James Yeager: 1911's suck

[68_F100]

He also didn't plan for jet travel, microwave ovens, widespread automobiles, synthetic clothing/holsters/nylon gear, IR vision, laser/red dot sights, tritium sights...

These are all thinkgs you can blow the hell out of with a 1911. But have nothing to do with reliability.

 

[dannyb89]

I've had good luck with a wide variety of guns. I've shot several glocks, but own none. I prefer the 1911 for my purposes... Although I guess I'm not shooting at people with it (or more importantly nobodies shooting at me ). How about the Para Ordnance version of the 1911? Double stack mags, feed ramp integrated into the barrel, and "power" ejector.

Both are good guns. For most of us all that matters is how it feels in your hand.

 

[churchmouse]

He also didn't plan for jet travel, microwave ovens, widespread automobiles, synthetic clothing/holsters/nylon gear, IR vision, laser/red dot sights, tritium sights...

No point in this... just thinking about JMBs perspective of how different life looks now compared to working in his turn-of-the-century Mormon enclave. It was darned interesting wandering around in his father's gunsmith shop in Nauvoo, IL.

Never put this in that perspective. I have and have access to some very nice machinery and have skill in using them to a point. What did JMB have at his disposal. Over 100 years ago. Files and hand drills??? This design came from a shop we would consider stone knives and axes by today's standards. A Glock did not come from these humble origins. Just the lighting and drafting tools of the day, humbling. Remember boys and girls, this same man gave us the Ma-Deuce.

 

[churchmouse]

These are all thinkgs you can blow the hell out of with a 1911. But have nothing to do with reliability.

My 1911's are stone cold reliable.

 

[2tonic]

I'm not getting it. In the video he seems to be stating that (per his experience) the Glock is universally a "better" pistol than the 1911. His anecdotal data mostly concerns reliable function. He doesn't mention a specific caliber, so he's already painting with a broad brush.
I ,in no way, wish to discount or diminish his considerable investment of time in arriving at this conclusion, but his argument falls flat on its face, and he's the one who knocks it down.

First off, I believe the best weapon to use is the one you can end the fight with. The mindset to react, engage, and win is much more important than the tool used. Better yet, the ability to avoid the fight altogether is the superior tactic, but sometimes the fight comes to you, so.......

The Glock is a modern design, built with modern methods by one company, to flawlessly perform its' function of hurling modern ammo downrange. The fact that it usually does exactly that is undebatable and proves that it is a sound tactical choice.

Enter the 1911.....a modern (by the standards of the day) design, built with modern methods by one company, to flawlessly perform its'function of hurling modern ammo downrange. Loaded with 230gr hardball, built by Colt, and almost as noisy as maracas, it never failed to go bang even full of mud or sand. Accuracy was poor to excellent, depending on the user and the particular fit of its parts.
In other words, the Glock of today is the 1911 of the 30's. (Timberrrrrr!)

Yeager mentions the "rattle-trap" GI 1911s of the 40's and 50's. Those were made by several different manufacturers, (though most built the complete gun) and were never fitted properly. The emphasis was reliability and that meant leave 'em loose. They seldom failed to work, but our servicemen were woefully undertrained on proper technique so they aquired an undeserved reputation for innaccuracy.

Shortly after the war, many pistoleros took it upon themselves to "tighten up" their 1911s by properly fitting the slide, barrel hood, and barrel link, while still leaving enough clearance for reliable function. There are many of these guns still around and they are tack drivers.

Perhaps we ran into trouble with the 1911 when we started asking it to do things it wasn't designed for, i.e. feed hollow point or over pressured ammo, and we tightened them up till they wouldn't work. Then a new wave of manufacturers came in with CNC and EDM machining, reducing tolerances and re-designing the weak spots (feed ramps, bushings,etc). Some still used hand fitting to extract that last degree of performance from their product. The results so far are mixed. Some guns are works of art and/or incredibly accurate. Some are collections of parts that mate too stiffly with each other, lacking the smooth interplay endowed by the artisan's touch.

