1911 MYTHS

Obligatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfJj90eNIfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYEd-3iy4QM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lsA4KVPbew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-WhOCoQfjw

>>29098684

>buck angel

No thanks.
If you'd like to quote a specific point he made, I'll read it.
But I'm not watching that shit.

>>29098706
Lol, only 3 posts in and 1911 fags are already on suicide watch.

>>29098721

I'm not watching like 30 mins of videos so you can avoid posting an argument.

>>29098657
>>they're all low capacity
Are double stack 1911's really considered the same gun?

>>29098817

It's the exact same gun with a wider grip and bigger magazines.

>>29098867
If the frame is different and parts are not interchangeable, then how is it the same gun? The Glock 19 is not a Glock 17, even though they look alike.

>>29098884

Actually most parts are interchangeable.
And I'm not saying its the same gun.
A 1911 is not one exact model of gun like a Glock 17 is.

>>29098897
>A 1911 is not one exact model of gun
Actually, it is. Colt called it the Model O internally, the Government Model commercially, and the Army referred to it as the "Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911." Double stack magazines would be incompatible with this gun.

>>29098657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP4k4tOsZD8

Here's a great guide for using a 1911.

>>29098922

>Actually, it is. Colt called it the Model O internally, the Government Model commercially, and the Army referred to it as the "Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911." Double stack magazines would be incompatible with this gun.

If you're going to make a pedantic argument like that, then there is no such gun as a "1911"
It's an M1911

When people talk about 1911s today, they refer to a general design of handgun, not one specific model from 100 years ago that nobody owns.

>>29098927

>forced memes
>fake accent

No thanks.

>>29098959
It's not pedantic to want to agree on definitions for things that we are talking about.

>>29098989

Did you honestly think I was talking about a military M1911 (1911-1924) model?

>1911s are worth a shit in the age of high-cap polymer pistols
The most pervasive 1911 myth of them all, I think we can all agree it should go away.

>>29099006
"1911" means A1 and pre-A1. If you want to talk about double stack guns or short frame guns, you need to use different words.

>>29099016

>old handgun designs still being popular makes me feel insecure about my handgun choice

I can make baseless greentext shitposting too.

>>29099019
that's not pedantic.. just straight fucking autisic holy shit anon

>>29099043
>meanings of words are autistic :^)

>>29099019

>"1911" means A1 and pre-A1. If you want to talk about double stack guns or short frame guns, you need to use different words.
Wrong.
There is no "1911" gun.

M1911 is a specific gun.
M1911A1 is a specific gun.

1911 is no specific gun. It is a term used to refer to guns borrowing from the M1911 series.

If you're going to be a fucking pedant and argue about definitions all day, then at least do it right.

>>29099051
no, fuckface. when people talks glock vs 1911 they're are not talking about glock 19s specifically vs m1911s specifically. jesus.

>>29099093
And they would be wrong. Its like clips vs magazines, just because idiots use the wrong terminology doesn't magically make it the right words.
>Calling others autistic when you need such a basic concept explained to you
For shame desu.

>>29099135

Your argument is totally wrong.
It's been explained to you several times that "1911" is not interchangeable with "M1911" or "M1911A1"

>>29098657
>>they're all finicky and unreliable
Compared to other designs they certainly can be especially in sub commander size models
>>they all have a break in period
Though not always true they often do
>>they need more maintenance than other guns
They do
>>they're complicated
Compared to other designs they are, though not overly so
>>they're hard to disassemble
Compared to other designs they are, though not overly so
>>they're all low capacity
In original single stack configurations they are, though this can be attributed to the .45 ACP fatty cartridge
>>you need to be some kind of expert to use them
Who the fuck ever claimed this?

There are better combat/defensive handguns in existence. We don't use pattern 17's and 03's anymore. The 1911, while a fine pistol, is antiquated for its intended use just like other designs of its period. You can modernize a 1911 all you want, however better pistols still exist.

