What is the point of a 1911 in 2016?

Traditionalism and fuddlore, mostly. The 1911 was outdated before the end of WWII, but people - especially gun owners - are resistant to change.

File: 1446146181921.jpg (10KB, 370x403px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 370x403px

>>31949585
Well that's gay.

>>31949585
I used to think this till I shot one. They are thinner than any other gun for its length, the recoil does not feel like 45 in the slightest, and I have never felt a better trigger in all my life

>>31949574
They are really comfortable to shoot and the action is smooth as fuck.

>>31949606
Compared to everything else? A 92FS is pretty nice to shoot.

>>31949613
but has a soft trigger.

>>31949585
Then explain why America's gun culture went from from tons of fudds chopping up Mausers to Elite Operator commando types?

>>31949637
literally because of call of duty 4

>>31949601

This. They are very thin, all metal full size handguns. Very /comfy/. A dream to cc also, if you want to cc full size.

>>31949574
>Really reliable
>Really comfortable
>Really accurate
>Really slim
>Really easy to do detailed maintenance on
>Really easy to customize without a gunsmith if it only involves part replacement
>Really easy to get replacement parts because literally every firearm company ever produces M1911s
>Really historic and was instrumental in influencing future firearm designs with Browning's tilting barrel system
>Really is still used Militarily, albeit in a very limited quantity
>Really seems to only ever GAIN in popularity; I'd like to know how many M1911s were being made during WWII, because I wouldn't be surprised if there's just as many being made daily now as there was when it was mass produced on a Military scale. Maybe more!

Downfalls/negatives of the M1911 design
>7 or 8 round mags generally (Thankfully, in self defense situations generally only 2 rounds are shot on average; people still carry revolvers for a reason)
>Usually around 2.5lb or so (Hi Power and M9 are generally 2-2.2lb, to put that in perspective.)
>No decocker (Meh)
>Single action only (Dat trigger tho)
>More parts in the field strip (Still piss-easy)

Compared to modern full sized Military pistols
>Less capacity
>Generally heavier
>Slimmer
>POSSIBLY less reliable in extreme situations but if it can make it out of two World Wars with a good track record and still be used in the Military over 100 years later, it's good enough for me.
>Generally more felt recoil (though likely less felt recoil when compared to other full sized .45 ACP pistols like the Glock 21)
>Doesn't shoot as flat (unless compared to other .45 ACP pistols because usually they have less than 5" barrel, thus less velocity. Pistols are for 50m (55yd) max anyways)
>Grip safey (I like it, though can see how it could possibly let fine debris get to the leaf spring and fuck about there)
>Just as accurate (M1911 inaccuracy is a meme; Hickok45 w/ original WWII M1911A1 at 230yd (208m or so)

I think that does it. Decide for yourself.

>it shoots boolits.

DAILY REMINDER OPERATORS PREFER THE 1911

>>31949742
Wtf i love 1911s now.

File: james_gandolfini2_9_3856351_ver1.0_640_480.jpg (117KB, 640x421px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x421px

exactly.

>>31949716
Oh yeah, and...
>Heavier ammo
If you're going to be carrying A LOT of ammo with your side arm (why, tho?), then a .45 ACP pistol is not the best choice in terms of weight. 230gr .45 ACP is 21 rounds per pound (comparable to 150gr 7.62 Nato). 185gr would make it lighter (maybe 24-25 rounds per pound? Complete guess. Still heavier than 7.62x39), meanwhile 115gr 9x19 is around 35 rounds per pound (comparable to 5.56 Nato), so almost twice as much can be carried for the same weight. 147gr 9x19 would probably be around 30 rounds per pound (comparable to 7.62x39) give or take.

This is why, though I love .45 ACP, I would NEVER want a primary firearm in that cartridge. Really might as well have .308 or 7.62 Nato. For a pistol though, I prefer .45 over 9mm, in spite of all the advantages of 9mm over .45. It's just a personal preference, and I think I'm being fairly unbiased here in spite of that preference.

File: Beautiful gun - 1911 with Fitzgerald open trigger and deer horn grips.jpg (71KB, 1000x650px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1000x650px

>>31949574
1911s in 2016 is a very broad term.
There are subcompact 1911s. Double stack 1911s. Double barreled 1911s. 1911s in .357 magnum.

People just like the look and feel of a 1911.
People who like 1911s and want to CC will praise subcompact/compact/officer 1911s because of their stoppen powar in such a small, thin and concealable package.
People (read: fudds) who love to argue with other people about ammo will praise the .45 acp for its "tank-stopping abilities" and will talk about how great it is mainly because of the hype the 1911 had which carried over to its cartridge.
People who want customisability will praise the 1911 because of its massive aftermarket.

But generally I think it's loved by the people not because of any practical means. Subcompact 1911s are always outclassed by something smaller that does the same thing. Full size 1911s still have handguns that are more powerful and reliable than them.

