So really not trying to start a holy war, but I'm just wondering about how people feel about this.
Is low-cap just a deal breaker? Have you had such bad experience you just can't trust ANY 1911? Are you afraid if you carry a 1911 you'll be required to dress like an old man?
Personally I think it comes down to an individuals threat assessment whether or not they feel the NEED a hi-cap pistol.
And secondly, I know there are those who just shoot a 1911 markedly better than most other pistols.
I have carried a LW Commander for the past 12-ish years, and off and on before that. These days I carry my P07 or Hi Power more often than my LW Commander. But that's not so much because I feel a need for hi-cap, but just that I want to carry something different...change is the spice of life. I will say, for a full sized pistol, nothing carries better in an IWB than a LW Commander...light & flat.
If I could still work the safety with my strong hand, I would still be carrying my old Officer's ACP but I am not comfortable with a carry gun that requires both hands to get into action.
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
Well, in a sense, it is an objectively obsolete design, due to the change in prevailing thought in the concealed carry community away from manual thumb safeties and single stack magazines (except, with regard to single stack magazines, on truly compact guns like Kahrs, the Glock 43, and the like). It's also obsolete in that it's just been passed by by newer, better, designs, using lighter weight materials, striker fire actions, mass produced parts, etc., resulting in greater out of the box reliability besides.
That all said, there's nothing wrong with the choice, assuming your specimen is proven reliable, you keep it clean and lubed, and you only train with it or guns of the type. I know that I can actually produce slightly tighter groups with my 1911s than with my Glocks, but other factors (capacity, weight, absence of manual safety) outweigh this advantage.
I look at the issue fairly simply, if I'm going to carry a weapon to protect my family and myself, I want the most effective weapon I can obtain. IMHO, nostalgia plays absolutely no roll in tipping the odds in your favor when your or your loved ones lives are on the line.
If I could still work the safety with my strong hand, I would still be carrying my old Officer's ACP but I am not comfortable with a carry gun that requires both hands to get into action.
The 1911 isn't obsolete , you are
A Doe walks out of the woods today and says, that is the last time I'm going to do that for Two Bucks.
This scaled down 1911 might make a good carry gun.About 18oz empty weight is one thing about it that would make it worth looking at.The extra barrel length gives it a little more power too.Browning's Black Label Model 1911-380 http://www.realguns.com/articles/685.htm
Last edited by baldhunter; 06/09/17.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~ As Bob Hagel would say"You should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everything goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong."Good words of wisdom...............
I carry a 1911 most of the time- but, it is a Kimber Ultra Carry II, .45 ACP. It is almost identical in weight and overall dimensions to the Smith and Wesson M&P Shield .45 I also carry. It has the advantage of a great single-action trigger pull, round capacity is nearly the same depending on which mag I have in the Shield, and I shoot both equally well.
I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than living as a puppet or a slave....
If I could still work the safety with my strong hand, I would still be carrying my old Officer's ACP but I am not comfortable with a carry gun that requires both hands to get into action.
The 1911 isn't obsolete , you are
Getting there!
Ben
Some days it takes most of the day for me to do practically nothing...
Just got a SW1911 performance center LW commander in 45acp. I'm trying hard to not like it as much as my Glock 23 which has a lot more going for it. The Glock is lighter, holds more rounds, is just as accurate, and is extremely durable and cheap - not like I have to worry about ruining the finish either. But damn, the 1911 has class, and is just so easy and fun to shoot. It's just natural in my hands. I do worry about carrying a 1911 cocked and locked while hunting and hiking and getting water, dirt, snow, mud in the firing pin recess portion at the rear of the slide and then having it not fire because the hammer couldn't hit the firing pin. Probably a one in a million chance, but that would be my luck. Not a concern with urban concealed carry though.
'Four legs good, two legs baaaad." ---------------------------------------------- "Jimmy, some of it's magic, Some of it's tragic, But I had a good life all the way." (Jimmy Buffett)
I think so. It's not that anything changed about the 1911, it's as good as it ever was; it's that other guns have improved, and there are much better fighting pistols available now. If it's a carry gun, it needs to be a fighting gun, not a target pistol or nostalgia piece. Those who think they don't need to carry a fighting pistol (cause they'll just shoot the bad guy), just don't know what they don't know; they're preparing for a specific gunfight scenario, not just whatever might happen.
I shoot a 1911 better than a lot of other guns too, and don't mind the weight or dressing around it, but I also don't think it's the best choice in pistols I can make when I start the day. I'm not Superman, so I'll take all the advantages I can get, thanks.
The slide safety, grip safety, and single stack mag are all handicaps in a fighting gun IMO, and here are examples why. - In my training group we've seen die hard 1911 guys forget to flip the safety off under pressure; the same guys who said "I practice that, so it'll never happen to me". - The grip safety can prevent the gun firing in an awkward grip, for example grabbing it left handed from a right hand holster in a grapple with someone, so that the gun is held upside down and fired with the pinky. I can and have fired my carry gun that way in training, but a 1911 or other pistols with grip safeties often won't fire. At that moment it's a shiny brick, not a pistol. - The single stack mag is a detriment when so many attacks involve more than one bad guy. We can choose a double stack 1911, but the first two issues remain.
I don't feel unarmed with only a 1911, and do like them still, but would be deluding myself if I thought it was the best carry pistol I could choose.
If I could still work the safety with my strong hand, I would still be carrying my old Officer's ACP but I am not comfortable with a carry gun that requires both hands to get into action.
One man's obsolescence is can be another man's proper choice. I have a SIG p220, a Remington R1 1911, a Browning Hi Power, and a Ruger LCP. I carry the LCP because I'm lazy. I will choose the P220 over the other two because it works better for me, and the Hi Power over the R1 because I shoot it better. 3 out of 4 are obsolete by some standards but not for me. I don't consider my 357 mag K frame Smiths obsolete.
The Karma bus always has an empty seat when it comes around.- High Brass
There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
I wouldn't carry a striker fired pistol if it was given to me. I carry a Colt Commander just about every day and if I need more concealment I have an Officer's model that I use.
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went" Will Rogers
I think so. It's not that anything changed about the 1911, it's as good as it ever was; it's that other guns have improved, and there are much better fighting pistols available now. If it's a carry gun, it needs to be a fighting gun, not a target pistol or nostalgia piece. Those who think they don't need to carry a fighting pistol (cause they'll just shoot the bad guy), just don't know what they don't know; they're preparing for a specific gunfight scenario, not just whatever might happen.
I shoot a 1911 better than a lot of other guns too, and don't mind the weight or dressing around it, but I also don't think it's the best choice in pistols I can make when I start the day. I'm not Superman, so I'll take all the advantages I can get, thanks.
The slide safety, grip safety, and single stack mag are all handicaps in a fighting gun IMO, and here are examples why. - In my training group we've seen die hard 1911 guys forget to flip the safety off under pressure; the same guys who said "I practice that, so it'll never happen to me". - The grip safety can prevent the gun firing in an awkward grip, for example grabbing it left handed from a right hand holster in a grapple with someone, so that the gun is held upside down and fired with the pinky. I can and have fired my carry gun that way in training, but a 1911 or other pistols with grip safeties often won't fire. At that moment it's a shiny brick, not a pistol. - The single stack mag is a detriment when so many attacks involve more than one bad guy. We can choose a double stack 1911, but the first two issues remain.
I don't feel unarmed with only a 1911, and do like them still, but would be deluding myself if I thought it was the best carry pistol I could choose.
Absolutely
How many people would use a Model T ford for a daily driver?
IMO the measure of 'shootability' is what you can do shooting one-handed at 25-50 yards. A good 1911 excels at this in capable hands and has no flies on it a a CQB weapon.
When set-up properly and fed good ammo, it is as reliable as anything out there.
Double stack 1911s are available for those who value that characteristic.
