Matthew Cox at military.com writes that the United States Marine Corps has authorized operators in its Special Operations Command (MARSOC) to carry GLOCK pistols, “since most of the elite outfit’s members prefer the popular 9mm over the custom .45 pistols the service bought them in 2012. The Corps issued a Feb. 2 Marine Administrative Message…that green-lighted…MARSOC units to use the Glock 19…. The reliable, easy-to-maintain 9mm features a polymer frame and a 17-round magazine” . . .
As nice as the new .45s are, MARSOC troops prefer to carry Glock 19s instead, sources said. The 1911 was a ground-breaking design that served the U.S. military before World War I until the mid-1980s. The design is still popular, but it’s also heavy, prone to malfunction and limited to seven or eight-round magazines, pistols experts have said.
Young operators have had trouble with the 1911’s beavertail grip safety, according to one former Marine weapons instructor who trained MARSOC members.
Many shooters wearing gloves tend to grip the 1911 too high and do not properly disengage the beavertail grip safety, so the pistol won’t fire, he said. A lot of professional shooters who run custom 1911s will disable that beavertail grip safety to avoid this problem, he added.
The 1911 design is also known for feed-way stoppages, a malfunction caused when a round gets stuck feeding into the chamber, experts said. Horizontal and vertical stovepipes – types of malfunctions that occur when an empty shell casing gets caught in the ejection port – are also a problem with the 1911 design.
James Sanborne at Marine Corps Times cautions that MARSOC Operators are the only active-duty Marines who will (officially) be strapping on one of Gaston’s plastic fantastics in the near future:
[T]he 9mm semi-automatic Glock 19 pistol is officially approved for use only by personnel assigned to Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, according to a force-wide message issued in mid-February. In fact, the pistol will carry a non-Marine inventory number because it is a U.S. Special Operations Command asset, according to the message….
Also unclear is whether all G19s are authorized, or only certain generations.
The comments section 1911 vs. GLOCK flame-war commences in three, two, one….
Meh… The M11 is a good compromise and would actually maintain some semblance of weapons commonality with other USMC / NAVY commands. I really don’t see much of a point in introducing yet another pistol into the mix that does exactly the same thing as other available platforms, except worse.
The P226 is superior to a G19 / G17 in every way except sticker price. Given how many SIGs .gov has in inventory… Me thinks a Glock salesman got particularly aggressive on that one.
“The P226 is superior to a G19 / G17 in every way except sticker price.”
That’s a pretty subjective statement. I have extensive experience with both the 226 and the Glock 19. While the 226 beats the 19 in some areas, the 19 certainly outshines the 226 in others.
Also not quite sure why they’re saying the Glock 19 has a 17 round capacity. That’s simply not true.
Also that photo is terrible. Why would you take it while she’s preparing to cock the hammer back?
I’m guessing that the PC elements overwhelmingly trump the pistol-caft elements.
Did she cock it before or after she flicked the safety off?
Yes it does…if you have the +2 base installed. My G17 magazines are all 19-round magazines now.
Pray tell, what areas does the Glock outshine the SIG in? I own several examples of both, and while I like the Glocks, I’m not sure what they have that SIGs don’t.
I am a huge fan of the SIG. But there both have strengths and cons. Sigs are heavier, with the pros and cons that come with that. There is a reason Glocks are the number one pistol in Socom for a reason.
Oh, I don’t know….weight, overall size (height, length, thickness), trigger pull. I’m not bashing the Sig at all, but you can’t say the GLOCK has no advantages.
That reason is basically what I’m asking for. The difference in weight is about a half pound and the size difference is marginal at best. (Holding my G17 and my P226 right now, sadly don’t have a 19) I like both guns, but you just can’t compare a tuned Glock trigger to an armory tuned P226/228. The magazine capacity is the same for the G19 and P226. When you add the hammer fired action and solid metal frame of the P226 to the balance, I’m having a hard time seeing where the Glock stacks up favorably.
Well my 19 is lighter than my 229, for one. Also I find the Glock trigger superior to a DA/SA. DA/SA triggers are annoying in general (YMMV). Even my 229 with a DAK trigger, which is better than my DA/SA version, doesn’t beat the glock trigger. Surely the 19’s trigger isn’t great (like a 1911’s) but it’s consistent and user-friendly.
(SIDE NOTE: Yeah yeah yeah, a million guys are about to troll me and tell me that all I need to do is train on DA/SA more. I don’t care. The 19’s trigger is more intuitive to use, provided your application of the four rules is straight. If you’re a super-ninja with DA/SA triggers then good for you. Get down with your bad self. I mastered the 19’s trigger in a fraction of the time.)
