Perspective and opinion..... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Perspective and opinion.....


chuckman
12-25-2011, 12:22
I love perspective; this on the 1911:

"On a unit level, meaning a 1911 issued to each man, I believe it is not an ideal choice in this day and age. Simply put the maintanence and logistics tail that comes with issuing 1911 pistols makes it less than ideal in today's world. It is a pistol that requires hand fitting of many, if not most, components and that is not comparable with the way service grade firearms are maintained today.

Now armorers swap or change parts not 'fit' them - and that is the key difference. In addition it is a pistol that works best with end users with a higher than average skill level that understand the performance benefits a 1911 gives you come with a price. That is a trait that can be found in individuals but not in a department or a unit.

Great gun and a wonderful piece of American history but now it's time as a front line fighting tool in a fighting unit has past - if it was all we had we could make it work but there are better choices for that task."

Merry Christmas!!

Two Guns
12-25-2011, 12:38
I still think the 1911 is the greatest fighting gun of all time. If I was heading up a unit it would be my first choice. The H&K USP would be my second choice.

MajorD
12-25-2011, 14:29
as much as I enjoy the 1911 I have to agree chuck. The biggest barrier in my view is the military unwillingness to carry cocked and locked- I honestly wouldn't bother carrying a pistol that had to be racked after draw to get into action. The irony is the ar type rifle is carried cocked and locked all the time- the only difference is you can't see the cocked ahmmer like you can on the 1911.

SpringerTGO
12-25-2011, 14:39
I have mixed feelings about the modern 1911's. No doubt they are easy to shoot, but I think they have some disadvantages to modern handguns.
For some reason, a lot of the new "high end" 1911's are not reliable. "Extractor tuning, feed ramp polishing", etc. often required on brand new guns. On top of that, some companies (ok... Kimber) won't even look at warrantying a 1911 until 400 rounds have been fired. And other manufacturers do talk about "break-in". They also have a relatively small capacity.
Imagine what people would say about Glock if they weren't reliable for 400 rounds, and if they had they typical issues common to new 1911's.

I have more money in my 1911's than all my other handguns combined, so it's not like I hate them. In the case of my Springfield, it's been a very reliable and accurate handgun. But my Nighthawk has been way less than stellar.

GJ1981
12-25-2011, 15:17
Seeing as the quote is from Larry Vickers, it carries weight and is something I've come to agree with. I tried to like 1911's but I got sick of dealing with the BS. When you spend a fair chunk of change and get a pistol that won't run, you reconsider your CCW pistol.

I had 3 turds from the SA Custom Shop, including the high and mighty Professional. It is pretty sad when you drop over $2500 and get pistols that couldn't get 100 rounds without a feeding failure out of the box, an improperly fit slide stop that prematurely locked on a loaded mag, which was sent back only to have them screw that up and get a pistol that wouldn't lock open, and then a piss poor barrel fit with lugs rounding and being told "that's normal."

I could add how they used several incorrect parts on my pistols and wouldn't even acknowledge their error or fix it.



There are better choices for ME...run what you like for anyone else.

glockarmor
12-25-2011, 16:09
I guess I'm just lucky.. I've got a couple of Nighthawks and a Wilson that run flawlessly. I've also never had an issue with any Kimber that's had a place in the safe. Having said that I've also never had a problem with a Glock.. To each his own but a properly built 1911 with good ammo is a great pistol. It's all a matter of how you want to spend your $$$$.. Just my .02

SpringerTGO
12-25-2011, 16:31
I guess I'm just lucky.. I've got a couple of Nighthawks and a Wilson that run flawlessly. I've also never had an issue with any Kimber that's had a place in the safe. Having said that I've also never had a problem with a Glock.. To each his own but a properly built 1911 with good ammo is a great pistol. It's all a matter of how you want to spend your $$$$.. Just my .02

Never fails on the 'net.
My***'s have been flawless, so you guys are wrong. No doubt a properly built 1911 with good ammunition is a great pistol. But how many people spend the kind of money Wilson and Nighthawk charge? And for that matter, my Nighthawk has been anything but a great pistol.
Go to any Kimber or Nighthawk forum, and you will find all the posts you can handle with reliability issues. Off the top of my head, the only company I don't recall reading negatives about is Wilson, but considering the price and availability, I don't consider Wilson the norm for 1911's.