People like the 1911 because of its Americana, its legend and its aesthetics. It's made by Americans and used by Americans against the enemies of America. It's legend (fuddlore, really) mainly comes from WW2 vets who absolutely loved them which earned the guns praise when they were up for sale after the war. And its aesthetics... I mean cmon. No matter how much you like [modern handgun] you've got to admit, the 1911 does look sexy.

>>31949574
Best triggers in the world.

File: 1911a1_718092f_IMG_7669_new.jpg (53KB, 800x491px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x491px

>>31949810
Also full steel frame is a unique experience. A polymer gun is light, yes, it is easy to CC, totes.

However that full steel, it feels...and it also absorbs some of the recoil. damn, got me all hard anon. Gotta go shoot my 1911.

>>31949574

>Are they really reliable
no


>really comfortable
yes

>really accurate
yes

>Why should I buy one
for the historical factor and traditional factor really. it was used by our military for years. great shooting gun at the range, comfy and accurate. design lends itself to good triggers. low mag capacity and poor reliability and weight are reasons why i would avoid one if its supposed to be for carrying around

File: ddb.png (679KB, 600x825px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 600x825px

>>31950300

Of course the Fedora is an outdated design. It came from an era when headwear was designed to be tipped, not to avoid gentlemanly conversation lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your m’ladys operated and to practice being a gentleman until it became second nature, not to design the headwear to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply its gentlemen with the best garments possible, unlike today, when our non-euphoric men and women are issued headware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected God believers district. Yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Fedora IS an outdated design… and that’s exactly why I tip it.

>>31949574
If you like them, fine.

There are many, many better handguns out there.

Think of it like this, if a gun mfr. came out with the 1911 as a new design in 2016, it would get shit on from every corner of the gun world, far and wide. They are high bore axis (therefore higher recoiling), require tools to break down, are either accurate but jam due to tight tolerances or inaccurate but reliable due to loose tolerances, hammer bite is a thing, many require gunsmithing right out of the box to improve them, they can be shitty about feeding hollowpoints, they're expensive, sometimes ridiculously expensive, low capacity, etc, etc.

As a collector's item they're fine, but for a serious defensive handgun, they're outdated as hell. At their peak, they were essentially back-up weapons to rifles and were therefore more of an "if all else fails, try this" afterthought.

>>31949574
If you're American, and you own guns, and you don't own a 1911 you're basically a terrorist in my opinion

>>31950300
Deal-making and well connected politicians influencing weapon selection in the US military is as old as the US military.

>>31950482
what if you owned one at some point but sold it, and now own a BHP

>>31949716
>Really reliable
Didnt read the rest

>>31950352
Wow I've never seen someone explain 1911s so inaccurately before. Not everything has to be a tactical high speed low recoil polymer gun and giving it negative marks for not being one is retarded. 1911s are accurate, unless you get a really shitty one with a sewer pipe barrel (I really don't foresee this ever happening).I've put thousands of rounds through mine with zero issues because I actually research brands. I don't go out and buy a fucking Kimber and shoot it and then go shit on 1911s online like I feel most people do. Considering a large portion of the gun community likes big impractical vehicles you'd think you'd see less hate for 1911s out there

>>31949574
There is no reason to buy one in 2016 except for historical appreciation purposes.

>>31949716
>Really reliable
I wish this meme would end. They are rather finicky pistols if they're not uber clean and fitted.

>>31950980
>Not everything has to be a tactical high speed low recoil polymer gun

Doesn't own superior handgun because inferior option exists.

>>31950259
>>31950938
>>31951019
First 1911s being unreliable is a meme, now them being reliable is a meme?

>>31951129
t. a retard. Some shit is just fun, it doesn't have to be an extremely practical design

File: Beretta-92-Colt-1911-Glock-17-line.jpg (234KB, 2000x1325px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 2000x1325px

>>31949574
Glock. Always Glock.

>>31950986
Why, a 10mm 1911 with extra hot loaded ammo is the perfect full size carry. Or the Grizzly Win Mag, a 1911 chambered in .44 magnum or .50 AE. With both of these options you get a reliable, full size handgun with controlable recoil in a slim package.

>>31951142

Millions of 1911s were made for the military that had loose tolerances and were completely parts interchangeable.

The loose tolerances meant less stoppages and jams.

These days 1911s are built like race cars with tight tolerances, and reliability suffers.

>>31951210
Also a very powerful caliber which is sure to stop any intruder with just a few shots, while there have been cases of people taking 20 shots of 9mm and surviving. Also I don't think 45 acp is a good caliber, 1911 chambered in 9mm is good for plinking (cheap ammo), and 10mm for self-defense (better balistics).

