Old technology argument

[shooting4life]

Hmm the fastest proliferating pistol design is "obsolete"??? Pretty much EVERY major brand that sells pistols (except HK) has added atleast one model of 1911 to their lineup in recent years. Plus there is a constant stream of new 1911 makers entering the marketplace.

"No good for combat"?? The Marines just added a new model of 1911 to their weapons inventory and not even the biggest poly-fan-boi could state the Marines don't know what they are doing when it comes to combat.

The Hi-Power WASN'T an improvement on the 1911 design, it was a work around of the 1911 patents.

Field stripping any non-match 1911 is pretty easy and a match pistol isn't exactly what is going to get carried into combat with a theoretical need to quickly reassemble under pressure. You end up with a slide, barrel, barrel bushing, guide rod, recoil spring, slide stop and the frame. Not exactly an overwhelming quantity of parts. I think some people are confusing field stripping with a detailed strip.

The 1911 has ALWAYS been 100% with the 230gr ball ammo it was DESIGNED to fire and many of the improvements were attempts to get it to function with ammo old JB never envisioned and those have been pretty successful. The supposed superiority of newer designs that can shoot almost any round right out of the box, is simply a result of their being designed in an era where there was a much wider variety of ammo to choose from and not an indictment of the 1911's design.

I also think some people need to re-evaluate their understanding of what the word "obsolete" actually means. Just because there are newer items on the market or an item has been around for a long time, doesn't automatically equate to it being obsolete. Many new items that get brought to market are simply other manufacturers getting around patents or proprietary information and not simply by virtue of being newer are they necessarily any better.

In the same vein, just because some pistol companies are selling newer versions based on Glock's design and adding improvements they came up with, does it mean the Glock (at 30ish years old) is obsolete now?

You really need to take an unbiased look at pros/cons of modern day pistols (like a glock) to a 1911.

Capacity, reliability, weight, cost, and performance per dollar are all on the side of a modern handgun compared to a 1911.
Not to say that a 1911 is a bad pistol, just that technology and design have moved past it. I love revolvers, 90% of the handguns I own are revolvers, but I don't think they are the best option, it is just what I like.

[cindynles]

The solution to this issue is obvious. We as gun owners just need to engage in some selective breeding. Take one male 1911A1 (45 ACP) and one female Glock 17 (9mm) and lock them in a safe together. 9 months later we get the solution, a 2011 in 40 S&W.

The off spring has Dad's steel upper body and Mom's polymer bottom with the increased capacity (in a free state) all yearn for .

[anothergunnut]

I would argue the M2 was made obsolete by the Dillon Minigun for many roles the M2 was previously used for. Though they both have gaps in what areas they cover, ie: rate of fire and max effective ranges as well as penetration capabilities. Merely speaking as a vehicle mounted weapon platform. I think I read the Dillon has a max round life span of 1.5 million rounds. An M2 can't touch that. Both are still largely effective and relevant on today's battlefield.

Regarding the 1911, I think it's a great pistol and a timeless design that is still relevant today. However in a combat usage roll, I think it is lacking in comparison to modern designs when it comes to maintenance and capacity.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

The M2, as an aircraft gun, was becoming obsolete by the end of WWII.

[Steve_In_29]

You really need to take an unbiased look at pros/cons of modern day pistols (like a glock) to a 1911.

Capacity, reliability, weight, cost, and performance per dollar are all on the side of a modern handgun compared to a 1911.
Not to say that a 1911 is a bad pistol, just that technology and design have moved past it. I love revolvers, 90% of the handguns I own are revolvers, but I don't think they are the best option, it is just what I like.

Any bias aside what I posted is still true. As to the rest of your post here are a few more biased facts for you,

Capacity = Para Ord P14. Plus it has a slimmer grip then the Glock21. I know I owned both.
Reliability = Pretty much every 1911 made currently is as reliable with a variety of ammo as any other pistol.
Weight = When compared to other full sized service pistols the 1911 doesn't come off bad. Plus there are the alloy and even poly framed versions if a lighter pistol is desired.
Cost = You can buy an entry level 1911 (RIA, Citadel, etc) for LESS then a Glock and there are several brands/models which sell at Glock or slightly more pricing (Springer/Para/Ruger/Taurus/etc).
Performance per dollar = See all the above.

