If the 1911 and Glock 21 were both made in the year 1911

[rcmodel]

I think we all know we are not going to change your opinion that the Glock is better then the 1911.

Nor or we going to change that the 1911 continues to be chosen by the country's elite war fighting combat units that have a choice of any weapons they want to use.
Because it works better in combat then any other pistol so far.

So I think I am going to give up trying to change your mind.

rc

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coolluke01: What makes the 1911 worth carrying now? Arn't there better options available?

One really should talk to the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI SWAT team, the LAPD SWAT Team, MEU (SOC), and MARSOC.

If I had to guess, I would say that the reason is trigger pull, for their special needs, and the trigger pull in question obviously creates the need for safety systems that differ from those on Glock pistols, for example.

Since both the FBI and LAPD do use Glocks in other applications, it is very likely that their decision was an informed one.

As I have said before, I think the main reason is familiarity and nostalgia.

Basis for that assertion?

 

[coolluke01]

Sorry rc, I don't mean to be that guy that can't be convinced of something because he already has his mind made up.

I have learned new things about the 1911 and why it was originally chosen.

By main basis for thinking it's often nostalgia that effects the choice, is the reaction of the 1911 fan base. It's often, not here or by those posted on this thread, defended by the statements like, "it's been around 100 years" "i used one in the war" " you young kids and your tupperware" Needless to say it's often a emotional reaction. Not that that's wrong. They can love their gun for what ever reason. It doesn't mean that its the best option by any means.

Another thing that leads me to believe that it's an emotional choice, is the advancements in technology. Many things are better than they were years ago, the older crowd often has a hard time keeping up and they get lazy and won't put the effort into learning a new system. Again, they have learned their laziness with years of hard work. They can like what ever they want and get no beef from me.

Many special units do like the 1911 over other weapons. They have preferences and many times it takes a 1911 that is specially made to meet their demands. The cookie cutter Glock's don't always fit the bill out of the box. I also think they don't like the idea of after market parts to make the gun fit the bill.

 

[savanahsdad]

I got to thinking about this a bit more, I would guess if you showed up with any poly gun in 1911 , I think they would have locked you up in the funny-farm and started scanning the sky for your mother-ship
whats up with all this "it's lighter crap" I wore a tool belt for years . with dikes, stripers, lineman pliers, hammer, 6"adj wrench 10"channel locks, some screwdrivers, and a voltage tester, a guess would be about 10lbs , I still can't grow hair where it rubbed my hip all those years and I never gave it a thought to get LIGHTER TOOLS !:banghead: I mean really ladys... this tread was about picking a gun for are fighting men and women , you fine me one that would walk up to there SGT and say "My gun is to heavy " and I'll show you someone that is about to go for a long run !

 

[GLOOB]

I think the GA factory only assembles the Glocks, they are manufactured in Austria I believe. I don't know the in's and out's of the military's requirements, but I thought that would still exclude them.

This. Glock refused to hand over all their manufacturing techniques/secrets.

 

[Bio-Chem]

coolluke01 it's not nostalgia in my opinion that keeps the 1911 around. the military is always looking for the next best thing. look at the F-22. we built a plane that made the F-15 obsolete when no one else could.
the reason the 1911 has been in service all those years is because it works. and the reason our military still uses it in certain situations is because it's the best tool for the job.

 

[tarosean]

I think the GA factory only assembles the Glocks, they are manufactured in Austria I believe. I don't know the in's and out's of the military's requirements, but I thought that would still exclude them.

This. Glock refused to hand over all their manufacturing techniques/secrets.

Both would be incorrect...

Glock declined to participate the XM9 competition due to the fact they would have to retool to meet specification. We must remember Glock was in its infancy when this happened. It would have been a expensive undertaking in an extremely short time span to even attempt.

For example:

(6)a loop in the butt of the gun compatible with published military specifications for
braided rope lines used to secure the gun to a firer’s belt.

While it is polymer its not like they could have just glued on one of the requirements!!


In addition for the non USA statement. here is the list of competitors..

Manufacturer
Steyr-Da!mler-Puch, AG Austna
Fabnque Nationale Herstal, SA,Belgium
Colt Industries, Firearms Dlvlslon,USA
Carl Walther Waffenfabrlk, West Germany
Heckler & Koch, West Germany
Smith & Wesson U S A
Schwelterische lndustne Gesellschaftb Switzerland
Armi Beretta, SpA Italy

 

[Skribs]

One really should talk to the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI SWAT team, the LAPD SWAT Team, MEU (SOC), and MARSOC.

If I had to guess, I would say that the reason is trigger pull, for their special needs, and the trigger pull in question obviously creates the need for safety systems that differ from those on Glock pistols, for example.

Since both the FBI and LAPD do use Glocks in other applications, it is very likely that their decision was an informed one.

Can you explain why this is a benefit in the situations the FBI uses the 1911 in, and a hindrance in the other situations? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm really looking for an answer.

 

[1911Tuner]

Can you explain why this is a benefit in the situations the FBI uses the 1911 in, and a hindrance in the other situations?

