1911's work when drenched in Mud

[Guest rystine]

Any proof that they have changed? Any reasons why they would change? I dont see a gun that has worked for at least 15 years (in Delta, that I know of) just start having so many problems that they decide to give up on it and change.

No proof, just my own observations. In the thousands of pictures and dozens of news reports or documentaries made about SOF in Iraq or Afghanistan I've never seen a 1911. It's all over the internet, on forums and gun articles written by wannabe toughguys, that the 1911 is still in service. But everytime you see a film or picture of SOF, they've got a HK or a Glock; and of the relatively small number of "operators" I met while in service I never saw any 1911s. I realize that this is a very small portion of the SOF community, but if the 1911 is as prevelent in the SOCOM community certainly some of these guys would have some wouldn't they? I've simply come to the point that I think the 1911 still being in widespread service (at least in Iraq or A-stan) is simply something that 1911 guys say to feel good.

Now there was the link to the USMC article on 1911s, and from what I've searched it seems the FBI HRT uses them, so I seem to be wrong.

Why would they change? Simple logistics. the 1911 is heavy, single stack, and relatively maitenance intensive. It requires fairly regular replacement of parts, which often require minor custom fitting (hence why Vickers became so versed in the 1911). Gunsmithing requires some tools, which take up space that could be better served carrying something else if the gun didn't require them. Take away the fact that a 1911 feels good in hand; what can you do with a 1911 that you can't do with a comparitively low maitenance HK45 (which Larry Vickers helped design) or Glock 17?

The 1911 worked for a long time, no doubt about that. But it seems that more practical firearms are moving into holsters. It's not that the 1911 would have just started having problems, it's always required a certain amount of work to keep it running 100%. And newer, more modern, handguns which are lighter, have just as much practical accuracy, carry more rounds, and require much less work to keep them going are what seems to be in use from my observations.

It goes back to that Ferrari vs. Honda argument. Ferraris are tons of fun to drive (I assume ). But they also require frequent service by very well trained mechanics to keep in top notch condition. While a Honda is boring, it will get you where your going. All you have to do is change the oil and it will still outlast the Ferrari and cost a fraction of the price. A zippo is undeniably cool, but you've got to keep it filled with fluid, and change the flint and wick. Plus it costs way more and is heavy for a lighter. A $1 bic will light a smoke just as well as a zippo, but doesnt require any of that work that goes with the zippo.

Edited April 25, 2010 by rystine

[Guest Jamie]

Simple logistics. the 1911 is heavy, single stack, and relatively maitenance intensive. It requires fairly regular replacement of parts, which often require minor custom fitting (hence why Vickers became so versed in the 1911).

How is a 1911 that much more difficult to maintain than any other pistol, or require more frequent maintenance?

And the only parts I can think of that would need to be changed on a regular basis are the recoil spring, the extractor, and the barrel link. And none of those things are apt to have a short lifespan unless they are abused in some way. Hell, springs need to be replaced in all firearms, sooner or later. Extractors breaking or wearing out isn't exactly an unknown phenomena for any gun either. As for the link... better to sacrifice a small bit of metal than the frame, slide, or barrel of the gun.

A $1 bic will light a smoke just as well as a zippo, but doesnt require any of that work that goes with the zippo.

Yes, but a Zippo is worth more, and will be around long after a thousand Bics are in the land fill. And if for some reason it quits working, it can usually be repaired.

In the end though, it is all up to personal preference, and the knowledge and ability of the user.

Still, how many people are totally befuddled when any machine they own stops working to suit 'em?

J.

[Guest rystine]

How is a 1911 that much more difficult to maintain than any other pistol, or require more frequent maintenance?

And the only parts I can think of that would need to be changed on a regular basis are the recoil spring, the extractor, and the barrel link. And none of those things are apt to have a short lifespan unless they are abused in some way. Hell, springs need to be replaced in all firearms, sooner or later. Extractors breaking or wearing out isn't exactly an unknown phenomena for any gun either. As for the link... better to sacrifice a small bit of metal than the frame, slide, or barrel of the gun.

Yes, but a Zippo is worth more, and will be around long after a thousand Bics are in the land fill. And if for some reason it quits working, it can usually be repaired.

In the end though, it is all up to personal preference, and the knowledge and ability of the user.

Still, how many people are totally befuddled when any machine they own stops working to suit 'em?

J.