Basic 1911's need ramping, polishing, and throating right out of the box. Does anyone need to touch a new Glock? And even the high end 1911 manufacturers recommend replacing recoil springs after a relatively low round count. Does anyone ever replace recoil springs on a Glock?
And then there are the "magazine" issues. How many Glock owners have to toss their brand new magazines to get replacements? Read up on the Kimber forums, as well as several others, and that seems to be the rule of thumb.

I enjoy shooting my Springfield more than any handgun I own, and I presently only own 1 Glock. But if it came down to only being able to have 1 handgun for the rest of my life, with no aftermarket parts, and no ability to repair it, there are lots of handguns I would own before a 1911. As far as reliability is concerned for a CCW, I'd take my S&W 340 or my Glock 26 long before my $3k Nighthawk T3.

chuckman
12-25-2011, 16:40
Yes, Larry Vickers said this, and what I find refreshingly honest is that he is one of the foremost 1911 authorities and he recognizes that for all the awesomeness of the 1911 there are better choices. And for most of his classes, he runs a Glock.

R0CKETMAN
12-25-2011, 16:59
LV just saying it like it is...

However, certain government agencies and military units use them as their only sidearm.

Kinda depends on the environment, use, ect

GJ1981
12-25-2011, 17:19
Yes, Larry Vickers said this, and what I find refreshingly honest is that he is one of the foremost 1911 authorities and he recognizes that for all the awesomeness of the 1911 there are better choices.

There have been other well respected 1911 guys who have echoed the same, Hackathorn and Yam come to mind.

I like a 1911 for what it is, but have lost all faith for using one for anything outside the range. The only serious malfunctions in the last pistol class I was in was a 1911, a $2800 Volkmann at that. All the Glocks and M&P's ran...sad really.

Jason D
12-25-2011, 17:40
One thing to consider when you talk of a military gun, is that being Milspec means that the tolerances are such that you can swap parts around very easily.

A small group of Armorers from WWI or WWII would have a quick time maintaining guns of the era. It's only the modern guns that everyone needs to be super tight and shooting an inch at 25 yards.

A M1911 from back in the day that could shoot a 4-5" group at 25 yards was completely acceptable.

majette
12-25-2011, 18:59
I had 3 turds from the SA Custom Shop, including the high and mighty Professional. It is pretty sad when you drop over $2500 and get pistols that couldn't get 100 rounds without a feeding failure out of the box, an improperly fit slide stop that prematurely locked on a loaded mag, which was sent back only to have them screw that up and get a pistol that wouldn't lock open, and then a piss poor barrel fit with lugs rounding and being told "that's normal."

I could add how they used several incorrect parts on my pistols and wouldn't even acknowledge their error or fix it.



There are better choices for ME...run what you like for anyone else.

didn't one of your pistols run fine with factory loaded ammo but not handloads? i have had a few thousand rounds through my pro without issue but i do not shoot handloads.

GJ1981
12-25-2011, 19:11
didn't one of your pistols run fine with factory loaded ammo but not handloads? i have had a few thousand rounds through my pro without issue but i do not shoot handloads.

My Pro had issues with any ammo less than 230gr, which included handloads that functioned in other 1911's I had. It didn't like WWB and some Federal FMJ despite it being 230gr loads, but some have claimed issues with those brands though I never had issues before in other pistols. I spent out of pocket for repairs after two returns failed to fix the problem.

My Custom Carry choked on HST and Gold Dot's until the first trip back to SA, which is when more problems began after being returned.

esh325
12-25-2011, 19:19
I would agree with that quote. The 1911 is a fantastic design, but I think there are better choices today for pistols. Not that the 1911 is unreliable, but I haven't found them to be as reliable other pistols, new and old. Pictures like these kind of tell you why they went with DA's.
http://www.browning.com/support/files/images/brn/articles/2011/US_Marine_armed_with_a_1911_pistol_calls_in_artillery_during_WW_II_.jpg




as much as I enjoy the 1911 I have to agree chuck. The biggest barrier in my view is the military unwillingness to carry cocked and locked- I honestly wouldn't bother carrying a pistol that had to be racked after draw to get into action. The irony is the ar type rifle is carried cocked and locked all the time- the only difference is you can't see the cocked ahmmer like you can on the 1911.
The first manual for the 1911 recommened carrying it unchambered I believe. In the WW2 manual, they said cocked and locked. The AR15 is not drawn from the holster though. Different dynamics between the two.

