PDA

View Full Version : Which guns would survive the Glock torture test?


The SoCal Gunner
10-27-2007, 11:24 PM
After looking through the Glock torture test again, and it's quick comparison to the Hk USP, I've been wondering with other guns would stand up to the test? Which of your guns do you think could take that kind of beating and still work?

I'm sure a regular Joe would never submit their firearm to that kind of treatment but it sure is nice to know what a particular gun is capable of.

This is the particular torture test I was thinking about:
Glock torture test (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:J0BTP7zjfygJ:www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php%3Fs%3D%26threadid%3D462537+I+think+ my+21+has+proven+its+durability&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)

MrTuffPaws
10-27-2007, 11:50 PM
XD. I remember reading that someone put their XD through the test. Came out fine.

thefinger
10-28-2007, 12:45 AM
Sig p226 held up pretty well in this torture test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgjmtj9TgX8

socalguns
10-28-2007, 1:05 AM
any hi-point model latest version (C)

pnkssbtz
10-28-2007, 1:25 AM
Most of the combat pistols have withstood similar tests.

Nothing magically special about the glock.

Bizcuits
10-28-2007, 1:36 AM
I watched one torture test video on youtube a while back, it had the XD, Glock and HK USP. The USP failed the mud and sand tests. The XD and Glock came through on them all.

socalguns
10-28-2007, 6:13 AM
actually, they really do :)

jmlivingston
10-28-2007, 6:26 AM
The CZ75's had the snot tested out of them as well, and came through just fine.

proraptor
10-28-2007, 6:38 AM
I went with glocks because they passed every test Ive seen while the others sometime passed and sometimes failed

Blue
10-28-2007, 7:43 AM
XD. I remember reading that someone put their XD through the test. Came out fine.


Yea but they put 17,000 rounds through it before starting the Glock test :D

Greg-Dawg
10-28-2007, 8:07 AM
Which guns would survive the Glock torture test?

Glocks.

The SoCal Gunner
10-28-2007, 9:51 AM
Okay to clear things up, I put a link to the test I had in mind where the guy abused his Glock by throwing it out of a plane, shot it with a .22, and dragged along the road. I really don't know if a 1911 could take that kind of beating. There are just too many parts that could break if thrown out of an airplane that are essential to the proper functioning of the gun i.e., the beaver tail safety, manual safety and plunger tube, and the hammer. What if a 1911 landed in a way that bent the dust cover? Is it possible that dust cover could prevent proper movement of the slide.

I'm not here to sh*t on any gun because I own many but am more interested in what designs are capable of taking that kind of beating and keep on shooting and I honestly think that striker fired guns would out last hammer fired guns just because there are less parts exposed for damage.

mk19
10-28-2007, 10:00 AM
Any gun with a inclosed hammer would last the test, glocks, walther p99s, xds, and so on,

oghl888
10-28-2007, 10:05 AM
Glocks are very reliable. But they will break under some circumstances. A couple of instance that I've read about:

The first one was lack of lubrication: Even though they don't need a lot, they need some. The trigger bar's rear end that meets the downward ramp was worn down to the point of failure. Now I read this on the web, so take it for what it's worth.

The second one I trust is true: In a book called Cold Zero, an ex-FBI HRT team member recounted his career. The book mentioned that someone sneaked up on his team and fired a couple of shots before his Glock jammed, and the returned fired quickly took care of the person behind the jammed glock. The book went on to say something to the effect of neglecting maintenance on the glock was what got the guy killed.

Bottom line, pick a gun you can trust (or a few), then be meticulous in maintaining it and inspect the vital parts periodically to make sure they are still in excellent working order. I would replace any parts that are merely in good working order.

