1911's work when drenched in Mud

[Guest rystine]

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

This one?

Yes that one, the one that supports my statement and shoots yours down.

[Guest rystine]

I think I'm done with this thread.

I made my first statement (regarding the 1911 in the military), and was proven wrong.

But my second point, regarding the fact that the 1911 is a effort-intensive design, has been supported with numerous respected outside sources. But others here seem content to ignore the evidence that I've presented.

I'll close out with another quote from a respected pistol instructor, Todd Green (or should I bother since it's not my personal experience speaking?).

"I'd compare them (1911s) to Ford Mustangs.

The Mustang has been around for a long time and many consider them classics.

Many of the "classic" Mustangs can't actually meet modern standards of reliability and performance, but fans like to pretend they did."

[Jasongar8]

Yes that one, the one that supports my statement and shoots yours down.

Lol ok man. If you didnt know, this whole argument is based on opinions. It is in you opinion that a 1911 is too difficult for you to shoot and maintain. It is in Mr. Givens opinion that a 1911 is exepnsive to maintain. And it is in my opinion that a 1911 and a striker are the same for me to shoot and maintain. It is very aparent that you are not going to change your beliefs, and the same can be said for myself. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[willis68]

I think I'm done with this thread.

I made my first statement (regarding the 1911 in the military), and was proven wrong.

But my second point, regarding the fact that the 1911 is a effort-intensive design, has been supported with numerous respected outside sources. But others here seem content to ignore the evidence that I've presented.

I'll close out with another quote from a respected pistol instructor, Todd Green (or should I bother since it's not my personal experience speaking?).

"I'd compare them (1911s) to Ford Mustangs.

The Mustang has been around for a long time and many consider them classics.

Many of the "classic" Mustangs can't actually meet modern standards of reliability and performance, but fans like to pretend they did."

Before you begin to make statements like this( this whole thread), I suggest you gather your own experiences. I have been a 1911 owner for a very long time. My first Handgun was a Kimber Ultra Carry after owning a dozen different models I can honestly say they are NOT anymore maintenance intensive then my 3 Glocks or my Sig. To each their own if you do not like the 100 year old proven design then by all means do not ever buy one but for God's sake don't knock them before you try them

[Guest CK1]

Wow, crazy thread...

Well, posted before (like 3 pages back at this point) to try and get a feel for who's shooting what, hoping to better gauge how guys are arriving at their conclusions about how reliable their guns are running without speculating on their performance... without taking actual use into account this could be a never ending argument. Problem is, no one has really added any data.

Tim, a 1911-guy, chimed in sharing that he's burned up a pretty impressive 2000rds or so in the last month while getting ready for a big match he's been practicing for (and shared that Todd Jarrett is in the 8000rds per month neighborhood which kind of makes me hate him and want to cry a little...), he's a pretty serious shooter though and is running a custom-fit gun that's been built to be shot a lot without failing, and he is doing exactly that... but, he's a rare cat and definitely not the average 1911 shooter, so he'll be bringing up the curve for the 1911's with his high number of rounds downrange and 0% failure rate.

I shoot on average 1000 per month, sometimes more, sometimes a bunch more, shooting a Glock 17 with 0 failures of any kind, can't remember how many rounds since I got this one, but it's somewhere north of 7000+rds on it at this point... guessing I clean it maybe every 2500rds and give it 3 and a 1/2 drops of oil.

There are a number of 1911 as well as a few Glock guys who've chimed in on the thread at this point who haven't added a ballpark number to the mix on what they're putting their guns through... just thought it'd shed some light on what kind of performance expectations we are debating here?

Deerslayer, how many rounds you putting through your Glock(s) per month and any malf's? cleaning 'em?

Willis, between all the top-shelf 1911's you've got in your safe, what are you shooting per month?

Anyone else care to add?

[willis68]

Wow, crazy thread...

Well, posted before (like 3 pages back at this point) to try and get a feel for who's shooting what, hoping to better gauge how guys are arriving at their conclusions about how reliable their guns are running without speculating on their performance... without taking actual use into account this could be a never ending argument. Problem is, no one has really added any data.

Tim, a 1911-guy, chimed in sharing that he's burned up a pretty impressive 2000rds or so in the last month while getting ready for a big match he's been practicing for (and shared that Todd Jarrett is in the 8000rds per month neighborhood which kind of makes me hate him and want to cry a little...), he's a pretty serious shooter though and is running a custom-fit gun that's been built to be shot a lot without failing, and he is doing exactly that... but, he's a rare cat and definitely not the average 1911 shooter, so he'll be bringing up the curve for the 1911's with his high number of rounds downrange and 0% failure rate.

