It's finally been settled!

[AJSully421]

Yep, it'll go pew pew pew 8 times and then it's outta juice...A Glock .45 caliber on the other hand will go pew, pew, pew 10/13 times before it's outta juice (plus, it's dependable)

Hi capacity 1911's have been around for quite awhile. I've been carrying one (13 round) for 20 years. Best of both worlds.

Glocks do enjoy a well deserved reputation for dependability, but MY 1911 is easily their equal.

I just can't bring myself to buy a Glock for several reasons, chief among them...is that they are ugly.

Yeah, I know...a pistol has to 'function' first (and most makes do), but there is no reason for a pistol to look like it 'fell out of the ugly tree and hit every limb on the way down'! Just isn't!

I could not care less what it looks like. Worrying that your gun looks ugly is a strange concept to me.

I care that it goes bang every time without breaking parts, needing its extractor "tuned" and that it goes bang more than 8 times without needing a reload, and not having to worry about finding quality mags for it.

I have carried my G21 in places that I would not dream to take a 1911. That being said, I would love an all-black Colt Combat Unit railed model... but it would be a fun range gun, and never a carry pistol.

[JALLEN]

I prefer a pistol that not only goes "Bang!" every time it is required, but that the bullet will actually hit its target. My first try at the 1911, in the Navy, was decidedly unimpressive. The intended target was safer than I was.

They are not lefty friendly, at least compared to other choices, like the HK45 and HK45C.

[Abraham]

I love Martini-Henry 45-70 rifles, but were I to be in a gun battle, I'd want my Colt LE6920 with plenty of loaded with 5.56 rounds in Magpul magazines.

Yes, old time rifles and pistols are beautiful museum pieces...they're still lethal, but dated in their technology, very dated.

Stearman Biplanes are things of beauty, museum quality beauty, much like the 1911...but if I'm going to travel by air, it won't be in a Stearman and I sure won't be trusting my life to a persnickety 1911, a usually under capacity old time pistol.

But hey, if you care to carry a cap and ball era revolver for your EDC, more power to you. (pssst, you gonna need it)

[C-dub]

I've always found it curious and wondered why some 1911 folks are always comparing their 1911's to Glocks or trying to convince others that they are better than Glocks, but Glock folks don't do the same. Is it envy, jealousy, or something else?

[flintknapper]

I never understood the emotional attachments to the 1911. a 100 year old design that has a reputation for being finnicky. Are they pretty? I suppose so, but installed in a proper holster who will notice? Its a tool, such an attachment to a penknife or electric drill wouldn't be concidered normal.

I can understand a preference for a 1911, a Glock or any other platform... But the emotional attachment and reverence for these things don't make sense to me Any hand gun, is an engineering compromise. some of these compromises may be in safety, capacity and firepower, reliability, ease of carry including availability of holsters).

What bothers me about the fanboism of the 1911 is how it affects newbies. I don't believe the 1911s are an ideal choice for most newbies. Too expensive, to picky, to complicated. and usually too heavy. I don't mean to demean the 1911 there are some mighty fine ones out there, and triggers are sure nice, they sure are pretty. and there are lot of gun people a lot smarter than me that prefer them.

Wow, you just described a lot of men's wives!

[Liberty]

I've always found it curious and wondered why some 1911 folks are always comparing their 1911's to Glocks or trying to convince others that they are better than Glocks, but Glock folks don't do the same. Is it envy, jealousy, or something else?

I always wondered why it's always Glocks vs 1911s .. There is a whole lot of guns that aren't either.. and a whole lot of SA/DAs that don't work anything like either.

[Soccerdad1995]

I started with Glocks, and currently own 4 Glocks, 1 Kahr, 1 Kel-Tec, 2 S&W revolvers, and 3 1911's.

The top 5 guns on my wish list are all 1911's. Yes, the 1911 is prettier than a Glock, as long as the maker doesn't use the slide as an advertising billboard, but the main thing for me is accuracy. My Officers model 1911 is much more accurate than my Kahr PM9 or my Glock 26. And my full size 1911's are much more accurate than my Glock 21.

Also, maybe I have just been lucky, but I have never had reliability issues with any 1911. Then again, I do tend to spend a lot more for my 1911's than I do for my Glocks so that may be a part of it. The only gun that has ever had significant reliability issues (1%+ failure rate) was a Taurus PT 24/7 that is currently waiting to be sent back for recall. I would never carry any gun that was not near 100% reliability for me, after break-in.

