TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

treadlightly wrote:
One per thousand is a 0.1% failure rate, and not good enough.

Every 1911 I've ever had has gone past that. I don't shoot as much as I'd like, but over the years the reliability history builds up.

My Government Model was horrible when I first got it back in the Carter administration. One trip to a good gunsmith cured everything.

After having owned it 40+ years, the extractor broke about a year ago. As best I can remember that's the first malfunction I saw, post gunsmith.

There are definitely other guns than 1911's, though, and the 1911 is an old design - but I don't feel unarmed with one.

The thing is that having to take a gun to a gunsmith to make it work isn't buying a reliable gun. Over and over again, I hear people defend 1911s by saying once they fixed this or fixed that, or went to mag A or mag B, They haven't had a problem with it. If you have to fix a gun right out of the box statistically it's not a reliable gun. You are correct. though you can get a reliable 1911, it's just that there are reliability issues inherent with the 100-year-old platform. There are some guns that can be trusted after shooting a box of ammo through it and some that are need a lot more.

I think that's different now. In the 70's a Colt 1911 was more of a parts kit than a gun. I think I might have 1,000 rounds through my box-stock Kimber, enough so I just shoot it to keep myself comfortable with it. I haven't had a malfunction.

Comparing different pistols is always apples to oranges, as far as the pistols are concerned. The real issue is what the shooter needs.

I concede my lovely 1911's won't handle the grit and contamination a Glock will, or either of my Sigs. My 1911's will never get buried in mud, my Sigs will never have the precision trigger of my 1911's. Speaking of triggers, as far as m Glock... Wait... As far as m-m-m-m Glock...

Dang it, I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to put "my" and "Glock" in the same sentence. My bad, I take full responsibility. I'd comment on Glock versus 1911 triggers but all I have is hearsay.

Shoot what suits you, be careful of all of them. I wouldn't recommend my P320 to a new shooter because of the lack of safety, and am teetering on the brink of replacing it with a DAO P250 for just that reason.

Liberty wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Crash wrote:I believe that Jeff Cooper said that more than one failure in 1000 rounds was not good enough.

Strange since he was such a 1911 fanatic. Sort of blows holes in some people's arguments that 1911s are inherently unreliable, doesn't it?

1 failure in a thousand is pretty lousy repeatability as far as I'm concerned. But Cooper had to settle for that to compensate for his beloved 1911. Also Cooper wasn't dealing with things like subcompacts, Kimber and Taurus.Yeah, overall its fair to say that some 1911s might reach the 1 per 1000 failure rate. Some people even believe that this is good enough.

One per thousand is a 0.1% failure rate, and not good enough.

Every 1911 I've ever had has gone past that. I don't shoot as much as I'd like, but over the years the reliability history builds up.

My Government Model was horrible when I first got it back in the Carter administration. One trip to a good gunsmith cured everything.

After having owned it 40+ years, the extractor broke about a year ago. As best I can remember that's the first malfunction I saw, post gunsmith.

There are definitely other guns than 1911's, though, and the 1911 is an old design - but I don't feel unarmed with one.