I love the 1911, but...

[bingley]

I love the 1911 platform. The gun is well-designed, metallic, substantial. Nothing like a plastic gun. The trigger pull is short (which means better accuracy), and the rounds make big holes. There is a safety. But I have a dilemma. It's not a new one for 1911 lovers, I'd think, so I'm appealing to the collective wisdom of INGO. Here are the problems I face:

Cost. .45 ACP rounds are expensive. Most the shooting one would do would be at the range. The .22LR seems more sensible, esp. for target shooting. Of course, it has less stopping power, etc. One would have to get an upper or a separate plinking gun.

Carry. You train like you fight, and you fight like you train. So you should carry the same gun you train with. However, a full-size pistol is not great for conceal carry. Even if you carry it in a waist pack, it's still rather bulky. A smaller 1911, in a smaller caliber (e.g., the Springfield EMP) seems a bit of a waste of a good idea, though it may be a fine gun.

Capacity. With another magazine (or two) in a belt pouch, one would be all set. But it doesn't make sense for most of us civilians to walk around with these metaphorical bandoliers. The staggered magazines seem to have an advantage here. Most 1911 pistols don't have those, and those that do (the so-called 2011) have a really thick handle.


Da Bing

 

[NIFT]

Read this and other 1911 articles on the same site:
1911_Duty_Use

Then decide whether the 1911 would be the right gun for you, and, if so, in what configuration. The manufacturers and options are legion!

About a week ago, I had dinner with John Benner, President of Tactical Defense Institute of Ohio, and I asked him about malfunctioning guns and the ones he sees most often at TDI. Without hesitation, he said 1911s.

For what it's worth.

 

[Bapak2ja]

About a week ago, I had dinner with John Benner, President of Tactical Defense Institute of Ohio, and I asked him about malfunctioning guns and the ones he sees most often at TDI. Without hesitation, he said 1911s.

When you write "the ones he sees most often" are you saying that the 1911 is the most used weapon at TDI (thus, seen most because most participants in TDI carry it) or do you mean it is the one that most often malfunctions? Your grammar does not make it clear if your second clause modifies the "malfunctioning guns" or is meant as a stand alone second inquiry.

Great post, but I would appreciate the clarification so I can fully understand your meaning.

 

[khangoc]

1911's are dime a dozen-- nice ones, are not. You can't compare a malfunctioning Para to a Miller Custom. I agree with Bapak2ja that the claim pertaining to the implied inferiority of 1911's needs to be elaborated upon. Only then can we eliminate variables that could potentially lead to the assumption that 1911's malfunction more than other handguns.

On a side note, the 1911 is probably one of the easiest to carry (full-size or not). The only real issue with them is its weight can get annoying. You have to remember that the thin profile immediately makes concealing a 1911 vs something typical (like a Glock, M&P, XD, Sig 22X, etc.) easier.

 

[KillStick]

It seems to me then the 1911 is not for you, Clint Smith said it best " Carrying a gun is not suppose to be comfortable, it is suppose to be comforting".

 

[kingnereli]

I love the 1911 platform. The gun is well-designed, metallic, substantial. Nothing like a plastic gun. The trigger pull is short (which means better accuracy), and the rounds make big holes. There is a safety. But I have a dilemma. It's not a new one for 1911 lovers, I'd think, so I'm appealing to the collective wisdom of INGO. Here are the problems I face:

Cost. .45 ACP rounds are expensive. Most the shooting one would do would be at the range. The .22LR seems more sensible, esp. for target shooting. Of course, it has less stopping power, etc. One would have to get an upper or a separate plinking gun.

Reloading or a .22lr upper would solve this problem. There is some extra initial expense there but both will pay for themselves with range time.


Carry. You train like you fight, and you fight like you train. So you should carry the same gun you train with. However, a full-size pistol is not great for conceal carry. Even if you carry it in a waist pack, it's still rather bulky. A smaller 1911, in a smaller caliber (e.g., the Springfield EMP) seems a bit of a waste of a good idea, though it may be a fine gun.