Personally, here is how I would compare a Glock vs it's comparably sized 1911 counterpart in the areas that matter to me:

Reliability = Even (as noted, I personally have not had any issues with either)
Accuracy = 1911
Capacity = Glock (but this has to be balanced against the increased accuracy of the 1911)
Concealability = 1911
Appearance = 1911
Value for a limited budget = Glock*

For me, personally, this translates to the 1911 as my preferred platform. But I am also planning to hold on to my Glocks and continue to play around with those as well.

[Soccerdad1995]

I've always found it curious and wondered why some 1911 folks are always comparing their 1911's to Glocks or trying to convince others that they are better than Glocks, but Glock folks don't do the same. Is it envy, jealousy, or something else?

I always wondered why it's always Glocks vs 1911s .. There is a whole lot of guns that aren't either.. and a whole lot of SA/DAs that don't work anything like either.

I think it has to do with Glocks being the most popular non-1911. You could make a more general comparison of 1911's versus Polymer pistols in general with pretty similar results.

Also, a comparison of an Ed Brown Executive Carry (in stainless finish) versus a Ruger SP101 (with 3 inch barrel) would not interest nearly as many people.

[Soccerdad1995]

I love Martini-Henry 45-70 rifles, but were I to be in a gun battle, I'd want my Colt LE6920 with plenty of loaded with 5.56 rounds in Magpul magazines.

Yes, old time rifles and pistols are beautiful museum pieces...they're still lethal, but dated in their technology, very dated.

Stearman Biplanes are things of beauty, museum quality beauty, much like the 1911...but if I'm going to travel by air, it won't be in a Stearman and I sure won't be trusting my life to a persnickety 1911, a usually under capacity old time pistol.

But hey, if you care to carry a cap and ball era revolver for your EDC, more power to you. (pssst, you gonna need it)

The interesting thing here is that the "dated" technology is much more accurate than the "latest" technology. Considering that the whole point of the thing is to put a bullet into a specific place, this may well be a situation where newer is not better.

[Syntyr]

1911... Purdy!

Glock... Functional


100 rounds of 5.56 in my back up gun for when I can't conceal my SAW... Priceless



Never let it be said I don't engage in sarcasm!

[Abraham]

O.K. kidding aside.

1911's win the beauty award.

Were I to put many thousands of rounds through one without a failure, as I have with my Glock 19's, I too would have one for EDC.

It's my sad experience to report, I've owned, borrowed and shot a number of high quality .45 caliber 1911's and every one was conscientiously cleaned, lubed, care for and all without exception couldn't shoot a box of shells without something going wrong from fte to ftf to something that prevented it from going bang.

Yet, I read guys on this forum talk about their having a flawless 1911 comparable in dependability to a Glock.

Guys, who say this, I'm not calling you bull excrement wielders, but I have misgivings about your ah, perception, yeah that's it, perception...

[The Annoyed Man]

I never understood the emotional attachments to the 1911. a 100 year old design that has a reputation for being finnicky. Are they pretty? I suppose so, but installed in a proper holster who will notice? Its a tool, such an attachment to a penknife or electric drill wouldn't be concidered normal.

I can understand a preference for a 1911, a Glock or any other platform... But the emotional attachment and reverence for these things don't make sense to me Any hand gun, is an engineering compromise. some of these compromises may be in safety, capacity and firepower, reliability, ease of carry including availability of holsters).

What bothers me about the fanboism of the 1911 is how it affects newbies. I don't believe the 1911s are an ideal choice for most newbies. Too expensive, to picky, to complicated. and usually too heavy. I don't mean to demean the 1911 there are some mighty fine ones out there, and triggers are sure nice, they sure are pretty. and there are lot of gun people a lot smarter than me that prefer them.

BLASPHEMER!!!!!

I own both. For years, I carried 1911s. Today, I carry 9mm Glocks.....for several reasons. I do NOT think that the Glock is a superior platform, but I do think it is easier. Allow me to draw an analogy.

