[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Top of the Line 1911 Poll Question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/30/2008 10:34:15 PM EDT
|
If you were heading out to the sandbox tomorrow and had the choice of any of these 1911s, which would you pick?
Springfield Professional Wilson CQB Nighthawk GRP Ed Brown Special forces Is there one you would prefer over these? |
Wilson CQB...just cause its whats in my holster now. But I wouldn't have an issue carrying any of the others either. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=49&t=51489 - SGB
|
|
Quoted:
If you were heading out to the sandbox tomorrow and had the choice of any of these 1911s, which would you pick? Springfield Professional Wilson CQB Nighthawk GRP Ed Brown Special forces Is there one you would prefer over these? Since the requirement is a weapon for service in Iraq, I would avoid the more tightly fit 1911's as they will soon fail in extremely hostile environments. That means my beloved Professional and the Baer would be the first to nix from the list. I've never handled a Nighthawk so I can't give an honest opinion. Wilson's are pretty snug, but the ones I've used weren't at tightly fit as my Pro and weren't quite as loose as my Ed Browns. They are somewhere in between. So, from my experience, the Special Forces would be your go-to 1911. It will have a little more play in the slide to frame fit which would be absolutely critical for reliable function in a sandy environment. |
|
Quoted:
Many seem to ASSUME that properly fitted 1911 would fail in such an environment. Other than conjecture maybe someone would like to post some facts in support of this theory. I would opt for the Pro. Heres the article from Pat Rogers (scroll down), the tightness of the Pro was too tight for Marines and caused reliability problems. It was said it is ok for street detectives, but too tight for operators. http://www.badlandsforums.com/faq/Images/200312-SOCOM.pdf |
|
I'd take a Colt or SA beater pistol, and send it through any of those custom shops instead.
As a civilian looking to buy a high end pistol - any of those will make you very happy - compare on the features you need, then want, and finally compare those prices completely built how you want them. |
|
I prefer the Pro, after having owned Wilson and Les Baer pistols. It is tight, but neither of mine has ever jammed with any ammo: JHP, FMJ, TC, SWC. It is at least twice as accurate as the CQB due to a better barrel fit. It does not have mechanical or cosmetic issues.
|
|
I'd say either the Nighthawk or the Ed Brown.
My Enforcer is fitted "right", it's not overly tight and I can easily take it apart without a bushing wrench. In fact, I've never used a bushing wrench. The rails are smooth with no play, but they aren't "tight" just fitted perfectly. This is contrary to the Springfield I have with a Springfield installed match barrel that is extremely tight at the front of the barrel with the bushing (and yet is outshot by the Nighthawk). It's a GI, so the rails are nothing to compare to a Pro as they're fairly loose compared to the Nighthawk or a Pro model. I've heard that Ed Brown does things the same way. They fit it "right" not "tight". The ones I've looked at show this to be true, but I don't own one. I don't know about Wilson. I believe they fit things similar to Nighthawk, which makes sense since NH spawned off from Wilson, but I have no first hand experience with their pistols. |
|
Quoted:
I've heard that Ed Brown does things the same way. They fit it "right" not "tight". The ones I've looked at show this to be true, but I don't own one. Correct. From Brows website: From Brown Website
Ed Brown guns are capable of producing the accuracy the highest quality ammunition is capable of. With a 45 ACP, this is about 1 1/2" at 50 yards. A common misconception is that a gun has to be extremely tight to be accurate. What is required to reach the accuracy potential is consistent lock up of the critical components. Any tighter than zero movement is useless, and can only reduce reliability and detract from handling. It doesn't have to be tight, it just has to be right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many seem to ASSUME that properly fitted 1911 would fail in such an environment. Other than conjecture maybe someone would like to post some facts in support of this theory. I would opt for the Pro. Heres the article from Pat Rogers (scroll down), the tightness of the Pro was too tight for Marines and caused reliability problems. It was said it is ok for street detectives, but too tight for operators. http://www.badlandsforums.com/faq/Images/200312-SOCOM.pdf This is pretty much common knowledge in the 1911 community. Super tight 1911's are great in non-hostile environments (typical LEO work, target ranges, competitions, etc), they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many seem to ASSUME that properly fitted 1911 would fail in such an environment. Other than conjecture maybe someone would like to post some facts in support of this theory. I would opt for the Pro. Heres the article from Pat Rogers (scroll down), the tightness of the Pro was too tight for Marines and caused reliability problems. It was said it is ok for street detectives, but too tight for operators. http://www.badlandsforums.com/faq/Images/200312-SOCOM.pdf The only paragraph I could find in support of such a conclusion. "When the Company tested the original FBI gun, it was noted that the extremely tight frame to rail fit might have added some degree of intrinsic accuracy, but that very tight fit also made the gun significantly less reliable when dirty." Granted my experiance with the Pro is limited to the one I own. However, I've run 500 rounds at a time through my pro without failure, so my question is just how DIRTY does it have to get to become "significantly" less reliable? Of course I'm basing this on "Dirty" coming from being fired rather than being carried in a dusty/sandy environment as all shooting was done on a "square range." Quoted:
