The 1911--this is ridiculous!
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Staff
The Luger semi-auto was originally developed in 7.63 caliber, and was sold to numerous nations, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Portugal in that caliber.
The German military wanted a larger diameter, heavier bullet, so Luger expanded the case to 9mm.
The German military wanted a larger diameter, heavier bullet, so Luger expanded the case to 9mm.
'When the Army requested designs for a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this .38 autoloader to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet, and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.' according to Sight 1911 Webpage...So to me, the cartridge and gun were made to go together.
PsychoSword
Moderator
As far as I understand it JMB wanted a 200gr. bullet while the army wanted 230gr.
The Glock just got a different barrel and breechface, same spring.
The Sig got an entirely new top end of a different mass and constructed differently.
The 1911 prototypes went through considerable evolution between 1906 and 1911, much of it the Army's ideas. It just doesn't seem like a very unique story considering it was going through what the .45 Lugers for the trials were.
Not saying you're wrong, but there were .45 Colt autos before the 1911, and there were locked breech Colts made in other calibers first. But it isn't important, so sorry to drag this on.
The Sig got an entirely new top end of a different mass and constructed differently.
The 1911 prototypes went through considerable evolution between 1906 and 1911, much of it the Army's ideas. It just doesn't seem like a very unique story considering it was going through what the .45 Lugers for the trials were.
Not saying you're wrong, but there were .45 Colt autos before the 1911, and there were locked breech Colts made in other calibers first. But it isn't important, so sorry to drag this on.
Lycanthrope
New member
But are we really talking about the 1911A1 model here or it's modern counterparts?
When it comes to the fastest of the fast, most will choose a 1911 or 2011 style weapon. For most (not all people) they will shoot best with this style of handgun. Like top fuel dragsters, this speed comes at perhaps increased maintenance to achieve personal perfection.
Many that struggle with the 1911/2011 style can do well with the Glock. The Glock is a good gun and gets a bad rap. It is also very quick and can be made accurate with some care (ask Dave Sevigny).
I suppose the point is that the handguns used in competition will often be used as benchmarks for the rest of the field. And so what? What do we really want in a handgun? Well, I suppose we want to shoot it easily and accurately. On a secondary level I think it's nice to be able to shoot it fast.
My only gripe is that people have biases. When they compare a new weapon, they should try to compare it to the 1911 and the Glock at a minimum.
Handguns are personal.
When it comes to the fastest of the fast, most will choose a 1911 or 2011 style weapon. For most (not all people) they will shoot best with this style of handgun. Like top fuel dragsters, this speed comes at perhaps increased maintenance to achieve personal perfection.
Many that struggle with the 1911/2011 style can do well with the Glock. The Glock is a good gun and gets a bad rap. It is also very quick and can be made accurate with some care (ask Dave Sevigny).
I suppose the point is that the handguns used in competition will often be used as benchmarks for the rest of the field. And so what? What do we really want in a handgun? Well, I suppose we want to shoot it easily and accurately. On a secondary level I think it's nice to be able to shoot it fast.
My only gripe is that people have biases. When they compare a new weapon, they should try to compare it to the 1911 and the Glock at a minimum.
Handguns are personal.
Blind Tree Frog
New member
As I said before though, once the handgun goes to the gunsmith, it's not really valid for comparison anymore. I hate to do this, but let's go back to the car examples. Whether you agree with the analogy doesn't matter, just hear it out
A Mustang is a fine car. Let's say that this is the 1911. Been around forever. Good car. Religous following. Etc.
A WRX STi is also a fine car that costs half as much as a top of the line mustang. For 95% of the people out there, it will perform just as well as a corvette. Let's say it's like a Glock.
A Evo is about the same as the STi. Let's say that it's... hmm... a sig I guess? Bit more expensive, but just as good for most everyone.
Now, here is the thing, out of the box, a STi and a Evo perform about the same. 99% of the drivers out there won't do any better in one or the other baring some driving style differences. Nor will they push the car to the limits at all. Also, 99% of the time, mustang drivers (who are buying it cus it's a mustang and it's mythos more times then naught) won't do any better. Now here is the thing, there are a great number of mustangs out there, from the cheap v6's to the top of the line saleen's and cobra's and whatever.
