so last weekend I had the opportunity to go to the range with some guys and shoot a wide variety of guns. First time I've gotten to shoot several high dollar 1911's. I must say the whole thing left me rather underwhelmed.

I get the attraction of a 1911 for a pretty showpiece, take to the range occasionally and other wise keep it in it's velvet lined case type gun. I guess I view it as a 67 big block vette. Is it cool? hell yeah, is there awesome nostalgia factor? you bet. Does it actually perform that well compared to modern cars? nope, not even close.

What I absolutely don't get is the attraction of using one as a primary defense and or carry weapon. They just seem so heavy and have a much smaller capacity than modern (you know designed less than 100 years ago) weapons.

It may be that I'm just not sophisticated enough to enjoy the high end fancy stuff that you can get on them, but none of the guys shot noticeably better with there 1911's than with a high quality non ancient weapon.
going back to the corvetter analogy, I'd love love love a 67 big block, but not to drive everyday, just to many drawbacks compared to modern vehicles to that the cool factor doesn't overcome on a daily basis.

so what's the attraction? is it something besides nostalgia/look its shiny?

To me, having shot one but not owned one, the appeal is the trigger on a good custom 1911. For carry, I prefer more BBs.

Yes.

My SW1911 has nothing fancy to it. It has never jammed in my time with it and I can't say that about some glocks I've shot. It's still a reliable design and there's no way around it.

I don't own one, but have shot several. There are many reasons for it's appeal, nostalgia as you mentioned being one and a reliable platform that has stood the test of time. As for capacity, you don't necessarily need as much ammo because of the knockdown energy of a wide, heavy bullet...as long as you hit the target. Lots of 1911 guys here, they'll ;et you know why they like them.

Not every 1911 is a safe queen that only sees the light of day for oiling and the occasional range session.

The design is what makes it for me. It's one of, if not THE, most proven designs in the history of firearms. The idea that you need to have it super tuned to operate is largely a myth created by 1911 snobs and resulting from those that are garage gunsmiths that don't have the first clue as to what they are doing.

Is it heavier than a modern polymer framed weapon? Yes. But weight isn't a bad thing, and when you get down to brass tax, you aren't talking about a significant weight gain in pounds, merely ounces.

There are 1911 designs that are high capacity to compete with the newer designed guns, but high capacity comes at a cost - few, if any, modern designed firearms have the slim profile that a 1911 carries. Hell, my XD in 9mm is wider than a .45 1911. And even the smallest capacity design still holds as many, if not more, rounds than a revolver. Many people still consider revolvers to be the best carry weapon available due to their simplistic design and reliable action. A compact 1911 will hold 7 in the mag and 1 in the tube - two more shots from a platform that is just as reliable, but in a far better CC profile.

Additionally, I have never felt the need personally to carry 20 rounds of ammo for SD. I view my CC liscense and weapon as a means to get the F out of dodge in a bad situation, or to defend my family or myself in an even worse situation. Will 14 shots be better than 8 shots? That depends, odds are that they will be, but statistics also show that most SD fights result in (if memory serves) fewer than 5 rounds fired on average.

As far as the rest, it's personal preference. I prefer the platform to any other I've handled thus far. It fits naturally in my hand, I know the mechanics well, all designs are 99% the same, so there is little to no learning curve in terms of operation, feel or function. Part of it may be some underlying nostalgia, but that would be a small component to me personally. As far as looks, I don't compute that into a CC weapon selection criteria.

I still carry my XD most of the time because my primary CC (compact 1911) was stolen and I have yet to replace it with a similar model. But the XD is bulkier and not as easy to carry for me as my compact 1911 was either. I carry it from lack of options right now, not necessarily by choice.

I dont 'feel' anything when I shoot my XD.
I do 'feel' something when I shoot my dads Colt.

The XD is a tool. And a useful one at that.
The 1911 is a work of art. And a useful one at that.

This...




In all seriousness, let me state, if you don't understand it, more power to you brother, carry your Glock or your Springfield or your Beretta and enjoy them. They're all serviceable guns that have good capacity and reliability.

