Originally Posted by JW357
I think there's some amount of truth to your post, but I also think there's an amount of incompleteness to it too, with an obvious bias towards the Glock.
To say the 1911 hasn't proven itself over the course of 100 years in battle is ignorant. Of course militaries prefer higher capacities in their sidearms, nowadays. But, as I have pointed out in this very thread, there is such a thing as high capacity 1911s so the argument about the capacity of a Glock being superior can be invalid.
I would also point out, as has been pointed out, there are units in the military still using 1911s. Mostly "elite" units.
There are no units in the American military which utilize a Glock, nor have there ever been.
Based on all of the above, it should be obvious to all except the most biased that 1911s are proven in more of a sense than just "a darned good looking gun for the range and is a blast to shoot." 1911s have been proven in warfare throughout the last century, whereas no Glock can lay claim to that in the American repertoire.
Therefore, in my opinion, it really comes down to a preference for a thumb safety (with a short trigger pull) or not (with a longer trigger pull).
I'm not going to argue that point. But I will say, everything I have learned says that 1911s in their original form, meaning loose tolerances, required less maintenance and cleaning than some modern 1911s.
I like the concept of a Glock. But I hate Glock-people.
I'm not saying they didn't prove themselves in battle over all those years..
But I'm saying they're proven to be inferior for battle NOWadays.
There IS a reason they still aren't in battle.
Bottom line is, if you use a firearm to protect your life, there are plenty of other choices that are much better than a 1911. (Not JUST Glock)
But if your purpose isn't for defending your life, then you can't beat a 1911. It's a darn sweet gun.
Yes, I'm sure some "elite" units carry a 1911, but I would bet it's not your average 1911 you pick up for $1200 at a local gun store. I'm sure it has been highly modified to increase reliability.
And Glocks aren't used in the military because of their demand for a steel frame, which is completely understandable, and something I agree with.
When it comes to defending your life, the 1911 platform is far less reliable than many other pistols (not just Glocks).
Yes, they proved themselves in battle many years ago. Times and technology has changed, which is why the military and law enforcement has moved on to something better.
I love 1911s. I hate the ego of SOME 1911 owners.
I'll own a 1911 soon, but I'll grab my Glock/Sig/Beretta if I ever find my life is truly in danger.
But we all know we're beating a dead horse here.
Love me those Kimber Eclipse 2's.
And it's on my list of firearms to buy...its #2. I'll buy one right after I build another AR