>>29099188
>There are better combat/defensive handguns in existence. We don't use pattern 17's and 03's anymore. The 1911, while a fine pistol, is antiquated for its intended use just like other designs of its period. You can modernize a 1911 all you want, however better pistols still exist.

i set out wanting to hate 1911s as just nostalgia goggle crap. and then i got to shoot one

find me a single handgun on the market with a better trigger, or a thinner yet more controllable .45 handgun

>>29098657

Is it a myth that there's others out there who own more than one type of firearm and are actually good with it?

/k/ seems to be full of fucktards who get so emotionally invested in one type or brand of gun while never actually expanding their horizons and to improve themselves.

>>29099188
>In original single stack configurations they are, though this can be attributed to the .45 ACP fatty cartridge
It's really just a single stack problem.

>>29098976
fuck off, Phuc is based

>>29099188

>Compared to other designs they certainly can be especially in sub commander size models
Any gun *can* be finicky.
However there's nothing inherent to the original design that makes them so.

>Though not always true they often do
Having a break in period is indicative of the gun being made too tightly, which is either laziness/cost cutting or a manufacturing error in most cases.

>They do
Explain what exactly you mean. Why? What kind of maintenance?

>Compared to other designs they are, though not overly so
They actually have about the same number of parts as Glocks.
Glock cheats their parts count by counting several things as an assembly, and such.

>Compared to other designs they are, though not overly so
Maybe if you're brain damaged or don't know how to do it.

>In original single stack configurations they are, though this can be attributed to the .45 ACP fatty cartridge
Not all 1911s are made exactly like the original.

>Who the fuck ever claimed this?
I see it all the time on various forums.

>>29099253

He's literally FPSRussia, with a different accent.

>>29099211
Like I said they are fine handguns. They have excellent triggers, even on "lower end" models. I would certainly not feel unarmed if all I had to CC was a GI Rock Island with 230 grain ball in 7+1 configuration....under gunned without a spare mag or two perhaps but certainly not unarmed. They are reliable when maintained and stupid accurate and feel great in the hand which is why they have such a cult following and excellent reputation especially in the competition community. I don't think anyone except a troll disputes this. But there are better combat pistols out there.

As far as single stack CC pistols in .45 ACP, the Glock 36 and Springfield XDS come to mind, both of which have decent enough triggers and can be easily and inexpensively upgraded to be sweet triggers.

Ultimately all the data and experience shows that handgun stopping power sub-magnum is a myth, and multiple good hits are more often than not needed to down a two legged critter. Pain compliance is unreliable at best.

This is why double stack configurations in your big 3 calibers are considered the gold standard, and why it's not a bad idea to carry a spare magazine.

>>29099319
Not trying to be picky, but the 1911 pistol does not have a cult following. That pistol is mainstream and extremely popular, the 1911 market wouldn't be so diverse if it wasnt. Now a cz75 or a styer m9, those are cult followings

>low capacity

tfw i have 15 round mags for my 1911
>tfwface.png

>>29099366
He meant cult as in religious.

Cult of the 1911 and all.

>>29099188
>Who the fuck ever claimed this?
I get it all the time. Mostly from people who are so used to long heavy double action triggers and can't into trigger control.

>>29099245
Agreed whole heartedly

>Any gun *can* be finicky.
Absolutely true. More often than not though I have found 1911's (mainly sub commander size) to be finicky compared to modern defensive pistols

>However there's nothing inherent to the original design that makes them so.
Sure.

>Having a break in period is indicative of the gun being made too tightly, which is either laziness/cost cutting or a manufacturing error in most cases.
Agreed, however I have found many of my 1911's would have malfunctions in the first hundred or so rounds.

>Explain what exactly you mean. Why? What kind of maintenance?
Basic field strip and cleaning. I've found my 1911's have stoppages once they get a bit fouled and/or are running unlubed.