Apples to apples the 19 is a more controllable gun during rapid fire. Finally, despite your claim to the contrary, cost is important to tax payers.
This is not to say that the 229 is a bad gun. It’s not. I love my 229s. The 229 has a better build quality than the 19, double strike capability, a metal frame, better (factory) sights and a slight edge in accuracy. However, given that both guns are very reliable, I would like to note that none of these factors apply to the fight except double strike. So why should the tax payers pay hundreds of dollars more per unit?
As I stated reliability is a wash. Both are very, very reliable.
So the 229 is a better gun in some ways but your claim that the 229 is better in all ways simply isn’t true. Nothing wrong with liking the gun. It’s a great gun. But there’s a fine line between affection and being a fan boy. I’ll close by noting that, according to this article, it appears that this decision was made at the request of the actual end users. Those end users already have ready access to 229s and they don’t want them.
Disclaimer: I compete with and carry a GI 1911. I like the single action trigger. That said, in defense of Glock and why someone could say it is “better” than a Sig.
A lot of people prefer consistent trigger pull, hence Glock would get the edge from the holster. A hammer is hardly recognized as an ideal feature, and it will be argued back and forth until infinity.
A G19 won’t give up much velocity to a 226, but it is smaller and the smaller slide will come out of the holster faster.
Half a pound is a lot of weight to shed for the same firepower.
Glocks have the option of running 17 round mags and still being smaller and lighter than Sigs.
Glock magazines are EVEN cheaper than sig mags. Glock parts are ridiculously cheap. Blue label pricing makes Glocks even cheaper, they might even have a lower price for a big enough order. (money does weigh into it)
The frame on a Glock lets you get ridiculous purchase with your off hand to keep the muzzle rise down. Where you can rest the heel of your off hand on a Sig frame is exactly where the decocker resides.
Glocks have a lower bore axis, also keeping muzzle rise down.
Glocks don’t really need their trigger tuned. Drop in a 3.5# connector and it’s “good enough”.
The reset is very short and super tactile in factory configuration, without any SRT kit.
“I like both guns, but you just can’t compare a tuned Glock trigger to an armory tuned P226/228.”
You’re making assumptions. That is not what anyone is comparing. I am talking bone stock triggers here. Stock trigger to stock trigger the Glock’s is more user friendly and consistent.
You are right; hammers are great for double strike. However it only takes a hair longer to perform immediate action than it does to work that double action trigger a second time. It’s a wash really.
Really? What are Glocks advantages over Sig?
-half the price
-MUCH lower bore axis, less muzzle rise
-doesn’t require lubrication
-lighter weight
-mags less prone to damage
-simpler design
-no exterior hammer to mettle with
-greater resistance to sand/salt/humidity
Sigs are pretty and have a great trigger, but what can they do that a Glock can’t do at half the price?
“When you add the hammer fired action and solid metal frame of the P226 to the balance, I’m having a hard time seeing where the Glock stacks up favorably.”
I’m also forced to reject the metal frame argument. Metal frames are nice. They will arguably last longer, for example 200 years as opposed to 75 (I’m guessing here). However that argument simply isn’t relevant to fighting the fight. Things that impact the user’s ability to win the fight are capacity, trigger control, accuracy, controllability/bore axis and sight quality. The sig only wins in two of those five categories, really one when you consider that the FIRST thing that is going to be switched out on the glocks before they hit the firing line are the sights. So that leaves accuracy. On that frankly, how accurate does it need to be? A Glock 19 will hold a decent group at 50 yards. Anything more than that is nice but unnecessary. It’s not a rifle. The most important of those factors are trigger, controllability and capacity.
Lets flip the question, in what arena does a Sig outshine a Glock? Seriously I want to know. If you ask me the question objectively like it’s a foregone conclusion, but I will answer you objectively I don’t think a Sig is better. In what way is a Sig better, unless you put a lot of stock in second strike?
If competitive handgun shooting is any indicator of a platforms inherent performance, Sigs are notably absent from the major matches. “yeah but cost”, yeah but no, folks have Glocks with more than “nice Sig” money in them. I see more XD’s, M&Ps and even PPQ’s than I see Sigs. 1911/2011s all over the place, and you can fill in the gaps with some 75 variants.
I’ve never understood the market segment at the gun shop who are not military or LEO and hold the Sig on a pedestal.
