1911 vs Glock

After skimming this thread, I didn't see this quote:

"1911s are what you show your friends. Glocks are what you show your enemies."

If someone has already posted that, it bears repeating. Glocks and 1911s are both excellent weapons. There is a lot more work involved in owning and maintaining a 1911 than there is with a Glock. You can buy a Glock, load it up, and be supremely confident that it will function 100% with whatever ammo you feed it, bone stock. You'd be a fool to do that with a 1911. To get a dead-nuts reliable 1911, you have to either spend a good deal of money, or be very lucky, or both. That said, a properly spec'd and tuned 1911 makes the Glock look like a farm implement by comparison.

To say whether the Glock or the 1911 is "better" is impossible, both have their uses and places. I own and love both.
 
I have handguns in .22LR, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9x21, .40 S&W, .44 Special, .44 mag and .45 ACP. I shoot and enjoy them all. If I had to select just one to use the rest of my life, it would be my SIG GSR 1911.

My real plan is to own at least one firearm in all of the most commonly available calibers. and gauges. (.38/.357, 9mm,.40 S&W, .45 ACP, .22 LR, .223, .308, .30-06, .243, .270 Win., 7.62x39, 20 ga, 12 ga.) I am lacking only the .308, and expect to remedy this shortly.
 
IMO it is all about "fit"... Whatever feels better in your hand you will most likely shoot better (given similar trigger pulls, etc.)...

That said, I find the Glock to thick/blocky, and do not shoot them well.

Now, a 1911 or a Sig just fit my hands, and I shoot them a lot better..

IMO you can't go wrong with a 1911, Glock, Sig, HK, S&W, etc.... So rent/try a few and pick the one you shoot better.
 
IMO it is all about "fit"... Whatever feels better in your hand you will most likely shoot better (given similar trigger pulls, etc.)...

That said, I find the Glock to thick/blocky, and do not shoot them well.

Now, a 1911 or a Sig just fit my hands, and I shoot them a lot better..

IMO you can't go wrong with a 1911, Glock, Sig, HK, S&W, etc.... So rent/try a few and pick the one you shoot better.

+1. I go with fit first if I'm undecided between two quality firearms.
I'm a 1911 guy, but do own and shoot G 23 also---Still like 1911.
Both 1911 and certain Glock models have .22 conversion kit which you can buy and practice with.
 
Last edited:
I think people who don't like the fit of Glocks should check out a Generation 4 version. I bought a Gen. 3 version G-19 and I agree that it was a bit blocky. Too wide one way and too short the other. I sold it fast then I bought the Gen 4 G-17 and it sure feels good in hand and came with two more backstraps for adjustments to the grip.
 
Have not had a chance to read all of the posts but I am going to lazy out my opinion anyway...

As my good friend told me once....

"I would never feel under-gunned with a Glock 19." Or words to that effect.

After several years of tinkering around...I think he is right.

Sell the G21, Buy a G19 ...and then spend your money on ammo and quality magazines.. You won't be sorry...and you won't be broke from feeding the 1911.

Plus there are any number of 9MM carbines available for a COMBO gun deal....

That is all I have to say about that.

Shane
 
IMO it is all about "fit"... Whatever feels better in your hand you will most likely shoot better (given similar trigger pulls, etc.)...

That said, I find the Glock to thick/blocky, and do not shoot them well.

Now, a 1911 or a Sig just fit my hands, and I shoot them a lot better..

IMO you can't go wrong with a 1911, Glock, Sig, HK, S&W, etc.... So rent/try a few and pick the one you shoot better.

Not to side with one or the other (I own both). But those that think the Glock is too thick. Lay it down next to a 1911. Overall width of a (9mm/40/357 frame) Glock is less than the 1911 due to the slide catch, safety, and grip width. The squared off edges make the Glock seem thicker, but it was actually one of the thinner 9mm guns on the market up until Kahr and recent releases of slimline 9mm compacts.

My Sig P6 and HK P7, thin single-stack 9mm guns, are also both slightly thicker overall than my Glock.

My CZ P01 with thin VZgrips G10 grips or CZ aluminum grips actually comes closest to overall thickness of a Glock with thinner slide and grips. It also has similar weight.

All the competing polymer double-stack guns (XD, XDm, M&P) are thicker than a Glock.

I sound like a Glock fanboy. I only own one, it is loved little and shot/carried often. And pretty much all the thicker guns do fit human hands better due to proper shape.
 
A 1911 is an acquired taste. I have all of the above and I love them all. I am particularly partial to the 1911 though. It's a hundred year old design that has been tweaked in marginal ways over time and is still trusted in combat situations today.... how can you argue with that? Having said that glocks are cheap, uncomplicated, simple point and click interfaces that go bang every time you pull the trigger ... to use an old sun microsystems marketing phrase "relentless reliability" Neither of these is necessarily better than the other it's all in what you want. If you WANT to change it up a little and have something different than what you already have buy the 1911. If you prefer to use something familiar then you should just buy another glock.