>They actually have about the same number of parts as Glocks.
Though that may be, it's how the pieces go together that result in complexity.

>Maybe if you're brain damaged or don't know how to do it.
No one is saying that they are hard to field strip and reassemble, they just aren't as quick and easy. Idiotproof if you will.

>Not all 1911s are made exactly like the original.
This is true and I didn't claim they are, but basic design elements remain the same.

>I see it all the time on various forums.
Ah true, not sure why.

>>29099366
>Not trying to be picky, but the 1911 pistol does not have a cult following. That pistol is mainstream and extremely popular, the 1911 market wouldn't be so diverse if it wasnt. Now a cz75 or a styer m9, those are cult followings

Fair enough, poor choice of words on my part. Internationally it could be argued that the CZ75 and its copies are equally mainstream though.

>>29099530

>Absolutely true. More often than not though I have found 1911's (mainly sub commander size) to be finicky compared to modern defensive pistols
Why yes, that's because you need to redesign several components of the 1911 to make it work in that size of gun.
Like what Colt did.

>Agreed, however I have found many of my 1911's would have malfunctions in the first hundred or so rounds.
Probably because they're RIAs and such that are fitted poorly.
Colts, Remingtons, Springfields, ect. work right out of the box.

>Basic field strip and cleaning. I've found my 1911's have stoppages once they get a bit fouled and/or are running unlubed.
Then you have bad 1911s I guess.
I shoot hundreds of rounds of dirty, cheap russian ammo through mine all the time and I never have problems.
What exact issues with the 1911 design do you think make it less reliable when dirty?

>Though that may be, it's how the pieces go together that result in complexity.
That makes no sense.

>No one is saying that they are hard to field strip and reassemble, they just aren't as quick and easy. Idiotproof if you will.
If you think this, then you have been doing it wrong.
Or are making a big deal about a non-captured recoil spring.

>This is true and I didn't claim they are, but basic design elements remain the same.
And some 1911s are made higher capacity than others.

>>29099530
>Idiotproof if you will.
Given the amount of people who manage to shoot the wall (or worse) when trying to take apart their Glock, I don't think idiotproof is the right term to use.

Is a 1911 in anything besides .45 heretical? i shot a springfield range officer in 9mm the other day and it was pretty nice. Not the nicest but i wouldnt feel bad owning it.

>>29099629
>Why yes, that's because you need to redesign several components of the 1911 to make it work in that size of gun. Like what Colt did.

Colt Defender is actually what I was referring to as being problematic. Most finicky 1911 I've ever shot.

>Probably because they're RIAs and such that are fitted poorly.
Actually haven't had any issues with the 2 RIAs ive gotten my mits on aside from a little surface rust after sitting in the safe a long time

>Colts, Remingtons, Springfields, ect. work right out of the box.
Haven't tried a Remington but have had issues with the Colts and Springfields

>Then you have bad 1911s I guess.
Guess so

>What exact issues with the 1911 design do you think make it less reliable when dirty?
Not sure I'm a trigger puller not an engineer. My experience with 1911's is just that, my own personal observations.

>That makes no sense.
Makes perfect sense. Number of parts doesn't matter so much as how they fit together for disassembly/assembly. If you make something more difficult to assemble and reassemble than another tool with the same intended purpose, it would be safe to say that it is more complicated to assemble and reassemble. Sigs, Berettas, Glocks, Smiths, FN's, etc are all very quick and easy to field strip. 1911's just take a bit longer.

>If you think this, then you have been doing it wrong.
Again, no. Your common modern defensive pistols come apart in just a few tool-less steps. 1911's require a little bit more finesse. Kind of like comparing an AK to AR field strip.

>Or are making a big deal about a non-captured recoil spring.
A lot of guns use non-captured springs. This isn't a big deal.

>And some 1911s are made higher capacity than others.
Yup. My old Para P13 is awesome and actually fits my mits better than single stacks.