I'm hardly versed on maitenance for a 1911. It certainly doesn't need to be pristine to funtion, but you can't "forget about it" either. And, once again bring Vickers into the conversation, lubrication is necessarry

Lubricating the 1911 | Lubrication | Tactical Tips | Larry Vickers

While on a plastic "wondernine" like a Glock, or a HK45, lube is not nearly so important, nor cleaning in general. And replacing parts for such handguns are usually drop in. At risk of sounding like a Glock fanboy (I don't even currently own a Glock), it's not unheard of to take a 17 out of the box without cleaning or lubricant and putting 20-30 thousand rounds or more through it without issue.

As far as zippos, once again they are the definition of cool . And it is worth more, but is the cost worth it? Assume you pay $30 for the lighter, and each year you go through one $4 can of fluid, a $2 pack of flints, and $2 of wick. That would pay for 38 bics, which would probably last 5 years. At which point you've spent another $32 on flints, wicks, and fluid; or another 32 bics, another 4ish years. . . You see where I'm going.

Like you said, it's user preference in the end.

I guess I would say ultimately that I honestly don't know if any 1911s are still is service in the military. I didn't think there were, but I think I was wrong about that. It's simply my opinion that they should retire the old war horse.

Edited April 25, 2010 by rystine

[Guest Jamie]

a $2 pack of flints, and $2 of wick.

I do not!

I pull the Bics apart after they run out of fuel and steal that big hunk of flint that's still in there.

And I've only had to replace one wick in about 10 - 12 years of using a particular lighter. ( Don't try to run 'em dry and the wick won't burn up. )

Anyway, I went back to using a Zippo when I figured out that it really was cheaper than the Bics... just not more convenient.

As for gun maintenance... they all need it. Some will run for a longer time without it than others, but they're all going to wear prematurely if they don't get it. And whether or not you chuck 'em or fix 'em is usually determined by the materials they're made of, and how they're constructed.

Oh, and another advantage to a 1911 that you don't get with many newer guns: in an emergency, you'll probably be able to get it to fire even with some internal part or the other broken or missing. It may not cycle by it's self, but it'll probably still fire.

Let any number of things give out in a Glock or other striker-fired gun, and you're stuck with an expensive paperweight, or an inefficient club.

BTW, this is the main reason I prefer a gun with a hammer.

J.

P.S. My last Zippo cost $20, and the smaller one a year before that was like $15 at Walmart.

Oh, and I have one knock-off that was bought in Vietnam for $5... Think "Norinco 1911" there.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest rystine]

I saved money using a zippo as well. But I think it had more to do with the fact that I took alot better care of the $30ish dollar zippo than a plastic gas-station lighter. If you lose a zippo, it hurts a little inside.

Thats a valid point about striker fired guns. But thats not new. JMB designed some striker fired handguns didn't he? And not all new weapons are striker fired. HK45s and P30s (in fact most HK guns IIRC) keep the DA/SA design; as well as Sigs and Berettas among others.

[Guest Jamie]

I saved money using a zippo as well. But I think it had more to do with the fact that I took alot better care of the $30ish dollar zippo than a plastic gas-station lighter. If you lose a zippo, it hurts a little inside.

Now apply that thinking to a 1911.

I have to admit though that I don't see how simply taking better care of a Zippo could make it cheaper to operate.

... unless you simply mean taking care not to lose it?

Thats a valid point about striker fired guns. But thats not new. JMB designed some striker fired handguns didn't he?

Yep, several. As I recall, he even intended for the Hi-Power to be striker fired.

And not all new weapons are striker fired. HK45s and P30s (in fact most HK guns IIRC) keep the DA/SA design; as well as Sigs and Berettas among others.

Again, yep. But the fact they're DA/SA and have the required extra parts complicates things. Break or damage the transfer bar, among other things, and you're generally screwed.

And in this day and age of MIM parts, I'll pass on taking that chance as well.

Oh, I should probably tell you that I'm not a "fanboy" of 1911s either, any more than I am Glocks... I simply know how they and most other firearms work, and can judge their strengths and weaknesses by what I see in them, not what I want to see in them.

J.

[Guest rystine]

Now apply that thinking to a 1911.

I have to admit though that I don't see how simply taking better care of a Zippo could make it cheaper to operate.

... unless you simply mean taking care not to lose it?

J.

Thats what I meant, taking care not to lose it.