I have a Sig 227 (same size as the 226) and several Glock 23’s (same size as the G19). I never conceal carry the 227 because it is too bulky. I occasionally carry a G23. You can feel a half pound difference on your belt, especially in civilian clothes with a normal belt. I’m not sure which gun I would prefer for military use. I was a Marine 0311 basic infantryman reserve for almost 7 years (after 6 years was non-contract), and I shot a pistol exactly zero times. The G19 would be lighter, have a simpler manual of arms, more consistent trigger pull with a very positive re-set, and may work better doused in sand. The 226 / M11 (different models, I know) would be heavier, possibly more accurate, and has a more substantial frame.
Same here, I was a 1371 and I can tell you that a half pound difference in the kit would hardly be noticed. The key thing to keep in mind is were talking about MARSOC here. They are hardly likely to leave their weapons stock or order in sufficient quantity for price to really be an issue. (I can see unit price being important with a M9 replacement, but that’s not the conversation we are having.)
To me, the SA/DA trigger gives you more options and with proper armory care can get much better (almost 1911 level) performance.
The metal frame means that the gun is far more controllable under rapid fire.
The bore axis difference is minimal as the 220 series is also known for having a high-ish bore axis.
Magazine capacity is the same for the G19 or M11 and both have higher capacities available.
Double strike capability under harsh conditions is not a minor issue and add to that the fact that the M11 and Mk25 both use cross compatible magazines (I think, someone with a P228 can correct me if I’m wrong) and you greatly simplify logistics across SOCOM.
I just find it odd that different units in SOCOM would be issued radically different sidearms.
“The metal frame means that the gun is far more controllable under rapid fire.”
LOL
@Ivan…
It really is. The SA trigger pull on a SIG is at least as good as the Glock action (I would say far better, but that’s just me) and the increased weight keeps your muzzle down. It’s not rocket surgery. Heavier gun = less muzzle flip.
I agree that the heavier weight (to include the frame) of the 229 does help to control recoil. The 229 does an excellent job of that, considering how high the bore axis is. However, the G19’s controllability is simply better than the 229 under rapid fire. Sorry. If that wasn’t the case, they would have specifically asked for 229s.
As for the trigger in SA you are correct. The trigger, when in SA, is better than the G19s. Moot point though. In order to get to that you have to push through a long, heavy, gritty, POS DA (it smooths out a little over time).
@Ivan
If the DA pull is a major issue, just carry it cocked like you would a Glock. The P220 series has a hammer safety and a pin block safety similar to the Glock. A major advantage, to me, of the P220 series is the ability to de-cock for extra safety. (I did the same thing with my P99 back when it was my daily carry.)
The M11 is a P229 (or a P228, if you want to get particular), not P226.
I stand corrected. M11 / G19 is similar to the Mk26 / G17 comparison. Full size vs compact models. (Or at least I think so.) I only own the latter, not the former.
Superior except for weight, bore axis, and that some people are afraid of double action.
Of course being heavier makes recoil more controllable so it comes down to personal preference at that point.
Except that the Glock has a lower bore axis than the Sig, so it will actually be more controllable, even though the Sig is a tad heavier
I would like to see a measurement comparison between the two bore axis. The P220 is well known for it’s relatively low axis comparing to other pistols.
Only Navy SOCOM uses SiGs not all operators do anyway.
“…except sticker price.”
Price matters. The opportunity cost of that premium for a non-glock is not zero.
G 19 only has a 15 round magazine.
Yes, thank you.
My g19 has a 33rd mag
33 with a +5 base plate or go home, newb.
100rd C-mag.
Get on my level.
I know it’s late in the day but this exchange is choked full of win.
My GLOCK 23 has a 15 round – 9mm magazine – when the .40 – 9mm Wolf conversion barrel is installed.
The G19 – 15 round mag is flush – fit. The G17 – 17 round mag extends. The 15 round flush fit mag is compatible with extensions. Not sure if the Marine Corps is running G17 or modded mags, or if the author just botched one of the details.
I wondered that, too, but it was reported as “Glock 19” at both Military.com and Marine Corps Times.
Shoulda just issued yhe olde rattlecan 1911’s, not the fancy high speed competition pistols they were given.
Agreed, and although I own glocks(it is a good choice for a military weapon), and a series of 1911s, my “rattlecan” series 70 government model is my favorite and it has never missed a beat. The military tends to look for the next greatest thing, but overlook that shooting well is more than just an equipment issue.
…or is that a Glock 17 with a 19 round magazine?
Is that a bottle right in front of me or right frontal lobotomy?
Is that the newest image that could be found of a Marine firing a 1911? 1981, betting that Lance Cpl. A. J. Nesbit has long been retired if she stayed in.
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
True, but those of us not afflicted with SNCO syndrome have long and productive lives after we get get out of the Corps.
http://www.brokenandunreadable.com/25july2012.html
YAWNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn…………………………………….WGAFF?
