What's wrong with people who are bashing .45's?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's wrong with people who are bashing .45's?
Click to expand...

BIG BORE ENVY!

Seriously, I admit that I'm not a fan of plastic guns. A G36 is a nice small carry gun but for recreational use, I'm all about the 1911, BHP and CZ75.

I think that for well trained civilian shooters, I'm not sure why you would want to throw smaller bullets around. And this may be a big step, but I don't care what Marshall or Sanow tell me about one shot stop percentages and the 9mm being better than 45 ACP, I'd rather throw around half inch bullets any day if needbe. I remember a quote from Jeff Cooper I believe that said that according to Marshall, that .25 ACP Glazers had a bettern stop percentage than 45 ACP ball.

Honestly, which would you rather have if a ravenous cannibal was running at you? A 25 or a 45?
 
My "fair" statement was meant to mean that picking out the bad eggs instead of looking at the whole doesn't give a proper sampling. I've got a friend that refuses to shoot a Benelli shotgun because he says, "All my friends that shoot them have too many jams." I don't know how many friends he has that shoot them or what their care practices are or what kind of ammo they use, but my Super Black Eagle is the most reliable shotgun I've owned, out the 7 or 8. It has jammed on me, but I was shooting low brass shells, the temperature that morning was no more than 15 degrees and I had forgotten that I put some heavy synthetic oil on it back in the summer when I was shooting skeet regularly. Was it my fault, the guns or the ammo? The gun had run several hundred rounds in hot weather with the same ammo and oil, but the sub-freezing temperatures changed the equation.

My S&W 945 is 99% 1911 parts, the slide and frame are not shaped as such, but the internals are nearly all 1911, it has never failed me in over 15,000 rounds. I shot it with a broken ejector and it ran like a $2 hooker on times square for I don't know how many rounds. How does that speak for a 1911 style pistol?
 
cardboardkiller, I share your opinion. Those military 1911's have been used and abused for too long IMHO before they developed reliability issues. Now people judge the entire platform by those beat up examples... :(

My SA 1911 did not give me ANY problems. Most of the ammo I shoot are reloads, and different quality reloads most of the time. That gun takes anything I feed it and goes boom every single time - I am one happy camper with this platform.
 
Please expain to me why, when I express my personal observations and known unreliability of the 1911 platform that you folks think I am attacking the 45acp.

Please, stick to the subject...
Click to expand...
Um, they are sticking to the subject. They ignored your attack on the 1911 and answered the original subject about people bashing the .45acp. You are the one off subject.
 
most folk's who bash .45's can't shoot them well; due to recoil, muzzle flip or whatever other excuse they can find.
Click to expand...

I find that my Ruger .45 has less perceived recoil than my Glock .40. And it's great fun to shoot!
 
Now you must attack my shooting ability?

Come on guys' speak to the facts, talk about your gun, not me, I am not the issue, the 1911 is.

Began NRA programs in the 1950's and have been a Life NRA member for almost 15 years. shot various NRA Bullseye venues, to MASTER with the Revolver, used a model 14 Smith. I now shoot IDPA with my auto's. I can't lock up my elbows any more. I qualified expert with the 1911 in the Corps and the M14 and M16.

I carried and shot a 3" model 66 with 125 Federal's into the early 1990's. If you think the 1911 in 45 has a bite/bark try one of them!

It took awhile to find a semi that was as reliable as my 66. for non- concealed carry I liked a 6" 686. I find the 1911 isn't any harder to shoot than my SIG 220 in 45. The Glock 45's are easier to shoot, but due to their unreliablility I won't carry them either, and besides their triggers truly suck. I am told they can be improved, here we go again with the custom yaya.

Those of you who think that because I think the 1911 is unreliable without custom or semi custom work I can't shoot it. What the hell does that have to do with reliability. Once again, no facts just attack. Besides, you guys state that one of the selling features of the 1911 is the ease to shoot! Come on, pick one story and stick to it.

I hope there are some reliable 1911's. After 90 years of practice and trying, someone ought to be able to build a reasonably priced one that is reliable.

I have heard Kimber was doing alright untill they went to the II models with a flakey hammer/firing pin safety. Good young friend of mine carries one of the original models on duty. His dad was a Marine Airdale of my era and loves the 1911. I truly hope he chose well.