The 1911's only disadvantage is that good examples sell for about twice what a plastic pistol costs.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
I still carry one quite often at the Ranch. And no other handgun fits my hand as well or points as good for me, either. And I shoot them Very well, too.
"Allways speak the truth and you will never have to remember what you said before..." Sam Houston Texans, "We say Grace, We Say Mam, If You Don't Like it, We Don't Give a Damn!"
I have an excellent quality miter box passed down to me from my wife's grandfather. It uses a hand saw that is still sharp, and was a high-end carpenter's tool when it was made. It's obsolete now, obviously, because newer tools do a better job for anyone using them seriously.
As a carry pistol, the 1911 fits that description as well. For me that doesn't mean I don't like them, or don't see their attributes; it just means I'm not emotionally attached to a particular design, and will use the best tool available.
It's obsolete now, obviously, because newer tools do a better job for anyone using them seriously.
I think you meant to say 'faster', rather than 'better'...... I still install recessed door pulls with a brace and bit. And not because a cordless drill is 'better' (and a Yankee screwdriver never has dead batteries)..... And if YOU took the time to learn that old miter box, the joints it will produce will rival one of them fancy-smancy sliding miter saws......
Some things are "obsolete" or (more precisely) outmoded by fashion -- thumb safeties, grip safeties, mag release type, etc. Handguns are a mature product and it would be difficult to argue that any particular LEO would be significantly handicapped were he forced to carry a 1911. On the other hand, it's impossible to argue that "state of the art" pistols can't be made much lighter, smaller, simpler and of higher capacity than the early 20th century designs.
It's obsolete now, obviously, because newer tools do a better job for anyone using them seriously.
I think you meant to say 'faster', rather than 'better'...... I still install recessed door pulls with a brace and bit. And not because a cordless drill is 'better' (and a Yankee screwdriver never has dead batteries)..... And if YOU took the time to learn that old miter box, the joints it will produce will rival one of them fancy-smancy sliding miter saws......
No, I meant better. Faster is part of it, but cleaner cuts, just as accurate or more so, etc with the newer tools. I full well know how to use the old one, but there's nothing better about it. I learned woodworking and drafting with all manual tools, the old way, but have no reason to deny that the newer stuff really is better. Face it, sometimes old stuff really is old and obsolete, whether it's tools, pistols (which are tools to me, not sentimental trinkets), or whatever. Sometimes they're not, but just because something is old is no reason to think it's better somehow.
My stainless 1911 gun in black leather holster looks good on my medline steel emerald green rollator walker. The chicks at the assisted living home all dig me cause I am bad.
I would want a 1911 in a hunting gun for the trigger but no more in a carry gun. I am used to striker fired pistols.
This is 2017 with all the technology advances and 106 years of history.
If you type in only 1 9 1 1 in a Google search you get dozens and dozens of pages about some gun that was named that year.
Must be something to it.
I think I will get one.
Well, I doubt that you'll have any trouble finding another one to add to your collection..........................for an "obsolete" gun, there are more companies making them today than ever & sales don't seem to have slowed down much.
Maybe the OP or someone else can post up a definition of "obsolete" for us all to read so we'll all know that our 1911's aren't fit to carry or use anymore & we can all just thrown them in the re-melt pile.
Funny how some can't grasp that in a life or death situation having a firearm that can be safely carried loaded and the only thing you need to manipulate to fire it is the trigger is an advancement vs. a gun that requires two safeties to be manipulated to fire it.
I'm a huge fan of the 1911, it was the first handgun I fired and at a young age I was adept at field stripping one. It many ways no handgun will compare to it for me.
That said, for life and death I want the simplest and most reliably manipulated pistol for the task which IMHO is not the 1911. Maybe the 1911 has an accuracy edge, but I have no problem making center of mass hits with a striker fired pistol well past the 25yd line.
Maybe the OP or someone else can post up a definition of "obsolete" for us all to read so we'll all know that our 1911's aren't fit to carry or use anymore & we can all just thrown them in the re-melt pile.
MM
It just means, in this context, that it's been surpassed by technological development and changes in thinking about concealed carry priorities. It's not technically obsolete, though, since it's still manufactured and enjoys solid sales numbers, not to mention that it sits in many holsters. Those who argue for its being obsolete, however, would explain this on the basis of old habit, nostalgia, and romanticism, rather than on the basis of its still being a state of the art design.
Can it still serve its intended function? Of course. You can still drive a Model T, also, if you like. Many still do, in fact, because they just enjoy doing it. Same with the 1911, although in greater numbers than is the case with the Model T.
Funny how some can't grasp that in a life or death situation having a firearm that can be safely carried loaded and the only thing you need to manipulate to fire it is the trigger is an advancement vs. a gun that requires two safeties to be manipulated to fire it.
I'm a huge fan of the 1911, it was the first handgun I fired and at a young age I was adept at field stripping one. It many ways no handgun will compare to it for me.
That said, for life and death I want the simplest and most reliably manipulated pistol for the task which IMHO is not the 1911. Maybe the 1911 has an accuracy edge, but I have no problem making center of mass hits with a striker fired pistol well past the 25yd line.
Precisely. Well said.
PS I, too, was adept at field stripping a 1911 at age 14.
Of the 5 definitions of 'obsolete', found in Dictionary.com, these are the only 2 that apply when evaluating the question of obsolescence of equipment or technology: 1.no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: 2.of a discarded or outmolded type; out of date.
There is clear evidence, even on this Forum and Thread, to show that the first definition, "no longer in general use; fallen into disuse," does not apply to the 1911. That only leaves I suppose, the argument that the 1911 platform is "out of date." But if so, then the proof would need to be offered by those who make the assertion that the 1911 is no longer effective or functional - and as a result has been discarded - in its intended role as a SD pistol. The number of examples to refute that claim are legion, whether we cite the last 106 years or the last 12 months.
The responses that some, or many, may have a preference for pistols with other characteristics - made out of plastic, SF, higher capacity, pink or blue, etc. - does not render the 1911 'obsolete'. It just implies that an individual or group prefers another type of pistol.
My answer to the OP: GG, I think that your question is more frivolous that real, probably intended to stir up a contentious debate, as is your pattern. But if your intent was to create definitive proof that the 1911 JMB design is obsolete, the answer is clearly NO. If you believed that modern designs that replace 1911 features have replaced or superseded it, you wouldn't be depending on the M1935 to save your life.
To each his own, but personal opinion does not constitute proof. My 2 cents.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
I like Glocks a lot, I like the PPQ, the Shield and a others. Having said that, the 1911 takes first place for the triggers. Some come close but not close enough.
Off topic, but I remembered something today about my Glocks. I was visiting a neighbor who is a Glock guru. I told him my favorite Glock is my old 21. I said I thought I would like the finger nubs, but I like the older model. And I Said it has a better trigger than the rest.
His reply, it's because it's a Gen 2 and they had 5 pound triggers. I went and looked at the box and sure enough, a 5 lb. all the newer ones have a 5.5 lb.
I do not own a Glock. I looked at a Talon model just a month ago. I was close to buying it just because. But after handling it awhile, I decided not to get it. I have huge hands. I cannot even find gloves if they do not stretch. I could not actuated the magazine release without distorting my shooting grip to a point of being ridiculous. That does not happen on my 1911's. All of them.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
...My answer to the OP: GG, I think that your question is more frivolous that real, probably intended to stir up a contentious debate...if your intent was to create definitive proof that the 1911 JMB design is obsolete, the answer is clearly NO. ...To each his own, but personal opinion does not constitute proof. My 2 cents.
Amen, bro.
It has been fun reading the often contradictory opinions however.
Hard to come to terms with the fact that someone like Rob Leatham is better defended with a Colt Single Action Army than I am with the latest whiz-bang, high cap, tactical-wetdream-gun; in a mano-a-mano, Rob would make me obsolete muy pronto. All of the chest-beating, verbal masturbation doesn't change the fact that it's still the Indian and not the arrow. JMO-YMMV.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
But John Browning was a genius in ergonomics. His subjects of study were hundreds of GI's. Very few gun have ergonomics better than the 1911 and the Browning High Power (Hi Power). Arguably the Germans never came close.
