CastleBravo
New member
If we can overcome our sentimentality, we might wonder to ourselves why 1911s are still produced. Why buy a 90-year-old design when there are so many more modern alternatives? Perhaps more interestingly, we might ask ourselves why, when people who rely on their handguns get to buy anything they want, they often buy derivatives of the old 1911? Examples include Marine MEUSOC, FBI HRT & SWAT, numerous other SWAT types, Delta, and so on? They can get any modern gun they want, but they don’t. On the surface this is extremely peculiar. Of course, they are really using guns that are only “derived” from the 1911, not identical copies, but you would think that a modern gun designed from the ground up would be better… to put it in perspective, would you race a Model T hot rod against a 2002 Corvette Z06? Are vauge statements about being battle-proven, or cliches of "all fall before hardball," really all that justifies its continued existence?
I think we can agree that the 1911 derived pistol is capable of performing as well or better in terms of accuracy and reliability than any other autopistol design, ASSUMING that it is properly set up with quality components. The corollary to that, however, is that it really isn’t better than its more modern counterparts in this regard, either. In terms of mechanical function, a $1,500 1911 isn’t doing anything that a USP Tactical can’t do just as well for $500 less. So strictly in terms of objective performance, we can’t really justify the 1911’s continued popularity.
However, this overlooks something very important that seems to be routinely ignored by modern handgun designers: human engineering. Although this term almost certainly didn’t exist in 1911, I am going to argue that the 1911 derived pistol continues to thrive precisely because it has better human engineering than more modern handguns. This may sound trivial, but in fact is absolutely vital, for it is proper human engineering that makes it easier to use a handgun to its full potential.
In general, the 1911 has exceptional ergonomics. With its slender, single-stack grip, short trigger reach, high bore axis and comfortable grip angle, it is a gun that suits many people very well. A side effect of the design is that it is very easy to tailor the gun to fit a shooter EXACTLY. Small hands? Use thin grip panels, a flat mainspring housing, and a short trigger and the tiniest hands can use the gun with comfort. For big hands there are wrap-around grips and long triggers. Different beavertail grip safeties offer let you adjust how high a grip on the gun you want, making the gun extremely controllable. Just compare it to the Beretta 92 with its fat grip and long trigger reach and the difference is dramatic.
A central element of the 1911’s continued relevance is its trigger. Its short, consistent single-action pull is simply superior to all of the alternatives if you actually want to be able to shoot with accuracy AND speed. Long DAO triggers slow down your shooting and make precise shooting more difficult; DA/SA triggers have the disadvantages of the DAO for the first shot, and require you to learn how to deal with the cumbersome DA/SA transition for the rest. They are designs bred of bureaucracy, bad training and lawyers. Striker-fired weapons can close the gap, but remain markedly inferior to a SA design in terms of subjective feel. If you want to shoot rapidly AND accurately as easily as possible, a SA trigger is simply the best. To use an (extreme) example, when is the last time you heard of a competition shooter going to a longer, more inconsistent trigger design to improve their accuracy and split times?
The last element I will address is sights. Although the original 1911 sights, to be blunt, stink, it can easily be outfitted with superior high-visibility sights. This does not make it superior to other pistols by design (there are aftermarket sights for just about all of them), but is the capstone to the vital equation:
Ergonomics + Trigger + Sights = Easy to shoot to potential. This is, in essence, why the 1911 design remains relevant: it does these key things better than its modern competitors. Compare the fat, brick-like grips and indifferent triggers of a USP45 or Glock 21 to a decent 1911 and the difference is obvious.
All of which isn’t meant to “prove” that my gun is better than yours, or that the 1911 is the only pistol that matters. Like all designs, it has compromises (mainly low capacity and relatively large size) that you may not be willing to live with. You may like the perceived safety advantage of a longer or heavier trigger. And so on. There is no one-size-fits-all perfect handgun out there. But I think it does go to show that the 1911 design still excels in areas that the latest-and-greatest pistols often cannot match.
Now excuse me while I shoot my cumbersome, double-action S&W 610 revolver.
I think we can agree that the 1911 derived pistol is capable of performing as well or better in terms of accuracy and reliability than any other autopistol design, ASSUMING that it is properly set up with quality components. The corollary to that, however, is that it really isn’t better than its more modern counterparts in this regard, either. In terms of mechanical function, a $1,500 1911 isn’t doing anything that a USP Tactical can’t do just as well for $500 less. So strictly in terms of objective performance, we can’t really justify the 1911’s continued popularity.
However, this overlooks something very important that seems to be routinely ignored by modern handgun designers: human engineering. Although this term almost certainly didn’t exist in 1911, I am going to argue that the 1911 derived pistol continues to thrive precisely because it has better human engineering than more modern handguns. This may sound trivial, but in fact is absolutely vital, for it is proper human engineering that makes it easier to use a handgun to its full potential.
In general, the 1911 has exceptional ergonomics. With its slender, single-stack grip, short trigger reach, high bore axis and comfortable grip angle, it is a gun that suits many people very well. A side effect of the design is that it is very easy to tailor the gun to fit a shooter EXACTLY. Small hands? Use thin grip panels, a flat mainspring housing, and a short trigger and the tiniest hands can use the gun with comfort. For big hands there are wrap-around grips and long triggers. Different beavertail grip safeties offer let you adjust how high a grip on the gun you want, making the gun extremely controllable. Just compare it to the Beretta 92 with its fat grip and long trigger reach and the difference is dramatic.
A central element of the 1911’s continued relevance is its trigger. Its short, consistent single-action pull is simply superior to all of the alternatives if you actually want to be able to shoot with accuracy AND speed. Long DAO triggers slow down your shooting and make precise shooting more difficult; DA/SA triggers have the disadvantages of the DAO for the first shot, and require you to learn how to deal with the cumbersome DA/SA transition for the rest. They are designs bred of bureaucracy, bad training and lawyers. Striker-fired weapons can close the gap, but remain markedly inferior to a SA design in terms of subjective feel. If you want to shoot rapidly AND accurately as easily as possible, a SA trigger is simply the best. To use an (extreme) example, when is the last time you heard of a competition shooter going to a longer, more inconsistent trigger design to improve their accuracy and split times?
The last element I will address is sights. Although the original 1911 sights, to be blunt, stink, it can easily be outfitted with superior high-visibility sights. This does not make it superior to other pistols by design (there are aftermarket sights for just about all of them), but is the capstone to the vital equation:
Ergonomics + Trigger + Sights = Easy to shoot to potential. This is, in essence, why the 1911 design remains relevant: it does these key things better than its modern competitors. Compare the fat, brick-like grips and indifferent triggers of a USP45 or Glock 21 to a decent 1911 and the difference is obvious.
All of which isn’t meant to “prove” that my gun is better than yours, or that the 1911 is the only pistol that matters. Like all designs, it has compromises (mainly low capacity and relatively large size) that you may not be willing to live with. You may like the perceived safety advantage of a longer or heavier trigger. And so on. There is no one-size-fits-all perfect handgun out there. But I think it does go to show that the 1911 design still excels in areas that the latest-and-greatest pistols often cannot match.
Now excuse me while I shoot my cumbersome, double-action S&W 610 revolver.