Not sure if this falls under caliber wars… or brand/model wars…
This falls under the “take large stick, jam into large fireant pile, root around for a few seconds, run away” category
Anybody know how they “customized” the spec ops’ 1911s?
It’s the Colt Rail Gun. They put a rail on a 1911 and cerakoted it. There’s other high speed, low drag features, but it’s a cerakoted railed 1911 at it’s core.
If I was planning to fight with a 9mm pistol, I’d want a Sig p226 (mk25 edition). If I wanted something to keep in a holster just in case of a primary weapon failure, or a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome in the HQ, I’d want a Glock and the G19 makes sense as a gun everyone in the military should be able to handle.
I am stealing “SJS”
A $350 Glock can do anything a Sig/Colt/HK/Walther/etc can do and more. Ive never met anyone with extensive experience with both 1911 and Glock who said, “ya, a 1911 is just as reliable.” No brainer…
Except, you know, be a striker fired, polymer framed, SA/DA pistol with a de-cocker. Glocks are great pistols for the money. However, when money is no object (such as JSOC weapons procurements) the SIG does everything better.
But which of those factors that it “may”(or at least you claim) do better on are actually important in a gunfight? I would say, none of them.
But I think perfect is the enemy of good enough for most things, and the glock has less features to think about for the typical soldier. That means more time spent learning to shoot well rather than manipulate the weapon.
If we were talking about an M9 replacement for FOBBITS, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we’re talking about MARSOC here, operators don’t get much more operational.
Yet those operators asked for Glock 19s specifically 🙂
Where the hell do you get a Glock for $350? My bare bones Glock 17 cost me $500 and some change.
The government will get them for $350.
Wow, so cheaper than hammers then ?
True story. If I could have gotten my hands on a new G19 for $350 I wouldn’t have a Ruger.
BluE label runs anywhere from $350-450 depending on model//caliber. GSSF can buy at LE officer price after 2 years membership. Department price is cheaper than officer price. It covers judges, EMT’s, FF, military getting hard to find a blue label dealer in some areas. I still prefer my Fn’s for polymer but to each his own. BTW my Sig 2022 has run circles around g19. Glock has had a few FTE/FTF with 1200 fired. The Sig 2022 has over 3,000 rounds fired never had a stop of any kind save 1 dud round of gold dot that squibbed.
They’ve been using the G19 for years now, it’s just official now. The 1911’s have been problematic and the only reason they went with an updated model is because of the tens of thousands of mags they have for them. Glocks are far more common in the Special Operations community than people realize.
As a G19 carrier myself, I’m a bit tickled by this news.
I definitely prefer striker-fired pistols, but then I haven’t been shooting more than a year and a half, and I only own 1 hammer-fired weapon, so that may have something to do with it. I’m also a fan of GLOCK, but there’s nothing really wrong with other pistol designs. Some even look pretty cool, and even I will admit that you have to have pretty utilitarian sensibilities to be aesthetically pleased by a GLOCK (fortunately, I do).
And of course the magazine interoperability will help them nicely; nothing stops these Marines from buying magazine extensions (to get that 17-round G19, for instance), or simply buying the larger magazines. I don’t know about other people, but I own 4 of the G18 magazines, and I’ve never had a malfunction.
The G19 had been in use with Marsco for a while now. All this is stating is that it is now a authorized pistol to qualify with. And if people are wondering, they used extended mags.
An unloaded Colt m45a1 weighs 44.8 oz and 7+1 capacity.
A loaded Glock 21 with 13+1 weighs 38.5 oz.
How they signed a contract for 4,000 1911’s is beyond reason.
Because of the amount of magazines that are already in inventory for the 1911 platform. No I’m not making that up. This was a key factor why another 1911 was chosen over a different platform.
What’s the grip diameter of each? My long fingers love the G21. My wife, not so much and she’s a fairly strong Scandi lass. She does really like the grip of a 1911.
I’m a 9mm fan myself, but I don’t understand how wearing gloves, or a high grip causes problems with the grip safety. If you have a bad grip, you’re still going to have a bad grip with a Glock. The magazine capacity argument makes more sense.
Go look at some of the last few open source photos of CAG when they had 1911s before they went to Glocks. You see them taping down the grip safety. That lesson came from a lot of real world instances of guys not being able to fire the pistol due to a variety of reasons, improper grip, being wounded. Grip safeties are never a good idea on a purely defensive weapon.
a high grip on a G19, it will still fire. 1911 not so much. if those are my choices……I pick a gun that works.