That was probably before the word ergonomics was in the dictionaries.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
Is it permissible, then, to acknowledge that the 1911 is far from state of the art technology, if we cannot rightly label it obsolete? This is what I think people mean when they suggest it's obsolete, anyway, i.e., the term is being used figuratively.
To me obsolete is something like a typewriter - or a gun you can't buy ammo for. Saying a 1911 is obsolete is just hyperbolic shorthand meaning less than state of the art.
The ignorance of the history of firearm development displayed on this thread is telling. I'm reminded of the kid that told me about the new rock band he'd just heard on the radio: Aerosmith.
Striker-fired, double column magazines, trigger safeties, tilting barrels - state-of-the-art to some, but actually date back 100-years and more. What is actually state-of-the-art in firearms manufacturing is the ability to manufacture mediocre firearms cheaper than ever before. Sig is providing the P320 to the Army for $205 per unit.
For those that can't manipulate a safety, your skills suck.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
For those that can't manipulate a safety, your skills suck.
It's not an issue of being able to manipulate it. It's not even an issue of being able to train to a high degree of automatic action in doing so. It's a matter of the reality that when the SHTF, all that can, and often does, go out the window. You can't just say, well, that means that guy has bad skills. It's a human reaction to a sudden dump of adrenaline.
For those that can't manipulate a safety, your skills suck.
It's not an issue of being able to manipulate it. It's not even an issue of being able to train to a high degree of automatic action in doing so. It's a matter of the reality that when the SHTF, all that can, and often does, go out the window. You can't just say, well, that means that guy has bad skills. It's a human reaction to a sudden dump of adrenaline.
This problem may be mitigated by simplifying the manual of arms but it can only be solved by the appropriate training we all revert to when the SHTF.
It also explains those cases when a hi-cap plastic SF pistol is shot dry within 5 yards and no lethal hits result. Don't blame the pistol, change the operator's skill set.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
Bought mind new in '70. But just recently renewed my interest. Mainly because of the caliber. But now, there are so many good choices of ammo out there for the 9mm. I am confident that 13+1 is enough for my protection. Don't get me wrong, my primary city gun is the Wiley LW Commander. In the winter I carry the Special Combat Government .38 Super some also.
I ordered a set of Hogue Checkered Kingwood grips for the Hi-Power. Have not received them yet. Should go well with that hi polish Belgium model. I hope.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
….my primary city gun is the Wiley LW Commander...
…you're a man of superior wisdom, insight and judgement, Gibby. Wiley Clapp Commander and the DW Guardian are the BEST out of the box carry 1911's made at an affordable price.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
For those that can't manipulate a safety, your skills suck.
It's not an issue of being able to manipulate it. It's not even an issue of being able to train to a high degree of automatic action in doing so. It's a matter of the reality that when the SHTF, all that can, and often does, go out the window. You can't just say, well, that means that guy has bad skills. It's a human reaction to a sudden dump of adrenaline.
Sorry Hawk, but most of that adrenaline dump crap is the result of too many YouTube videos and the tacticools. The same guys that can't press a slide release after a magazine change due to "loss of fine motor skills" can magically hit the magazine button in the first place. The same guys that are too feeble with excitement to use a thumb safety tell me to stage the trigger for those 50-yard head shots in the heat of battle. Hey look, M4's and riot guns have safeties - are all those users doomed?
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
My F-250 pickup has a manual transmission. It's not obsolete either, but it's no longer offered. Lots of folks just don't know how to use a manual tranny anymore.
My F-250 pickup has a manual transmission. It's not obsolete either, but it's no longer offered. Lots of folks just don't know how to use a manual tranny anymore.
I got rid of all my manual transmission cars because I figured under stress I would forget how to shift gears.
My F-250 pickup has a manual transmission. It's not obsolete either, but it's no longer offered. Lots of folks just don't know how to use a manual tranny anymore.
I got rid of all my manual transmission cars because I figured under stress I would forget how to shift gears.
Drop the mike.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
For those that can't manipulate a safety, your skills suck.
It's not an issue of being able to manipulate it. It's not even an issue of being able to train to a high degree of automatic action in doing so. It's a matter of the reality that when the SHTF, all that can, and often does, go out the window. You can't just say, well, that means that guy has bad skills. It's a human reaction to a sudden dump of adrenaline.
Sorry Hawk, but most of that adrenaline dump crap is the result of too many YouTube videos and the tacticools. The same guys that can't press a slide release after a magazine change due to "loss of fine motor skills" can magically hit the magazine button in the first place. The same guys that are too feeble with excitement to use a thumb safety tell me to stage the trigger for those 50-yard head shots in the heat of battle. Hey look, M4's and riot guns have safeties - are all those users doomed?
Didn't say anyone was doomed, but it's an extra step that's not required with a Glock. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) would seem to apply.
For those that can't manipulate a safety, your skills suck.
It's not an issue of being able to manipulate it. It's not even an issue of being able to train to a high degree of automatic action in doing so. It's a matter of the reality that when the SHTF, all that can, and often does, go out the window. You can't just say, well, that means that guy has bad skills. It's a human reaction to a sudden dump of adrenaline.
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.
….my primary city gun is the Wiley LW Commander...
…you're a man of superior wisdom, insight and judgement, Gibby. Wiley Clapp Commander and the DW Guardian are the BEST out of the box carry 1911's made at an affordable price.
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.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
If it's an "extra step", you're [sic] draw and grip is wrong.
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.
Last edited by Wildcatter264; 06/11/17.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
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.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
So really not trying to start a holy war, but I'm just wondering about how people feel about this.
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.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by JOG
Originally Posted by GunGeek
So really not trying to start a holy war, but I'm just wondering about how people feel about this.
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.
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.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
If it's an "extra step", you're [sic] draw and grip is wrong.
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.
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.
Blue, those who can, do. Those who can't............
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
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 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.
I draw and grip my 2011 exactly like my safetyless M&P. Without any extra steps.
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.
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.
You cannot argue away the objective fact of the requirement for an extra mechanical step, as desperately as you may try.
Is that springy little extra lever on a Glock trigger considered an extra step?
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.
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 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.
I'm not defending anything as, quite frankly, I don't GAS what anyone carries so long as they do so. It seems a bit.......oh, arrogant, maybe?.........to attempt to refer to a system that is still widely in use as obsolete. You rail against one system as "unproven" then another as "obsolete". It's actually a bit humerous for those of us that don't make offering at the Glock alter.
Last edited by NH K9; 06/11/17.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
I'm not defending anything as, quite frankly, I don't GAS what anyone carries so long as they do so. It seems a bit.......oh, arrogant, maybe?.........to attempt to refer to a system that is still widely in use as obsolete. You rail against one system as "unproven" then another as "obsolete". It's actually a bit humerous for those of us that don't make offering at the Glock alter.
Are you suggesting that the P320 is a time-proven design compared to the Glock? As for the 1911, it's a very old design, and many advances have been made since its appearance on the scene. The fact that 1) there exist designs that are "obsolete" (surpassed by better designs in the ensuing 100+ years is perhaps the more accurate way to say it), and 2) there exist designs that are too new to be thought of as time-proven, is not an argument supporting the notion that there are no designs which are both time-proven and relatively state of the art.
It cannot reasonably be denied, however, that an additional mechanical stepbeing 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.
TRH, at the risk of beating a dead horse by repeating what BD already noted, your statement contains 2 assumptions that speak to your level of misunderstanding of the fundamentals that have been shown to result in success in armed confrontations (See SargeMO's recent post for details): 1) the ideas that gripping the 1911 pistol and inactivating the grip safety, or that presenting the pistol and inactivating the thumb safety are sequential, separate steps that slow down the shot, are misconceptions. These are simultaneously synchronized steps that are imbedded in training. Therefore, your assertion can be very reasonably refuted. 2) As to the implication that the time between recognizing the threat and stopping it is somehow protracted, I would refer you to SMO's observation on the OODA loop. A significant enhancement to shortening the front end of the OODA loop is to adopt situational awareness and appropriate mindset so that much of the required OOD (front-end) component can be compressed and only the A remains.
