Why all of the 1911 hatred lately?

[VERT]

I love the butthurt that always seems to develop on INGO.

Billt actually has the right idea if we look at handguns purely as a tool. Glocks are lighter, hold more ammo and are plug and play so far as parts are concerned. All good attributes in a fighting pistol. I have owned several Glocks over the years. I shoot them well. I carried Glock for many years. When the zombies come to eat my brains there will be a Glock on my side. It is also interesting to note the number of well respected instructors that are switching from 1911s to polymer. Tom Givens refers to a 1911 as a 2 bad guy gun, his Glock 35 is a 3 bad guy gun. Never mentioned 15 bad guys.

I have switched from Glock to 1911 because I can. Same reason I drive an F-150 instead of a Honda Civic. The Honda is a heck of a lot more practical. Call it ego if you will but I like being able to send a very accurate chunk of heavy lead down range. Now I am really going to blow your mind. We have invested in a couple 9mm 1911s and I am here to say that I think they are great! The day Smith & Wesson releases a commander sized, scandium framed roundbutt in 9mm will be the same day you see me shelling out some cash.

 

[billt]

I have switched from Glock to 1911 because I can. Same reason I drive an F-150 instead of a Honda Civic.

To do the car / gun comparison thing, and keep it accurate, you have to compare the F-150 to something that was on the road in 1911. I can't help you there. Hell, my mother wasn't even born until 1915.

 

[88E30M50]

I love the butthurt that always seems to develop on INGO.

I'm not seeing the hurt feelings here and have been having a bit of fun with this thread. Anyone that knows me knows that I am into 1911s and Glocks. I prefer 1911 carry but when heading up into the city, will either take a G19 or G23 with me. Sometimes in the summer, I'll carry nothing but a Glock for weeks at a time. It has nothing to do with the idea that the Glock gives me any advantages in a gun fight, but more along the lines of it being easier on car interiors and more sweat resistant. I do find the idea of basing your carry choice on a scenario with 10 to 15 attackers kind of silly. As CM said, chances are you will be looking at 1/3 that number and even then, most will scatter like cockroaches in the light when the shooting starts.

The reason I prefer 1911s for daily carry is that when it comes down to it, most of the advantages a Glock holds are not relevant to 99% of attacks that have taken place. That plus the fact that the 1911 is a nicer platform to shoot for me. In fact, if you substituted an average quality 1911 in place of the actual handgun used in just about every attack in recent history, you would not get a change in outcome given an equal level of skill of the shooter. Your average EDC gun does not get buried in the sand, dropped from airplanes or drug behind a truck. Is it nice to have a gun that can survive that? Sure, but it's not necessary.

The big question is: Why do Glock fanboys get their shorts in such a bunch when someone suggests a 1911 is a reasonable choice for daily carry? 1911 guys don't froth at the mouth the way the Glock fanboys do. Instead, the 1911 guys tend to feel bad for the Glock fanboys because they deny themselves the enjoyment that owning a decent 1911 brings with it. My advice is to enjoy shooting what you want and let others enjoy shooting what they want.

 

[Expat]

I am very butthurt that I can't have that Wilson Combat...

 

[88E30M50]

At 50 plus years, about the only time I get butthurt any more is the day after eating nuclear hot wings. But, we won't go there...

 

[indiucky]

"Harry" only exists on a movie screen.

Was it the same movie screen where this scenario plays out?

"I'm not much into "style" if I have to face 15 guys with a 7 shot pistol." Billt

Apparently not much into statistics either...

I guess when a large band of Arizona Snowbirds comes at you that old 1911 or a revolver might as well be a wiffle ball bat huh? I mean seriously you hit the Blue Boar cafeteria at the wrong time and well....It could get ugly quick....

Here is some "non movie" stats for you to ponder....