glock2740
12-25-2011, 19:24
1911's would be issued to Spec-Ops, if they so desired. Glocks issued to the rest of the troops. :thumbsup:

MajorD
12-25-2011, 19:39
esh- the VERY first manual the gun was to be carried hammer down on a live round- which is why they designed the grip safety to allow you to pull the hammer back far enough to disengage it and lower the hammer,and why it was the first colt full size design to have a springon the firing pin and inertia firing pin. As originally designed the 1911 did not have a thumb safety but was added due to concerns by cavalry about handling the cocked ready to fire gun while mounted on an out of control horse.
Most subsequent manuals advised carry hammer down on an empty- to carry cocked and locked only when enemy contact imminent.
for most of it's service life the average joe carried hammer down on an empty chamber.
remember the 1911 was adopted during the time the revolver was king- they were carried hammer down and cocked for firing most of the time-even after we transitioned to a double action wheel gun.

Jim Watson
12-25-2011, 22:07
They cancelled contracts for thousands and thousands of 1911s in 1919 when it turned out not to be necessary to chase Germans through the trenches for another year.
Apparently the Army trusted privates to carry, shoot, and maintain pistols in those days.

MajorD, my book says Mr Browning and Colt went to inertial firing pins in the 1902 guns, and took the full length firing pin and odd rear sight safety out of every 1900 that came in for any repair. From the 1902 Military instructions: "It is impossible for the firing pin to discharge or even touch the primer except under the full blow of the hammer." A period gunzine article said you could carry it hammer down but would probably prefer to carry it with empty chamber, moving the slide to charge the chamber and cock the hammer.

JK-linux
12-25-2011, 22:30
It's basically an economics argument, which has credence...
Maintenance and logistics tail = time and money. We're broke so that makes sense.
High skill level = training = time and money. Again, makes sense.
No arguments from me that there are economical pistols out there today that require less time, training and money to ship with people going into harm's way. From a financial standpoint, it is a sound conclusion.
I still love my 1911 though and were one to weigh financial concerns differently, I'd say it can still pull it's weight in uniformed service. Small units that have more resources in time and money behind them seem to do just fine with them.

fnfalman
12-25-2011, 22:32
I love perspective; this on the 1911:

"On a unit level, meaning a 1911 issued to each man, I believe it is not an ideal choice in this day and age. Simply put the maintanence and logistics tail that comes with issuing 1911 pistols makes it less than ideal in today's world. It is a pistol that requires hand fitting of many, if not most, components and that is not comparable with the way service grade firearms are maintained today.

Now armorers swap or change parts not 'fit' them - and that is the key difference. In addition it is a pistol that works best with end users with a higher than average skill level that understand the performance benefits a 1911 gives you come with a price. That is a trait that can be found in individuals but not in a department or a unit.

Great gun and a wonderful piece of American history but now it's time as a front line fighting tool in a fighting unit has past - if it was all we had we could make it work but there are better choices for that task."

Merry Christmas!!

What is this "handfitting" are you talking about? When I was an armorer in the US Army, the parts swapped in and out. The only fitting some of the better armorers did was for the target pistols the MTU used.

As far as the M1911 platform requires some sort of advanced degree to operate...lest you forget that most GIs back in 1911 couldn't even spell their names much less being rocket scientists.

Where did this mentality come from? That the M1911 and M16 are somehow "sophisticated devices" that only the most devout, most educated, most intellectual shooters can learn how to operate and maintain?

It's a gun. A damn decent gun, but it ain't no magic.

GVFlyer
12-25-2011, 23:50
My experience may be exceptional, but I have 1911s from Colt, Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Les Baer, Remington, Sig Sauer and Wilson Combat and all have functioned perfectly since round 1.

GVFlyer
12-25-2011, 23:52
…and by the way, I carried my M1911 in condition one until they force issued me a M9.

Jim S.
12-26-2011, 08:00
I have bare bones Mil-Specs that run just fine.
Comparible in price to my Glocks.
They run fine on the stock magazines that came with them and out of the box needed nothing but some oil before shooting.
I consider thm more accurate than I usually shoot and so far they have been perfectly reliable.
It is when you make them tight and "accurized" that you start to have issues with them.
I don't have a problem with 7 + 1 rounds of .45 ACP so I really don't agree with the 1911 being outdated for our modern way of thinking.
I think it is a shame that people now carry guns and no nothing of how they work or how to take care of them.
But then again most people don't even know how to change their oil in their cars or change a flat tire anymore.
It isn't hard to make even a stubborn 1911 work right. You just have to be a little bit smarter than the gun.
I didn't raise my son to be a "use it until it breaks and then get another one" but I guess my way of thinking is as outdated as the 1911's are.
It is a sad commentary on the present and future generations of this country.

bac1023
12-26-2011, 08:44
My experience may be exceptional, but I have 1911s from Colt, Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Les Baer, Remington, Sig Sauer and Wilson Combat and all have functioned perfectly since round 1.

