Zombie Apocolapse?

[JudOWNED]

that 1851 navy would take a zombies head off. i'd hang on to that come 'z'pocalypse time if i were you.

Nah. It's only a .36 with 6 shots. And it's a bitch to reload.

[JudOWNED]

You guys are missing Jim's point.

I like Glocks but why should anyone spend an additional $500 or so to "tune" and new pistol and maybe achieve an operational parity with a new out-of- the-box Kimber?

Vorpal compared a Glock to a "well tuned" 1911. Jim's point, which still stands, is that any professional "tuning" is going to make a gun better.

Do you have any competition experience or other tests that show a cocked and locked 1911 is slower to bring to fire than a Glock?

I don't think anyone said that. What _I_ said (not Jim) is that speed is the reason for carrying a 1911 C&L. If you don't, you actually have to thumb the hammer back because 1911's are SAO. I suppose someone could train themselves, ala old west SA's, to thumb the hammer back as they draw but that's, well, ridiculous. But, otherwise, in order for 1911's to be on par with other modern pistols you have to carry them C&L. That certainly isn't the safest way to carry a firearm.

Mag capacity and intergral locks were responses to government legislation and pressure.

Yeah, LOWER mag caps were legislated. The point in this thread is that modern pistols with modern calibers have HIGHER mag caps than the 1911. And was anyone talking about intergral locks?

Come to think of it you're right. Lawyers have nothing to do with obscene trigger pulls, expense of manufacturing is never calculated in material selection and there's absolutely no way anyone from marketing was invovled in the "Ladysmith". I guess I stand corrected.

None of that means they "design" guns. Besides, the real issue was improvements. Modern guns have legit improvements over the 1911. HOwever, I need a clarification on something.

Most "modern improvements" can be translated to the 1911 pattern (hi cap frames, polymers, rails, etc) so that argument doesn't really carry water.

What did you mean here? At first I read it as those things came from the 1911 design. But on a second read I thought you might mean they can be added to it.

Re: Personal preference. Hey, if you simply prefer it, I can't really argue with that. But if you are saying it is a superior weapon, I see no evidence for it. Instead I see a historical weapon that, though it still may have it's place, is missing several desirable features that make modern guns safer and easier to use.

Edit: and for the record I don't like Glocks. I just don't like them for reasons other than "They are new."

[Wounded Ronin]

I dislike glocks myself. I prefer my handgun to be heavier and to therefore have a steady rather than spikey recoil. For the same reason I feel much more comfortable firing a .45 than a .40 or a 9mm. I don't really personally understand why everyone claims 9mm is easier to handle or whatever. If I do shoot 9mm I personally feel a lot more comfortable and confident firing something like a beretta 92 than a glock.

[Vorpal]

Maybe if they shot a "well-tuned" Glock, you might have an argument. Give any gunsmith worth his salt $500 and a decent quality out-of-the-box gun, & you'll get a much different weapon back.



Accountants, lawyers, & marketers? Yeah. Bullshit. Maybe mag caps & locks, but really, go get any of those people and tell them to "design" a gun. They won't have any more of a clue than the average anti-gunner. Quit just talking shit out your ass. :eusa_liar

Come to think of it you're right. Lawyers have nothing to do with obscene trigger pulls, expense of manufacturing is never calculated in material selection and there's absolutely no way anyone from marketing was invovled in the "Ladysmith". I guess I stand corrected.

[BadUglyMagic]

Maybe if they shot a "well-tuned" Glock, you might have an argument. Give any gunsmith worth his salt $500 and a decent quality out-of-the-box gun, & you'll get a much different weapon back.

Accountants, lawyers, & marketers? Yeah. Bullshit. Maybe mag caps & locks, but really, go get any of those people and tell them to "design" a gun. They won't have any more of a clue than the average anti-gunner. Quit just talking shit out your ass. :eusa_liar

I like Glocks but why should anyone spend an additional $500 or so to "tune" and new pistol and maybe achieve an operational parity with a new out-of- the-box Kimber?

Do you have any competition experience or other tests that show a cocked and locked 1911 is slower to bring to fire than a Glock?


Mag capacity and intergral locks were responses to government legislation and pressure.

Also, designers work with acccountants and lawyers to achieve minimum production costs and minimum legal liability against lawsuits. If it is too expensive for the market segment and unsafe to shoot/carry for its segment population, it won't get made.