You can buy any old mustang, drop the coin and get it tuned up to top of the line specs. You can just buy the top of the line one instead. But you can also spend the same coin on the STi or the Evo and get just as compreable a car, if not better (depending on the shop and the new parts). Out of the box though, you can't say that a mustang is better because the top of the lines or a customized mustang is.
A top of the line 1911 made by a custom builder really is a beautiful thing, but they are also $3000. A Mil Spec Springfield or a Carson Daly can be had for under $400 easily. There are too many 1911's out there to really refer to all of them in discussions like this, and while a cheap 1911 can go into a smith and come out even better, any gun can.
A Mustang is a fine car. Let's say that this is the 1911. Been around forever. Good car. Religous following. Etc.
A WRX STi is also a fine car that costs half as much as a top of the line mustang. For 95% of the people out there, it will perform just as well as a corvette. Let's say it's like a Glock.
A Evo is about the same as the STi. Let's say that it's... hmm... a sig I guess? Bit more expensive, but just as good for most everyone.
Now, here is the thing, out of the box, a STi and a Evo perform about the same. 99% of the drivers out there won't do any better in one or the other baring some driving style differences. Nor will they push the car to the limits at all. Also, 99% of the time, mustang drivers (who are buying it cus it's a mustang and it's mythos more times then naught) won't do any better. Now here is the thing, there are a great number of mustangs out there, from the cheap v6's to the top of the line saleen's and cobra's and whatever.
You can buy any old mustang, drop the coin and get it tuned up to top of the line specs. You can just buy the top of the line one instead. But you can also spend the same coin on the STi or the Evo and get just as compreable a car, if not better (depending on the shop and the new parts). Out of the box though, you can't say that a mustang is better because the top of the lines or a customized mustang is.
A top of the line 1911 made by a custom builder really is a beautiful thing, but they are also $3000. A Mil Spec Springfield or a Carson Daly can be had for under $400 easily. There are too many 1911's out there to really refer to all of them in discussions like this, and while a cheap 1911 can go into a smith and come out even better, any gun can.
Lycanthrope
New member
I disagree. A SOHC Small Block Chevy is easily capable today of 1.5hp/cubic inch NET. In 1970 it was capable of 1.5hp/CID GROSS.
The basic design is sound and is a basis. To ignore this entirely and call it a new deisgn is not accurate.
The basic design is sound and is a basis. To ignore this entirely and call it a new deisgn is not accurate.
I think this is a really failed analogy. A car's performance is something measurable independant of the driver.
A gun is more like a hammer or a trombone than a car. The difference between a crappy gun and the worlds finest is only slightly more spectacular than the difference between two snowboards.
Most of the characteristics you could compare are more differences in style than improved engineering. This "modern pistol" you speak of is just a slightly different way of accomplishing what was state of the art in 1900. All that's happened inbetween is finding what tends to jam less often, make the gun a hair easier to deal with and largely make it cheaper than before. You certainly aren't going to win a gunfight just because the badguy is using a Luger.
If you must have a car analogy, the modern pistol is the same '60s small block Chevy engine, producing exactly the same horsepower, but needing fewer tune-ups. Oh, and the block is made of plastic and costs a fraction of what it used to.
A gun is more like a hammer or a trombone than a car. The difference between a crappy gun and the worlds finest is only slightly more spectacular than the difference between two snowboards.
Most of the characteristics you could compare are more differences in style than improved engineering. This "modern pistol" you speak of is just a slightly different way of accomplishing what was state of the art in 1900. All that's happened inbetween is finding what tends to jam less often, make the gun a hair easier to deal with and largely make it cheaper than before. You certainly aren't going to win a gunfight just because the badguy is using a Luger.
If you must have a car analogy, the modern pistol is the same '60s small block Chevy engine, producing exactly the same horsepower, but needing fewer tune-ups. Oh, and the block is made of plastic and costs a fraction of what it used to.
warhammer357
Moderator
The car analogy is a good one.
The 1911 is like a corvette. A high performance machine designe to perform at the higher levels of a users skill.
the various Glocks, Sigs etc. are like Crown Victrola or Chevy Impala police cruisers - designed to be a general issue item to troops who may or may not have extensive skills.