You'd probably have to speak with those agencies in order to get a specific answer. I'm sure they had their reasons...reasons that they arrived at after careful consideration and evaluation of several platforms.

Men who are on the tip of the sword...when given a choice...tend to be very picky about their equipment. More than anything else, they want to go home alive. If they feel that X gives them even a little better chance of doing that than Y...then X is what they go with.

 

[Greg528iT]

the advancements in technology

This is said over and over again.. and to tell the truth the only technology improvements I see in a Glock are, the use of polymers or NEW polymers that were not available in the 1900s. YES this makes the gun lighter, which is important. We really need to lighten the load of the individual grunt. but weight is NOT the end all be all in weapons choice.

You might say tighter machine tolerances is a technology advancement, but it's not really. Watch and clock makers prove that high precision was available pre 1900. The cheapness of machining higher tolerance parts made it more readily available to manufacturers as we progressed. As has been stated thousands of times here, using the existing machine allowables, the 1911 was capable of being mass produced in a fully reliable fashion. With today's cheaper higher tolerance machines, we've just been able to produce guns for less.

Now, as for a Glock being simpler, I just do not quite see it. If you compare these 2 pictures, eliminate parts on the 1911 do to grips, grip screws etc.. stuff the plastic frame doesn't need. Then expand the parts list on the Glock side expanding the Spring Assy (count each spring, each retainer etc) the multiple parts of the trigger not shown, the steel rails embedded into the plastic frame, add a manual safety and a grip safety.. I see the parts count being about the same. I would expect that if the services had Glocks, the duty of tearing that pistol down would still fall to the Armorer.



I have to guess tuning the trigger assy on the Glock is similar to tuning the trigger on a 1911.

I just saw it's a series 80 pistol.. you can remove another handful of parts if we are talking 1911 era pistol.

 

[Doc3402]

The 1911. The Glock couldn't pass the testing in regards to rough treatment and harsh environment. In every other mil-spec test I can think of it would be pretty close. And yes, I do own one of each.

 

[Skribs]

Tuner, it sounded like KB had an idea in mind, which is why I asked the question here.

I also think that the officers in units where they need to differentiate between weapons at that level are probably busy with things more important than my question as to why they differentiate between weapons at that level.

 

[Jeff White]

Uhh, except for one thing. People were smaller in 1911. So the Glock 21 grip might have been too big for most soldiers.

I hate to break this to you, but the Glock 21 grip is still too big for most people.

The agency I currently work for issues the Glock 21. They bought the slimline version. However, a large percentage of the deputies we send to the academy end up spending the first day or maybe the first 2 days of firearms training shooting a Glock 17, 19 or 22 that was loaned to them by the academy. The large grip combined with the recoil impulse of the .45 makes it hard for a new shooter to learn the fundamentals. So if they struggle on the first day they are loaned a smaller, easier to handle weapon.

I think we all know the boots on the ground are not usually the ones with the say. The brass that's making these decisions are likely not the young guns that only ever knew the m9.

The M9 was adopted in 1985. Fielding was completed throughout the force in 93 or so. We are talking about an almost 20 year period where unless you were in an SOF unit, the M9 or maybe the M11 was the only service pistol you knew.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: Tuner, it sounded like KB had an idea in mind, which is why I asked the question here.

Yep. They have unique missions, and therefore unique mission needs.

It does not take a lot of conjecture to lead one to the likely conclusion that someone trying to rescue a hostage, or to neutralize an ensconced terrorist before he can do damage, or to kill an enemy look-out immediately, might well need more first-shot accuracy, and therefore a lighter and better trigger, than someone who generally requires less precision to defend oneself in a gunfight or to effect an arrest.

But you would have to ask them.

But the original question had to do with the situation a century ago. The mission was to use the pistol from horseback. Everything would have hinged upon safety on a horse, reliability, and effectiveness against enemy horses.

Even the Luger .45 prototypes had grip safeties.

 

[Skribs]

It does not take a lot of conjecture to lead one to the likely conclusion that someone trying to rescue a hostage, or to neutralize an ensconced terrorist before he can do damage, or to kill an enemy look-out immediately, might well need more first-shot accuracy, and therefore a lighter and better trigger, than someone who generally requires less precision to defend oneself in a gunfight or to effect an arrest.

Is that first-shot accuracy really that much better with a 1911? I understand the advantage of a SAO trigger mechanism, but my understanding is that carry 1911s have a slightly different trigger pull than competition guns, and from what I can tell from the numbers (granted, I don't have much trigger time with a 1911) the overall difference wouldn't be that great.

 

[rcmodel]

Trust me!

It is!

rc

 

[Greg528iT]

Trust me!

It is!

rc

How about lets refine that.. Don't trust me.. try it for yourself.
I shot a buddies Glock a couple weeks ago. I pulled and pulled and pulled on the trigger, it moved and moved and moved.. I'm sure I can get used to it.. but even the crappiest 1911 triggers I've pulled were much better. I should say, depressed.

