The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: ericire12 on August 27, 2008, 01:39:19 PM
-
Ok..... Lets put it to a vote!
In response to Ksail101's thread topic about what is the ultimate fighting handgun, I thought we should see some hard numbers on the subject....... and since Glock and 1911 seem to be the only real subjects of the conversation, then those are your choices.
My vote is for the Glock. Yes, I am biased, but I actually think that for a fighting handgun the Glock is a better choice because of its ability to function in any environment and through any kind of hard use you could possibly ever throw at it...... In my opinion, the 1911 just needs too much TLC.
-
I voted 1911 but I do not know the Glock and don't know if I'll get the chance to try one out. The 1911 has been around for almost 100 years and it's combat experience and reputation is unsurpassed by any other pistol. Even in it's rough not-so-accurate military version.
-
I like Glocks too, but, think about this:
When JMB was initially designing the 1911, the Wright bros were still working on bicycles in Ohio.
No TV's, not many automobiles or anything else technologically advanced.
Now, 100 years later, man's been to the moon, we have the internet, cell phones that can double as computers, and the list goes on.
But other than newer technologies in metalurgy, JMB's design was so ingenious that it has remained basically the same as it was 100 years ago.
It's hard to out-do a 100 year history.
Just my .02 worth. ;D
-
JMB and the 1911 for my vote ;)
-
My vote is for the M1911A1. When I was in the army most of the pistols had 40-45 years of continuous use in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam among other places. They got no TLC at all and still worked great until 1985 when they were replaced and I left the service. It's not a fussy weapon at all. They needed to have the recoil spring replaced after several thousand rounds but rarely had anything seriously wrong unless they were abused. If any firearm is in the gears when they traverse a tank turret, it gets destroyed. A Glock wouldn't survive that either. Luckily I only saw a few pistols and sub-machineguns meet their end that way.
-
The perfect combat autoloader? Wilson Combat CQB with light rail in 10mm.
Unfortunately, that costs about the same as my truck... :o
http://www.wilsoncombat.com/p_cqb_tlr.asp
-
That's another 1911. Don't forget to vote.
-
I've already done it..
-
Could be wrong, but the military testing on the 1911 "back in the day" was pretty brutal. Sand, mud, immersion, heat, cold, I can't remember where I read or saw it, but it just didn't end up in active service without some field testing.
-
I voted for the 1911. I carry a lightly modified Colt LW Officers ACP but if I expected more trouble I wouldn't hesitate to carry a Para P14.
Richard
PS: Both work every time!
-
I love 1911's, but when the SHTF, I'll be carrying at least one Glock. 10mm, .45, or at least .40. I'll take my SP101 in .357 too.
When cockroaches are all that's left to rule the Earth, they'll be carrying Glocks.
It is pretty amazing to see the renaissance that the 1911 and the snubby revolver are having right now.
-
I love 1911's, but when the SHTF, I'll be carrying at least one Glock. 10mm, .45, or at least .40. I'll take my SP101 in .357 too.
When cockroaches are all that's left to rule the Earth, they'll be carrying Glocks.
It is pretty amazing to see the renaissance that the 1911 and the snubby revolver are having right now.
;D
-
It is pretty amazing to see the renaissance that the 1911 and the snubby revolver are having right now.
What's amazing to me is that some people actually think that 1911's and snubbie revolvers ever went out of favor,
and now somehow need to be "rediscovered".
-
What's amazing to me is that some people actually think that 1911's and snubbie revolvers ever went out of favor,
and now somehow need to be "rediscovered".
I think gun magazines just rediscovered them. There was 12 or 15 years where everything was wonder-9s.
-
1911. Because you can't beat a bad guy with combat tupperware if you run out of ammo.
-
I voted for the 1911. I carry a lightly modified Colt LW Officers ACP but if I expected more trouble I wouldn't hesitate to carry a Para P14.
Richard
PS: Both work every time!
I used to have a Colt until I switched to a P14, actually a 13+1 frame I bought before Para made complete guns. It's had thousands of rounds through it and still works fine, but it's so badly worn that it rattles like a maraca if I shake it. A steel frame wouldn't wear that bad. I'm going to have the slide and frame tightened up and it will be ready for another 20 years. I have a few mags with extended baseplates so they're all 15 rounds but are the same length as an 8-round single column mag with a bumper on it. 7 extra rounds can be quite an advantage in a fighting pistol. And I don't have one for fighting, one for hunting, one for plinking, and one for serious target practice. I've used one pistol for everything and that's why after 20 years it has so much wear. But I also know that I can count on it. My newest .45 I'm not so sure about because it's not even broke in yet.
-
Could be wrong, but the military testing on the 1911 "back in the day" was pretty brutal. Sand, mud, immersion, heat, cold, I can't remember where I read or saw it, but it just didn't end up in active service without some field testing.
Brutal is the right word for it. It was torture tested quite severely and passed. That's why it took so many years to find a pistol tough enough to replace it.
-
1911. Because you can't beat a bad guy with combat tupperware if you run out of ammo.
Hell yeah you can.
-
I voted Glock of course as I stated before I how I feel about it in a fighting application.
I was wondering does anyone feel that the votes could be affected by age. I am not saying every vote is affected by this, there are exceptions to every rule. But if you are older, say over 40 maybe even 50, are you more bias towards the 1911 cause that is what you have shot for longer, and maybe that is what you grew up with hearing about its superiority.
