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

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'm in. Thanks for the chance. Very generous of you!!! [emoji16][emoji56][emoji23]



•••••••••••••••

Sent from my mind....using Tap-a-Thought. (tm)
 
It is important to distinguish between mechanical accuracy and shoot-ability. In a ranson test OOTB 1911s and glocks may be similar but as I said in an earlier post, most people with equal hours behind both guns will shoot a 1911 style better. The trigger is more precise and the lock time is shorter on a 1911. To all those who post about how well they shoot glocks, I would bet that with equal practice you could shoot tighter groups and shoot them faster with high end 1911s. Discussing the ranson accuracy of 1911s as a class is somewhat ridiculous because the group is now so heterogeneous results will vary widely, while glocks are the benchmark for standardization.

--Pulling Glock triggers feel like turning the crank on a childs jack in the box toy ... just say'n :D

--There is a reason the uspsa open class guns are built on 1911 frames.

--There is a reason you don't see many glocks at bullseye/precision pistol competitions.

--If I had to crawl through the mud to get to the combat zone, I would take a glock, they are models of practicality and reliability.

--Glock barrels do not fully support the case and many people (though opinions differ) feel that +p+ ammo is unsafe to shoot from glocks, but hey they're your fingers :p
 
Put more succinctly, this is the glock trigger experience...

"aaaalmost there", "stay on target", "aaaaalmost there"

[video=youtube;VAFM3P1Mt10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFM3P1Mt10[/video]
 
JoshH said:
Just for the heck of it, let's see where we all stand. When you respond, tell your choice (obviously) and why it's your pick. For me, it goes something like this:

1911. I shoot with them better than all of the Glocks I've tried, and I love the extra heft over the polymer Glock. It feels right AND looks right. Not to mention I'm sentimental to the design, because a Springfield 1911 has been my dad's favorite and most-used pistol ever since he bought it 10 or so years ago.

To your corners, folks :D

EDIT: I'm not looking for recommendations, this is just sort of a poll to see which way hogs lean in general.
Click to expand...

There is a new manufacturer, Hudson, that is releasing a new pistol next year that has the best of both worlds, trigger and grip like a 1911 with the takedown and upper of a Glock


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
mach 5 said:
To all those who post about how well they shoot glocks, I would bet that with equal practice you could shoot tighter groups and shoot them faster with high end 1911s. Discussing the ranson accuracy of 1911s as a class is somewhat ridiculous because the group is now so heterogeneous results will vary widely, while glocks are the benchmark for standardization.

Apples and Oranges. I think that everyone agrees that a high end, tuned, 1911 will be more accurate

--Pulling Glock triggers feel like turning the crank on a childs jack in the box toy ... just say'n :D

--There is a reason the uspsa open class guns are built on 1911 frames.

There is a reason that Nascar race cars are better than your car.

--There is a reason you don't see many glocks at bullseye/precision pistol competitions.

Apples and Oranges, again.

--If I had to crawl through the mud to get to the combat zone, I would take a glock, they are models of practicality and reliability.

And, there you go. Stock vs Stock. Thank you.
Click to expand...


response in blue...
 
resinguy said:
response in blue...
Click to expand...

Hey Resin, I came off a little harder than I meant to on the glocks. I have plenty and respect them for what they are and what they do well. I do think that you mistook several of my points however.

I am not comparing a $5000 competition 1911 to a stock glock. My point is there is a reason why people looking for the ultimate in speed or accuracy/shootability use a 1911 as a platform to begin the modification. If you had to modify a car for track use you would not start with a jeep (glock); something like a corvette (1911) would be a better staring platform. Likewise if you were going to customize an off road vehicle, starting with a corvette would be a losing option. Each has its place, but I am sometimes frustrated that while most 1911 fans freely admit the practicality and reliability of glocks, glock fans seem reticent to acknowledge the shooting performance advantage of even most stock 1911s.

For what its worth I have a couple of stock paraordinace guns that I bought when I was a student, and I still shoot them faster and with tighter groups than any generation of glock, furthermore when I take total newbies out, they almost invariably shoot the paras better, much less a tuned 1911 with even a $100 trigger job.

I freely admit that for many applications glocks are the weapon of choice, incredibly reliable, and more than accurate enough.

peace
 
I think it an obvious statement that a 1911 is an easier platform to shoot than a Glock. No one will mistaken a stock Glock as a competitive firearm. From my experience, people who can't shoot a Glock, can't shoot a 1911 that well either. You either have basic shooting fundamentals, or you don't. A little practice goes a long way. If a person can't shoot a Glock, then don't buy one.