I have heard two stories about Springfield, some are great and others suck. ***?

Everyone I know who carries 1911's have them customized for function and form. First job is a reliability package!

You folks have problems with folks who speak from experience! I didn't see just one or two fail, more like about 30% I saw in action. That's why I trusted my life to a S&W revolver. My unoffical estimate during my NRA years shooting showed the 1911's getting DNF's or the competitors working like hell between stages and strings getting and keeping their guns up and running.

Now I shoot IDPA, the percentage of guys I know shooting 1911's is about 20 percent, but represent about 70% of the FTF's. Of all the disqualified shooters, I have witness personally, five of them, three of them were 1911 shooters trying to get their guns back in action!

Now if that is bashing, you guys who don't like Lorcin pistols are you bashing them for being a POS? No, when the issue is factual that is not bashing, that is honest critique.

I am not attacking your choice of weapons, I am questioning the reliability of the 1911. I choose fighting weapons based on #1 reliability! Are there other important reasons, yup, but reliability is job one.

Thats why I choose an M14/M1A vs M16/AR15 it goes bang every time I have pulled the trigger. Both here in the states and in Viet Nam. Frankly I am thinking of using my M1 Carbine has my 'URBAN CARBINE', why, because it goes bang every time, with 15 round magazines. I don't have faith in the M16 family either!

To paraphrase the raging Cajun: "It's about 'Reliability' stupid!"

By the way, don't start accusing me of calling you fellows stupid, I don't believe that you are stupid. I believe you guys like shooting old and old style guns, ok, cool. I still enjoy shooting my revolvers which I believe are also still valid for combat, and M1 Garand, 1903 Springfield, and M1 Carbine.

Don't attack someone offering honest critque. Argue the facts.
Accept that your favorite gun has some warts. And continue to shoot them well. By the way, I think every weapon has warts and problems. I would rather shoot an ugly gun in combat, than an Unreliable one.

Good luck

Fred
 
You know, the "1911 is unreliable" generalization is just as dumb as any other generalization. Some of my most reliable guns have, in fact, been 1911s (1 stock, 1 customized, both Colts). My most unreliable gun was a 1911 (Para-Ordinance, horrible) and my OK-but-ammo-finicky gun was a 1911, too (Kimber).

So I guess what I'm getting at is that you really never know, and can't generalize how a gun is going to perform. Even nice, "modern" factory guns have alot of variability. I've had unreliable Berettas and Glocks (many more of the former than the latter), for instance. Heck, I had a revolver that broke two firing pins in a row. You just buy a good brand and take your chances... any machine can, and will, break for somebody sometime or another.

The notion that you hear every once in a while that 1911s are just relic guns is, frankly, a bit silly. Especially when you consider that quite a few people that shoot people in the head for a living, and could have anything they want, choose 1911s.

As for .45 ACP bashers... the term "sissy" does come to mind. :D
 
Chieftan, I think you bring up some good points, but I don't believe your position on the 1911 or Glock is valid. From a personal standpoint, I don't like Glocks...though I have been thinking about buying one just 'cause.

My Colt 1991 was functionally perfect until I turned it over to a local "smith" to have some cosmetic changes made. He really screwed it up and it is now in the hands of a nationally-recognized smith. It never failed on me. Every round was chambered, fired, extracted and ejected as it was supposed to be. Thousands of rounds downrange, accurately. No problems.

My Springfield was less than I could ask for, but it still functioned fine. I wanted more accuracy, but it was combat ready!

I have not yet seen a 1911-type that was problematic, though they do exist. Anything manufactured in the number that 1911-type weapons are is sure to see some lemons get through QC. Considering that a lot of these types of weapon are made in third-world countries, it is near miraculous that more aren't lemons. And those that you and I have seen fail cannot honestly be called lemons because neither of us is familiar with how that weapon was maintained. Can you really fault a weapon for failing when it has been abused and neglected?

FWIW, I carry a Smith 686 at work every day for three years and I love it. That is probably the finest combat revolver ever, with the 66 coming in as a close second.
 