Also, parts inventory must be considered. very few Govt agencies stock 1911 parts in their armories anymore. there are glock/beretta parts anywhere you look downrange. to me its just a no-brainer. ditch the 1911.
A better question is why ditch the 1911 for a G19 when M11/Mk25 pistols are already authorized and issued by JSOC? I keep asking someone who is more of a Glockophile to point out to me something that the G19 does better than a P226 when money is not an object.
NSW is the only part of SOCOM that issues Sigs. Everyone else in SOCOM uses the Glock as primary sidearm, with the MK24 filling the suppressed .45 role now.
One complaint from the article is weight. A 226 and a 1911 are in the same ballpark.
That and i’m relatively confident you could train a sack of hammers to work on a Glock in the absence of an armorer.
Challenge accepted. Please see above.
I’m not a “glockophile.” Pistols are Spartan working tools to be used as a last resort. I love many (HK, Sig, Glock, FN, S&W revolvers, even Caracals) but I’m not a one woman man in this regard.
Glock has a better first trigger pull than a Sig and is lighter. Makes for a better backup to primary. But this has been stated (obviously) by tons of people already.
@jason, you high grip a 19 and you will end up with a one shot proposition.
You have options with a 1911, none or very little with a 19. If you have problems with high gripping a 1911, the problem is corrected with either technique or ‘smithing. It ain’t rocket science. However, I’ll grant you, modern metrosexuals are oftentimes confounded by the simplest mechanical things.
They’re having issues with gloves, not because of their sexual orientation.
With a 1911 you have to draw, disengage safety, engage grip safety, engage trigger.
With a glock you have to draw and engage trigger.
The lack of safeties makes the glock very quick on the draw. And these guys are in gloves all day, safety manipulation in gloves is harder.
@clickboom, hmmm…..reckon then that “them boys” remove the safeties from their M4s, HK416s, MP5s, MP7s, 870s, Benellis (M1-4), belt feds, etc.? Nah.
Reckon that it would be a lot easier to modify the glove rather than all those weapon systems?
It was for me. 😉
You forgot M-16, M-14, and M-110. LOL
Why the 19 over the 21? Wasn’t half the issue with the m9 the fmj 9mm? Or is MARSOC allowed to use other ammo?
Why 19 and not 30S?
If I was locked in to ball ammo, I’d want a 45. 19 and 30S are dimensionally very similar.
The grip diameter on the G30 is too big, and the lack of a pinky-rest promotes poor shooting habbits, plus only 10 rounds?
For me, in a zombie apocalypse I’ll take a G21 with a G30 as a backup, but the Glock .45s are not great for the smaller-handed among us.
have you tried a short frame or a Gen 4 with no backstraps? I find the contouring of the full framed glocks fat far more comfortable than the full framed skinny glocks, coming from a medium/large glove wearer.
Honestly, I don’t think 45 caliber handguns are the best choice for military weapons. First of all the grips are too big, and they are harder to shoot. Is there a difference between the 9mm and 45 fmj. Yeah probably, but learning to shoot better is more important than stopping power.
I used to buy into this oft repeated motto but since switching to a 45 for competition, I don’t buy it. Someone with proper training (and I sure as hell hope MARSOC squares away their guys), the recoil impulse from hard ball 9mm and 45 isn’t wildly different. The 45 is a harder press in hand when factory, granted, but nowhere near as snappy as the 9, and both are a far cry from 10mm/40 snappiness.
The recoil impulse is assuredly different, but for guys who shoot guns for a living, I don’t know that it’s a viable argument. Police officers who are likely to not train, sure. War fighters? I have a hard time buying it.
Capacity I’ll grant you. Bigger holes versus more holes.
There isn’t a significant enough difference in terms of terminal ballistics and wound causing capability, even comparing FMJ loads, to prefer a platform that round for round is more expensive, harder to find ammunition for, weighs more, and doesn’t permit fast follow up shots as well. Also, we’re talking pistols here which of course are a mere secondary to a Marine’s primary. In the words of Clint Smith, a pistol is there only to fight to your long gun anyway.
My preferred weapons platform is best and yours is wrong!
The answer is: rabble rabble rabble!
Don’t discount the utility of the metal-framed SIG. All firearms become clubs once you run out of ammunition (or just need a makeshift hammer).
Lol.
There are plenty of double stack 1911’s (in 9, 40 and 45) being put through their paces in USPSA and 3gun. There has to be some decent reliability with those designs otherwise something else would be the dominant gun.
No USPSA, is not the Sandbox or Buttholistan, but still. Glocks are certainly cheaper. If we assume equal reliability, does a 2011 have an advantage over a glock?