>>31951226
I mean, not really? Why do people think tolerances directly correlate to reliability? You know what helps reliability? Having lots of room in a receiver to disperse grit and having an almost entirely sealed system, like an ar15. Tolerances were loose in the 1911 for parts interchangeability alone. That way they could put less effort into hand fitting parts and get more pistols out. Tight tolerances only affect reliability when you introduce out of spec parts. Some manufacturers have different specs than others but most have the same specs except for high end shit like Ed Brown, and don't need fitting. I've shot dozens of 1911s and owned five and the only one I've ever had any trouble with was a kimber and the fucking hammer snapped somehow. Why people insist on regurgitating shit they heard from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is beyond me.

>>31951226
>had loose tolerances and were completely parts interchangeable.


you shitsipper don't even know what the terms your are throwing around mean. tolerances are the min and max deviations from a given blueprint that are going to be allowed in a part. now what allows a gun to "fit loosely" is clearance which is something engineered into the gun to begin with. you see, Glocks have tight tolerances; thrown the parts of 100 Glocks in a bucket, tumble it and reassamle the guns at randm and they'll all work perfectly. but they also have proper clearances.

>>31951275
its not just tolerances its the fact those military 1911s were all built to the same spec
over time a bunch of companies decided to improve the 1911 and came up with their own spec

try to mash together a 1911 where every part comes from a different brand and it will function poorly

>>31949585
Mall ninja detected.

The fact that we are discussing if a gun that was made more than a 100 years ago is good or not tells you how well done they are.

Does it really matter? It's a fucking 1911. If you have the money, buy it.

>>31951312
t. someone who's never ever touched a 1911. If that's true then every glock part not made by glock will make a glock brand glock fail

>>31951153

>Serious and defensive about 100 year old handgun

Says it is about fun, not practicality.

>1911 is impractical design for modernity

>>31951381
Thanks for stating my argument for me, I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Just because it doesn't hold fifteen rounds and isn't made of aircraft grade aluminum and polymer doesn't mean it won't kill shit dead

>>31951334
if you dont think thats true just look at 1911 magazines

>>31951406
that's true for a musket too. so I guess my point is fuck you fuddshit.

File: IMG_0165.jpg (906KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 2048x1536px

>>31950352
This tight tolerance reliability and hollow point jamming shit has got to go. It's just not true.

Kimbers and Remington's jam because they are junk. Imported 1911s often suffer poor qc.

Every 1911 I have ever owned ate fmj, jhp, and swc just fine.

>>31951429
>Fuddshit
Try again

File: IMG_6781.png (333KB, 600x720px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 600x720px

I have a dan Wesson CCO. I bought it new for less than 1000usda. I love it. I got it for a range toy. I now carry it when I don't carry my Glock 10mm, or my p938. It is a incredible. Accurate. I ring steel at 50m. 7+1 so I'm not worried about Jamal. It's thin. And I don't care who you are, a good 1911 will feel like an extension of your arm when held. The people who hate on them, have not shot a nice one.

>>31951432
>Kimbers and Remington's are junk

It is pretty clear that you are full of shit.

>>31951574
Remington stinks. No idea about Kimbers, but they're no longer the only game in the entry-level 1911 market.

File: IMG_1968.jpg (690KB, 3000x1989px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 3000x1989px

>>31951574
Ok

>>31949574
>still used by some special ops units
Whatever floats your boat OP, I for one think it's the greatest semi-automatic pistol ever made. Would it not impress you to hold Excalibur? Would it not make you overjoyed to hold Mjolnir? The M1911A1 is a true legend.

File: 20160901_231050.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

I like them. They're just plain fun to shoot. I'm gonna try to sell my 4" and get a 5" though. I bought it to carry, but decided I'd rather stick with my M&P since I've trained with it more.

>>31951830
What do u want for it fukkboi. Also what state.

>>31951688
>mistreating and not cleaning your firearms

>>31949574
Mag limit states really help it. 7+1 .45s vs. 15+1 9mm is a tough fight, but 7+1 vs 10+1 is much more reasonable. [spoiler]Though I carry a revolver :^)[/spoiler]

I like it.

>>31949574
The main appeal of 9mm and modern .45s are their higher capacity

Here in the shitty blue states, we can't have that so we hold onto things like the 1911 and various revolvers because the smaller capacity isn't an issue

File: 1911.jpg (226KB, 989x1024px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 989x1024px

>>31949574
They are all of those. John Browning got something right when he designed it. Don't fix what isn't broken.

File: 1456814882460.jpg (24KB, 469x469px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 469x469px

>>31949574
Just look at it.

File: g29.jpg (84KB, 600x373px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x373px

>>31952586
>1911 fuddlore overload

I could respect a guy who says he carries a 1911 because he simply likes it. But when people start rationalizing and justifying their choice (mainly to themselves) and claiming all kinds of ways the 1911 is supposedly superior to modern guns, mostly Glocks that is, I zone out. That's bottom of the barrel in my book.

>>31949585
>1911 is outdated because polymers and shit

>>31949716
Just about right. If you need more than 8 rounds per mag you might want to brush up on your marksmanship.