I carry a 1911 because it was designed from the ground up to be an ergonomic masterpiece. Long before the studies were done and "reversable backstraps" allowed a company to make a pistol fit anyone's hand by being modular, the 1911 was designed to simply fit by replacing main parts. Fat grips and an arched mainspring housing could be added for folks with long fingers and big palms. Delete them for thin grips and a flat MSH for the opposite. Short triggers, long triggers, different angles of grip safeties. Then there is the shear simplicity of the GI style plunger and captive recoil spring assembly... No full length guide rod to fight with.

You have a clean, crisp single action trigger which is by far the best for accuracy. You have a 5" barrel which gives you a 8.5" sight radius, which is also good for accuracy. Then of course there is the venerable .45 ACP cartridge. VERY good power behind a heavy bullet with a wide foot print. The .45 ACP is almost optimal out of that length barrel too.

Remember, the 9mm MAY expand, but the .45 will never shrink.

Bottom line, I find the 1911 to fit my hand better than any other gun I've ever picked up, it handles the .45ACP (my prefered cartridge) very well and has for 100 years. It's easy to work on, tear down, replace parts and clean. And on top of it all, it's a work of art.





Also, think about this...

9mm
15+1=16 rounds @ 125gr = 2000 grains of lead.

.45ACP
8+1=9 rounds @ 230gr = 2070 grains of lead.

It's basically the same amount of lead, except I deliver twice the blow with one shot. I also bet I can shoot a 1911 as quickly as you can you any other gun. So with speed being a wash, I'd rather deliver twice the power with a bigger hole and not have to rely on whether I can deliver that second shot of 9mm (that would be needed to equal the weight of lead thrown from a single .45.)


There are plenty of arguments for hi-cap 9mm's and .40's, and if you like those, more power to you.

That's my reasoning at least.

I know that my dad carried one in WWII. That's enough reason for me. Unfortunately, I can't get a MA-deuce like the one he used...

Its been pretty well covered above; not much to add.

Blued steel and wood has a soul...Glocks have a serial number.

I'll also add that if you all didnt shoot any better with the 1911, then you may not be good shots in general.

But a lot of that depends on the pistol, too. You can put bad sights and a lousy trigger on a 1911.

Ive shot 1911's as well. I too don't 'get it'. I would certainly take one if it was given to me, but I wouldn't replace my G22 (or G27 now) with one...unless it was free of course. Im not really a collector though. To me, its just another high priced pistol. Same reason I wouldn't replace it with a Kimber anything. They are shiny and pretty though, that is no doubt.

I think most of it comes from teh nostalgia of it and what it was used for and why. I do a lot of things 'the old way' for this reason. I can understand that. However, for me, am not willing to dole out cash on doing my calculus homework with a slide rule when I can pay a fraction of the cost on something that does the same thing as effectively and in many cases 'better'. I know I will get flamed for that, but thats how I see it. Im not interested in coolness or nostalgia...im interested in cost effective reliability. However, much better looking and they were designed from the ground up to perform a task repeatedly and reliably...so there is that.


What some young whippersnapper needs to do is save this thread for 100 years and then re-evaluate. I think that will prove whether any other guns are as 'good' as the old 1911.

[This message has been edited by jed1154 (edited 6/30/2011 2:14p).]

Trigger is the difference plain and simple.

FWIW, you don't "have" to spend $1k+ on a good, reliable and very solid 1911 frame.

Can you? Obviously. But just because Fusion, Night Hawk, Ed Brown, Dan Wesson, Colt, Kimber or Springfield Custom aren't roll marked on the slide doesn't mean that the weapon is cheap, unreliable or any other derogatory term.

For the same price as a Glock or XD, you can get a good quality 1911 platform that will function reliably, shoot reliably and have surprisingly good mechanics (trigger) and accuracy.