Having said all of this I won't carry for protection unless it's in a hard sided holster that completely covers the trigger guard because they don't even have a semblance of real safety. The "safe action" system is a joke. But this is also what makes them so simple to operate that any dumb cop in the field that can't shoot can use them.
 
After skimming this thread, I didn't see this quote:

"1911s are what you show your friends. Glocks are what you show your enemies."

If someone has already posted that, it bears repeating. Glocks and 1911s are both excellent weapons. There is a lot more work involved in owning and maintaining a 1911 than there is with a Glock. You can buy a Glock, load it up, and be supremely confident that it will function 100% with whatever ammo you feed it, bone stock. You'd be a fool to do that with a 1911. To get a dead-nuts reliable 1911, you have to either spend a good deal of money, or be very lucky, or both. That said, a properly spec'd and tuned 1911 makes the Glock look like a farm implement by comparison.

To say whether the Glock or the 1911 is "better" is impossible, both have their uses and places. I own and love both.

Sorry but in my experience of decades of 1911 ownership my view is that the myth of the 1911 that needs tons of work to be reliable and accurate is just that a myth.

I used to shoot expert year after year on the USMC pistol range with rattle trap bone stock and beat to hell 1911s. I didn't experience the failures commonly discussed online any more than I did when we went to M92s and no more than any other semi auto I owned.

In fact for 16 yrs as a Marine I never owned a fancy 1911. I didn't buy a Kimber until my first civilian job and didn't buy a Wilson until I became an executive.

As I said earlier the chief issue with 1911s are people taking sandpaper, dremels and other stuff and polishing feed ramps and slide rails and other garbage. The other issue that is prevalent are magazines. The 1911 mag is definitely a weak point in the system. Bone stock mags are often garbage. And I have seen many a man buy a very expensive 1911 and aside from the mags that it came with they often buy surplus mags out of a box at a range or gun show/gun store.

The 3rd issue is limp wristing. A 1911 has to be held and shot properly if you limp wrist it it will fail.

4th is improper weighted or worn springs. Especially on used pistols. Anyone buying a used 1911 regardless of round count should probably put factory spec recoil spring, firing pin spring, etc. and maybe a new extractor. Just to be safe. I have seen many a 1911 fail due to auto shok buffers and other goofy gimmicks. I don't think 1911s need fancy springs and gimmicks at least in my experience.

Expensive 1911s that have tight rails that need to have 500-1K rounds through it before they function properly is a dubious issue to me. But I freely admit I have no real information or data etc to confirm or deny it but it just seems to me that if a pistol is built properly, maintained properly and lubricated correctly you should have to wear it down to make it work right.

Many 1911 fans respond to Glock claims of invincibility by discussing the unsupported chamber issue of a Glock. I own a G21 and love it but I am not a Glock expert by any means. Mine seems to have an adequate chamber so not sure if that is a caliber issue with other glocks but KBs on glocks I think are over stated and often linked to reloads. Friends don't let friends shoot reloads :) And I mean reloads done by someone else. I don't hand my buddies reloads I have done and don't shoot theirs. I probably shouldn't even shoot my own reloads as goofy as I am and my knack for being distracted by shiny objects. :D

Ultimately, I don't think you need a super duper expensive 1911. I am fairly certain that most respectable gun makers can put out a reliable and accurate 1911 that is an effective handgun right out of the box.

Shooting good ammo, in good serviceable magazines, practicing proper maintenance and lube instructions; a new 1911 should need little if any tweaking to have it perform exceedingly well out of the box.

BTW my Glock21 has had more "upgrading" than any 1911 I have owned. I have an after market trigger, Hogue (I think) rubber grip, extended slide release, extended mag release, a poison dart dispenser and martini maker (stirred kind) pen and pencil set holder and an after market barrel.

Pulling a stock Glock trigger is as cringe worthy as fingernails on a chalkboard. J/K

Anyhow that is my opinion on the matter. A very wordy and boring way to say, I like em both.
 
I have handguns in .22LR, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9x21, .40 S&W, .44 Special, .44 mag and .45 ACP. I shoot and enjoy them all. If I had to select just one to use the rest of my life, it would be my SIG GSR 1911.

My real plan is to own at least one firearm in all of the most commonly available calibers. and gauges. (.38/.357, 9mm,.40 S&W, .45 ACP, .22 LR, .223, .308, .30-06, .243, .270 Win., 7.62x39, 20 ga, 12 ga.) I am lacking only the .308, and expect to remedy this shortly.

