Posted: 3/22/2013 8:11:14 AM EDT
|
Ok, so big fan of 1911s, not so much their track record(personally). HK45ct at bedside
I have been staring to wonder about the carry models from Wilson and Ed Brown. Are these built a little looser to be more reliable? OR is it my imagination that they build carry models differently from their target ones. |
|
Tight ones that are built right are better than a loose one not built right.
Ive had more problems out of a glock 19 than I have my TRP. Ive taken classes where ive seen glocks go down and my TRP just kept chugging along Good mags and a reputable 1911 and you won't have problems. A little know on how everythig works goes a long way too |
|
first question would be; "what's your track record ?"
Was it unreliable and if so what type of failure and what did you do to try to rectify it ? I ask because you may previously just have gotten a lemon. I've had a couple of Wilsons and a couple of Browns and although they're very nicely built, they aren't inherently more reliable or accurate than Kimbers or Springfields or Dan Wessons, so your best bet might not be throwing $2.5K at the problem. This is my current EDC: 
I chose it because it's full size (my preference) with an aluminium frame. I don't believe that it's fit differently from any other Wilson, just that it has "desirable carry features", such as the lighter frame, rounded butt, carry bevel etc. That said, I didn't really have a problem carrying this, ( heavy frame, pointy butt, razor sharp edges), costs about 1/2 as much: 
the Baer was built TIGHT. But it's been utterly reliable with zero failures too.... |
|
Quoted:
first question would be; "what's your track record ?" Was it unreliable and if so what type of failure and what did you do to try to rectify it ? I ask because you may previously just have gotten a lemon. I've had a couple of Wilsons and a couple of Browns and although they're very nicely built, they aren't inherently more reliable or accurate than Kimbers or Springfields or Dan Wessons, so your best bet might not be throwing $2.5K at the problem. This is my current EDC: http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/u628/asiparks/file_zps0d1e9b0b.jpg I chose it because it's full size (my preference) with an aluminium frame. I don't believe that it's fit differently from any other Wilson, just that it has "desirable carry features", such as the lighter frame, rounded butt, carry bevel etc. That said, I didn't really have a problem carrying this, ( heavy frame, pointy butt, razor sharp edges), costs about 1/2 as much: http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/u628/asiparks/file_zps97b315c2.jpg the Baer was built TIGHT. But it's been utterly reliable with zero failures too.... The 5" Ultralight is my EDC as well. Excellent pistol. JD |
| Is this "track record" the typical internet bullshit, or personal experience? There are plenty of us here who've never had a problem with many 1911's that we've owned. Personally, I've carried RIA, Kimber, Colt, and Springfield. I never had a single problem or malfunction out of any of those government models. My TRP runs like a top and I trust my life to it every day. |
|
Quoted:
Ok, so big fan of 1911s, not so much their track record(personally). HK45ct at bedside I have been staring to wonder about the carry models from Wilson and Ed Brown. Are these built a little looser to be more reliable? OR is it my imagination that they build carry models differently from their target ones. This makes me wonder what your "track record" with 1911s is... seems you know nothing about the weapon, and what you think you know you read on the internet |
| All things equal, a 1911 is more finicky than something like a Glock. Even gurus like Vickers and Yam will tell you this. Fortunately, the vast majority of users never put enough rounds through their guns, or carry them in conditions like a desert sandstorm, for this fact to be really relevant. If you start putting 10k rounds a month through your pistol, or carry it in Iraq, it's going to need more TLC than a Glock. For an EDC/weekend range piece, you're GTG. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, so big fan of 1911s, not so much their track record(personally). HK45ct at bedside I have been staring to wonder about the carry models from Wilson and Ed Brown. Are these built a little looser to be more reliable? OR is it my imagination that they build carry models differently from their target ones. This makes me wonder what your "track record" with 1911s is... seems you know nothing about the weapon, and what you think you know you read on the internet Indeed, and it isn't necessary to fork over tons of cash for one that operates with utter reliability right out of the box, so long as you use good magazines. I have owned a few, from upper quality just below custom, to what I carry now, and they have all but one, a Colt LW Combat Commander been utterly reliable. What I carry now is just a cheap RIA that I bought for $400. With CMC magazines, it feeds everything I put in it, including lead SWC hand loads, and handloaded Hornday XTPs, as well as various factory rounds, and shoots a good enough group for SD, being that of about palm size free handed at 20 yards. I'm sure bench rested would improve that somewhat. It is reliable, having fed every round of the last several thousand without fail. It's not a beauty queen, and it doesn't have all the "right" materials according to purists, and really, it's the cheap GI model, but it works. The Ruger SR1911 is fantastic, some of the Springer's , Colts, etc, and of course if you really want a custom move on up. The main issue is magazines, get good ones, Chip McCormick, Wilson, or Tripp, some like Metalform, and you are going to be fine. The other one that pops up, is the extractor. Generally those things, and I'll add a recoil spring that is made by Wolff or Wilson to be a plus as well. |