Full size 1911's are quite easy to conceal. The girth of the grip is what determines how concealable a handgun is. The thin, single stack grip of a 1911 is great for concealment. Comfortably concealing full size guns takes a high quality holster, a sturdy belt and possibly an adjustment in your wardrobe. It's worth it. It's bad enough where stuck carrying side arms around. Do you really want to further limit yourself with a tiny gun in an anemic caliber.

Capacity. With another magazine (or two) in a belt pouch, one would be all set. But it doesn't make sense for most of us civilians to walk around with these metaphorical bandoliers. The staggered magazines seem to have an advantage here. Most 1911 pistols don't have those, and those that do (the so-called 2011) have a really thick handle.

nine is plenty in the gun. A spare magazine in a pocket holster promotes concealment and comfort. Everyone should carry at least one spare, though I suggest two. I would rather have 24+1 rounds with three magazines than 13+1 rounds with a double stack magazine because I dont' want to carry spares.

The armed civilian role is very different from law enforcement. We don't have any obligation to run towards gun fire and finish the fight to arrest a criminal. We only need to shoot enough to survive. That may mean the fight is over or we found and opportunity to run away.

Da Bing

.

 

[JetGirl]

Cost. .45 ACP rounds are expensive.

Reload.

A smaller 1911, in a smaller caliber (e.g., the Springfield EMP) seems a bit of a waste of a good idea, though it may be a fine gun.

They're perfectly fine. Not sure why you'd deem it a "waste" ... but personally, I prefer the smaller 1911 in .45.

Capacity. With another magazine (or two) in a belt pouch, one would be all set. But it doesn't make sense for most of us civilians to walk around with these metaphorical bandoliers.

"Most of us civilians" aren't going to need a belt fed.
If you're in a situation when you're running through mags like water, then a couple things are wrong;
a) your situational awareness sucks. You should never be in that position in the first place.
b) you're a really horrible shot.

 

[JetGirl]

Scooped (sorta!) by kingnereli! :-P

 

[Jay]

There are trade-offs in ANY handgun you choose. YOU have to decide what you're willing to give up, in order to get some of what you want. If there was only one perfect gun out there, that's the one we'd all own. Over 35 years of carrying a 1911 platform suits me just fine, but that's just me.

 

[kingnereli]

Scooped (sorta!) by kingnereli! :-P

You still have him good advice. Hearing it twice can only help.

 

[JetGirl]

If there was only one perfect gun out there, that's the one we'd all own.

Stop dragging common sense into things! This is the internet!

 

[Hoosier9]

I love the 1911 platform. The gun is well-designed, metallic, substantial. Nothing like a plastic gun. The trigger pull is short (which means better accuracy), and the rounds make big holes. There is a safety. But I have a dilemma. It's not a new one for 1911 lovers, I'd think, so I'm appealing to the collective wisdom of INGO. Here are the problems I face:

Cost. .45 ACP rounds are expensive. Most the shooting one would do would be at the range. The .22LR seems more sensible, esp. for target shooting. Of course, it has less stopping power, etc. One would have to get an upper or a separate plinking gun.

Carry. You train like you fight, and you fight like you train. So you should carry the same gun you train with. However, a full-size pistol is not great for conceal carry. Even if you carry it in a waist pack, it's still rather bulky. A smaller 1911, in a smaller caliber (e.g., the Springfield EMP) seems a bit of a waste of a good idea, though it may be a fine gun.

Capacity. With another magazine (or two) in a belt pouch, one would be all set. But it doesn't make sense for most of us civilians to walk around with these metaphorical bandoliers. The staggered magazines seem to have an advantage here. Most 1911 pistols don't have those, and those that do (the so-called 2011) have a really thick handle.


Da Bing

Read this:

Service Pistol Duty and Self-Defense Loads - M4Carbine.net Forums

Shot placement is the deciding factor in gunfights involving handguns. Although .45 ACP is a great round, it is only marginally more effective (if any) than good 9mm, .357 Sig or .40 defensive ammo. Choose a handgun platform that you are comfortable with, THEN worry about which caliber.

There is not a 1911 on this planet that I would choose for serious use over a Glock or M&P. An M&P in particular is about the same size as a 1911 (negligible difference), weighs a lot less, holds 10+1 in .45 ACP, and needs minimal maintenance and lubrication.