This is pretty much common knowledge in the 1911 community. Super tight 1911's are great in non-hostile environments (typical LEO work, target ranges, competitions, etc), they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq. It's common knowledge based on ? Nothing in the article supports "they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq." As a matter of fact the article states .......... "The pistol was relatively free from malfunctions, but the only shooting was done on a square range. " ................ I greatly respect Pat Rogers opinion however nothing in his article supports the conclusion that a tightly fitted 1911 is not serviceable in an Iraq type environment. His observation and opinion is that the "Professional" is overly tight and built to unrealistic specs for such a deployment. Nothing in the Article would indicate the same opinion of a CQB, GRP or Special Forces 1911. |
|
Of the 4, I'd opt for the Wilson, simply because that's the only one of those I've had an experience with, and it was positive.
That said, I generally would not feel confident carrying any 1911 as a sidearm in this AO - it would take a lot of trouble free rounds with the one I would be carrying to give me any warm fuzzies about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many seem to ASSUME that properly fitted 1911 would fail in such an environment. Other than conjecture maybe someone would like to post some facts in support of this theory. I would opt for the Pro. Heres the article from Pat Rogers (scroll down), the tightness of the Pro was too tight for Marines and caused reliability problems. It was said it is ok for street detectives, but too tight for operators. http://www.badlandsforums.com/faq/Images/200312-SOCOM.pdf The only paragraph I could find in support of such a conclusion. "When the Company tested the original FBI gun, it was noted that the extremely tight frame to rail fit might have added some degree of intrinsic accuracy, but that very tight fit also made the gun significantly less reliable when dirty." Granted my experiance with the Pro is limited to the one I own. However, I've run 500 rounds at a time through my pro without failure, so my question is just how DIRTY does it have to get to become "significantly" less reliable? Of course I'm basing this on "Dirty" coming from being fired rather than being carried in a dusty/sandy environment as all shooting was done on a "square range." Quoted:
This is pretty much common knowledge in the 1911 community. Super tight 1911's are great in non-hostile environments (typical LEO work, target ranges, competitions, etc), they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq. It's common knowledge based on ? Nothing in the article supports "they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq." As a matter of fact the article states .......... "The pistol was relatively free from malfunctions, but the only shooting was done on a square range. " ................ I greatly respect Pat Rogers opinion however nothing in his article supports the conclusion that a tightly fitted 1911 is not serviceable in an Iraq type environment. His observation and opinion is that the "Professional" is overly tight and built to unrealistic specs for such a deployment. Nothing in the Article would indicate the same opinion of a CQB, GRP or Special Forces 1911. You can assume (that's exactly what you're accusing others of) all you like. I doubt "dirty" means from firing as the FBI fires their weapons just as the Marines do. The only difference is the environments in which they operate. If you get sand/dust in your pistol, do you not call it "dirty"? How do you interpret "The Professional Model Pistol is a well-built and very nice shooting pistol, but more at home in the hands of an investigator than an operator"? If this isn't an environmental statement, what is it? I can't believe I've actually found someone who thinks a gun built to very tight tolerances is actually just as reliable in adverse/hostile environments as one such as the AK. Kind of funny. I won't argue the obvious for much longer. |
|
Quoted:
You can assume (that's exactly what you're accusing others of) all you like. I doubt "dirty" means from firing as the FBI fires their weapons just as the Marines do. The only difference is the environments in which they operate. If you get sand/dust in your pistol, do you not call it "dirty"? How do you interpret "The Professional Model Pistol is a well-built and very nice shooting pistol, but more at home in the hands of an investigator than an operator"? If this isn't an environmental statement, what is it? I can't believe I've actually found someone who thinks a gun built to very tight tolerances is actually just as reliable in adverse/hostile environments as one such as the AK. Kind of funny. I won't argue the obvious for much longer. I'm not ASSUMING any thing I'm going by the exact wording of the article. 