Just as I have grown up with Glocks being the top dog. I am 26 and since I have been old enough to understand what a fighting gun is, or what a gun that LE or professionals choose has been Glock. Every polymer gun has been compared to or tried to compete with the Glock and since Polymer has been the new thing that has taken handguns into the 21st century am I more conditioned to choose the Glock as the ultimate fighting handgun. Just as my father's generation has been exposed to the 1911 or even the .357 revolver.
Just a thought, but do you think maybe I am on to something here? Is this maybe why Glock and 1911 seem to be always going head to head. My generation, and guys alittle older than me, have really just been able to get into the gun community and defensive handgun world, do to the age you must be to own a handgun. In another 20 years will there be another gun that goes up against these two. And those will be popular cause the kids growing up now are being exposed to it. Like maybe the FNP series or Sig 220's or XD's. I know those are all popular now but maybe something new will be the the big gun to compare to Glocks and 1911's in the future.
-
Age may indeed affect some people's choices. Familiarity would be a big factor too. Many of us were in the military where 1911s ruled for 75 years and when the old warhorse finally was replaced, it still wasn't by anything with a polymer frame. As for Glock being the choice of LEOs, I was under the impression that most carry whatever they're issued. Maybe that carries over into their personal life and they just buy what they're already familiar with. Departments that have to buy 100s of firearms need to save money when they can, and when the polymer-framed pistols first came out they were significantly cheaper than metal-framed pistols. If the price of oil gets too high, maybe the expensive plastic will be replaced by metal. It would be interesting to see what civilians choose if the police quit using plastic and switch back to metal-frames.
-
JMB and the 1911 for my vote ;)
+1 The Glock just doesn't fit my hand. The grip angle just isn't right.
-
jumbofrank...mine is a frame kit and Colt Series 70 slide with Kart barrel. I also have 1000's of rounds thru mine with only a couple extractors gone bad.
Richard
PS: Think about having "Accua-rails" installed.
-
Bone stock, the Glock is a better fighting gun, reliability is #1, and it wins hands down, especially with other than ball ammo. #2 is capacity, which unless you get an Para, Sti, etc.. is not part of the equation. You can fight longer with 15 rounds than you can with 8. I really like the Glock 21, I've shot it a lot, it is the most accurate Glock, due to conventional rifling, not polygonal, easier on lead bullets too.
I own 4 glocks, and 10 1911's, I love them both for different reasons, the 1911 does feel sexy in the hand, and I have both high caps, single stacks, s/a and Lda triggers, some short and some long, some with compensators, really good game guns, and really good on the short guns. But I have thousands of rounds in the field with my model 21, shot everything from rattlesnakes to white tail deer.. it delivers everytime, with a good trigger, but not comparable to a s/a trigger job on a 1911. But definitely usable.
My friends and I have had this conversation more than once, if I could only have 1 pistol, what would it be, A glock model 20 10mm. If I could have 2 pistols, it would be a glock .45 and a .357 mag, 3 pistols, a glock .45, a S&W .357 revolver, probably a 6" and a .22rf pistol of some sort. 4 pistols and the world is wide open.
-
jumbofrank...mine is a frame kit and Colt Series 70 slide with Kart barrel. I also have 1000's of rounds thru mine with only a couple extractors gone bad.
Richard
PS: Think about having "Accua-rails" installed.
Mine is a Series 80 slide with the frame milled out to take a Para ramped barrel. It's been so long I don't remember who milled it out for me. I have several different brands of parts in it so it's a real mutt. I've had to replace all of my magazine springs and the recoil spring. That's about it. Not bad considering I got the frame kit the first year they made them.
The only reason I don't get the Acc-U-Rails is that I also use that frame on my Mech-Tech Carbine Conversion Unit and I don't think I can use an Acc-U-Rail frame on the CCU. Too bad because it's only an hour drive from my house to Doug Jones' Acc-U-Rail. Instead I'll send my pistol to Cylinder & Slide to be tightened up. I just have to decide if I want it refinished while it's there.
-
My full-size Para handles the flying ashtray with it's .25" hollowpoint pretty well. It may not work 100% of the time but must be around 99% since the feed ramp was polished. Some people say that it's as bad as a bullet can get for causing jams in a 1911. That bullet in Blazer ammo is my favorite critter getter, but I don't use it for defense because 99% isn't good enough.
m25operator, is Blazer ammo okay to use in a Glock, and will the flying ashtray function 100% of the time? If so I want a Glock too, but I want my next .45 to be a dual caliber .460 Rowland/.45 ACP, and they only make them as 1911s. Also what's the highest capacity .45 mag for Glock? I have some aftermarket 20s for my Para.
-
If it wasn't for their grip, their trigger or their sights, I probably could learn to love a Glock. ;)
-
Some thing to remember, the 1911 has proven itself in combat, several times. the glock has not.
You can't really compare the two. One was designed ( and redesigned) to fit the wishes of a miltary contract. When it was designed maching and fitting were still done by hand. the other was designed by a guy who had lots of exp in plastics, had access to the most modern CNC machining tools( for the time) and was built to what he wanted.