For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.Analysis
As might be expected, the majority of incidents (52%) took place in the home. Next most common locale (32%) was in a business. Incidents took place in public places in 9% of reports and 7% occurred in or around vehicles.
The most common initial crimes were armed robbery (32%), home invasion (30%), and burglary (18%).
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.
Handguns were used in 78% of incidents while long guns were used in 13%; in the balance the type of firearm was not reported. The most common size of handgun was the .35 caliber family (.38, .357, 9mm) at 61%, with most .38s apparently being of the 5 shot variety. Mouseguns (.380s and below) were at 23%, and .40 caliber and up at 15%.
The range of most incidents appears to be short but in excess of touching distance. It appears that most defenders will make the shoot decision shortly before the criminal comes within arm’s length. Defenders frequently communicate with their attackers before shooting.
The firearm was carried on the body of the defender in only 20% of incidents. In 80% of cases, the firearm was obtained from a place of storage, frequently in another room.
Reloading was required in only 3 incidents. One of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver, which was eventually successful after 13 shots.
Multiple conspirators were involved in 36% of the incidents. However, there were no apparent cases of getaway drivers or lookouts acting as reinforcements for the criminal actor(s) once shooting starts. At the sound of gunfire, immediate flight was the most common response for drivers and lookouts.
When multiple conspirators were involved, the first tier was a two man action team. If another member was available, he was usually the driver of the getaway car and remained in the car. If a fourth conspirator was involved, he was stationed immediately outside the target location as a lookout for the police or other possible intervening parties. The outside conspirators do not generally appear to be armed. It does appear that the trend over the period has increased from one weapon in the action team to two weapons.
The largest group of violent criminal actors was 7, a group that committed serial home invasions in Rochester NY. An alert and prepared homeowner, who saw them invade an adjacent home, accessed his shotgun, and dispatched them (2 killed and 1 seriously wounded) when they broke in his door.
Incidents rarely occurred in reaction time (i.e., ¼ second increments). Most commonly, criminals acted in a shark-like fashion, slowly circling and alerting their intended victims. The defender(s) then had time to access even weapons that were stored in other rooms and bring them to bear.
The most common responses of criminals upon being shot were to flee immediately or expire. With few exceptions, criminals ceased their advances immediately upon being shot. Even small caliber handguns displayed a significant degree of instant lethality (30 per cent immediate one shot kills) when employed at close range. Many criminal actors vocally expressed their fear of being shot when the defender displayed a weapon. Upon the criminals’ flight, the “victims” frequently chased and captured or shot the criminals and held them for the authorities.
Conclusions
1) Even small caliber weapons are adequate to solve the vast majority of incidents requiring armed self-defense.
2) Mindset of the potential victim was far more important than the type of weapon used. All the victims were willing to fight their opponents in order to survive. Although not common, in some cases bridge weapons, such as pens, were used to gain time to access the firearm.
3) Frequently, the defenders were aware that something was amiss before the action started and then placed themselves in position to access their weapons. Awareness of the surroundings appears to be a key element of successful defense.
4) The defenders had some measure of familiarity with their firearms. Although perhaps not trained in the formal sense, they appear to be able to access a firearm and immediately put it into action. At least one defender learned from a previous experience and made the firearm more accessible for subsequent use.
5) Training or practice with a firearm should include a substantial amount of accessing the firearm from off body locations, such as drawers, underneath counters, etc.
6) This analysis does not present a view of the totality of armed self-defense in that non-positive outcomes were not available for inclusion in the database. The analysis may, however, be useful in helping to describe a methodology for successful armed self-defense. This methodology might be described as:
1. be aware,
2. be willing to fight,
3. have a weapon accessible,
4. be familiar enough with the weapon to employ it without fumbling,
5. when ready, communicate, both verbally and non-verbally, to the attacker that resistance will be given, and
6. if the attacker does not withdraw, counterattack without hesitation.

Location of Incident
Location	%
Home	52%
Business	32%
Public	9%
In/around Vehicle	7%

Shots Fired
Type of Location	No	Yes
Business	33%	72%
Home	25%	75%
Public	29%	71%
In/around Vehicle	35%	65%
Total	28%	72%

Number of Shots Fired
Average	2.2
Median	2
Mode	1
Max	20

Gun Type
Handgun	78%
Long Gun	13%
Unknown	8%

Body Carry
Type of Location	No	Yes
Business	69%	31%
Home	94%	6%
Public	49%	51%
In/around Vehicle	65%	35%
Total	80%	20%

Multiple Assailants
Type of Location	No	Yes
Business	76%	24%
Home	72%	28%
Public	62%	38%
Retail Business	52%	48%
In/around Vehicle	49%	51%
Total	80%	20%

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Dan Cannon

 

[Expat]

At 50 plus years, about the only time I get butthurt any more is the day after eating nuclear hot wings. But, we won't go there...

There is a good Thai restaurant in Mishawaka that certainly could broaden that beyond hot wings...

 

[halfmileharry]

"Harry" only exists on a movie screen.

Say WHAT????

 

[billt]

Was it the same movie screen where this scenario plays out?

"I'm not much into "style" if I have to face 15 guys with a 7 shot pistol." Billt

Apparently not much into statistics either...

I guess when a large band of Arizona Snowbirds comes at you that old 1911 or a revolver might as well be a wiffle ball bat huh? I mean seriously you hit the Blue Boar cafeteria at the wrong time and well....It could get ugly quick....

Here is some "non movie" stats for you to ponder....

