TexasCHLforum.com

I find there is a lot of hype about the reliability or non-reliability of particular guns. I have had some level of reliability issues with just about every gun I own, including my Glock's. I even have had "reliability" issues with a revolver, specifically light primer strikes. For some reason, a lot of people want to generalize that Glocks are indestructible, or that revolvers always go bang, or that 1911's are finicky about ammo and need to be operating room clean to work. It simply isn't true.

The fact is that yes, some guns are more reliable than others, but just about every modern gun will be extremely reliable if it is properly maintained and kept reasonably clean. And regardless of gun, you need to practice and know your manual of arms to include malfunction drills. This is one area where a revolver is clearly superior IMHO, since the malfunction drill pretty much consists of "pull the trigger again".

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.