[Sealknife]

It's just something about the way a Glock looks and feels that I like.

I don't know exactly what it is about them. Right now I'm looking at a 2nd gen police trade in Glock 22. I'm in school and on a budget, but at $350 I've been resisting all day for the last few days.

Ditto on a 590. In the end I'm probably going to buy both, however. I like Obama and everything, but I want to get my weapons in order before too long.

[Jim_Jude]

I've converted more than a few Glock-jockeys by letting them shoot one magazine out of my Kimber. The place where most modern guns fail is their triggers. Switching from the crunchy, sloppy triggers with uneeded take up and over travel of most modern SAs to a well tuned 1911 is like going from driving your uncles 1981 Buick Regal to a high end BMW.

Maybe if they shot a "well-tuned" Glock, you might have an argument. Give any gunsmith worth his salt $500 and a decent quality out-of-the-box gun, & you'll get a much different weapon back.

Keep in mind that the 1911 was designed by gunmen. Most "modern" firearms are designed by accountants, lawyers and marketers.

Accountants, lawyers, & marketers? Yeah. Bullshit. Maybe mag caps & locks, but really, go get any of those people and tell them to "design" a gun. They won't have any more of a clue than the average anti-gunner. Quit just talking shit out your ass. :eusa_liar

[Vorpal]

While there are many cases known of people's lives (particularly officers) being saved when they lost their gun to an assailant and the assailant did not know enough to deactivate the safety there appears to be no record (none that I know of at least) of someone losing their life because they forgot to manipulate their own safety. Most "modern improvements" can be translated to the 1911 pattern (hi cap frames, polymers, rails, etc) so that argument doesn't really carry water. I have used Glocks, Sigs, Berrettas and other guns professionally. I prefer the 1911. It's a matter of personal choice predicated upon it's natural pointability, ease of use, accuracey and general shooting characteristics. I've converted more than a few Glock-jockeys by letting them shoot one magazine out of my Kimber. The place where most modern guns fail is their triggers. Switching from the crunchy, sloppy triggers with uneeded take up and over travel of most modern SAs to a well tuned 1911 is like going from driving your uncles 1981 Buick Regal to a high end BMW.
Keep in mind that the 1911 was designed by gunmen. Most "modern" firearms are designed by accountants, lawyers and marketers.

[Neildo]

that 1851 navy would take a zombies head off. i'd hang on to that come 'z'pocalypse time if i were you.

[JudOWNED]

If it concerns you Vorpal :), you can still get a pistol with a manual safety that has other modern improvements. The HK USP comes to mind...

But the difference is, with the 1911 you gain nothing by carrying it cocked and locked, but pistols without a manual safety are that tiny bit faster to deploy and have one less thing to worry about if you ever have to draw it in real need. I would guess everyone has had a time when they drew their gun at the range and nothing happened when they pulled the trigger because they forgot to take off the manual safety! Which is why I am not, and have never been a big fan of the manual safety.

And Glocks ain't the only game in town. I like Sigs and the new Smith M&P way better than the Glocks I've shot. Seriously, you 1911 guys need to move into the new century. I mean, I like shooting my 1851 Navy replica (the gun carried by Wild Bill!), but I wouldn't ever actually think of "using" it! Unless that's all Obama leaves me with... ;)

[Neildo]

http://www.yahooka.com/forum/free-al...ls-thread.html

All this zombie preparedness is getting me psyched. i hope it's zombie tiem soon.

[Jim_Jude]

There's nothing unsafe about cocked and locked. It depends on the operator and the level of his training. Given the same # trigger pull its safer than a Glock.

The thing that makes a Glock unsafe is BEING TRIGGER HAPPY & SPASTIC.
Get a NY trigger & a Tarnhelm or Cominolli if'n you're such a spaz.

[Vorpal]

There's nothing unsafe about cocked and locked. It depends on the operator and the level of his training. Given the same # trigger pull its safer than a Glock.

[Jim_Jude]

What, pray tell, is it about a single action pistol with an exposed hammer, manual safety and low cap mag that you find so uber deadly? Is it the fact that you have to (dangerously) carry it "cocked and locked" to have any chance of deploying it quickly?

lol

Hahahahahaha!!!! WORD. :qgreenjum

[TEA]

Buy online in bulk and look into reloading.