Off Topic: 1911 gov't-size in .45 or full-size Glock in .45?

I own several glocks, they're the choice for daily Carry almost all the time. They're extremely accurate in my hands out to distances past what a pistol is intended for. I like the height of the bore axis, the recoil impulse, and they point spot on for me because I cut my teeth on a Glock- that also means that I like the trigger( blasphemy,I know ).
That said, I try to always keep a 1911 in the collection and carry it the majority of the time I'm not carrying the glocks, I went 2 years with a 1911 as my every day gun, they point perfectly for me a little more naturally than the Glock does, the triggers are a treat compared to my old faithful G23, recoil impulse is very enjoyable to me, and although not quite as reliable as the glocks have been they're more than reliable enough to be carried. The main things that keep the 1911's out of the top spot are the heavier weight, lower capacity, and the greater maintenance ( I don't want the beauties to rust ).

The Glock solves the only downsides of the 1911 AND I don't care if it gets all scratched up,beat up, or ugly.


In short, I love both but almost always have the Glock on my hip.
 
Cobalt said:
look at the frame rail on a glock and a 1911, no doubt that a stock 1911 will be more accurate. not to mention the better ergonomics.
Click to expand...

The full length rails have little to do with inherent accuracy in and of itself. If that were the case, BHP's, CZ-75/85 series, Star PD's, etc... would be just as accurate. Now, couple that with a fitted slide, barrel, bushing, and you've got something.

A bone stock 1911A1, configured as JMB designed, is no more accurate than a Glock, M&P, XD, nor any other plastic pistol. They were all designed, first and foremost, as combat sidearms for military/PD.

Now, the ergonomics I'll give you, as far as the 1911 vs Glock goes. It's a no contest, for sure.
 
One of the best for the money next step from this one would be custom 1911 (but unfortunately have to sell it) SA 1911-A1 .45 TRP
PwpN9Ok.jpg
 
gruntmedik said:
The full length rails have little to do with inherent accuracy in and of itself. If that were the case, BHP's, CZ-75/85 series, Star PD's, etc... would be just as accurate. Now, couple that with a fitted slide, barrel, bushing, and you've got something.

A bone stock 1911A1, configured as JMB designed, is no more accurate than a Glock, M&P, XD, nor any other plastic pistol. They were all designed, first and foremost, as combat sidearms for military/PD.

Now, the ergonomics I'll give you, as far as the 1911 vs Glock goes. It's a no contest, for sure.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you speak matter of factly on bolded part. As a mechanical engineer, the frame rail length and more contact just makes perfect common sense to me. So I looked it up and there is an entire thread on it. And yes I believe the CZ series is more inherently accurate than glock. As guns go, I really do not consider the glock an accurate gun. My sig p220, HK USP and colt 1911 are all more accurate. And noticeably so.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...guns-can-never-accurate-metal-frame-guns.html
 
Funny, the old 1911 vs Glock debate is at it again. Colbalt, I'm not disagreeing with you but looking at all the ransom rest tests I could quickly find, a stock Glock with regular ammo averages about a 2.5in group at 25 yards. Oddly enough unless you start to look at tests of hand-built 1911s ($$$$) from what I can find it seems most "average" 1911s group about the same and a lot of the cheaper ones produce far larger groups. So as a fellow Mechanical Engineer I must ask are you just basing that on your own experience? I owned a Glock 21SF a few years back that I could repeatedly use to shoot off the caps of 20oz pop bottles at about 15 yards shooting hardball that's pretty darn accurate if you ask me.
 
Cobalt said:
With all due respect, you speak matter of factly on bolded part. As a mechanical engineer, the frame rail length and more contact just makes perfect common sense to me. So I looked it up and there is an entire thread on it. And yes I believe the CZ series is more inherently accurate than glock. As guns go, I really do not consider the glock an accurate gun. My sig p220, HK USP and colt 1911 are all more accurate. And noticeably so.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...guns-can-never-accurate-metal-frame-guns.html
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not an engineer, I work on people. That being said, my take on the OP in that thread, is the accuracy difference is more due to the flex in the plastic vs metal frames. Even says that it doesn't matter that the rails are not continuous. It would be interesting to see the difference a full rail would make in a Glock, or the same length rails in a 1911. I'm sure there would be a difference.

Your Sig, HK, and Colt should be more accurate, as they have a significant price difference.

It's all nit picking. They are both more than accurate enough for the intended purpose as a defensive arm.
 
i really want to get a glock, i do. but i just cant get by the gun being cocked all the time and no safety. it seems it is like carrying a 1911 cocked and no safety on. am i wrong on this?
 
Yes you are, it is more akin to a double action revolver than a 1911 without the safety on. The striker is only partially back (so as not to protrude through the slide face and contact the primer of a round). A Glock trigger cannot be pulled to the rear unless that small lever on the trigger face is first depressed, then they spongy pull you feel till the trigger comes to a fixed stop is actually completing the draw back on the striker (like staging a double action revolver) and then finally the striker is released.
 
I will let this pic explain how I feel.