-
Glock versus 1911 is BS (waiting for lightning bolt ;D ) I own and carry a 1911 but if my life depended on a firearm and someone handed me a Glock I would be just as confident.
-
Glock versus 1911 is BS (waiting for lightning bolt ;D ) I own and carry a 1911 but if my life depended on a firearm and someone handed me a Glock I would be just as confident.
+1 Tom
-
Give me a wheel gun any day of the week. Hopefully 44, mag if available.
-
I really expected the vote to be closer on this. Where are all the Glockenspiel people?
I don't care what caliber my handgun is either as long as the first number in the caliber is 4 and the second number IS NOT 0.
-
I really expected the vote to be closer on this. Where are all the Glockenspiel people?
I don't care what caliber my handgun is either as long as the first number in the caliber is 4 and the second number IS NOT 0.
I have several 4 caliber pistols, some DO end in "0" and they rock and roll with the best of them. In the right hands, calibers that start with "3" and end in "7" aren't bad either.
Also, .the S&W .46"0" ain't bad either. 8)
-
Jumbo, the rails can be taken out for use with the CCU and then put back in. They have to be so that the owner can install larger rails as the old ones ware.
M25, I have owned several bone stock 1911's that would feed 200 SWC's and all HP's except the "SPEER Flying Ashtray" every time. The Glock is not the only reliable SA.
Richard
-
Jumbo, the rails can be taken out for use with the CCU and then put back in. They have to be so that the owner can install larger rails as the old ones ware.
M25, I have owned several bone stock 1911's that would feed 200 SWC's and all HP's except the "SPEER Flying Ashtray" every time. The Glock is not the only reliable SA.
Richard
I know the Acc-U-Rails pop right out but I don't know if the frame rails are milled down to make room for them, or if only the slide is milled to fit. I thought both parts were milled down but maybe not. I should call Doug Jones and find out. That would be cool if I can get the Acc-U-Rails and still use my CCU. I would rather do that instead of a squeezing and peening job that won't last as long. BTW the CCU probably gives it 40% more muzzle energy. If that's not enough they make a .460 Rowland CCU too. People have taken big bears and stuff with them. You can't get a .460 Glock. The CCU has so many accessories now you can even make it look like an M4 carbine if you want.
-
... the S&W .46"0" ain't bad either. 8)
I agree, but the second number isn't a zero either.
-
I like both and I have owned both. Currently I own a GLOCK. I am not totally crazy about the grip angle but it is very reliable compared to a 1911. The 1911 has been around for a100 years. You would think that should be enough time tp make one that doesnt need "500 round break in" or trip to the smithy for a "reliability package"
When you truly look at the two side by side without the glasses of nostalgia the GLOCK wins
-
I agree, but the second number isn't a zero either.
Alright, I'll agree with that. But only on the technicality of marketing and sales. ;)
-
I like both and I have owned both. Currently I own a GLOCK. I am not totally crazy about the grip angle but it is very reliable compared to a 1911. The 1911 has been around for a100 years. You would think that should be enough time tp make one that doesnt need "500 round break in" or trip to the smithy for a "reliability package"
When you truly look at the two side by side without the glasses of nostalgia the GLOCK wins
I don't know if a Glock needs any improvements but a lot of Glock owners buy aftermarket parts for them. None of my 1911s have needed a 500 round break in or a reliability package either, whatever the heck that is. If they both work that good out of the box I still don't see how the Glock is better. If I had both to compare side by side it would help but no one will give me a Glock and I can't afford to buy one for testing. They're better than some 1911s no doubt, but none of mine have been off brands or cheap knockoffs.
-
None of my 1911s have needed a 500 round break in or a reliability package either
Mine didn't either, and even after a "tweak" here or there, there was no "break in necessary."
I had my S&W 1911 on layaway, but could shoot it and turn it back in until paid for, for 2 months I put over 500 rds. through it, without any pre-cleaning, lubing, care or maint. shot it, turned it in, shot it dirty, turned it in, shot it dirtier, turned it in, etc,...
It didn't let me down once.
It shot what fed, and for 99.999% of pistol owners, that's what is expected.
-
None of my 1911s have needed a 500 round break in or a reliability package either
Mine didn't either, and even after a "tweak" here or there, there was no "break in necessary."
I had my S&W 1911 on layaway, but could shoot it and turn it back in until paid for, for 2 months I put over 500 rds. through it, without any pre-cleaning, lubing, care or maint. shot it, turned it in, shot it dirty, turned it in, shot it dirtier, turned it in, etc,...
It didn't let me down once.
It shot what fed, and for 99.999% of pistol owners, that's what is expected.
This is nice to hear. The guys that work at our range are always talking the 1911s by Smith and Sig down. I thought that maybe it was just that they didn't like the external extractors. Anybody else with good Sig or Smith 1911s?
-
None of my 1911s have needed a 500 round break in or a reliability package either
Mine didn't either, and even after a "tweak" here or there, there was no "break in necessary."
I had my S&W 1911 on layaway, but could shoot it and turn it back in until paid for, for 2 months I put over 500 rds. through it, without any pre-cleaning, lubing, care or maint. shot it, turned it in, shot it dirty, turned it in, shot it dirtier, turned it in, etc,...
It didn't let me down once.
It shot what fed, and for 99.999% of pistol owners, that's what is expected.