The bike analogy is a bad one. Most Harleys require extensive maintenance to perform. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with a mil spec 1911.
And I have to note that Mr. Hands taste in weaponry often runs to eastern Europe so I have to ask if he is a Yugo man.......
The 1911 is like a corvette. A high performance machine designe to perform at the higher levels of a users skill.
the various Glocks, Sigs etc. are like Crown Victrola or Chevy Impala police cruisers - designed to be a general issue item to troops who may or may not have extensive skills.
The bike analogy is a bad one. Most Harleys require extensive maintenance to perform. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with a mil spec 1911.
And I have to note that Mr. Hands taste in weaponry often runs to eastern Europe so I have to ask if he is a Yugo man.......
warhammer357
Moderator
Go back and look at your posting, no. 131 Mr. Hand.
Now answer us all, did you tell a flat out lie, or did you just not comprehend what you yourself wrote when you claimed the Sig was not chunky and wide through the slide, brother. Your caliber is showing Mr. Hand....
>>Reading comprehension.
Quote:
ME--- Are you going to honestly try and tell everybody that the Sig is not wider through the slide than the 1911, or for that matter the bore doesn't sit considerable higher in the hand?
MR HAND --I didn't say, neither did you:
(editors note- go back to post 131 hand and look at where you yourself said the Sig was not wide and chunky - surprise pardner, you caught yourself with your pants down....)
Mr. Hand ---The first time you mentioned the Sig you said it was too new.
(I dont recall making any comment vis a vis it being two new, but then again, I dont have a reading comprehension problem)
Mr. Hand ---The second time you mentioned the Sig you said it wasn't durable.
(The Sig is a 10,000 round or less arm in aluminum frame format. Its not as durable as a 1911. Thats reeeeeeality Mr. Hand. The steel frame variant has n't been around long enough to tell whether or not it is any better in those regards.)
Mre Hand---This time you're saying it is wider in the slide and has a higher bore.
(Because it is wider through the slide and does have a higher bore axis at a steeper angle to boot).
Mr. Hand ---Everytime you post on this topic you add something new and act like that's what you were saying all along, which you weren't.<<
That seems like your specialty Hand...arguing that you didnt say what you did say and arguing that somebody else said what you said.
Now that I have taken you to the shed, maybe we can clear this up. Unlike you Hand, I am consistent. The Sig's DA trigger and decocker may indeed be improvements, but the gun is still thicker and wider than a 1911 and hence not so easy to carry. Except for the Para ordnance guns, virtually all of the DA .45 autos are wider and thicker and chunkier than old slab sides.
The stainless frame Sig has not been on the market long enough yet to see if it is as durable as the 1911 either.
What makes the 1911 the Benchmark is that its flat and easy to carry, has eight hard hitting shots fast and an instananeous reload. Its also supremely rugged.
Now, which of the DA .45s can say the same thing? The HKs, Sigs, Glunks and so on are chunky through the slide or frame. The Double Eagle is discontinued and the S&Ws are heavier as well as thicker through both slide and frame and grip.l ....That leaves the para and I dont know how well that shaky trigger will stand up over the long haul.....
Ramp down n the meds, Mr. Hand, and you might be able to keep your story straight. You are embarrassing yourself dude....
Now answer us all, did you tell a flat out lie, or did you just not comprehend what you yourself wrote when you claimed the Sig was not chunky and wide through the slide, brother. Your caliber is showing Mr. Hand....
>>Reading comprehension.
Quote:
ME--- Are you going to honestly try and tell everybody that the Sig is not wider through the slide than the 1911, or for that matter the bore doesn't sit considerable higher in the hand?
MR HAND --I didn't say, neither did you:
(editors note- go back to post 131 hand and look at where you yourself said the Sig was not wide and chunky - surprise pardner, you caught yourself with your pants down....)
Mr. Hand ---The first time you mentioned the Sig you said it was too new.
(I dont recall making any comment vis a vis it being two new, but then again, I dont have a reading comprehension problem)
Mr. Hand ---The second time you mentioned the Sig you said it wasn't durable.