I think I have added a few more since this pic. I have nothing bad to say about Glock as I have shot tons of them over the years. Somethings just feel better to me.

Garth
 
The 1911 has a definite aesthetic appeal, and feels yummy in the hand. Fun to shoot.

But objectively, the average Glock is far more likely to go bang every time than the average 1911. And you don't have to bend - I mean tune - a Glock extractor to get it running.

For me, 14 rounds in a lighter (and probably more reliable) gun is better than 8 or 9 in a heavier gun. But I get the aesthetic appeal of the 1911. I've got a new Les Baer that's itching for me to play with it. So I love them all. But I'll take the Glock 21 if things get rough.
 
This thread NEEDS a picture the two guns in the title... (SA Operator / G21SF RTF2)


Like I said, I swing both ways on this one (Actually 4-ways when it comes to dark 45's)


However, if you prefer stainless, I have those covered too in 45cal!!!


As for accuracy, once I replaced the RSA in the G21 with a solid stainless guide rod, both the G21 and Operator shoot darn near the same. The solid guide rod made a noticeable increase in accuracy (the G21 wasn't bad to begin with, but now it's scary accurate). As for polymer pistols being accurate or not, my longest witnessed kill with a bone stock factory Gen3 Glock 22 (40S&W) was a ground squirrel I center punched in the chest at 200yds (and I mean -CENTER- punched). Was there luck involved in the exact impact location, yeah of course, but the shot was intentional. Not sure any of the others I have pictured above could have been any more precise and they ALL have had some customizing work in one form or another.

Shoot what proves reliable and the platforms YOU enjoy shooting. As far as I'm concerned, Life's waaaaaay too short to play with only one platform. I just wish I'd be around to play with the technology our grand kids will be debating over in another 100yrs.;)
 
gruntmedik said:
Ok, I'm not an engineer, I work on people. That being said, my take on the OP in that thread, is the accuracy difference is more due to the flex in the plastic vs metal frames. Even says that it doesn't matter that the rails are not continuous. It would be interesting to see the difference a full rail would make in a Glock, or the same length rails in a 1911. I'm sure there would be a difference.

Your Sig, HK, and Colt should be more accurate, as they have a significant price difference.

It's all nit picking. They are both more than accurate enough for the intended purpose as a defensive arm.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The whole package has to be there. Just because you have a full rail, does not mean you have a good gun, lol. I do know that both of these guns will go down in history as great sidearms. The 1911 is there and I think the glock will be as well.
 
Lots of good information above. Am old enough to have handled and shot most of the commonly carried world handguns. Own three 1911 types - two Colts, and one Para Ord. All are great at what they do, but most often CCW one of my six Glocks. Good luck in your choice. And everyone have a Very Merry Christmas!
 
I may be a bit late on this one but here is my 2 cents:

I prefer 1911's and here is why, pure and simple out of the box accuracy.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Glock hater. I have a Glock 22 that I have carried since 1992. I love it. Because of the 22 I bought a Glock 21. I love the 13+1 capacity. Anyways, I have always wanted a 1911 and finally got one. I went to the range and shot both the Glock 21 and the 1911 (Sig GSR). Same box of ammo, same distance. The 21 shot paper plate groups. The 1911 shot sub-3" groups. Enough said. The Glock 21 is now gone from my collection and now I have 4 Kimber 1911's (all of which shoot very well with not a single problem, even suppressed).

My friends, who have never shot a 1911, have shot my Kimbers and literally laughed and had to stop after 3 rounds stating, "*%$# this is the most accurate pistol I have ever shot."

Something to be said about Glock and the finish, the slide does not rust. My 22 has wear (coating is gone) on the edges of the slide. I live in a sub-tropical, high humidity state . Needless to say I sweat a lot in the summer and carry in the small of my back. The Glock has NO signs of rust while my stainless 1911 does just from handling and wearing.

Anyway, I swear by the 1911.

Merry Christmas all you Hogs.
 
that is a tough question. I have been thinking about it for a week. if I had to, I would choose glock. less finicky, more resistant to life. but fortunately I have both.
 
Garth Reckner said:
I will let this pic explain how I feel.


I think I have added a few more since this pic. I have nothing bad to say about Glock as I have shot tons of them over the years. Somethings just feel better to me.

Garth
Click to expand...

I like your style Garth. 1911 for me, it just feels right. I have smaller hands and a Glock .45 doesn't fit me very well, and I don't care for the grip angle. The 43 isn't too bad but that's not a .45. Nothing against polymer frames, I have a couple of those too. I hope HK makes the VP in .45, my 9 is a great shooter.
 
Last edited:
Both pistols (plain Jane .45) are about equally accurate out of the box with ammo they like. I shoot both firearms with similar results. Ranson rest tests will illustrate this. People tend to shoot their 1911 better because they are an easier firearm to shoot. They weight more, have better weight distribution with a lighter, crisper trigger action. The grip angle of the 1911 is sheer perfection.
It's not the arrow, it's the Indian. With proper shooting technique both these defensive handguns can shoot accurately out of the box without modification.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top