Kestryll
10-28-2007, 10:57 AM
This Glock did NOT survive the 'Wildfire/house fire' portion of the testing.
http://www.calguns.org/images/glock.gif

Then again I'm not sure any handgun would have! ;)

Shane916
10-28-2007, 11:02 AM
I don't think the 92 would fair to well :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc_Rqm0bESI


Glock does yay! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZ0kxhDA3Y

Stanze
10-28-2007, 11:20 AM
This Glock did NOT survive the 'Wildfire/house fire' portion of the testing.
http://www.calguns.org/images/glock.gif

Then again I'm not sure any handgun would have! ;)

Aww,...it just needs a little CLP, that'll wipe right off.:D

bwiese
10-28-2007, 11:38 AM
I doubt the Glock would survive one of the Ruger P85/P89 tests...

... the bbl was threaded internally at the muzzle, and then a threaded plug was installed to block the bbl.

The gun was then fired. No catastrophic barrel split and additional destruction like in Glock KBs (KaBooms): the bbl merely bulged inside the slide. It was replaced and the gun worked fine.

Ruger P8x/P9x metal-framed guns apparently don't have the Glock or HK or Sig marketing panache - but overall have a solid reputation for toughness/reliability. And the Ruger P90 has a sleeper reputation for being one of the most accurate 45ACPs out of the box; I probably will pick a used one up just for giggles since you can often get 'em for a song...

draconianruler
10-28-2007, 11:58 AM
I really don't know if a 1911 could take that kind of beating.

No way a 1911 can take that kind of abuse. I dropped my Kimber once in the sand when I bent over :( Even after a quick clean, it still wouldn't cycle. I had to tear it all apart for a full cleaning. No way I will trust my life on a 1911 in the field.

Kestryll
10-28-2007, 12:47 PM
Aww,...it just needs a little CLP, that'll wipe right off.:D


ROFL!

Now THAT'S comedy!!

AJAX22
10-28-2007, 12:51 PM
Kes, was that glock stored loaded? It looks like it went off like a hand grenade

STAGE 2
10-28-2007, 1:05 PM
I'm going to agree with those people that say these tests are BS. If I drop my pistol out of a plane I'm probably not coming back for it. Your biggest worry in that case isn't whether its going to shoot, but any liability incurred by what whoever picks it up does with it.

Freezing the pistol should also be placed in the pantheon of stupidity as well. If I leave the gun out long enough to actually freeze, then I definately wasn't using it.

Tests that really impress me are the ones run by JMB for the army back in 1910. Specifically shooting untold number of rounds through the properly spec'd pistol with the only cleaning being a dunk in a bucket of water. All this in the days long before uber lubricants. That impresses me.

Dont get me wrong, glocks are great pistols. I own and carry them from time to time. But lets not pretend that Gaston has some magic pixi dust that he sprinkles on his tupperware that makes it any more reliable than my remington rand.

The SoCal Gunner
10-28-2007, 1:34 PM
I'm going to agree with those people that say these tests are BS. If I drop my pistol out of a plane I'm probably not coming back for it.

Most of us already know our guns would never be in a situation that extreme. The point really is that if a gun can be dropped from 200ft and still work then it will likely be able to withstand a more reasonable 3-5ft drop out of someone's hand or holster and still work.

The sand, dirt, and mud test are extreme because the tester makes sure the dirt gets into most parts of the gun and magazine. If a gun can pass that test then it is more than likely able to withstand a simple drop in the mud or dirt that a LEO or soldier is more likely to face i.e. the link posted earlier to that video test of the Beretta the Glock dropped in mud for only a few seconds.

The frozen in ice test is a little pointless.

Take it for what its worth. We just read a 1st-hand experience with a Kimber being dropped in sand from only a few feet and not being able to cycle properly.

5968
10-28-2007, 2:06 PM
I've seen all the extreme test on Glocks and I still don't like them. LOL

aca72
10-28-2007, 2:07 PM
Glock torture test = marketing hype

sammy
10-28-2007, 2:18 PM
I keep hearing about "my glock has not seen a faliure in 150,000 rounds", I simply don't believe it. My new G34 has had one FTE and a FTF in just 500 rounds, all factory ammo. The rangemaster at my range and I were practicing last Thursday and the tip of the firing pin broke off his G35. I do see many more failures with the 1911's but I see no Glock magic.