(The Sig is a 10,000 round or less arm in aluminum frame format. Its not as durable as a 1911. Thats reeeeeeality Mr. Hand. The steel frame variant has n't been around long enough to tell whether or not it is any better in those regards.)
Mre Hand---This time you're saying it is wider in the slide and has a higher bore.
(Because it is wider through the slide and does have a higher bore axis at a steeper angle to boot).
Mr. Hand ---Everytime you post on this topic you add something new and act like that's what you were saying all along, which you weren't.<<
That seems like your specialty Hand...arguing that you didnt say what you did say and arguing that somebody else said what you said.
Now that I have taken you to the shed, maybe we can clear this up. Unlike you Hand, I am consistent. The Sig's DA trigger and decocker may indeed be improvements, but the gun is still thicker and wider than a 1911 and hence not so easy to carry. Except for the Para ordnance guns, virtually all of the DA .45 autos are wider and thicker and chunkier than old slab sides.
The stainless frame Sig has not been on the market long enough yet to see if it is as durable as the 1911 either.
What makes the 1911 the Benchmark is that its flat and easy to carry, has eight hard hitting shots fast and an instananeous reload. Its also supremely rugged.
Now, which of the DA .45s can say the same thing? The HKs, Sigs, Glunks and so on are chunky through the slide or frame. The Double Eagle is discontinued and the S&Ws are heavier as well as thicker through both slide and frame and grip.l ....That leaves the para and I dont know how well that shaky trigger will stand up over the long haul.....
Ramp down n the meds, Mr. Hand, and you might be able to keep your story straight. You are embarrassing yourself dude....
Warhammer,
I don't think you understood good ol' post 131. I was paraphrasing your posts, since back on post #110 you said "The Sig, Ruger and SW DA .45 autos should have been Gen 2 of the 1911. Instead, the Sig is just not as long lived, the Ruger is chunky and not as concealable and the Smith was heavier and thicker, albiet it had the durability of a 1911."
So here you had the opportunity to call the Sig "chunky" or "thicker", but instead wrote if off as "not as long lived". Which seems funny since: "(I dont recall making any comment vis a vis it being two new, but then again, I dont have a reading comprehension problem)". You also say "Up till say the mid 1970s," which also suggests you think some guns are too new.
Foolishly, I concluded that you didn't think the Sig was chunky or thicker. You continue in this vein with post #129, "Like I said, the 1911 offers 8 shots fast, an instantaneious reload, cocks itself and is flatter and more compact (hence easier to carry) than the Glunk or the even Chunkier HK and Ruger .45 acps, and is better balanced than the Smith DA .45s." Strangely, still no mention of the Sig being chunky, even here: post #129 "The Sig .45 DA is accurate and light, but it is not as durable as a 1911. The Ruger and HKs are accurate but wide slides."
After all that, why would anyone conclude that you would categorize the Sig as chunky, thick or wide? You classified 4 other guns in 4 different posts that way, but not the Sig. Hence, post #131. Your first assertion of such is in post #133, when you ask me "Are you going to honestly try and tell everybody that the Sig is not wider through the slide than the 1911, or for that matter the bore doesn't sit considerable higher in the hand?" The answer is no, I'm only asking you what you're trying to tell everybody.
Nor did I ever take issue with the Sig 220 on durability issues. I note you saying that, which seems to make you believe that I challenged you. (Reading comprehension.)
The only thing I'd take factual issue with is the bore height, which if you measured you would find are nearly the same between the Sig and standard 1911A1. As you wouldn't own a Sig, this is a hard measurement for you to make.
I would also point out that you often refer to weight differences from the 39 oz 1911, but the heaviest gun you've mentioned is 40 oz, and the all steel Witness .45 is 33 oz.
So after however many posts (and off topic insults, which we've all come to expect from you), I guess we could conclude that the 1911 is slimmer and less chunky than any other .45 (though you never quite said that) and that "The 1911 has it all except a DA first shot and decocking lever". Why, if only someone would make a DA/SA 1911 with a decocking lever, we'd finally have the ultimate benchmark of pistols.
http://www.gunsworld.com/colt/doublee_us.htm
Thanks for clarifying your position.
