Archie
Member
DDDWho has this as his signature line. I agree.
There are two things I feel have benefited from 'innovation'. The original sights were pretty much 'on', but tiny and hard to find in a hurry. So I prefer sights that are wider, a bit taller and more 'pronounced'. As I have a single, invariable load for defense - which shoots exactly as 'hardball' - I do not need adjustable sights. A brass rod and small hammer - I have a tiny ball peen hammer - adjust the windage by moving the rear sight to port or starboard as needed; a file adjusts elevation. It is a handgun and by regulating the sights to zero at 50 yards, I am 'on' at all ranges up to that distance.
There are times I have to aim at the bottom of the head for a precise head shot. Doesn't come up in reality very often.
Military standards for 'rack grade' M1911/1911A1 pistols had the trigger pull not less than six and not more than 12 pounds. (In my experience, most were on the lower end of the range.) 'Creep' was not addressed at all, but was noticeable in many cases. So I am thankful for the ability to set a trigger at three to four pounds, no creep and the hammer does not fall to half cock.
Better finishes in terms of durability or function do not bother me.
Replacement grips as a reflection of personality or for 'fashion statement' do not bother me; other than I find a few either too gaudy or far too vulgar, but I suppose that's taste. For a working pistol - which is how I see it - exaggerated thumb rests, hand placement flares and finger grooves are simply not needed.
Somewhat extended "beavertail' grip safeties to prevent hammer bite I approve, but the device must not affect holstering and concentrate on protected the web of the hand. A pad or bump to insure the grip safety is fully depressed is allowed, but emphasis on function rather than show.
Some alterations, like magazine well funnels are not needed at all. Those are best left to the game world. Extended thumb safeties and magazine releases are needed for those who's hands call for such.
John Browning's design is fairly simple. It need not be made helplessly complex just because one can.
With all that said, what opinions, pro or con, are lurking in the hearts of men (or women)?
There are two things I feel have benefited from 'innovation'. The original sights were pretty much 'on', but tiny and hard to find in a hurry. So I prefer sights that are wider, a bit taller and more 'pronounced'. As I have a single, invariable load for defense - which shoots exactly as 'hardball' - I do not need adjustable sights. A brass rod and small hammer - I have a tiny ball peen hammer - adjust the windage by moving the rear sight to port or starboard as needed; a file adjusts elevation. It is a handgun and by regulating the sights to zero at 50 yards, I am 'on' at all ranges up to that distance.
There are times I have to aim at the bottom of the head for a precise head shot. Doesn't come up in reality very often.
Military standards for 'rack grade' M1911/1911A1 pistols had the trigger pull not less than six and not more than 12 pounds. (In my experience, most were on the lower end of the range.) 'Creep' was not addressed at all, but was noticeable in many cases. So I am thankful for the ability to set a trigger at three to four pounds, no creep and the hammer does not fall to half cock.
Better finishes in terms of durability or function do not bother me.
Replacement grips as a reflection of personality or for 'fashion statement' do not bother me; other than I find a few either too gaudy or far too vulgar, but I suppose that's taste. For a working pistol - which is how I see it - exaggerated thumb rests, hand placement flares and finger grooves are simply not needed.
Somewhat extended "beavertail' grip safeties to prevent hammer bite I approve, but the device must not affect holstering and concentrate on protected the web of the hand. A pad or bump to insure the grip safety is fully depressed is allowed, but emphasis on function rather than show.
Some alterations, like magazine well funnels are not needed at all. Those are best left to the game world. Extended thumb safeties and magazine releases are needed for those who's hands call for such.
John Browning's design is fairly simple. It need not be made helplessly complex just because one can.
With all that said, what opinions, pro or con, are lurking in the hearts of men (or women)?
I am not a fan of the 1911, IMHO it is nearly as obsolete as the revolver. Being a gun-gamer I have seen many MANY variation on the original 1911 and most of them have been an improvement. IMHO the only thing on a 1911 that makes it special is the trigger, beyond that there are lots of areas to improve it depending on your purpose.
