How reliable is the 1911 platform?

Old Fuff, with respect, I think you may have missed my (evidently somewhat lame) attempt at a witty response.

However, I do believe there's an element of truth in my statement when it comes to many of the new production 1911s -- I see far too many folks pick up new Kimbers, Springers, etc., try shooting 'em right out of the box without even a simple field-strip, examination, cleaning and lube beforehand, experience problems (almost predictable) and then give up on them before attempting to diagnose even the most simple of problems -- which are quite often related to slightly out of spec slide stops, ejectors, extractors or even poorly regulated sights --usually all situations that may be easily remedied with often only a few minutes of labor and inexpensive replacement parts (no, they should not require any rework or new parts right out of the box, that's true). Then there's the fact that some of the 1911s made now seem particularly finicky about which magazines they like and won't feed reliably even with their own brand's OEM mags ... Unfortunately, that's the reality with mass-production 1911s in this day and age -- and no, it shouldn't be this way.

Still, I've apparently had phenomenal luck with all the (numerous) production 1911s (mostly SA, Kimber, Colt's) I've picked up over the past several years, as I've never had a problem I couldn't easily fix (and I'm not the handiest of guys with tools), had to take any pistol to a gunsmith or send one back to the factory. Do I think they're reliable? I carry one almost every day ...

Well, I think the 1911's service record speaks for itself. If the platform was inherently unreliable, it wouldn't have been in use by the U.S. military for almost a century now.

In my experience, the 1911 platform is wonderfully reliable. I have had the best luck with Para Ordnance models. My 2005 vintage SSP cost me $575 new, and I've never had it malfunction in any way. I've owned other Paras with similar track records. I also own Kimbers and Colts. My Kimbers have been reliable, too, but were a little pricier than the Paras. Both of my Colts needed a little 'smithing, but once tuned up they have never failed me. Between the higher initial price and the need for a little work, the Colts ended up costing about $400-600 more than a comparable Springfield Armory or Para Ordnance.

I also own a few Glocks, and they're not perfect, either. I can induce ejection failures in just about any polymer-framed pistol, including my Glock 19, by limp-wristing it. By contrast, all of my 1911's seem pretty much immune to limp-wristing.

My general opinion on 1911's, FWIW, is that you can get an excellent, reliable, accurate 1911 for around $600-900, including any minor tuning that may be necessary. Any of the major mid-priced brands will work fine, including Springfield Armory, Kimber, Para Ordnance and Smith & Wesson. A Colt will cost you a little bit more, but not a lot more.

Speaking of trusting you life to a 1911, this is the one I put my faith in:

On 15 March 1911, an endurance test was held. The test involved having each gun fire 6000 rounds, with cleaning after every one hundred shots fired, then allowing them to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistols were then tested with deformed cartridges, rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud. By the end of the test, the Savage design suffered over 37 incidents of malfunction or breakage; the Colt did not have one

Click to expand...

sightm1911.com

Andy: Awesome link! Thanks.

Father Knows Best: Now that is a Colt!!! It that a 4"?

When I used to shoot in IDPA, I saw a LOT of 1911's fail. I also saw nearly every brand have a FTF or FTE.
Even the full race, megabuck, super duper 1911's that the regular champs used failed from time to time.
But, there is one in particular that I remember never failing, and that was a GI original 1911 that looked like it had endured a rough life.

So, I'm prejudiced against the 1911 based on what I've seen, but only as far as the cheap repops. The originals? I'd love to have one.

I'm of the opinion that 1911-ish handguns can, and occasionally are, as reliable as anything out there. However, there are a few too many exceptions for comfort.

While I think it's appalling that manufacturers and dealers will attempt to deflect responsibility from a defective piece with claims of "limp wrist" or "break-in" it is quite understandable that they would attempt to do so.

What is less understandable is that they seem to have bamboozled a portion of the market into believing such things are acceptable.

If everyone buying a 1911-ish pattern weapon had the same tolerance for limp-wrist proclamations, break-in requirements, ammo sensitivity claims, and similar bushwa as they displayed with NIB Glocks, SIGs and other weapons, the manufacturers would, I believe, catch on rather quickly.