I understand the idea as it applies to a 1911, and for many shooters obviously they find it worth it. But it's still my opinion that there's some high quality modern designs, like an HK45 for example, that will last just as long as a 1911 with generally less maitenance and simpler parts replacement.

[Guest Jamie]

We'll just have to wait and see how many of those other designs/models survive to their 100th "birthday", I guess.

By the way... you keep saying "generally less maitenance and simpler parts replacement", and I just don't see that as being quite as... quantifiable? as you seem to. Especially since you've already admitted that you're not well-versed in 1911 care/maintenance.

That kind'a shoots holes in your arguments, for me.

J.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest rystine]

"On some pistols, like Glocks, it is less of an issue as they are much more tolerant of lack of lube but if you are going to shoot Browning’s classic 1911 you have to keep it lubed. No if’s, and’s, or but’s" Larry Vickers. Hence a 1911 is more mainenance intensive regarding lubricant.

How often do you replace the buffer spring on a 1911? Around every 2,000 rounds by my understanding. On a Glock? MAYBE every 5,000, if that. And according to m1911.org's technical page "changing any one part of that system without bring others into harmony with the change is risky" and "there's no such thing as a drop in part". While a Glock or HK recoil spring is in fact a simple drop in part. Once again, the 1911 is more intensive.

Once again, m1911.org recommends changing the firing pin spring every 5000 and the hammer spring every 25000. It is also recommended to do a basic cleaning every 500-700 rounds and a full cleaning every 5000. Doing a basic cleaning on a Glock every 5000 rounds is perfectly adequate.

I understand that the 1911 is a perfectly capable handgun, especially when well maintained. And many shooters love it in spite of (or perhaps because of) the effort they require. But to suggest that it requires no more time, resources, and work to keep a 1911 running than a more modern quality handgun, like a glock or HK, is simply not true.

[timcalhoun]

"On some pistols, like Glocks, it is less of an issue as they are much more tolerant of lack of lube but if you are going to shoot Browning’s classic 1911 you have to keep it lubed. No if’s, and’s, or but’s" Larry Vickers. Hence a 1911 is more mainenance intensive regarding lubricant.

How often do you replace the buffer spring on a 1911? Around every 2,000 rounds by my understanding. On a Glock? MAYBE every 5,000, if that. And according to m1911.org's technical page "changing any one part of that system without bring others into harmony with the change is risky" and "there's no such thing as a drop in part". While a Glock or HK recoil spring is in fact a simple drop in part. Once again, the 1911 is more intensive.

Once again, m1911.org recommends changing the firing pin spring every 5000 and the hammer spring every 25000. It is also recommended to do a basic cleaning every 500-700 rounds and a full cleaning every 5000. Doing a basic cleaning on a Glock every 5000 rounds is perfectly adequate.

I understand that the 1911 is a perfectly capable handgun, especially when well maintained. And many shooters love it in spite of (or perhaps because of) the effort they require. But to suggest that it requires no more time, resources, and work to keep a 1911 running than a more modern quality handgun, like a glock or HK, is simply not true.

Buffer spring? If you are talking about a recoil spring, it is the same in any gun. Gun springs are gun springs. There are no magic glock springs. And the recoil spring is drop in every gun I've seen. Mil-spec gun parts are drop in and much as any glock parts are. BTW the glock manual tells you to clean it after firing it and periodically otherwise.

Why you hear that nothing on a 1911 is drop in is because there are so many folks making parts for 1911s and most are slightly oversized so you can get a perfect fit. Plus you have one company making a glock and dozens making 1911's. They all do parts slightly different.

I know of no parts once fitted properly that all others will have to be addressed unless you are talking about the hammer sear relationship. And then yes you might need to stone both. But that is true with any modern single action as well.

[Guest rystine]

Yes, recoil spring, my mistake. I understand that all springs wear out in all guns, but from the sources that I've found, a 1911 will require more frequent replacement than others.

The quote regarding making sure all parts fit after you replace one was not me, that came from the website I referenced written by some evidently very knowledgable people. If you disagree with it, take it up with them, not me.

What I'm saying is 1911s require more time, skill, and effort than a Glock, HK, M&P, Sig, etc. If a shooter wants to deal with that I understand, they're very nice pistols and I guess they kind of take on their own personality. Some guys just don't think it's worth it. It's up to the individual.

[Guest Jamie]

...you have one company making a glock and dozens making 1911's. They all do parts slightly different.

I think that's probably the most important point in the whole "1911 vs. Everything else" debate.