|
Quoted:
All things equal, a 1911 is more finicky than something like a Glock. Even gurus like Vickers and Yam will tell you this. Fortunately, the vast majority of users never put enough rounds through their guns, or carry them in conditions like a desert sandstorm, for this fact to be really relevant. If you start putting 10k rounds a month through your pistol, or carry it in Iraq, it's going to need more TLC than a Glock. For an EDC/weekend range piece, you're GTG. I beg to differ, my grandfather and several of his brothers, and many more men carried them and used them in conditions far worse that anything seen in our wars today. They carried them through the trenches of WWI. My grandfather and his brothers spoke very highly of the reliability of them, and my grandfather used his a lot. I was able to speak with him at length on it, since he lived to be 101. I had a Marine that worked for my dad, that fought at the end of WWII , in Korea, and and in the first 6 years of Vietnam, he wouldn't be alive without the ones he was issued. Pretty rough conditions that he used his in. Seemed to work well for him and many other GIs. He carried one for SD every day since Vietnam until the day he died. You will always find some folks that had problems with any firearm, but the 1911 was in service for a very long time and served admirably in conditions that far exceed anything that we have faced in the last 30 years. Don't forget they were there, in service in the Africa Campaigns in WWII in the desert and dust, and in Palestine in WWI. They have already seen it all, and are more than capable to fight a street battle against a crack head at the 7-11. |
Since pavlovwolf mentioned RIA, I'll mention my Cimarron, which is basically a RIA made up to look like an early model 1911. I don't know why, but for some reason I have been doing much better at the range with the old GI sights than the newer 3 dot sights. Mine has the lowered ejection port. This feature makes it imperfect as a M1911 clone, but has made it great with modern hollow point ammo.
|
|
In my experience, 1911's can be mag finicky, otherwise good to go. Understandible considering dozens of manufacturers on both sides. Find what mag works and stick with it.
I carry a colt lw officers, or Springfield full rail operator. If I were to get a new 1911 carry gun I'd go Dan Wesson VBOB or Baer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
All things equal, a 1911 is more finicky than something like a Glock. Even gurus like Vickers and Yam will tell you this. Fortunately, the vast majority of users never put enough rounds through their guns, or carry them in conditions like a desert sandstorm, for this fact to be really relevant. If you start putting 10k rounds a month through your pistol, or carry it in Iraq, it's going to need more TLC than a Glock. For an EDC/weekend range piece, you're GTG. I beg to differ, my grandfather and several of his brothers, and many more men carried them and used them in conditions far worse that anything seen in our wars today. They carried them through the trenches of WWI. My grandfather and his brothers spoke very highly of the reliability of them, and my grandfather used his a lot. I was able to speak with him at length on it, since he lived to be 101. I had a Marine that worked for my dad, that fought at the end of WWII , in Korea, and and in the first 6 years of Vietnam, he wouldn't be alive without the ones he was issued. Pretty rough conditions that he used his in. Seemed to work well for him and many other GIs. He carried one for SD every day since Vietnam until the day he died. You will always find some folks that had problems with any firearm, but the 1911 was in service for a very long time and served admirably in conditions that far exceed anything that we have faced in the last 30 years. Don't forget they were there, in service in the Africa Campaigns in WWII in the desert and dust, and in Palestine in WWI. They have already seen it all, and are more than capable to fight a street battle against a crack head at the 7-11. Fair point, but most 1911's carried and used today are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the GI issued Colts. Tighter tolerances mean greater susceptibility to dirt and grime. |
|
Quoted:
Is this "track record" the typical internet bullshit, or personal experience? There are plenty of us here who've never had a problem with many 1911's that we've owned. Personally, I've carried RIA, Kimber, Colt, and Springfield. I never had a single problem or malfunction out of any of those government models. My TRP runs like a top and I trust my life to it every day. Not everyone is so lucky. I'm sure I am on the extreme end of bell curve regarding 1911 reliability, just as I think those such as yourself who have never had a problem are on the opposite end. OP, get over the hype that tight isn't suitable for a carry 1911. A 1911 doesn't need to be loose to be reliable, in fact if anything it can be a hindrance. