Designs still in use over a 1,000 years, cooper's tools: adze, drawknife.
Even older designs: compass, straightedge, hammer, awl, and many more.
Posted on 12/23/2010 5:29:16 AM PST by marktwain
I have said it before and I will end up saying it again: the 1911 an old design that is more trouble than it is worth. I don’t say it to be confrontational, or to draw attention to myself. I say it because I see my fellow shooters mindlessly parroting the gun equivalent of Chuck Norris Facts whenever the 1911 comes up in conversation, and I just don’t get it.
I am not surprised that the 1911 is out of place in today’s world, and you shouldn’t be surprised either. What other 100-year old design is still in daily use?
In the comment section of another blog, I summarized my skepticism of the 1911′s attributes thusly:
It’s a 100-year old design. It needs tools to disassemble. It has unreliable magazines. It is finicky about ammo. And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry.
In my original complaint, I forgot to mention the issue with slide-stop failures, and the whole internal extractor/external extractor situation. Either of which would be serious enough to kill any other design’s reputation in the shooting world.
In response to some knee-jerk defenses of the 1911 from fanboys who drank too much John M. Browning Kool-Aid, who told me how all that I needed to do was buy a bunch of aftermarket parts and send the gun to a gunsmith, I added:
Why does a reliable 1911 cost so much, and need so much gunsmithing?
To be fair, I have some of the same complaints with the Walther PPK. Which is also a very old design, one which has been eclipsed by more modern designs which can do everything it does better.
I mean, is it unreasonable to expect an affordably-priced pistol for defense to reliably feed hollowpoints out of the box? What Smith&Wesson pistol of recent manufacture won’t feed hollowpoints? What about Glock? SiG? Beretta? (I know Kahrs need to have some rounds through them before they are reliable, but it says that right in the owners manual). The shooting public would not accept an unreliable gun of a more modern design. But for some reason, the 1911 gets a pass for all of its flaws. “Just use hardball” is not a valid defense of the 1911 design, nor is it a valid strategy for selecting ammunition to defend yourself.
And God help anyone who buys a used 1911. Everyone and their brother seems to think they are qualified to take a Dremel to their 1911. Guys who can’t change their own flat tire somehow have no reservations about playing doctor on their 1911. Who knows what wacky “custom” parts have been put into the gun because someone read about it on the interweb tubes?
It was the best military sidearm of its day, and for a long time afterward. I do not dispute that. But its time has long passed. And a military sidearm is not the same thing as a handgun for personal defense.
Leave aside the lack of reliability with hollowpoints, and the other problems. The 1911 is too big to conceal. And the smaller versions are less reliable due to the shorter slide-travel and a tendency to limp-wrist the gun.
Some people protest by saying that the 1911 is the best gun for defense, because the most “realistic” shooting sports are heavily populated with 1911 users. And everyone knows that you should train like you fight, so that you will fight like you train, right? Well, that would be a more convincing argument if those “realistic” shooting sports didn’t have intricate rules that somehow disqualify most non-1911 designs. Purely by coincidence, right? Sure, they come up with semi-plausible rationales for some of those rules, but there is no way to disguise the overall bias towards the 1911.
I don’t hate 1911 fans. I merely pity them, because they are victims of marketing hype and groupthink, the lemmings of the gun world. And if someone sinks thousands of dollars into a 1911 (and isn’t using it to compete for money), well they are just gullible. Like the kind of people who pay money for tapwater in a bottle.
So what if Jeff Cooper liked the only handgun in use when he was in the military? It’s not like he had a choice of other handguns to use. And, on a related note, Jeff Cooper has a reputation that exceeds his accomplishments. The best information that I can find shows that he spent the battle of Guadalcanal as the training officer on Gen. Vandegrift’s staff. Not leading a platoon. Not on the line, pulling a trigger. And his coy evasions when asked about his real-world experience with gunfighting are revealing, if one cares to view them objectively. (If you have documentation about Cooper’s real-world experience, please drop me a line. I am happy to revise my opinion.) I have no doubt that he was qualified to teach people how to shoot on a range. Beyond that, a grain of salt is required. I prefer to get my advice on defense & gunfighting from men who have actually been there & done that; Massad Ayoob, Jim Cirillo, etc. Am I a qualifications snob? No, I am an results snob.
Ok, got it out of my system.
Different guns for different folks.
Personally, I dislike every semi-automatic handgun I’ve ever tried. I’m not comfortable with them and don’t shoot them well.
I grew up firing many thousands of rounds thru a S&W 22/32 Kit Gun. Not surprisingly, I like DA revolvers. When I carry, I carry a S&W Model 60 LadySmith in my pants pocket. For home defense, I generally put a Ruger Alaskan on the nightstand with 44 specials loaded. I shoot both well, and enjoy practicing with both.
I have a S&W 686, but it doesn’t fit my hand as well. Nice gun, but it isn’t my first choice.