I don't think you understood good ol' post 131. I was paraphrasing your posts, since back on post #110 you said "The Sig, Ruger and SW DA .45 autos should have been Gen 2 of the 1911. Instead, the Sig is just not as long lived, the Ruger is chunky and not as concealable and the Smith was heavier and thicker, albiet it had the durability of a 1911."
So here you had the opportunity to call the Sig "chunky" or "thicker", but instead wrote if off as "not as long lived". Which seems funny since: "(I dont recall making any comment vis a vis it being two new, but then again, I dont have a reading comprehension problem)". You also say "Up till say the mid 1970s," which also suggests you think some guns are too new.
Foolishly, I concluded that you didn't think the Sig was chunky or thicker. You continue in this vein with post #129, "Like I said, the 1911 offers 8 shots fast, an instantaneious reload, cocks itself and is flatter and more compact (hence easier to carry) than the Glunk or the even Chunkier HK and Ruger .45 acps, and is better balanced than the Smith DA .45s." Strangely, still no mention of the Sig being chunky, even here: post #129 "The Sig .45 DA is accurate and light, but it is not as durable as a 1911. The Ruger and HKs are accurate but wide slides."
After all that, why would anyone conclude that you would categorize the Sig as chunky, thick or wide? You classified 4 other guns in 4 different posts that way, but not the Sig. Hence, post #131. Your first assertion of such is in post #133, when you ask me "Are you going to honestly try and tell everybody that the Sig is not wider through the slide than the 1911, or for that matter the bore doesn't sit considerable higher in the hand?" The answer is no, I'm only asking you what you're trying to tell everybody.
Nor did I ever take issue with the Sig 220 on durability issues. I note you saying that, which seems to make you believe that I challenged you. (Reading comprehension.)
The only thing I'd take factual issue with is the bore height, which if you measured you would find are nearly the same between the Sig and standard 1911A1. As you wouldn't own a Sig, this is a hard measurement for you to make.
I would also point out that you often refer to weight differences from the 39 oz 1911, but the heaviest gun you've mentioned is 40 oz, and the all steel Witness .45 is 33 oz.
So after however many posts (and off topic insults, which we've all come to expect from you), I guess we could conclude that the 1911 is slimmer and less chunky than any other .45 (though you never quite said that) and that "The 1911 has it all except a DA first shot and decocking lever". Why, if only someone would make a DA/SA 1911 with a decocking lever, we'd finally have the ultimate benchmark of pistols.
http://www.gunsworld.com/colt/doublee_us.htm
Thanks for clarifying your position.
Last edited:
warhammer357
Moderator
Sorry Mr. Hand, but if somebody has reading comprehension issues, its not me. Let this be a lesson to you. When you post things in a public forum, (like post 131) they can come back to haunt you when you attempt to sing a different tune.
the Sig is a nice pistol, but it is chunky and wide through the slide, compared to say, a combat commander. The steel frame version has not been on the market long enough to let us see just exactly what its durability is either.
Had the old Double Eagle been reliable and had it not had so many negative features it would indeed have been the benchmark for modern. 45s, but it didn't thanks to the exposed lockwork and that habit some models had of not firing.
One of my shooting compadres had a nice one though, and to be honest, I felt then that it had a lot more going for it than most of the other modern .45s on the market did.
Reliable, 8 hard hitting shots fast, an instantaneous reload, flat and easy to carry and extremely durable. These are what make the 1911 the legend it is today. Its the BENCHMARK and so far everything to come along in that caliber since then has been wanting somewhere or somehow, allthough there were some notable efforts.
the Sig is a nice pistol, but it is chunky and wide through the slide, compared to say, a combat commander. The steel frame version has not been on the market long enough to let us see just exactly what its durability is either.
Had the old Double Eagle been reliable and had it not had so many negative features it would indeed have been the benchmark for modern. 45s, but it didn't thanks to the exposed lockwork and that habit some models had of not firing.
One of my shooting compadres had a nice one though, and to be honest, I felt then that it had a lot more going for it than most of the other modern .45s on the market did.
Reliable, 8 hard hitting shots fast, an instantaneous reload, flat and easy to carry and extremely durable. These are what make the 1911 the legend it is today. Its the BENCHMARK and so far everything to come along in that caliber since then has been wanting somewhere or somehow, allthough there were some notable efforts.
- Status