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All things equal, a 1911 is more finicky than something like a Glock. Even gurus like Vickers and Yam will tell you this. Fortunately, the vast majority of users never put enough rounds through their guns, or carry them in conditions like a desert sandstorm, for this fact to be really relevant. If you start putting 10k rounds a month through your pistol, or carry it in Iraq, it's going to need more TLC than a Glock. For an EDC/weekend range piece, you're GTG. I beg to differ, my grandfather and several of his brothers, and many more men carried them and used them in conditions far worse that anything seen in our wars today. They carried them through the trenches of WWI. My grandfather and his brothers spoke very highly of the reliability of them, and my grandfather used his a lot. I was able to speak with him at length on it, since he lived to be 101. I had a Marine that worked for my dad, that fought at the end of WWII , in Korea, and and in the first 6 years of Vietnam, he wouldn't be alive without the ones he was issued. Pretty rough conditions that he used his in. Seemed to work well for him and many other GIs. He carried one for SD every day since Vietnam until the day he died. You will always find some folks that had problems with any firearm, but the 1911 was in service for a very long time and served admirably in conditions that far exceed anything that we have faced in the last 30 years. Don't forget they were there, in service in the Africa Campaigns in WWII in the desert and dust, and in Palestine in WWI. They have already seen it all, and are more than capable to fight a street battle against a crack head at the 7-11. Fair point, but most 1911's carried and used today are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the GI issued Colts. Tighter tolerances mean greater susceptibility to dirt and grime. Confusion of "tolerances" and "clearances" aside, many pre-1938 Colts, and even most war production M1911A1s, were a lot tighter when new than most folks today realize. |
|
Quoted:
Since pavlovwolf mentioned RIA, I'll mention my Cimarron, which is basically a RIA made up to look like an early model 1911. I don't know why, but for some reason I have been doing much better at the range with the old GI sights than the newer 3 dot sights. Mine has the lowered ejection port. This feature makes it imperfect as a M1911 clone, but has made it great with modern hollow point ammo. http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j224/JacknifeColorado/Cimarron%201911/DSC00241.jpg How do you figure a lowered ejection port affects its suitability for hollow points? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All things equal, a 1911 is more finicky than something like a Glock. Even gurus like Vickers and Yam will tell you this. Fortunately, the vast majority of users never put enough rounds through their guns, or carry them in conditions like a desert sandstorm, for this fact to be really relevant. If you start putting 10k rounds a month through your pistol, or carry it in Iraq, it's going to need more TLC than a Glock. For an EDC/weekend range piece, you're GTG. I beg to differ, my grandfather and several of his brothers, and many more men carried them and used them in conditions far worse that anything seen in our wars today. They carried them through the trenches of WWI. My grandfather and his brothers spoke very highly of the reliability of them, and my grandfather used his a lot. I was able to speak with him at length on it, since he lived to be 101. I had a Marine that worked for my dad, that fought at the end of WWII , in Korea, and and in the first 6 years of Vietnam, he wouldn't be alive without the ones he was issued. Pretty rough conditions that he used his in. Seemed to work well for him and many other GIs. He carried one for SD every day since Vietnam until the day he died. You will always find some folks that had problems with any firearm, but the 1911 was in service for a very long time and served admirably in conditions that far exceed anything that we have faced in the last 30 years. Don't forget they were there, in service in the Africa Campaigns in WWII in the desert and dust, and in Palestine in WWI. They have already seen it all, and are more than capable to fight a street battle against a crack head at the 7-11. Fair point, but most 1911's carried and used today are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the GI issued Colts. Tighter tolerances mean greater susceptibility to dirt and grime. Confusion of "tolerances" and "clearances" aside, many pre-1938 Colts, and even most war production M1911A1s, were a lot tighter when new than most folks today realize. If you want to get technical, then yes, looser clearances were spec'd to allow, in part, for the greater difficulty in maintaining really tight tolerances due to the manufacturing processes and tools of the day. I believe .005" of an inch sear movement, with the safety engaged, was considered acceptable, with positive hammer/sear engagement angles used as a safety net. Nowadays, any sear movement with the safety engaged is a sign of shitty gunsmithing, especially given that neutral sear/hammer interfaces are essentially standard. Radial lug/slide engagement in higher-end guns today is far better than what was passable under GI specs. One area where modern 1911's have taken a giant step backward is in unnecessarily tight slide/frame fitting, mainly because the uninformed use it as a yardstick of craftsmanship. Physics dictates that this is a functional liability with very small returns in accuracy. My point is that anyone carrying a 1911 for serious work today is probably carrying what would have once been considered a tight, "match" gun, because if you go back to a GI style gun, taking away the accuracy and great trigger of a well-tuned 1911, there aren't a ton of compelling reasons to choose it over a more modern alternative. |
|
I work a plain clothes detail with a drug task force. My everyday carry gun is a 2011 Colt Rail Gun. Only thing I've added are 10-8 Performance grips, a SA magwell, some grip tape on the front strap, and a set of Wolff springs, with a reduced tension mag release spring. I am ordering some Trijicon HD sights next week.