A really fun and excellent piece of 308 gear to own is a M1A type rifle with a JAE100 stock on it like this:

IMG_0432-1.jpg


Very accurate set up and the JAE stock while a bit pricey comes with spacers etc that allow you to truly customize the fit. And extremely easy to do it at home on your own with the included hardware and tool. It has aluminum bedding blocks and attaches to the stock just like the M1A standard stock

I haven't visited their sight lately but I am anxiously awaiting a stock for my precision 300 win mag based on a Rem 700 Sendero.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but in my experience of decades of 1911 ownership my view is that the myth of the 1911 that needs tons of work to be reliable and accurate is just that a myth.

What I said, or meant to say, was that to get a completely reliable 1911, you really need to pay more than what you would have to pay to get a reliable Glock. I would pull a brand new Glock out of a box and expect it to be ready to fight right then and there. I would not have that confidence in any 1911 in the Glock's price range. With an Ed Brown or a Wilson? Maybe.

Compared to the 1911, Glocks are incredibly simple and economical to manufacture. They are mass produced, and every G19 ever made is pretty much exactly the same as every other G19 ever made. You can take two Glocks made in different years, swap the frames, slides and barrels around, and both guns will run perfectly fine. (I've done this) You can even swap parts from different models and the things will still work. I've shot my 26 with a 19 barrel in it, and it worked just fine. The sights were even still aligned! Try doing that with a 1911! You might be able to get away with that on old mil-spec models, ( even that is questionable) but no way that's happening with most guns nowadays- the tolerances are too tight, there are too many variables.

I have never had any problems with my 1911, but it cost pretty much twice what any of my Glocks cost, and have added even more to that cost with aftermarket parts and accessories. And even at almost $1,000, I wouldn't have trusted my Kimber enough to bet my life on it before I put it through its paces at the range.

This is not to disparage the 1911 or anyone else's opinion or experience, it's just my opinion based on personal observations. :)
 
you're asking the wrong guy here as I will be more biased to Glock.. simply bullet proof..

however, I love the 1911 for its historic value as well as its function.. even though I've seen a malfunction locked and loaded Colt where it fired!!!:eek: that's right, locked back and fired !!!

Springfield makes many affordable models as do others......... some are insanely overpriced though.. but then again its nostalgic..
 
My $450 Springfield 1911-A1 has been very reliable with factory 7 round magazines. I've tried a few different 8 rounders with it and about 25% to 40% of the time there are problems with the slide not going back into battery. My Ruger 10/22 is the same way with some After market mags. Works flawlessly with the 10 round Rugers but some of the bannana clips hickup.

The really small glocks and XD's don't work for me. They twist in my hand something awefull and are just uncomfortable. Some Full and Midsized Glocks work and I love the Springfield XD and XD-m's. The 1911's and XD's point naturally for me, where as some of the Glocks do not. Ruger's SR-9 and SR-40's also work for me. Might make one of them my CCW pistol.

I always reccomend that someone finds a pistol that fits them and practice, practice, pratice! :thumbup:
 
The 1911 has a certain aesthetic and historic appeal, is more customizable, and just feels darn good in the hand.

For my purposes, Glocks are in all other respects "superior". Fewer parts to go wrong, no need to bend the extractor (euphemistically called "tuning"), lighter, higher capacity, easier to field strip and detail strip, and so forth. And though there is much debate about this, I do believe that Glocks are much more likely to consistently feed and eject straight out of the box than are 1911s.

I own 11 Glocks and for years carried them concealed, until I migrated to pocket carry - where neither Glocks nor 1911s are any darn good. :)
 
The 1911 has a certain aesthetic and historic appeal, is more customizable, and just feels darn good in the hand.

For my purposes, Glocks are in all other respects "superior". Fewer parts to go wrong, no need to bend the extractor (euphemistically called "tuning"), lighter, higher capacity, easier to field strip and detail strip, and so forth. And though there is much debate about this, I do believe that Glocks are much more likely to consistently feed and eject straight out of the box than are 1911s.

I own 11 Glocks and for years carried them concealed, until I migrated to pocket carry - where neither Glocks nor 1911s are any darn good. :)


Whatcha carry now Noodle?
 
If you already have a glock .45, why not try a Kahr 9mm. I own a Kahr K9 (great gun and solid, but more difficult to take apart), a Sig 229, 9mm (easy to take apart, but not for me with accuracy) and S & W 622 .22 (got at 18). I also shot a 1911 at a range, very accurate and fun to shoot and on the same day shot a Bersa .22. The Bersa was actually fun to shoot. I find the .22s a blast to shoot and cheap.
Instead of a 1911, I would get a Smith and Wesson 612, .22 caliber revolver and a Ruger .22.
 
Back
Top