Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glocks just work.

I think your the Dumb-ASS PAL! The model 1911 has come a hell of a long way since it's inception. The COLT Gold Cups and model 70 series are just a couple to mention. Plant that BS flag on your lawn.

From WWI on the 1911 carved out an enviable reputation for itself.

You are not smart enough to know what you don't know

Nothing like folks' preferences in handguns to bring out the warmth and camaraderie of the 'Fire.

Tonk - if you think, as you seem to be saying, that our recent ancestors (1900-era) did not have the ability or desire to mass-produce a semi-auto handgun that is both reliable and accurate (1911 Government), then you are truly clueless.

It doesn't take any high-technology or magic to make an accurate handgun - just some basic engineering. Our steel was quite good circ. 1900. The only real trick is reliability. And if you think a man with the experience of JMB couldn't design in reliability without making the gun inaccurate, you are again clueless.

The only thing "high-tech" about the Glock is the material it's made of. The design elements aren't new.

Seems you have a pretty low opinion of our grandfathers' intellect.

I guess the reason that SGT Major Plumley only used the 1911 the entire battle of LZ X-Ray is because of it's inaccuracy, right Tonk?

You are one clueless individual

The more I read of Tonk's lousy 1911's, the more I suspect he's had a go at "tuning" 'em.

And - for the record - (lest someone skimming over this gets the wrong idea) - I don't have any real problem with Glocks. They work fine, but I just don't like 'em.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/Glock_vs_1911.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reliability - I have seen more feed failures on 1911-pattern guns than I have with Glocks (or Smith & Wessons and Berettas, for that matter). My personal 1911's, a Springfield and a Kimber, don't experience feed failures, although the Springfield did have a couple when it was new. At a recent IDPA match, I witnessed a Les Baer Custom and Colt Gold Cup experience failure to feed. The original mil-spec 1911A1 is a very reliable gun when using the mil-spec ammo around which it was designed, and contemporary 1911's which are properly throated and broken in are also extremely reliable. The original 1911's which were issued to the Army were built with very liberal tolerances�you could call them loose�because the Army valued reliability under adverse conditions above pinpoint accuracy. Many of the feed reliability problems with 1911 pistols arise from efforts to tighten up the frame, slide, barrel and bushing in order to achieve "match grade" accuracy. Glocks don't tend to suffer feed failures, but in order to achieve this reliability, they have more of their chambers cut away, leaving more of the case unsupported. This design feature has led to some blown Glock .40 S&W pistols. For more on this, see Dean Speir's Glock KaBoom FAQ. One reliability issue which I've seen more with Glocks than other pistols is their occasional failure to detonate primers. While Glock advocates will say that other pistols have the same problem, I've only seen it happen on Glocks. While Glock true-believers are driven to proclaim their guns as the ultimate in reliability, the NYPD has been experiencing extractor problems and double feeds on their Glock 9mms
Durability - I have heard claims that Glocks have launched as many as 300,000 rounds from a single pistol without a failure. I've never seen any documentation which would substantiate these claims, and I remain a bit skeptical about it. I'd like to see the gun, the round, and the test conditions. The FBI tests did document 50,000 rounds through the Glock .40 S&W without a breakdown, and that's an impressive performance. The original Army endurance test for the 1911 was 6,000 rounds. A well-built 1911 can be expected to have a service life of 150,000 rounds, although a part may break here or there during its lifetime. Only time will tell if the first Glocks will still be serviceable seventy five years from now. We know that many of the early 1911's are still functional and greatly desired by collectors.

Accuracy - In my opinion, an average government model 1911 is likely to be more accurate than the best Glock. In addition to that, 1911's can be tuned for greater accuracy whereas the Glock can't be. Between a really outstanding match grade 1911 and a Glock there is no contest in terms of accuracy. Glocks have acceptable accuracy for their intended mission, that being close range combat, but they are not tack-drivers. I haven't had opportunity to test one of the new long slide Glocks, but my initial impression is that they are an answer in search of a question.

related to the subject, which is better Estwing or Stanley hammer?


my money is on the carpenter swinging it.

I think that one of Glocks selling points is the fact that it is a low maintance pistol.

I have several Glocks and every one of them fed/feed and function reliably rigth out of the box.

I am not suggesting that the 1911 design is less reliable, I am only suggesting the 1911 requires one to know more about its design to properly maintain it.