And this is a discussion board, feel free not to participate if you feel unable to promote and support your opinion. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not ASSUMING any thing I'm going by the exact wording of the article.
And this is a discussion board, feel free not to participate if you feel unable to promote and support your opinion. Actually, you're not going on the exact wording. You're assuming "dirty" means from firing. I don't see where in that article it defines "dirty" as being from firing. Please point it out, perhaps I'm missing it. Let me ask you this, when a gun gets dirty from firing, what exactly happens? Is it perhaps that carbon and other residue builds up on the rails, barrel, springs, trigger components, etc? I think we can agree it does. When a weapon gets dirty from the environment, what happens? Debris builds up on the rails, barrel, springs, trigger components, etc. Right? So regardless of the method by which the weapon becomes dirty, the weapon is sensitive to debris inside the action. As a result of this, it becomes unreliable. The article also states the Pro was "relatively free from malfunctions" and that "most of them" were caused by the mag well and magazine combination. It doesn't say all malfunctions were caused by the magazine well. So that means other malfunctions occurred during the tests. It also says that the tests were done on a range, which is a relatively controlled / non-hostile environment. Another reason I wouldn't take my Pro with me to Iraq is because it requires a bushing wrench to disassemble. I don't want to have to worry about losing this wrench or struggling with disassembly in a less than ideal environment. When a weapon requires a special tool for basic maintenance it's generally a poor choice for a military weapon. As for reliability and tolerances, why don't you call up Rogers and ask him to give a 1911 you own a reliability package. Then ask him if it will include tightening the slide to frame fit to that of the Pro or bushing to slide fit of the Pro. I'll bet you it won't and he would advise you against it... as I suspect Vickers, Brown, Wilson, Yam, etc. would. To support this notion, I submit the second paragraph on the second screen shot. Rogers questions what the motives of the FBI were to dictate such tight tolerances for the sake of accuracy and at the expense of reliability. |
|
Since I posted this last night, it seems a lot of avid 1911 users (here and 1911 forum and 1911.org) find these 4 particular pistols too tight to trust to be totally reliable in such a harsh AO.
That being said, which of any 1911 would you want as a side arm over there? |
|
Quoted:
Since I posted this last night, it seems a lot of avid 1911 users (here and 1911 forum and 1911.org) find these 4 particular pistols too tight to trust to be totally reliable in such a harsh AO. That being said, which of any 1911 would you want as a side arm over there? Really, lots of users on the 1911 forum agree that these weapons are too tight for duty in such an environment as Iraq? Darn, and here we're being told it isn't "common knowledge". 
I would go with anything built to mil-spec/GI tolerances for ultimate reliability. Any military grade 1911 would be fine. |
|
I've come to one realization over the years that stands out more than the others.
People in the internet firearms community tend to cop the attitude that "if I own it, it's the best pistol in the world for every imaginable application". I own a Professional Model and I LOVE the pistol. I own Ed Browns and I LOVE the pistols. I also know that they aren't God's gift to firearms. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=49&t=51489 - {REMOVED} - SGB
I had to say it. |
|
Quoted:
Some just said they'd scale down to the TRP or Warrior. Sound advice. I know that my stainless TRP has about the perfect tolerances for such duty. I'm not a huge fan of the Warrior for the reasons mentioned in this thread: http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=56857&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1 |
| Like I said above I own a CQB and a Professional, that said I love them both. Myself I wouldnt take them on deployment so they would not be subjected to the wear and tear of combat. I also have a MC Operator and a Warrior which I would not hesitate to take over there. You can afford to have them abused, finish worn off, dropped, banged around etc and not have a $2000.00 plus gun looking like a POS. My Warrior has been de MIM'd and my MC could go as is. I dont know if the talc would ball any of them up but why risk it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some just said they'd scale down to the TRP or Warrior. Sound advice. I know that my stainless TRP has about the perfect tolerances for such duty. I'm not a huge fan of the Warrior for the reasons mentioned in this thread: http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=56857&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1 What if you had your Warrior sent off to Nighthawk to have them run through it, de-mim it and fix every other known issues? ETA, Sorta make a Warrior/GRP 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Some just said they'd scale down to the TRP or Warrior. Sound advice. I know that my stainless TRP has about the perfect tolerances for such duty. I'm not a huge fan of the Warrior for the reasons mentioned in this thread: http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=56857&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1 What if you had your Warrior sent off to Nighthawk to have them run through it, de-mim it and fix every other known issues? ETA, Sorta make a Warrior/GRP