Some really like the 1911, don’t mind carrying it, and know they can shoot it well any time, any day. For them, the 1911 is the best choice.
Glocks may even be ok for folks with no taste or discernment...
‘It’s a 100-year old design. It needs tools to disassemble. It has unreliable magazines. It is finicky about ammo. And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry.’——
I don’t need tools to disassemble mine, the magazines are reliable, it is not finicky on ammo (after you’ve shot about 100-500 rounds), and has 3 safety’s on it you have to use to fire it!
So the above sentence about it being unreliable, finicky and unsafe for 95% of people to carry, is hogwash, to me!
lol true!!!
My next handgun will almost certainly be a 1911, my first.
The biggest problem might just be that there are too damn many manufacturers and variations to choose from.
Try a 7.62mm NATO in an M-4 variant design... man it is the best of all worlds.
LLS
Very good point.
Any time the question of “which firearm is better?” comes up, the answer lies in “what are you planning on doing with it?”
100 year old designs?
Well, about the whole electrical distribution system. The bicycle. Revolvers. The house building methods, frame and brick and lots of building materials. Lots of other stuff that would just serve to inflate this list.
Materials and accessories improvements have effected all of the above AND the 1911.
As to cost and reliability, a modern 1911 from a quality manufacturer is reliable out of the box (modulo the break in period required by almost any autoloader) and as costly as you want it to be.
My favorite personal sidearm is a Steyr M9 or M9A in 9mm or .40 as it drops into my hand like the Lady of the Lake tossed it to me and points like it grew at the end of my arm. But the 1911 is more fun to shoot.
I own a couple of XD’s... they are fine weapons.
LLS
Designs still in use over a 1,000 years, cooper's tools: adze, drawknife.
Even older designs: compass, straightedge, hammer, awl, and many more.
were talking abt the 45 sidearm , right ?....
i googled 1911 sitting here and yep thats the one i am talking about. it has a clip
That's exactly how I feel about my Colt Commander. It just plain 'fits' better than any pistol I've ever owned or fired. I'm not real sure what this guys problem is.
The 1911 is the most battle proven combat pistol design in the history of mankind, period. The US military has already re-adopted it for issue to selected units and they could have picked literall ANY other design available.
Are there pistol designs better suited for some purposes? Sure.
Is there a better design for someone who needs a sidearm they can literally bet their life on?
Not a chance.
No it doesn't. I has a magazine.
L
Primarily the headspace and timing issues. That gun works great up until it decides it needs to be recalibrated, and you don’t have time for that in combat. Newer designed weapons (I think H&K had a .50-cal) don’t need it. I’m no expert on the weapon, but we had ‘em on all my Strykers and it could become quite an issue at times. Thankfully never in combat.
Just as with the grammar police you will need to conform to the proper nomenclature of firearms while in this thread. lol
There are very few firearms that use a 'clip'. Broom handle Mauser, Garand, and a few others. The proper term is magazine.
I used to dove hunt with my H&R Topper when I was a kid. I never knew how old it is, but the bluing was fading when I got it some 30 years ago, and it doesn’t have a serial number. And unlike my old 1950s Remington rifle, there are no barrel markings that can tell me the age.
Yes, those are serious maintenance issues to be sure. But IMO any weapon firing a .50 BMG cartridge is going to have those. It's such a big, powerful cartridge that those things are going to be in almost any design imaginable.
I'm not aware of any new .50 designs that don't need those adjustments. That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't know about them. If you can point me in the right direction I'll happily revisit my opinion.
That being said I have a real soft spot in my heart for the M-2. When Ma Duece speaks, people listen.
Bah Humbug. I carry a Springfield Armory Mil-Spec as my CCW. (And no, I’m not a big man.) The reason is that it met the following criteria- it was a reliable, bare-bones design in the largest caliber I can shoot accurately. Mine shoots well, as it has since I got it out of the box- no polishing, no fancy stuff, etc. It is a proven design, used in multiple wars successfully to kill the enemies of this country. So it needs to be handled intelligently- big whoop. I don’t need a dumbed-down gun. It doesn’t do hollowpoints- well, a double tap with 230-grain hardball is not going to improve anyone’s day. I cannot say that I find much that improves on it.
so bak to my orig ?, you ever have a 45 go off when slamming home a bullet from the mag ??
None of the pistols you mentioned are more reliable, safer, or more accurate. What makes them better designs in your mind?
The glock is a good entry level pistol. I’ve never shot an XD out of the box that had a trigger that didn’t feel like a staple gun full of sand. The Glock and some HKs have polygonal rifling which should preclude you from shooting plain lead. Polygonal rifling, plastic frames, plastic mags, MIM parts...they make guns cheaper but not better.
Had you said a SIG 220 it could have been a discussion at least but the pistols you mention are simply not superior except possibly in weight savings and I would suggest that a lighter pistol is not generally a better pistol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.