For example, someone a while back (I think it was you jwp475) gave an excellent explaination as to the working of the 1911 mag--or rather--how they should work. The average person--or duty officer would likely not know how to properly tune a 1911 mag. Whereas for the Glock, this is not an issue.

Another area is lubrication. In my limited experiance, the only time I really had issues with 1911's is when not properly lubricated. I've heard several prominate shooters say that the 1911 likes to be run "wet". This is not an issue with Glocks.

These are but simple examples of why I think Glocks require less maintance to keep them reliable.

The thing with Glock, that puts them out of sorts with the more analytical minded, is the advertisement of "perfection". This predisposes such minded individuals to prove that they are not so, and estabilishes a bias againt them from the get-go.

It appears that Glock has proven to be an excellent duty weapon. Perfect? No--nothing is!

I have read about several glock range pistols that have documented one million rounds through them. Are there any 1911's that have been shot a million times?

The accuracy issue I don't think is a fair comparison. The glock was never intended to be a bullseye gun that the 1911 is. Would a bullseye gun run 100% of the time? Would they feed hollow points? Is it fair to compare a $500 pistol to a $3500 to $5000 pistol?

I like the 1911. A matter of fact I was looking at springfield's new range master last night. For a pure fighting pistol for the average guy I think the glock wins in durability, ease of use and accuracy. Its hard enough to get guys to qualify with a glock I can't imagine what would happen if they had a thumb safety to mess with and have to clean thier guns more than once a year.

Dink

JWP - I liked this quote from your link...



Thing is though....I don't entirely agree with Mr Cooper. I know at least a few guys who shoot Glocks really well (for practical purposes). A couple of them were still in LE when they first started using the Glock, and did well with it from the start. I can get by pretty well with one myself after a little time for familiarization. Admittedly, I'm talking about "gun guys" here. And on that note, there clearly are some "gun guys" in LEO - probably more so in the rural west.

But his overall point is valid, and a little amusing.

That's not it at all. It is the silly ass Glock-o-phile bullsheet that pops up everytime a conversation begins about how superior Glock is to all other handguns for any and all purposes and how depressingly stupid it would be to carry anything less than a Glock. It is quite evident in this very thread how some feel the Glock somehow never needs maintenance, never malfunctions, never breaks, can withstand punishment a 100 pound stainless steel anvil could not, ect. blah, blah. These same people endlessly spout the party line refusing to acknowledge or listen to any other opinion or facts regarding anything that might upset their belief in the infallible Glock. Most of that is based simply upon what they have read or watched on YouTube with no regard to the credibility of the source and/or in which they have no real personal training or experience. They just keep parroting the same rehearsed lines over and over with no conscious thought applied to seeking a sensible medium. IMHO this is what inspires and fuels much of the anti-Glock argument.

No, but I think it's fair to compare a basic 1911 with a Glock. On that count, they would probably be about the same - or at least close enough to not be an issue.

But the Glock would probably cost less to produce, all else being equal. And it would be lighter.

I have no idea which gun would survive the most rounds of similar power fired, but I wonder how that plastic will survive time? Suppose there will be many heirloom Glocks in 50 or 60 years? We won't know for a while yet...

I agree with you 100%, the Glock that I shot was easy to hit with for me, no more so than a 1911 and no worse either

That is a weapon problem or a people problem? Because of a lack of dedicated training, laziness, and pure economics coupled with aggressive marketing and hyperbole we now have "Weapons for Dummies - the Glock!" BTW, there are quite a few LE agencies that issue 1911's and do quite well with them.

I don't believe Mr. Cooper's statement to be 100% true. LEO's can be trained to shoot well. It's up to the Admin. of those agencies to insure that they do.

It's called additional range time, teaching marksmenship and combat tactics. Making LEO's responsible for the results of their range time, good, bad or indifferent.

Good shooters can be rewarded, while poor shooters can be disciplined. But you must insure that the poor shooters, have been taught how to be good shooters.

Manytimes it's the upper Admin. who doesn't want to spend the money or who hasn't been on the street in so long, they don't have a flippen clue as to what's happening.

A good read on the LAPD SWAT unit and the 1911 they use

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_161_27/ai_95120539/

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Mr Tonk has about the worst case of this I have seen, but I have heard (on YouTube) that there are treatments now that can cure this.