Originally Posted by SargeMO
Train hard for muscle memory* and stay cool in a fight. Dive the OODA loop like a dragster.
TRH, Don't mean to sound overly critical of your apparent subjectivity and possible misinformation, but facts are facts while opinions are.... well, just that.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
I'm not defending anything as, quite frankly, I don't GAS what anyone carries so long as they do so. It seems a bit.......oh, arrogant, maybe?.........to attempt to refer to a system that is still widely in use as obsolete. You rail against one system as "unproven" then another as "obsolete". It's actually a bit humerous for those of us that don't make offering at the Glock alter.
Are you suggesting that the P320 is a time-proven design compared to the Glock? As for the 1911, it's a very old design, and many advances have been made since its appearance on the scene. The fact that 1) there exist designs that are "obsolete" (surpassed by better designs in the ensuing 100+ years is perhaps the more accurate way to say it), and 2) there exist designs that are too new to be thought of as time-proven, is not an argument supporting the notion that there are no designs which are both time-proven and relatively state of the art.
So, boiled down, "my" gun's design is juuuuusssttt right!
I'm not suggesting anything. The 320 won the contract and the 1911 will do its job as effeciently now as it did for my relatives in foreign lands........facts. I'm glad you've found your "solution" in the Glock and they will fill any role with no issues. I place my well-being into the hands of Sigs without any concerns whatsoever.
�Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.�
As much as some us like to poke fun at the 1911, it has been around a long time. It has seen the rise and fall of many good designs and it will be around to see more come and go. Now where did I put my New Balances. Lol.
I think I've said what I want to say on this topic, and stand by it.
Exactly. There are people claiming to be able to do something vastly different and better than you, but rather than asking "how?" You just keep burying your head deeper in the sand. There are people here with a knowledge base so far above yours that you don't even know what you don't know. And if you were really interested in getting better you'd shut up and start taking notes.
In my mind, what sets the 1911 apart is that I see it as a handgunner's handgun. A fine pistol for someone who enjoys handguns, and everything about them. Someone who knows his weapons inside and out.
There are arguably better choices for the occasional user, or the emergency user.
I think I've said what I want to say on this topic, and stand by it.
Exactly. There are people claiming to be able to do something vastly different and better than you, but rather than asking "how?" You just keep burying your head deeper in the sand. There are people here with a knowledge base so far above yours that you don't even know what you don't know. And if you were really interested in getting better you'd shut up and start taking notes.
Amazing arrogance. And, worse yet, you seem oblivious to it.
I see quite a few folks bumbling around with newer gun designs on the public ranges. Have a screwed up back, so my 1911 is a pain to carry anymore. But then...... any gun is a pain to carry.
Not everybody is fluid in thought or action, maybe some newer designs help with that. My guess is that if of the "average"..............they're screwed no matter what they pick.
IMHO if one thinks the 1911 safety is a problem, then they have a problem. It just comes off as the gun comes up. Automatically.
Still see quite a few that the safety is on when gun is up. For them they just can't do it as it moves. Some move halfway, then click it off, then finish bringing the gun up.
Longtime shooters too.
Quite comical. But then so are the anti 1911 guys that blast the friggin ground..
Seen guys that have hunted for yrs screw up their rifles or shotguns too. Add a little hurry to things and they just can't do it. From what little I've seen, the guys that flub it have MBAs.
Seen one old timer NRA instructor guy recommend the .380 1911 guns for total new shooters (esp women). While the shooting industry mags have quite a few articles about female customers and how not to insult them......... I hang out at a pretty decent volume shop....................most do like the pink pieces of crap (price and color major factors). Those given a traditional DA auto or 1911 usually have problems, at the start, and down the road.
One lady came to shoot the range. Salesman asked her if she needed any other help..............she was rude and told him she knew what she was doing! 15 mins go by, nothing on the range. Finally comes out and says she has a problem.
Yup, cartridges backwards in mag.
Another younger hottie was all about the lingo, really playing it up with the staff..........asking about a scope for her husband. Talked of this and that and experience..............picks a decent scope out, and promptly slaps it right up to her eyeball.....proclaiming "excellent view".
Having pointed out just those two (of many others)...........and seeing plenty of the "average customer" in my area................how in the flying flip can the NRA dumbstructor push 1911 style guns onto complete noobs is beyond me.
Have seen similar from other instructors. Must be a gumball machine around somewhere with those certifications.
FWIW the majority of the noobs later have J frames.
In my mind, what sets the 1911 apart is that I see it as a handgunner's handgun. A fine pistol for someone who enjoys handguns, and everything about them. Someone who knows his weapons inside and out.
There are arguably better choices for the occasional user, or the emergency user.
Big +1, MM. It's a hand gunner's handgun is a great way to put it.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
Just to clarify, no one here has said that they have personal difficulty handling a 1911. What some have asserted is that there are now better designs more in tune with modern trends in thinking about concealed carry, personal defense, sidearms. One point wherein modern trends depart favorably from the 1911 regards the absence of a manual thumb safety, which entirely eliminates the possibility of a failure to disengage it in the gravest extreme. This is a statement about technology, not one about an inability to handle a 1911 correctly, although many of the 1911's devotees like to frame it in that way any time someone disagrees with them on this point.
To take this in a slightly different direction, would any of the 1911's devotees care to provide their arguments in favor of having a thumb safety on a personal defense sidearm? I think that might be interesting.
It's that really nice, crisp, trigger, after all, that makes the thumb safety necessary on the 1911, so perhaps you place a higher value on that than on the elimination of an extra step in the way of getting the first round down range. Is that what it comes down to?
Here's a question: what is it about the 1911 that causes you to choose a type of sidearm that requires a thumb safety? Is it only the crisp trigger? Something else?
I think if the Glock had debuted with a safety identical in location and operation to the 1911's, it would still be a huge success; and a few less people might have shot themselves in the ass with one.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
Just to clarify, no one here has said that they have personal difficulty handling a 1911. What some have asserted is that there are now better designs more in tune with modern trends in thinking about concealed carry, personal defense, sidearms. One point wherein modern trends depart favorably from the 1911 regards the absence of a manual thumb safety, which entirely eliminates the possibility of a failure to disengage it in the gravest extreme. This is a statement about technology, not one about an inability to handle a 1911 correctly, although many of the 1911's devotees like to frame it in that way any time someone disagrees with them on this point.
….not wanting to be amazingly arrogant nor oblivious to it……the fact that many (almost all) of the new striker-fired guns have retro-engineered slide (thumb) safeties on their guns AFTER the original specie hit the market would seem to be a giant fly in the ointment of that argument. The Govt. mandated safety on the military version of the Sig 320 would seem to unravel the "obsolescence" issue of the argument that people with an adrenaline dump can't/won't work the safety. The non-Govt mandated companies (S&W M&P for example) voluntarily added the safety (and did a VERY poor job of it btw. So it would seem that "modern trends" as you call them are not a straight and narrow path, in fact, the trend appears to have made a U-turn.
Quote
To take this in a slightly different direction, would any of the 1911s devotees care to provide their arguments in favor of having a thumb safety on a personal defense sidearm? I think that might be interesting. Do you feel that you wouldn't be able to safety operate your sidearm without one?
Okey dokey………my wife has a S&W Shield with a hideous little-tiny-miniscule-nubbin of a slide safety, a truly poorly designed and ill-thought-out example of a slide safety; HOWEVER, when I occasionally borrow it and wear it in a "sticky" pocket holster, I very much appreciate having it there compared to the times that I carry a G-43 in the same rig and pocket. With the G-43, I get nervous every time I have to lift my leg to get into my truck, when I sit down or stretch my legs…..with the Shield I don't think/worry about it.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
I think if the Glock had debuted with a safety identical in location and operation to the 1911's, it would still be a huge success; and a few less people might have shot themselves in the ass with one.