Ryan HBC
10-28-2007, 3:21 PM
+1 for the torture tests are pointless.

A Glock is damn reliable handgun, but if anyone thinks that their Glock is more reliable than a USP/XD/Sig/Whatever, you are just lying to yourself.

I'd love to shove a bunch of sand into my Glock to prove a point, but I really couldn't bring myself to do it to any of my handguns. I see no mechanical reason why a USP would not return to battery when a Glock would every time.

STAGE 2
10-28-2007, 6:21 PM
Most of us already know our guns would never be in a situation that extreme. The point really is that if a gun can be dropped from 200ft and still work then it will likely be able to withstand a more reasonable 3-5ft drop out of someone's hand or holster and still work.

Then drop it from 3-5 feet. Tossing it out of a plane is stupid.


The sand, dirt, and mud test are extreme because the tester makes sure the dirt gets into most parts of the gun and magazine. If a gun can pass that test then it is more than likely able to withstand a simple drop in the mud or dirt that a LEO or soldier is more likely to face i.e. the link posted earlier to that video test of the Beretta the Glock dropped in mud for only a few seconds.

Yeah, but that video was bogus as well. Unscientific tests give unscientific results. I can take any gun, drop it in any medium and have it fail. Likewise I can do the same with any pistol and make it run.

The SoCal Gunner
10-28-2007, 7:34 PM
Then drop it from 3-5 feet. Tossing it out of a plane is stupid.

To me that is like saying that you don't need a gun that is 100,000 rounds reliable because 10,000 rounds is good enough and being able to withstand 100,000 rounds is stupid. I'm not the one doing the tests but I'd like to think that my money buys me a gun with a design that allows it to continue to be used after a 10ft drop even if the manufacturer only wants to test it from a 3ft drop.

Yeah, but that video was bogus as well. Unscientific tests give unscientific results. I can take any gun, drop it in any medium and have it fail. Likewise I can do the same with any pistol and make it run.

Care to share what is bogus? Seriously if it is then I can discount any credibility that video would give. Unscientific is right but all the scientific testing was likely done before any particular gun is released for sale. The one that is bought at a store should be representative of its population so the idea is that all of them should be very close in quality.

I'm not the guy who thinks that just because one particular test subject can withstand a certain amount of abuse means that another subject would take the same beating. What I do think is that if it was made at the same place using the same manufacturing methods and machinery and passed the same quality control inspections, that the 2nd subject should be similar to the 1st subject.

I am also not a guy who thinks my gun is a POS because it jams twice in 400 rounds.

STAGE 2
10-28-2007, 9:58 PM
To me that is like saying that you don't need a gun that is 100,000 rounds reliable because 10,000 rounds is good enough and being able to withstand 100,000 rounds is stupid. I'm not the one doing the tests but I'd like to think that my money buys me a gun with a design that allows it to continue to be used after a 10ft drop even if the manufacturer only wants to test it from a 3ft drop.

But thats not what we're taling about here. We are talking about tossing a gun from a plane. I can guarantee you that I can break a glock tossing it out of a plane. I guarantee you I can break pretty much anything by tossing it out of a plane.

This is not the same as testing the indended finction of a pistol, i.e. shooting.



Care to share what is bogus? Seriously if it is then I can discount any credibility that video would give. Unscientific is right but all the scientific testing was likely done before any particular gun is released for sale. The one that is bought at a store should be representative of its population so the idea is that all of them should be very close in quality.

Its bogus in that it doesn't say anything about the reliability about glocks or berettas on general. All it means is on that particular day, at that particular time, the glock shot while the beretta failed.