But for so long as we have low expectations of our weapons and think it’s normal to have to check slide stops, extractors and ejectors prior to placing the thing into service, we'll continue to get what we accept: at least a portion of production will be pistol-shaped toys and objects d'art.

Personally, I really don't much care if returning the things to weapon status is accomplished via returning to the original blueprints or some other exercise to rebalance whatever was jazzed with. If I can exert reasonable effort to induce a malfunction – and fail to do so, I'll be happy. In some small way I'm probably a little less tolerant than the ordnance department was as I also insist the thing run with any reasonable factory ammo.

Intolerance isn't always a bad thing.

Hawk:

Excellent point Re: allegations of "...limp-wristing". At one point of the 3,000-round, torture-test on the Colt Series 70 reissue, and the Glock 17, I addessed just that.

I held the pistols (one at a time of course) one-handed, and with only enough force to keep the pistol under control, and not flopping to the floor. While each pistol rocked and rolled wildly back and forth with each shot, I did hit my target each time, and the pistols never failed. With each shot fired, I had my arm as-close to "limp" as is humanly possible. Given those results, I fail to understand Dennis at Kimber and his allegations of limp-wristed Americans and the venerable 1911. By the way, I did the same with my Kimber Warrior, and it too fired flawlessly.

Thank-you for bringing up that point.

Doc2005

Doc2005 said:

Father Knows Best: Now that is a Colt!!! It that a 4"?

Click to expand...

Close. It's a CCO model, which means it has the same top end as the Commander, i.e., 4.25" barrel, but the frame is the slightly shorter Officer size. The frame is also alloy, so it is quite lightweight. The Colt Gunsite CCO is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the perfect CCW gun.

I have a series 80 Colt & a Ser 70 DW. The Colt has been as reliable as anything else I own and while the DW has had its hiccups, mods have been made and it too is utterly reliable & trustworthy My opinion is, if you buy from quality, quality you shall have

+1 to what 1911 Tuner said. I've owned 8-9 1911's. Two worked from the box. My boss has a commercial model 1911 built in 1913 that's been in the family for quite awhile. It will shoot ball rounds everytime. It isn't pretty anymore. But it works! It is a crap shoot as far as the new guns.. As a range officer I see more 1911's go down than anything. I think the best advice is that if you buy one expect it to need some work out of the box to get it running.
Don't forget the old 1911's from wartime were practically hand built and fitted.
Even though with CNC machines we can make some of the most precise parts ever. That's just half the equation. How you put the parts together is the other half. And how bad or good the quality control is for whatever particular company you're buying fromis the big question.

Poppycock

Dave Richards said:

I think the best advice is that if you buy one expect it to need some work out of the box to get it running.

Click to expand...

Not if you buy quality. Springfield Armory, Kimber, Para Ordnance and Smith & Wesson all make 1911's that can and do run reliably "out of the box" with no work at all. Expect to pay $600-900 for one of these. If you pay less for a bargain basement gun, expect to have to work on it.

Dave Richards said:

Don't forget the old 1911's from wartime were practically hand built and fitted.

Click to expand...

:banghead: Why is this myth repeated so often? Wartime 1911's were slapped together in huge volumes by generally unskilled labor. They were designed specifically for mass production with a minimum of skilled labor.

The reason so many modern 1911's seem to be less reliable has a lot more to do with changes to the design and to the ammo we use than it does with build quality. Military 1911's saw one and only one type of ammo -- standard 230 gr GI ball. Modern 1911's are expected to run well with everything from 185 gr hollowpoints to semi-wadcutters to +P 230 gr hollowpoints. At the same time, the manufacturers realized that buyers generally don't buy guns that feel "loose" or "sloppy" or that "1911 rattle" when they examine them in the shop, so they build them a lot tighter these days. With much tighter clearances, the modern guns tend to be more sensitive to things like lube and dirt. They're also more accurate and will handle a much wider variety of ammo, so take your pick.