Yes, I've heard this before. I remember that it was a common point of criticism when it was popular to post that video of the DEA agent who shot himself.
One point wherein modern trends depart favorably from the 1911 regards the absence of a manual thumb safety, which entirely eliminates the possibility of a failure to disengage it in the gravest extreme.
TRH, For the sake of moving your increasingly uninteresting discussion to its logical conclusion, let's stipulate that you - and maybe others - just can't train to a level of proficiency that you can disengage the TS reliably during presentation of a 1911.
A 1911 is perfectly safe to carry cocked with just the grip safety off, in a prioper holster. LTC Cooper cited examples of this practice and I've proven this to myself and consider it to be 'Condition 1/2'. It's not my routine practice, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it over proper training, but if I were as convinced as you that i couldn't reliably deactivate the TS, I might consider this as a viable option.
If you prefer something other than a 1911, great for you! No need for sophistry to try to prove the unprovable, or to convince yourself that a majority share your conclusions. Pick your SD pistol and own up to the choice. Hopefully you won't ever need to test it.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty of give me death! P. Henry
I think if the Glock had debuted with a safety identical in location and operation to the 1911's, it would still be a huge success; and a few less people might have shot themselves in the ass with one.
I read a while back when Gaston Glock was asked about the problems policed were having with negligent discharges he replied he designed the pistol for the Austrian army and designed it to be carried with an empty chamber. YMMV
The Karma bus always has an empty seat when it comes around.- High Brass
There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
I think if the Glock had debuted with a safety identical in location and operation to the 1911's, it would still be a huge success; and a few less people might have shot themselves in the ass with one.
I read a while back when Gaston Glock was asked about the problems policed were having with negligent discharges he replied he designed the pistol for the Austrian army and designed it to be carried with an empty chamber. YMMV
That makes sense.
Direct Impingement is the Fart Joke of military rifle operating systems. ⓒ
I think I've said what I want to say on this topic, and stand by it.
Exactly. There are people claiming to be able to do something vastly different and better than you, but rather than asking "how?" You just keep burying your head deeper in the sand. There are people here with a knowledge base so far above yours that you don't even know what you don't know. And if you were really interested in getting better you'd shut up and start taking notes.
Amazing arrogance. And, worse yet, you seem oblivious to it.
Arrogance is assuming that nobody else is capable of doing something you can't do.
. One point wherein modern trends depart favorably from the 1911 regards the absence of a manual thumb safety, which entirely eliminates the possibility of a failure to disengage it in the gravest extreme. This is a statement about technology, not one about an inability to handle a 1911 correctly, although many of the 1911's devotees like to frame it in that way any time someone disagrees with them on this point.
.
Since when did leaving a safety off qualify as technology?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
So really not trying to start a holy war, but I'm just wondering about how people feel about this.
Is low-cap just a deal breaker? Have you had such bad experience you just can't trust ANY 1911? Are you afraid if you carry a 1911 you'll be required to dress like an old man?
I still favor the 1911 over any and all Glocks. Glocks just don't fit my hands, and there are other alternatives that DO fit my hands that are equally reliable (XD, M&P). I'd take THOSE pistols over any Glock.
BUT, 1911s, BHPs and CZ-75ish guns fit my hands better yet.
No, they are NOT obsolete.
I liken it more to the air support used in Vietnam. Jets carried big payloads of bombs, but a A-1 Skyraider or two on station is a comfort that a fast-mover cannot match. They both work.
You can roll a turd in peanuts, dip it in chocolate, and it still ain't no damn Baby Ruth.
. One point wherein modern trends depart favorably from the 1911 regards the absence of a manual thumb safety, which entirely eliminates the possibility of a failure to disengage it in the gravest extreme. This is a statement about technology, not one about an inability to handle a 1911 correctly, although many of the 1911's devotees like to frame it in that way any time someone disagrees with them on this point.
.
Since when did leaving a safety off qualify as technology?
Combining that with a trigger type that doesn't require one (any more than a double action revolver does) is what I'm referring to.
Obsolete? No.. Heavy? Yep.. But the right high-quality holster can ease the latter.. I've got a Milt Sparks that clings that Kimber to my waist like saran wrap..
The wrong holster will make it feel like yer carryin' a 12" cement block..
On the other hand, the extra capacity of (say) the Ruger SR9C (17+) can make it a better choice over the 1911 when traveling in neighborhoods such as North Murderapolis where the little urban troubadours usually travel in packs of 4+... ...
Ex- USN (SS) '66-'69 Pro-Constitution. LET'S GO BRANDON!!!
One of our armorers always exclaims, "Ah, a blackpowder pistol." when shown a 1911. IIRC, John Browning submitted, what was to become the 1911, without the thumb safety but, the Army demanded it be added.
Shew me thy ways, O LORD: teach me thy paths. "there are few better cartridges on Earth than the 7 x 57mm Mauser" "the .30 Springfield is light, accurate, penetrating, and has surprising stopping power"
. One point wherein modern trends depart favorably from the 1911 regards the absence of a manual thumb safety, which entirely eliminates the possibility of a failure to disengage it in the gravest extreme. This is a statement about technology, not one about an inability to handle a 1911 correctly, although many of the 1911's devotees like to frame it in that way any time someone disagrees with them on this point.
.
Since when did leaving a safety off qualify as technology?
Combining that with a trigger type that doesn't require one (any more than a double action revolver does) is what I'm referring to.
The trigger is not as long of a pull as a double action and with the amount of AD's one could argue that it indeed needs a safety.
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Combining that with a trigger type that doesn't require one (any more than a double action revolver does) is what I'm referring to.
The trigger is not as long of a pull as a double action and with the amount of AD's one could argue that it indeed needs a safety.
I can see that as a reasonable basis for disagreement, for sure. Depends on where you place your priorities, i.e., more on eliminating the need to disengage a manual thumb safety for that crucial first shot out of the holster, or more on decreasing the chance of an unintended discharge. Reasonable people can certainly disagree as to those aims and where they fall on that continuum. As for me, I think the length of travel and weight (on an unaltered Glock's trigger) provides sufficient margin for safety in the direction of that provided by a double action revolver so as not to require a manual thumb safety in order to operate safely. Again, reasonable people may differ on this, and it would depend on where they place the greater emphasis.
My EDC is a Glock 19. It is so because it is a compromise for me for concealability and capacity. I shoot it very well and don't worry about it going bang.
That being said, if I could afford that sweet Wilson that Mackay posted that is 1911 (2011?) with G19 size and capacity, I would buy it and carry it in a heartbeat. Maybe now that it is out, someone else will copy and make one a normal guy can afford. I see that STI makes one similar, but also similar price..
Last edited by RyanTX; 06/12/17.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." - Ronald Reagan
One of our armorers always exclaims, "Ah, a blackpowder pistol." when shown a 1911. IIRC, John Browning submitted, what was to become the 1911, without the thumb safety but, the Army demanded it be added.
I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw from that. A look at all of JMB's prototypes will show he always left the safety to the producer of the weapon. I don't think I've ever seen a JMB prototype with a manual safety. Of course all the exposed hammer guns had a half cock, but his guns with no external hammer don't have safeties. That doesn't appear to show any "mantra" of his, but rather allowing the producer (whom is taking all the risk) decide how to address the safety.
As for the comparison of the 1911 to the Model T.....
1) The model T is no longer in production, and few spare parts are on the shelf. 2) The Model T is a danger on modern expressways, due to it's speed limitation - unless highly modified. 3) With its original engine, the Model T would not survive modern fuels. 4) Regardless of the operator's skill, the Model T is far less survivable in a collision than modern vehicles. 5) The model T looks great in a parade.