I do as well.

However, I can certainly understand why someone would choose to use another design for the front lines. 1911s aren't for everybody.

chuckman
12-26-2011, 09:28
I do as well.

However, I can certainly understand why someone would choose to use another design for the front lines. 1911s aren't for everybody.

And this, I think, is the essence of Vicker's point.

PlasticGuy
12-26-2011, 12:12
The 1911 is my choice for my personal use. I have seven. They range in price from $600 to $7000. All are flawless with fmj and swc, and six of the seven will run with hollowpoints. This is better reliability that I have had with my Glocks, though the difference is slight enough that it is not statistically significant.

That said, I would go with Glock, XD, or M&P for a department. The fact is that they are more simple to use and maintain, and cheaper. They are better for arming and training a group of people off the street, and that includes our military. My issue sidearm is a Glock, and I can't argue against the logistics behind the choice.

redbrd
12-26-2011, 12:22
I have to agree with the OP. I love the 1911 and believe it was the greatest fighting pistol of its time, but that time is past. Modern fighting pistols are more reliable, less picky on ammo, easier to maintain and higher capacity in a lighter weight.

lawdog734
12-26-2011, 12:40
I would ague that if you want to keep it totally KISS, issue revolvers, very hard to screw them up. But I love the idea of bring your own gun. I love the 1911 and would carry it but I agree with Vickers that the 1911 isn't for everybody but then again no gun is. That is why there is so many successful companies with different designs out there.

fnfalman
12-26-2011, 20:44
I have to agree with the OP. I love the 1911 and believe it was the greatest fighting pistol of its time, but that time is past. Modern fighting pistols are more reliable, less picky on ammo, easier to maintain and higher capacity in a lighter weight.

I'll agree that modern pistols are more reliable if you were to shoot ten thousand rounds through them without cleaning...but pray tell, when are you going to fire ten thousand rounds of ammo without cleaning your pistol?

As far as less picky on ammo, once again, how does that work? Any factory load will work in a good M1911. Hollowpoint, softpoint, ball, it doesn't matter. Now, wadcutter and semiwadcutter rounds are different. I doubt that any modern pistol would eat wadcutter/semiwadcutter rounds without mods to the feed ramp.

Higher capacity and lighter weight? Gee, I don't know...didn't somebody come out with plastic framed high-cap M1911s a few years back?

fnfalman
12-26-2011, 20:45
I do as well.

However, I can certainly understand why someone would choose to use another design for the front lines. 1911s aren't for everybody.

Really? Uncle Sam disagreed with you and Vickers 100-years ago.

MajorD
12-26-2011, 21:02
fal man- 100 years ago the choices were essentially the 1911 -a 7 shot auto, acolt or smith 6 shot revolver or even a 5 shot colt single action army(hammer down on an empty for the last one) so it WAS the best choice 100 years ago- but with so many other choices today there are better choice for MASS issue. while the special ops guys or dedicated users may do just fine with one, it would no longer be the right choice for issue to a large force.

samuse
12-26-2011, 21:57
Seeing as the quote is from Larry Vickers, it carries weight and is something I've come to agree with. I tried to like 1911's but I got sick of dealing with the BS

.......

There are better choices for ME...run what you like for anyone else.


:wavey: Funny how cool guns just aren't when it comes down to actually using 'em huh?

R0CKETMAN
12-27-2011, 06:07
Really? Uncle Sam disagreed with you and Vickers 100-years ago.

and horses were used for transportation. What's your point?

fnfalman
12-27-2011, 07:56
fal man- 100 years ago the choices were essentially the 1911 -a 7 shot auto, acolt or smith 6 shot revolver or even a 5 shot colt single action army(hammer down on an empty for the last one) so it WAS the best choice 100 years ago- but with so many other choices today there are better choice for MASS issue. while the special ops guys or dedicated users may do just fine with one, it would no longer be the right choice for issue to a large force.