Bottom line it's a simple gun that has been around for more than 100 years. There are a shit ton of aftermarket options and is fun to shoot. You can find the perfect 1911 in your price range with some research. Go shoot one and a Glock, and maybe something else and see what you like.

I can field strip my 1911 in about 1 min or less and have my .22lr kit on the frame in less than 2 min. I love mine and wouldn't give it up for anything other than another 1911.

>reliable?
CNC machining makes the tolerances fine, and like the other anon said, if you let debris fuck about with the leaf spring/sear i can see it /possibly/ fucking up. ive had mine for 7 years and it's only jammed from my ex limp-wristing the fuck out of it.
>comfortable?
yes, very. thin grips and a great grip angle makes it feel pretty natural.
>accurate?
yeah?
>why should i buy it over any other pistol?
do you like it? do you like it more than another pistol?
then buy a 1911.
do you like another one more?
then buy the other one.

I have said it before and I will end up saying it again: the 1911 an old design that is more trouble than it is worth. I don’t say it to be confrontational, or to draw attention to myself. I say it because I see my fellow shooters mindlessly parroting the gun equivalent of Chuck Norris Facts whenever the 1911 comes up in conversation, and I just don’t get it. I am not surprised that the 1911 is out of place in today’s world, and you shouldn’t be surprised either. What other 100-year old design is still in daily use? In the comment section of another blog, I summarized my skepticism of the 1911′s attributes thusly:


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.

>>31952922
I forgot to mention the issue with slide-stop failures, and the whole internal extractor/external extractor situation. Either of which would be serious enough to kill any other design’s reputation in the shooting world.

In response to some knee-jerk defenses of the 1911 from fanboys who drank too much John M. Browning Kool-Aid, who will tell me how all that I need to do was buy a bunch of aftermarket parts and send the gun to a gunsmith, I add:

Why does a reliable 1911 cost so much, and need so much gunsmithing?

To be fair, I have some of the same complaints with the Walther PPK. Which is also a very old design, one which has been eclipsed by more modern designs which can do everything it does better.

I mean, is it unreasonable to expect an affordably-priced pistol for defense to reliably feed hollowpoints out of the box? What Smith & Wesson pistol of recent manufacture won’t feed hollowpoints? What about Glock? SiG? Beretta? (I know Kahrs need to have some rounds through them before they are reliable, but it says that right in the owners manual).

The shooting public would not accept an unreliable gun of a more modern design. But for some reason, the 1911 gets a pass for all of its flaws. “Just use hardball” is not a valid defense of the 1911 design, nor is it a valid strategy for selecting ammunition to defend yourself.

And God help anyone who buys a used 1911. Everyone and their brother seems to think they are qualified to take a Dremel to their 1911. Guys who can’t change their own flat tire somehow have no reservations about playing doctor on their 1911. Who knows what wacky “custom” parts have been put into the gun because someone read about it on the interweb tubes?

It was the best military sidearm of its day, and for a long time afterward. I do not dispute that. But its time has long passed. And a military sidearm is not the same thing as a handgun for personal defense.

Leave aside the lack of reliability with hollowpoints, and the other problems. The 1911 is too big to conceal. And the smaller versions are less reliable due to the shorter slide-travel and a tendency to limp-wrist the gun.

Some people protest by saying that the 1911 is the best gun for defense, because the most “realistic” shooting sports are heavily populated with 1911 users. And everyone knows that you should train like you fight, so that you will fight like you train, right? Well, that would be a more convincing argument if those “realistic” shooting sports didn’t have intricate rules that somehow disqualify most non-1911 designs. Purely by coincidence, right? Sure, they come up with semi-plausible rationales for some of those rules, but there is no way to disguise the overall bias towards the 1911.

I don’t hate 1911 fans. I merely pity them, because they are victims of marketing hype and groupthink, the lemmings of the gun world. And if someone sinks thousands of dollars into a 1911 (and isn’t using it to compete for money), well they are just gullible. Like the kind of people who pay money for tapwater in a bottle.

So what if Jeff Cooper liked the only handgun in use when he was in the military? It’s not like he had a choice of other handguns to use. And, on a related note, Jeff Cooper has a reputation that exceeds his accomplishments. The best information that I can find shows that he spent the battle of Guadalcanal as the training officer on Gen. Vandegrift’s staff. Not leading a platoon. Not on the line, pulling a trigger. And his coy evasions when asked about his real-world experience with gunfighting are revealing, if one cares to view them objectively.

If you have documentation about Cooper’s real-world experience, please drop me a line. I am happy to revise my opinion. I have no doubt that he was qualified to teach people how to shoot on a range. Beyond that, a grain of salt is required. I prefer to get my advice on defense & gunfighting from men who have actually been there & done that; Massad Ayoob, Jim Cirillo, etc. Am I a qualifications snob? No, I am an results snob.