Why not just buy a GRP then? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've heard that Ed Brown does things the same way. They fit it "right" not "tight". The ones I've looked at show this to be true, but I don't own one. Correct. From Brows website: From Brown Website
Ed Brown guns are capable of producing the accuracy the highest quality ammunition is capable of. With a 45 ACP, this is about 1 1/2" at 50 yards. A common misconception is that a gun has to be extremely tight to be accurate. What is required to reach the accuracy potential is consistent lock up of the critical components. Any tighter than zero movement is useless, and can only reduce reliability and detract from handling. It doesn't have to be tight, it just has to be right. EB will not shoot 1.5" @ 50 yards. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many seem to ASSUME that properly fitted 1911 would fail in such an environment. Other than conjecture maybe someone would like to post some facts in support of this theory. I would opt for the Pro. Heres the article from Pat Rogers (scroll down), the tightness of the Pro was too tight for Marines and caused reliability problems. It was said it is ok for street detectives, but too tight for operators. http://www.badlandsforums.com/faq/Images/200312-SOCOM.pdf The only paragraph I could find in support of such a conclusion. "When the Company tested the original FBI gun, it was noted that the extremely tight frame to rail fit might have added some degree of intrinsic accuracy, but that very tight fit also made the gun significantly less reliable when dirty." Granted my experiance with the Pro is limited to the one I own. However, I've run 500 rounds at a time through my pro without failure, so my question is just how DIRTY does it have to get to become "significantly" less reliable? Of course I'm basing this on "Dirty" coming from being fired rather than being carried in a dusty/sandy environment as all shooting was done on a "square range." Quoted:
This is pretty much common knowledge in the 1911 community. Super tight 1911's are great in non-hostile environments (typical LEO work, target ranges, competitions, etc), they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq. It's common knowledge based on ? Nothing in the article supports "they are not so great in hostile environments like the talcum powder like dust found in Iraq." As a matter of fact the article states .......... "The pistol was relatively free from malfunctions, but the only shooting was done on a square range. " ................ I greatly respect Pat Rogers opinion however nothing in his article supports the conclusion that a tightly fitted 1911 is not serviceable in an Iraq type environment. His observation and opinion is that the "Professional" is overly tight and built to unrealistic specs for such a deployment. Nothing in the Article would indicate the same opinion of a CQB, GRP or Special Forces 1911. You can assume (that's exactly what you're accusing others of) all you like. I doubt "dirty" means from firing as the FBI fires their weapons just as the Marines do. The only difference is the environments in which they operate. If you get sand/dust in your pistol, do you not call it "dirty"? How do you interpret "The Professional Model Pistol is a well-built and very nice shooting pistol, but more at home in the hands of an investigator than an operator"? If this isn't an environmental statement, what is it? I can't believe I've actually found someone who thinks a gun built to very tight tolerances is actually just as reliable in adverse/hostile environments as one such as the AK. Kind of funny. I won't argue the obvious for much longer. First, most of us aren't going to subject our 1911 to desert torture. Second, if you want a 1911 for dipping in sand, buy a loose one if it makes you feel better. I live in a civilized environment where the only thing that soils my gun is lint. The best 1911 for me, therefore, is a tight one. If you force yourself to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator (i.e. a loose inaccurate 1911 because somewhere out there exists a desert), you end up with crap. |
|
Quoted:
First, most of us aren't going to subject our 1911 to desert torture. Second, if you want a 1911 for dipping in sand, buy a loose one if it makes you feel better. I live in a civilized environment where the only thing that soils my gun is lint. The best 1911 for me, therefore, is a tight one. If you force yourself to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator (i.e. a loose inaccurate 1911 because somewhere out there exists a desert), you end up with crap. You did read the OP's original question, right? No shit. I won't subject my Pro to this type of environment either, I would take a pistol better suited to the task at hand (read the OP's first post) like my TRP. Thanks for agreeing with me. Jesh. Some of you guys can't follow a thread to save your lives. |
|
People keep typing, "I'd take MY XYZ gun". and talking about waste of money or it would be a waste to take into that environment.
