Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns What are the 1911's weakness?

The only way to convince the internets that 1911s are reliable is to convince them that Glocks aren't.

Compared to Glocks that kaboom "regularly" (causing no damage to the gun....), 1911s are right up there with the rest of the pack.

Sooo, you're saying the Glock/M&P/XD pistols are better choices for inexperienced shooters and cops that don't know crap about handguns?

That could well be.

'cause Glocks owners start calling the 1911 guys old farts

Damn newfangled 1911's anyway - just use a Colt Walker; it will scare the crap out of the bad guys, and one shot makes a smoke screen to allow your escape



New ideas aren't automatically good, and old ideas aren't automatically bad. Vice versa applies, too Gaston figured out how to make a mint off a cheaper manufacturing method, and also did some creative marketing.

Mag capacity is good(sometimes critical), hitting what you aim at is crucial. No contest for me, I can make hits easier with a 1911 than a Glock. Yeah, I know - some people can shoot them just as well as a 1911. Especially after they modify the trigger. And then you'll have a carry gun with a 3 lb trigger, with no safety

This is a newer idea than a Glock:



although it has some old ideas, too. Shoots pretty well, too. But I still carry a 1911 more often.

Yeah - I'd go along with that.

If that makes you feel better.



Travis

That isn't really the problem. It is true that we often suggest trying a different magazine because it's a cheap and easy experiment that might pay off, but the reasons for that are not that simple. If a given 1911 will not function with the current Colt-spec magazine, there is something out of spec with the gun or with the ammo. Or the mag is damaged or defective (therefore, not actually Colt-spec). In fact, it is known (and I have seen it) that the Colt-spec mag will often "cure" a 1911 that is not quite in spec.

The whole mag sensitivity thing boils down to out-of-spec guns and/or people trying to make the 1911 do things that it wasn't designed to do. For instance, the wadcutter lips with an early release will make some 1911's choke on HP. But those mags were never part of the original design, and they weren't intended for defensive use when they came about - they were for gaming.

How many different magazine designs does a Glock have?

I always have to try different mags in my AR to ensure proper function.

(Not really)




Travis

When people have a "soul-less" plastic gun that won't function I always recommend they try a new magazine. A magazine with bullets in it.

Why is that a weakness? How many 26 round gunfights have you been in lately?

MM

I won't argue with that..............

MM

Up to a few years ago Glock has had nine variations of magazines. I no longer keep track. Not all, say, Glock 19 magazines work with all Glock 19s.

Being in production for 114 years it stands to reason that there could be some variation.

Depends whose box the 1911 came in

Exactly, 458Lott

The G21 is good from the box. The 1911 "Depends...."

If anyone had any sense at all, the whole discussion would have ended here. Well done sir.

This is a topic that you will not be able to get a straight answer to. Some people love 1911. Some hate them. Some have had great experiences. Some have had bad experiences.

I'll share my personal experiences with the 1911 vs other pistol's I've owned and shot a lot. For pistols, I've owned 1911's from $350-$1000, Glocks, and Springfield XD's.
I always come back to the 1911 and trust it. Never had problems with the Springfield polymers, but I still don't shoot them as well as a 1911. 3 out of 3 glocks have given me problems with stovepipes, failures to extract, and double feeding. They gave my buddies the same problems.

I will get flamed for this, but I've had more malfunctions with Glocks than 1911's and Springfield XD or XDM. I don't trust them from personal experiences.

The 1911's I've owned have been the most reliable and accurate for me.
There are a few drawbacks, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives for me.

-The 1911 can be considered heavy for carry. (I don't experience this problem my self)
-The 1911 can be a little bulky for carry, but conceals surprisingly well due to how thin the gun is.
-The 1911 has less magazine capacity. (This doesn't bother me because I always hit what I'm shooting at with a 1911)
-The 1911 is built around FMJ round nose bullets and some can be finicky with feeding really blunt hollow points or wadcutter bullets. (I've never had problems with feeding any quality hollow points, but have had some jams with semi wadcutters in a couple 1911's.)

