1911 Reliability, What Does It Really Mean? Hilton Yam

[Kano]

1911 Reliability, What Does It Really Mean? - 10-8 Forums

Hilton Yam 10-8 Forum

[krunchnik]

Thats a good little read,I agree that when a manufacturer says to run 500 rounds thru the pistol to break it in is just a way of saying that they didnt make sure it fired correctly right from the factory.After all who has the time and extra money to spend breaking in a pistol that already put your bank statement into a deficit.For the cost of the ammo some pistols arent as expensive as the ammo would be.

[Guest spoolie]

I think there guns are broken or someone messed with them. I purchased a cheap-o Taurus and never had a problem one from the factory.

[I_Like_Pie]

What Does It Really Mean? - 10-8 Forums

It means that the problem with the shooter...not the gun

[glockster157]

I couldn't get the link to work but I can say I have had very few 1911's that I felt were reliable enough to really stake my life on. Most of the more reliable ones were plain jane loose ones with good all hardball. A lot can be blamed on magazines, I have had much better reliability out of quality standard 7 round mags. I know a lot of guys are going to jump in and say I am wrong...or crazy, but I have had dozens of 1911's, including Colts, Kimbers, Springfields, Para's, parts guns, Charles Dalys and Rock Island. I had as good of service out of the Rock Islands as I did the expensive ones. My last Charles Daly loaded would not even feed a round from the factory mag into the chamber when it was new out of the box. The rear sight fell off my last brand new Colt SS Commander, the rivets came out of the spring plunger housing on my new early model new Kimber Lightweight Pro Carry....I could keep going. It is no wonder Why Glocks and Sigs are so popular. At least with me. I also love my SW 4563 Tactical that has never malfunctions once in the 5 years I have had it.

[mav]

I could be wrong, but I hate posts like that at times. 1911 Reliability, What Does It Really Mean? - 10-8 Forums

His post was incomplete. What was the model? Who was the manufacturer? What was the experience level of the shooter? These are some questions that I would liked to know the answer to before dumping on 1911s in general. I don't see how posts like those can do much except create a flame war. I own quite a few handguns, and some of them are 1911s. I have had zero problems out of my 1911s. I have shot thousands of rounds through my Kimber Tactical II HD with zero problems using el cheapo Blazer ammo. I can't comment on my Wilson CQB since I just got it yesterday, but we will see.

The problem with the whole thing is that you could get thousands of people come on and refute his post based upon their experience, and the same can be said of people who share his viewpoint. This same type of argument can be made on other models. I know people who dump on Glocks, Sigs, H&Ks, etc... I know people who swear by them (I own and love all three). I guess my bottom line is I buy what I like, and what has worked well for me. If someone doesn't like it, that is okay. If someone thinks I was crazy for paying such a high price for a custom 1911, that is okay too. It is what I wanted, and I am fine with it. In regards to the 1911 platform, I find it hard to believe that so many gun owners and manufacturers can be wrong on the reliability of a design that is almost 100 years old.

[byrnemm]

In regards to the 1911 platform, I find it hard to believe that so many gun owners and manufacturers can be wrong on the reliability of a design that is almost 100 years old.

I don't know any owners who bought a 1911 for the reliability.

I can't imagine any manufacturers making them for their reliability.

I think the manufacturers make them because of their sell-ability, and I think owners buy them because they are goo-goo for .45, have great triggers, and are sexy as hell. It's cool that its a super gunsmith friendly pistol.

But the whole "ultimate combat pistol" argument that a few use really doesn't stick. The 1911 is large... like, really big. Yet with all that largess you have 7 or 8+1...

It's been around for 100 years and manufacturers STILL can't make reliable magazines? You'd figure a company other than Wilson could be relied on.

Even Les Bear, top semi-custom maker recommends a break in period. A lot of failures in all manufacturer's 1911s are written off as a "break in period." Glock tried to get away with that on the Gen 4 G17 and people went ape on them. They will now revert the recoil springs back to Gen 3 free of charge.

IMO, 1911s revert handguns back to the day when pistol making was a much more personal process and the alternative was a 6-shot, slow to reload revolver.

I just don't think 1911s were meant to be mass produced as a production pistol. I think that's where a lot of problems arise. I think that is why people justify spending $2500 on a semi- or fully custom pistol.

[I_Like_Pie]

I was under the impression that, aside from the prissy $1000+ models, that 1911 firearms are some of the most robust and reliable firearms manufactured? 100 years of history is a pretty good reinforcement of that concept. Are there not still police departments that are still using them? The lives of the officers and the people they protect are reliant on proper function at all times.

Mine aren't fancy models and I have never even had so much as a F-T-F with any of them....I have been spitting out reloads for them for decades now - no problem at all. Did have a dead primer or two sometime in the 90's.