The reason why you can't make any predictions off of this clip is because the variables aren't the same. For example, the glock was dunked for a longer time which could have very well washed off some of the sediment.



I'm not the guy who thinks that just because one particular test subject can withstand a certain amount of abuse means that another subject would take the same beating. What I do think is that if it was made at the same place using the same manufacturing methods and machinery and passed the same quality control inspections, that the 2nd subject should be similar to the 1st subject.

I am also not a guy who thinks my gun is a POS because it jams twice in 400 rounds.

I dont dispute that. What I am saying is that the people who produce these tests are usually aren't impartial, and that the tests themselves are useless from s practical standpoint.

I would rather have the pistol that went through thousands of rounds without a stoppage than the one that was frozen, buried, and driven over by a car and shot.

slick_711
10-28-2007, 10:30 PM
The mud/sand BS is engineering. The Kimber jammed because it's not a "combat" pistol. The tolerances are too tight. That's what you paid for, an accurate pistol that shoots well when taken care of. I bet you're the same guys that pick up 1911s at gun shops and wiggle the slide around and comment that it's "poorly fitted" or "loose." What the heck are you doing being in such poor control of your pistol that it fell in the sand anyway. ;)

"Combat" pistols have looser tolerances, the actual JMB mil-spec 1911s were like that, and the Glocks and XDs are like that now, this allows them to function even when they get dirty and gritty. It also makes for a less impressive pistol to shoot & handle accuracy/aesthetic/feat of engineering wise. How you guys can try to compare pistols designed for different uses and then use that to claim one is the ultimate end all uber pistol is beyond me...

If you want a pistol you can kick out of a frozen muddy plane and might still shoot when it hits the ground, go ahead a buy a Glock. They're great pistols. I like pistols that shoot very well and very reliably if I take good care of them, so I have a pair of 1911s.

I'm not ragging on Glocks mind you, so don't get all butthurt. I intend to buy a G34 in the near future. You guys are just going about this discussion from the wrong perspective.

N6ATF
10-28-2007, 10:46 PM
I've seen all the extreme test on Glocks and I still don't like them. LOL

+1, I'm like your Rottweiler towards them.

The melted pic is a thing of beauty, no offense to the owner.

The SoCal Gunner
10-28-2007, 11:34 PM
But thats not what we're taling about here. We are talking about tossing a gun from a plane. I can guarantee you that I can break a glock tossing it out of a plane. I guarantee you I can break pretty much anything by tossing it out of a plane.

This is not the same as testing the indended finction of a pistol, i.e. shooting.

Forget the plane. The whole point is that the pistol was able to withstand a certain amount of force when it hit the floor. It doesn't matter how the force is applied but the point is that a gun should be able to handle various amounts of force and then continue with its "intended function".


Its bogus in that it doesn't say anything about the reliability about glocks or berettas on general. All it means is on that particular day, at that particular time, the glock shot while the beretta failed.

The reason why you can't make any predictions off of this clip is because the variables aren't the same. For example, the glock was dunked for a longer time which could have very well washed off some of the sediment.

We are still generalizing it's performance on that day to every other reasonably similar day. I understand that variables differ in an uncontrolled environment but for the functioning of a gun these slight changes that we face are not great enough to make a gun suddenly reliable or unreliable in functioning. I'm not talking about accuracy here just functioning.

Eliminate the Beretta from the comparison. You can say that maybe because the Glock was dunked longer that the sediments washed out but you could also say that maybe being dunked longer allowed more crude to enter into the nooks and crannies. Either way it functioned.

aplinker
10-28-2007, 11:55 PM
I think you're also missing the fact that dropping a plastic Glock and a steel framed 1911 out of a plane at 200ft is not the same force.

None of this is scientific. Science tests assumptions and provides general statements (theories) that we believe will hold for every subsequent trial. The Glock torture test is anecdotal. Additionally, I can optimize just about any "test" to produce an outcome that will make you think one product is better than another, if I know the failure modes of each.

