Gunfighter Moment from Ken Hackathorn. I couldn't say it better myself.
The 1911 pistol, good choice for carry or a piece of history? The answer is a bit of both, but a 1911 pistol is not the ideal gun for everyone. Certainly one of the best if not the top selling handguns in America, the great 1911 does have issues. It is a pistol made by a variety of manufacturers and in various levels of quality. I grew up with the 1911, I carry one most of the time, and I have never felt under-armed with one. My 1911 pistols work and I know how to maintain them and keep them in top form. For the ‘non-gun guy’, it is a bad choice; they’re much better off with a Glock or S&W M&P.
I’m often asked, “is a high capacity pistol better?” YES. Are high cap pistol necessary? If you miss a lot, they are great. If you can shoot, the 1911 will solve most problems. Consider why you want or need a pistol, then pick a gun that fills that need. The 1911 pistol has always ‘spoke’ to me. The modern polymer pistols make great tools, but they have no soul. In my classes I always ask who does not own a 1911 pistol. Sadly, these days more and more students raise their hands than those who don’t. I always bow my head in shame. Every true American Patriot should own a 1911 pistol. That is a fact. You don’t have to carry one, but, you should have one.
As of late it has become popular to damn the 1911 pistol. For over a decade I have referred to the 1911 as “The Worlds Finest Close Quarters Sidearm”… and, “King of feedway stoppages.” I have seen 1911 shooters that are so good at clearing malfunctions that they can do them subconsciously. When asked what happened to their pistol, they will reply, “What stoppage?”. They have to do IADs so often, that they don’t even realize that they did one. LAV refers to this as ‘Malfunction Amnesia’. Make no mistake, 1911 shooters are the best Immediate action drill shooters in the world. If you want a really reliable 45acp pistol, check out the H&K 45, FNX45, Smith & Wesson M&P 45, or the new Sig Sauer P227.
In many ways the 1911 is like the Harley Davidson motorcycle: it is uniquely American, but requires extra effort to keep it on the road. Like the Japanese Samurai sword, it represents much of the spirit of the warrior class: honored, collected, past from father to son, and likened to with a near spiritual following. I love the 1911, carry one almost daily, but usually train and teach with the gun that most of my students use: one of those polymer pistols without a ‘soul’.
-Ken Hackathorn
While I have a great amount of respect for Mr. Hackathorn, and all the other top tier gun fighting instructors that choose the 1911 as their tool for self defense, at the same time I find some of the supporting reasons for their defense of the 1911 as “The Worlds Finest Close Quarters Sidearm” to be a little disingenuous. I just don't understand the point of it all. Why not just stop at "I grew up with the 1911, I carry one most of the time, and I have never felt under-armed with one. My 1911 pistols work and I know how to maintain them and keep them in top form.", without all the "For the ‘non-gun guy’, it is a bad choice; they’re much better off with a Glock or S&W M&P" and "Are high cap pistol necessary? If you miss a lot, they are great" comments that are clearly made to elevate the 1911 shooter and his choice of gun over others. It all rings a little hollow to me, for example:
1.) "For the ‘non-gun guy’, it is a bad choice; they’re much better off with a Glock or S&W M&P". It really isn't that simple. I know a few non gun guys (and by non gun I mean they grew up shooting, understand firearms, but are more the sporting type as opposed to the self defense type) that have chosen the 1911 for a night stand gun. They are about "100 rounds of practice" proficient with it. They do not carry daily and rely on their 1911 for home defense, but in the event they need stop a home invasion it will probably serve them well. The other side of the coin is there are many 'gun guy's' who are currently in harms way that have the option to choose any sidearm they want and they choose more modern pistols, even the dreaded striker fired versions. Even the USMC, who has clung to the 1911 platform longer than any other branch of the service and reserved it for issue to it's top tier folks, has now authorized MARSOC members to carry the Glock 19.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...perators-to-choose-glocks-over-marsoc-45.html
"The Marine Corps has authorized MARSOC operators to carry Glock pistols, since many of the elite outfit's members prefer the popular 9mm over the custom .45 pistols the service bought them in 2012"
Two issues referenced in the above link are magazine capacity and malfunctions involving incomplete depression of the grip safety. The grip safety issue is often not discussed, and if it is referenced it usually defaults to "grip the pistol properly and you won't have issues". I have stood on the range at Stone Bay and watched a highly skilled MARSOC Marine, a personal friend of mine who at the time was the NCOIC/lead instructor at Special Operations Training Group - II Marine Expeditionary Force, have to readjust his grip during a live fire PSD/Vehicle ambush scenario. It happens both inside and outside the military, to novice and highly skilled shooters. The requirement for a high thumb grip sometimes, especially in very fast grip-draw-orient-shoot situations induces grip safety malfunctions. While the malfunction could be considered shooter induced, the design requirement of the grip safety is no respecter of skill level.