I’d also bet the SpecOps types can pick whatever ammo they want and aren’t limited to FMJ. I mean seriously, they do sneaky, classified things; I doubt they worry about the international legal viability of hollowpoint ammo.
Proper maintenance of a 1911/2011 platform takes more time and a better armorer since replacing any part basically requires it to be fit to THAT gun. Glocks, pull it out of the packaging and drop it in place, off to the races.
2011 is nicer to shoot, but it’s a side arm and a decent one costs 3 (or more if paying blue label) glock money.
If a person trained enough such that they can, with “point shooting”, put 99% of shots exactly where they want, caliber and bullet construction (hollowpoint versus ball) are irrelevant. In that case 9mm is more than adequate to stop an attacker with a single melon shot (not to mention a double-tap to the melon). Thus speed would be the highest priority. And a striker-fired Glock pistol in 9mm would be about the perfect solution.
So, what pistol should any special operations group should carry? Any pistol they want. Glocks, Sigs, HKs, and 1911’s, oh my. For a carry gun, the best fit for me is a Sig 320. I shoot it better than any Glock or 1911 I have fired. HK p30 is a nail driver, but in a fight, it will be a struggle for me to eject magazines. I know people who can’t hit squat unless they are shooting a Glock. The point is this: Find put what works for you and the threat you may have to deal with. Special military units should be allowed to field pistols that work for them regardless what some officer who specializes in supply chain mechanics dictates.
Except for the fact that supply chain mechanics are what make sure that you have ammo and spare parts for your wunderwaffen. I just wish that USSOCOM would pick a pistol and stick with it. Glocks are decent pistols, so are M11s, so are Mk25s. It’s when you start to mix and match that you wind up with a crate of brand new Glock magazines going to a SEAL team who have no use for them. My rule of thumb is to never give Murphy a chance to rear his ugly head.
You have no clue how logistics work in SOCOM if you think that a box of Glock mags could end up with a seal team. Or why that would even matter if it did.
Hey… I’ve seen the guys down in supply screw the pooch much more often that you would believe.
Let’s see, for glock mags to make it to a NSW team that is deployed: It would first go thru LOGSU, where it would be opened inventoried, then sent to the deployed LOGSU GMs serving the team in the country, who would also inventory it. Who also showed up with spare mags to begin with. Then be packaged and sent to the final location of the platoon, and be received by the Platoon Ordinance rep. Who should have brought his own supply of mags from stateside. Who would then have to distribute them to his platoon, who would have plenty of mags to share that they had in their own SOPMOD cases, and probably a large amount off the books.
It’s not a problem that is even remotely feasible.
I care little about what gun the military operators choose for their sidearm, but a reality check is in order here. If the major reason you design a firearm is its price point at sale, then you use less expensive polymer in place of machined metal frames. In this respect, Glock is the IKEA of handguns. With this in mind, there is little to no superiority of polymer over metal frames, no matter what the Glock fanboys endlessly contend. Also, is the only metric by which you judge what gun to buy, the price? Really? Complaining about the price of a gun has always seemed like the lamest excuse for why one buys a particular gun. Further more, if you need a cult-o-personality firearm, then the Glock is your gun. That alone is probably the most unsettling aspect about Glock’s appeal in general. To wit: I doubt if there has ever been a gun that has enjoyed such world-wide acclaim among the gangsta, thug, drug-dealing, criminal classes, as the Glock. Bravo! Cheap guns for cheap people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The only superiority Glock commands, is marketing.
You could buy a couple Sigs or a grip of Glocks with what I leave the house with on my hip.
That said, if you let me pick between a Glock or a Sig and I didn’t have to buy it, I’d pick the Glock. Well, maybe a Sig P320, once it’s proven itself.
“Further more, if you need a cult-o-personality firearm, then the Glock is your gun.”
WTF??? I feel that way about sigs… not Glocks. Every time I am in a gun store some old f*ck tries to tell me that sigs are the greatest guns in the world… as if they were forged in the heart of a dying star by Odin himself. Yet at the range my glock and I run circles around sigs. It’s funny; Sig guys are all piss and vinegar and big talk until we’re shooting in the same bay at best of the west. After about one magazine the excuses start. After two magazines they just STFU. Guys of relatively equal skill to myself, I might add.
I came to carry a Glock 19 after having either carried or used professionally: M9 Beretta, HKP2000, Sig P226, Sig P229, HK USP, Caracal F, FNS-9. Yet here I have ended up with a Glock 19 as my EDC. I don’t carry a Glock because it’s cool or because it’s pretty. I don’t carry it because it’s expensive (it’s not), or because I think it’s finely crafted. I carry a Glock because out of ALL of those guns listed it is the most reliable and the most controllable under rapid fire. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. That’s not to say there aren’t better guns out there but they sure as f*ck aren’t on that list.
