The 1911--this is ridiculous!

[JohnKSa]

Just read an article in one of the better gun magazines by a gun writer that I respect more than most of them.

He was reviewing a polymer DAO pistol (not a Glock). Or at least that's what he was SUPPOSED to be reviewing.

The reviewed gun's model is mentioned 10 times in the article. The 1911 was mentioned the SAME number of times. He mentioned some other pistols as well with the result that he actually talks more in the article about other guns (primarily the 1911) than he did about the pistol he was supposed to be reviewing.

He also included a long paragraph on 9mm vs .45 even though the gun being reviewed was chambered in neither of those calibers.

I don't believe that after reading that article anyone could say with a straight face that it's the Glock fans that are over-the-top in their unwavering and irrational support of their favorite pistol.

The 1911 is a great pistol that can be easily modified to do several jobs well. However, to say or imply that it is the best pistol ever and that all other pistols regardless of action type and caliber should be compared to it is ridiculous.

It's bad enough that the gunrags dedicate an inordinate amount of space to articles about the 1911--now that even the articles that aren't supposed to be about the 1911 actually ARE about it, it's getting to be a waste to read them. Might as well just merge all the major handgun mags and call it 1911 monthly...

 

[smokin54]

You are beginning to understand why I no longer subscribe to any of the gun magizines .
Years ago I came to the conclusion that the articles were just advertising in disguise .
If you reveiw a new gun for a magiazine and give it a poor review how many more are they going to send you ? Are they going to spend there advertising dollars ? You had best find something good to write.
I do know a part time gunwriter fairly well and he has refused to write reveiws on a couple of products that I know of , He could find nothing positive to write .

 

[Handy]

Was it Walt Rauch? That guy has editorial alzheimers.

 

[Sir William]

Well, they know ar least ONE person read the article. The publisher and editor will give that author more work in the future.

 

[JohnKSa]

No, this guy is actually a very competent writer and normally I really enjoy his material. He's one of the few guys who you know has the experience to back up his assertions.

He's one of my favorite gun writers and I own at least one book by him--maybe two, can't remember at the moment. That's why I'm not giving particulars on the article though--I don't mean to pound on this guy, it just struck me as ridiculous. More to the point, it struck me as symptomatic of what's going on in a lot of the gunrags these days.

A very few (perhaps knowledgeable) very opinionated bunch of folks are effectively running the gun industry. Someone the other day was asking why there were so many new 1911 pistols available from so many different makers these days. This is one of the reasons.

Another example from another article--can't remember the author of this one--was a gun writer who reviewed a break-open single shot. He mentioned that the ejection was not to his liking (too strong--he's a reloader and didn't want to hunt for the empties) so he complained to the company and they changed the ejector. Not just on his gun but on ALL of their guns. Now THAT is SUPREME egotism. To have a gun company change something, not due to a functional issue but just due to personal preference.

These guys may know a lot, but they need to make the distinction in a review between personal preferences and what's really good and bad about a gun. The idea that a person pressures a gun company to change a whole line because of personal preference strikes me as just plain wrong... I could see them suggesting that an alternate part be made available, for example, but NOT just saying--"do it this way on all of them because I don't like to look around for my empties." Heck, it's highly unlikely that this guy will ever even buy a low-end break-open single shot.

Kind of like the article I started out talking about. I seriously doubt that someone buying a modern budget polymer/stainless DAO hi-cap pistol in .40 S&W really cares much about how the pistol compares to an all metal SAO .45 ACP lo-cap pistol designed 100 years ago. If you're going to make comparisons, there are certainly more reasonable comparisons to be made. Besides, the review wasn't really a review. It was more like--"I really like the 1911 and here's why. This gun isn't a 1911, it's inferior to the 1911 in these ways. Nonetheless I am able to say a few good things about it in the name of bringing advertising dollars to this magazine and therefore paying my salary."

The kicker is that when you read the article carefully, it becomes apparent that he never even fired the gun in question. He makes a recoil comparison (to the 1911, what else?) but it's not with the reviewed gun, it's with a gun having a similar design in the same caliber. What a waste of the time required to read (and write) the article!

 

[liliysdad]

Sounds to me the guy knew what he was talking about, and the manufacturer listened. Its not egotistical if he's right.

As for the comment concerning the 1911, all auto pistols in a fighting round should be compared to the 1911. Maybe not as much as they are, but they should all be compared, as it is the benchmark for all fighting guns, IMO.

The same thing can be said for the Colt Python, or a Triple Lock Smith. All DA wheelgins are compared to these two, as they should be.