Other then 1 of my 1911 not feeding one brand of JHP. I have never had an issue with my 1911s that was not cuased by a bad mag or the user. most of the mag issuse were cuased abuse. that being said, I have never had a prob with a colt mag( other then said abuse) other brands I can not say that about.
-
I've chosen the Glock, for the same reason I like the AK and the FAL. Simplicity and reliability. You can argue all you want, but 1911s are typically less reliable out of the box than Glocks, unless you buy quite a bit more than bare bones. For field stripping and maintenance, the Glock wins. For accuracy, I go with 1911, but it's relative (3 in at 15 yards versus 4 in). Overall, the 1911 is a great design, but the Glock is beats it out. Is it as pretty as a 1911? No. It's a tool, that doesn't really allow for the type of customizing that the 1911's wood and steel offers.
And, yes, I own both, and have had my 1911 the longest.
-
Had to vote GLOCK.
My SIG 1911 and my Colt's Gold Cup Trophy are close, warm friends and carried often, but the name of the poll was "Ultimate Fighting Handgun.
That to me implies all of the things that "fighting" might entail. Including swapping parts to get guns back to work even when a gunsmith isn't in your back pocket and in a long term campaign.
Try this:
Create a pile of parts from stripping down to the frame 10 Glocks and 10 1911s. Pull out parts and put the guns back together without matching up the parts to any particular gun.
ALL the Glocks will work. Good luck on those 1911s.
I love my 1911s but I don't harbor any illusions.
They are a 100 year old brilliant design and need proper hand fitting of some parts to work well. This is as it should be with 100 year old technology, labor was very cheap back then.
-
Having been a certified Glock armorer for a number of years, I've seen just about every bad accessory and modification done to a Glock possible! I used to pull and replace non factory parts from officers' duty guns on a regular basis! The one difference I've noticed between professionals that carry Glocks and pros that carry 1911s is the 1911 owners seem to practice more,know more about their pistol, in general are more serious about what's in their holster.
The age of the polymer pistol has brought a certain lackadaisical attitude about carrying and maintennance. Sure,you can shoot a Glock that hasn't been cleaned in a decade,but would you want your life to depend on it? For me personally the grip angle is wrong and the trigger "springy" while my carry 1911s point well,feel great and have crisp, 4.5-5 lb triggers, and are in a serious caliber!Mine have saved my bacon a few times while working as an armed security professional.
In summary, after having shot both extensively,both are fine systems but the 1911 wins out in that JMB designed it as a fighting pistol in a large caliber that has withstood the test of time, while the Glock was originally designed to make it easy and inexpensive for an officer to carry a lot of ammo!
Spray and pray vs. only hits count?
-
Well friend, my vote would have to be for the Colt 1911. Of course the best one to have is the one that you got when you need it.
-
Had to vote GLOCK.
My SIG 1911 and my Colt's Gold Cup Trophy are close, warm friends and carried often, but the name of the poll was "Ultimate Fighting Handgun.
That to me implies all of the things that "fighting" might entail. Including swapping parts to get guns back to work even when a gunsmith isn't in your back pocket and in a long term campaign.
Try this:
Create a pile of parts from stripping down to the frame 10 Glocks and 10 1911s. Pull out parts and put the guns back together without matching up the parts to any particular gun.
ALL the Glocks will work. Good luck on those 1911s.
I love my 1911s but I don't harbor any illusions.
They are a 100 year old brilliant design and need proper hand fitting of some parts to work well. This is as it should be with 100 year old technology, labor was very cheap back then.
The industrial revolution didn't just start with Glock. Firearms parts have been interchangable for over 200 years. I don't know how many 1911s you've worked on but I worked on a lot of them in the army. All I did was work on fireams 60 hours a week for 5 years. If a part broke or wore out we just put another one in. No hand-fitting of any parts. Ever. If you mix parts of several different brand 1911s built to different specs by different manufacturers it's not the same thing as mixing 1 brand and model of Glock parts. But, if the 1911s you're talking about are all mil-spec FIGHTING PISTOLS, then there shouldn't be any problems swapping parts among them.
There have been a few posts talking about all these problems that 1911s have that I've never seen, either as a small arms repairman, or as a private citizen who's owned several 1911s. One good thing about 1911s is that they don't suffer from "Exploding Glock Syndrome". Just Google "Glock ka-booms" if you don't know what I'm talking about.
-
This thread has gone on for longer than I thought it would. I think it says a lot about how great both of these guns are.
-
It says a lot that these two pistols are the only choice.
-
I don't know how many 1911s you've worked on but I worked on a lot of them in the army.
I don't work on my 1911s. I use a gunsmith because I want it to function when I pull the trigger!
Me working on a 1911 would be like a monkey trying to "date" a football.
But, if the 1911s you're talking about are all mil-spec FIGHTING PISTOLS, then there shouldn't be any problems swapping parts among them.
I should have clarified. I don't have any GI type, plain Jane 1911s.
All I have owned have had numerous things done to them from sight changes to checkering in places even I didn't think needed it. ;)
All are reliable enough to carry when I decide to open carry. For CCW, it's a G27 just because of size.
-
I don't work on my 1911s. I use a gunsmith because I want it to function when I pull the trigger!
Me working on a 1911 would be like a monkey trying to "date" a football.
