Thinking about getting a 1911 type pistol

[dgg9]

That is not 100% correct.

What's not correct? Most modern 1911s aren't as loose as the GI models from 60 years ago. A few are. Isn't that what I said?

The point being that the old GI models were indeed "reliable" is we define "reliable" as "feeds FMJ ammo." Today, "reliable" means "feeds self defense HPs."

[ChamberedRound]

What's not correct? Most modern 1911s aren't as loose as the GI models from 60 years ago. A few are. Isn't that what I said?

The point being that the old GI models were indeed "reliable" is we define "reliable" as "feeds FMJ ammo." Today, "reliable" means "feeds self defense HPs."

dgg,
Going to nitpick here, so take it FWIW.

It's true that the GI models are more loose than many modern 1911s, but they're not more reliable because they "fed FMJ ammo". When the Army was using the 1911/1911a1 in service during WWI and WWII, they issued Ball ammo, not FMJ.

I think we can all agree that, in general, loose means "more reliable" and "less accurate", whereas tight is the opposite, "less reliable" and "more accurate". The most common example of this is the seemingly never-ending argument between the AR and AK camps.

The term "reliable", IMHO, means the weapon goes bang every time you pull the trigger, regardless of the ammo its fed, how much fouling, the conditions it's put in, etc. There's more to reliability than how well it feeds ammo. Now I don't have evidence to support it, but my guess is that this was true when the 1911 and 1911a1 models were designed as well. And yes, in general this reliability typically comes at the cost of some accuracy.

My $0.02; take it FWIW.

[dgg9]

It's true that the GI models are more loose than many modern 1911s, but they're not more reliable because they "fed FMJ ammo". When the Army was using the 1911/1911a1 in service during WWI and WWII, they issued Ball ammo, not FMJ.

What's the difference?

The point is, it's not hollowpoint ammo they were feeding, so the reputation for "reliability" is misleading.

The term "reliable", IMHO, means the weapon goes bang every time you pull the trigger, regardless of the ammo its fed, how much fouling, the conditions it's put in, etc. There's more to reliability than how well it feeds ammo.

But not for modern, reasonably clean handguns, for all practical purposes. We're not talking about 1,000 rd torture tests in the mud.

Again, my point is that what is DIFFERENT between yesteryear and today, wrt "reliability," is HP vs FMJ. When a gun that was fed exclusively FMJ is claimed as "reliable," that doesn't really mean anything at all about how well it will feed HPs. Semi-autos back then were not designed to feed HPs.



ETA: I don't want to get into some wide-ranging, open-ended debate about definitions of "reliability," etc. My narrowly-focused point is simply that claims made about the 1911 platform as it was used in WWII have little relevance to how it would be used today. Indeed, most modern handguns are exceedingly "reliable" when feeding FMJ. But that's not the figure of merit for a self defense gun.

[Lycanthrope]

It's true that the GI models are more loose than many modern 1911s, but they're not more reliable because they "fed FMJ ammo". When the Army was using the 1911/1911a1 in service during WWI and WWII, they issued Ball ammo, not FMJ.

I think we can all agree that, in general, loose means "more reliable" and "less accurate", whereas tight is the opposite, "less reliable" and "more accurate". The most common example of this is the seemingly never-ending argument between the AR and AK camps.

230gr FMJ is the same as "ball ammo". "Ball ammo" in WWII was fully jacketed.

I think it's mostly internet myth that "tight" and "loose" in a 1911 has a great effect on reliability. Slide to frame fit only impacts accuracy about 10-15% and a well fitted slide will be smooth as silk. Yes, Les Baer makes a tight lug lock up, but those guns run....and run....and run. A well fit 1911, loose or tight will run.


The need to be reasonably accurate and run a bunch of different profiles has brought us to the lowered and flared ejection ports and other mods we take for granted. I've never had a 1911/2011 style pistol that wouldn't feed empties from the mag with a little polishing, extractor tweaking and a good magazine.

[ChamberedRound]

230gr FMJ is the same as "ball ammo". "Ball ammo" in WWII was fully jacketed.

The surplus WWII ball ammo I've seen at my local mom-and-pop wasn't jacketed. It was a lead ball. However, I'll concede this point as I'm admittedly not an ammo expert, and was commenting based on personal experience.

However, to use dgg's definition of "reliable", has anyone had repeated problems feeding JHP though a GI 1911, or any other 1911 categorized as loose?

[TonyF]

I think it's mostly internet myth that "tight" and "loose" in a 1911 has a great effect on reliability.

Tight chambers tend to have the most impact on reliability.

[realdeal38]

I bought a Springfield 1911-A1 mil spec for $350.00 used at Gander about a year ago.All I can say is WOW! Shoots like a dream.Way to go Springfield!!!!!!!!1

[D-Man]

Another good suggestion would be a S&W 1911. I have one, and it's been great for the year I've had it. Their base models compete against the Springfield Loaded models of which I also think are a good bet.

[Lougotzz]

My colts eat everything I feed it. HP's FMJ what ever. Colt produces a gun closest to military specs. Thats why they are loose. Accuracy on a 1911 is not from being tight. It is from BBL fitting and BBL bushing being fit. I have a gold cup and special combat government and they are accurate. 2-2.5 inches at 25 yards. with cheep ammo.

I also have a WW1 colt repro. With the little sights. That gun is as awesome as the gold cup and special combat government. also 2-2.5 inches at 25 yards.

I also have a couple of springers. they are nice guns and I like them too but my colts are better.

1911 is one of the greatest guns ever made.

The time when 1911's are not reliable is when you go below the 4.25 inch BBL. I have a colt OACP and she is accurate and reliable. Once in a blue moon the last round doesnt want to feed. This is a 3.5 inch BBL. SA and Kimber has had real problems with their micro 1911's. The design was intended for a 5 inch BBL.
People have had good luck with the colt defender.3 inch BBL. I like CCO the best. commander size slide(4.25 BBL) and OACP frame.

[pa_guns]

Hi

A Colt, probably a GCT would be my first choice. Second choice would be a SW 1911. Your budget does not rule either one out.

The Colt is "the real thing". The ones made today are at least as good as any made since the 1930's. At the very least I would suggest you take a look at a GCT.

The SW's are "full feature" 1911's in Stainless. They work very well and are as accurate as anything out there.

Of course you could buy a couple of each ....

Bob