Your tight pistol won't function when exposed to the filth of combat. Tight guns are why so many self proclaimed experts criticize the 1911 platform as unreliable. Those rattling pieces of junk shoot well enough to hit a man at 50 yards and then some. When that is needed, if you are shooting X rings, you are shooting too slow.
>>Your tight pistol won’t function when exposed to the filth of combat. Tight guns are why so many self proclaimed experts criticize the 1911 platform as unreliable. Those rattling pieces of junk shoot well enough to hit a man at 50 yards and then some. When that is needed, if you are shooting X rings, you are shooting too slow.
Glocks, Sigs, and Berettas work fine in combat and they are tight guns. Many self-proclaimed experts believe the myth that a “combat gun” must be a loose gun that rattles when you walk. I honestly can’t see why you got your panties in such a wad over my original comment. I did not insult your precious 1911. I was only commenting on the state of the government’s 1911s. I have owned several 1911s, used them in competition, and continue to own a few. They are plentiful and not too expensive these days, so why would I want to play the CMP lottery and jump through all the government hoops to get a gun that is probably going to require a complete overhaul?
But if I was going out to door with a handgun to a gunfight, I would choose a different gun because, as you have said, a gun that drills the X-ring is not a good combat pistol and a finicky racegun is not a real combat pistol. I would go out the door with my Glock if I knew I was going to be fighting. It will hit a man at 50 yards, it is unquestionably reliable beyond any other gun out there, it has capacity, and I trust it.