I've never had a failure or reliability issue with this pistol, and literally trust my life with it. My carry gun before that was a Glock 22. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All things equal, a 1911 is more finicky than something like a Glock. Even gurus like Vickers and Yam will tell you this. Fortunately, the vast majority of users never put enough rounds through their guns, or carry them in conditions like a desert sandstorm, for this fact to be really relevant. If you start putting 10k rounds a month through your pistol, or carry it in Iraq, it's going to need more TLC than a Glock. For an EDC/weekend range piece, you're GTG. I beg to differ, my grandfather and several of his brothers, and many more men carried them and used them in conditions far worse that anything seen in our wars today. They carried them through the trenches of WWI. My grandfather and his brothers spoke very highly of the reliability of them, and my grandfather used his a lot. I was able to speak with him at length on it, since he lived to be 101. I had a Marine that worked for my dad, that fought at the end of WWII , in Korea, and and in the first 6 years of Vietnam, he wouldn't be alive without the ones he was issued. Pretty rough conditions that he used his in. Seemed to work well for him and many other GIs. He carried one for SD every day since Vietnam until the day he died. You will always find some folks that had problems with any firearm, but the 1911 was in service for a very long time and served admirably in conditions that far exceed anything that we have faced in the last 30 years. Don't forget they were there, in service in the Africa Campaigns in WWII in the desert and dust, and in Palestine in WWI. They have already seen it all, and are more than capable to fight a street battle against a crack head at the 7-11. Fair point, but most 1911's carried and used today are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the GI issued Colts. Tighter tolerances mean greater susceptibility to dirt and grime. Confusion of "tolerances" and "clearances" aside, many pre-1938 Colts, and even most war production M1911A1s, were a lot tighter when new than most folks today realize. If you want to get technical, then yes, looser clearances were spec'd to allow, in part, for the greater difficulty in maintaining really tight tolerances due to the manufacturing processes and tools of the day. I believe .005" of an inch sear movement, with the safety engaged, was considered acceptable, with positive hammer/sear engagement angles used as a safety net. Nowadays, any sear movement with the safety engaged is a sign of shitty gunsmithing, especially given that neutral sear/hammer interfaces are essentially standard. Radial lug/slide engagement in higher-end guns today is far better than what was passable under GI specs. One area where modern 1911's have taken a giant step backward is in unnecessarily tight slide/frame fitting, mainly because the uninformed use it as a yardstick of craftsmanship. Physics dictates that this is a functional liability with very small returns in accuracy. My point is that anyone carrying a 1911 for serious work today is probably carrying what would have once been considered a tight, "match" gun, because if you go back to a GI style gun, taking away the accuracy and great trigger of a well-tuned 1911, there aren't a ton of compelling reasons to choose it over a more modern alternative. A defensive pistol doesn't require a first rate trigger or be capable of shooting dime/quarter sized groups at 25 yards. A GI Spec 1911, if reliable, makes a passable defensive handgun. |
|
Quoted:
Ok, so big fan of 1911s, not so much their track record(personally). HK45ct at bedside I have been staring to wonder about the carry models from Wilson and Ed Brown. Are these built a little looser to be more reliable? OR is it my imagination that they build carry models differently from their target ones. I carry an EB Kobra Carry and love it. I also have a standard sized Colt series 80 Govt that I sometimes carry. Both are very reliable. The carry models from EB & Wilson are built the same way as their bigger cousins and NOT to looser tolerances. The fit & finish of the semi custom makers are reflected in their price. Others have spoken of the 100 year 1911 "track record." With any firearm, the more you handle it, practice with it and maintain it, the more reliable it becomes. I would suggest some formal training with a 1911, it will ease your fears and make you much more confident. |
|
Owned a Springfield. It jammed with ball and jhp. My friend jammed with it too while using ball.
