I drank the kool-aid...

[IMightBeWrong]

I never really got the hate for rattly 1911s. I've owned 3 1911s, 2 springers and a Colt. I still have the Colt and it rattles like hell (older model, newer models are tighter) but it's the only 1911 I've had that has never had a hiccup. at this point its got to be over 10k down the pipe as well.

Also, I don't get Skeletor's hate for the 1911 either. It's a great design that's withstood the test of time and can pass mud tests and limp wrist tests alike with 500 dollar models running dry.

Reference: YouTube - 1911 Muck Test

[chainpunch]

Also, I don't get Skeletor's hate for the 1911 either. It's a great design that's withstood the test of time and can pass mud tests and limp wrist tests alike with 500 dollar models running dry.

I used to be a revolver and 1911 guy. When I first came across a glock I thought it was a plastic toy and felt like mush when I shot it. I was very old-fashion to these new advances in firearm technology. I heard the argument against the 1911 for many years but it was not until I heard it the 99th time (from Tacman) it started to sink in and after the 100th time from Skeletor did I finally realize that something you are using to defend yourself with should not have a high probability of failure. The 1911 does not take a fall on a hard surface as well as modern designs, the internal components will fail sooner that modern designs, and the weapon will fail to fire occasionally.

If occasionally is ok with you and failing components are no problem then you really dont expect to be in a predicament with "Murphy" as your sidekick. You could take a "rattly" car on a long road trip that has not let you down yet, but people will question your judgment if you end up telling them the story of how you got stranded in the middle of nowhere with "old faithful".

[Scrapper]

If Murphy is your natural enemy, and reliability is your primary motivator, you should be carrying a modern, double action revolver (I do). Not an automatic.

If you are carrying an auto, it's because you've already accepted that other factors are relevant, like cycle speed, trigger pull, and ammo capacity.

My primary carry guns are a snub nose Taurus 605 5-shot .357. It has over 4000 failure free rounds through it. It has never faild to fire. Ever.

My other carry piece is a Taurus 66 4" 357 (7-shot). It has had one failure to fire in 2500 rounds; due to a bad primer.

That's reliable.

But the 1911 was a windfall, and it looks badass. I will see if it is more comfortable to carry than the big revolver in the fall is all. If I take umbrage with it's reliability, it will get relegated to range duty only. C'est la vie.

[Lord Skeletor]

Also, I don't get Skeletor's hate for the 1911 either. It's a great design that's withstood the test of time and can pass mud tests and limp wrist tests alike with 500 dollar models running dry.

Eh...well, let's just put it this way; if the design was so great---why are no standing foreign armies using them? Why aren't police agencies using them (with the exception of a few SWAT units who use high-end, heavily modified ones)? Why isn't our military using them? We used the design for years, simply because it was a financial issue and we had warehouse upon warehouse full of spare parts (and we still do). The overwhelming, vast majority of the ones out there are malfunction machines. Most of the modern ones even have issues with magazines (you have to experiment until you find the right kind, in most cases, unless you have proprietary designed ones) and have issues with ejection and extraction. The sights on 95% of them are pure, unadulterated crap. Especially the GI Models.


I don't mind the .45ACP cartridge; although it's a little on the slow slide and it restricts the amount of ammo that I can carry. So...mostly my vitriol and abject dislike for the platform comes from being an armorer for over 20 years and the roughly 1000 of them that I've had to fix, modify, or tune to get to work properly (or to upgrade to modern standards--sights/triggers/guide rods/buffers/ambi safeties, etc.). In all that time, I can probably count the number of truly broken Glocks on two hands. I can probably count the number of truly broken Sigs on two hands. I can probably count the number of truly broken HK's on one hand. Mind you, I'm talking about broken as in a design/manufacturing problem--not shooter error or misuse/abuse. The vast majority of the guns brought to me because:

1) It's constantly jamming/misfeeding
2) It's not ejecting properly
3) It's not extracting/snagging the next round off the mag properly
4) It's got problems with the slide not reciprocating
5) It needs to be "updated" with new triggers, buffers, recoil springs, compound guide rod assemblies, new sights, new safeties, new extractors, new buffer pads, etc...

...well, you can guess the design that I'm referring to:




So it's not that I *hate* the design; I just don't understand the need to buy one of these old pistols and spend a fuckton of money either on upgrading it to modern standards of operation and/or safety; or likewise spending $1000+ (sometimes as high as $3,000) on such a gun; when you can buy a modern pistol that shoots better and more reliably for $400-600. and is certainly safer and better-designed, with failure percentages as close to zero as you can get.

As for the "80+ years of service"; please don't tell me that you believe that the 1911 gun was the best gun for our troops that could be devised during that time and that there were no better guns. My grandfather hated his during WWII and Korea, my dad hated them during the Vietnam War; probably for the same reasons, although to be honest...I never really asked them why they disliked them. The Army weapons were crappy rattletraps and I have firsthand experience fucking with those things. Utter garbage, man.

So...to bring this retardedly long rant to an end---

1. Yes, the 1911 is a gun. It's better than nothing.
2. If you buy ANY GUN (including a 1911) I'm happy for you.
3. If it's all you have and want; I'm happy for you.
4. If you want to upgrade yours to perform better; I'm happy for you.
5. If you got a good deal on one and bought one because you "didn't have one", I'm happy for you.
6. If you want to spend $2,000 on a 1911, I'm still happy for you, but I will growl...
7. ...and snarl a lot.
8. Bottom line---it's your money, your life...buy what makes you happy and tell anonymous haters on the Internet like me to "**** off" and do it often. The only truly important thing is that you are happy with what you have. :qleft6:

[Scrapper]

I actually agree with Skeletor. I've never really gotten into the worship of the platform. It's cool-looking, and historical, but modern **** does the same job better. But at the same time, I traded some car parts for it.

I'll try carrying it though. Just to see what all the hype is about.

[goodlun]

I dislike the APC .45 because its just too dang expensive for me to shoot.

[Robstafarian]

I dislike the APC .45 because its just too dang expensive for me to shoot.

Start a new thread on the subject, please. I don't want to derail this thread any further by posting a lot links to ammo prices (unless Scrapper wants some tips on feeding his recent acquisition).

[Mr. Machette]

So it's not that I *hate* the design; I just don't understand the need to buy one of these old pistols and spend a fuckton of money either on upgrading it to modern standards of operation and/or safety; or likewise spending $1000+ (sometimes as high as $3,000) on such a gun; when you can buy a modern pistol that shoots better and more reliably for $400-600. and is certainly safer and better-designed, with failure percentages as close to zero as you can get.

I actually agree with this completely. Why I bought a simple stock 1911a1 for @$500 when all was said and done. A small arm for 3k had better be NFA IMO.

Personally, I like the 1911 ergo's (just fits in my hand nicely), have not seen them jam any more than any other semi automatic weapon (less than most actually), I like the triple redundant safeties, (as opposed to the non-safety of the glock), and though the sights are absolute ****, I'd never use it against anything farther away than what I can shoot offhand.

But that's just me...

[IMightBeWrong]

I don't actually carry my 1911 and don't want to imply that I do. I recognize that there are better designs, I just also recognize that a properly built 1911 is a formidable weapon as well. My current preference is a CZ 75 P-01 for edc. As reliable as my P228 was but I don't mind treating it roughly as much.

[TEA]

The 1911 is the Harley Davidson of the pistol world.