A reminder...

Just because there are ignorant people who don't have any knowledge of history, we end up chewing the same ground over and over.

In reference to the M1911 sucking.

Before the AK hit the scene, the 1911 was the very definition of reliable gun.  They issued it for more than seventy years!  Unreliable guns don't last that long.

Tracking the experience of the staff of one small magazine's reviews does not change history.

Think about it for a moment.  The M1911 replaced the series of double action revolvers starting with the M1889.  Eleven separate revolver designs that were supposed to replace the M1873 SAA.  The Army was ready to go back to the 1873, but left things open to a competition in 1907.  That's 11 designs from two makers to replace one in just 18 years.

When production fell behind demand for World War 1, the Army adopted the Colt M1917 and S&W M1917 revolvers to fill the gap.  If the 1911 was such a crappy design, why did the Army not cancel 1911 production and keep the now proven revolvers?

The military sure as shit did not keep the Chautchat in either caliber.

The M73 was withdrawn as fast as FN could make the M240.

While the M1911 was being issued it outlasted the M1903, M1, M14 and M16A1 rifles.

It remained in service while the BAR came and went.  It saw all of the M1917 and M1919 variations come and go.

It was issue before there WERE tanks and was issued to tank crews who served on the tank that's still standard today.

When it was first issued the Wright brothers were state of the art, when it left we'd long since stopped going to the moon.

Unreliable things do not last this long!  Most things don't last this long, period.

But the 1911 is still a damn good gun.

A top of the line 1911 Ford Model T cannot hope to compete with the worst piece of shit the company makes today, on any level; even if it was newly made.

Want to have a dogfight between the state of the art Curtiss bi-plane and an F-22A?  Speed contest?  Endurance?  Range?

See what I mean?  Truth is that firearms have not advanced all that much since 1907 when the M1911 was born.  The two gigantic improvements have been in the lock going to a ramp from a link and materials.

I have more jams in my Glock 21 than my Springfield M1911-A1 GI.  My Glock doesn't like about 1 in 20 of the reloads I had been using (failure to feed).  The 1911 ate them up without fail.

I have extraordinarily good luck with guns.  I just don't have issues.  I suspect that what we are really seeing here is the internet makes all complaints louder.  You rarely see, "my gun ran like advertised!"  I am willing to bet we are seeing most of the "gun didn't work" occurrences.

The person who started the whole 1911's suck (and who trolls the comment threads to continue his agenda) cited Gun Tests magazine.

Gun Tests can claim that since they don't take advertising that they are not biased by their advertisers.  That's true.  BUT WHAT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IS THAT THEY ARE UNBIASED! Their testing methodology is no different than mine as an owner, truth be told.  Their sample sizes are piteously small, just like mine where I have a positive experience.  In other words, statistically insignificant even if you repeat what they observed a great deal.


You want to impress me?  Go buy twenty of each model and fire 1,000 rounds from each and note when the failures occur.  I don't have to do this because I have 100 years of testing on my side that you don't so you have to prove that the last 100 years were bullshit, not the other way around.  Otherwise it's just anecdotes.


PS, a contemporary of the M1911 acceptance test went back into production and died.  That would be the Luger.  There's a fine example of a finicky gun that romance keeps around (or at least inflates the value).