File: saftey_violator.jpg (46KB, 720x481px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x481px

>>29099748
Idiot resistant

I'm not quite sure I get the point on length of takedown for a handgun. Nigga, you ain't going to war with it. You aren't gonna need to make split second repairs while CCing. What? Are you drawing on The Blob?

That's rifle shit.

>>29099846

>Colt Defender is actually what I was referring to as being problematic. Most finicky 1911 I've ever shot.
Must've been a lemon.

>Actually haven't had any issues with the 2 RIAs ive gotten my mits on aside from a little surface rust after sitting in the safe a long time
Then what guns did you have problems with?

>Haven't tried a Remington but have had issues with the Colts and Springfields
What issues? What models?
Do you have any pics?

>Not sure I'm a trigger puller not an engineer. My experience with 1911's is just that, my own personal observations.
So you have no objective evidence.

>Makes perfect sense. Number of parts doesn't matter so much as how they fit together for disassembly/assembly. If you make something more difficult to assemble and reassemble than another tool with the same intended purpose, it would be safe to say that it is more complicated to assemble and reassemble. Sigs, Berettas, Glocks, Smiths, FN's, etc are all very quick and easy to field strip. 1911's just take a bit longer.
You're definitely no engineer, alright.

>Again, no. Your common modern defensive pistols come apart in just a few tool-less steps. 1911's require a little bit more finesse. Kind of like comparing an AK to AR field strip.
The fact that you said "tool-less" implies you think a 1911 needs tools to disassemble.
The only "finesse" required is making sure your barrel link is in the right place.

>>29099895
>The fact that you said "tool-less" implies you think a 1911 needs tools to disassemble.
My Baer needs a bushing wrench to disassemble.

Then again, it is a Les Baer, and I did spring for the super special accuracy guarantee.

>>29099941

>My Baer needs a bushing wrench to disassemble.

You can actually do it without a wrench.
Just take the slide off first, then push the barrel out a bit.

>>29099751
The beauty of such a long lived platform as the 1911 is that it can be literally whatever gun you want it to be. If you want a 9mm, by God you go get that 9mm.

>>29099884
Agreed, but it's still advantageous. There's no need to over complicate something.

>>29099895
>Must've been a lemon.
Possibly, but when cleaned and oiled it shot factory ball and most full power factory JHP's just fine. Really had issues when using reloads that worked fine in other guns of mine and some loads of JHP. Generally the larger cavity HP's would hang up on the feed ramp.

>Then what guns did you have problems with?
Colt Defender, Colt Series 70, Para LTC had the most issues, Para P13, Springfield but don't remember what model, and a Norinco. Mainly FTF's with quality mags which was narrowed down to certain loadings, so my guess is just feed ramp design. Failures to go into battery in a variants that I couldn't pinpoint a reason for, failures to eject that I couldn't pinpoint a reason for in all but the Defender.

>Do you have pics?
Nope, I kinda gave up on 1911s and sold all but the Defender and P13 a few years ago.

>So you have no objective evidence.
Do you have an objective reason for using a 1911 over newer and better designs? No, personal preference is subjective. If you have a carry gun that you shoot well, you train with, you like, and is reliable then that's what matters. The difference between you and I is that I'm not shilling for or against the 1911. If it's what works for you and you can plug holes with it, that's awesome. They're fun to shoot.

>The fact that you said "tool-less" implies you think a 1911 needs tools to disassemble.
>The only "finesse" required is making sure your barrel link is in the right place.
I usually use the magazine base plate lip to pop out the slide lock lever and get the bushing in and out of place. That's a tool. Could I do it with my hands? Yeah but it's a pain in the ass so I use a makeshift tool. On most modern defensive pistols you need nothing.

I'm done with this bait thread, fanboys can never agree to disagree and have to push their opinions on others.

>>29099225
>/k/ seems to be full of fucktards who get so emotionally invested in one type or brand of gun while never actually expanding their horizons and to improve themselves.
Mostly because 90% of /k/ can only afford one gun, with no ammo.