I own and love both platforms and never found a Glock trigger so detrimental to accuracy for defensive purposes that I worry about it. While no 1911 and by no means wonderful, I've never found a Glock trigger that horrible or unbearable. There is a difference between competitive shooting and defensive carry. A person with either handgun would be well equipped. Personally, I've never understood the polarization that this debate creates or why people get so fired up about objects. Both are historic and iconic firearms.
 
Last edited:
The Glock vs. 1911 debate is something that will never see resolution and, frankly, probably doesn't need it. As an NRA instructor, I always advise people to use/carry whatever they shoot best. For me, it's a 1911, so that is my EDC (usually a commander size S&W E series w/aluminum frame to lighten the carry weight). Glocks are a very reliable firearm and, if you can shoot one well, it makes sense to use one over a 1911. Personally I prefer Springfield XDm or Sig's P320 for my polymer striker-fired pistols, but I shoot them better and I like the modularity of the P320 to adapt it to various uses/carry styles. But again - use what works for you.

- Marc
 
Last edited:
mach 5 said:
Hey Resin, I came off a little harder than I meant to on the glocks. I have plenty and respect them for what they are and what they do well. I do think that you mistook several of my points however.

I am not comparing a $5000 competition 1911 to a stock glock. My point is there is a reason why people looking for the ultimate in speed or accuracy/shootability use a 1911 as a platform to begin the modification. If you had to modify a car for track use you would not start with a jeep (glock); something like a corvette (1911) would be a better staring platform. Likewise if you were going to customize an off road vehicle, starting with a corvette would be a losing option. Each has its place, but I am sometimes frustrated that while most 1911 fans freely admit the practicality and reliability of glocks, glock fans seem reticent to acknowledge the shooting performance advantage of even most stock 1911s.

For what its worth I have a couple of stock paraordinace guns that I bought when I was a student, and I still shoot them faster and with tighter groups than any generation of glock, furthermore when I take total newbies out, they almost invariably shoot the paras better, much less a tuned 1911 with even a $100 trigger job.

I freely admit that for many applications glocks are the weapon of choice, incredibly reliable, and more than accurate enough.

peace
Click to expand...


Fair enough, thanks.


Fiddleback Outpost said:
The Glock vs. 1911 debate is something that will never see resolution and, frankly, probably doesn't need it. As an NRA instructor, I always advise people to use/carry whatever they shoot best. For me, it's a 1911, so that is my EDC (usually a commander size S&W E series w/aluminum frame to lighten the carry weight). Glocks are a very reliable firearm and, if you can shoot one well, it makes sense to use one over a 1911. Personally I prefer Springfield XDm or Sig's P320 for my polymer striker-fired pistols, but I shoot them better and I like the modularity of the P320 to adapt it to various uses/carry styles. But again - use what works for you.

- Marc
Click to expand...


Horses for courses. And I have no horse in this race. I have owned a Gen 1 G21 for some years, and a G17 before that; and come to realize that the 21 is too thick for my hand. Never even shot a 1911 type. But as an only occasional shooter, it seems like the manual of arms for a striker-fired pistol makes sense for folks like me. Being a lazy gun owner that wont sit down and clean his gun after every shooting session, the reliability of a Glock appeals, as well.

YMMV.
 
When I was pistol hunting, years ago, I asked a lot of LEO's which pistol they preferred and everyone of them, except two, said Glock.
The other two preferred H&K.
But, get what you like.
rolf
 
Neither, my 45 is a S&W 4506.
IMG_1614a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Warbow150 said:
My hands still remember those damned decockers and malfunction clearance drills. Rip and tear, rip and tear...
Click to expand...

Actually I sort of like the positive grip on the slide the decockers provide. The darn thing won't slip even if your hands are sweaty or greasy.
 
smith357 said:
Actually I sort of like the positive grip on the slide the decockers provide. The darn thing won't slip even if your hands are sweaty or greasy.
Click to expand...
That's because it's cheese grating your finger bones. :)
In all seriousness, mine wasn't too horrible except for the decockers. Thing would feed empty cases and never really malfed unless you set one up for training. Shot fine, just like most all of them do nowadays. From my point of view we're in an era of amazing choices for pistols. Firearms in general, I guess. When one considers them for what they are, tools, there's lots of very fine options. Plenty of reliable pistols and revolvers to choose from, one just has to figure out which tool suits them best. Trigger pull, grip angle, mag releases, safeties, decockers. All those are training matters. Once a guy is proficient he ought to be able to pick virtually any of them and get good results. No magic to it. Just hold the gun still and run the trigger smoothly. If you can do that you can shoot a Glock, 1911, Sig, Smith, etc, etc, etc. Keeping it gassed up and in the fight is pretty much the same drill for all of them.
Anyhow, I digest...
 