I have a lot of respect for Glocks. They are very good firearms. They are not magic.

Anyone who thinks the Glock, because of this one torture test, is a superior firearm to all others is a fool.


Forget the plane. The whole point is that the pistol was able to withstand a certain amount of force when it hit the floor. It doesn't matter how the force is applied but the point is that a gun should be able to handle various amounts of force and then continue with its "intended function".



We are still generalizing it's performance on that day to every other reasonably similar day. I understand that variables differ in an uncontrolled environment but for the functioning of a gun these slight changes that we face are not great enough to make a gun suddenly reliable or unreliable in functioning. I'm not talking about accuracy here just functioning.

Eliminate the Beretta from the comparison. You can say that maybe because the Glock was dunked longer that the sediments washed out but you could also say that maybe being dunked longer allowed more crude to enter into the nooks and crannies. Either way it functioned.

The SoCal Gunner
10-28-2007, 11:58 PM
The mud/sand BS is engineering. The Kimber jammed because it's not a "combat" pistol. The tolerances are too tight. That's what you paid for, an accurate pistol that shoots well when taken care of.

"Combat" pistols have looser tolerances, the actual JMB mil-spec 1911s were like that, and the Glocks and XDs are like that now, this allows them to function even when they get dirty and gritty. It also makes for a less impressive pistol to shoot & handle accuracy/aesthetic/feat of engineering wise. How you guys can try to compare pistols designed for different uses and then use that to claim one is the ultimate end all uber pistol is beyond me...

How do you know that the Kimber wasn't a Gold Combat? Yes the title of a combat pistol is all marketing just like Colt Combats, Wilson Combat and the like.

From my small sample, the tolerances on my 1911s are looser than my Sig 220 and XD therefore they are more combat ready.

Your talking about high-end 1911s and what they were designed for and all I asked for was what could take the damage and continue functioning.

If you want a pistol you can kick out of a frozen muddy plane and might still shoot when it hits the ground, go ahead a buy a Glock. They're great pistols. I like pistols that shoot very well and very reliably if I take good care of them, so I have a pair of 1911s.

I already have a Glock, XD, Sig, Hk, 1911s and others.

The discussion was what could take a beating like that given in the Glock test I linked to and still function. Walther P99s, CZ, Rugers, and others have been suggested. Not talking about accuracy here. Some already stated striker fired pistols only and I agree because that means fewer parts to break.

STAGE 2
10-28-2007, 11:59 PM
Forget the plane. The whole point is that the pistol was able to withstand a certain amount of force when it hit the floor. It doesn't matter how the force is applied but the point is that a gun should be able to handle various amounts of force and then continue with its "intended function".

And a pistols intended function isn't to be tossed out of a plane. As long as it doesn't go off when dropped from a reasonable height, or be rendered inoperable we are good to go. I don't know a single quality pistol that would fail either of these two tests.



Eliminate the Beretta from the comparison. You can say that maybe because the Glock was dunked longer that the sediments washed out but you could also say that maybe being dunked longer allowed more crude to enter into the nooks and crannies. Either way it functioned.

Thats my point. The we don't know means that the video doesn't indicate anything other than what happened right then and there. Yet for some reason glock owners will flock to it and hold it up as authoritative.

Its not. Just like their torture tests aren't.

yzernie
10-29-2007, 12:01 AM
My neighbor who is a cop said they are having firing pin problems on their issued Glocks. Something about the extremes they put them through.

Gnome
10-29-2007, 12:53 AM
I've always heard that GLOCKs are very reliable. I personally would never, EVER do this to any of my guns (Don't have that many to begin with :D) but it is entertaining and some what reassuring. Not so much of "What if my GLOCK fell on the floor from a height of 8 feet? "Would it still function properly?"