My youngest brother owns a 1971 Jaguar XKE-12. It has a 5.7 liter V-12 under the hood, fed by a trio of carburetors. In that era, it was a true supercar of the same ilk as Ferraris and Aston Martins. It is a real treat to drive, but it does NOT reward sloppy habits. It goes exactly where you point it, and the connection between the steering and front tire patches is direct. There is zero slop in the steering. It demands precision, and it rewards precision with a remarkable driving experience. OTH, if you over-correct, you will be rewarded with bad juju. You literally feel the road surface in your hands, and can tell exactly what your tires are doing. The connection between the gas pedal and the engine is equally direct and linear. There is no mush in the pedal. There is no delay in the throttle response either. The car leaps forward immediately when you give it the gas. The only difference between a small amount of pedal and a big amount of pedal is how hard it pushes you back into the seat....but the response is right now. If you give it too much gas when you didn't mean to, you are rewarded with bad juju. Not enough gas = not enough juju. The brakes are equally responsive, with no mush in the pedal. Either too little or too much pressure on the brake pedal rewards you with bad juju. The right amount is astonishing for its efficiency. The ride is on the harsh side. It has suspension, but that suspension (using the technology of the day) was calibrated to control a car going 150 mph, not one going 45 mph. The interior ergonomics are designed for high performance driving and comfort is secondary.......so while I would gladly borrow it for a day of spirited driving on curvy country roads, it is not a car I would choose for daily commuting. The electronics are by Lucas, Prince of Darkness.....and you need a set of British Whitworth tools if you want to work on it yourself. You can work on it yourself if you want to, but most XKE owners I know (my brother included) also maintain friendly relationships with their local XKE-specialist mechanic. I said that driving it is a real treat, and it is, but the whole time I'm behind the wheel, I'm scared that some knucklehead is going to run into me.....or that in the process of trying to avoid said knucklehead, I'll over-correct with steering/gas/brakes. The car demands precision, and it is not happy in traffic. It wants the open road, preferably with lots of curves. It's a crapshoot whether it will light on the first turn of the ignition key or not.....or not light at all.....in which case you get to lift that sexy forward-hinged hood while an admiring crowd gathers around and asks a lot of questions.....which in the moment, if you are honest, you have trouble answering.....because you had to raise your hood. Finally, the XKE hasn't been built that will last 200,000+ miles on regular oil changes.

I drive an SUV - a 2015 Toyota 4Runner Trail Edition. It is big enough for me (compared especially to a XKE), comfortable, has a very good ride for a vehicle using a truck chassis, but it is NOT any kind of sportscar. It is heavy. It will tow a lot. It has very good brakes and plenty enough power, but it does neither linearly. It exhibits lots of body roll (compared to the Jag) in corners at speed......so I don't corner at speed. There is plenty of interior room, and the interior ergonomics are centered around driver comfort rather than high speed driving. It is utterly reliable - boringly so, even. It handles long distance travel and daily commuting in traffic with equal aplomb......and unlike the Jag, has 4WD and will go off-road with perfect equanimity. You don't drive it through corners, you herd it through corners. It has a better stereo (I don't think my brother's Jag even has a stereo.....or A/C....). It is bland. What it lacks in character, it more than makes up for in dependability. And, if I change the oil regularly, I can reasonably expect to get at least 200,000 miles out of it. (My brother used to own an old Toyota 4x4 pickup that went just shy of 350,000 miles before his stepson totaled it.)

1911s are like the Jag, and Glocks are like the 4Runner.

Now, before anyone gets their unmentionables in a twist, I am NOT saying that 1911s are unreliable. I wouldn't have carried one myself if I thought they were unsuitable that way. BUT, like the Jag, a 1911 requires a certain amount of precision from the person wielding it in order to obtain its full potential - which is higher than a Glock's. The full potential of an out of the box Glock is easily realized by an average shooter.....because it sets the bar lower, within the capabilities of average shooters (which includes me, by the way, so don't be insulted by this statement, as it is not a reflection on whether or not you are just average). The sky (and budget) is unlimited when it comes to turning an average 1911 into a fine instrument that would rival something from the best 1911 gunsmiths; whereas upgrading the Glock is a matter of buying drop in parts that, no matter how much you spend, will never give you the same feedback and results as shooting a truly precision 1911 will give you. Just as I would be crushed if I crashed my brother's Jag, and merely upset if I crashed my SUV, if I'm ever involved in a self-defense shooting and law enforcement - however temporarily - confiscates my gun pending the outcome of the investigation, I would be crushed (and worried about its safe return to me) if one of my 1911s was confiscated, and just a little upset (and less worried about its return) if my Glock were confiscated. If my $1,000 Kimber is stolen, I'm out $1,000. If my $600 Glock is stolen, I'm out $600. If my 1911 falls into a mud bog during a gunfight, I'll likely have to at the minimum rinse it out to bring it back into action. My Glock simply starts shooting again.