 

[JohnKSa]

it is the benchmark for all fighting guns

That might have been a reasonable statement 50 years ago, but it's not anymore. It's heavy, shoots a round that is largely ineffective against even the lowest levels of body armor, is dramatically limited in terms of capacity compared to most other full sized handguns, and does not have a firing pin safety.

It has some good points--no question. I'm not trying to turn this into a 1911 bashing thread just saying that when I read an article on a polymer frame DAO pistol I don't expect to be assailed with 1911 propaganda.

As for the ejection on the break-open single shot. A good many folks (I would think the majority) like a strong ejector on a break-action gun. The only reason to have a weak ejector is if you handload. Even then, it's not like you have crawl around hunting for a magazine full of empties to recover your brass. Having the whole line changed for his personal preference didn't make any sense.

 

[The Body Bagger]

The 1911 is a great pistol that can be easily modified to do several jobs well. However, to say or imply that it is the best pistol ever and that all other pistols regardless of action type and caliber should be compared to it is ridiculous.

well it certainly has the heritage behind it. Don't get me wrong I like my 1911 as much as the next guy, but everyone knows the S&W .357mag revolver is the greatest handgun ever devised by man

 

[bad_dad_brad]

Personally I just don't get the M1911 mystique. Not at all. Never have. Ancient design, SA, manual safety, grip safety, low capacity, heavy, kicks like a mule, and somewhat inaccurate (stock).

I will take a stock Glock 17 with a full capacity of modern 9mm ammo any time over a single stack .45 stock M1911. Not that the M1911 can't be effective, it can, but more modern pistols are best for most.

And agreed. Gunzines, like carzines, are glossy adds, and seldom subjective. I rarely buy them anymore myself.

 

[Socrates]

Some of us like really nice trigger pulls. I tend to like very accurate guns.
I also like horsepower.

A 1911 usually can be modified to have a fantastic, 2 pound trigger. Try that with your tupperware. It's not designed to have that nice a trigger for safety reasons.

I also have two Kimbers that both fire 45 Super, and drive tacks.

Now I agree the 357 is pretty nice, however, it needs a 45 caliber hole, and another 50 grains of bullet weight to equal the 45 Super.
I've never heard anyone make the argument that a 45 caliber, 185 grain bullet, at 1350 fps is an inadequate stopper. Likewise, a 200 grain 45 caliber hollowpoint at 1200 fps, or, the 230 grain JHP's at 1100 fps.

"Kicks like a mule?"

This kicks like a mule, with 454 casull loads.

1911's, even in 45 Super, don't really kick.

s

 

[AUG]

The 1911 is a great pistol that can be easily modified to do several jobs well. However, to say or imply that it is the best pistol ever and that all other pistols regardless of action type and caliber should be compared to it is ridiculous.

I disagree. The 1911 is by far and away the best "all around" fighting pistol ever made. This is the reason why almost all newer designs try to copy the 1911's best features.

"it is the benchmark for all fighting guns"

That might have been a reasonable statement 50 years ago, but it's not anymore. It's heavy, shoots a round that is largely ineffective against even the lowest levels of body armor, is dramatically limited in terms of capacity compared to most other full sized handguns, and does not have a firing pin safety.

It is even more reasonable today than it was 50 years ago. The most highly trained people in the US military still prefer and use the 1911 today and the most highly trained and respected SWAT teams use the 1911. Funny how a 100 year old design is still widely prefered by those that are the best at what they do.

 

[Socrates]

Aug: I love 1911's, but, I do know a S&W gunsmith, that bought sig sauer 220's for the local PD, using 230 grain Federal Hps.

Suffice to say, that the total package has to be looked at.
s

 

[AUG]

No offense socrates but what on earth are you trying to say?

 

[PsychoSword]

IMO the biggest plus of the 1911 and all single action designs is the trigger pull. I have sold many good guns that were great in many ways simply because I decided that there was a good chance that I would not be able to hit a target more than 10 yards away with it in a stressful situation. To me platform is everything and caliber is second.

I have never had more than a passing interest in gun rags because as has been pointed out they are nothing but advertisements. But do any of you really expect this to ever change? It's the same way with all hobby and trade magazines whether you're talking about computers or car stereos or whatever.

 

[wingman]

I read an article on a polymer frame DAO pistol

Personally I get offended when they compare the above to a real gun
like the 1911.

 

[SAWBONES]

These arguments are beating a dead horse, but still...