Why? Because the troops nowadays are more stupid? They can't handle, gasp, the complexity of the M1911?

GJ1981
12-27-2011, 08:05
:wavey: Funny how cool guns just aren't when it comes down to actually using 'em huh?

Yeah, I learned the hard way. The good thing is how much stuff I can buy after selling ONE...balances out, I guess.

fnfalman
12-27-2011, 08:35
and horses were used for transportation. What's your point?

What's your point? When was the last time you used a modern handgun in a prolonged engagement?

R0CKETMAN
12-27-2011, 09:02
What's your point? When was the last time you used a modern handgun in a prolonged engagement?

and horses were used for transportation. What's your point?

Really? Uncle Sam disagreed with you and Vickers 100-years ago.

You made the statement that the decision "uncle Sam" made 100 years ago would have some impact on the decision "uncle Sam" would make today.

My point is that the options available today were not available 100 years ago.

So, the last time I personally "used a modern handgun in a prolonged engagement" really has no bearing on my previous posts or anything else for that matter. Dig it?

fnfalman
12-27-2011, 09:49
You made the statement that the decision "uncle Sam" made 100 years ago would have some impact on the decision "uncle Sam" would make today.

My point is that the options available today were not available 100 years ago.

Actually, there were at least TWO other .45Auto options back then. But I'll grant the point that there are a lot more than TWo .45Autos running nowadays. But what exactly is the point? The current pistols are "better" on papers, but how do these things translate to real life?

How many people have fought in engagements and burned through so many rounds that the M1911 began to jam?

Consider the amount of fighting done by GIs while using handguns, hell, a Colt SAA would have done fine nowadays.

B.Reid
12-27-2011, 09:55
Seeing as the quote is from Larry Vickers, it carries weight and is something I've come to agree with. I tried to like 1911's but I got sick of dealing with the BS. When you spend a fair chunk of change and get a pistol that won't run, you reconsider your CCW pistol.

I had 3 turds from the SA Custom Shop, including the high and mighty Professional. It is pretty sad when you drop over $2500 and get pistols that couldn't get 100 rounds without a feeding failure out of the box, an improperly fit slide stop that prematurely locked on a loaded mag, which was sent back only to have them screw that up and get a pistol that wouldn't lock open, and then a piss poor barrel fit with lugs rounding and being told "that's normal."

I could add how they used several incorrect parts on my pistols and wouldn't even acknowledge their error or fix it.



There are better choices for ME...run what you like for anyone else.

Larry Vickers is sponsored by Glock, He was a 1911 fan until he got paid to sell Glocks. No credibility there.

GJ1981
12-27-2011, 10:04
Larry Vickers is sponsored by Glock, He was a 1911 fan until he got paid to sell Glocks. No credibility there.

Actually he's sponsored by Wilson Combat too...but whatever you have to tell yourself about "credibility."

Big_Grumpy
12-27-2011, 10:09
"Modern guns are better."
"1911's are better."

They're both blanket statements. Ultimately, shouldn't a person's firearm of choice be a result of what they shoot best? That's the most important part, isn't it?

I have my modern plastic, and my 1911 both in .45. I'm lucky if I can land all my shots in an 8" group at 25 yards with my plastic. Just the opposite with my 1911. Should I carry the plastic just because Mr. Vickers tells me my 1911 is outdated? I think not.

Worrying about maintenance should be secondary. In my case, I wouldn't trade off alleged maintenance issues with what I shoot better. Neither of my .45's have had any serious problems so far having ~700 rounds through the pipe with my plastic and 300 with the 1911. The majority of both being JHP's. I'm not worried about either gun.

R0CKETMAN
12-27-2011, 10:16
Larry Vickers is sponsored by Glock, He was a 1911 fan until he got paid to sell Glocks. No credibility there.

LV was a 19/17 fan long before any relationships with Glock.

B.Reid
12-27-2011, 10:16
Those who know the difference shoot 1911's. For me it's the trigger and not just the trigger pull but the reset. I have not found another handgun with a better or even a close trigger.

fnfalman
12-27-2011, 10:47
"Modern guns are better."
"1911's are better."

They're both blanket statements. Ultimately, shouldn't a person's firearm of choice be a result of what they shoot best? That's the most important part, isn't it?

I have my modern plastic, and my 1911 both in .45. I'm lucky if I can land all my shots in an 8" group at 25 yards with my plastic. Just the opposite with my 1911. Should I carry the plastic just because Mr. Vickers tells me my 1911 is outdated? I think not.