My friend told me he wasn't a big fan of the GLOCK, but he owned one just because it was a GLOCK. I thought that was kind of a funny sentiment.

draconianruler
10-29-2007, 1:35 AM
The mud/sand BS is engineering. The Kimber jammed because it's not a "combat" pistol. The tolerances are too tight. That's what you paid for, an accurate pistol that shoots well when taken care of. I bet you're the same guys that pick up 1911s at gun shops and wiggle the slide around and comment that it's "poorly fitted" or "loose." What the heck are you doing being in such poor control of your pistol that it fell in the sand anyway. ;)



It was in a holster that was a bit too large for it. So when I bent over, it slipped out of the retaining strap. I know, get the right size holster :rolleyes:

I bet I am NOT a person that wiggles around a slide and thinks its too loose. My 220ST wiggles and is super accurate. What will I carry on any hunting trips or zombie invasion, the GLOCK :D

rivviepop
10-29-2007, 8:53 AM
From an old thread I posted this in, regarding the CZ P-01:

"The P-01 was accepted after almost three years of testing and development. What CZ did to win the bid is something that few (how about zero?) designs have ever had to go through before greeting the buying public. For a military gun, sure, but in this case, the general public gets the same gun, same design and same specs as the police and military.

For instance, according to the information supplied by CZ, the gun had to withstand 4,000 dry-firings, 3,000 de-cockings, operator-level disassembly and re-assembly 1,350 times, complete disassembly (all the way down to pins and springs) 150 times, 100-percent parts interchangeability, a 1.5 meter drop test (54 times) on concrete, three meter drop test, firing after being frozen at -36 F for 24 hours, firing after being submerged in mud, sand and combinations--and after having been stripped of all oil. The service life must exceed 15,000 rounds of +P 9mm ammo and indeed, testing revealed the P-01 has exceeded 30,000 rounds with ball 9mm.

The reliability requirement protocol was particularly astounding. Set at 98.8 percent (.2 percent) failure rate, this was tough-enough for any gun. This equals 20 stoppages per 10,000 rounds, or 500 "mean rounds between failures" (MRBF). During testing, the average number of stoppages was only seven per 15,000 rounds, or .05 percent failure rate. This translates to a MRBF rate of 2,142 rounds. That happens to be about five times the minimum acceptable rate for the U.S. Army, which is set at 495 rounds for 9mm pistols with 115 gr. ball ammo." (1)

==
(1) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_167_28/ai_110457315

slick_711
10-29-2007, 9:26 AM
How do you know that the Kimber wasn't a Gold Combat? Yes the title of a combat pistol is all marketing just like Colt Combats, Wilson Combat and the like.

Your talking about high-end 1911s and what they were designed for and all I asked for was what could take the damage and continue functioning.



It saying "Combat" doesn't make it a combat pistol in the sense I was referring. I wouldn't take a Wilson or Kimber into the field. I would however trust my SA Mil-Spec, and it's seen some degree of that type of shooting with 0 malfunctions.

I wasn't trying to turn the direction of your thread, rather to point out that your criteria is unrealistic/unnecessary expectations in many cases. I don't care if my pistol can survive being dropped from a plane, if I allow that to happen to it, I'm no longer in need of it. :p

Cpl_Peters
10-29-2007, 9:12 PM
these tests make me laugh. my main concern with a handgun is how many rounds it can fire before a malfunction. The fact is that most of todays modern combat handguns are built to similar design specifications and able to handle the same types of torture. But no gun in the world will fire many shots after being dunked in mud. The fact that they are able to run through a magazine means nothing, after round 30 in a nice muddy weapon bad things will start to happen

WallyGeorge
10-29-2007, 10:11 PM
My neighbor who is a cop said they are having firing pin problems on their issued Glocks. Something about the extremes they put them through.