For the period 1997 – 2001, reports from “The Armed Citizen” column of the NRA Journals were collected. There were 482 incidents available for inclusion in the analysis. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included. The database is self-selecting in that no non-positive outcomes were reported in the column.Analysis
As might be expected, the majority of incidents (52%) took place in the home. Next most common locale (32%) was in a business. Incidents took place in public places in 9% of reports and 7% occurred in or around vehicles.
The most common initial crimes were armed robbery (32%), home invasion (30%), and burglary (18%).
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.
Handguns were used in 78% of incidents while long guns were used in 13%; in the balance the type of firearm was not reported. The most common size of handgun was the .35 caliber family (.38, .357, 9mm) at 61%, with most .38s apparently being of the 5 shot variety. Mouseguns (.380s and below) were at 23%, and .40 caliber and up at 15%.
The range of most incidents appears to be short but in excess of touching distance. It appears that most defenders will make the shoot decision shortly before the criminal comes within arm’s length. Defenders frequently communicate with their attackers before shooting.
The firearm was carried on the body of the defender in only 20% of incidents. In 80% of cases, the firearm was obtained from a place of storage, frequently in another room.
Reloading was required in only 3 incidents. One of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver, which was eventually successful after 13 shots.
Multiple conspirators were involved in 36% of the incidents. However, there were no apparent cases of getaway drivers or lookouts acting as reinforcements for the criminal actor(s) once shooting starts. At the sound of gunfire, immediate flight was the most common response for drivers and lookouts.
When multiple conspirators were involved, the first tier was a two man action team. If another member was available, he was usually the driver of the getaway car and remained in the car. If a fourth conspirator was involved, he was stationed immediately outside the target location as a lookout for the police or other possible intervening parties. The outside conspirators do not generally appear to be armed. It does appear that the trend over the period has increased from one weapon in the action team to two weapons.
The largest group of violent criminal actors was 7, a group that committed serial home invasions in Rochester NY. An alert and prepared homeowner, who saw them invade an adjacent home, accessed his shotgun, and dispatched them (2 killed and 1 seriously wounded) when they broke in his door.
Incidents rarely occurred in reaction time (i.e., ¼ second increments). Most commonly, criminals acted in a shark-like fashion, slowly circling and alerting their intended victims. The defender(s) then had time to access even weapons that were stored in other rooms and bring them to bear.
The most common responses of criminals upon being shot were to flee immediately or expire. With few exceptions, criminals ceased their advances immediately upon being shot. Even small caliber handguns displayed a significant degree of instant lethality (30 per cent immediate one shot kills) when employed at close range. Many criminal actors vocally expressed their fear of being shot when the defender displayed a weapon. Upon the criminals’ flight, the “victims” frequently chased and captured or shot the criminals and held them for the authorities.
Conclusions
1) Even small caliber weapons are adequate to solve the vast majority of incidents requiring armed self-defense.
2) Mindset of the potential victim was far more important than the type of weapon used. All the victims were willing to fight their opponents in order to survive. Although not common, in some cases bridge weapons, such as pens, were used to gain time to access the firearm.
3) Frequently, the defenders were aware that something was amiss before the action started and then placed themselves in position to access their weapons. Awareness of the surroundings appears to be a key element of successful defense.
4) The defenders had some measure of familiarity with their firearms. Although perhaps not trained in the formal sense, they appear to be able to access a firearm and immediately put it into action. At least one defender learned from a previous experience and made the firearm more accessible for subsequent use.
5) Training or practice with a firearm should include a substantial amount of accessing the firearm from off body locations, such as drawers, underneath counters, etc.
6) This analysis does not present a view of the totality of armed self-defense in that non-positive outcomes were not available for inclusion in the database. The analysis may, however, be useful in helping to describe a methodology for successful armed self-defense. This methodology might be described as:
1. be aware,
2. be willing to fight,
3. have a weapon accessible,
4. be familiar enough with the weapon to employ it without fumbling,
5. when ready, communicate, both verbally and non-verbally, to the attacker that resistance will be given, and
6. if the attacker does not withdraw, counterattack without hesitation.

Location of Incident
Location	%
Home	52%
Business	32%
Public	9%
In/around Vehicle	7%

Shots Fired
Type of Location	No	Yes
Business	33%	72%
Home	25%	75%
Public	29%	71%
In/around Vehicle	35%	65%
Total	28%	72%

Number of Shots Fired
Average	2.2
Median	2
Mode	1
Max	20

Gun Type
Handgun	78%
Long Gun	13%
Unknown	8%

Body Carry
Type of Location	No	Yes
Business	69%	31%
Home	94%	6%
Public	49%	51%
In/around Vehicle	65%	35%
Total	80%	20%

Multiple Assailants
Type of Location	No	Yes
Business	76%	24%
Home	72%	28%
Public	62%	38%
Retail Business	52%	48%
In/around Vehicle	49%	51%
Total	80%	20%

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Dan Cannon

Is there supposed to be something in all of that gibberish that says you're better off with a gun that holds less ammo?