Worrying about maintenance should be secondary. In my case, I wouldn't trade off alleged maintenance issues with what I shoot better. Neither of my .45's have had any serious problems so far having ~700 rounds through the pipe with my plastic and 300 with the 1911. The majority of both being JHP's. I'm not worried about either gun.

Exactly my point.

None of us are somehow going to shoot five different bullet profiles in two hundred thousand different rounds while fighting for our lives.

So, who cares if modern guns are better?

You choose your gun and you choose a load that works well with your gun. If you're unlucky, you may have to fire a couple of mags through it to save your life. But like most people in the USA, you will never have to draw your gun much less firing it off in anger.

esh325
12-27-2011, 12:39
I have limited experience compared to others, but I can't think of many valid situations a Glock or modern handgun might be more reliable then a good 1911. A Glock might run better then a 1911 when it's dirty, but there's really no excuse for having a dirty gun. Perhaps the Glock has less parts to break. Reliability between different designs is not always easy to tell. If you only shoot 100 rounds a month, a theoretically more reliable design wouldn't benefit you at all. Some firearms are only more reliable then other firearms in extreme conditions that the majority of users will never get into. What do you guys think?


Those who know the difference shoot 1911's. For me it's the trigger and not just the trigger pull but the reset. I have not found another handgun with a better or even a close trigger.
Most guns don't, but is it absolutely 100% necessary to have a gun with a trigger as good as a 1911 to shoot accurately with? I have shot many 1911's, and many other handguns, but I still feel comfortable shooting the other ones with triggers not as good as the 1911 accurately. My CZ75B for example.

B.Reid
12-27-2011, 16:09
I have limited experience compared to others, but I can't think of many valid situations a Glock or modern handgun might be more reliable then a good 1911. A Glock might run better then a 1911 when it's dirty, but there's really no excuse for having a dirty gun. Perhaps the Glock has less parts to break. Reliability between different designs is not always easy to tell. If you only shoot 100 rounds a month, a theoretically more reliable design wouldn't benefit you at all. Some firearms are only more reliable then other firearms in extreme conditions that the majority of users will never get into. What do you guys think?



Most guns don't, but is it absolutely 100% necessary to have a gun with a trigger as good as a 1911 to shoot accurately with? I have shot many 1911's, and many other handguns, but I still feel comfortable shooting the other ones with triggers not as good as the 1911 accurately. My CZ75B for example.

It is much easier to shoot accurately with a single action trigger, it is in the shot splits that the 1911 shines. You can do good work with a poor tool, but you can do great work with a good tool. Most people don't know the difference and it probably wont make a difference to them.

esh325
12-27-2011, 16:56
It is much easier to shoot accurately with a single action trigger, it is in the shot splits that the 1911 shines. You can do good work with a poor tool, but you can do great work with a good tool. Most people don't know the difference and it probably wont make a difference to them.
The reason the 1911 got it's reputation for its trigger is because the 1911 has more race gun incarnations then any other pistol out there. The original WW2 1911's I've fired have great trigger pulls for combat pistols, but as do many of the other pistols I've fired. Another example, if you're like somebody who has fired nothing but Glocks all your life and somebody hands you a 1911 your like "OMG WTF BBQ the 1911 has the awesomest trigger ever!!!!" Or like, the 1911 is the only ergonomic pistol to ever be created.

deadite
12-27-2011, 17:25
Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one.

deadite

fnfalman
12-27-2011, 18:02
Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one.

deadite

And they all stink.

deadite
12-27-2011, 18:07
:rofl::rofl:

And they all stink.

CMG
12-27-2011, 18:08
Larry has become a well-known professional spokesman.

B.Reid
12-27-2011, 18:31
The reason the 1911 got it's reputation for its trigger is because the 1911 has more race gun incarnations then any other pistol out there. The original WW2 1911's I've fired have great trigger pulls for combat pistols, but as do many of the other pistols I've fired. Another example, if you're like somebody who has fired nothing but Glocks all your life and somebody hands you a 1911 your like "OMG WTF BBQ the 1911 has the awesomest trigger ever!!!!" Or like, the 1911 is the only ergonomic pistol to ever be created.

As i said in a previous post it is not just the trigger pull that matters, it is the short reset that makes the gun for me.

chuckman
12-29-2011, 07:52
Larry Vickers is sponsored by Glock, He was a 1911 fan until he got paid to sell Glocks. No credibility there.