And if you get in a gunfight with me with your Glock and I have my 1911, if we both run out of ammo, I can beat you to death with my 1911. It would take significantly more effort to do the same with your Glock. (this was intended with a touch of tounge in cheek sarcasm).

jed1154 said:

quote:

---

on something that does the same thing as effectively and in many cases 'better'.

---

No flame intended here, just honest conversation... Where is it that you feel the 1911 platform falls short?

Perhaps us 1911 guys can explain some misconception on your part.

[This message has been edited by phideaux_2003 (edited 6/30/2011 2:26p).]

For me it is ergonomics and accuracy. I have yet to shoot a pistol as accurate as I can shoot either of my 1911's. I have a PX4 and have shot XD's,glocks and revolvers and none touch how well I can shoot a 1911.

I love he easy maintenance of the newer style guns however a 1911 just fits me better. And if it involves life or death hitting the target is the key.

quote:

---

No flame intended here, just honest conversation... Where is it that you feel the 1911 platform falls short?

---

Its all good. I have no idea 'what' it is that falls short. Like I said, I have shot them both, and by no means would I consider it an extensive test. But over the course of a couple hundred of rounds through each....the 1911 seemed to jam at least a couple of times if I recall. However, my current reasoning for purchasing my Glock for CCW is that I have yet to have it jam at all. Not to say it doesnt fall short, its ugly as hell and lets not forget 'kaboom'.

My intent is not to make this a glock vs. colt though. That will just derail the thread. Maybe the colt was dirty, I don't know. Maybe it was modded incorrectly I don't know. I just shot the thing for fun with no attention paid to which was 'better' than the other.

I do agree that the Colt will evoke feelings and an aura of quality and nostalgia that a Glock simply will not.

I'm still relatively new to firearms, but have shot several different manufacturers weapons so far. I recently had a chance to shoot an uncle's 1911. It was handed down through the family from a grandpa and is a 4 digit serial number Colt. I jumped at the chance to shoot it, but figured a gun this old would most likely be all over the paper. It turned out the best grouping I have had with larger that .22 caliber hand guns. This thing although ugly (compared to most 1911s) and had horrible sights, just felt right.

It's funny. I confess I'm not a gun guy. Have only owned any weapon for about 3 years.

I grew up a car guy. I totally get the concept of "soul" in a car. I get digging the rumble of a big block, or the scream of a little high revving small block, whine of a turbo. I just haven't been able to see a gun as anything but a hunk of metal and or plastic that serves as a tool. can't say that I'd rate a fancy 1911 more aesthetically pleasing than a glock, but would be willing to argue all day how the original 250 testa rossa might just be the most perfect work of art ever created by mankind.

Also you can't put sweet buckeye burl or snakewood grips on a tupperware pistol. Shameless I know...

Jed-

That's fair enough brother. The Glock has certainly earned their reputation for reliablility, no question about that, and in a lot of cases, certainly more so than not, the Glock does everything a prospective buyer is looking for.

The 1911, I believe, leaves a lot more room for higher learning in regards to pistolcraft. While the Glock will put a bullet essentially where you want it to go every time, I feel the balance of a Glock is poor, the balance changes significantly while shooting through a mag and it is just entirely too thick and utilitarian (in my opinion, based on my hands and how I operate a pistol) in order for it to be wielded like a finely tuned instrument of killing. When one gets into a higher realm of pistolcraft, such things come into play. For plinking and punching paper and even some forms of competition, the Glock holds its own for sure, but in training for personal defense a change in balance can take a 2" double tap to a 13" double tap very quickly. I don't want to sound like a "mall ninja" or some kind of wanna-be crusaider or anything, but I do study personal defense pretty intensely.

I know on this forum such topics are commonly discussed lightly, but if you're interested in real conversation about this, my email is in my profile. Please feel free to email me.

The 1911 is also like the Porsche 911 or a degree from A&M.