There is a difference in a $350 1911 and a $1000+ 1911 and it isn't always reliability, or what you might think. High dollar 1911's are fit very tightly with focus on accuracy, beauty, and ergonomics. Sometimes this extremely tight fit can be less reliable than a cheaper 1911.
The cheaper 1911's might have rougher surfaces, a finish that wears off easier, a looser slide to frame fit, a grittier trigger, or may be missing some bells and whistles that some people like.

I've owned Ruger, sig, springfield, and rock island 1911's
The Ruger felt great, but they have some issues with the front sight breaking off, just from shooting it. Yes this happened to me. The sig was beautiful, but I was afraid of scratching it and I had a hard time shooting it with the blocky sites. The sig did feed EVERYTHNG including semiwadcutters. The springfield match had a very nice trigger and very tight fit, but would jam every once in a while because of such a tight fit.
The rock island was a little rough, the finish and surfaces look like a $350 gun, but it has been extremely reliable for me and I can hit what I'm shooting at. It is my carry gun and I trust it. I don't worry about scratching it, The standard GI model sights work great for me, and it just plain works.

So you can definately tell the difference in a $1000 vs $350 gun, but it is fit and finish, not reliability, and the $350 RIA will shoot almost as accurate as a $1000 1911. I took this guns out of the box, wiped the oil out of the barrel, took it to the range and started shooting. I put 500+ rounds through it before it's first cleaning and had 1 single stovepipe. I decided to clean it just not to push my luck since it was my carry gun.

high $$ equals tight fit, extreme accuracy, obsession, more cleaning

low $$ equals looser fit, still pretty good accuracy, reliability, not obsessing about every ding or perfection, and less cleaning.

Again, this is my personal experiences with the guns I've owned.
My $350 RIA GI copy is my go to gun for range and protection. it always shoots where I point it and never malfunctions.
In fact, I'm still at 1 single malfunction out of 1000+ rounds or a 0.1% failure rate

Funny thing is well over half of the people who decide to argue this on any given day really have no experience, but they still love to give opinions either way. Glocks work, guess what so do 1911s. There was a time, long ago, that the 1911 had some problems. That really doesnt exist anymore. Those that claim the 1911 is a poor defensive gun do not have experience with the platform. I have owned just about every kind of handgun in one way shape or form. I've spent from $150 to $4k. I've had one glock have problems that was easily fixed with a replacement extractor. I had only 1 1911 have issues and it was with a kimber supermatch. Kimber completely fixed the issue for free so no complaints there. It really boils down to which you prefer. I have countless thousands of rounds through both 1911s and glocks. I carry a glock most of the time. They both work and I would trust mine and my families life to either platform. Find one that feels right, buy it and shoot the hell out of it. Not that hard really. And to the op's original question, the 1911 doesnt have any weaknesses these days.

As a military service sidearm, the 1911 just doesn't make sense in light of modern designs like the Sig P320, H&K VP9, and FN's FNS series pistols.

Civilian needs are just different from that of a major military or major LE agency. The reliability standards are just as important, but the total round count between failures can be much lower for a civilian than for military or LE, for exactly the reasons that Montana Man so eloquently stated.

I will be the first to say there are pistols that are probably more reliable than my chosen carry gun (I don't know for a fact because I've yet to have any kind of malfunction of any kind in my carry piece. But I don't shoot thousands of rounds a month anymore either...but when I did, it was through a 1911).

My LW Commander is thinner than most pistols out there regardless of caliber. It tucks away in my IWB holster and conceals easily with a T-shirt. The ergonomics are excellent fitting my hand like an extension of my arm. I can hit a man sized target on the first shot out to 100 yards, 100% of the time (can't say that about many "modern" pistols). It has adequate magazine capacity for my own personal threat assessment. But mostly I like it, I like to carry it, and I'm confident with it...what more does a guy need.

If you cant say that about ANY gun you carry, then you need to keep searching.

Despite all the internet experts, there are legions of 1911 owners who carry them every day and are completely happy with them. I find it hard to believe that that would be the case if they were so unreliable.

Which generation of perfection would that be?