Make that the M1911A1, .45 caliber, commonly known as the Colt or the “1911”.
Seems like a blogger stirred up a little controversy. “Say Uncle” (over there on the blogroll for that last several years) links to the OPINION of yet another respectable gunblogger who posts an article subtly titled “The 1911 Sucks“.
Of course, I’d already opined on the M1911A1 in “My favorite pistol – the M1911A1“, so one might suppose that I might just take umbrage at the “sucks” opinion. The write opines:
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.
So let’s look at them.
First, it IS a hundred years old. Well, ninety-nine, but who’s quibbling. Can’t argue with that. I’ve handled one made in 1918, and it’s still perfect in function.
But the second? “It needs tools to disassemble”? In what universe? I was an instructor at Fort Knox in the seventies when the M1911A1 was still the issue weapon of every armor crew member. I taught the class as an assistant instructor. You could break the thing down far enough for cleaning with the tools on the end of your hand. If you wanted to go further, not recommended to the average tanker, but well within the purview of the unit armorer, and tools? A pin punch, maybe. And a screwdriver.
Third, “finicky about ammo”? Well, for starters, you almost needn’t bother. It’s a freakin’ FORTY-FIVE! It leaves the barrel at what that 9mm europellet hopes to expand TO. And if you DO want one that expands from .45 to .60 or .70, then do what responsible gunners do, TRY the stuff first. I tried a couple of brands and found one that feeds at 100%. Ran several magazines through my personal gun to make sure. Now I keep several magazines loaded with it.
I’ll tell you a secret: The gun is a 100% gun IF YOU USE IT LIKE JOHN BROWNING INTENDED! Fort Knox had racks of the silly things. Remembering back, I remember seeing Singer and Ithaca and Colt and Remington and others, and they were all maintained by the “strip ’em all down, dump the parts in a basket, dip the basket in solvent, shake ’em dry and put ’em back together” method. WE had NO “factory original” guns. WE also had no pampered “one inch at fifty yards” target guns. Slide fits were sloppy, tolerances were loose, and you know, if you aimed at a standard military silhouette at seventy-five yards and pulled the trigger, the gun would go BANG! and the target would fall down.
I don’t know how many of my readers are familiar with the “accurizing” of other military weapons like the M-1 Garand or the M-14, but turning ANY military weapon into a precision paper-punching gun takes a lot away from the ruggedness and inherent reliability. The 1911 is no different. Yes, I’ve handled 1911 “bullseye guns”. That sharp, clean trigger, the tight slide, the lack of play in the barrel on lockup, the adjustable sights, all that is neat stuff, and the fact that the “100-year old design” reacts so well to it as to make a very accurate target gun, that’s just another tribute to John Browning’s genius.
The fact remains, though, that it was designed as a side-arm, a last resort weapon that would (in my case) ride in a leather holster strapped to a tank commander’s chest for weeks of bouncing around, then when needed, slide out and delivery “minute of chest cavity” accuracy. With ball ammo.
And that brings up another point. Yes, there ARE better pistols for other games. But you need to understand that fact in the context of the design parameters. It was never designed for high speed, low drag operators who ganged into suspect buildings. In the army up until today’s kinder, gentler military, if you wanted to clear a building (if **I** wanted to clear a building) you tossed an HE round into it if you were feeling spunky, or a grenade or a spatter of .50 caliber would soften things up.
And for the last thought: “as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry”, I submit that if you can’t figure out the use of a hammer and a safety, then you just might want to check your choice of weapons. Or whether you should be playing with weapons at all. If you choose the 1911, then you should PLAY with it. Shoot the darned thing. Get used to the safety. The hammer. The fact that you’re hauling around two and a half pounds of steel.
And that it does today waht it was designed to do, that whole hundred years ago.
Let me be the first to say: Hell yes.
I’m no fanboy, but that was a hit piece from the word go. 100 years old? That isn’t even an argument. Tools to disassemble? Wrong. Unreliable magazines? Not mine, the cheapest 8-rounders I could find. Finicky about ammo? Not mine.
And unsafe because you carry it cocked and locked? Well, let me just repeat what has become a cliche, but is no less true because of it: Amateurs practice until they get it right, professionals practice until they can’t get it wrong. I could certainly use more practice, but disengaging the safety on the draw is just automatic. His assertion that you *will* forget doesn’t even make sense. You forget things you wanted to remember. Disengaging the safety doesn’t need to be remembered, it just happens.