What am I missing here?!? What the heck are you guys doing to your guns that make them so darn unreliable?

[krunchnik]

Every one of these is 100%-gotta love the 1911(Well I do anyways)

[Will Carry]

I would feel perfectly safe carrying my Colt Government for self defense. It's very reliable, accurate and has good stopping power. 8+1 is not too few rounds to have in a self defense scenario. For some reason, I don't carry it for self defense or even home defense. I think I bought because it's fun to shoot and fun to tinker with. I often think about carrying it but I always seem to find a reason to carry my Glock or my XD or my snubby. Yet when someone talks trash about how old it is or how outdated it is, I always feel defensive about it.

[Guest 10mm4me]

My Kimber Custom II TLE has always been 100% reliable. It is the gun the LAPD SWAT chose so I would say it has to be somewhat reliable. I really think alot of the 1911 horror stories are from "do-it-yourself-gunsmiths" who messed with them and don't want to admit it to anyone and then blame on the 1911 platform being unreliable.

[USMCJG]

I really think alot of the 1911 horror stories are from "do-it-yourself-gunsmiths" who messed with them and don't want to admit it to anyone and then blame on the 1911 platform being unreliable.

+1. The 1911 platform is certainly not unreliable. One year shy if its 100th anniversary and it's still in use by SWAT teams, the FBI HRT, and a few military spec ops forces. That just doesn't happen with an unreliable platform. My guess is that if 50 different manufacturers made a copy of the Glock 17, it would get a quick reputation for being unreliable too.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

I swear! Sometimes I think you jokers buy 1911's for the same reason a brotha wears his pants half way to the floor. 'Cause everyone else is!

[Guest yellowsulphur29]

MY first handgun was a Kimber Crimson Carry II and I have put more rounds through that gun than any of my glocks (G26 and G22) or Sigs (P226 and P232). Now mind you .380 ammo is dang near impossible to find so that justifies the limited use of the p232, but on the remaining guns, I have had more FTF with the glocks than ever with the Kimber. Honestly I cannot say the kimber has ever failed me once. I use remington UMC and Speer Lawman in all my weapons so the ammo is consistent. The battle over the 8+1 in a 1911 vs. 15 in a glock is understandable, but in the case of personal defense, unless you are a poor shot or are being attacked by a gang, I will take the stopping power of .45 by 8 rounds vs. 9mm or .40 by 15. Just this past weekend I went to the range and shot 100 rnds through the 1911, the G22, and my g26. Both the glocks had to be re-racked either due to failure to load or failure to fire. Even though I pulled the trigger, I noticed no dimple in the primer. Ejecting the round, reloading, and refiring caused it to work on the same rounds. I am a bit skeptical about the reliability of all firearms, and I am certain they will all have their problems. To each his own, this sounds more like a ford vs. chevy vs. dodge battle.

[byrnemm]

+1. The 1911 platform is certainly not unreliable. One year shy if its 100th anniversary and it's still in use by SWAT teams, the FBI HRT, and a few military spec ops forces. That just doesn't happen with an unreliable platform. My guess is that if 50 different manufacturers made a copy of the Glock 17, it would get a quick reputation for being unreliable too.

Agreed, but those are several thousand dollar custom 1911s you are talking about. The FBI's Springfields are $2500 and custom made and hand fitted by experienced gunsmiths.

If you compare the 1911s made at a similar price point to the Glock 17.... the reliability doesn't compare. For all the merits of the 1911, the design might not be intended for a mass produced production gun. It's at home in the hands of an experienced gunsmith and not an assembly line.

am i totally in left field on this?

[USMCJG]

Agreed, but those are several thousand dollar custom 1911s you are talking about. The FBI's Springfields are $2500 and custom made and hand fitted by experienced gunsmiths.

If you compare the 1911s made at a similar price point to the Glock 17.... the reliability doesn't compare. For all the merits of the 1911, the design might not be intended for a mass produced production gun. It's at home in the hands of an experienced gunsmith and not an assembly line.

am i totally in left field on this?

I think you are somewhat correct. Although I am sure many would argue that the Rock Islands and a few other 1911s that are at or below the price of Glocks can be just as reliable. I don't know as I have never owned an RIA or similar level 1911, but I have heard that they are actually very reliable regardless of price. It is true that the 1911 platform was not designed to be a cookie cutter massed produced firearm like a Glock, XD, etc., the technology was very different 100 years ago. The 1911 was designed to be hand assembled from mass produced parts. The platform is absolutely capable of 100% reliability with appropriate ammo, but any time you bring significant hand assembly into the equation you can expect some errors to be made. Of course there are plenty of Glocks, Sigs, etc. that don't run 100% right out of the box as well. Honestly, I seem to hear of more initial, out of the box reliability problems out of the high-end custom 1911s than I do out of the looser toleranced RIA, STI Spartan, and Springfield Mil-Spec level guns.