So you are saying that despite the huge numbers of revolvers sold each year, they are as obsolete as you claim the 1911 is? I also never said the 1911 was the "best option", just that it was a VALID one. Though if you can't settle things with 8+1 well placed rounds of .45ACP, you probably should have brought a rifle to the disagreement.

The simple fact of the matter is that revolvers are different then semi-autos, single actions are different then double actions and DA/SA is different then both, hammer fired pistols are different then striker fired, metal framed pistols are different then poly framed, etc, etc, etc. The key to all that is "different" and the existence of any one of those differences in no way makes the others "obsolete". It just makes them "different"!

As I said before, people need to look up the meaning of words before they go throwing them around and attempting to use them in sentences.

[Steve_In_29]

The M2, as an aircraft gun, was becoming obsolete by the end of WWII.

This was due to the increased speed of the aircraft as well as lessons learned from the Germans about using larger calibers (and thus needing to achieve fewer hits for a kill) more so then any design issues with the M2 though.

[shooting4life]

Any bias aside what I posted is still true. As to the rest of your post here are a few more biased facts for you,

Capacity = Para Ord P14. Plus it has a slimmer grip then the Glock21. I know I owned both.
Reliability = Pretty much every 1911 made currently is as reliable with a variety of ammo as any other pistol.
Weight = When compared to other full sized service pistols the 1911 doesn't come off bad. Plus there are the alloy and even poly framed versions if a lighter pistol is desired.
Cost = You can buy an entry level 1911 (RIA, Citadel, etc) for LESS then a Glock and there are several brands/models which sell at Glock or slightly more pricing (Springer/Para/Ruger/Taurus/etc).
Performance per dollar = See all the above.

So you are saying that despite the huge numbers of revolvers sold each year, they are as obsolete as you claim the 1911 is? I also never said the 1911 was the "best option", just that it was a VALID one. Though if you can't settle things with 8+1 well placed rounds of .45ACP, you probably should have brought a rifle to the disagreement.

The simple fact of the matter is that revolvers are different then semi-autos, single actions are different then double actions and DA/SA is different then both, hammer fired pistols are different then striker fired, metal framed pistols are different then poly framed, etc, etc, etc. The key to all that is "different" and the existence of any one of those differences in no way makes the others "obsolete". It just makes them "different"!

As I said before, people need to look up the meaning of words before they go throwing them around and attempting to use them in sentences.

You doing it again, first you say capacity isn't a problem because of a para, but they are not a reliable and more expensive.
Then you say cost isn't an issue because of ria but they lack capacity, ergonomics and adequate sights
Then you say they are reliable when most modern 1911's need to be around the 1k mark to find reliability out of the box, and even then they won't touch a glock in terms of reliability. They still have break in periods.

When someone can mass produce a double stack, reliable, 1911 with modern features (beaver tail grip safety as an example) for $500 then you can say the 1911's are not outdated compared to modern handguns.

They have even talked about moving away from the M2 but the benefits are not worth the replacement cost (biggest benefit is weight reduction and optics package) but they have stayed with the m2, probably because it is cheaper and people are familiar with it. When a truck moves something the weight is not as critical to the end user as if it was being carried on ones back.

[MXRider]

The M2, as an aircraft gun, was becoming obsolete by the end of WWII.

While I love WWII aircraft I'm no expert on the matter and don't know the limitations the M2 posed in dog fights and against ground targets. I'll have to read up on them.

[smle-man]

While I love WWII aircraft I'm no expert on the matter and don't know the limitations the M2 posed in dog fights and against ground targets. I'll have to read up on them.

The aircraft gun that finished WW2was the M3, higher rate of fire at about 1,000 RPM. It was used on the F80, F84, F86.