 

[Skribs]

I should also specify that I'm not talking about a stock Glock trigger, but rather a striker-fired trigger that has had some work done to it. I thought my XDm trigger was fine until I shot one that had a trigger kit.

Also, would a duty 1911 (used for the specific purpose of accuracy) use a trigger more like a carry trigger or a competition trigger? Or am I mistaken that there is a difference?

 

[ugaarguy]

Coolluke01, you start with:

I don't mean this to be a 1911 or Glock bashing thread. There are enough of those out there.

Please try and make this civil. I think it's an neat point of view and an interesting way to look at the two designs.

Then a few posts later you add:

The "only" IMO, reason the 1911 is used at all today is simply because it's been used for so long.

The 1911 is outdated and has been surpassed by newer technology.

So much for not wanting the bash 1911s.

Grip angle is not a valid reason to chose the 1911 over the Glock. Grip angle problems are Always only due to learned behavior. This bias wouldn't be as likely in the year 1911.

Hogwash. I'm in my early 30s, and a Glock 22 was the first pistol I owned. I couldn't shoot it worth a darn. Then a friend handed me a 1911 on the range and my shooting instantly improved.

I believe I know why many chose the 1911. It's a very valid reason too. One that I would never argue with, but most won't make it about that reason and invent other things that are trivial to make their point. They like the 1911 because that's what they are used to. Plain and simple. It's not the best gun ever made, it's not the most reliable and it doesn't use the advancements in technology that other weapons of today use. But they like it.

I've chosen to carry a 1911 of some form or other because I shoot it better than anything else. Don't tell me why I like what I like from your ignorant point of view. Do you understand?

I think we all know the boots on the ground are not usually the ones with the say. The brass that's making these decisions are likely not the young guns that only ever knew the m9.

I guess you've never actually talked about choice of gear with a troop who belongs or belonged to US SOCOM. They get what they want if the mission requires it.

 

[Kleanbore]

I should also specify that I'm not talking about a stock Glock trigger, but rather a striker-fired trigger that has had some work done to it. I thought my XDm trigger was fine until I shot one that had a trigger kit.

You can make it smoother and eliminate creep and overtravel, but if you make it much lighter or do anything to shorten the pull, you are going to have to do something about safeties if the weapon is to be carried.

Also, would a duty 1911 (used for the specific purpose of accuracy) use a trigger more like a carry trigger or a competition trigger?

The MARSOC CQBP and the MEU(SOC) M45 triggers are specified at 4.5 pounds--and they are short and clean.

Massad Ayoob advocates a pull weight of eight pounds for a Glock that is to be carried.

 

[1911Tuner]

Also, would a duty 1911 (used for the specific purpose of accuracy) use a trigger more like a carry trigger or a competition trigger? Or am I mistaken that there is a difference?

It would be a duty/carry trigger. The thing about the 1911 is that...even the WW1 and WW2 examples had pretty good triggers. Spec was 5.5-6.5 pounds. Couple that with the short pull length, and it's not as hard to manage as a long trigger pull...even if the release weights are the same.

This isn't to say that a long, heavy trigger can't be managed. It can. Just that the 1911's isn't as much trouble and doesn't take as much training and practice.

As a side note...on the matter of trigger pull...the heavier the gun, the less it gets disturbed with a given trigger action.

 

[Skribs]

Massad Ayoob advocates a pull weight of eight pounds for a Glock that is to be carried.

Well, that might be good for him, but my XDm came from the factory with a pull weight closer to that combat 1911 than that 8 lb. Glock he advocates. I have plans, when I finally go up to 45 or down to 9 (leaning towards down to 9) to get a kit that settles it around 5-5.5 pounds and is nice and crisp (and then pay someone to install it for me so that way it actually works). I am confident that it will be just as safe as with the factory trigger, because the same rules apply - quality holster while carrying, finger off trigger when drawn.

Although I also know you to be a bit more safety-oriented (aka paranoid - just kidding), by this I'm referring to your requirement in another thread that a gun have a manual safety. Or am I confusing you with someone else?

As a side note...on the matter of trigger pull...the heavier the gun, the less it gets disturbed with a given trigger action.

This is a good point.

 

[Fastcast]

So much for not wanting the bash 1911s.

Add in the slight handed jabs at 1911 owners also but that's alright as that's the way these things go but why the OP acts like it's not their intent is anyone's guess.

"For some no explanation is necessary and for others no explanation is possible."

 

[Skribs]

Add in the slight handed jabs at 1911 owners also

Oh I'll definitely throw these slight jabs at people, but from me it's all in good fun. And I don't pretend it's not my intent

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: Well, that might be good for him [(Ayoob)], but my XDm came from the factory with a pull weight closer to that combat 1911 than that 8 lb. Glock he advocates.

And it has a grip safety. We were talking about Glocks.

Ayoob knows what is "good" for police officers; he is a recognized expert witness.

The NYPD folks often use an eight pound pull.

But pull wight is only one factor. I carry a striker-fired pistol, but I can shoot a lot more accurately with a high grade SA auto.

That doesn't matter when one is trying to hit three steel plates several times each in less than a second and a half, but it does matter when precision is required.