Etc., etc., etc.

It's not that one pistol is better than the other. They are both great designs. But for "lowest common denominator" practicality, I'll take the Glock. At the range, I still have more fun shooting my 1911s.

[mr1337]

I started with Glocks, and currently own 4 Glocks, 1 Kahr, 1 Kel-Tec, 2 S&W revolvers, and 3 1911's.

The top 5 guns on my wish list are all 1911's. Yes, the 1911 is prettier than a Glock, as long as the maker doesn't use the slide as an advertising billboard, but the main thing for me is accuracy. My Officers model 1911 is much more accurate than my Kahr PM9 or my Glock 26. And my full size 1911's are much more accurate than my Glock 21.

Also, maybe I have just been lucky, but I have never had reliability issues with any 1911. Then again, I do tend to spend a lot more for my 1911's than I do for my Glocks so that may be a part of it. The only gun that has ever had significant reliability issues (1%+ failure rate) was a Taurus PT 24/7 that is currently waiting to be sent back for recall. I would never carry any gun that was not near 100% reliability for me, after break-in.

Personally, here is how I would compare a Glock vs it's comparably sized 1911 counterpart in the areas that matter to me:

Reliability = Even (as noted, I personally have not had any issues with either)
Accuracy = 1911
Capacity = Glock (but this has to be balanced against the increased accuracy of the 1911)
Concealability = 1911
Appearance = 1911
Value for a limited budget = Glock*

For me, personally, this translates to the 1911 as my preferred platform. But I am also planning to hold on to my Glocks and continue to play around with those as well.

You forgot about Durability = Glock

They'll take whatever abuse you throw at them and still function.

As for accuracy, I don't think you'll see that much of a difference at 0-5 yards, where most defensive shootings will occur.

That, and the lack of a manual safety makes them more suitable for defensive purposes. One less thing you have to do before you make it go bang.

[Liberty]

I started with Glocks, and currently own 4 Glocks, 1 Kahr, 1 Kel-Tec, 2 S&W revolvers, and 3 1911's.

The top 5 guns on my wish list are all 1911's. Yes, the 1911 is prettier than a Glock, as long as the maker doesn't use the slide as an advertising billboard, but the main thing for me is accuracy. My Officers model 1911 is much more accurate than my Kahr PM9 or my Glock 26. And my full size 1911's are much more accurate than my Glock 21.

Also, maybe I have just been lucky, but I have never had reliability issues with any 1911. Then again, I do tend to spend a lot more for my 1911's than I do for my Glocks so that may be a part of it. The only gun that has ever had significant reliability issues (1%+ failure rate) was a Taurus PT 24/7 that is currently waiting to be sent back for recall. I would never carry any gun that was not near 100% reliability for me, after break-in.

Personally, here is how I would compare a Glock vs it's comparably sized 1911 counterpart in the areas that matter to me:

Reliability = Even (as noted, I personally have not had any issues with either)
Accuracy = 1911
Capacity = Glock (but this has to be balanced against the increased accuracy of the 1911)
Concealability = 1911
Appearance = 1911
Value for a limited budget = Glock*

For me, personally, this translates to the 1911 as my preferred platform. But I am also planning to hold on to my Glocks and continue to play around with those as well.

The reliabilty of a 1911 usually only becomes an issue with hollow point defense rounds, and shorter barreled versions.. I noticed you mentioned Break in .. A nice thing about non 1911s is that many don't really need a breakin and are reliable right out of the box. I do agree with your conclusions though, If forced to make a choice between the two, I would choose a 1911. Fortunately though there is a huge range of choices that are not neither Glock or 1911.

[K.Mooneyham]

Yes, but how many Federal agents have shot themselves in the leg with a 1911 while reholstering it?

(Jokes, folks, just jokes.)