Pretty shameful when that happens. 
Had a local smith look at it. Probably no 1911 expert but better then having one of you guys online guessing as to why. Not internet hearsay unfortunately for some of you finger pointers. Beautiful guns. I don't mind carrying cocked and loaded. My HK45CT never jammed on me. M&P9 only jams on my wife probably because of poor technique. I guess in the end, tight vs loose is just a myth apparently.... |
|
Quoted:
Owned a Springfield. It jammed with ball and jhp. My friend jammed with it too while using ball. ..snip... I guess in the end, tight vs loose is just a myth apparently.... Sounds like you were just unlucky with a lemon. In the unlikely event you end up with a Springfield again, take advantage of their excellent customer service, they will fix it. I have tight and loose 1911's, mine work either way, but I'm sure others have horror stories of either type failing, just ensure you buy a brand that stands behind their weapons. |
|
Well,
I used to be a conceal carry instructor and I personally have seen several Glocks "Fail". I am currently carrying a Umarex Regent as I cant find a shell yet that it has not liked. As a point shooter I am not as worried about the sites but when I use them they are on the money and I shoot it very well right or left handed. There are certainly better ones out there and I still have a lot of rounds to fire to go but so far this thing is rock solid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Owned a Springfield. It jammed with ball and jhp. My friend jammed with it too while using ball. ..snip... I guess in the end, tight vs loose is just a myth apparently.... Sounds like you were just unlucky with a lemon. In the unlikely event you end up with a Springfield again, take advantage of their excellent customer service, they will fix it. I have tight and loose 1911's, mine work either way, but I'm sure others have horror stories of either type failing, just ensure you buy a brand that stands behind their weapons. If your gunna get into 1911s you really need to understand some basic things on a 1911. Really you need to learn how all the parts work together. Most of the time when I run across a trouble 1911 and its not due to mags or bad ammo, its because the extractor is improperly tensioned. Just learning how to bend that piece of metal into tune will save a bunch of headaches. |
|
Quoted:
Indeed, and it isn't necessary to fork over tons of cash for one that operates with utter reliability right out of the box, so long as you use good magazines. I have owned a few, from upper quality just below custom, to what I carry now, and they have all but one, a Colt LW Combat Commander been utterly reliable. What I carry now is just a cheap RIA that I bought for $400. With CMC magazines, it feeds everything I put in it, including lead SWC hand loads, and handloaded Hornday XTPs, as well as various factory rounds, and shoots a good enough group for SD, being that of about palm size free handed at 20 yards. I'm sure bench rested would improve that somewhat. It is reliable, having fed every round of the last several thousand without fail. It's not a beauty queen, and it doesn't have all the "right" materials according to purists, and really, it's the cheap GI model, but it works. The Ruger SR1911 is fantastic, some of the Springer's , Colts, etc, and of course if you really want a custom move on up. The main issue is magazines, get good ones, Chip McCormick, Wilson, or Tripp, some like Metalform, and you are going to be fine. The other one that pops up, is the extractor. Generally those things, and I'll add a recoil spring that is made by Wolff or Wilson to be a plus as well. I must echo your sentiments. I have 2 RIAs (a GI and a Tactical), an SR1911, and a Norinco. All have been flawless and, like you, I tire of the crap that they are unreliable and you have to spend megabucks to get one that will run. I use Wilson and McCormick mags in all of them as well as the factory mags for all except the Norinco (have no idea where the factory mag is for that one.  )
|
|
When in the states, I carry a SA Light Weight Commander Operator, with SA 8rd mags. I had the gun for 6 weeks before deploying and put 600 rds through it. I had 1 failure to lock back after the final round, and that was only on shot 16.
Never had a problem since and I love the gun and it is my first 1911, although it is the midget version. I carries a P30 before that. |