Ok, got it out of my system.

>>31952586
John Browning was one of the most brilliant engineers, designers and visionaries of any industry not just firearms. But he was limited to the tools, materials and manufacturing capabilities of his time. He would envision a gun action in his head, carve it out of wood and it was done. Just amazing and every gun today owes some of it's heritage to his genius. But his designs are old. Just imagine what he would be able to create if he were alive today and had access to our manufacturing processes, materials, 3D modeling, rapid prototyping, etc. It would be amazing.
Anyway, it's nothing against JMB to say that there are better firearm options for most uses available today. I would like a 1911 with a hair trigger and crisp action for enjoyment of firing but not to carry, for that I'll stick to my plastic Glock.

>>31952922
>It needs tools to disassemble
No it doesn't, at least not the way JMB designed it. It was meant to be its own toolbox.
>It has unreliable magazines.
For the most part, yes. If you stick to Wilson or Colt mags you'll be fine.
>And, as a single-action pistol, it is unsafe for 95% of its users to carry.
Any firearm is unsafe without proper training.
>>31952931
>I forgot to mention the issue with slide-stop failures, and the whole internal extractor/external extractor situation. Either of which would be serious enough to kill any other design’s reputation in the shooting world.
Only an issue the farther you get away from the original JMB design.
>Why does a reliable 1911 cost so much, and need so much gunsmithing?
It doesn't if you stick to a proper manufacturer like Colt.
>“Just use hardball” is not a valid defense of the 1911 design, nor is it a valid strategy for selecting ammunition to defend yourself.
Agreed.
>And God help anyone who buys a used 1911.
Agreed.
>>31952957
>The 1911 is too big to conceal.
Debatable.
>And the smaller versions are less reliable due to the shorter slide-travel
Only slightly less reliable.
>a tendency to limp-wrist the gun
So don't limp wrist like a fag.
>>31952971
>And if someone sinks thousands of dollars into a 1911 (and isn’t using it to compete for money), well they are just gullible.
Or they are enthusiasts with money.
>Jeff Cooper
Not all 1911 fans worship him.

The 1911 is not without its flaws, but it's still a pretty good gun if you're willing to take the time to learn the ins and outs of the system. If all you want is a gun that goes bang then maybe a 1911 isn't for you.

>>31949664
Well that and the AWB sunset and a gorillian vets coming home, many of which still cling to the only life experience they have

>>31951334
Every after market company that produces the luxury if taking a factory block and measuring the whole fucking gun, scanning the whole gun or looking up the specs. How any 1911 manufactures possess the OG Colt specs in a market where everyone wants a custom fitted uber tight gun built to the specs of whoever the fuck runs the company and decideds what proper spec is.

Properly build guns work just fine, loose or tight so long as it's the right places

>>31951429
You realize your argument is dogshit since at least the 70s since aluminum compact 1911s have been around for ages and polymer ones exists, both in many calibers and compact single stacks are still wildly popular.

That's before we even get into the whole statistic part. Your personal preference doesn't make a gun less practical

>>31951581
Hey Phil, glad to see you're here to shitpost as usual. Thanks for ignoring the existence of early number guns and the fact that the R1 is about the only thing Remington has managed to do right since 07 you meme-spewing fuck

>>31953233
One thing is for certain; in terms of 100+ year old pistols, none are as modern as the M1911 design. I might even go so far as to say that no pistol made before 1934 even comes close to holding up as well today as an M1911. No, the P08 Luger doesn't stand up to the M1911; that toggle lock or whatever it's called has been left behind in history for a reason. Not only is the M1911 still popular today and still being produced, but I'd say the vast majority of Military side-arms around the world uses the Browning style tilting barrel as well as, of course, a slide. As for the C96, that seems to me like a terrible pistol, but a great carbine once you get the stock on it.

The 1911 design is reliable, accurate, slim, and yes, I would also call it modern.
>Has a slide
>Push-button mag release
>Detachable magazine
>Slide hold-open with empty mag
>Slide stop control
>Ergonomic manual safety
>Ergonomic design (TT33's grip angle is anything but ergonomic)
>Not only is the field strip quite easy, but it can be just about completely disassembled without the use of tools (Even most modern designs can't say the same, it would seem)
>Good trigger
>Reliable
>Accurate
>Decent bore axis (See C96 for God awful one)
>Recoil spring under the barrel (sound familiar?)
>Hammer fired (Lots of Military side arms are still hammer fired)
>All-steel construction (Lots of Military side arms have this as well)

It truly is a design that, even over 100 years later, can be considered modern. The only things it's really lacking for a full sized Military pistol is

>Double-stack mag
>Rail
>Double-action hammer
>Decocker
>Loaded chamber indicator

Ultimately, I consider the last four entirely dependent on preferences. The first one, double stack mag, it would be nice, but then the M1911 wouldn't be as slim.

