My rape whistle has had 0 failures so far
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Time to trade in your 1911s?
- Thread starter Jester7
- Start date
Ok, I can see the need for a manual safety because little time is spent on pistol training. Explain the polymer decision then? So the gov't in all its genius has chosen a $5000 Colt based upon a 100 year design with lower capacity, heavier weight, more parts, worse or equal (certainly not better) reliability than say an HK45 because the HK45 has a polymer frame?
Perhaps our military leaders in their great wisdom think that metal frame pistols handle the wear and tear of combat better. Not agreeing with them, obviously the UK doesn't agree with them since they are adapting the glock 17. All of my arguments in favor of the 1911 are assuming the basic requirements our procurement guys seem to still mandate. I think the sig p227 would be awesome as a combat pistol, aluminum frame, chambered in .45, and is SA/DA which is "safer" then striker pistols. But no manual safety probably precludes it.....
Heck, maybe colt just took all the marine procurement officers out to the strip club and bought them a bunch of lap dances haha.
Heck, maybe colt just took all the marine procurement officers out to the strip club and bought them a bunch of lap dances haha.
If you really want an unstoppable combat pistol the CZ97B or BD is hard to beat....but I'm wierd
I don't know that I'd go quite that far. I've trained at Tactical Response, as well as Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, and with Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, Paul Howe, and Magpul Dynamics. I made it through Yeager's class fine, though there was a guy there running a low-mid grade 1911 who's gun went down and he had to borrow a gun to finish the course. Yeager is extremely opinionated on 1911's, but the one thing you'll find in common amongst most if not all other respectable trainers is that they'll all tell you run what works for you, and to understand what the limitations of any given platform you choose are and train to them.
My training log from 2013 shows 10,800 rounds through 1911's with 4 failures - two double feeds, one failure to extract, and one bad primer. That's a mean rounds between failure of 2,700 including the one bad round, and 3,600 not including it. For comparison, Todd Green of Aim Fast Hit Fast ran a 16 month endurance test on a Glock 17 that consisted of 69,000 rounds with 18 failures, for a mean rounds between failure of 3,833. Given that a widely accepted industry standard is 2,000 mean rounds between failures, I consider those two samples to not only be statistically acceptable, but well exceeding standard.
I'd advise anyone carrying a weapon to take a hard use, high intensity class as it does tend to bring weaknesses to light. However, just like I saw a 1911 fail to complete Yeager's class, I've seen a Glock 17 fail to finish day one, as well as Sigs, M&P's, etc. Machines fail, all of them - period.
On this I can agree to a certain point. **** 1911's are a recipe for failure. Quality 1911's can and will run right if the shooter does their part, but that comes at a price. 90% of my 1911 shooting is through Les Baer 1911's. If I do my part, they do theirs. Do they ever have a failure? Yes, but as shown above it's a comparable rate to anything else and well within acceptable standards.
For most users, especially in a department/unit environment where you have to consider and base equipment on the lowest common denominator, I agree. A 1911 is not the right choice for most shooters.
Jesus Christ people. It's a 7+1 capacity handgun that weighs more than it should, has outdated magazine designs, outdated mechanics, and tight tolerances.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
So now the question is: Did you run all of those 10,800 rounds through the same gun? When you say you ran x number of rounds through 1911's, it makes me think there may have been more than one 1911.
If I say the Rolls Royce is a reliable car because I have over a million miles driven in Rolls Royces, this doesn't say much. I may have had 100 different Rolls Royces and driven each of them for 10K miles...
I will concede that some 1911's are reliable and some Glocks are not. The statistics show though, that you can't really compare the failure rates. A quality 1911 that I want to trust as a carry gun would cost three to five thousand dollars because this is a gun that a true craftsman needs to assemble. A "gunsmith who knows how to put a 1911 together" doesn't cut it.
A glock, by comparison, can be had for an average of 500 bucks and comes from the factory ready to take a beating.
Not to mention that the gun's designer, JM Browining himself, was working on the Browining Hi Power when he died. Even JMB recognized that 45ACP in a 7+1 configuration was inadequate and moved on to the 9mm with more capacity. The Browning Hi Power was a major advance over the 1911 and this should be enough of an indicator.
This entire thread is blasphemy.