I should have clarified. I don't have any GI type, plain Jane 1911s.
All I have owned have had numerous things done to them from sight changes to checkering in places even I didn't think needed it. ;)
All are reliable enough to carry when I decide to open carry. For CCW, it's a G27 just because of size.
So you don't know what would happen if someone took 10 1911s apart, mixed up the parts and put them together? And you just threw that "good luck" comment out there anyway? Am I getting this right? Have you tried it with Glocks and know it will work, or are you making that up too? There's enough bad "information" on the internet without people making things up and presenting them as facts. People who don't know better believe a lot of things they read. I have a good idea what would happen with 1911s, but can't say what would happen with Glocks because I've never done it with them. Since both pistols are mass-produced by modern methods they should each allow parts to be interchanged. I have mixed and matched parts from different 1911s, both mil-spec and civilian models. I've mixed parts from target pistols and service pistols and lots of other combinations like that. I just swapped parts and they worked, without any hand-fitting or adjustments. They're mass-produced, not made one at a time in a blacksmith's shop. The parts are the same so they work in a bunch of different guns, not just one special pistol that they were made for. Some Gold Cup parts won't fit Government Models because they're two different models and certain parts are different, but a Gold Cup is a target pistol, not a fighting pistol, so it doesn't even matter. This isn't meant as a personal attack but it may sound that way. I just want to separate the facts from opinions here. That's all.
-
Another thing that JumboFrank neglected to address is "accuracy" when we're talking "Fighting handguns" we are not talking about 25 yard groups, more like 25 feet or even 25 INCHES, at those ranges at 6 inch group center mass with .45 acp will make any one think twice, EVEN IF THEY ARE wearing body armor. No body armor they may be dead, WITH armor they will have bruises that will make their relatives hurt ;D
-
I used to work with a guy who was a Tunnel Rat in Vietnam - one of the most dangerous jobs in the history of warfare. Everytime he crawled into a hole he bet his life on a 1911 that was left over from WWII or earlier. Anyone here want to crawl into a tunnel like that with a 30 year old Glock? Oh wait a minute, there aren't any! If I had to chose one of these two pistols, I'd pick the one that was designed to be a fighting pistol and used in several wars, not the one that was designed to be a cheap pistol and carried by several police. More than 2 out of 3 people here choose the 1911 too so I know it's not just my opinion. In a few years I'll probably get a centennial model to go with my 1994 Winchester 1894. Maybe I'll trade my 75th anniversary PPK for it.
-
I've chosen the Glock, for the same reason I like the AK and the FAL. Simplicity and reliability. You can argue all you want, but 1911s are typically less reliable out of the box than Glocks, unless you buy quite a bit more than bare bones. For field stripping and maintenance, the Glock wins. For accuracy, I go with 1911, but it's relative (3 in at 15 yards versus 4 in). Overall, the 1911 is a great design, but the Glock is beats it out. Is it as pretty as a 1911? No. It's a tool, that doesn't really allow for the type of customizing that the 1911's wood and steel offers.
.
For the part in bold, how can you say a gun you have to pull the trigger to field stip wins over one you do not?
-
For the part in bold, how can you say a gun you have to pull the trigger to field stip wins over one you do not?
Do you really have to do that? :o I was taught that you keep your finger off the trigger until you're on target and ready to fire.
-
Do you really have to do that? :o I was taught that you keep your finger off the trigger until you're on target and ready to fire.
Yes, on a Glock you do, as well as a vast majority of the polymer-striker fired pistols.
-
I have a friend that had a customer at his range who, while demostrating the trouble he had field striping his G-19, fire a round through the top of his glass display case and nearly take out Ken's left foot.
There are people who have no business owning firearms!
Tim
-
I have a friend that had a customer at his range who, while demostrating the trouble he had field striping his G-19, fire a round through the top of his glass display case and nearly take out Ken's left foot.
There are people who have no business owning firearms!
Tim
That's why that is a BAD design feature. But it also illustrates that if you overlook BASIC safety practices BAD things happen.
-
For the part in bold, how can you say a gun you have to pull the trigger to field stip wins over one you do not?
Easy. Follow the four (or however many you wish) rules of firearms safety in a rational manner. Almost all of us, if honest, would admit we dry fire in some way which violates rule 3. I use Snap caps, for example, and aim at a safe backstop.
After that admittedly imperfect step, the Glock breaks down into 4 big parts (5 counting the mag) parts. With your fingers alone. Detail stripping requires the Glock disassembly tool. That's it. The 1911, IIRC, into at least 7 big and tiny parts (8 with mag), some of those small parts we have to find on the floor, or even embdeed in the ceiling. (That's a story for another time). The 1911 is easiest to disassemble with the 1911 Barrel Bushing Wrench we all know and love, and IIRC, can be detail stripped with some of the parts integral to the gun, but still requires more tools. I don't detail strip, so I would welcome enlightenment on that issue.
David Hackworth details multiple NDs in his books, with the 1911 (and M1 Garand). All were violation of one of the rules. And, FWIW, my non-firing pin block safety Kimber requires me to dry fire it if it's empty to avoid sear damage. It's actually detailed in the manual.
All that said, I would love it if Glock could get make that step work another way. And, if I had a 1911, I wouldn't feel I was at a disadvantage. I just prefer a simpler gun.