Do I think the M1911 is better than modern pistol designs? No.

Do I think the M1911 is just as good? Considering I'm fine with single stack mags as long as the pistol is slim; fuck yeah

>>31952944
>I mean, is it unreasonable to expect an affordably-priced pistol for defense to reliably feed hollowpoints out of the box?

Nope.

>The shooting public would not accept an unreliable gun of a more modern design. But for some reason, the 1911 gets a pass for all of its flaws. “Just use hardball” is not a valid defense of the 1911 design, nor is it a valid strategy for selecting ammunition to defend yourself.

This isn't the case anymore. Nearly every 1911 out of the box will feed hollowpoints.

>And God help anyone who buys a used 1911.

All of my 1911s have been used. I've had no issues. The trick is to look at the gun you're about to buy. Just like any gun.

>>31953556
No need for a loaded chamber indicator when you can press check, but otherwise an excellent post.

10/10 would circlejerk again

>>31953586
This. Or like my Para, where it has a TINY bit milled out of the barrel so you can see the loaded brass.

>>31952922
>>31952931
>>31952944

What decade you living in anon? The extractor CAN be an issue for people that don't know how they should be set up and there are designs that use an external, just like there are modern guns that have had issues with small parts including extractors and ejection.

The tool argument is weak, the disassembly argument is weak, parts count arguments are week. The SAO argument is week especially given the guns design. If you want to bitch, bitch about the lack of true drop in parts which is the fault of manufacturer deviation which itself is the biggest flaw of the 1911, followed by bad information, followed by the barrel link.

>>31952719
listen I like the 1911 but don't be so fuddy

>if you need more than 8 rounds per mag you need to fix your marksmanship

what is a firefight

Not to mention the minimum you need to spend on a 1911 is 700-800. Preferably 1,000 to get a quality gun.

the 1911 is flat for a full size gun. Hey, it might not have a 16 sho mag, but might only have a second to dump three or four shots into someone.

.45 acp is quieter (look up the Db and remember the sound isn't linear) and softer shooting than a 9mm.

A "modern" 1911 like a Colt 1991 will feed any modern defensive ammo, and has fullsize sights.

>>31952673
>>31953004
The Glock is OK except for the trigger, which is pisspoor.

>>31949574
>shoots fat .45 ACP boolets
>gorgeous design

>>31949574
Define your purpose.

As a competitive target shooter, mostly PPC1500, a (custom) 1911 is the only thing I can recommend.
The trigger is great. The 6" is very front heavy, so less jumping on faster stages and more steady aiming on 50yrd.
And not to forget, you get a lot of spare parts and tuning kits for cheap.

>>31949637
Mall ninjas and whatnot. And they're thankfully a minority. Most American gun owners are basically quiet fudds.
>>31951321
I literally carry a P38 made in 1943, and all of my rifles are fucking milsurp. I'm as far from a mall ninja as you can get. Call me a wehraboo or a hipster if you want, but never a fucking mall ninja.
>>31952719
>>1911 is outdated because polymers and shit
Where the fuck did I say that? I don't even like polymer pistols.
The 1911 is outdated because it's SA-only, inherently finicky, and heavy as fuck for what it is. There were several better designs by WWII (P38, Hi-Power, etc.), and a whole market full of them by the 70's and 80's.

Is it a bad pistol? Hell no. But if you're legitimately trying to make the claim that it's objectively superior to modern designs, especially as a carry pistol, you're a fucking retard who's bought into the meme. If you happen to be doing something like competition shooting that makes good use of the 1911's pros and cons, fine. If you want one just because you're comfortable with it, more power to you. But if you're fanboying about it being "100 years old and as great as the day it was designed," you need to stop drinking the fudd Kool-Aid and come back to reality.

>>31956693
Ok we get you're mad. Show us on the doll where the bad 1911 touched you

>>31949574
It's one of the nicer looking handgun designs of all time.

More modernized double stack versions should be made but many of them are overpriced almost-racegun tier products.

>>31951019
>>31950938
t. kimber owners

>>31949574
>What is the point of a 1911 in 2016?

I can shoot your ass dead with it.

>>31951019
>fitted
confirmed for not knowing shit about 1911s

>>31956748
/thread

>>31951250
>there have been cases of people taking 20 shots of 9mm and surviving
Not to the heart or brain.

File: SDC10247.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>31953586
>>31953600
I had forgotten the negative of it being something like 2.5lb unloaded, but that's only about .3-.4lb or so heavier than full sized all-steel pistols, like the Hi Power, M9, and Sig P226, so I guess it's not all THAT serious a thing to overlook. It's in .45 ACP after all, which is bigger than 9mm. Like the single stack mag having the advantage of keeping the design slim, the extra weight also has the advantage of lessening felt recoil, so there's give and take.