What "extremes" does a duty cop put on his sidearm? Daily holstering and unholstering? :confused:

My primary duty sidearm is a Glock 22 and I can't imagine firing enough rounds/yr to cause mechanical failure. I'd love to work for a Dept. that gives out enough training time and ammo to accomplish this! :D

RECCE556
10-30-2007, 12:44 AM
No way a 1911 can take that kind of abuse. I dropped my Kimber once in the sand when I bent over :( Even after a quick clean, it still wouldn't cycle. I had to tear it all apart for a full cleaning. No way I will trust my life on a 1911 in the field.
You mean your Kimber actually worked before this event???:confused:

RECCE556
10-30-2007, 12:48 AM
1911's have gone through an proven themselves in several major wars (WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.) and still are the preferred choice by many SOCOM HSLD types and SWAT teams...who knows, maybe these guys haven't heard of the magical Glocks?? ;)

Exiledviking
10-30-2007, 11:11 AM
I doubt the Glock would survive one of the Ruger P85/P89 tests...

... the bbl was threaded internally at the muzzle, and then a threaded plug was installed to block the bbl.

The gun was then fired. No catastrophic barrel split and additional destruction like in Glock KBs (KaBooms): the bbl merely bulged inside the slide. It was replaced and the gun worked fine.

Ruger P8x/P9x metal-framed guns apparently don't have the Glock or HK or Sig marketing panache - but overall have a solid reputation for toughness/reliability. And the Ruger P90 has a sleeper reputation for being one of the most accurate 45ACPs out of the box; I probably will pick a used one up just for giggles since you can often get 'em for a song...

When the HK USP was launched in the 90s, HK had tested the USP by squibbing a bullet half-way down the barrel and then firing a regular round without breaking the barrel. I thought that was pretty impressive.

saki302
10-31-2007, 3:20 AM
As far as Glock KBs go, I think it only happens in non-9mm calibers. It was, after all, designed firstly as a 9mm. Puttign a supported barrel (aftermarket) fixes the problem in .40.

Part of the reliability IMO is having gaps and places for grit to go. I can see why the USP jammed up after being doused in sand- I own one, and there isn't much room for stuff to go, and places where grit could gum up the action. The exposed hammer also provides a straight path for sand into the guts of the action.

Look at a Glock sideways- notice the big gap between frame front and slide? Big place for dirt to fall out. also, many internal flats and pockets for dirt to migrate to during firing rather than gum up the action. The critical internal parts are relatively shielded too (striker).

The myth about military 1911s being loose is just that- I have a WW2 1911, and have handled others, and low-round-count pistols are no looser than a modern Colt (but not tight like a Kimber either).

Looser slide to frame fit will not affect accuracy too much if the barrel /slide fit is good- sights are on the slide, after all (frame mounted optics exempted).

-Dave

slick_711
10-31-2007, 10:08 AM
Look at a Glock sideways- notice the big gap between frame front and slide? Big place for dirt to fall out. also, many internal flats and pockets for dirt to migrate to during firing rather than gum up the action. The critical internal parts are relatively shielded too (striker).

That's what I said? i.e. "combat pistol"


The myth about military 1911s being loose is just that- I have a WW2 1911, and have handled others, and low-round-count pistols are no looser than a modern Colt (but not tight like a Kimber either).

That I disagree with, but perhaps we have handled a different sampling of WWI/WWII production 1911s. And yeah, the main factor in accuracy is barrel/slide lockup, if the barrel returns to the same place every shot, theres your accuracy. The slide/frame fit is of little consequence.

xtalpimp
10-31-2007, 4:55 PM
I agree with Slick 711 The old GIs that I have and have had the chance to examine are not fitted so tightly together like the Valtros, modern Colts, Kimbers or the like.

saki302
11-04-2007, 1:58 AM
The Ithaca 1911A1 I have (coincidentally listed in the FS section) has a tighter slide to frame fit that I've seein in many modern Colts. It isn't near as tight as my Kimber or Springfield though.
I was told most mil-spec guns were fairly accurate, but wore out from use, and serving in 3+ wars! I think that Ithaca missed most of them, so has much less wear.

-Dave