There are flaws or negatives in all of them but each of the three is a unique special experience. When you test one either something clicks inside you or it doesn't. If not, don't worry about it....move on. But if it does, you join a group of like minded people who have had that special experience.

quote:

---

just fits me better

---

1911 v. G22 v. XD
Macallen v Four Roses v. Grey Goose
Strip v. Ribeye
Brunette v. Redhead

lather rinse repeat

Plastic guns just feel spongey to me when I shoot them, and single action trigger is the bee's knees.

If I had the money burning a hole in my pocket and I could get a good one that needed no work, etc....I would own one just to own one. I think I could go that route. I woulndt use it for personal defense in a concealed setup....thats personal preference though.

I have no idea how I ever ended up with ANY glocks though except that I figured based on how they were designed, that they would be the best, as per my opinion, for personal defense.

I find it amusing that the man who probably has the most experience using and building 1911s of anyone alive, Larry Vickers, usually shoots a g17 when instructing and calls his 1911 armorer courses the "glock appreciation class".

They're a fine pistol, but getting the right combo of ammo, springs, mags, and the need to hand fit parts just seems like voodoo. I see a lot of people say they shoot better with a 1911, but really it's just the light, shirt trigger masking their ****ty trigger control. Once you get a good grasp on grip, sight picture, and trigger press it won't matter what you shoot, you'll do well with it.

NRH ag 10 wrote:

quote:

---

Once you get a good grasp on grip, sight picture, and trigger press it won't matter what you shoot, you'll do well with it.

---

But I suppose once this happens, that same single action trigger that hid the "****ty" trigger control couldn't possibly assist any more huh? How about the 8.5" sight radius?

quote:

---

They're a fine pistol, but getting the right combo of ammo, springs, mags, and the need to hand fit parts just seems like voodoo.

---

A lot of manufacturers, from lower end all the way up to high end, must be really good at voodoo then.

It's sad that the myth that you need to do all this work to a 1911 has permeated the handgun world. The truth is, you don't need all of that crap done to have a well built pistol capable of shooting as good, if not better, than anything else on the market. You really don't. Those that think you do are generally, as I stated before, 1911 snobs or incompetent garage gunsmiths that fail miserably at replacing parts that dont need replacing - mostly because they read somewhere that you "need" X part for your 1911 to work, when in reality you don't need it at all.

The AR world is very similar to the 1911 world - in that most owners feel the "need" to trick out their weapon, replace parts just because they read somewhere that this part is superior than that "junk" factory part, etc. 99% of the time it's simply not true in that the AR won't work without exotic parts and pieces - because 99% of the time they will run, and run flawlessly with 100% factory parts.

I can tell you that the trigger has jack and squat to do with why I personally shoot a 1911, or even an XD, far better than I ever will with a Glock - and that is because I'm normal and a Glock doesn't fit my hand worth a crap. The ergonomics of one just don't suit me, whereas the grip angle and grip of a 1911 fit me like a glove. Hell, I love the way a Beretta M9 feels in my hand, and every one I've shot has shot like a dream, but for a carry weapon they are akin to carrying a baseball bat around - large and clunky.

Glock makes a fine (functioning, although ugly as sin) weapon, don't get me wrong. They aren't suited for everybody though (mostly people with a genetic makeup that can't be traced back to Chernobyl). But they are a good and very reliable weapon.

Not liking a 1911 for X or Y reason is perfectly fine, but not liking one because you read or heard somewhere that they are unreliable without hundreds or thousands of dollars and hours and hours worth of custom work is inaccurate thinking. Just like forming an opinion that you would never carry one without ever actually owning one to allow you to make that determination with any degree of accuracy.

LAV has a great, and very sarcastic, sense of humor. As a 1911 guy (and I also own several of the best modern 1911 clones...called HK's) I can easily see the humor in his comment.

But I think you are mistaking humor for what he would, and did do. Why exactly, do you think one of the best 1911 turnscrews in the world came out of an organization like Delta?

Think maybe they use them some?

