TexasCHLforum.com

patterson wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Lena wrote:I also have several 100% reliable 1911's and carried them for years and would do again if need to, when asked on a bet your life on it carry weapon I always say SIG or GLOCK and would say same today.

I must just be lucky with 1911's. I have owned 9 different 1911's from Colt, Dan Wesson, Nighthawk, Les Baer, CZ, and Magnum Research. Now I realize that none of these are "low end" manufacturers. But, my 1911's have been every bit as reliable as my non-1911's. In that second category are guns from Glock, Sig, and CZ, among others.

Given no other parameters (number of BG's, range, etc), I would "bet my life" on a 1911, which I do, every day. That said, for the specific situation of a home invasion, I "bet my life" on a Sig, because that gun is more accurate, and has a greater capacity, even though it is too big to carry.

Now if you told me I had a $500 budget, I would get a Glock (Gen 3) as opposed to any 1911 that I could buy in that price range.

I have carried 1911s in the past and wouldn't hesitate carrying one again and I agree on the accuracy of Sigs

WTR wrote:I don't care if a ND is caused by the platform or the operator. The facts are more NDs are reported while carriage certain platforms. Any amount of training does not seem to change this. When LA PD began switching over from 92s to M&P 9s NDs more than doubled from the same users. I have read the 92s were even carried with the thumb safety off but in DA mode with a 15 lb trigger pull. Bottom line,some produts are more suceptable to a ND no matter the training....just like the Serpa holster. I don't want my tax payer money funding a weapon that may be even 1% more dangerous than a alternative. Why should we spend money on training that has no effect?

Liberty wrote:

OlBill wrote:It's a training issue. Glocks are gunfighter guns.

Aren't they all?