-
I've been using 1911's for 30 years and have never actually SEEN a barrel buhing wrench, could some one please post a picture of one ?
-
The only guns I've ever seen that need a barrel bushing wrench were the premadona race guns.
If your a sissy the front of th base plate for the mag works perfectly to depress the spring... its like it was designed to do that or something ;D
(http://www.midwayusa.com/midwayusa/staticpages/highres/212051.jpg)
-
I have one but never use it. I agree with the back of the magazine, works like BUTTER!!! Or a flat back pocket knife, or a butter knife or what ever other thing you happen to have around. When you need one, you never have one! So improvise!!!
T
-
So you don't know what would happen if someone took 10 1911s apart, mixed up the parts and put them together? And you just threw that "good luck" comment out there anyway? Am I getting this right? Have you tried it with Glocks and know it will work, or are you making that up too?
During the transition period for PD switching to Glocks, dept. armorers did just that.
All the G17 parts in piles and put back in the guns without any care except for the right part going in the right place.
I'm curious - isn't military small arms wrenching geared toward "get the guns to go bang and get them out of here".
You state you've never fitted a part in your Army days. Isn't that more a statement of the military mindset of "if parts break or wear we just replace them"? Properly fitted, wouldn't the parts last longer? OK, mil-spec 1911s can work. But at what cost to the parts and their locking surfaces?
Hell, I had to have the thumb safety on one of my (new) Colts fitted just so it didn't feel like mush when operated. Yes, it worked - but it wasn't "right".
-
You really can't compare the fitting of 1911 parts with any modern firearm.
They were designed with CNC in mind, the 1911 was designed for manuel machinging.
-
The only guns I've ever seen that need a barrel bushing wrench were the premadona race guns. [note: like my target 1911 :( (RecoveringGT'er)] If your a sissy the front of th base plate for the mag works perfectly to depress the spring... its like it was designed to do that or something ;D
Exactly. I've even heard of using the follower of the mag for pushing out parts as well...
You really can't compare the fitting of 1911 parts with any modern firearm. They were designed with CNC in mind, the 1911 was designed for manuel machinging.
Something like that. To be interchangable, the 1911 parts had to fit pretty loose. Hence the WWII and onward rep for reliability, or accuracy, but not both without extensive 'smithing. It's like comparing a modern revolver to 1873 Colt. The modern has been simplified in design and the parts can be made to tighter tolerances, but it's still a design based on different methods.
-
You really can't compare the fitting of 1911 parts with any modern firearm.
They were designed with CNC in mind, the 1911 was designed for manuel machinging.
+1
Also to add to that, the original 1911 design was for battlefield use. It had to be as close to 100% reliable as possible. Battlefield reliability in those days meant 'loose'. Accuracy was a secondary concern. If you could consistently hit a an 18" x 18" object, it was battlefield accurate.
We can't get manuel to do any machinging around here..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
too busy mowing.
I know,.....Groan.... ;D
-
+1
Also to add to that, the original 1911 design was for battlefield use. It had to be as close to 100% reliable as possible. Battlefield reliability in those days meant 'loose'. Accuracy was a secondary concern. If you could consistently hit a an 18" x 18" object, it was battlefield accurate.
We can't get manuel to do any machinging around here..... ;D ;D ;D ;D
too busy mowing.
I know,.....Groan.... ;D
You must never have served in the military! Why do you think there are 1,000,000+ uses for duck tape out there? LMAO! ;D
-
You must never have served in the military! Why do you think there are 1,000,000+ uses for duck tape out there? LMAO! ;D
No, never served in the military (their choice, not mine, I tried and their doctor said "no"), but I have been in several SHTF situations and I agree with you 100% (if I am understanding your point) that NOTHING under the sun is 100% reliable, (except maybe the failure of something when you really need it to work). That's why I said "as close as possible".
;)
Yes...when all else fails...grab the roll of '100mph tape'...... ;D
-
No, never served in the military (their choice, not mine, I tried and their doctor said "no"), but I have been in several SHTF situations and I agree with you 100% (if I am understanding your point) that NOTHING under the sun is 100% reliable, (except maybe the failure of something when you really need it to work). That's why I said "as close as possible".
;)
Yes...when all else fails...grab the roll of '100mph tape'...... ;D
no, there is one thing that is 100% reliable... if I need a part for what ever( car, gun, boat.. you name it) and it could be one of two parts, it will always be: The one they don't have or the most expesive... 99% of the time its both. ;D
-
90 mile an hour tape in my day. ;D
-
90 mile an hour tape in my day. ;D
Yes, the world haz sped up somewhat..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
***** GROAN *****
-
***** GROAN *****
Thought that's what you'd say, Old Sport....... ;D
-
During the transition period for PD switching to Glocks, dept. armorers did just that.
All the G17 parts in piles and put back in the guns without any care except for the right part going in the right place.
I'm curious - isn't military small arms wrenching geared toward "get the guns to go bang and get them out of here".
You state you've never fitted a part in your Army days. Isn't that more a statement of the military mindset of "if parts break or wear we just replace them"? Properly fitted, wouldn't the parts last longer? OK, mil-spec 1911s can work. But at what cost to the parts and their locking surfaces?
