Bravo_Sierra
Regular Member
imported post
FzSBLACKMAGICK wrote:
FzSBLACKMAGICK wrote:
I dare someone to do that with a 1911.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
This settles it. I'm getting a 1911.
- Thread starter DreQo
- Start date
eyesopened
Regular Member
imported post
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
Yeah I mean if the gun can serve in WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc, how could it possibley survive a "real torture test" :uhoh:
imported post
The original M-16 served in Vietnam too. It was "self cleaning" according to the folks that handed it out to soldiers. When Stoner heard about this he was like, "No wonder you guys keep complaining that it doesn't work when you need it." From what I understand later on some panel decided it was jamming because of using ball rather than stick powder, but I don't think the panel really knew what they were doing. Plus, I don't care what kind of powder you use, if you don't ever clean the AR design, it's going to start having problems after a while. Some guns do need to be cleaned regularly to function and wont work when filthy. Not to say the AR's are bad guns, but there are polymer pistols that will work in extremely filthy conditions. Things don't always have to be made of metal to be strong.
Today's polymers are extremely high tech. Do you complain that a kevlar vest is "plastic?" Would you prefer it to be woven steel? I sure wouldn't. Point being, people design things knowing the strength of a given material and use a safety factor to ensure that the parts will endure long periods of use. There's no excuse for any of today's pistols to be just falling apart or anything IMO.
It's not like a Glock or XD is made of bakelite. I love how people pick up a polymer gun and say it's "flimsy plastic" or something else along those lines simply because it feels lightweight. It's not like you can just bend it in half or something. But as far as functioning when filthy, that seems to be more due to the design of the gun rather than the materials. All of todays materials should be able to hold up to a decent number of rounds without significant wear, the design will often (But not always of course) be what dictates performance in harsh conditions. I see no reason why the 1911 wouldn't do well in harsh conditions (Although I'm no 1911 expert), but I doubt it really does any better than good polymer pistols.
The original M-16 served in Vietnam too. It was "self cleaning" according to the folks that handed it out to soldiers. When Stoner heard about this he was like, "No wonder you guys keep complaining that it doesn't work when you need it." From what I understand later on some panel decided it was jamming because of using ball rather than stick powder, but I don't think the panel really knew what they were doing. Plus, I don't care what kind of powder you use, if you don't ever clean the AR design, it's going to start having problems after a while. Some guns do need to be cleaned regularly to function and wont work when filthy. Not to say the AR's are bad guns, but there are polymer pistols that will work in extremely filthy conditions. Things don't always have to be made of metal to be strong.
Today's polymers are extremely high tech. Do you complain that a kevlar vest is "plastic?" Would you prefer it to be woven steel? I sure wouldn't. Point being, people design things knowing the strength of a given material and use a safety factor to ensure that the parts will endure long periods of use. There's no excuse for any of today's pistols to be just falling apart or anything IMO.
It's not like a Glock or XD is made of bakelite. I love how people pick up a polymer gun and say it's "flimsy plastic" or something else along those lines simply because it feels lightweight. It's not like you can just bend it in half or something. But as far as functioning when filthy, that seems to be more due to the design of the gun rather than the materials. All of todays materials should be able to hold up to a decent number of rounds without significant wear, the design will often (But not always of course) be what dictates performance in harsh conditions. I see no reason why the 1911 wouldn't do well in harsh conditions (Although I'm no 1911 expert), but I doubt it really does any better than good polymer pistols.
Evil Ernie
Regular Member
imported post
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
I wonder if Glock would replace that for free if he shipped it back...oh wait, only Hi Point would do that...LMAO
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
http://www.advancedtactical.com/sweeneyarticle.pdf
When Glocks have been around for 100 years and THEN continue to be the most replicated handgun in the world, then I'll be impressed.
Don't misunderstand, I have owned a Glock and own "plastic" now but, NO other handgun in history has been able to "keep up" with the 1911's sevice record.....period.
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
A similar "test" has been done with 1911's...except for the "drop from a plane" part.....
http://www.advancedtactical.com/sweeneyarticle.pdf
When Glocks have been around for 100 years and THEN continue to be the most replicated handgun in the world, then I'll be impressed.
Don't misunderstand, I have owned a Glock and own "plastic" now but, NO other handgun in history has been able to "keep up" with the 1911's sevice record.....period.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
To be fair, that will never change because it's an older platform and the military will never use the same weapon foras long a period of time again as they did with the 1911, which was used in forceduring four major military campaigns. In this day and age of military contracts and the politics involved, nothing else will everbe given that kind of opportunity for comparison. 1911's, Glocks, HK's, Sigs, FN's,Berettas, etc. are all fine weapons and have proven their worthiness in combat, on the street, and in competition,IMO.
