Four reasons not to trust a 1911

[sqlbullet]

As far as the reliability goes, I would say this.

Lets have Glock open up their patents and get 100+ different makers out on the market, and see what you end up with.

Seems like RIA makes a pretty solid $500-$600 1911, and a Ruger SR1911 is just a bill or two more.

[Buckeye 50]

Interesting.......  The video said he is a former Marine and well versed in handling firearms.  So, why did the Marines just (not long ago) select the Colt 1911 as their new sidearm?


I understand where he is coming from but don't agree.  YouTube is bringing out the true "crazies" in people (for free, too!).


A lot of people are still buying these "crappy" 1911's - hope they don't trust their family's lives to these unreliable things.......  .  I would however, trust mine to one after I got used to it.  Right now, someone will have to go through about 45 rounds of some of the best 10mm hollow points available in my high capacity 3 Glock 20 15 rd. magazines.


Other things keep me up at night, not whether a 1911 is "worthy."


Pat

[10mmfan]

I partially agree while I do carry 1911's. I think a 1911 requires more training to be proficient with and it can be finicky on ammo and mags. I believe other firearms tend to require less effort to get them to run reliably but all this being said I will stick to my 1911's.

[4949shooter]

I think a 1911 is fine for most purposes. But it must be understood they take more effort to keep them running properly. I think that part of the problem (but not the entire problem) is that the 1911's of today have much tighter tolerances than the 1911's of WWII. This makes them more accurate, but less likely to run in adverse conditions.

If I were going overseas to a sandy area, and I had a choice to take a 1911 or a Glock in 45 or 10mm, I would choose the Glock without hesitation.

I own six Glocks right now, and two 1911's. Over the years I have owned 5 1911's altogether, though I am looking to add another in 10mm. 

[my_old_glock]

... So, why did the Marines just (not long ago) select the Colt 1911 as their new sidearm?

Ego.

There was no reason for them to get the Colt M45. It costs 3x as much as either a Glock, XD, or M&P, and holds about half the ammo. There are more parts in a 1911 than a modern design pistol which means there are more parts to break or to need service. Most likely someone at the top of the Marine's command ladder felt American's needed a good old fashioned American pistol, and that meant a 1911. Next they will adopt the Sopwith Camel which would still be superior to anything the Afghanistanis or Iraqis have. 

Here is someone else's opinion: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/08/09/why-the-marines-adopted-the-m45-colt-1911/

.

[my_old_glock]

As far as the reliability goes, I would say this.

Lets have Glock open up their patents and get 100+ different makers out on the market, and see what you end up with.

Glock's patents ran out a long time ago. They are only good for 17 years (or maybe less). Their exterior "block" look can be registered as a trademark which lasts indefinably, but all the other stuff is free game.


.

[tommac919]

Opinions are just like assholes, every body has one and nobody else wants to hear it. 
snipped
Thumb safety....If you have a problem with a thumb safety you really need to train more.  Even when I am shooting a Glock, I have trained to sweep the safety, do not even think about it, it is just part of the drawing sequence.
snipped

Part one I agree on 100%

Re thumb safety, not so much.  Training from over 25 years on a gun (sig 226) without a thumb safety.... it sort of locks in with muscle memory...kind of hard to teach the old dog new tricks.
I had a series 70 colt given to me. In my first combat shoot, I forgot about the safety as never had one... needless to say lost time and if if had been a bad scenario, maybe my life.
Sold the colt went to a Sig 220, sa/da, no thumb safety , but still a great gun. For me the best safety is the head.

The 1911 is a good gun, just not for some people like me.

[Mike_Fontenot]

... So, why did the Marines just (not long ago) select the Colt 1911 as their new sidearm?

There was no reason for them to get the Colt M45.

I don't know what THEIR reason was, but ONE reason is that a 1911 has a better trigger than any other semi-auto.  Some people feel that that advantage outweighs all the disadvantages of a 1911.  I do.  The only other gun I primary-carry is my S&W69 5-shot L-Frame .44mag ... an even better trigger than my 10mm Kimber Eclipse Custom II, and (in most people's opinions, even more disadvantages).

[sqlbullet]

I actually think magazine capacity is an advantage to the 1911.

Here is why.

Carrying concealed, as most of us do, there is a propensity to forgo the spare magazine, especially if we have 15+ rounds on tap, or if space mags are fat and hard to conceal.  I know that is true for me all too often.  And yet, if that one magazine in my gun goes south, I suddenly have a single shot derringer.

With a single stack gun, magazines are think and easy to slip into a pocket, or conceal in a mag carrier.  And when I carried a Delta Elite, I never left the house without at least 1 spare mag.

In most encounters, the second mag will never be needed.  But there are more reasons to need a second mag than I have burned 7+1 shots.

[my_old_glock]

... So, why did the Marines just (not long ago) select the Colt 1911 as their new sidearm?

There was no reason for them to get the Colt M45.

I don't know what THEIR reason was, but ONE reason is that a 1911 has a better trigger than any other semi-auto.  Some people feel that that advantage outweighs all the disadvantages of a 1911.  I do.  The only other gun I primary-carry is my S&W69 5-shot L-Frame .44mag ... an even better trigger than my 10mm Kimber Eclipse Custom II, and (in most people's opinions, even more disadvantages).

I think the 1911 has the "potential" to have a better trigger, but that doesn't mean it does have a better trigger. My stock Springfield 1911 I purchased in 1994 had a worse trigger than any other gun I owned. The only reason why I bought the 1911 with the bad trigger is because my friend had the same gun and he just changed the sear and trigger to make it better. If I didn't know it could be changed, I would have never got one.

I do not see how the trigger can make that big of a difference in their choice. There are some great competition Beretta 92 pistols out there, so great triggers weren't the only reason they chose a 1911. In combat you don't want a touchy/sensitive trigger.

A S&W 627 V-Comp holds 8 rounds just like the 1911, but the 357Magnum has more power, and the trigger is better than a 1911. Another advantage is that if you have a misfire, you just pull the trigger again to cycle a new round. No pulling the slide like on a 1911. With moon clips, the 627 could be reloaded just as fast as the 1911 - by Jerry Miculek. Again I see no reason for the M45 unless it was for ego purposes.

P.S. I am sure the M45 @ $1,500 has an excellent trigger.

.

[sqlbullet]

That smith measures twice as wide as a 1911.  Makes it uncomfortable for a fat guy like me to carry IWB.

[my_old_glock]

That smith measures twice as wide as a 1911.  Makes it uncomfortable for a fat guy like me to carry IWB.

I was thinking holster carry for the military: Comparing it to the M45.


.

[sqlbullet]

Gotcha!

I wonder how much of that is baggage from their experience with the Moro warriors and the 38 colt.  Granted, a good 357 is miles different, but often bias has no good foundation in fact.