People seem to forget that "1911" is a pattern... a particular design. And some people stick more faithfully to that original pattern than others. Some may even use different materials or treatments than others. In the end, everybody is doing their own version of what's supposed to be the same thing, but often isn't.

And all that makes a difference. Sometimes a HUGE difference.

We won't even talk about magazines...

J.

[Guest nashvegas]

Well, this has been a very interesting thread for me to read as I have never owned a 1911 (enjoyed shooting a few however) and have been thinking my next purchase would be a 1911.

I've always been a Sig guy personally. Never had a single issue with any Sig I've owned.

I've been on the hunt for a Dan Wesson CBOB, but after reading this thread, I am wondering if I should just get a cheaper mil-spec for a first 1911? Any suggestions would be welcomed...

Edited April 25, 2010 by nashvegas

[willis68]

Well, this has been a very interesting thread for me to read as I have never owned a 1911 (enjoyed shooting a few however) and have been thinking my next purchase would be a 1911.

I've always been a Sig guy personally. Never had a single issue with any Sig I've owned.

I've been on the hunt for a Dan Wesson CBOB, but after reading this thread, I am wondering if I should just get a cheaper mil-spec for a first 1911? Any suggestions would be welcomed...

Go with the CBOB,

If you get a Mil Spec now you will always want the CBOB later, save yourself some money and get what you want the first time. I warn you now that 1911's can be very addictive just something for you to think about before you take the plunge.

[Guest Jamie]

But to suggest that it requires no more time, resources, and work to keep a 1911 running than a more modern quality handgun, like a glock or HK, is simply not true.

If you're not very well versed in 1911 maintenance and repair, how can you say this?

I've owned about every sort of gun made... 1911s, Glocks... all-steel guns as well as their polymer cousins. So I'm arguing from my own experience.

You seem to be arguing through others, however.

Every gun has it's personality and it's quirks... but none of them are completely without faults, rumor to the contrary , nor perfect. And no one of them is really any moore or less work than the other. They're just different.

I can't help but wonder that if in another 50 to 75 years, if many companies are making copies of Glocks, if they'll still have the following they do now, or if they'll even be as reliable as they are now.

My guess is that there will be some "newer better faster" that's come along and de-throned them.

( The 1911 and SAA will probably still be slogging along too, with a lot of people wondering why anyone would still want those old dinosaurs. )

J.

[Garufa]

In celebration of this thread, today I went out and shot my 20 year old SA 1911-A1 "Mil-Spec" with all the original innards. Oddly enough it performed flawlessly and accurately.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Garufa
spelling

[Steelharp]

In celebration of this thread, today I went out and shot my 20 year old SA 1911-A1 "Mil-Spec" will all the original innards. Oddly enough it performed flawlessly and accurately.

Impossible. You've visited another dimension...

[Guest Jamie]

In celebration of this thread, today I went out and shot my 20 year old SA 1911-A1 "Mil-Spec" will all the original innards. Oddly enough it performed flawlessly and accurately.

Well it IS Sunday... a day for miracles. :D;)

J.

[Guest rystine]

If you're not very well versed in 1911 maintenance and repair, how can you say this?

I've owned about every sort of gun made... 1911s, Glocks... all-steel guns as well as their polymer cousins. So I'm arguing from my own experience.

You seem to be arguing through others, however.

J.

Yes, I'm using experiences from others to make my arguments. But does that make it any less valid? Just because I've not personally worked on 1911s much doesn't affect my ability to read.

Thats like you saying that a person doesn't need to change the oil in their car because you've never personally had a problem as a result of not changing oil. While I'm arguing that a person should change their oil. But because I have owned fewer cars and have been driving fewer years, and am basing my advice on the experiences of others, I am wrong? Am I wrong?

And just because a person has owned lots of guns and has been shooting for decades, doesn't always mean they know what they are talking about. Just sayin. . .

Frankly, I think you know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it.

I said it before, and am no less right saying it now; the 1911 requires more time, effort, and resources than a more modern quality handgun design. To say otherwise is simply not true.

"As a "fighting" handgun, a properly set up and tuned 1911 has no equal. It has superb ergonomics, redundant safeties, excellent reliability and longevity, and the best trigger action available on any common service pistol. The trigger alone makes it the easiest service pistol to shoot well at speed. My primary handgun every single day, 365 days a year, is a lightly customized 1911.