So where does that leave us? The Glock is undeniably a reliable well-designed handgun, available in a fight-stopping caliber, packs plenty of ammo, and shoots about 3~4" groups at 50'. About the same as a GI 1911 in .45ACP.
When compared to a modern 1911, the Glock pales. It possesses neither the style, nor the grace of a gun that can shoot 1" groups (perhaps important if you ever have the need of shooting someone who's using your family member as cover and your training level deems it prudent). Its squared off shape doesn't conceal as well as the slim 1911. The 1911's single stack mags even conceal better (though the Glock carries enough internally to nor require a spare mag). I guess it depends if the fight you're going to is on a battlefield, at a roadside stop, outside a restaurant, or in your livingroom.

I don't know what Mr. Yeager considers a "box stock" 1911, but I know the ones I consider fighting pistols come out of boxes marked Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Novak, Les Baer, or Wilson. Comparing these meticulously crafted firearms to a mass produced Glock, with it's control levers that feel like the stamped steel that they are, is like comparing a Bugatti Veyron to a Ford Focus. They both have four tires and go from point A to point B, but one hardly does it with the flair and panache of the other. This is where the 1911 has surpassed the Glock, etc, and its own history as well. It is the tool of the connoisseur now. The Glock is the butchers cleaver, the 1911 is the surgeons scalpel. Both incredibly useful instruments.
Which one's the better? The one that WORKS for you.

 

[HICKMAN]

do you take Jon Stewart's show serious as well?

 

[2tonic]

OK, forget what I said previously. What I meant to say was:

Serious Question.......has anyone ever won the bullseye competition at Camp Peryy with a Glock?

And, No, Hickman, the Jon Stewart show is the last thing I would take seriously, particularly since you can tell how seriously He takes it.

 

[Pale Rider]

Guy reminds me of a camo pants wearing, harley riding dog trainer and groomer I met once....

 

[churchmouse]

Guy reminds me of a camo pants wearing, harley riding dog trainer and groomer I met once....

Wow, I rode for years and met some strange ones but never remember him....

 

[Que]

I had a discussion about this video with someone who I admire and who's opinion I respect. He gave me a great deal of perspective to draw upon. He noted the number of rounds Yeager has seen gone down range in his classes, which is a LOT. It's conceivable that his statement -- and I paraphrase -- "The number of 1911s that finish a class is equal to the number of Glocks that malfunction during a class..." was offered in jest, but let's consider if this is possible.

Considering the mentality of the people who attend these kind of classes (just like many of us), it's possibility that most of the 1911 owners have had a great deal of work done to their guns in order to tighten them up and make them operate very smoothly. Springs have been replaced, triggers have been upgraded, etc. The person whom I spoke with alluded to the fact that maybe these people take a perfectly functioning tool and in some cases cause damage with all of the unnecessary work, causing failures.

Another way to look at this is the number of people who actually take a 1911 to such a class as Yeager's. I would suspect that very few 1911s are taken to that course, especially since many are aware of Yeager's adoration for the Glock. So, just creating a sample to review, the comparison to the 1911's that make it being equal to the Glocks that break is more than a little flawed. If 1,000 1911s and 25,000 Glocks were used over any given amount of time, I would seriously doubt if anyone would believe that 50 out of 25,000 Glocks had malfunctions, with the same number of functioning 1911s out of 1,000. Does this sound conceivable? Unless I'm told that the number of Glocks and 1911s are comparable, it really doesn't matter if the number of Glocks that break are equal to the number of 1911s that don't.

 

[Caleb]

Not this thread again!

Any gun can be a good gun, and any gun can have malfunction...anybody believing that something is better than something else is creating a false reality of what could be going on.

In other words, James could be in subconscious denial about how many glocks actually malfuctions but rather exaggerate how many 1911 malfuction. Any gun can be a good gun, any gun can malfuction. Carry what feels comfortable to you, carry what you can accurately shoot, and carry a gun that functions as it should.

I personally hate glocks, but if that's what you like, that's ok with me.

 

[HICKMAN]

Yeager toured the S&W factory this week, to review "something special" coming up for the NRA show. Will be interesting to see what it is they are launching.

 

[NullSyndrome]

meh. He's wearing one of those d-bagger t-shirts, therefore all he says is void ab initio.

^THIS^

+1. Thousand, that is.