I agree 100% with Mr. Hackathorne's reasoning that the1911 is a pistol that requires the end user to have an in depth knowledge of how the pistol works, what has to be checked and rechecked, maintained, replaced, tweeked. It will not serve well the person that wants service without commitment. But that fact is not necessarily advantageous. Most of the modern pistols don't demand the type of understanding and commitment the 1911 does between major service intervals, that is not necessarily a bad thing, for both the novice and expert IMHO.
2.) "I’m often asked, “is a high capacity pistol better?” YES. Are high cap pistol necessary? If you miss a lot, they are great. If you can shoot, the 1911 will solve most problems." - The fact is the 1911 in the hands of a skilled gun fighter, like any defense caliber pistol, is capable of solving most problems. But magazine capacity has always been an important issue when it comes to armed combat. It really doesn't center so much on the number of rounds in the magazine as it does on the fact that magazine changes, even really efficient magazine changes take time. This very fact was decidedly important factor in favor of the 1911 replacing the 1917 revolver. The following is an excerpt from the book A Rifleman Went to War, by Captain Herbert W. McBride, a veteran of WWI and was written in 1935:
"Even now, I find myself having a sneaking sort of preference for the revolver and feel confident that I can make a better score on the target with it, either slow or rapid fire. But in spite of all of this, I unhesitatingly chose the automatic for actual use in war. To my mind, the great advantage of the automatic lies in the ease and rapidity with which it can be reloaded. Anyone who doubts this can easily satisfy himself by trying to hurriedly reload a revolver in the dark, with a crowd of roughnecks milling all around and trying to hit someone with clubs, knives and fists."
During Captain McBride's service the 1911 only offered one additional round capacity over the Colt/S&W 1917 45apc revolver. It is logical to think that capacity of a fully loaded revolver vs. pistol, absent the need to reload, was not really an issue between the two guns, but speed of the reload was. If speed of reload is a factor, then increased magazine capacity cannot be ignored. The more modern pistols almost double, and in some cases more than double the magazine capacity of the 1911. In today's world of active shooters, lone wolf extremists, sometimes more than one bad guy on the scene, we must look beyond the historical statistical "most fights occur within three yards and are over in three rounds" mantra. There is value added in increased magazine capacity, no matter who is holding the gun, the novice or highly skilled during a gun fight.
One final thought by Captain McBride and the aforementioned A Rifleman Went to War:
"As I was quite familiar with the new Colt Automatic, I was able to be of some assistance during the preliminary work of breaking them in, and it was not long until the officers were accustomed to the peculiarities of the gun and could make it behave to their satisfaction. Those who had had experience with the revolver entertained the almost universal prejudice against the automatic. Funny, isn't it, how we hate to discard our old loves and take up with new ones - in the shooting game I mean, it appears to be easy enough regarding some other things.
All these arguments as to the relative merits of the revolver and the automatic pistol will probably continue for another generation. Most of the old-timers who learn to shoot with the revolver have a deep-seated prejudice against the automatic – but when it came down to the root of their argument, it all seems to base upon the "hang" of the two guns - the newer automatic does not point right with the same old habitual "kink in the wrist." I have used the 45 automatic ever since 1911, but for 20 years prior to that time had used the revolver.
Close up work is the only place that the pistol figures in warfare. Now I'm going to tell you the honest truth about something. During my war experience, which extended from September, 1915 to February, 1917 and included innumerable little contacts with the enemy and several major battles, I fired exactly 7 shots at an enemy with my pistol. Seven – count 'em. I used up quite a lot of ammunition, shooting at rats, rabbits, and tin cans, but as to shooting Germans, well, I've told you, seven was all and the longest range at which I fired at these individuals was never more than 10 feet. But brother, those were seven badly needed shots. There may be a moral in this: I don't know. If so, figure it out for yourself."
One could erase "automatic pistol" and "revolver" from these three paragraphs and substitute any other make/model of handgun one wished, and it would fit the argument! It's never ending I guess, and when attempting to convince others of "The Best Choice of Pistol" the obvious choice is often the one we currently own and carry. I often think the most honest answer to "What is, who makes the best fill in the blank" is "Well of course it is X, because X is what I choose to own." As always, YMMV.