[USMCJG]

I swear! Sometimes I think you jokers buy 1911's for the same reason a brotha wears his pants half way to the floor. 'Cause everyone else is!

Or because we just like them. I own other brands of pistols too and I shoot them all. But the one handgun I have that goes to the range every time I do is a 1911. They just fit my hand better and point more naturally than any other pistol I have ever shot. The fact that every one else buys them too is just the icing on the cake.

[eapking]

Out of the box, looser (i.e. cheaper) 1911's tend to be more reliable. Many of the high end 1911's are so tight they need several hundred rounds to loosen up and get rid of the minute trash on the rails. So, yes a lot of them recommend a break-in period (500 rds min.). Now if you want to call that defective "out of the box", so be it. I don't mind going thru the break-in period (and cost). A 1911 is fully capable of being depended on for full-time carry. They can also be less bulky than some of the subcompact, double stack, tupper-guns.

[mav]

For all the merits of the 1911, the design might not be intended for a mass produced production gun. It's at home in the hands of an experienced gunsmith and not an assembly line.

Well, I don't really know about that. As I have mentioned, as well as others, I haven't had the first problem with my Kimbers. Kimber makes nice 1911s, they are mass produced, and they are less than several thousands of dollars. I paid a little over a $1000 for my Tactical II Custom HD. The Custom II model can be had for around $700. In regards to price vs. reliability comparison, what does it matter?

[mav]

Or because we just like them. I own other brands of pistols too and I shoot them all. But the one handgun I have that goes to the range every time I do is a 1911. They just fit my hand better and point more naturally than any other pistol I have ever shot. The fact that every one else buys them too is just the icing on the cake.

Amen. I am the same way. The 1911 fills great in my hands.

Originally Posted by Bonedaddy

I swear! Sometimes I think you jokers buy 1911's for the same reason a brotha wears his pants half way to the floor. 'Cause everyone else is!

Maybe 1911 owners know something others don't.

[Will Carry]

An FBI agent or SWAT team member uses a $2500 custom 1911 as a tool to save lives and fight crime. To everyone else, it's just a high dollar toy. No offense intended, I have a few toys myself.

[I_Like_Pie]

Agreed, but those are several thousand dollar custom 1911s you are talking about. The FBI's Springfields are $2500 and custom made and hand fitted by experienced gunsmiths.

If you compare the 1911s made at a similar price point to the Glock 17.... the reliability doesn't compare. For all the merits of the 1911, the design might not be intended for a mass produced production gun. It's at home in the hands of an experienced gunsmith and not an assembly line.

am i totally in left field on this?

Yes...That statement has absolutely no truth, no credibility, and is a disservice to humanity in general. We all have died a little by reading it. May God have mercy on our souls.

Actually I can see why one could make that statement, but it simply isn't true. Same thing about the joker trolling two posts above about "brothas" wearing pants around their knees.

The statements in this thread are simply not based on any experience with guns at all. More along the lines of small talk at the gun counter, or reading too many bad gun mags.

[mav]

Yes...That statement has absolutely no truth, no credibility, and is a disservice to humanity in general. We all have died a little by reading it. May God have mercy on our souls.

I'll have to remember that one.

[byrnemm]

Yes...That statement has absolutely no truth, no credibility, and is a disservice to humanity in general. We all have died a little by reading it. May God have mercy on our souls.

haha well its good to know when you are wrong

[Guest Oaklands]

I have 5 1911's. I have not shot my newest one yet as I got it this week. My Metro Arms Classic II has been 100% reliable out of the box. The cheap mags it came with work as well as some Kimber Pro Tac's I have purchased. My Kimber Pro Carry II was used and had a bad slide lock. Kimber replaced it and no failures since. The gun had about 700 rounds through it before I purchased it. Another Kimber, Crimson Ultra Carry II has been 100% reliable as well. It had 100 rounds through it when I bought it and has had no problems. Dan Wesson PM9 had 100 rounds through it and is the best shooting gun I have. 100% reliable and I have put 150 rounds through it. My latest purchase is a Dan Wesson CBOB, used. If it is anything like my PM9 as far as reliability I will be quite happy.

I brought up the subject of break-in periods on another forum a few months ago. My question was why do the high dollar guns have the so called break-in period, but my Philippine's made Metro Arms did not mention anything about a break-in period? As said earlier, it has been 100% out of the box and I have fired around 200-250 rounds through it.

I have 2 Bersas and they have both been great. Cheap? Yes. Would I trust my life with them? Absolutely. I trust every gun I own, whether a semi-automatic or revolver. All have proven themselves to be reliable. The failures of guns early are not only in the 1911 line. I read many articles where people have problems with this gun or that gun. Semi-automatics are just more prone to that. Personally, I have been very fortunate with all my guns.