When choosing the tool keep two things in mind. One, you want it to work. Period. You won't be shooting bullseyes out at 50 yards. You're more likely to get somebody elses blood on the slide than you are to shoot a pistol at 50 yards. Now, if "work" means that it is the most accurate AND reliable option, then...there you go. Two, be prepared (mentally) to loose it. Either from a battle field loss, damaged beyond repair or "other". This is much easier to do when it was purchased NYM (Not your money). For me, as much as I really love 1911's, it doesn't hold enough ammo for me to consider it for a trip to the SB. 2011 properly built/high cap 1911? Getting warmer. Pistols aren't used as a last ditch anymore. Logistically, having 8 round magazines just doesn't make sense. To carry enough ammo they take up too much real estate on the vest. Each round in a 1911 magazine represents 12.5% of it's capacity. This is fine for CCW stateside. Would you use 10 round AR mags instead of 30? Ok, your using a .308 AR now, but you can still only have 10 round mags even though there are 20's and 30's available. You see how this doesn't make sense? To carry enough 10 round mags would take up way too much room and require unecessary reloads. To answer the question of the OP. ED Brown SF? NO. Marketing propaganda. It has no affiliation. Springfield? Maybe, especially if they'd do a wide body for me built to my specs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
EB will not shoot 1.5" @ 50 yards. Take that up with Ed Brown. Prove him a liar. Funny he does not supply a test target with his guns, there has not been any accuracy testing done on his guns showing 1.5 @ 50, and the only thing we have is his claim. EB is fitted as loosely as Wilson. Why all of a sudden is EB twice as accurate as a Wilson? Is it the invisible magic coating? |
|
Quoted:
Take that up with Ed Brown. Prove him a liar. Funny he does not supply a test target with his guns, there has not been any accuracy testing done on his guns showing 1.5 @ 50, and the only thing we have is his claim. EB is fitted as loosely as Wilson. Why all of a sudden is EB twice as accurate as a Wilson? Is it the invisible magic coating? I'm still waiting for your proof Ed Brown is a liar. This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread by the way. You've keyed in on something on Brown's website and totally derailed the conversation in true Arfcom fashion. You can't make your point, so you run off in another direction. Have fun with that. Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for you to prove Ed Brown is a liar. Feel free to start another thread and post the results of your tests. |
|
Quoted:
For me, as much as I really love 1911's, it doesn't hold enough ammo for me to consider it for a trip to the SB. 2011 properly built/high cap 1911? Getting warmer. Pistols aren't used as a last ditch anymore. Logistically, having 8 round magazines just doesn't make sense. To carry enough ammo they take up too much real estate on the vest. Each round in a 1911 magazine represents 12.5% of it's capacity. This is fine for CCW stateside. That's funny, the MEU Marines and Delta would disagree with you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Buy me one of his guns and I will. It is EB who should demonstrate this degree of accuracy, not I. Brilliant logic. You call someone a liar and demand they prove they're not. He who makes the claim should prove it. Who made the fucking accuracy claim? Me or Ed Brown? Where is his proof? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Buy me one of his guns and I will. It is EB who should demonstrate this degree of accuracy, not I. Brilliant logic. You call someone a liar and demand they prove they're not. He who makes the claim should prove it. Who made the fucking accuracy claim? Me or Ed Brown? Where is his proof? Call him up and ask him. I'm not "fucking" Ed Brown. Do you think you could get back on topic, I know it's "fucking" killing you trying. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, most of us aren't going to subject our 1911 to desert torture. Second, if you want a 1911 for dipping in sand, buy a loose one if it makes you feel better. I live in a civilized environment where the only thing that soils my gun is lint. The best 1911 for me, therefore, is a tight one. If you force yourself to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator (i.e. a loose inaccurate 1911 because somewhere out there exists a desert), you end up with crap. You did read the OP's original question, right? No shit. I won't subject my Pro to this type of environment either, I would take a pistol better suited to the task at hand (read the OP's first post) like my TRP. Thanks for agreeing with me. Jesh. Some of you guys can't follow a thread to save your lives. I think you have Pro envy. The TRP is not better suited for the task. It is just slightly looser than the Pro. Sand is likely to affect either gun the same. I was referring to rattletrap 1911s. The main difference between them is the TRP is full of crappy parts, not that it is purposefully built for increased reliability. |