>>29100144

>and a Norinco.
Now I know you're full of it.

>>Do you have pics?
>Nope
Confirmed.

>>29100150
This.

>>29099962
No go, man. It is a tight piece of work.

This is Les "Shoot it loose" Baer at his best.

>>29098657
>they're all finicky and unreliable
Mine is finicky if X
>they all have a break in period
Mine did
>they need more maintenance than other guns
Mine is because of X and Y. Y = a poorly park'ed finish.
>they're complicated
Mine is. Two words, 3 points, 20 magazines: Controlled feeding.
>they're hard to disassemble
Mine isn't.
>they're all low capacity
They are, unless you're talking about extreme variants
>you need to be some kind of expert to use them
You do, because of the thumb safety. No novice or even intermediate firearm owner should carry a pistol with a thumb mounted safety. Which is to say that if you buy a pistol with a thumb mounted safety, you should strive to become an expert with it or suffer the real world consequences.

X = the god damned extractor.

The only experience I've had with .45 is my Ballester Molina, but I'm interested in a 1911-brand 1911. Are Rock Islands still alright for a first one? Sportsman's Guide has them for under $400, and I could probably hock a couple of guns I'm not too big into for that.

>>29100236

This post reads like a joke.

>>29100254
I got it from this site I found called ar15.com

OIFGuy11B, you did a stand up job of giving humble, factual answers to the obviously joking and prodding gentleman.

File: received_10156645784585128.jpg (23KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x600px

>>29100358
Ty kind sir

>>29099289
Well fuck me. You're right, I'm a faggot.

>>29098657
>they're hard to disassemble

Hard is relative. More complicated? yes.

>they're all low capacity

Most of them are. There are only two makers who make high cap 1911s that I can think of, and one isn't even in business anymore(Para and RIA)

>>29098747
basically 1911s suck is his argument.
then he got a 1911 and it performed flawlessly.

>>29101304
don't they make extended capacity 1911 magazines?

>>29101304
>hard to disassemble
no one actually thinks this, right?
I can field strip and assemble one in under 30 seconds.
Harder to disassemble than modern guns maybe.

What's is the "best" of the semocustom/custom 1911 guys? Les baer? Night hawk? Colt custom shop?
I'd like the best (Reliable accuracy aesthetics) 1911 I can get for around 2k give or take a few hundred.

>>29101824
Ed Brown or Wilson.

I love my Baer to death, but it's 15+ years old and I would not buy a new one. His tooling is all over 20 years old and you can tell that it's showing its age. When he retools his factory, go ahead.

I have never held a Nighthawk I liked, and even then they're charging an extra $500 for the bird on the side.

>>29103059
I really like the lines on the Dan Wesson valor bit I remember hearing their quality went way down when cz bought them.

>>29103086
I've heard that as well, however Dan Wessons are one of the brands I don't have much experience with, so you'll have to find out for yourself.

>>29099319
I have a RIA GI, and you might not feel outgunned, until it gets a little dark and you can't see the front sight anymore.
cannot believe people went to war with these.

>>29105492
again
was told it had a 500 round break in, but had no failures that weren't magazine related (feed lips cracked after 200 rounds, replaced under warranty)
first gun, had no problem completely dissasembling. anyone who thinks it's hard needs to consider not being retarded.
wish the trigger was a little lighter and crisper, but it's not hard to replace a mainspring, and a leaf spring

I want to make a 1911 from an 80% kit. I have a dremel and a lot of metal files.

What's a good source for understanding how 1911s work? I was going to get the Gun Digest book on them.

>>29105492
>1911
>using pistol sights in combat
>not just point shooting
Welcome to the Pre-modern School of Pistol.

That said if you're carrying a GI-spec 1911 these days you're doing it wrong. You're going to want a beavertail, extended safety, and modern night sights at the least.