I shoot on average 1000 per month, sometimes more, sometimes a bunch more, shooting a Glock 17 with 0 failures of any kind, can't remember how many rounds since I got this one, but it's somewhere north of 7000+rds on it at this point... guessing I clean it maybe every 2500rds and give it 3 and a 1/2 drops of oil.

There are a number of 1911 as well as a few Glock guys who've chimed in on the thread at this point who haven't added a ballpark number to the mix on what they're putting their guns through... just thought it'd shed some light on what kind of performance expectations we are debating here?

Deerslayer, how many rounds you putting through your Glock(s) per month and any malf's? cleaning 'em?

Willis, between all the top-shelf 1911's you've got in your safe, what are you shooting per month?

Anyone else care to add?

I work offshore so I am gone roughly 6 months out of the year. But the other 6 months I am home, which can be a pain as I want to shoot when everyone else is at work anyway to answer your question my Carry gun Nighthawk commander has close to 4K rounds through it all Hollow point I have yet to shoot FMJ through it. The Les Baer TRS now has 800 rounds through it (done in 2 days) When I go to the range I usually put a minimum of 300 rounds through every pistol I bring. The Nighthawk was not field stripped (only ran a bore snake through) until after it had 2000 rounds through it. then I gave it a thorough cleaning I have one Ed Brown Executive target that I only put 100 rounds through (selling it next week as I do not need a target pistol) I will be going this weekend to shoot the TRS more.

I look at this differently than a lot of people. In my carry guns I only shoot the ammo that I will be carrying. It is expensive but makes perfect sense to me as that is what I will be using if I ever have to use it. So the rounds that I have fired through the TRS and the Nighthawk have all been Remington Golden Saber 230 Grain. None of these pistols have suffered any kind of malfunction and they are extremely accurate I only use Chip McCormick 8 round Power Mags and Wilson Combat 47DC's this recipe has worked on all of the 1911's that I have owned. I will be shooting FMJ through the TRS this weekend and after running 800 Rounds of Carry ammo through it I seriously doubt I will have any issues but if I do I will let everyone know.

Edited April 26, 2010 by willis68

[Guest Jamie]

I think I'm done with this thread.

I made my first statement (regarding the 1911 in the military), and was proven wrong.

But my second point, regarding the fact that the 1911 is a effort-intensive design, has been supported with numerous respected outside sources. But others here seem content to ignore the evidence that I've presented.

I'll tell ya what, Rystine... you pick any 2 guns you want... you take one, I'll take the other.

I'll bet you any amount you want that I can completely disassemble and re-assemble the one I get faster than you can yours. And I don't care what you give me. ( We will both require a rudimentary set of tools, however. Punches, screwdrivers and such... )

The fact is, they're all put together in pretty much the same manner. One piece holds another in place, and that in turn holds something else. It only takes figuring out where a particular model starts. ( There's a plate in the back of both a Glock and a 1911 slide that holds the striker and firing pin in place, respectively. It takes no more effort to remove one than it does the other. It only takes knowing how. )

As for replacing parts because they break/wear... that has more to do with what they're made of, and how those pieces are made. Too hard, parts are brittle and break; too soft, they wear quickly or bend out of shape.

Modern production methods and quality control can make this issue moot.

In the end, you're obviously trying to talk about something you know nothing about, and are relying on the opinions of others to support your own arguments. Opinions that may be based on one particular make or model, and not the design in general.

A well-made, well-engineered gun will be reliable, long-lived, and easy to maintain. A poorly made version of the same thing won't.

Don't believe me? Go grab several makes of SAA or 1911, or anything else that several companies make. Then shoot the hell out of all of 'em and see which one takes it the best.

I guarantee you that you'll find one or two that hold up quite well, and some that just don't.

And as I've said earlier, I have to wonder if that little fact isn't what's caused some folks to consider certain handgun designs as inferior or problematic; they got a bad copy of something and never looked any further than that one individual specimen or brand.

Anyway, go out and find a few examples of the gun you're talking about from a third part perspective... shoot them, get to know them, and learn how they work and what they are on a first-hand basis. THEN come back and argue with me about 'em.

J.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jamie

[StPatrick]

And you want to know something really wierd? IMHO, the Camaro>Mustang, but F150>Silverado. I know, I'm wierd

OT, since I have nothing to add re: 1911s, you're not weird. In this particular instance, you're dead-on correct.

For the record, I drive a Chevy Blazer POS. 140k and still chugging along.

And now, back to our previously scheduled program...