I have an SA Loaded model that jammed a little bit when it was brand new out of the box. But that went away after a couple hundred rnds and it's never jammed since. Right now I'd have to say that it and my CZ SP01 are the two most reliable guns I own.

With hardball, more reliable than the sun rising in the East.

Before thinking about getting a 1911, you might want to have a look at how the thing actually functions. My pre-M1911 pistol history consisted of some revolvers and a few blow-back style semiautos. Imagine my shock the first time I took my 1911 apart and realized that the barrel moves. Not only does it move, it moves during the firing cycle. And after it's done moving, it attaches itself to a moving part, i.e, the slide. This struck me as completely insane. To top it all off, the whole process of the barrel disjointing itself like my little finger the time I caught the ball wrong, and then re-locking itself to the slide which has only just stopped moving itself, takes place so quickly that time itself goes backwards for a moment. There's a lot going on when you fire one of these things. The design is really kind of ludicrous. I love it.

Mine (used to be a Springfield GI but now is more like a SpringBrownNovSon) was not reliable out of the box. After 700 rounds of whacking the back of the slide to get the thing to feed, I replaced the extractor with a Wilson and now it's run fine for 3000 or so. I wouldn't disagree with the people who say that it should work fine when new and continue to do so, but I couldn't bear to part with the thing long enough to send it back for warranty work. The Wilson and the original extractor, by the way, are visibly different in the area of the business end. You'd think there'd be a blueprint for something like that, wouldn't you?

Hmmmm, have a read of this article and ask the question again.

http://www.advancedtactical.com/sweeneyarticle.pdf

Seems like some abuse was dished out and the results are quite interesting. Its not real scientific or anything, but interesting none-the-less.

Spinner

Thanks for the article Spinner. I've never seen that one before.

cc

My first two 1911s are what shied me away from the design for a long time (about 10 years). Both AMT/IAI Longslide products. Early evaluations of the Armscor products in the early '90s (Gun Test magazine) didn't help much either. In the late '90s, I had started reading of good reports concerning the then much improved Armscor products. Being from the Philippines myself and the gun being relative inexpensive (then <$300), I'd give the design one more try.

I have not been more happier and the design has been reverted back to 'buy' status (with the caveat of thoroughly reasearching the products first). Have since bought another Rock Island (for my dad), a Taurus, and a Springfield. The lower cost RI and Taurus have worked exeptionally well for me.

Well it seems that the point has been well covered but I would like to go on record here.
Saying 1911 is not entirely correct unless it was made by Colt prior to 1924.
The current crop of Government Model is a wide spectrum of pistols, some good some bad.
I believe Springfield makes a quality pistol but I am partial to Colt. I have seen the factory and they are still hand building Colts like they should be. I have a modest cross section of Colt Government Models (including a 1911) and I have yet to have a pistol related failure.
Check this link for a look into the Government Model.
http://www.m1911.org/STI1911animation2.htm

Originally posted by 1911Tuner:
As it was designed and produced in the day when it was ultimately headed for war? Extremely. As it's being produced now? It's pretty much a crapshoot.

Click to expand...

Yes, owning another maker's interpretation of one (that won't run) has made me realize this.

1911 is a great platform. It is the execution that create problems you see in the some final products.

It was reliable enough for the Germans to ditch their Lugers for when they had the chance. If I recall, they even retooled one of their plant to copy the design.

The Wilson and the original extractor, by the way, are visibly different in the area of the business end. You'd think there'd be a blueprint for something like that, wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

Oh there is Andy, there is.... and material specifications too. But ya' know they don't make any difference because the makers generally ignore them and the buyers for the most part don't know there is any difference.

Gunsmoker:

I don't think it's that the old 1911s were more reliable. It's just that the 1911s from that era still functioning today are the best guns from that crop.

Click to expand...

It's been a half-century or more, but back then there were two kinds of 1911 pistols. Those made by Colt, and those made by government contractors during wartime. Both worked to common blueprints and material specifications, and both had effective inspection/quality control departments. There were no "best guns, because they were all "best." Those of us that were around then, and are still around today, can assure you that there was, and is a big difference between them and what's produced today.