That said, the 1911 is NOT a gun for the casual user, or what we call NDP's (non-dedicated personnel). The gun was designed when technology was expensive, but skilled labor was not. The exact opposite is true today. A carry 1911 should be gone over by an experienced specialist (Heinie, Burns, Yam, Yost, Garthwaite, etc) and then properly maintained by the end user. The average cop or typical CCW holder would be better served with a Glock or SIG in most cases. If you're willing to spend the money to get a properly set up 1911 and TRAIN with it, then you're not "average".

. . .My life is worth the extra expense/effort." Tom Givens

Should I even bother with the quote, since it's not my personal experience?

Edited April 26, 2010 by rystine

[mikegideon]

WTF?

[Jasongar8]

What I'm saying is 1911s require more time, skill, and effort than a Glock, HK, M&P, Sig, etc. If a shooter wants to deal with that I understand, they're very nice pistols and I guess they kind of take on their own personality. Some guys just don't think it's worth it. It's up to the individual.

I can clean my 1911's just as fast as I can my Glocks. It dosent take a highly trained person to keep a 1911 in running order. It is not easier or harder to keep a 1911 running than it is a Glock, HK, XD, or Sig, it is just different.

Yes, I'm using experiences from others to make my arguments. But does that make it any less valid?

I kinda think it does because you havent physically worked on one. Just because you read that it takes more time and effort dosent mean it would be that way for you. Thats like me telling you it takes too long to change the oil in my truck for me to do it, so you shouldnt either. But in reality it may only take you 10 minutes and is a very easy job.

By the way I'm not a fan boy for either gun. I have just as many striker guns as I do 1911's.

[Guest rystine]

I can clean my 1911's just as fast as I can my Glocks. It dosent take a highly trained person to keep a 1911 in running order. It is not easier or harder to keep a 1911 running than it is a Glock, HK, XD, or Sig, it is just different.

I'm not just talking about a field cleaning after a firing session. What happens when you hit 5000, 10000 or higher rounds counts and you start replacing firing pin springs, trigger springs, replacing and tuning extractors, fitting barrel links, etc. All little things that take just a little more time, money, and knowledge. It's not just me saying this, I've quoted pisteleros who are far more knowledgable than you or I who seem to agree with this. You saw the quote from Larry Vickers, where he said very plainly that 1911s require more attention to lubrication than Glocks. And did you bother reading the Tom Givens quote? Or did you ignore it because it contradicts what you said?

I kinda think it does because you havent physically worked on one. Just because you read that it takes more time and effort dosent mean it would be that way for you. Thats like me telling you it takes too long to change the oil in my truck for me to do it, so you shouldnt either. But in reality it may only take you 10 minutes and is a very easy job.

By the way I'm not a fan boy for either gun. I have just as many striker guns as I do 1911's.

Your gonna have to do a better job of explaining to me how my argument is invalid because I'm using advice from Larry Vickers and other respected sources as opposed to my own experience.

I'll go back to my oil changing example. I've never seen a problem as a result of not changing oil, but I still say you should because others more knowledgable than me say it's the smart thing to do. Are you just gonna ignore my advice because I personally haven't dealt with engine problems resulting from lack of proper maintenance?

Edited April 26, 2010 by rystine

[Jasongar8]

Your gonna have to do a better job of explaining to me how my argument is invalid because I'm using advice from Larry Vickers and other respected sources as opposed to my own experience.

I'll go back to my oil changing example. I've never seen a problem as a result of not changing oil, but I still say you should because others more knowledgable than me say it's the smart thing to do. Are you just gonna ignore my advice because I personally haven't dealt with engine problems resulting from lack of proper maintenance?

Your oil changing example above is apples to oranges. Saying someone should change their oil is alot different that saying how hard is to actually change it yourself. Any person can tell you need to change it, but you cant tell me how hard it is to do until you have actually done it. The degree of difficulty depends on the individual person.

[Guest rystine]

Your oil changing example above is apples to oranges. Saying someone should change their oil is alot different that saying how hard is to actually change it yourself. Any person can tell you need to change it, but you cant tell me how hard it is to do until you have actually done it. The degree of difficulty depends on the individual person.

Once again, did you bother reading the Tom Givens quote? Or simply ignore it because it contradicts what your saying?

[Jasongar8]

Once again, did you bother reading the Tom Givens quote? Or simply ignore it because it contradicts what your saying?

. . .My life is worth the extra expense/effort." Tom Givens

This one?