1) 1911 - current production is robust. Spare parts, abundant. 2) 1911 is as easy and as fast and accurate (with proper training) to the first shot as any modern design. 3) Any current common ammo that works in any other .45 auto will work in a proper 1911 without damaging it. 4) Operator's survival will be largely dependent on skill. 5) The 1911 looks great in a parade.
In the same way that a wood burning fireplace is obsolete for home heat.................
Guess I don't know what to make of it though. I heat with wood almost exclusively, and it's cheaper, and more comfortable than most other sources I have available (and yes, I live in civilization). But it does take some skill in acquisition and use.
In the same way that a wood burning fireplace is obsolete for home heat.................
Guess I don't know what to make of it though. I heat with wood almost exclusively, and it's cheaper, and more comfortable than most other sources I have available (and yes, I live in civilization). But it does take some skill in acquisition and use.
So you're still using the Franklin wood stove, rather than a more technologically advanced model?
In the same way that a wood burning fireplace is obsolete for home heat.................
Guess I don't know what to make of it though. I heat with wood almost exclusively, and it's cheaper, and more comfortable than most other sources I have available (and yes, I live in civilization). But it does take some skill in acquisition and use.
So you're still using the Franklin wood stove, rather than a more technologically advanced model?
Actually - my FIL is. But his needs are small. He stays away from high value targets too.
[edit: Strike that - my FIL's stove isn't even as advanced as a Franklin stove. /edit]
But no - my wood stove has more modern adaptations that help. So does my 1911. With either of them, skill and knowledge of the device are paramount.
In the same way that a wood burning fireplace is obsolete for home heat.................
Guess I don't know what to make of it though. I heat with wood almost exclusively, and it's cheaper, and more comfortable than most other sources I have available (and yes, I live in civilization). But it does take some skill in acquisition and use.
FirePlace or Wood Stove - 1911
Does it do the job requested yes/yes Should you hand the noobie a box of matches/bullets and say go for it? no/no Are there limitations? yes/yes Can they be operated safely? yes/yes Can the techinicals of use be learned? yes/yes Is 'fodder' generally available? yes/yes Do naked women look good in the 'glow' of one? yes/yes Can women learn to use them? yes/yes Should they? / Can they be customized? yes/yes Should you have one in the shower? no/no How about the outhouse? sure,why not/absolutely! Could they be considered 'Art'? yes/YES
I'm sure there are many more considerations.
Nice thread!
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
Yep, I get it. Those who choose a carry gun other than the venerable 1911 do so due to not possessing handgun skill.
Oh hell no. That is not my point. You know I have been carrying a couple of striker pistols much of the time myself. I will admit though that I gravitate to the strikers and to revolvers when I feel delinquent in practice with my SA autos. Currently, I have unusual physical limitations that restrict me from using any manual safety with my right hand for defensive purposes, as a practical matter - so I;m glad we have a choice.
Yep, I get it. Those who choose a carry gun other than the venerable 1911 do so due to not possessing handgun skill.
Oh hell no. That is not my point. You know I have been carrying a couple of striker pistols much of the time myself. I will admit though that I gravitate to the strikers and to revolvers when I feel delinquent in practice with my SA autos. Currently, I have unusual physical limitations that restrict me from using any manual safety with my right hand for defensive purposes, as a practical matter - so I;m glad we have a choice.
Maybe it's just me (probably is), I guess since my background is in executive protection, I find it strange that no one mentions threat assessment whatsoever in helping to determine their weapon choice. Now maybe that's more pertinent in choosing between carrying a picket gun, vs. a holster gun. But I think it can be pertinent in determining your holster gun...at least a little. For me, since I live in an area where shootings are for the most part unheard of, and in the rare instance when they do happen, it has yet to be a multiple threat scenario; I kinda use that knowledge to make me feel a little more warm & fuzzy about carrying something with a single column magazine or revolver in the case of my pocket guns.
When I carry my Colt Agent, LW Comander, Hi Power, CZ-75, or CZ-P09; I don't fee any "less armed" with any of them in my area. Now if I were in a locale where violence was much more common place, where shootings happen at least semi-frequently, or God forbid, frequently. Well then, I'm going to be very choosy about what I carry. I'll be carrying Hi-Cap and maybe even two spare mags. (and an air strike on speed dial!!)
….not wanting to be amazingly arrogant nor oblivious to it……the fact that many (almost all) of the new striker-fired guns have retro-engineered slide (thumb) safeties on their guns AFTER the original specie hit the market would seem to be a giant fly in the ointment of that argument. The Govt. mandated safety on the military version of the Sig 320 would seem to unravel the "obsolescence" issue of the argument that people with an adrenaline dump can't/won't work the safety. The non-Govt mandated companies (S&W M&P for example) voluntarily added the safety (and did a VERY poor job of it btw. So it would seem that "modern trends" as you call them are not a straight and narrow path, in fact, the trend appears to have made a U-turn.
Very insightful.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
I'm wondering mechanically how the new M17 safety actually works? The reason I ask is the M9 safety is a safety/decocker and the way the USAF loads the M9 is with the safety on and the slide locked back, insert the muzzle into the clearing barrel opening, insert the magazine, drop the slide, flip the safety off, and holster the weapon.
The Karma bus always has an empty seat when it comes around.- High Brass
There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
1. A reliable gun/ammo combo that goes bang every time (this goes for 1911 as well as polymer striker guns). 2. An operator who knows how to use their equipment (again, this goes for a 1911 as well as polymer).
The 1911 is as good as anything and most likely better than most (as in easier to make hits quickly), at least until mag capacity runs out. I suppose it is up to the operator to determine if the last 2 to 7 rounds a polymer gun carries are important. What it really comes down to is what works for the individual. Excellent work can be done with many platforms. Most folks find it easier to make good hits quickly with a good trigger, which the 1911 possesses in spades.
I can and have won competitions with a stock Glock. I have done it with stock 1911's as well. I like them both, and don't feel under armed with either. I enjoy shooting 1911's more, at least right now.
I'm wondering mechanically how the new M17 safety actually works? The reason I ask is the M9 safety is a safety/decocker and the way the USAF loads the M9 is with the safety on and the slide locked back, insert the muzzle into the clearing barrel opening, insert the magazine, drop the slide, flip the safety off, and holster the weapon.
The M17 thumb safety is a trigger block that doesn't affect slide manipulation.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
The 1911 is as good as anything and most likely better than most (as in easier to make hits quickly), at least until mag capacity runs out. I suppose it is up to the operator to determine if the last 2 to 7 rounds a polymer gun carries are important.
Apparently the 1911 can be assumed to be a micro to full-size, $399 to $5,000, .22 to .50 caliber, but it can't be any more than 7+1 or less than 38-oz. due to the 1911 vs. Glock Rulebook.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
That's a 2011, not a 1911. But yes, the same basic design can also have the capacity advantage of a Glock. And in most handgun competition that allows the shooter to choose, that's what they pick...the capacity of the Glock and the trigger of the 1911.
That's a 2011, not a 1911. But yes, the same basic design can also have the capacity advantage of a Glock. And in most handgun competition that allows the shooter to choose, that's what they pick...the capacity of the Glock and the trigger of the 1911.
I would never choose one for defense though. I was at a competition once and there was a part where the competitor walked/ran down a little sidewalk. Well the competitor in question had an STI and actually tripped when stepping up onto the sidewalk portion, came down really fast and slammed the pistol on the pavement, which separated the polymer section from the steel rail section...a bit sobering. Felt bad for the guy, because it was a VERY nice STI.
One of the absolute best competition pistols out there, but not a combat pistol (at least in my book).
1. A reliable gun/ammo combo that goes bang every time (this goes for 1911 as well as polymer striker guns). 2. An operator who knows how to use their equipment (again, this goes for a 1911 as well as polymer).