It’s another one of those trying to be all guns for all people posts. Is the 1911 for everyone? Nope. But for me, I love shooting with one when I go out to the range. It’s fan-friggin’-tastic to send lead downrange with. I don’t carry one though, I either carry a pocket revolver in .38 because it fits in my pocket with no hassle, or a Sig 2022 when I have more concealment. But really the only reason is that I already should be wearing suspenders so I need something lighter. Or an ass to keep my pants up.
Unreliable? Not a chance. I’ve shot so many round out of my 1911 that the slide catch has peened itself out, but the gun still keeps going.
Gotta get that fixed, by the way.
People who hate the 1911 the way that guy seems to do are, in my experience, the snottiest bunch of “insert pistol brand here* fanbois that ever picked up a bullet launcher. There’s a REASON that design is 100 years old and still going strong. There’s a REASON that so many people use the 1911. It works. It’s easy to use, easy to disassemble and clean, easy to modify if you want to change out grip safeties or the like, and reliable when you need it to be.
I have one fine weapon–it is original WW2 Marine Corps Issue, and I also have a M-9 which I prefer.
My Cousin who is a gun collector & instructor and I argue–I have 15 rounds to hit and he has 1/3 less.
Amen, brother. I carry one and have for years. Wouldn’t trade it for a 9 or a .40, ever. I’ve shot everything from cheap ass throwaways to my own handloads through it and never had an issue. Just find the mag/round combo that works and stick to it. And I carry uncocked and safety off. It’s habit from my wheelgun shooting to draw the hammer back with my thumb as I clear the holster.
Well it is a bit tough for a left hander to disengage the safety on a draw.
Fortunately I was able to use either hand. Retired no so I don’t have to worry about that, often did wonder about a conversion kit for the safety from left side to right side..Think I heard that one of them foreign toys have and either or switch.
Ditto the above. Sounds like a mall ninja.
Been packing a 1911 for years. It shoots mostly reloads in hp, ball, swc, all copper, anything.
Thousands of rounds and I’ve swapped out the extractor once, period.
The 1911A1 is ok, don’t get me wrong it is a great design, and I have fired at least a thousand rounds through a example or two, it is just not at the top of my list of handguns. Having said that, I suspect the person that wrote these original comments would dislike many of my choices in handguns as well, as they are not pop apart and made of plastic. I can only imagine what they might have to say about my primary bed side gun, a 4 inch Colt Mk III .357 revolver, no safety at all, only 6 rounds (plus 6 more in a speed loader).
When I decided to carry a pistol and get CCW license, I consulted with several baby boomers who worshipped at the altar of John Browning. They explained everything about the M1911 pretty much like M.C. did above and even offered some range time at the local club.
Funny thing happened out at the shooting range. Every time I heard a muttered curse word- which happened several times- I would look over and someone was trying to get their M1911 unjammed.
Meanwhile, the guys with the modern pistols had them running like sewing machines, accurately chewing up bullseyes.
No thanks, Cajun. I’ll take my MUCH more reliable 21st century shooting piece.
I have a kimber custom eclipse thet says he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about!
I love my 1911. I also love my Glock 36. I prefer the caliber…I like to have more stopping power than more rounds. .45 is the answer. Just my personal opinion, though. I would rather have single digit .45 magazines than double digit nines, for example. If you can’t take care of business with a single stacker, you’re already dead. Just sayin’.
Aimed fire.. All that is needed is one 230gr on/in target.. USMC
“In the army up until today’s kinder, gentler military, if you wanted to clear a building (if **I** wanted to clear a building) you tossed an HE round into it if you were feeling spunky, or a grenade or a spatter of .50 caliber would soften things up.”
That’s a big aggravated nerve of mine since Desert Storm I–the methods of operation and ROE of our military isn’t kinder and gentler to anyone but the enemy. Air power, artillery, long-range weapons, mid-range weapons, small explosives, then GIs with small arms. Any commander who spills his soldiers’ blood, rather than blow up a nest of enemies (yes, including their enablers–“If your not with us, your against us.”), is worse than incompetent and should be drummed right out, if not put up against a wall as a traitor. Rant over.