"Personally I just don't get the M1911 mystique. Not at all. Never have. Ancient design, SA, manual safety, grip safety, low capacity, heavy, kicks like a mule, and somewhat inaccurate (stock)."

Well, as the more-inarticulate members of the Harley Davidson crowd are fond of saying, "if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand", basically meaning "you either get it or you don't".

"Ancient" design... c'mon, we're talking about the beginning of the twentieth century here, and a genius gunmaker, not Og the Ax-maker in One Million B.C.

SA is good, not bad.

"Manual safety, grip safety"... the manual safety on the 1911 is ergonomic, and operates the way that the thumb moves naturally, unlike the manual safeties on Ruger, Beretta and other "modern" pistols. The grip safety operates without thought, and is just an added safety factor. At least one of these types of safeties SHOULD be present on a proper SA pistol.

"Kicks like a mule"... Huh?

"Heavy"... not necessarily, and in any case not unreasonably so.

"Low capacity"... 8 rounds without reloading seems plenty to me.

"Somewhat inaccurate"... this is a myth. Compared to what? The stock out-of-the-box 1911 is at least as accurate and precise as a stock Glock, IME.


If you don't "get it", that's OK. Those of us who do get it apppreciate things others don't.

 

[Geoff Timm]

To me, it sounds like the gun writer was padding the article to get more 0.03 dollar words in.

In depth tests are rare and expensive.

Geoff
Who would pay real money for a web site with good in depth, honest articles, in the Consumer Reports style.

 

[OBIWAN]

I stopped reading ALL gun magazines (except SWAT)simply because most all of the articles are either fluff pieces designed to sell weapons.

Or a boring rehashing of the same tired platitudes that have been written in gun rags for the last 20 years.

I actually avoided Glocks and 1911's for far too long based on "popular opinion"

The statement below is exactly the type of effluent I am speaking of.

"Ancient design, SA, manual safety, grip safety, low capacity, heavy, kicks like a mule, and somewhat inaccurate (stock). "

Were I smarter, I would have realized sooner that it was all propaganda designed to help sell other designs.

Once I wised up, I realized that 1911's are very simple and safe to operate, carry more rounds than the revolvers we all depended on for years and are easily the most accurate (stock) handguns I have owned.

Kicks like a mule????? who believes that the 45acp kicks MORE out of the 1911 platform???

Show of hands??????

Same people that believe what they read in gun mags

Try reading SWAT...they wring out a weapon that they test so that they have enough real info and can avoid having to fill space with tired comparisons .

 

[DPris]

When I was little my Dad said, "Son, get into the legal profession when you grow up and you'll never be sorry."
I decided I didn't want to be a lawyer, I wanted real respect, so I became a gunwriter instead.
It's made me rich and enormously influential, I'm recognized everywhere I go, I tell gun companies every day how to make their guns & they always listen, and it's a deeply satisfying art using three words when one will do in an article.
(OK, for the real story- I retired at 50% of my last salary, working about half time with the magazines makes up that missing 50%, so I'm basically now making what I would have been had I stayed with the PD. After 15 years in the biz I'm still one of America's most anonymous gunwriters, and that's fine, I do it because I enjoy it, not for the bucks & the babes. I can't recall a single instance where a suggestion I made to a gun company was taken. Articles are not paid by the word, they are paid at fixed rates and it's sometimes hard to cut back to meet the space allocated in a particular magazine. On more involved projects, there's frequently not enough room to get everything in that we want the reader to know, trying to expand a piece isn't an issue.
And, I work freelance. That means I'm not told what to write about or how to write about it. I propose articles, the editor either accepts or rejects the ideas. I write about what I want to write about, I don't do fluff, and I've cancelled articles on guns that turned out to not be worth writing about. Not being on salary, that's money lost every time I do it.
I enjoy shooting, I get to shoot a bundle of guns I'd never get to touch otherwise, and I like to write. Whether any of that works for you or not, it works for me.
Still glad I didn't become a lawyer. )
Denis

 

[P-990]

"Kicks like a mule"? Come on here, nothing you can stuff in a 1911-sized platform kicks all that bad. (Well, okay, perhaps the .460 Rowland, but that is an attempt to make a combat pistol hit like a low-end .44 Magnum hunting round IMO.)

1911s are good, Glocks are good, S&W revolvers are great ( ), etc, etc. They all serve a purpose, to somebody. If it works for enough people to create a market-share, I'm all for it. You think I'd have a Glock 17 if I could have bought a nice Series I Kimber instead? Probably, but at any rate...