The 1911 is as good as anything and most likely better than most (as in easier to make hits quickly), at least until mag capacity runs out. I suppose it is up to the operator to determine if the last 2 to 7 rounds a polymer gun carries are important. What it really comes down to is what works for the individual. Excellent work can be done with many platforms. Most folks find it easier to make good hits quickly with a good trigger, which the 1911 possesses in spades.
I can and have won competitions with a stock Glock. I have done it with stock 1911's as well. I like them both, and don't feel under armed with either. I enjoy shooting 1911's more, at least right now.
Most sensible post yet. Most of the discussion on this thread consists of the handgun equivalent of the rifle loonies' "ballistic gack." The guy on the trigger is still the critical element. Most of the actual gunfight winners I've known know little and care less about all this. Just as so many successful hunters aren't "gun guys", neither are most successful gunfighters.
I don't know the ratio. I shot IDPA for a number of years with a G17 and then all the 1911 guys ribbed me and claimed I usually beat them because of the 9mm chambering and 10+1 capacity advantage. I had a good friend offer to let me load on his Dillon if I bought a 1911, so I bought a stock Colt and still won the club matches most of the time. Capacity limitations sideline the 1911 in high volume run and gun USPSA matches, but the 2011 shines there. It has been several years since I was really serious about competition, so guns may have changed a bit.
Always have been intrigued by the high capacity 2011's, just could never justify one for my own use. They are large pistols for sure. I don't think I could carry one concealed. Some I have seen carry the G20's IWB, I cannot.
One interesting point about the 1911 is that it was essentially on its way out before the assault weapons ban went into place. Suddenly, it's popularity boomed in the civilian market. The thinking was, if I can't have a high capacity 9mm, and have to keep magazine capacity under 10, I'll be better served with nine rounds of .45 ACP than with eleven rounds of 9mm, and at that time .45 ACP was nearly synonymous with a 1911. Suddenly, everyone was making them with a whole array of optional features. It gave the design a real shot in the arm.
Always have been intrigued by the high capacity 2011's, just could never justify one for my own use. They are large pistols for sure. I don't think I could carry one concealed. Some I have seen carry the G20's IWB, I cannot.
The STI Guardian in the photo is 15+1, 25-oz, and within a 1/10" or so of the box size of a Glock 19. Magazines can be had up to 26 rounds.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
Para had their hi-capacity model out years ago, anyone have/had one?
The late, great Louis Awerbuck carried one frequently IIRC…..along with a Glock and a couple of other things…..for a little guy, he had to weigh 300 pounds when fully kitted out. A close friend of mine was so enamored with Louis that he acquired one……apparently Louis got one of the few that worked well.
Last edited by gmoats; 06/13/17.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
In an article in Popular Mechanics about the M-17 (military version of the Sig 320) they make the following comment:
"The XM17 Modular Handgun System competition was crafted to take advantage of new handgun technologies invented since the M9 entered service in 1985. The gun was required to feature a MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail under the barrel for attaching lasers and lights. It would have a threaded barrel for a suppressor, ambidextrous controls for lefties, and a loaded chamber indicator. The modularity was in a requirement for swappable grip panels of different sizes, to accommodate hands of different sizes."
It sounds like their definition of "obsolete" is a vague antonym for "to take advantage of new handgun technologies." Therefore, to avoid obsolescence a handgun must have: 1. Picatinny rail 2. Barrel threaded for suppressor 3. Ambidextrous controls 4. Loaded chamber indicator 5. "Swappable grip panels" (different sized backstraps)
If one accepts Popular Mechanics' definition as the litmus test for obsolescence (I don't), then the 1911 fulfills (at least potentially with many models) 4/5 of the requirements, and "swappable backstraps" precludes almost every steel or metal alloy framed handgun that I can think of.
Last edited by gmoats; 06/13/17.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
In an article in Popular Mechanics about the M-17 (military version of the Sig 320) they make the following comment:
"The XM17 Modular Handgun System competition was crafted to take advantage of new handgun technologies invented since the M9 entered service in 1985. The gun was required to feature a MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail under the barrel for attaching lasers and lights. It would have a threaded barrel for a suppressor, ambidextrous controls for lefties, and a loaded chamber indicator. The modularity was in a requirement for swappable grip panels of different sizes, to accommodate hands of different sizes."
It sounds like their definition of "obsolete" is a vague antonym for "to take advantage of new handgun technologies." Therefore, to avoid obsolescence a handgun must have: 1. Picatinny rail 2. Barrel threaded for suppressor 3. Ambidextrous controls 4. Loaded chamber indicator 5. "Swappable grip panels" (different sized backstraps)
If one accepts Popular Mechanics' definition as the litmus test for obsolescence (I don't), then the 1911 fulfills (at least potentially with many models) 4/5 of the requirements, and "swappable backstraps" precludes almost every steel or metal alloy framed handgun that I can think of.
I don't think different sized backstraps is necessarily the definition. I think they intentionally left that a bit vague to see what they got, and swapping the entire grip frame turned out to be the one they were most interested in.
If one accepts Popular Mechanics' definition as the litmus test for obsolescence (I don't), then the 1911 fulfills (at least potentially with many models) 4/5 of the requirements, and "swappable backstraps" precludes almost every steel or metal alloy framed handgun that I can think of.
I get 5/5. The slot cut in the hood of some models is meant as a loaded chamber indicator.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
Para had their hi-capacity model out years ago, anyone have/had one?
My first dedicated steel gun was made from one of the original PO frame kits (back when PO only made frame kits). It was an aluminum frame that was a good deal less ergonomic than their later design. I ran it with no grips and skateboard tape wrapped around it. I will say, that aluminum frame held up very well, all the holes were drilled in the right place, and the original .38 Super magazine was one tough magazine. PO had a very good start if you ask me.
For CC for a civilian, I don't see that the 1911 is necessarily obsolete. There are a few scenarios I can think of where it wouldn't be a great choice, but that's about it. However, in military circles, I consider the 1911 quite obsolete. It's not that they're not capable on the battlefield, they are. On the battlefield you'll typically put 2-4 magazines through a 1911 at most; and it has proven come rain or shine, mud, muck, sand etc, it will be reliable for those 2-4 magazines. But modern training demands a LOT from a military handgun, and the 1911 has been found sorely lacking.
One interesting point about the 1911 is that it was essentially on its way out before the assault weapons ban went into place. Suddenly, it's popularity boomed in the civilian market. The thinking was, if I can't have a high capacity 9mm, and have to keep magazine capacity under 10, I'll be better served with nine rounds of .45 ACP than with eleven rounds of 9mm, and at that time .45 ACP was nearly synonymous with a 1911. Suddenly, everyone was making them with a whole array of optional features. It gave the design a real shot in the arm.
I think that also coincided with when CNC machining got cheap enough that small to mid-sized manufacturers could have CNC shops. Suddenly the 1911 was available from a number of suppliers. Features went up, price went down, and good ole fashioned competition made the 1911 market much more interesting. While the AWB may have given it a boost, I really think it was good old fashioned capitalism in motion that really drove (and still drives) the 1911 market. After all, if it was the AWB that did it, you'd expect that it would have curtained some with the sunset, but in fact it continued to expand exponentially.
In an article in Popular Mechanics about the M-17 (military version of the Sig 320) they make the following comment:
"The XM17 Modular Handgun System competition was crafted to take advantage of new handgun technologies invented since the M9 entered service in 1985. The gun was required to feature a MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail under the barrel for attaching lasers and lights. It would have a threaded barrel for a suppressor, ambidextrous controls for lefties, and a loaded chamber indicator. The modularity was in a requirement for swappable grip panels of different sizes, to accommodate hands of different sizes."
It sounds like their definition of "obsolete" is a vague antonym for "to take advantage of new handgun technologies." Therefore, to avoid obsolescence a handgun must have: 1. Picatinny rail 2. Barrel threaded for suppressor 3. Ambidextrous controls 4. Loaded chamber indicator 5. "Swappable grip panels" (different sized backstraps)
If one accepts Popular Mechanics' definition as the litmus test for obsolescence (I don't), then the 1911 fulfills (at least potentially with many models) 4/5 of the requirements, and "swappable backstraps" precludes almost every steel or metal alloy framed handgun that I can think of.