[cindynles]

Then you say they are reliable when most modern 1911's need to be around the 1k mark to find reliability out of the box, and even then they won't touch a glock in terms of reliability. They still have break in periods.

That is just not accurate as a blanket statement. 1911's are like AR's, the same pattern made by some very good and some very bad manufacture's. That's like saying a Del-Ton Sportacal is the same as a top of the line Danial Defense M4. If we are going to generalize "1911's" then the "Glock's" needs to include all of the striker fired knock offs from taurus, bersa, kel-tec, etc.

I have a nearly stock Springfield Trophy match that has had 1 stoppage in the last year of USPSA competition (11,000 rounds) it ran from day one - no break in period required, while my Glock 17 has had 3 in that same time frame (4,000 rounds - I don't shoot the Glock as much). FYI, the Glock is stock except for the sights and the mag release.

Does this mean every 1911 and every Glock will behave like this? No, but its a pretty good sample size on the 2 platforms that shows the 1911 is just as reliable as the Glock.

[shooting4life]

That is just not accurate as a blanket statement. 1911's are like AR's, the same pattern made by some very good and some very bad manufacture's. That's like saying a Del-Ton Sportacal is the same as a top of the line Danial Defense M4. If we are going to generalize "1911's" then the "Glock's" needs to include all of the striker fired knock offs from taurus, bersa, kel-tec, etc.

I have a nearly stock Springfield Trophy match that has had 1 stoppage in the last year of USPSA competition (11,000 rounds) it ran from day one - no break in period required, while my Glock 17 has had 3 in that same time frame (4,000 rounds - I don't shoot the Glock as much). FYI, the Glock is stock except for the sights and the mag release.

Does this mean every 1911 and every Glock will behave like this? No, but its a pretty good sample size on the 2 platforms that shows the 1911 is just as reliable as the Glock.

The statement is accurate. It doesn't mean it is universally true in all cases, but generally true.

Again, your 1911 is probably twice the cost of a modern production handgun without the benefit of better ergos and larger capacity.

[cindynles]

The statement is accurate. It doesn't mean it is universally true in all cases, but generally true.

Again, your 1911 is probably twice the cost of a modern production handgun without the benefit of better ergos and larger capacity.

3 times as much , but it has better ergos than a Glock for ME. Based on MY experience I would trust either of these specific handguns in a life or death situation.

I really think the issue is the proliferation of different makers who are now producing 1911 type handguns. They are all lumped in together (a Taurus PT1911 should NEVER be compared to a Les Baer) and everyone focuses on the bad ones. Imagine if we did this with revolvers (S&W lumped in with Rossi ).

[Gem1950]

I might be mistaken but I believe that the 1911 is the first and only semi auto pistol that was specifically designed for the .45 acp cartridge. All other pistols were an existing design, in another caliber, that someone said - Hey, we'd better make one of these in .45 acp. So they did. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[toby]

I might be mistaken but I believe that the 1911 is the first and only semi auto pistol that was specifically designed for the .45 acp cartridge. All other pistols were an existing design, in another caliber, that someone said - Hey, we'd better make one of these in .45 acp. So they did. Correct me if I'm wrong.

They will never believe you.

[Steve_In_29]

You doing it again, first you say capacity isn't a problem because of a para, but they are not a reliable and more expensive.
Then you say cost isn't an issue because of ria but they lack capacity, ergonomics and adequate sights
Then you say they are reliable when most modern 1911's need to be around the 1k mark to find reliability out of the box, and even then they won't touch a glock in terms of reliability. They still have break in periods.

When someone can mass produce a double stack, reliable, 1911 with modern features (beaver tail grip safety as an example) for $500 then you can say the 1911's are not outdated compared to modern handguns.

They have even talked about moving away from the M2 but the benefits are not worth the replacement cost (biggest benefit is weight reduction and optics package) but they have stayed with the m2, probably because it is cheaper and people are familiar with it. When a truck moves something the weight is not as critical to the end user as if it was being carried on ones back.

Doing what? Stating facts? Don't you just hate when people do that to refute inaccuracies?

