The better 45

what do you gain by shitposting like this?
It can't be entertaining.
It's not even good for wasting time.
You literally get nothing out of doing this.

>>33232090
Well, he's not wrong if you're just going to poorfag it up and go for cheap shit 1911s.

>>33232074
it'll have a better trigger and a manual safety if you're into that

File: 1485467455471.jpg (53KB, 480x264px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x264px

>>33232074

File: clockworkmilkbar.jpg (19KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 640x430px

>>33232074
Fuck it.
You've convinced me.

>>33232074
I know this is bait, but it's because people who buy 1911s buy them because they like 1911s. There's no other reason to buy a 1911. They're inferior to any modern service pistol in all but aesthetics, which is subjective.

>>33232074
best thing, you shoot someone, you wont get sewed for it, because nobody will admit to being shot by a high point

File: pepsi anime.png (428KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 640x480px

>>33232103
This basically. If you're getting a 1911 might as well spring for a real nice one.

>>33232391
>Thinking polymer mediocrity can stand up to based Moses Browning

There's nothing *quantitatively* better about 1911s. But the ergonomics, weight distribution, trigger, overall feel is amazing.

>>33232647
>Thinking polymer mediocrity can stand up to based Moses Browning
John Moses Browning's idea of an ideal handgun was not the M1911. The M1911 was designed to fit specific US Army requirements, and a lot of that was done by engineers at Colt rather than Browning himself. When he went to design his ideal handgun, the result was the Browning High Power, a high-capacity 9x19mm pistol with no grip safety. Yes Dieudonné Saive did finish the design, but Saive was Browning's protegee, and the BHP probably has more direct input from Browning than the 1911 did.

Furthermore, if he had had access to polymers when he was alive John Browning would almost definitely have used them. But the technology and the infrastructure for that simply didn't exist in the early 20th century.

>There's nothing *quantitatively* better about 1911s. But the ergonomics, weight distribution, trigger, overall feel is amazing.
So yeah, it's personal preference.

>>33232791
Oh I know. The Hi Power by and large is a better design.

My main problem with polymers honestly is that ya sure, it reduces weight. But it reduces it in all the wrong ways. Makes the gun wonky and top heavy imo. Also polymer makes it much easier for mediocrity in designs themselves to not only pass but be accepted.

>>33232815
>My main problem with polymers honestly is that ya sure, it reduces weight. But it reduces it in all the wrong ways. Makes the gun wonky and top heavy imo.
It's more than just that. It also reduces unit cost, tooling cost and manufacturing time. Polymer frames can't rust, and so don't need to be treated like metal parts. They require less maintenance as well for this reason. This is why a $500 1911 sucks, but you'd be mad to introduce a polymer gun that was more than ~$600, and most aim for the ~$500 mark. As for the balance, I've never found that to be an issue. I shoot better with my PPQ than I do with my 1911. It comes down to personal taste at that point, which was what I was saying to begin with.

>Also polymer makes it much easier for mediocrity in designs themselves to not only pass but be accepted.
This bit confuses me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

>>33232791
>>There's nothing *quantitatively* better about 1911s. But the ergonomics, weight distribution, trigger, overall feel is amazing.
>So yeah, it's personal preference.
Not him but the 1911 trigger is objectively the best configuration possible.

>Rugged
>cast Zinc

like, yeah it's a big brick, but I wouldn't bet money on it outlasting a proper steel slide.

>>33232969
Well I guess that explains why every major military and PD has been switching to SAO hammered automatics instead of away from them.

Oh wait.

It's the opposite.

The 1911 trigger is great for a competition gun. It's great for a range gun. It's downright dangerous for a duty gun.

>>33233069
>It's downright dangerous for a duty gun.
Irrelevent to you and I.

>>33232647
>>33232969
I hope you realize that the triggers of military inventory 1911s were nothing like those on civilian guns today that aren't subjected to near as much abuse. The pull on your typical WWI-era 1911 was over 7 lbs. This was a consequence of the gun being designed for durability and reliability above all else, areas in which, in its original configuration, the 1911 was top-class.

As an aside, this is why I laugh whenever I hear one of those idiots who spent $3000 on a 1911 unironically brag that their gun made it through 400 rounds with no trouble. The 1911, as originally designed by JMB, was able to go 6000 rounds with no failures in its adoption trials. The only reason the gun even has a rap for being unreliable is because of marketing teams who feel the need to add on "features" that actually detract from the function of the gun like full-length guide rods or external extractors in order to justify a higher price tag.

>>33233217
I don't know about you but I like to carry my guns.

>>33233328
Honestly if your $3,000 1911 isn't posting similar numbers, you got a lemon. They're not supposed to malfunction like that, at all, even below that price point. The reputation is from shit-tier potmetal versions, and low-end semi-custom guns from major manufacturers that end up having those chitzy features you mentioned, and Kimber. Anything running $1,500 or more should run right out of the box after wearing it in a bit, and anything above that should be totally flawless in use. I used an STI Eagle for some time in competition (a $3,000 doublestack 9mm no less) and I never experienced a failure using it.

Hell. I even plan to get a Wilson Super Custom someday. That's a $7,000 gun. But, I have fingerfucked one in person, and as someone that shoots IDPA, I'd see nothing wrong with spending that stupid amount of money. I can't really put into words how close to perfection the fit and finish were on this thing. I came a little in my pants when operating the slide and controls.

>>33233444
I have a carry gun, and it's not a competition pistol. The trigger is, however, objectively worse at putting groups on a target. Nobody is going to argue that a competition hairtrigger is a good idea to fight with. But blade triggers are love. Blade triggers are life.

>>33232074
Ive actually shot one of these, theyre not too bad desu

>>33233466
Yeah, so it's not objectively the best. It's very good in a very specific use-case. But plenty of top competitors score just as well with race Glocks and Glockoffs, so clearly they're not that much of a hindrance even within that use-case. To my mind, the extra cost just isn't justified. You will get objectively better results by spending that money on ammo and practice instead.

>>33232090
It's just the desperate shtiposting between having finished homework and being told to go to bed.

>>33232128
hipoints have a thumb safety actually