Cult of Glock? Really? In reality, people end up landing on a platform that goes bang every time, makes the round go where they aim it and does so at ridiculously high rates of fire. Who knew? People end up sticking with things that work well. There’s your reality check, friend. The only cult I see are sig fan boys that can’t STAND the idea that the Glock might be a better platform than their precious guns. Call it an Ikea gun all you want. If the ikea couch is more comfortable then I am buying it. If it’s cheaper then that’s just a bonus.
Those of us arguing that Glock might be preferred for this particular application have mentioned cost as an afterthought only. Bottom line: a pretty look and a metal frame are not going to overcome the controllability and trigger of glock. All things being equal, a shooter is able to run the glock harder and faster. As previously stated, I didn’t arrive at this place in my life because I think my Glock is some kind of gem. I carry a Glock because of the guns listed it is BY FAR the most capable.
Funny, but I’ve only heard the fanboy term applied to Glock. I have never heard anyone, anywhere, refer to a Sig fanboys, or H&K fganboy,s or Beretta, or Colt, or S&W, or Walther, or etc., etc. I didn’t even mention another gun in my comment, yet you imply and infer Sig from the word GO! Hmm, sounds like Glock fanboy speak to me. All I hear, just about anytime the Glock conversation comes up, is how Glock is the best freakin’ gun ever made, period. I was pointing out that Glock chose the PC, or market business model, and other guns use the Apple, or margin business mode. Sell a lot for a little less, or sell less for a little more. Fiats vs Ferrari’s. Fiat sells more cars, Ferrari sells fewer cars. I have a few Sigs, a Beretta, and a P7M8. The difference is, I don’t incessantly tell everyone I meet with a different gun that my Sig, or Beretta, or Walther is the best gun ever made, and yours is a piece of shit. I hear this all the time from the Glock fanboys though. It’s almost like they’re trying to convince themselves that their buying the cheapest gun they could find is equal or greater than any other gun. Quoth William, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
On a personal note, I shot the Glock when it first came out. I didn’t like the look of it or the feel of it; that you couldn’t change the grip, short of putting a stretchy rubber sleeve on it to reduce the pain of the little polymer dots on the heel. It was when I heard that LEO’s had their Glock’s slip out of their profusely sweaty palms when under duress, that I decided to chose another platform.
And now they’re on Gen 4 and the texture is aggressive and the gun cones with 5 different backstrap/grip options.
I think they should have gone for the strike one pistol. That will make the transition easier when Putin invades the U.S. after Obama pisses him off again.
Stovepipes usually occur with limp wristing. Are they going to require an empty chamber? NY 1 trigger set as I’m sure 3.5lb connectors are not going to be allowed. Have a few friends in that group main complaint is the armorers only know the M-9 and not Colt when it comes to a tuneup. I carried a glock for years until I was authorized personal weapons. 1911 cost me 2 6 packs for fishing & the parts had a Korean era armorer work the gun until trigger was 5lb break, no take-up to speak of and accurate to 50yds with hollowpoints. My 17 y/o old shoots GSSF matches & they feel cheap to him. Refuses to shoot 1 off of the line.
Glocks feel like toys if you’re used to a steel frame, but they’re very capable toy feeling guns. Several of the worlds best pistoleros are glock guys.
For men pistols are like women – we all like something different and cant be swayed.
But when I read many of the posters her I can’t help but remember what one of my instructors in IOBC said years ago – Pistols are last ditch defensive weapon and if the situation gets so bad you have to use your sidearm instead of your rifle well them your probably fvcked.
When did you go through IOBC?