No carry pistol is going to get chest hits

beyond 25 yds, while the shooter is being shot at, except by pure luck, with no earprotection, etc. At any rate, such has never been proven, as in repeat hits. In the rare cases where such hits have been obtained, it was always one lucky shot, or else many such tries missed the chest. If they are talking about ambushes, from braced positions, or hunting, etc, then they are simply ignorant. The first Metallic Silohuette match held in the US was won by a Bullseye shooter, firing one handed, standing unsupported, with a 1911 .45, and ball ammo. He hit some of the 200 yd rams, but couldn't knock them over. His score was 26x40 Obviously, then, he hit quite a few of the 150 yd turkeys.
 
At the range, we would take handguns of various calibers and shoot at the gong's that were on the range and they had a 6 foot diameter one at 600 yards.

We had guys getting reliable hits (no wind days) with 22's out to 200 yards and while the Magnum boys had an easier time with the longer gongs all of us (except the smaller cartridges 22,32,380 etc) did get hits on that 600 hundred yard gong from time to time.

Low flying birds and aircraft be warned because many of us were shooting at the moon and walking the round into the gongs, but it was quite fun and an eye opener for some.

So, I think the Bashing is comprised of many things.

How many people laugh at the Inglis Carbine idea or the Luger concept, Radom and even the 1911 all of which had the ability to attach a shoulder stock (some anyway) and came equipped with sights with ranges out to 500 yards or better.

It might be taking the cartridge to the extreme, but I for one have no interest in getting struck by a pistol bullet at 5 yards or 500 yards.

As far as the revolver versus semi auto, ammunition can play a big roll in reliability and followed up by poor weapons care and or training and you can have all sorts of horror stories to recount.

One thing that the revolver crowd likes to point out is the ability to pull the trigger again and have a fresh cartridge under the hammer, whereas the auto must be cleared, but has anyone ever considered that the round you cycled past may be a hang fire and it may actually ignite and fire while not lined up with the barrel. Same could apply to the auto with the round going off while you attempt to clear it.

It come down to prefernce and experience...so take your pick and just smile politely at the folks.
 
VaugnT,

I think you may be right about the 686. It just isn't the ticket for concealed carry. By the way I have put nightsights on my 686 as well as my 66.

I have chosen SIG, 228/229 for carry. I feel that these are the singularly most reliable pistols made out of the box.

Ohio State police actually showed the 226 in 40 marginally over the 229 in 40.

Yup the 226 had some slide problems in the 80's, and even saw a new SIG break. Have yet to see one DNF in any competition. I have 6 SIG's the only FTF's I have ever experienced was with IMI ammo lot of bad primers. Couldn't get the primers to work in SIG's, Glock's, HK,s or Smith's. Oh had one with winchester once, the primer was in backwards! And trigger bar spring break on the 225, a known weak spot along with the 225 magazines.

Oh about abuse and neglect. Marines in combat do abuse their weapons, but we didn't neglect them! It's a Marine thing. Most of our weapons didn't have the finish on them from cleaning them so much! And we definitly shot the sh*t out of them. Not the pistols that much, that only happened when things got close up and personal.

I probabley have averaged about 10 to 12 thousand rounds through the 220's in 45 and 38 super and 9mm, 228, 226 and 225, and about 7500 40cal and about 4500 357 Sig through the 229. By the way all ammo was factory. I now like winchester, I think it is a bit cleaner burning, some of that early win-clean technology getting in to the cheap stuff.

All in all about 60,000 rounds through these 6 guns, not counting the other 3 SIG's I have owned.

Had the trigger bar spring break in the 225 once that was a FTF, and the firing pin broke while dry firing the 229. Had the hammer rebound spring on my 220 in 45 break but that does not stop the gun from functioning at all. Just gives you droopy hammer.

SIG followed closely by HK, I think, are the most reliable guns, out of the box. And that is my standard. Sights and grips are personal. But no mods needed for accuracy or reliability. the finish sucks, but I keep my weapons clean so the wear looks bad but they don't rust!

Like the SEAL's over at the Tactical Forums state, don't need to replace the 226's they keep doing their job and have been in inventory longer than any other small arm they use. They work, and they keep them clean.

Some of those boy's use 1911 custom's, most use stock SIG's. That about says' it all. By the way they say they swim with S&W 686's. Now how cool is that.

Folks, take 100, rack grade 1911's and take 100 rack grade SIG's and/or 100 rack grade HK's and shoot the hell out of them. Maintain them proberly and you will have at least a 5 to 1 FTF rate or more with the 1911 vs either the SIG or HK. and that is regardless of caliber.

