So, Training Progress.
Lots of people drank the Jeff Cooper Kool Aid and went 1911. Plenty of people without red-stained sugar drank lips and tongue also were fans of working with a 1911 and didn't know who Cooper was.
Over time many folks have flopped over to the Plastics. The platform matured since 1980. The modern pistols have lots of advantages over the older design. The more training a body got, the more folks grokked the whole problem, the more a body started leaning to the Glock and clones. Plenty of advantages to go this route. I totally see that.
So, when do I switch?
One set of advantages is the inexpensiveness of the Plastic guns. Both to acquire and to support. If I were a Police Department armorer that liked to go home at a decent hour I'd PRAY for a switch over from a 1911. It takes time money and skill to get one right and keep it right. But I have those skills now, and I have the pistols already. The sunk costs and already sunken. So that Glock advantage applies less to me. Plastic guns nowadays are more reliable out the factory door than the 1911. That also doesn't apply to me, as my 1911 isn't just a craptastic run of the mill/factory gun.
What advantages for Plastic are left? Capacity. That's a big one. And a primary one for people to switch. 9mm today isn't perceived the same way as Jeff Cooper wanted people to perceive it. And if the 9mm Europellet bothers you, there are Plastics in .45. With greater capacity than 1911s.
That's the one side's advantage. What's on the other side. Great trigger, obviously. That still applies to me even with my training as much with a Glock platform as I practice with a 1911. The difference in triggers is less important as I get better, but it's still there. The 1911 is slimmer. You can get a slimmer Plastic, but then you often have the same capacity as a 1911 with a less-good trigger. And why do that.
But I like the slimmer. You can have Slim, or Capacity. Generally. A double stack 1911 is right out though. I have one, and the reliability is not there. Need to test those $120 magazines, but JEEZ. That price tag even makes ME balk a bit.
So my impetus to evolve from 1911 to Modern isn't there yet.
But I am glad I got over my issues with Glocks that I had before training, so I could switch if I wanted to. That's huge.
---
But there's the thing. I expected that change preferences away from the 1911 by now. I follow the parades. I am easily lead and swayed. That's the way the parade it going. Cooper has been gone a dozen years. But I guess maybe it will still be a while before I take to a new path. In the meantime, ima relax and just go with it. I am happy and satisfied with wear I am, but not above changing if the need calls for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I like and still carry a 1911. I like the heft and balance. I have a Sig 226 and M&P as well but there is something about the 1911 that says “I’m a man’s pistol.”
What is the reliability problem with teh double stack versions?
I've never shot any of them, but I don't have a problem with their grip size. (No problem with .50 Desert Eagle grips, as I recall). I have to put long triggers in 1911's, to keep my trigger finger off the slide lock (left-handed). I think that's why. (Long time since I had a std trigger in one) Really dislike the -A1 mainspring housing. Points toward the moon with it. I think JMB got it right with the Army test guns, before the .gov demanded the thumb safety be added, which they then invalidated with their Condition 3 carry mandate. Bureaucrats, sigh.
BTW,
have you tried any changes with the trigger action in your Glock?
For some time, I had a NY light trigger spring, with a (-) connector installed in a G27. Makes it feel somewhat like a double action revolver. Gets rid of that two stage feel.
For some unremembered reason, I removed the NY spring and replaced the std spring, but left the lighter connector in it. In multi-day classes I have switched between my .45 Officers Model and the G27, and have no problems. Since I have lots of time on my Colts, the lighter Glock setup isn't noticeable to me, it seems. In fact, it was only recently during a long overdue lube that I discovered I had not reinstalled the std connector when I switched the std spring back. It's possible that I removed the heavier spring during the course of a 4 day class, but It's been years, and the memory is gone.
Double action revolvers don't bother me, as I shoot at little cans with DAO snubbies on a 40yd range, but 1k rnds of ammo in 4 days might have been more than my trigger finger was willing to put up with.
I only train with Glock. I don't have one.
$75 Caspian double stack magazines just don't have the build quality that a Glock mag has. The feed lips spread too early. Maybe the STI styles are built better, but this isn't and STI gun. And maybe the more expensive ones work better. Another problem is the cheap ones are gawdawful expensive. They just don't have the volume of production to really get the price down
I own a GI-spec 1911 in .45acp. I like the stability of the pistol and how it feels like a straight back push on recoil. I've shot both the Glock 17 and its erstwhile competitor, the Steyr GB, a big duty pistol. Both seemed very whippy, with lots of muzzle flip, if that's the right word. They both kind of rotated on the axis of my trigger finger. I don't know why. I swear I don't get it with the 1911.
Windy,
is it an actual early 1911, and not an -A1? The original design had a firing pin retaining plate with a square bottom edge where it hits the hammer during cycling. Apparently, the change to the -A1 version with the radiused edge changes the dynamics of recoil, which gives you that twist/torque you mention. The change was to accommodate the need to cycle the slide to load from the mandated Condition 3 carry. It lowers the effort needed to initially move the slide against a lowered hammer, which was part of JMB's recoil management system.
NJT,
The original mag design has lips that spread. The straight short feed lips version was from Bill Wilson in his mags designed to work with race guns. They appear to eliminate the controlled feed effect of the original JMB design. Seems to work for many guns, but not for all. The same can be said for the original mag design. The ammo being used is one of the factors involved.
Ammo feeding is just one part of the recoil cycling dynamic that JMB engineered. At first it looks simple, but it is all interrelated and the subtleties are what bite you when you try to change things he designed. (Sort of like trying to fool Mother Nature)
Most of the changes or improvements in short recoil handgun designs since JMB are really a focus on trying to separate or simplify those factors to make them cheaper or easier to manufacture. Or to make them different for marketing purposes. He was working on that sort of improvement himself when he died.
"The original design had a firing pin retaining plate with a square bottom edge where it hits the hammer during cycling. "
I was already working on a blog post about this when you mentioned it.
Post a Comment