Now for the venerable .45, which I am apparently in good company using as my daily carry piece. Mine works great with most hollow-pointish ammo (like hydroshok and gold talon) or ball. I had one of those official Colt Argentine copies (i.e., not Systema 1927) years ago (sold to my Bro-in-law, dammit) and it ate anything put in it, including plain lead semi-wadcutter handloads. Just replaced the barrel, bushing, and springs with some new, slightly tighter tolerance parts and she was basically as accurate as we could shoot with any speed.
Safety of cocked and locked–dead on, Tanker! If you can’t safely handle the simplest and most thoroughly tried of designs, you shouldn’t carry a gun. I came home last night to find a light on in my shed that I and my wife didn’t think we’d left on. Out came the .45, click went the thumb safety in one motion and I was ready for the possible goblin (my careless use of lights, not firearms, was the problem, though). I’ve never owned a glock or any other double action only gun. I don’t like the way they feel in my hand and I don’t like being limited to double action, if I need to make a much more carefully aimed shot. Since my finger doesn’t go on a trigger, unless I intend to immediately fire, double action doesn’t do anything for me.
Happy New Year and many many more to all you good 1911 shooters! May she and a big stock of ammo and replacement parts be around for another 100 years to protect our descendants.
My Springfield 1911A1 has turned over 150,000 rounds, no accidental discharges, no failure to feed or eject. I am on my 4th extractor, 3rd barrel bushing, 3rd disconnector, and 2nd sear spring. I thought the gun would wear out when it ran 50,000 rounds so I bought a Kimber when it first came out around 2001 and it collects dust as the Springfield wont give up the ghost. A few tips about making it shoot reliably and lasting forever. First, I use only round nose or hollow points which have a similar curved nose. I cast my own 200 grain wheel weight bullets and load with 4.7 grs bullseye, This keeps the load at 820 fps just above major class. The rifling is still as sharp as the day it was new, since 99.9% of shooting is with soft lead. I clean after 500 rounds and visible inspect the extractor hook with a 10x loupe for microcracks on the backside of the rim slot. This is where exractor will break, and if the hook falls into the action it will cause a jam. I also use only MecGar magazines and they run forever. Too many others break at the feed lips or bottom plate.
I own a Springfield Armory XDM 9mm that I love along with a Daewoo 9mm. I think they will both do any job I need them for but… I have been looking at a nice Springfield 1911A1, Parkerized(sp?) that I intend to add to my small collection. I’m not sure if it will be my tag along or if I will stick with my XDM but I do know that there will be a lot of .45’s going downrange as soon as I buy the pistol. I have done some research and find nothing wrong with the 1911. Have a Happy New Year!
I’m a fan of the “Product Improved” 1911, the P-35 Browning Hi-Power (.40S&W in my usual carry piece), but I’m sure he’d have said much the same about it.
Not as old, but probably still geriatric in his opinion.
Carry in Condition 1 has already been covered. I have not problem with it, but I’ve been training for over 25 years, to the point that when shooting a Glock friends have seen me sweeping my thumb down as I bring sights on target.
Even less need for tools than a 1911
Another of his rants was that the 1911 is “too large for concealed carry”. Sorry, that’s a matter of personal opinion and taste. Not a fact.
I carry my BHP (which close enough in size that it uses a lot of the same holsters) at all times when legally allowed during the year, comfortably, and concealed in both IWB and shoulder holsters. He chooses not to arrange his wardrobe and carry methods to do so effectively. No problem, but to state your preferences as a flat out fact….eh.
(Full disclosure, I probably qualify as a BHP Fan Boy. Two of my favorite quotes are “There has been no significant improvement in automatic handgun design since 1935″, and “Double Action Automatics are a hardware solution to a training problem”. ;-) )
MC,
I remember pulling arms room duty and cleaning a rack or two of 1911s.
And concerning the looseness of a mil-spec gun?…remember in the movie “Uncommon Valor” when Gene Hackman’s character is inspecting a dusty box of “old” weapons? He pulls out a 1911, racks it, drops the hammer, shakes it vigorously, listens to the rattle and smiles broadly.
And thinking of Marine Hackman, did he ever make a foolish move with any firearms in any of his movies? Hmm. Future post.
Hunter
Alaska
I’ve got a pair of Kimber Custom Classics (the base model) that have run in excess of 5K rounds apiece without issue. The only failures have been magazine-related, and I fixed that by buying good magazines.
Too big to conceal? I’m 5’7″ tall, and weigh 150 lbs. I can conceal a full-size 1911 easier than a J-frame S&W.