Guys, magazine reliability is still an issue in the 1911 world, 90 years later!

Vaughn lets keep chatting, good luck to you and your loved ones
And
HAPPY NEW YEAR

Fred

And May God Bless America
 
Fred, what sights did you choose? I was just over at the Ashley site and saw theirs on a 686....very neat. I believe Cylinder and Slide offers a fixed sight for them, too. There's a 66 for sale at the Police Supply shop just down from work. They're asking $290, but I'm not sure if I want to invest in it or get another 1911.

Can you ever stop buying pistols? I have to see a dentist, but there's just not enough money for guns and teeth!

How's that sig for stripping? I like that the 1911 can be taken down COMPLETELY with few if any tools. No fancy linkages or such to get lost.
 
Perhaps the thread has become a bit too broad. There does seem to be a tendency to marry the .45 ACP with the 1911 (which I suppose is only natural), especially amongst those who don't shoot a lot - or at least don't shoot a variety of guns.

I am just guessing but I would suppose the comments about long range (for pistols) ineffectiveness could be based on the gun as much (specifucally the myth of G.I. 1911s being inadequate) as the perceived trajectory disadvantages (which is also a myth).

As to reliability, I get to carry what I wish (and decide what others on the dept. carry - though I give them great leeway, a person should work out his own salvation) and I also get to see a good amount of rounds go downrange each year from a wide variety of handguns, carbines, shotguns and subguns - if there is anything that works as good as a 1911 set up the way JMB set it up - I have not seen it yet (with the possible exception of an M-14 or a BAR). That is not to say that others are not adequate to the task if well maintained either.

Just as in marksmanship, reliability has a lot to do with the operator (the way he handles as well as maintains his weapon bein critical). Show me a man who will accept one malfunction in 1,000 rounds and I will show you someone who does not take life seriously.

A Happy and Prosperous New Year to all!

Jim H.
 
.45 and 9mm both have their places as well as their merits. 9mm is in my opinion a good choice for beginning shooters due to it's lower recoil and lower cost (less cost = more practice). However, while I own several guns in both calibers, with rare exception I carry the .45. Why? At gunfight distances I want the biggest hole in the aggressor. On the other hand, when I was shooting IDPA matches in college, I preferred the 9mm because I could shoot it faster.

As to the reliability of the 1911, these guns have come a long way since the days of the narrow feed ramps that would only feed FMJ. My 1917 GI surplus Colt isn't reliable with JHPs. However, every other 1911 I own has been completely reliable. Anyone who has spent any time around military weapons knows how parts get swapped around, and the gun becomes an unreliable "Frankenstein". Every Beretta I had my hands on in the military was this way, while all the ones I have purchased over the years have been perfect, and my IDPA gun was a 92 Elite II. In my experience, those who bash one gun to praise their own often have only heresay information and no actual side by side trigger time. Just something to keep in mind.

Rant off.
Vance
 
What's wrong with them?

Could be a couple of things. Envy for one. The other is much more troubling. There seem to be alot of people around that think that everybody should be made to adhere to their point of view (PETA is a good example of this nonsense). You get your grins out of shooting a .45. Fine by mine. Knock yourself out.
 
Vance wrote;
As to the reliability of the 1911, these guns have come a long way since the days of the narrow feed ramps that would only feed FMJ. My 1917 GI surplus Colt isn't reliable with JHPs. However, every other 1911 I own has been completely reliable.
------------------------------------

Just to expand (if you'll pardon the pun) on your excellent observations - the old 1911s might not feed *some* JHPs but I have one made in 1912 and one in 1923 and they both feed Remington (both regular and GS), Winchester Subsonic (but Ranger Talons are only 99%-not acceptable), Hydra-Shok, All weights of Hornady factory ammo and Federal Expanding FMJ just fine. They do not feed some of the other designs (like 200 gr Speer, or even the 230 Gold Dot), SWCs or some others that do not match the standard .45 ACP Ogive - that would seem to be an ammunition problem not a gun design problem (yes you can modify the design and make them feed if you wish).

Gee, None of my Berettas (or Brownings or Sigs) will feed full wadcutters (and actually occasionally hang up on Gold Dots) but my Colt .38 Special auto will - hmmmm, perhaps we should select ammo designed for the gun/magazine. There's a novel idea.

