach. If you've trained all your life with one system, stick with it. It will likely work just fine for you.
The 1911 is still an excellent choice, which is an indication of Browning's genius, for sure. However, it's a design that reflects thinking about personal sidearms that is more associated with a century ago than modern thinking about personal sidearms.

That's not to say it cannot work, assuming training for it is approached correctly, with sufficient intensity and consistency. Heck, it will work most of the time even if that's not the case. It cannot reasonably be denied, however, that an additional mechanical step being required between the point you realize a threat exists and when you pull the trigger, is less ideal than if that step were not required. The fact that increased intensive training (or conditioning over a longer period of time) is required to overcome the mechanical disadvantage it represents is proof of this all by itself.

Now I understand why you're so concerned over bore axis......,

The pistol I carry/train with the most is a 229dak. No safety, no hammer to de-cock, nothing...........
Amazingly enough, I can grab my 1911 and have "zero" issues. I can grab a DA/SA handgun and have "zero" issues. I'm sure if we put a timer on all the systems involved, I'd be slightly faster with my 229 from a duty rig, simply because that's my 12+ hour a day setup. I'm also sure it wouldn't be enough of a difference that I'd worry about it.

I never carried my 1911 due to our old policy that, I'm sure, was formulated by bean-counters and insurance folks..........it has since been rewritten by actual street cops. I'll be carrying it a lot more now.

I'm not being snarky. I'm being matter-of-fact and condescending.

It's not an extra step. With a correct draw and grip the safety is off without any extra motion. I draw and grip my 2011 exactly like my safetyless M&P. Without any extra steps.

I am waiting for a Gen 8 Glock with all the improvements. Probably will look and operate like a 1911.

It might take them a couple of decades to arrive there.




It takes time for some individuals to come full circle also.



Ha!

Blue, those who can, do. Those who can't............

I'm a big fan of the double action revolver, and have spent many years training with them and carrying them for self-defense. They are, in my way of thinking, superior for personal defense carry to an auto pistol possessing a thumb safety. That said, I was for many years a big proponent of the 1911, and trained with and carried them for many years (yes, I'm an older guy who's had lots of long phases in thinking about handgun carry and shooting). I defended the same ideas you folks are now defending, i.e., that those who argue the superiority of the Glock setup vs the 1911 just haven't put in the time to master the grip and correct draw stroke. I was equally arrogant about it. Been there, done that. Had it down pat. I read and studied Jeff Cooper, the whole deal.

I'm not saying it's a bad choice at all. Just not the best choice, all things considered, as I don't believe the advantages of a thumb safety outweigh its (admittedly) slight disadvantages, which come down to KISS and Murphy's Law.

You cannot argue away the objective fact of the requirement for an extra mechanical step, as desperately as you may try. You can argue that it can be overcome, although I would counter that this is an imperfect solution, since human action is required, and humans are imperfect (well-designed machines are, too, but less so), no matter how hard they train.

Is that springy little extra lever on a Glock trigger considered an extra step?

The 1911 is a very good tool. Are there other good tools? Absolutely. I carry a PSP myself. Does that mean the 1911 is "obsolete?" Depends more on the person than the tool IMO.

No. It's a useless device. It's there for the lawyers, I guess. It serves no (or almost no) actual safety function. But no conditioning is required to overcome it in the gravest extreme, unlike with the 1911.