My son’s new Glock 21 has had two failures to fire, on light primer hits. I took both rounds and ran them through the Kimber with no problems. His carry gun is a Kimber, now, as well.
“People who hate the 1911 the way that guy seems to do are, in my experience, the snottiest bunch of “insert pistol brand here* fanbois that ever picked up a bullet launcher.”
Actually, the 1911 fanbois are the snottiest. Ever hear the term “tactical tupperware”?
““It needs tools to disassemble”? In what universe?
Tools to disassemble? Wrong.”
ParaOrd GI Expert manual, page 29. Springfield GI.45 manual, page 26.
Deliberately using ball/fmj pistol ammo to defend yourself is a poor idea. It doesn’t transfer energy to the target as well as expanding ammo does, and it is more likely to overpenetrate and hurt someone behind your target.
“Unreliable magazines? Not mine. Finicky about ammo? Not mine. Unreliable? Not a chance.”
Deliberately using ball/fmj pistol ammo to defend yourself is a poor idea. It doesn’t transfer energy to the target as well as expanding ammo does, and it is more likely to overpenetrate and hurt someone behind your target. There is no reason to use less effective ammunition when you can buy a better designed gun to shoot it reliably.
Why do 1911 fans keep telling me that you just need to use the magical Wilson mags? Why do the 1911 reviews I consulted (72 full-size 1911s reviewed by Gun Tests) say that the guns won’t run without the Wilson mags?
And of those 72 guns tested, 14 of them were unreliable with hollowpoints. Not just cheapo 1911s, either. Wilson, Kimber, Springfield, Colt all had problems.
I made a chart and everything. Read the results for yourself:
http://www.yankeegunnuts.com/2010/12/28/quality-1911-glock-taurus/
And yet my little inexpensive Rock Island Armory 1911 keeps running, even while my buddy’s Glock jams up at the range. The only modification I’ve made to it was to swap out the grip safety to a beavertail, and that doesn’t affect the actual operation of the gun one whit. I don’t use Wilson mags either. And I don’t need any tool to disassemble my 1911. You’re simply taking one small example of a specific manufacturer’s design and using it to smear an entire breadth of weapons. Anyone can cherry pick the facts to make x or y look bad. It’s a typical tactic used by the Left. I’m rather sad to see you doing it.
By the way, that cute little graphic you have implying that the 1911 fans are some sort of cult let me know exactly what position you’re starting from, doesn’t it? Real “objective” of you there. Go back to caressing your Glock and whispering “MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSSSSSS” in the dark.
Actually if you have a 1911 set up as JMB designed, you don’t even need a pin punch or screwdriver to detail strip it. The pin on the safety can be hit with the heel of the hand to remove the main spring housing. The original style grip screws can be turned with the rim of a .45acp casing… see how the slot has a radius in the bottom?
Now for the G-lock fanboys, they must only have experience with the tarted up pseudo-custom junk being sold these days: unneeded full length guide rods, ambi safeties, hex screws, lumpy grip safeties, plastic ms housing and such bling.
I have a Springfiel Government from ~94,
an Essex from the 80’s
a Remington Rand from my Pap, all in .45
A Kimber compact in 9mm, and a new gov’t sized Rock Island in 9mm (to replace the kimber which needs tools to disassemble)
Springfield 1911 EMP in .40 (needs a tool too)
Sig P238 (1911 inspired)
and a glock 21 that is a clunky piece of crap that has NO resale value!
My Remington Rand has had only one modification since it was issued to my dad in 1943, and that is a touch of fingernail polish on the front sight, done in Italy during WWII. Shoots great, feeds hollow-points and ball just fine. In the past 67 years, my Dad and I went through two sets of springs and it still is running strong, still has most of it’s original parkerizing, and the rifling is still crisp.
I bought and traded off a full size Kimber, Officers Colt, Springfield Companion, and gravitate back to the simple original design. The 1911 will still be a viable design when my Grandson passes it on to his kids, as long as we keep the liberals at bay and the tupperware infidels ignorant of the greatest design of the century.
The 1911 has been the basic starting point for many a semi-auto pistol over the years. You can’t argue with success. I have a Grok 36 right now but I’d love to have a 1911, and one day I will.
What’s wrong with tupperware? Practical simple design, often copied, still works as well today as when it was introduced. Sounds like an M1911A1 to me. You might want to rethink your choice of insults.
Four more years until my baby celebrates its personal 100th birthday. I don’t routinely shoot it, but it does shoot, just fine.