Um....what? Actually, he isn't paid by Glock (so far as I know), and his custom-built 1911s fetch $5,000 easy. There are few, a small handful, of pro's out there that have the 1911 experience he has...he was the 'builder' of the 1911s for his unit and the primary marksmanship instructor there. He is also one of the designers of a couple H&Ks on the market. To say he has no credibility is a pretty uneducated and very biased statement on your part.

B.Reid
12-29-2011, 08:44
Um....what? Actually, he isn't paid by Glock (so far as I know), and his custom-built 1911s fetch $5,000 easy. There are few, a small handful, of pro's out there that have the 1911 experience he has...he was the 'builder' of the 1911s for his unit and the primary marksmanship instructor there. He is also one of the designers of a couple H&Ks on the market. To say he has no credibility is a pretty uneducated and very biased statement on your part.

I was refering to his TV show that is sponsored by Glock. Of course he is being paid by Glock and that is where he is a sell out. Not that I wouldn't take Glocks money. But the show is becoming the Glock show. So I guess you are the uneducated one. I know that he WAS a 1911 guy but not if you watch his show.

CMG
12-29-2011, 09:40
...To say he has no credibility is a pretty uneducated and very biased statement on your part.

Sensitive are we? Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but I said none of that. :tongueout:

It just so happens I really like two of the last three handguns he's touted, but that's mere coincidence as I tend to make up my own mind, based on personal experience.

chuckman
12-29-2011, 09:42
Carries Glock, Wilson, H&K. Developed in part or in whole 1911 mods, the H&K 45, the H&K P30, the H&K 416, his mods for Glock. Teaches classes on building 1911s, being an armorer for 1911s, taught THE class celebrating the centennial for the 1911. Let me ask, B. Reid: have you had one of his classes or talked with him? No, you are right...I am the "uneducated one." (said sarcastically).

BTW, I agree, I would take Glock's money, too. I haven't seen his show.

chuckman
12-29-2011, 09:45
Sensitive are we? Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but I said none of that. :tongueout:

Not directed to you, my friend. B. Reid was the intended target. Sorry if you got some colleteral. :)

Kimura
12-29-2011, 22:44
Larry Vickers is sponsored by Glock, He was a 1911 fan until he got paid to sell Glocks. No credibility there.

Someone always resorts to this when they disagree with him and it's an unnecessary cheap shot that's lacks credibility in itself. His resume is stellar and I would venture to guess that his gun experience and real world user knowledge far exceeds almost anyone, if not everyone that has posted in this thread. I'm not afraid to say I fall into that category. Btw, he shot and recommended Glocks prior to TacTV.

I love the 1911, but when guys that have resumes like LAV's say the 1911 has been surpassed by other pistols for a unit level fighting weapon, it's worth listening to. He isn't the only one that thinks that. And if you do your research, you'll notice this is an opinion that's becoming more prevalent among dedicated, hard use 1911 users.

glock2740
12-29-2011, 22:53
Larry Vickers is sponsored by Glock, He was a 1911 fan until he got paid to sell Glocks. No credibility there.
You Sir, are a complete and utter bafoon. :upeyes:

B.Reid
12-30-2011, 09:23
You Sir, are a complete and utter bafoon. :upeyes:

I forgot I was on Glock Talk where opinions are not accepted, and personal attacks are the norm. :tongueout:

R0CKETMAN
12-30-2011, 14:25
I forgot I was on Glock Talk where opinions are not accepted, and personal attacks are the norm. :tongueout:

That wasn't an attack, rather an opinion:rofl:

fnfalman
12-30-2011, 15:48
I love the 1911, but when guys that have resumes like LAV's say the 1911 has been surpassed by other pistols for a unit level fighting weapon, it's worth listening to. He isn't the only one that thinks that. And if you do your research, you'll notice this is an opinion that's becoming more prevalent among dedicated, hard use 1911 users.

Maybe if he could enlighten a neophyte such as myself on why he thought this way, I would understand better.

Is it because the M1911 platform is unreliable after firing continuously two or three thousand rounds in combat? If that's the case then I'd like to see some report on battles in which a handgun was required to shoot so much ammunition that it began to malfunction.

Is it because the M1911 is hard to maintain? I could have sworn that you can literally disassemble the gun without any tool other than the supplied GI mag and replace any and all small parts.