Hell, I had to have the thumb safety on one of my (new) Colts fitted just so it didn't feel like mush when operated. Yes, it worked - but it wasn't "right".
More than 200 years before they did that with Glocks someone else did the same thing with musket parts. I'm sure others here are familiar with the concept of interchangeable parts. Anyone who never heard of it before can look up "Industrial Revolution". It was a groundreaking concept then. It's not as impressive to see it done in the 21st century as it was in the 18th. It's just SOP now.
If parts break or wear out they do have to be replaced. What else are you going to do with bad parts? Small arms repair is fixing whatever the unit armorers couldn't fix, and doing whatever it takes to make each weapon work right, with everything within specs. I didn't like some of the armorers who brought their stuff to me because I had to fix things they or the operators screwed up. They weren't trained or authorized to do my job and anytime one of them tried I was the one who had to make it right. If I couldn't fix something they wrote it off as a total loss and exchanged it for a new one. The only total losses were things like M16s run over by an entire tank brigade and the pieces brought to my shop in a garbage bag. I actually groaned oh shit out loud in front of everybody when I heard the jingling garbage bag. I knew it was going to "one of those days" and couldn't help saying it.
If a part broke in two it we didn't weld the broken pieces back together and try to make it work. If parts were worn out to the point of being unserviceable they were replaced. We weren't about to spend hours welding up layers of metal on it then milling it back down to size when it could be replaced at a fraction of the cost in 1/100 the amount of time. Some parts like M85 machinegun sears could be stoned to remove burrs to make them work properly again. I don't consider that hand fitting since it would work in any one of them after being repaired. I never had to do anything like that to a 1911. No filing, stoning, lapping, or anything else. If a part is missing, broken, bent beyond repair, or worn to the point of being out of spec, it got replaced.
The main part of my job was troubleshooting to figure out what the real problem was in the first place, like when someone told me a weapon is doube feeding and I know from the nature of the design that it's not even possible. Then fixing it, and keeping spare parts on hand in case it happened again, and filling out piles of paperwork filled out in quintuplicate. There was a lot more to it but those were the main things. If it took a month to get a certain part we didn't have in stock, we didn't slap a band-aid on and let it go for now. It was fixed right before being used again. Sometimes they couldn't wait and parts were used off two or more broken weapons to get one working. It's called cannibalization because you have to sacrifice some to save the others. It's only possible because all the parts of each model were interchangeable with no hand fitting.
-
To all the 1911 haters out there; if it's such a bad design then why does Glock use the John M. Browning-designed tilting barrel short-recoil system like the 1911?
To anyone who wants to see how a 1911 goes together; check this out. There are some mistakes but it's still pretty cool. http://splodetv.com/video/1911-breakdown
Its true that 1911s weren't designed to be the fastest and most efficiently built on today's machines. They were originally designed for the old fashioned type of machininery that was available back then. But they've been converted over to CAD/CAM designs that can make all the parts to much tighter tolerances eliminating hand fitting. If the parts aren't made to super-tight match tolerances you just slap them together. There are exceptions such as aftermarket parts that are made oversize to fit old worn out guns. Just because the 1911 is an old design doesn't mean it's made with 100 year old methods and machinery. Look around most gun factories and you'll see computers, not some guy with a foot-pedaled lathe. It's not Heinrich or John or Manuel labor.
And always remember, whether you're a police officer or in the military -
all the equipment you bet your life on was built by the lowest bidder! :o
-
They were originally designed for the old fashioned type of machininery that was available back then. But they've been converted over to CAD/CAM designs that can make all the parts to much tighter tolerances eliminating hand fitting. If the parts aren't made to super-tight match tolerances you just slap them together. There are exceptions such as aftermarket parts that are made oversize to fit old worn out guns. Just because the 1911 is an old design doesn't mean it's made with 100 year old methods and machinery. Look around most gun factories and you'll see computers, not some guy with a foot-pedaled lathe.
Good Point!
Modern CNC Lathes, mills and the like are capable of tolerances of better than one-ten-thousandth (.0001)/inch. To my knowledge, the slide to frame tolerance on high end Wilsons, Kimbers, etc is around .004".
The technolgy is far better than the industry needs. I work in 3D modeling, 50 hours a week programing for extremely high tolerance turbine parts. Those tolerances are intended for a part that may be in a rotating assembly turning 75,000 rpm, about 6 times faster than a formula one engine is turning. These parts cannot be measured by normal means, they must be optically laser measured for acceptance.
If a high end manufacturer of firearms is still doing it the old fashioned way, I'd keep shopping!!
Tim
-
I occurred to me this morning that the ultmate fighting pistol has to be solid steel and heavy enough to pistol-whip the crap out of somebody. Geting hit with a light piece of plastic seems like it would be more like getting hit with a mallet instead of a 2pound ball-pien hammer. If you want to crack skulls get the right tool for the job. :)
To ellis4538 and all. I just got off the phone with Doug at Acc-U-Rail this afternoon. Once the 1911 frame and slide are modified they only work with modified parts. So I can't use an Acc-U-Rail frame on my Mech-Tech CCU. The only way tighten up the old maraca and still use the CCU is to have it squeezed and peened. Right now a Dwyer Group Gripper is making the barrel lock up solidly to the slide, but the slide/frame fit has slop in it. The barrel and sights line up so it still shoots where I aim it even though the slide can move vertically, rotate, and move horizontally a little bit. I wouldn't suggest anyone else buy an alloy frame and shoot it as much as I did mine the past 20 years. That was before I heard people say to use alloy for carry and steel for heavy use. Oh well, live and learn. In another 20 years I can get it tightened up again. That's the price I have to pay for a 14-shot alloy 1911 that weighs the same loaded as an 8-shot steel 1911. I still need a steel-framed one so I can get it converted to .460 Rowland.