When they can use literally anything?

phideaux- I have found I don't shoot any better with a 1911 than I did with my glocks, M&Ps, or my current HK. I consider myself a mediocre shooter, but I find I shoot anything with a reasonable trigger roughly the same. I find some designs have idiosyncrasies that can cause issues, IE the short trigger reach and smooth trigger face on the M&P caused my trigger finger to slide over during rapid fire and push my shots, but once you account for these it's pretty easy to overcome.

Schemlba- I base my comments on those that have more personal experience than than I will ever have. People who run training classes with high round counts that see 1911s consistently choke.

I agree that glocks are not comfortable in the hand. I disagree that it has anything to do with one's ability to shoot them well. I used to look down on them, but once I had to use one for work and got a decent amount of rounds through it in a short time frame I found I was very comfortable with the results I had, despite that infernal hump on the back of the frame.

Puryear- I know Delta USED to use 1911s, and I also recall LAV talking about how much downtime each pistol had to have with their shooting schedule. Others like Hilton Yam, who is the armorer for his SWAT team, has mentioned how much of a royal PITA it is to keep 1911s running when you shoot often, and has stated he would much rather use M&P45s for his team if allowed to start over.

I love the 1911.

I love .45 acp.

The 1911 feels very balanced and shoots very well for me.

The .45 acp is just fun to shoot.

However, all that being said, if your goal is self defense, frankly, a quality reliable 9mm with 15+ capacity shooting modern self-defense ammo is a better choice. With the extremely effective modern expansion and penetration designs, .45 and .40 do not perform anything more than fractionally better than 9mm, and the increased capacity gives you a lot more options if the engagement is at all extended, or if the odds are not in your favor number wise.

If you were shooting fully jacketed ball ammo you would want a .45 for sure. When you go to rapid expanding high penetration jacketed hollow point self defense ammo, the mass and diameter advatages of those calibers is very nearly neutralized. Technology is a wonderful thing.

That being said, the 1911 is a beautiful piece of nostalgia, and with the extreme number of options and modifications available out there, it is an excellent platform for recreational and competitive shooters.

The 9mm versions of it are supposed to be great competition guns. Higher capacity, very easy to accurize, less recoil. They certainly have their place in a shooter's arsenal.

quote:

---

People who run training classes with high round counts that see 1911s consistently choke.

---

That may be true, but how many of us are ever going to use our pistols in the same manner that Delta or a person that does firearms training for a living? And as pointed out - even though the 1911's used by SpecOps are in the shop more, there is a reason the operators still chose to use them over the plethora of other choices available to them.

Sure, after 75k rounds that 1911 may need a spring replaced, whereas the Glock may last until 100k rounds. In the grand scheme of things, that really is a minimal factor in choosing a weapon that you put 1k rounds every 6 months through.

Very similar to the gripe that came out when Springfield started making M1A's - they used a cast reciever and immediately the groans of how those junky cast recievers don't last like a milled one came out. After testing, it was determined that the cast reciever could handle well over 150k rounds without issues. Would a milled one last longer? Yep, but when you are getting into round counts that most military weapons never see, much less civilian weapons that spend the majority of the time at home in the safe, it begins to become rather meaningless.

And maybe that's important to you - more power to you. I tend to look at things much more realisticly and know that in my carry piece, i'm not going to take it on an assault of an enemy position in the Hindu Kush or in the desert of Iraq after getting there by swimming in salt water for 15 miles. I don't need to have somethign that I can drop from 10k feet in an airplane and still work, because I'm not going to put anything I have through that much abuse. I want something that can reliably fire the several hundred rounds I typically go through at the range, reliably fire the SD ammo I chose to use, and do so without needing more than standard firearm maintenance. If it makes it to 50k rounds, great. If it makes it to 75k rounds, even better, but I don't have some magic number in my head of a round count that should be achieved before a part fails. That's just me though.

I'd also be curious to know, at least in the case of the shooting classes, how many of the 1911's that show up are factory and how many have been "tuned" because the owner felt it needed it.

And I've put several thousands of rounds through Glocks in an attempt to make myself both like them and get comfortable with them. it just didn't happen with me, unfortunately, because at the time I really wanted a Glock to have as something to either carry or for the night stand.