[Metalhead]

I'll bet you any amount you want that I can completely disassemble and re-assemble the one I get faster than you can yours.

My dad can beat up your dad!

[Steelharp]

My dad can beat up your dad!

Mine can't; mine's dead.

[Guest Jamie]

My dad can beat up your dad!

Could be.

But... can your dad form his own opinions, or does he just repeat those of others?

J.

[Metalhead]

Man, tough crowd this morning!

[timcalhoun]

he's running a custom-fit gun that's been built to be shot a lot without failing, and he is doing exactly that... but, he's a rare cat and definitely not the average 1911 shooter, so he'll be bringing up the curve for the 1911's with his high number of rounds downrange and 0% failure rate.

I think I need to say that once you get passed the tight fit of the slide, barrel, frame and the metal work, my guns are nothing but correctly built 1911s. Capable of no more reliability than any correctly built 1911. They are all designed to to be shot a lot without failing. Trouble is some companies let the guns leave their hands without being right. But that is not the platforms fault no more than if I got the rights to produce a glock and built some poorly.

Edited April 26, 2010 by timcalhoun

[Guest OttoMaddox]

Buncha crazy gun-dunkers in this thread! Stay away from my gunsafe!

Also, anyone not satisfied with their 1911's post mud-dunking performance can contact me via PM.

I'm setting up a refuge for abused and neglected 1911s.

[willis68]

As already mentioned in this LONG thread, the 1911 is a "Design" there so many people making them and with that they are bound to have problems. Even the high end makers let one slip through QC once in a blue moon but when you get one that is built right, there is no other handgun on this earth more satisfying to me. Some of These guns cost more because of the hand fitting, intensive labor and attention to detail involved, to me they are worth every cent, to others they are not.

Glocks are only made by Glock, I own 3 and like them Very much perhaps when they have proven themselves for a Hundred years, several other manufacturers will make their own version and the platform will suffer from this. Smith and Wesson has already done this and their first version of the Sigma is a total POS compared to the Glock

Edited April 26, 2010 by willis68

[Guest bkelm18]

Jeez. I don't understand these debates. WHO CARES? If you love the 1911 platform, great! If you don't, great! Why does everything have to devolve into a 'mine is better and yours is not' debate?

[mikegideon]

Mine can't; mine's dead.

My dad dislikes the 1911. I'm gonna talk him into shooting mine.

[Guest 10mm4me]

Because without that we would have nothing to talk about on here.

[Guest Jamie]

Why does everything have to devolve into a 'mine is better and yours is not' debate?

Because all things... and all people... were NOT created equal.

Besides, if somebody has real evidence that item A actually is better than item B, I wanna know about it. The problem is, even if they do, you know SOMEBODY is gonna want to argue about it.

J.

[timcalhoun]

Jeez. I don't understand these debates. WHO CARES? If you love the 1911 platform, great! If you don't, great! Why does everything have to devolve into a 'mine is better and yours is not' debate?

I don't care what anyone shoots. But I thought a forum was a place to share ideas and opinions? Besides, it is only polite to shed light on misconceptions and why they exist.

Actually, I wish more folks I compete against would shoot a glock.

[mikegideon]

I don't care what anyone shoots. But I thought a forum was a place to share ideas and opinions? Besides, it is only polite to shed light on misconceptions and why they exist.

Actually, I wish more folks I compete against would shoot a glock.

Aw hell. Now you gone and done it

[Guest Jamie]

Actually, I wish more folks I compete against would shoot a glock.

You're a mean man, Tim. :P

J.

[timcalhoun]

You're a mean man, Tim.

J.

It's all in good fun.

[Guest db99wj]

I joined the TN Army National Guard in 1990, went to Ft. Knox, qualified with a Beretta M9, came back to my National Guard Unit where we had 1911's. Yep, 1990, and we had .45acp 1911's, from a number of manufacturers, but mostly from Colt. They rattled, they were scratched, they had dings in them, they were beat all to hell. We ran them dirty, wet, dry, and they seemed to perform. Of course, we cleaned the hell out of them afterwards! A year or so went buy and then they were replaced by the M9. During those years, I got to shoot some old, I mean very old 1911's, and they ran pretty damn good. Accuracy, I don't think I would have wanted to shoot a competition with those old ones for precision, but I punched a lot of holes in paper with them. I have no experience in a combat situation with them, because I never went over, the first Gulf War ended and they didn't need any more tanks over there.

Anyway, take this for what it is worth, I don't own a 1911 or a Glock....yet. One day, I will have both, and a Beretta M9 too!

[willis68]

I will eventually get a Berretta M9 as well, have been wanting one for a while now