In short, it seems like John Moses Browning just got it right when he made the M1911. I'd say the next best pistol would come in 1935 with the Hi Power which took quite a bit of inspiration from the M1911 design. Obviously there's A LOT of changes, but that was the first real step to modern handguns since the M1911 as far as I'm concerned. It took nearly a quarter century. A quarter century in which I'd consider the M1911 the best Military sidearm you could possibly get. As stated though, even in the 81 years since the Hi Power's release, the M1911 design continues to be immensely popular, and though the Hi Power appears to be fading from the Military spotlight as well, it cannot be argued that it is a modern pistol design as well.

>>31956693
I've carried a P38 before as well, and mine was made in the same year as yours. The problem I have with it is the width. It's QUITE a fat pistol, ESPECIALLY for an itty bitty little 9mm single stack mag. The features on it are modern as fuck; decocker safety, loaded chamber indicator, immensely simple field strip, but there's no advantage to be had in being single stack if the pistol is that wide. Not only that, but the world has thoroughly moved on from European style mag releases. I still don't know why the Russians put it on their Makarov PM; I guess it was an effort to make as cheap a sidearm as humanly possible. Trying to CC a P38 is not an easy feat though; MUCH more easily done with an M1911.

well,it is a very thin gun, great size, VERY smooth action, the caliber is big enough for anything from a 12 year old to a fat crackhead,it's gorgeous, reliable, very customizeable...

i have a full size m1991a1 with wilson combat mags and federal (i believe) 230gr hst +p.

it's a great gun for iwb (if you're my size), owb,home defense and ipsc, plus they're cheap.

File: Walther_P5.jpg (397KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1600x1064px

>>31957104
>I've carried a P38 before as well, and mine was made in the same year as yours. The problem I have with it is the width. It's QUITE a fat pistol, ESPECIALLY for an itty bitty little 9mm single stack mag. The features on it are modern as fuck; decocker safety, loaded chamber indicator, immensely simple field strip, but there's no advantage to be had in being single stack if the pistol is that wide. Not only that, but the world has thoroughly moved on from European style mag releases. I still don't know why the Russians put it on their Makarov PM; I guess it was an effort to make as cheap a sidearm as humanly possible. Trying to CC a P38 is not an easy feat though; MUCH more easily done with an M1911.
It's not something I'd recommend, but I do it for the same reason that I excuse people who want to carry a 1911. I'm comfortable with it, and it works for me well enough. There are FAR better options out there on paper, but none of them "fit" me as well. The only gun I'd trade it for is a P5, because it keeps most of what I like while being more suitable for CC. I do wish it retained the open slide, though.

>>31949574
I'd rather have a 9mm for cost and magazine capacity; 7-8 rounds isn't enough desu.
I love my 1911 for its comfort and classic styling, but that's really the only reason to buy one.

File: SDC10389.jpg (3MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3648x2736px

>>31957223
Fair enough, the P38 has a lot of traits to admire, but I like simplicity, and there's things that I like and don't like on firearms which is why I would prefer an M1911 over a P38 in spite of the P38 having more features.

>Prefer frame-mounted safety instead of slide-mounted
>Don't like open slides
>Don't like hammer-drop safeties
>If a pistol is wide then I would want a double-stack mag with it
>Prefer cocked-and-locked rather than double-action first shot
>MUCH prefer push-button mag release instead of heel-type European-style mag release
>Quite fine with no loaded chamber indicator; could always just rack the slide back a little to check. Also pic related has a small notch cut in the barrel to see the brass rim, but of course I like to pull the slide back to make doubly sure

So I guess it comes down to personal preferences. Also, yes, it's an old-ass pic, and there's an idiot scratch. I got it when I was 18, and it was my first ever firearm. I had shot my first pistol only 1 year prior, so I was quite excited. At least it's one that I bought new rather than an historic example that would have been AWFUL to harm.

In short, your preferences might consider the P38 to be better than the M1911, and in some ways it is, but my preferences makes the M1911 better than the P38 in my eyes, which in some ways it is.

File: 20161026_124807.jpg (3MB, 3433x3011px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3433x3011px

>>31957363
Fair enough. Though pretty much everything you dislike about the P38 is something I prefer about it. Kinda funny, actually.
Either way, we can both agree that we choose these for personal reasons. Neither gun would be better for a "clean slate" (no leaning due to prior familiarity) shooter to carry than a modern offering. As much as it pains me to say, even a Glock would likely be a better option for the average person, let alone something like a Beretta, CZ, Hi-Power, etc.

Pic related is my setup. I open carry (under 21, legal in my state), so the dreaded width doesn't actually bother me. Actually, for that purpose, the P38 is ridiculously comfy. It probably makes me look like a weeb, but whatever, it gets the job done.

