TexasCHLforum.com

BigBlueDodge wrote:This is good conversation, but let me refocus us back to my original question. A number of you have indicated that the plastic guns are a "modern design". Can someone clearly explain to me the benefits of a modern design, over say the established 1911 design.

Well, one thing I haven't seen discussed explicitly is that most "modern" plastic guns use an external mechanism to lock the barrel in place, while the Browning-style autoloaders use internal lugs in the slide to lock the barrel. That's why 1911s are rounded and relatively slimmer than Glocks and XDs and such. On the plastic guns, the surfaces that lock the barrel into place are external, ergo the flat and square top of barrel and slide.

So is that an advantage? Yep; in some respects. Any grime or dirt that get into the locking surfaces can just fall off, or easily be wiped off. This is a big factor in the plastic guns' reliability, and why I mentioned earlier that I'll most often choose a plastic gun when I head off to take a shooting course that requires umpteen rounds per day. The 1911's internal barrel lock traps stuff like carbon build-up and fouling, and the more consecutive rounds fired the more likely is a malfunction, especially with dirty ammo. Oh...and external locking makes the gun less expensive to manufacture.

So when I need to shoot many hundreds of rounds per day without being able to stop and clean the gun, yep (blasphemy Longtooth, I know), I go for a Glock. But one reason tinkerers and gunsmiths love the 1911 so much is that it presents many options for accurizing. Done well, a 1911 with a 5-inch barrel, IMHO, can shoot more accurately than just about any 5-inch-barrel plastic gun. I have a number of pistols in my safe, but if you tell me I must make a 100-yard shot with one, I'll be choosin' one particular 1911.

IMHO, the only reason I can imagine that the Beretta 9mm has been the choice of the U.S. Armed Forces for over two decades is because the Glock--like it or not--doesn't have integrated safety features that can help keep an undertrained raw recruit from shooting his own leg. But for combat conditions, it's hard to beat a Glock.

I should mention that Glocks and 1911s and XDs and M&Ps, and on and on, are tilt-barrel mechanisms. That's the most common. After firing, the rear of the barrel tilts down so that the slide can move back and do its job of chambering the next round. This is the most common system in use today.

The Beretta 92F is a drop-lock mechanism. The barrel moves straight back via tandem lugs on each side of the barrel. There are no locking contact points on the slide, and this allows for a whompin' big ejection port. This mechanism is very reliable, but not the most durable. And by necessity this system has some thick steel on the slide, making it a heavy carry option.

Speaking of Beretta, the consumer demand for compact carry guns had the Italian manufacturer get creative. The PX4 is an example of a locking mechanism that uses a rotating barrel rather than the massive drop-lock system. You need to ask experts like age_ranger about this one; I don't own one. It allows a pistol to be relatively thin, and it would seem to be an accurate system since the barrel doesn't have to move vertically out of alignment during the shot cycle. I'm not sure if Beretta has a patent on this system, but I'll bet they do. 'Cause I don't know anyone but Beretta that uses the rotary-barrel mechanism; I could certainly be wrong.

I choose to carry a 1911. That's just my personal decision. But I own and shoot the heck out of Glocks and XDs. And I have my very first M&P on order: the new Pro series.

LedJedi wrote:in short, your plastic guns are great for daily carry and would rather have one of those for concealment and capacity reasons over a 1911 any day. 1911's are pretty and they shoot great when they're tweaked, but when the rubber hits the road I want a modern gun in my hand.

For everyone who disses the 1911 platform, let me remind you that IPSC Open Class run-and-guns are almost all 1911/2011 formats. There is a reason these professional shooters continue to use the Browning model in the 21st Century.

It works.

Ask Rob Leatham.

BigBlueDodge, I had the same quandary several years ago.

I love the 1911 platform, and despite the fact that you excluded 3" clones, I have one of those, too (and it's solid as a rock).

I have about a dozen plastic guns in the safe, and though they get less carry time, they get more rounds down the pipe.

My Kimber Super Match is the most accurate defensive-caliber handgun I own. If I ever need to take a hostage shot at 25 yards, that's the one I want. But I try to take defense/combat handgun classes at least three times per year, and for pounding 500 to 1,000 rounds per day, I prefer a Glock. In the last few classes, I've shot a G35.

For the purists: yes, I have maybe one more stoppage per thousand rounds with my 1911s than with my plastic guns, Glock or XD. But for training, the Glocks and basic XDs cost about half what a good 1911 costs. If I beat the heck out of that plastic gun--rain, mud, dirt, sand--worst case, it will only cost me $600 or so to replace it. And both Glocks and XDs have, for me, proven to be reliable.

The 5-degree difference in grip angle between the Browning-style autoloaders (and XDs) and Glocks isn't a big thing for me to overcome. A few minutes of dry fire with either, and I feel comfortable.

But if you're a died-in-the-wool 1911 shooter considering a plastic gun, Glock may not be for you. I'd suggest looking at the Springfield XD, or maybe S&W's M&P (I have an M&P9 Pro on order).

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

You ain't fixin'...you're augmenting!