For the record, I would take a 1911 over the Beretta M9 any day.
Comp-tech wrote:
To be fair, that will never change because it's an older platform and the military will never use the same weapon foras long a period of time again as they did with the 1911, which was used in forceduring four major military campaigns. In this day and age of military contracts and the politics involved, nothing else will everbe given that kind of opportunity for comparison. 1911's, Glocks, HK's, Sigs, FN's,Berettas, etc. are all fine weapons and have proven their worthiness in combat, on the street, and in competition,IMO.
For the record, I would take a 1911 over the Beretta M9 any day.
Comp-tech
State Researcher
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
Agreed....but would you not also agree that there must be a reason for the 1911s longevity?
Also agreed....I've owned a Beretta and a Taurus "clone" as well....both for a short time, but never again unless they were to come a very good price.....although they may be fine weapons, I just don't like'em.
Flintlock wrote:
Agreed....but would you not also agree that there must be a reason for the 1911s longevity?
Also agreed....I've owned a Beretta and a Taurus "clone" as well....both for a short time, but never again unless they were to come a very good price.....although they may be fine weapons, I just don't like'em.
MetalChris
Regular Member
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
The M9's a piece of garbage, IMHBMAO.
Flintlock wrote:
+100
The M9's a piece of garbage, IMHBMAO.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Comp-tech wrote:
Comp-tech wrote:
Of course, the reasons for success and longevity of the 1911 cannot be denied. I was just trying to keep this thread from approaching a Glock VS. 1911 argument as all of these weapons have their niche, their pros & cons, and I think that when it comes down to it, they are all going to work when you need them to.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Great points in your last 2-3 posts, Flintlock! Well said.
Great points in your last 2-3 posts, Flintlock! Well said.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
Kind of a shame to cover up those pretty stocks, though. I believe the wood is native only to the Philippines, where the gun is mfgd.I love the 1911.....a damn sexy gun.....
I too vote for the RIA Tactical....I am going to slap some night glow dots on the sights and get a rubberized Hogue wrap around grip, and call it good. I hope to get mine in July when the check comes:
Oh, and also a Serpa to OC the dang thing! Unless someone knows of a nice looking retention holster that won't break the bank........
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.
The XM16E1 was soon modified to the M16A1 specification. The revised rifle was finally given a chrome-lined bore and chamber to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's bore and recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition.
The guys I knew who used them for real, to a man, loved them. Once the Cr lined bores came into play, although you couldn't leave them lying in the Klong, they were much better. The history of firearms is one of continuous improvement. Although I like stainless steel best, I have come to concede modern polymers have their place in weapon's mfg. Still, the old, time tested designs have something going for them, i.e., 1911, Hi-Power. Browning knew what he was doing.
Weak 9mm wrote:
When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.
The XM16E1 was soon modified to the M16A1 specification. The revised rifle was finally given a chrome-lined bore and chamber to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's bore and recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition.
The guys I knew who used them for real, to a man, loved them. Once the Cr lined bores came into play, although you couldn't leave them lying in the Klong, they were much better. The history of firearms is one of continuous improvement. Although I like stainless steel best, I have come to concede modern polymers have their place in weapon's mfg. Still, the old, time tested designs have something going for them, i.e., 1911, Hi-Power. Browning knew what he was doing.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Weak 9mm wrote:
Da nada.
imported post
ThatF-4 pictureremindedme of something, I'm reading a book about Vietnam and I've been reading about the Wild Weasels in the most recent part (Even though they tended to fly the F-105 it still reminded me).
A WeaselEWO/"Bear" was talking to a B-52EWO about something or other and the B-52EWO was like, "Hey, where's your bag?" TheWeaselBearwas like, "Huh?" and the B-52 guy says, "You know, for your balls?"
ThatF-4 pictureremindedme of something, I'm reading a book about Vietnam and I've been reading about the Wild Weasels in the most recent part (Even though they tended to fly the F-105 it still reminded me).
A WeaselEWO/"Bear" was talking to a B-52EWO about something or other and the B-52EWO was like, "Hey, where's your bag?" TheWeaselBearwas like, "Huh?" and the B-52 guy says, "You know, for your balls?"
sccrref
Regular Member
Gunslinger
Regular Member
imported post
Weak 9mm wrote:
Weak 9mm wrote:
They had big ones. Started in Huns, F-100 Super Sabers, then went to the Thud. Finally, flew Phantoms. No one braver in the sky than those guys.
Evil Ernie
Regular Member
imported post
sccrref wrote:
sccrref wrote:
Beautiful piece!!!
.40 Cal
State Researcher
imported post
sccrref wrote:
sccrref wrote:
It doesn't have all original parts? It's not a good gun then. I'll pm you with my address and a shipping label. I will take it upon myself to dispose of it.