>>31957422
Haha I have to admit, there is something both awesome, and cringy, about someone carrying such an historic firearm in an original (or perhaps replica) period-correct holster. Definitely both a tool of self-defence and a fashion accessory. Well seems like we're on the same page in this; "to each their own". The width isn't really a drawback in an open carry situation, and the width certainly doesn't make the firearm uncomfortable at all to handle, so power to you. Evidently in those INSANELY rare cases where someone must shoot in self-defence, only 2 shots are fired, so doesn't really matter what the method of reloading would be. Either way, though I think European style is inherently a bit clunkier/more cumbersome than push-button style due to requiring two hands no matter what, it's not all THAT much of a difference and isn't a particularly big or important issue anyways, so though I REALLY don't like those styles of mag release, it's not as much of an issue as my mind perceives it to be, but still is a major issue in terms of personal preference and what I'm used to.

>>31956693
I still don't agree with what's been said here in terms of it being 'outdated' due to being SA-only (not an issue for those who like cocked-and-locked, i.e. me), finicky (I don't understand the basis of this), and heavy as fuck (I think .3-.4lb heavier than a firearm of similar size/material is hyperbolic), not to mention the claim that the P38 and Hi Power are better designs (in some respects, yes, but not 100% overall and entirely better). Agree to disagree I guess, but the M1911 is still quite modern and entirely capable from my standpoint. No, I don't think it's better than modern designs, and yes I can see that it's lacking some features compared to modern designs (even compared to the P38), but but as I've addressed here>>31953556, I believe it to be just as good in spite of those lack of modern features, and have explained why.

>>31957500
It's a repro holster. I can't afford to put wear and tear on an original soft she'll.

As for the mag release, I feel that a heel release is superior simply because there's no chance of hitting it accidentally under stress. At least for a carry gun, I find this more valuable than a slight speed advantage. Plus I personally just find a heel release more natural.

As for the 1911, I hear you, though personally I still disagree. I did want to address the "finicky" thing, though. By that I meant that 1911's tend to have weird reliability quirks. They're not outright unreliable, but you have to learn the gun - and many are different - to get them to run 100%. I've grown up shooting 1911's because my dad loved the damn things, and I've never had one, from Rock Islands, to Kimberly, to Wilson Combats, to USGI 1911A1's, that didn't have some "glitch" to it.

File: 20161009_153505.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>31952055
I got the gun itself for $918, so $850 for for the gun alone. I was thinking 1200 for the gun plus everything in pic related.

File: 20161108_120436.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>31952055
Also, I'm in TN.
Probably gonna try to flip it for a full size this weekend.

>>31949574

I used to carry a Springfield Range Officer 1911 and I was always scared to actually train hard with it because I didn't want to harm it.

Sold it and bought an M&P and Model 10 w/ a 3-inch barrel.

>>31949601
>the recoil does not feel like 45 in the slightest
Confirming that. Surprisingly smooth.

>better trigger
Try Legion.

>>31958155
>>31949574

Since this is now the 1911 general, any thoughts on the Ruger SR1911 Lightweight?

I want to cop badly

>>31949810
Stories of killing men in combat.
Fuddlore.
Noguns concirmed.

>>31950986
fuck you and everyone who looks like you

>>31958155
>>31958165

I think asking $850 is optimistic, but im in FL anyways so best of luck.

>>31949574
It a piece of history. The gun is 105 years old and still beautiful. Yes you can find better guns that are lighter, more reliable and holds more ammo.
But the 1911 has gone through ton of American history that every gun gun lover should have there I one.

>>31954284
Famalam, where are you going that you plan on getting into a firefight? Stay out of the ghetto.

>>31949574
I like the way the trigger breaks, there are very few guns that have a trigger like it, and as a result, the 1911 has lived on partially due to that feature.

Also, muh .45

>>31949574
I love firing mine.

I fucking hate taking it apart to clean it.

>>31961370
I've read Ruger makes solid budget 1911s.

Why a lightweight? Get a better belt instead.

>>31951186
>9x21

Commie detected.

>>31950259
>are they reliable
>no

Limp wristing faggot detected. I have two 1911s, only FTE ive endured was a limp wrist shooting with one hand.

>>31963411
Why? It's really fucking easy.

Assembly is slightly harder

File: image.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

is this normal wear and tear or should i send back in? fired about 400 rounds so far

>>31956693
>"they don't agree with me"
>"better call them a fudd"

>>31966495
Dude your gun is still an infant put another 4600 thru it and then worry about it.

Yeah besides its battle proven when u run out of bullets u can beat someone over the head with it. ...do that with ur plastic glock

I swear to you, some of these posts aren't real. Hiro may have bots posting copies of old posts to make the site seem livelier than it is...

File: georgecarlin[1].jpg (45KB, 453x337px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 453x337px

>>31949574
Because it still does well what it was designed to do when first created. Just like revolvers, or the AK... or any other old design that is still in production

What more do you want?

>>31949574
It's original purpose: stopping filipinos

>>31968680
That was perhaps its first use, but its first purpose is the first purpose of just about any Military side arm, I should think; replace the one that came before it.