There was a blanket statement made concerning whether or not the 1911 platform is obsolete and you have been strongly supporting that idea. My reply was simply some facts in rebuttal to the broad brush of that blanket statement in which I avoided coloring every thing so broadly.

You REALLY need to stop applying YOUR bias so heavy handedly. Not every 1911 requires a break in period nor has to cost $1K+ to be reliable. In fact most 1911s that the maker insists on a break in period cost 3 or more times what your beloved Glock does and will shoot rings around it in accuracy. But those 1911s aren't a duty weapon just as your Glock isn't a one-hole tack driver.

Also Glock doesn't even sell their .45ACP version at the $500 price point you desire, so why are you holding the 1911 platform to it? The G21 is usually in the $579 range at Turners. While it isn't available in CA, the RIA Hi Cap Tactical 2011 can be had in other states for less then $700. So it's a little over $100 more then the G21. Not exactly a deal breaker when you consider it's for a metal framed pistol instead of poly.

Speaking of "available in CA" all this talk of high capacity is really a moot point as you are complaining about the loss of 2 rounds in your beloved (blocked at 10) high capacity gee-whiz pistol vice the 1911.

As I said my comments aren't meant to be all encompassing, blanket type statements such as you use, so my comment simply pointed out that if you desire a high cap 1911 there is the Para (and STI, RIA, etc for that matter) to fill the need.

Despite your use of yet another blanket statement, my Para was VERY reliable and I regret selling it to this day. Para also makes their LDA trigger version for those who get freaked out by seeing a "cocked-and-locked" obsolete 1911. My wife's Carry 9 (9mm) is an LDA and it has been very reliable as well, even chugging down 147gr HP sub-sonics.

1911s are available in a WIDE variaty of price points ($300ish to $6K+) so if low cost is the overriding parameter for you then as I pointed out there are 1911s that cover that.

My cheaper then a Glock 21, RIA Tactical ($479) has been able to digest every load I feed it except for Remington 230 gr HPs. Hardly a reason to stop using the 1911, as there are plenty of other (and even better) self defense loads to chose from (those just happened to be the cheapest). It also comes stock with Novak style sights, ambi-safety and a beavertail, how much better sights/ergos are needed??

Since you keep harping on "high capacity" you appear to be under the impression that any pistol which isn't high capacity is some how not worthy of consideration. While you are looking up the meaning of the word "obsolete" you might also try leaving the basement and taking a look around the real world, since every brand (to include Glock) has been quite busy coming out with single stack (low capacity) versions of their pistols of late. It seems low capacity isn't so obsolete or unwanted as your unbiased(?) brain appears to think.

I also note that you avoided answering my question concerning your feelings on the obsolesce of the revolver. After all if 8+1 rounds of .45 is obsolete in a 1911, then a weapon with only 6 rounds (or even worse 5) must already be mouldering on the dust heap of history right? Try floating that idea to Jerry Miculek.

As to the M2, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Do you really want your taxes increased to allow the military to discard systems, that while they work VERY well, aren't the absolutest newest gee-whiz version available??

The weapon does the job it needs to do at a cost that doesn't break the bank so why should it be replaced just to impress the enemy with having the newest gadget? Believe me...they don't care. The countless enemies of democracy that have been killed by the M2 aren't any less dead simply because they weren't killed by a mini-gun.

You apparently never served in the military either since the M2 isn't just a vehicle mounted system. Grunts hump those and the ammo to feed them into some pretty rugged terrain. The same CAN'T be said for the mini-gun, the batteries needed to power it and enough ammo to feed it.

In the strange juxtaposition of low and high tech in the world of infantry combat, the M2 is a much better fit, despite it's supposed "obsolescence".

[Steve_In_29]

I might be mistaken but I believe that the 1911 is the first and only semi auto pistol that was specifically designed for the .45 acp cartridge. All other pistols were an existing design, in another caliber, that someone said - Hey, we'd better make one of these in .45 acp. So they did. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. .45 Automatic Colt Pistol