 

[billt]

The big question is: Why do Glock fanboys get their shorts in such a bunch when someone suggests a 1911 is a reasonable choice for daily carry? 1911 guys don't froth at the mouth the way the Glock fanboys do. Instead, the 1911 guys tend to feel bad for the Glock fanboys because they deny themselves the enjoyment that owning a decent 1911 brings with it. My advice is to enjoy shooting what you want and let others enjoy shooting what they want.

What if you own and shoot many examples of both, and you can accept the fact a 1911 is a 102 year old design? And because of that, there just might be something out there, that has come after indoor plumbing and telephones, that just might be a little better suited for the task. Then what "category" do you fit into?

 

[halfmileharry]

What if you own and shoot many examples of both, and you can accept the fact a 1911 is a 102 year old design? And because of that, there just might be something out there, that has come after indoor plumbing and telephones, that just might be a little better suited for the task. Then what "category" do you fit into?

Using the same logic that the 100 yr old design might be a better option. Newer or more doesn't necessarily translate to better or best. I like Glock as well but they don't fit me and I don't shoot them as well.
I'll happily take my measely 8 rds of 1911 .45acp that I hit everything I shoot at over 15 rds I struggle to hit a 50% average with. That is MY logic.

 

[Expat]

What if you own and shoot many examples of both, and you can accept the fact a 1911 is a 102 year old design? And because of that, there just might be something out there, that has come after indoor plumbing and telephones, that just might be a little better suited for the task. Then what "category" do you fit into?

I think the point he is making, why are you so up in arms about it.

 

[billt]

I think the point he is making, why are you so up in arms about it.

I'm not. As I said I've got no dog in this fight. I own both, and shoot both equally well. I'm an, "equal opportunity chain jerker", as far as 1911 vs. everything else. I'll just come in and see which side requires any additional jerking over the other.

This all reminds me of a Ford vs. Chevy discussion I heard a few years back. A Chevy lover actually claimed: "I can't drive a Ford!" He was very serious when he said it.

 

[VERT]

To do the car / gun comparison thing, and keep it accurate, you have to compare the F-150 to something that was on the road in 1911. I can't help you there. Hell, my mother wasn't even born until 1915.

Not sure that it would be a fair comparison between a model T and a Corolla. Outside of the use of modern polymer and the double stack magazine there is not really that much difference. Almost all service pistols work in a similar manner. Even the 1911 and Browning Hi Power have been updated over the years. If I may make a different car analogy: How about a 60s Impala, Chevelle or Charger vs a Jetta, Lancer, WRX, Focus. The newer cars are probably quicker and get better fuel economy, but those old muscle cars sure have a certain cool factor.

But back to the original post. The 1911 is quickly falling out of favor because they are heavy and low capacity. Simple as that.

 

[VERT]

I am very butthurt that I can't have that Wilson Combat...

No butthurt here, I love my Wilson! Just this morning I made a comment to ChurchMouse about how refined the Wilson's are and how I wanted another one. Problem is that for the price it quickly becomes a game of diminishing returns. For the money I could buy 7 Glocks and hold 14 times more ammo.

 

[indiucky]

Is there supposed to be something in all of that gibberish that says you're better off with a gun that holds less ammo?

No eye roller...That was the point...It really doesn't matter...

 

[churchmouse]

Using the same logic that the 100 yr old design might be a better option. Newer or more doesn't necessarily translate to better or best. I like Glock as well but they don't fit me and I don't shoot them as well.
I'll happily take my measely 8 rds of 1911 .45acp that I hit everything I shoot at over 15 rds I struggle to hit a 50% average with. That is MY logic.

Works for me but I am almost as old as the 1911 platform
Just ask Sylvain.

 

[indiucky]

What if you own and shoot many examples of both, and you can accept the fact a 1911 is a 102 year old design? And because of that, there just might be something out there, that has come after indoor plumbing and telephones, that just might be a little better suited for the task. Then what "category" do you fit into?

A "Bandwagon Jumper"? One that believes "It's newer so it must be better" crowd?

A woman is based upon a 180,000 year old design and yet they seem to function as well (if not better) than the latest blow up dolls produced out of the latest plastics...IMHO ofcourse...

 

[SERparacord]

No butthurt here, I love my Wilson! Just this morning I made a comment to ChurchMouse about how refined the Wilson's are and how I wanted another one. Problem is that for the price it quickly becomes a game of diminishing returns. For the money I could buy 7 Glocks and hold 14 times more ammo.

But if you buy Glocks you may loose your thumbs!

 

[nakinate]

What if you own and shoot many examples of both, and you can accept the fact a 1911 is a 102 year old design? And because of that, there just might be something out there, that has come after indoor plumbing and telephones, that just might be a little better suited for the task. Then what "category" do you fit into?

Today's math lesson: 2014-1911=103