1911s Suck

[Doodle]

Doodle
"The other 1911 that was problematic was a wilson combat, that gun wouldn't feed a whole mag with out 1 or 2 FTE's. I was soo pissed about that one after spending time with their guys on the phone and getting basically shruggs and I don't knows, I ditched it for an XD."

Your comments about your experience with WILSON honestly have me perplexed because WILSON test fires every firearm before it leaves WILSON with a minimum of 80 rounds of three different ammo brands.
Any of their firearms that malf (even once) during that test firing (after the completed "build") go back for corrective work. They really DO that - and that is before the firearm undergoes its final inspection. SO "one or two" malfunctions in every mag seems bizarre and highly unlikely.
Did you purchase yours new from WILSON or did it have a previous owner?
I have read (only a couple of posts on other forums) where a purchaser has had even a minor cosmetic problem with their WILSON purchase - like a tiny "ding" on the metal checkering and WILSON actually wanted that firearm back and they wanted to know who there at WLSON "signed off" on that gun with a final stamp of approval on that particular firearm.

I purchased it new...mind you this is upwards of 6 or 7 years ago, but as I remember I was told on the phone, it just has to "wear in." I don't remember how many phone conversations took place and what else was said.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OD*]

"1911 is designed for a arched main spring housing"..

Mr Yeager is wrong, and Troll is correct (concerning the grip safety and flat mainspring housing), the M1911 was designed with the flat mainspring housing, and it retained the flat mainspring housing until the first M1911A1s were delivered on January 23rd, 1924. JD is correct when he stated the grip safety and lanyard were requested in the 1906 trials. Below is a Colt Model 1907 U.S. Military Trials .45 ACP , and the grip safety, flat mainspring housing, and lanyard loop can clearly be seen.

(from the Sam Lisker collection)

Serial #1

Again, the flat mainspring housing grip safety and lanyard loop can clearly be seen.

As to the myth JMB did not like grip safety's and only use it because he had to, his first commercially successful pistol using a grip safety, was his Model 1903


(from the Sam Lisker collection)

And for those that apparently missed it the first time;

[GunLover69]

I stopped watching when I saw the shirt he was wearing.

:)

[WHEC724]

I really like his shirt because it looks like his wings are flapping when he raises his arms.

....

I too was mesmerized by the chicken-wing-flappy-thing. It was the best part of his presentation.

[The Old Anglo]

Idiots are everywhere!!!!!. Just ny take.

[DRM]

WOW!

This thread went from what I thought was going to be a total train wreck to a very educational piece.

Nice job, Gents, thank you!

[DRM]

P.S. - The grip angle IS directly correlated to back strap of the pistol, not the front.

And another point to note is there was no "thumb safety" on the original gun, so the grip safety was added (at the request of the U.S. Calvary) to make the gun safer. The grip safety was and is totally not needed, IF there is a thumb safety, IMO. So, I agree with Yeager on that point.

It's a deathtrap and anyone who has done some true, FoF testing will agree. Further, I know a LOT of Top Shooters who have them disconnected for a good reason:

BAD GRIP = FAILURE TO ENGAGE GRIP SAFETY = NO SHOTS BEING FIRED UNDER STRESS

[gottabkiddin]

This video just proves the awesomeness of the Glock

Shooting that glock at that range was about the most reckless thing I have ever seen someone do... Just friggin dumb IMO..

[bmcgilvray]

Only personal experience but I've yet to have a problem with failing to engage the grip safety when shooting a 1911, whether carefully aimed on the range at a bulls-eye match or snatched to send lead toward a marauding feral dog in the back yard at night with the aid of a dodgy flashlight.

I disagree that it's a deathtrap.

[OPFOR]

bmc - all due respect (and I actually mean that), one instance of success under stress does not a fool proof method make. Again, tons of folks drive drunk every day and don't get into accidents. That doesn't mean that driving drunk is a good idea... Indeed, poor choices that have good outcomes often just reinforce the same poor choices.

[DRM]

Only personal experience but I've yet to have a problem with failing to engage the grip safety when shooting a 1911, whether carefully aimed on the range at a bulls-eye match or snatched to send lead toward a marauding feral dog in the back yard at night with the aid of a dodgy flashlight.

I disagree that it's a deathtrap.

Well, I've got well over 1/4 million rounds downrange with 1911's between World Class competition and in Force on Force studies with resisting (punching, kicking, grappling) opponents. I actually got my leg broke once doing it, so, now I let Paul Sharp and the younger studs do it for me!

But hey, opinions are like testicles: Everybody's got a couple, but they really only care about their own.

[seapuppy]

So....just so I'm clear.... Because the sights on your Taurus (and, um, well...it's a Taurus) are off, then the 1911 is better than the Glock. Just to make sure I'm following your logic. :)

no ..not at all......the glock is a good weapon or I wouldn't carry it....but the 1911 is just as good imho.....taurus....well...it's ok....but I do love shooting the 1911 combat commander.....I wasn't comparing the glock......just the 1911....it's a great weapon and I feel this guy is off base....but...that's just me...



Steve

[JohnLeVick]

Interesting thread, but not interesting enough to get me to read it all. Here I am, having carried 1911-types for decades, having shot literally hundreds of thousands of rounds through them in practice, training and competition, having built 40 or so, having worked on about 100 others, never having pinned down a grip safety, and all this time, I've been using and working on a death trap!

All seriousness aside, a properly adjusted grip safety need only move a tiny bit to disengage, unless the gun is not gripped at all or one's hand is literally deformed. If you want to shoot the gun without gripping it, well, I guess I can't help you. I've worked on several over the years that were incorrectly set up from the factory, and required being fully depressed to function. Wrong, but easy to fix. Usually takes me less than 10 minutes of judicious file work to get it "just right."

Given that I sometimes carry a Hi-Power, I won't fault anyone who deactivates a grip safety. Some people have hands that are shaped such that it is difficult to FULLY depress a grip safety with a proper, high-thumb grip, but I've yet to see anyone with a hand sufficiently normal to shoot a pistol who didn't at least depress a properly adjusted 1911 GS enough to disengage it. I think that the idea that one that is properly set up is a liability is not correct, but since we should all have confidence in our carry guns (I do) if a functioning grip safety makes you nervous (not me), then pin that sucker.

[DRM]

Right, the problem is more noticeable when using an "Ultra High" grip safety (like the STI or McCormick) and riding your thumb on the thumb safety. The size of your hands makes a difference here, too. To each his own, and you are right about fitment. It can help some folks, but not all, IMO.

It's the ONLY thing I don't like about the 1911 (that and thin dust covers, no place for the off hand thumb to ride against)...

[10thmtn]

Mmmm...popcorn.



I did actually watch his video, and I think he actually made some great points. The 1911 is not designed for mass production. It was designed to be hand-fitted. In particular, his comments about "stacking" of tolerances is spot on. More modern guns are designed with ease of production in mind.

The one gun that went down - hard - in the low light pistol class I attended last year? Yup. A 1911.

And I think the comments he made about egos being tied to your choice in carry gun are spot on as well - as we have seen by the replies to this thread.

Basically, he's saying your odds of a malfunction with a modern, mass-produced 1911 are higher than with a more modern design, which was designed for modern mass production techniques. I think I can agree with that. And his observations back that opinion up.

Who wants some more? get it while it's hot...