NRH...you would be amazed at the number of people who show up at a class with a new gun, or worse, one they just "tuned up" for the class and then never test fired. Thats why I have loaner Glocks... LE users who often only firetheir weapons a few times a year if that can be worse.

It happens with all types of guns, not just 1911's. But 1911's dont suffer fools. They are from a time when things were made to fit and you had to know how to maintain it, not just have enough money to buy it.

As for reliability...all I know is I know lots of folks in the shooting, training and competition world who run 100's of rounds a month through 1911 pattern weapons with no issues requiring a visit to the garage. I have a 1911 pattern with over 60,000 rounds through it. I shoot it at important matches when I NEED to do well.

I have several 1911's that are twice my age that I run hard and often.

Dont mean to argue...but classes are a great place to find firearms stupidity on parade.

edit: Just to add to the story...STI recently delivered a very, very large order of .40 cal Tacticals to the guys in the black helmets.

[This message has been edited by Puryear Playboy (edited 6/30/2011 5:53p).]

I have taken classes several times that saw rounds counts in the high hundreds or 1k mark reached in two days. Many of these classes are attended by guys who don't carry for a living, but want to be prepared in the event they need to defend themselves. These types of classes have the added benefit of being fun as all get out, too.

Springs lasting 75k in the 1911 are a joke. the weak springs that come stock on most lower level 1911s should be replaced after 1k, and even recoil and mainsprings of the correct weight should be replaced every 3-5k. Then comes things like replacing an extractor. On a glock this is a few $ and 2 minutes. A 1911 involves hand fitting the part for proper tension and occurs more often. Recoil springs on most 9mm pistols need replacing every 5-7k. On a P30 there are no scheduled parts replacements until 25k.

Puryear- When was that order? There's a gentleman on LF.net who has a STI .40 that was returned after Army trials.

Original thread.

You have to be a member to read, so here is the OP:

quote:

---

In April of 2008 I received a phone call from a friend informing me of a few STI 5.0 Tactical pistols in S&W .40 that were soon to be available for purchase. It seems 130 of these pistols were procured by the Army for limited testing and returned to the vendor upon completion of the testing. These pistols were now available for sale. The price was good for the pistol by itself but due to the story behind them many believed they would become somewhat of a collector’s item at best or cool conversation piece at minimum. As a result they sold out quickly. I was fortunate enough to scoop one up.

A total of five of these were purchased by co-workers and me. They came with a limited warranty from Dawson Precision as well as three magazines. The sights are adjustable DP tritium. We have no idea how many rounds were put through the guns, however, they appeared to have been well maintained. One of the five was in considerably worse cosmetic condition. While the trigger is far better than a Glock it is not on par with a nice 1911 trigger. These pistols are bit heavier than a Glock 22. The STI 2011 frame is polymer and its checkering has nice bite without being too abrasive.

The pistols were fairly reliable but did experience failure to feed malfunction at a rate of approximately one every one hundred rounds. Mine did this with 180 gr ball, 135 gr Federal Frangible but experienced somewhat less malfunctions with 180 gr Winchester Ranger SXT. This was for the first five hundred rounds. At this point I cleaned the pistol and lubed it with lithium grease. I wiped down and relubed the pistol ever 300-400 rounds after this. I have hade no malfunctions with this gun for the next 1200 rounds. My co-workers and I followed this cleaning schedule. They put closer to 2000 rounds through their guns with similar results. One of these was sold to a well known firearms instructor. He had nothing but trouble with his and eventually sent it off to be reworked by a reputable gunsmith. We used them for the 2008 SWAT Round-Up and were happy with their performance. After the competition I cleaned mine and put it up.

This post is not so much a review of or endorsement of the STI as it is sharing a tiny piece of Army trivia.

Enjoy.

---

Some other posts by known good sources of info in that thread:

quote:

---

Nice review Timmy!

I was talking with a Patrol Officer this morning that carries a .40 S&W STI on duty and uses the same gun in matches.