I was not a Special Forces/Delta Force/gunsmith extraordinaire. Just a simple GI who went to armorer's school and know how to swap parts out of an M1911. I can definitely use some enlightenment, but it has more than something that a famous-body-so-n-so said so.

While I have zero doubts that most modern handguns are "better" than the M1911 platform, I simply question the practical side of the town. Yes, a Glock can shoot a brazillion numbers of rounds through it before it chokes. But when are you going to shoot a brazillion number of rounds through it in either military combat, police combat or personal defense?

And I still need some 'splanin' about the difficulty of maintaining the M1911 either at shooter level or armorer level.

Nestor
12-30-2011, 16:18
"Better" means nothing for the individual as better is whatever works for one. For the Army or Police Force better usually means cheaper. That's the way it's.

fnfalman
12-30-2011, 16:37
"Better" means nothing for the individual as better is whatever works for one. For the Army or Police Force better usually means cheaper. That's the way it's.

How true.:rofl:

Though I'll bet that if the US Army or any major LEO outfit were to place a 100,000-units order with Colt/SW/Ruger, the prices would be really cheap too.

Let me give you an example: back in 1988-1989 time, when I went through the US Army armorer course, I was shown that the M16A2 costed the US government $135/each. I think that the Colt Sporter A2 at that time was being sold for around $700.

A Steyr sales rep was telling me that Steyr would sell to Uncle Sam the AUG for $190/each. Meanwhile the AUG-SA was being retailed to civilians at $1200/each.

Nestor
12-30-2011, 16:47
How true.:rofl:

Though I'll bet that if the US Army or any major LEO outfit were to place a 100,000-units order with Colt/SW/Ruger, the prices would be really cheap too.

Let me give you an example: back in 1988-1989 time, when I went through the US Army armorer course, I was shown that the M16A2 costed the US government $135/each. I think that the Colt Sporter A2 at that time was being sold for around $700.

A Steyr sales rep was telling me that Steyr would sell to Uncle Sam the AUG for $190/each. Meanwhile the AUG-SA was being retailed to civilians at $1200/each.

Certainly the price would be adjusted accordingly to the size of the order.
I don't know, but the whole idea of "torture test" is as appealing to me as the warm beer. The only related situation of similar nature that I may think of is dropping my gun in snow, sand or mud while on the outdoor range. Otherwise I clean my guns after EACH range session, exactly as I did when I was in the Army. My range sessions never exceed 300 rounds either. My experience with 1911 was positive so far, as with most of my other pistols.

Kimura
12-30-2011, 23:16
Maybe if he could enlighten a neophyte such as myself on why he thought this way, I would understand better.

Is it because the M1911 platform is unreliable after firing continuously two or three thousand rounds in combat? If that's the case then I'd like to see some report on battles in which a handgun was required to shoot so much ammunition that it began to malfunction.

Is it because the M1911 is hard to maintain? I could have sworn that you can literally disassemble the gun without any tool other than the supplied GI mag and replace any and all small parts.

I was not a Special Forces/Delta Force/gunsmith extraordinaire. Just a simple GI who went to armorer's school and know how to swap parts out of an M1911. I can definitely use some enlightenment, but it has more than something that a famous-body-so-n-so said so.

While I have zero doubts that most modern handguns are "better" than the M1911 platform, I simply question the practical side of the town. Yes, a Glock can shoot a brazillion numbers of rounds through it before it chokes. But when are you going to shoot a brazillion number of rounds through it in either military combat, police combat or personal defense?

And I still need some 'splanin' about the difficulty of maintaining the M1911 either at shooter level or armorer level.

I'm sure you read the original post, so you know why he says it. Here is a link to an interview with him and Ken Hackathorn about the HK45 and why it came about, which also touches on this subject. http://pistol-training.com/articles/hk45-interview-with-ken-hackathorn-and-larry-vickers

If you want more information I'm sure you can google search or you can go to M4carbine.net and ask LAV yourself. There is an ask the SME section.

Nestor
12-31-2011, 00:21
Well, I think that while HK45 must be a nice pistol, it's plastic, reliable, simple .45 Problem is that there are many plastic, reliable, simple .45's out there that cost much less than HK. S&W MP45 for example. They decided to "improve" one, unique platform (1911) by creating another one (HK45) that is nor unique nor cost effective. Good luck with that.

lawdog734
12-31-2011, 07:49
Delta is moving toward the glock 21