Never mind "obsolete". I don't think I accept PM's definition of "new handgun technologies...".
One interesting point about the 1911 is that it was essentially on its way out before the assault weapons ban went into place. Suddenly, it's popularity boomed in the civilian market. The thinking was, if I can't have a high capacity 9mm, and have to keep magazine capacity under 10, I'll be better served with nine rounds of .45 ACP than with eleven rounds of 9mm, and at that time .45 ACP was nearly synonymous with a 1911. Suddenly, everyone was making them with a whole array of optional features. It gave the design a real shot in the arm.
I think that also coincided with when CNC machining got cheap enough that small to mid-sized manufacturers could have CNC shops. Suddenly the 1911 was available from a number of suppliers. Features went up, price went down, and good ole fashioned competition made the 1911 market much more interesting. While the AWB may have given it a boost, I really think it was good old fashioned capitalism in motion that really drove (and still drives) the 1911 market. After all, if it was the AWB that did it, you'd expect that it would have curtained some with the sunset, but in fact it continued to expand exponentially.
Certain trends acquire a momentum, then continue along the momentum line long after the force driving it has disappeared.
I look at the issue fairly simply, if I'm going to carry a weapon to protect my family and myself, I want the most effective weapon I can obtain. IMHO, nostalgia plays absolutely no roll in tipping the odds in your favor when your or your loved ones lives are on the line.
What he said ^
In spades
1st handgun was a Ruger security six
1st handgun I fell in love with was a 1911 govt model colt 70 series
Few iterations over the years
.38 super
Para ordnance P-13. There's hi cap for you
Kimber pro carry
My lord there's just so much to love about a 1911
But bottom line a handgun is a tool
In high stress situation KISS
Technology changes the game. For a long time any serious defensive round started with a .4? For me personally
But youse bastids with your logic and common sense moved me into 9's a few years ago, plus the glock KABOOM possibilty
My oldest son still likes the 23 and 22's well actually think he prefers the spfd xd . Youngest is all about the 19
Guns are cool and I've always liked em but at the end of the day they're a tool
Handgun is the tool you choose cause it's impractical to carry a rifle
For me to have the same confidence in a 1911 vs the plastic I've got to spend twice the money and sans the para ordnance I've got less rounds on board
One of the things I like most about ugly glocks is it's impossible for me to see it as anything other than the bic lighters of handguns
Just like bic lighters they work, no reason not to have a few handy
Last edited by 2legit2quit; 06/13/17.
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
I said this in another thread maybe a month ago. I was in Cabela's Gun library. The fella said that they are restricting buying plastic guns. Especially .40 S&W's.
Their national inventory on plastic guns is huge he said. All makes and models. Even 15% off did not move very many. They will buy your 1911.
I know----- price.
Gun Shows are almost as comical as boat ramps in the Spring.
[quote=viking]Para had their hi-capacity model out years ago, anyone have/had one?[/quote
Yep as a 1911 afficiando I thought at the time it was "the answer"
Handling characteristics change somewhat with the larger grip and weight of extra .45 rounds
Had a lil tuning done to it to aid reliability, who knows maybe that was just wasted money ?
It was a fairly limited relationship with it though I liked it, but didn't carry or handle as well ( in my hands anyway) as a conventional 1911
My wife was my motivation to get a glock, I was away for long periods of time and wanted hi cap, simplistic operation for her for the bedroom handgun safe that held it, two addtl mags, a surelight and a prepaid cell phone
As we began to train with it, I grew to like the ugly pos
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
My F-250 pickup has a manual transmission. It's not obsolete either, but it's no longer offered. Lots of folks just don't know how to use a manual tranny anymore.
I got rid of all my manual transmission cars because I figured under stress I would forget how to shift gears.
Drop the mike.
Ok that was good
But for real life, family etc I'm still a fan of KISS
but then I've always been a fan of using the gear that works for you, not others.
And yep the Indian every time
Ain't no technology that replaces skill and the ability to function in high stress situations
Last edited by 2legit2quit; 06/13/17.
I'm pretty certain when we sing our anthem and mention the land of the free, the original intent didn't mean cell phones, food stamps and birth control.
...But bottom line a handgun is a tool...Guns are cool and I've always liked em but at the end of the day they're a tool...Handgun is the tool you choose cause it's impractical to carry a rifle ...
….I understand the sentiment, but just can't bring myself to view guns in general and handguns in specific as just a tool……there's art, romance and maybe a little religion or at least moral philosophy in their DNA which makes them much more "alive" than a shovel or a hammer or any other tool IMO---but then I'm a child of the 50's and 60's when patriotism, manhood and most noble characteristics were manifested on TV and in the movies by the actor's portrayal of gun handling. I can't visualize Shane's Single Action Army as a shovel. I can't see Vic Morrow (from "Combat")'s Thompson as a hammer. Jimmy Stewart's rifle in "Winchester 73" had a life of it's own and nothing like tool.
Some guns like the 1911 have a "soul" independent of their use and a value beyond the sum of their parts…..others develop a "soul" by their use…..the first time that I saw Ken Hackathorn shoot a drill with a G-19, I saw a Glock with a soul. Hackathorn once said that Glocks were the perfect gun for someone that treats their pistol the way they treat their lawnmower----Ken's a died in the wool 1911 guy that frequently uses Glocks because that's what most of his students showed up with. While I generally carry a Wiley Clapp Cmdr., I've come to like striker fired, tupperware guns just because they're pragmatic and easier to train new shooters with than a 1911. That certainly doesn't make a 1911 "obsolete" anymore than single malt scotch makes microbrewery beer "obsolete." It may achieve the ultimate result quicker, but in the end it's a matter of taste.
The blindness from subjectivity is indistinguishable from the darkness of ignorance.
I started with Ruger single 6 convertible to 22 magnum, had a high standard GB model (IIRC), high power, model 70 colt with the weird bushing, gold cups, pythons, model 27 smiths, 19 smiths, dozens of 5 shot smith and wesson guns, a few ruger revolvers, then a couple of Kimbers,SIG's, HK's some more colt 1911's had an old remington rand for a while, horribly inaccurate, even a Keltec gosh I cannot remember them all... then glocks and more glocks most all 9mm but I have had a few 40's, 10mm, 45acp glocks. I have had more than one 1911 bobble on me over the years, failure of one type or another most run fine for a lot of rounds but several have not a time or five. The glocks I don't ever clean them I guess I should once in a while, in 20 years I cannot recall one of them not working when called to do so. I shot a bunch of lead bullets out of the 40's before someone told me it was not safe. So I usually carry a G43 or G19 these days. I don't think they are perfection because their plastic sights suck, the grip aint the best, early plastic magazines sucked, however they have been more reliable for me. I have no idea but guess I have owned over 200 plus or so handguns however Glocks, Ruger Revolvers and SW revolvers have been the most reliable.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://s18.photobucket.com/user/IV_Troop/media/Handguns/FullSizeRender%2032_zpsk7h3r8sv.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ae/9a/85/ae9a85b36355d015ef443ed6bb2c85b2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s260.photobucket.com/user/RobertOIF2/media/DSC_2050_zps9a3fe486.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s260.photobucket.com/user/RobertOIF2/media/3%203_zps8eyn9or0.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s260.photobucket.com/user/RobertOIF2/media/DSC_2611_zpsaf62bb4f.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s399.photobucket.com/user/wildcatter264/media/Tools/IMG_1138.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s399.photobucket.com/user/wildcatter264/media/Tools/IMG_1135.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s399.photobucket.com/user/wildcatter264/media/Tools/IMG_1140.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s29.photobucket.com/user/Muffin1954/media/26461208-0d52-454b-8d3a-ffa343f842ad_zpskriioatt.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://stiguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guardian-ds-2016.jpg)