-
It appers that I'm not smart enough to insert a picture so hopefully the attachement will come through.
-
Combat Tupperware,....Priceless.... ;)
-
Give me a wheel gun any day of the week. Hopefully 44, mag if available.
F O U L
But a dang good point....especially whilst talking reliability.
-
More than 200 years before they did that with Glocks someone else did the same thing with musket parts. I'm sure others here are familiar with the concept of interchangeable parts. Anyone who never heard of it before can look up "Industrial Revolution". It was a groundreaking concept then. It's not as impressive to see it done in the 21st century as it was in the 18th. It's just SOP now.
If parts break or wear out they do have to be replaced. What else are you going to do with bad parts? Small arms repair is fixing whatever the unit armorers couldn't fix, and doing whatever it takes to make each weapon work right, with everything within specs. I didn't like some of the armorers who brought their stuff to me because I had to fix things they or the operators screwed up. They weren't trained or authorized to do my job and anytime one of them tried I was the one who had to make it right. If I couldn't fix something they wrote it off as a total loss and exchanged it for a new one. The only total losses were things like M16s run over by an entire tank brigade and the pieces brought to my shop in a garbage bag. I actually groaned oh shit out loud in front of everybody when I heard the jingling garbage bag. I knew it was going to "one of those days" and couldn't help saying it.
If a part broke in two it we didn't weld the broken pieces back together and try to make it work. If parts were worn out to the point of being unserviceable they were replaced. We weren't about to spend hours welding up layers of metal on it then milling it back down to size when it could be replaced at a fraction of the cost in 1/100 the amount of time. Some parts like M85 machinegun sears could be stoned to remove burrs to make them work properly again. I don't consider that hand fitting since it would work in any one of them after being repaired. I never had to do anything like that to a 1911. No filing, stoning, lapping, or anything else. If a part is missing, broken, bent beyond repair, or worn to the point of being out of spec, it got replaced.
The main part of my job was troubleshooting to figure out what the real problem was in the first place, like when someone told me a weapon is doube feeding and I know from the nature of the design that it's not even possible. Then fixing it, and keeping spare parts on hand in case it happened again, and filling out piles of paperwork filled out in quintuplicate. There was a lot more to it but those were the main things. If it took a month to get a certain part we didn't have in stock, we didn't slap a band-aid on and let it go for now. It was fixed right before being used again. Sometimes they couldn't wait and parts were used off two or more broken weapons to get one working. It's called cannibalization because you have to sacrifice some to save the others. It's only possible because all the parts of each model were interchangeable with no hand fitting.
I'm using the colors to match the quotes ;D
It was Eli Whitney trying (successfully) to get a military contract, a little known fact is that he cheated, each rifle 1 -10 was given an ID number and every part from that rifle was marked with that number, so instead of just assembling them with random parts the Whitney employees discreetly matched up the numbers, some examples of these first test rifles on display in museums still show the assembly numbers that were used.
When I was a unit armorer in the NH Army National Guard, We had an ammo truck driver who knew it all, He didn't need no steenking ground guide, until the day he ran over an M-60 machine gun. When they turned it in to me I said CONSIDERABLY more than "Oh shit". I can laugh about it now (Doubt if he can) The only part they could salvage was the butt plate, It had a weird 90 degree bend in the receiver, got a brand new one from Saco defense at a time when I saw them listed at $10,000 EACH but I doubt the Army paid anywhere near that much.
Good Point!
Modern CNC Lathes, mills and the like are capable of tolerances of better than one-ten-thousandth (.0001)/inch. To my knowledge, the slide to frame tolerance on high end Wilsons, Kimbers, etc is around .004".
The technolgy is far better than the industry needs. I work in 3D modeling, 50 hours a week programing for extremely high tolerance turbine parts. Those tolerances are intended for a part that may be in a rotating assembly turning 75,000 rpm, about 6 times faster than a formula one engine is turning. These parts cannot be measured by normal means, they must be optically laser measured for acceptance.
If a high end manufacturer of firearms is still doing it the old fashioned way, I'd keep shopping!!
Tim
CNC milling is what I do for a living, when I worked at Thompson Center, the tightest tolerances we held on Contenders or Encores was +-.005 that's about the diameter of a hair. The machines I'm running now are the same age or older, but because of the tighter tolerances for small medical devices we routinely make adjustments of .0001 to hold tolerances of +-.0005 thats less than 1 /10th the thickness of a hair. Just tonight I ran 220 pieces the greatest deviation between them was .001 (it was NOT on the +-.0005 dimension ;D) Tonight was nothing special, over the last 14 monthes I have produced more than 30 THOUSAND parts with a greatest deviation of +-.001
-
Gl
It appers that I'm not smart enough to insert a picture so hopefully the attachement will come through.
Glad you like my BBQ gun