The 1911 Sucks (Reasoned Argument)

yankeegunnuts.com ^ | 20 December, 2010 | GunNutmegger

[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.

[archy]

It’s a 100-year old design. It needs tools to disassemble.

It does not. Indeed, every part on a M1911 can be removed using only previously removed components as tools, the base of the sear spring being used as a screwdriver for the grip panels, for example.

One of the nice things about the Glocks is that they're equally user-maintainable.

Now watch your homework.

[archy]

What other 100-year old design is still in daily use?

The M-2 Browning for one.

L

The 1891-design 7,62x54r cartridge of the Pekhotniya vintovka obr. 1891g [ Винтовка Мосина ] and Kazachya I dragunskaya vintovka, the 1891 Russian Mosin-Nagant service rifle, soldiers on in both the Russian PK machineguns and SVDM Dragonova sniper's rifles also springs immediately to mind.

[archy]

I had Custom Cartridges make me up some 110 grain .306 rounds that I use through my 03’Springfield and P-17. At 200 yards they are almost a flat trajectory. The kick is negligible. The 03’ is a wonderful rifle with excellent action...just be careful with the low serial number ones.

You ought to try the 77-grain bullet for the 7,62mm Nagant/7.63 Mauser cartridges. They're not hollowpoints, but at just a bit under 3700 fps, they don't need to be.

[archy]

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? The Remington and Mossberg shotguns. Fine pieces of 19th century technology both.

Remington's 870 was a product-improvment versiomn of Browning's Model 31, produced from 1931 to 1949, better adapted to postwar manufacturing techniques. The Mossberg 500 design didn't appear until 1961, anthough pump shotguns in general can trace their history to Browning's models of 1893 and 1897, the Marlin 1898 and successor versions, and the Burgess Repeating Shotgun of 1896, granddaddy of them all.

[Lurker]

One could also respond that the SMLE design is indeed still in daily use. Our guys captured a bunch of taleban weaponry and prominently featured was our old friend the Lee Enfield.

There's also the classic Mauser bolt design which is to this day the standard by which modern hunting rifles are judged.

[archy]

One could also respond that the SMLE design is indeed still in daily use. Our guys captured a bunch of taleban weaponry and prominently featured was our old friend the Lee Enfield.

Mine is. With the advent of -10 weather and several inches of white stuff on the ground hereabouts, a bolt-action SMLE [actually, my son's] stands right close by my back door to greet unwanted visitors; my next-door neighbor is a grain elevator. I'd be about as happy with a good Finnish M28-30 or M39 [my previous choice for such use for the last decade or so] but the Enfield carries ten in the magazine, nine more on the buttstock cartridge carrier, and one more up the spout.

There's also the classic Mauser bolt design which is to this day the standard by which modern hunting rifles are judged.

The last time I was in Israel, while a guest at a rural kibbutz, my hosts honored me by listing me on the roster of those assigned duties as a night guard, [hashomer] with my choice of the hardware avvailable in the groups' armory. Most of those present picked M16s, their likely issue piece in the IDF, but there was a collection of other goodies available as well. Since there was no opportunity to testfire or sight in a rifle, I avoided their M1 carbines and M16s, and picked an old K98k instead. I might not have been able to hit much with it at night, but the report and muzzle flash would have made a swell wake-up call for the others, and I trusted the Mauser safety. After I'd been there a couple of days, I got the opportunity to testfire and sight in my later choice- a former WWII German MG34.

Yeah, a lot of that old hardware still soldiers on, here and there. You seen the pics of some of what the Brazilian BOPE SWAT guys are using as they try to clear out their city's slums prior to the Olympic games being held in Rio?

[archy]

Choice of buttkickers for 100 years.

Still is, for those fortunate or highly-placed few of them who have a choice.

[bmwcyle]

And you should.

[IamConservative]

And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry.

When asked if his 1911 on half cock with a rawhide strap tying down the safety was dangerous, Charlie Miller said: "Son, if the damned old thing wasn't dangerous, I wouldn't be wearing it!"

[Rifleman]

Sorry about the long delay for this reply.

Both old and new generate 60Hz AC from rotating synchronous machines driven by turbines driven by falling water or steam. The power is stepped up to transmit and down to use by large oil filled transformers wound on laminate iron cores. Local transmission lines are still wooden poles with glass or ceramic insulators.

Have there been improvements, sure, materials and monitoring and some big changes like HVDC and superconducting transmission lines and the huge complexities of the monitoring and control systems. But the broad outline of the thing is much the same. Spinning synchronous machines at one end yer toaster at the other.

Oh, BSEE/Digital Design here.

[thackney]

That is the equivalent of saying the automobile hasn’t really changed over 100 years as they still use petroleum fuel in a internal combustion engine that uses a transmission to turn the wheels.

Sure there have been improvements but it is still the same design.

[Lurker]

What on Earth is that guy at the back carrying?

[shootthehorses]

“What other 100-year old design is still in daily use?”

The Mauser 98 and all its derivatives?