Just a thought.

Cordially,
Jim H.
 
Hello Mr. Jim H

In case some of you don't know this gentleman, lets just say he has more knowledge in his little pinkie, than most of us will learn in a lifetime.

Bash, I don't. Heed Mr. Jim - yes I do.

Exchange student "bashed" because her family used a 32 auto with ball ammo...
She:" when ALL you can have due to laws ( no military calibers), your grateful, you practice and you pray, you American's take too many things for granted, spoiled, and don't shoot enough".

BTW I took her shooting, best comment from her: " I like big holes from 45's" :D
 
To VaugnT,

I used both Mepro and Trijicon. The trijicon is a better mount, but I see the Mepro's better. Go figure.

And I agree with you about the 686. Oh, jump on that 66 if it is in good shape.

About being like PETA, what single view am I advocating? I belive thou doth protest to much!

Jim, where can I find some of those 9mm wadcutters? I only shoot factory ammo, gave up hand loading about 17 years ago. I am planning to team my Smith 52 with a 952! Frankly haven't fired the 52 in several years. but who knows.

I have not had any gun of mine, SIG, Glock, Hk, Smith & Wesson jam with Gold Dot's. Have any of the many Departments that use the gold dot had problems with the Gold Dot's not functioning? If so which round and gun?

Well fellows, Happy New Year

Fred
 
"Jim, where can I find some of those 9mm wadcutters?
--------------------------

Nope, no factory WC that I know of - you have to roll your own.

Best I could ever do was get 158 Keith bullets to feed in some 9s.

Please don't take the Gold Dot comment to be a slam on that particular bullet. In .45, they did not quite get the nose to hit the feed ramp the same point as a ball round does but in other calibers they seem fine. It is probably coincidence that my Beretta choked on one (and oddly enough My Glock 23 has only failed to feed one time on a Gold Dot) - but I shoot more Gold Dots than others (except .45 caliber) so it is an "odds" thing not a particualar bullet. Just to be fair my Sig 220 had several failures to feed with Hydra-Shoks.

Speer has had a problem with brass or sizing from time to time and you can sometime push a bullet back into the case with just thumb pressure (to be sure it takes some effort) - which can cause the round to shorten when fed.

The Gold Dot is an extremely well designed bullet, wish they had rounded the edge of the .45 cavity just tad though.

52's were nifty! Actually a whole lot more common than the Colts.

Cheers,
Jim H.
 
Last edited:
Jim,

Interesting about the Gold Dot. The only caliber I carry it in is 357 SIG. I also use their 158 gr 357 Mag in my Marlin 1994 16" er.

I have used Hydro-shoks in my 220's and Glocks. Never had a jam. Blazer was the only make ammo that ever jammed in my 220's. and of course even Glock warns against using target loads in the 21.

The Glock 30 shoots everything I have put through it. But I did put Bar-Sto barrels in both my remaining Glock 45's. I call it KB insurance. also more accuracy.

I had to stop bullseye shooting with my Smith 14 an 52 when the arthritis took over. Could not lock my elbows anymore. That's when i began 'ACTION' matches. IDPA and now production IPSC.

Much of my shooting use to be with the Florida Peace Officers Association, sanctioned matchs.

Was it the newer shaped Hydro-Shock or the old, and I am presuming 230 grainers.

Good luck and Happy New Year

Fred
 
Fred wrote:
Was it the newer shaped Hydro-Shock or the old, and I am presuming 230 grainers.
---------------------

Yep it was the newer round profile ones. I thought it was kinda strange but it happened with 3 different magazines about the the last 2 or 3 rounds in the mag.

Cheers,
Jim.
 
Hate to seem closed-minded but am I the only one that's decided who should be the first person blocked from our new forum? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
oops. Wrong caliber shot out of my gun... eek
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
P95Carry
P
4
  • Locked
Sell My 9mm and Go All Out with .45. What do People Think?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
8K
shiftyer1
S
M
  • Locked
Waiting for the 45's
Replies
24
Views
1K
eastwood44mag
E
ar-newbie
  • Locked
cheap gun bashing
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
205
Views
15K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
W
  • Locked
.45 GAP is not .45 acp and other ammo stories
2 3
Replies
64
Views
5K
MikeHaas
M
Back
Top