I was a fan of the 4506 as well, bought mine new in 1989 (it and a new 4inch 686 arrived at my shop the same day for me as a surprise from the Australian agent at the time), it came from the factory with the arched backstrap (grip) and I ended up swapping it out for a flat version that improved the firearm for me 100%. I would love one back again now !
 
shinyedges said:
I agree for the most part, but piston driven rifles for instance can go many times longer without lube than dgi.
Click to expand...

In general, maybe. In specific, not always, and I have the experience to back it up. SIG516 will choke on less than 60 rounds of Independence ammo, consistently, and become a straight-pull bolt gun. My Rock River DGI will eat it as long as I've tried shooting it. I've not bogged it down with it. So, my 516 has been relegated to safe queen and the occasional target shoot (it IS reasonably accurate); any DGI gets the nod for a working gun.

Similar situation with 1911's and Glocks. I've got hundreds of rounds through a Colt 1911, and over a thousand rounds (easy) through a G19. The 1911 started choking on .45 hardball. The ONE time my G19 failed me was at a match, when a friend found a couple rounds laying on the ground and dared me to use them. I accepted. Shot them in the next stage. One went bang and the gun cycled fine; the other was a dud and didn't fire. That is the ONE time I've gotten to unexpectedly practice a failure drill with that G19.

I've seen numerous stock and doctored 1911's fail in matches. Some to the point the gun was done for the match. I've never seen a stock Glock fail. I've seen doctored Glocks hiccup, but never fail to the point being out for the match.

Either a 1911's or a Glock's accuracy is going to be limited by my ability. But the Glock is going to be reliable. I'll take a Glock any day as a working gun. If you just want to plink around and have nothing on the line, a 1911 is ok. But otherwise, I'll take a Glock, CZ, FN, S&W, SIG, or HK (except P7) if I have to put my life on the line for it. I guess that kinda means the 1911 is at the bottom of my list of pistols I'd trust. Except maybe a BHP (very little experience with those; not many people shoot them in matches). The only guns I've seen be consistently less reliable than the 1911 is an old Luger, and early post-WWII P-38's.

I like the 1911. I like the lines. It is practically a piece of art. And the history can't be beat. And I love my Colt. But it is historical memorabilia for me. Great to look at. Fun to shoot as a connection to history. It when it comes time to turn my back on the static range and take up arms for work, I'll put it in its case, and grab one of the other ones mentioned above, but preferably Glock. I long refused to have one. But now that I have, I trust the design.
 
Dang.... my problem is I love them all. It's more expensive that way.

G21 just doesn't fit my hand well enough to comfortably shoot. The XDM in 45 does work well for me so I do have one of those. I like my G19 and G23 just fine though.

Just seems to me that guns are like knives. Even with lots of Busse's I still have interest in other knives.

My 1911's are my favorite pistols to shoot just based on how well I shoot them. The single action trigger makes accuracy easier to achieve than the DAO style trigger on the combat tupperware pistols. But still.... I own, carry and shoot all types of pistols and revolvers. Life is way to short to limit yourself to a particular platform. :D

One thing I would say regarding the 1911 that seems to be recurring in this thread is the thought that they must be babied and kept spotless and clean to function. This is simply NOT the case. In my experience they require no more maintenance than the Glock or other similar pistols. All of my 1911's run at 100% clean or not. The don't need to be babied.

A few of my friends... STI, Dan Wesson, Les Baer, Ed Brown... All more expensive than Glock but all every bit as reliable as Glock.

Bottom line to me is that all guns are fun... play with as many as possible!

IMG_0949.jpg


.
 
mach 5 said:
Put more succinctly, this is the glock trigger experience...

"aaaalmost there", "stay on target", "aaaaalmost there"

[video=youtube;VAFM3P1Mt10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFM3P1Mt10[/video]
Click to expand...

That's why you replace the factory trigger mechanism
 
I recently put a lighter connector on my G19 and have found it a touch to light for my taste as a carry pistol. I did however polished (with Flitz) some internals on a G17 and found the results rewarding. The other day, I picked up a Vickers Glock 17 and hit the range. A gentleman I see there often shoots competitively and came over to see my firearm. He seemed surprised with the feel of the stock trigger. Man, I'm really loving the Vickers G17
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top