We were discussing practice and duty ammo for his STI. He told me that his STI had no problems with duty ammo (180 grain Hydra Shok) and some other practice loads (can remember which loads off the top of my head), but said the pistol would constantly have problems / malfunctions with .40 Winchester White Box 100 round value pack ammo, several loads with bullets under 180 grains, and rounds that had a shorter overall length.

I have very little experiences with STI's, just relaying another Officer's experiences with his .40 STI.

---

quote:

---

Once returned to STI they were pushed out the back door. By word of mouth they went quickly. About a week for all to be sold is my best guess. STI had no vested interest in advertising the circumstances behind the return nor will they tell you were these guns came from. I applaud their loyalty to discretion in this matter given the customer. No one from STI or Dawson Precision has ever said one single word to me about the story behind these guns. While frustrating to a lay person (me) looking for answers they have been absolute professionals in this regard.

Matt66,
Some of these guns, once broken in and properly lubricated run very well. Others I've seen don't. Mine runs like a scalded dog if kept lubricated with very light coats of properly placed lithium and I wipe it down and lub every 300-400 rounds. Given the fact that I only carry 45 rounds of pistol ammo at one time I am happy with this guns reliability. Please keep in mind I own exactly one gun which is in no way statistically significant enough to draw any big picture conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Here is my 9mm STI Tactical 5.0 that I use for IPSC shooting:

pic deleted

It is a great gun, but also quite delicate. It won't eat everything you serve it and extractor problems are common.

---

I have an old Colt 1911 my Granddad gave me that I love to shoot (even keep long extinct Black Talons in it), but it's prone to jamming. I need to get it tuned. I have a modest collection of choices of hand and shot guns well suited for home defense.
My 'bump in the night' go to is an expanded capacity pump 12 ga. with pistol grip and ventilated barrel.

quote:

---

Springs lasting 75k in the 1911 are a joke. the weak springs that come stock on most lower level 1911s should be replaced after 1k, and even recoil and mainsprings of the correct weight should be replaced every 3-5k. Then comes things like replacing an extractor. On a glock this is a few $ and 2 minutes. A 1911 involves hand fitting the part for proper tension and occurs more often. Recoil springs on most 9mm pistols need replacing every 5-7k. On a P30 there are no scheduled parts replacements until 25k.

---

I was tossing numbers out as examples, not as anything other. I couldn't tell you what the replacement intervals are in 1911's because outside of 1 spring (below), I never had the need to replace any, and I put a very respectful volume of rounds through my Officer's when I had it (still pissed about the theft of my baby, btw.)

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the asessment that stock springs should be replaced at 1k intervals on a 1911 - if that were the case, on my officer's I would have gone through roughly 20 sets of springs, and more than 5 mainspring changes. That was never necessary as function never failed.

I replaced 1 spring on the entire firearm, and that was because I was already into the mainspring housing to replace it. Hell, 1k is a range session for some of us.

Are there instances where after a palsy 1k rounds that springs have failed? Absolutely. It's going to happen when you have the volume of manufacturers and volume of firearms produced. Even with the Glock, there are lemons in the bunch. It happens in every manufacturing process known to man and cannot be avoided without prohibitive cost increases.

This thread has taken quite the turn in directions (I know, highly unusual), but I'm gathering that you have a dislike (or less positive?) view of 1911's based not on experience with them, but rather what you have heard and read. I really think that's an innacurate method of making a decision. Nobody has ever made claims that replacing parts, such as extractors, on a 1911 is a "drop in, 2 minute job" like it is on many newer models. That is one advantage that newer technology does provide, but it was never an intention or really a thought in the design of the 1911. To use that as a mark against it is really reaching in my opinion as how easy or hard it is to change an extractor really does not have weight when it comes to discussion of form or function.

If the 1911 was a poor or outdated design, their wouldn't be the number of manufacturers or volume of product available today. It would not be making it's way back into military use on a regular basis, and the war horses like the 1945 production model in my safe would have been turned to scrap years ago.