 

[kingnereli]

Yeah, everything Hoosier9 said but just the opposite.

 

[Hoosier9]

Yeah, everything Hoosier9 said but just the opposite.

So......

Modern polymer frame pistols don't weigh less, or have more capacity?
Modern polymer frame pistols don't need less lubrication and maintenance than metal frame pistols?
Shot placement is not the deciding factor in gunfights involving handguns?
.45 ACP is twice as good as other service calibers, thus negating the capacity advantage that they offer?

Yeah....right.

Something tells me that it's more prudent to pay attention to advice given by industry professionals and people who have "been there, done that" than to listen to people whose resumes only include gun games and shooting watermelons in their backyards.

 

[bobzilla]

^ hEY, justbecause you hate the 1911 doesn't mean everyone should. Personally, the fell, placement, pointability and comfortable way it fits me is surpassed by nothing I have yet to touch. But everyone has a different feel. THE M&P feels foreign in my hand, the glocks are too blockish. There is nothing I'd rather have at my side than my Colt. Your results may vary.

 

[bassplayrguy]

^ hEY, justbecause you hate the 1911 doesn't mean everyone should. Personally, the fell, placement, pointability and comfortable way it fits me is surpassed by nothing I have yet to touch. But everyone has a different feel. THE M&P feels foreign in my hand, the glocks are too blockish. There is nothing I'd rather have at my side than my Colt. Your results may vary.

This. ^^^^ Shot placement is important but not everyone is a marksman and sometimes when you are shooting for your life you don't have time to aim. I like the stopping power of the .45 round. Every gun has a feel to it and a look to it that appeals to different people. I don't really mind what you shoot as long as you do. There is a gun out there for everyone and it isn't for someone else to try to cheapen their decision.

 

[USMC_0311]

There are trade-offs in ANY handgun you choose. YOU have to decide what you're willing to give up, in order to get some of what you want. If there was only one perfect gun out there, that's the one we'd all own. Over 35 years of carrying a 1911 platform suits me just fine, but that's just me.

"If" there was only one perfect gun for SD it would be a G19.

You still have him good advice. Hearing it twice can only help.

I bet she can say everything twice.
Then again if you ask my wife she needs to say it 3 or 4 times before I even start to listen.

 

[hotfarmboy1]

I carry a full size 1911 on a daily basis in either a IWB or OWB holster. Both are comfortable to me and I hardly notice the weight. Partly cause after a while you get used to it. I've even been known to go on long walks or jogging still wearing it with no problem. I carry spare mags on my other side in a holder that used to be for a plier tool and it works good. You can keep things simple and still comfortable.

That being said, the 1911 may not be right for everyone. I own 2 of them, a full size and a compact. But I do own a couple plastic guns, albeit neither are glocks I also have and carry an FNP9 and taurus 709. They all serve their purposes very well. But I still generally always reach for one of the 1911's, mostly for feel and familiarity.

 

[JetGirl]

"If" there was only one perfect gun for SD it would be a G19.

You! Mouth! Soap! NOW!

I bet she can say everything twice.

 

[Hoosier9]

^ hEY, justbecause you hate the 1911 doesn't mean everyone should. Personally, the fell, placement, pointability and comfortable way it fits me is surpassed by nothing I have yet to touch. But everyone has a different feel. THE M&P feels foreign in my hand, the glocks are too blockish. There is nothing I'd rather have at my side than my Colt. Your results may vary.

I don't hate the 1911. I have an old Colt that my dad gave to me, WWI era frame with no scallop behind the trigger. I just have no practical use for one, for my daily carry/defensive needs. I usually prefer something light, with my daily carry guns being (mostly) a Glock 26 or (occasionally) an M&P 45. Either are superior to the 1911 for my uses. They are also far superior than a Colt Peacemaker, but that doesn't mean I hate the Peacemaker. (I'd LOVE to have one.)

I'll be picking up a Ruger 1911 after the buzz dies down, just to have and enjoy. But for day-to-day use, I prefer something else.

Sorry for any butthurt that anyone may have experienced.