1984
Hymmn, thinking, Don’t these youngsters, know about “Springfield”, Guns?… They have been making Excellant Weapons for the United States, Military, since 1771!…[General Gorge Washington’s “Continental Army”!… Gastron Glock, is an Austrian, “Plastics”, Mogul; that redesigned the 9mm, handgun, to fit his design; 1971!… Marketing this to the Austrian Army, he took it to the American Police. Marketing it as a better Alternative, to their 6 shot Wheel Gun. Than, Saying how the “Bad – Guys”, had, higher caliber Weapons, he offered to buy back their 9mm, and, sell them, .40 calibers. Now, buying them back, too, selling them .45’s!….[While, reselling their Guns?…. He’s a Marketing “Genius”!… Personally, having a Glock 19, in 9mm, i bought a “Springfield, XD .45 caliber. Taking bouth to the Range, i chambered 115 & 125 grain 9mm in my Glock; 230 grain, in my “Springfield XD”, i shot 500 rounds between the 2 Weapons, Noticing, IMMEDIATELY, the Almost, No difference in Recoil, between, the two guns!… Hymmmn, using 115 & 124 grain, in the Glock, and, using 230 grain, in my Springfield. This convinced me!… I Don’t want to shoot anyone; but, if i have to, i’d rather have my Springfield .45, than, a 9mm Glock?… They Shoot better, and, have very little recoil, due to the way the barrels are Ported!….[Plus, I’d Rather buy American products!….[I can hear a few now saying Springfield is now made in Croatia!…. [Due to our Congress, raising Taxes, and chasing yet, another company abroad, as they’ve done to “Matag”, building now, in Mexico!… Despite the fact, they are making guns in Croatia, they Still have the high American Standards, and, Are Still, American Owned!…
You realize Springfield Armory is basically an importer at this point, with the XD/M/S series coming from Croatia and the 1911s coming from Brazil.
Glocks are now made stateside as well, FYI.
Comparing a 45 XD and a 9mm glock… I had a 9 XD and the Glock is softer and flatter shooting.
Sadly, the Springfield Armory you speak of is not the government owned and run facility of over 200 years ago. What passes for Springfield Armory of today is a private, commercial venture, and while they do have some nice products, much of it is imported.
SA didn’t get chased off, the xd line has always been made in croatia.
in full size I prefer glock, but my xds is a great pistol in virtually every way.
Amazing that the Corps would go to some fancied up 1911 when the original ones worked just fine. There is nothing wrong with the original grip safety…apparently the fancy upswept jobs cause issues with gripping the pistol while wearing gloves? Gee, get rid of the fancy stuff and make the 1911A1 the way it was built for how many years by how many companies on a government contract, all interchangeable parts!
The 9MM vs 45ACP full metal jacket debate was investigated and proven during the Thompson-LaGaarde tests back in the early 1900s. Nothing has improved upon FMJ technology since that time. IF we were talking about modern expanding ammunition, then I could understand the 9MM being issued, but that is not likely to happen any time soon. Bigger holes take bigger bullets, period.
The only improvement the original 1911A1 ever needed was taller sights-everything else worked. So far as grip goes, the 1911 series is narrower than most of the double stack pistols I’ve ever handled, and the single action trigger cannot be beat-if you have an armorer with good skills, parts and the time, maybe a DA/SA might come close.
If the grip safety isn’t a problem, why did the unit with the most experience running the 1911 tape them down. Why did they dump the 1911 platform to begin with.
Couldn’t tell you why, seans. I was issued a 1911A1 which was built during WWII in the early 1970s and I had no issues with it. Yep, it rattled a bit and the sights were tiny, but the original grip safety never tied me up whether or not I was wearing gloves. Never saw or heard about anyone else having an issue while wearing gloves either. The only problem I could ever find while wearing gloves is with my Series 80 Colt Government models and the long trigger they have gravitated to. Not much room in the trigger guard, but a short trigger takes the issue away.
The 1911A1 went away in the mid 1980s because the government decided that we would issue 9MM pistols to stay within STANAG requirements with the European nations. That’s how we ended up with the M-9 Beretta. One of the so called selling points was that the 9MM would be easier to shoot for small handed people, yet the M-9 has a huge grip in comparison.
That the 1911A1 lasted from WWII with an occasional arsenal rebuild for 40 odd years is a testament to the durability of the pistol. Most of the problems you constantly hear about with feed stoppages and such are a direct result of the various manufacturers straying from the original design. People wanted tighter/slicker/tacticool garbage hung all over the pistol to feed hollow points, semi wad cutters and such. The 1911 was not designed from scratch to do anything but reliably feed full metal jacketed ammunition and that it will do as well and as reliably as any recoil operated semi-automatic pistol.
While I absolutely am a fan of the original 1911s, and the extremely tight tolerances they were built to, no 1911 pistol has been built to that spec and mass produced that was designed to feed modern ammo, and fire as many rounds without maintenance as any modern pistol and just be treated like a work gun.
As for why they tape down the grip safety. It comes from what pistols are primarily being used for these days in SOF. Which was mostly wounded use of a pistol. There were a few cases of guys not being able to use their 1911s after getting lit up in a room that caused the shift. It’s one thing to say you never have a problem with a grip safety when all you have ever shot it is at a range. It’s another when you have to try and use it after being shot, having a massive TBI from a S Vest go off, take some shrapnel, or any combination of those. It’s also why you see guys running the biggest mag possible. Trying to reload a gun while wounded facing a guy with a AK 10 ft away is not what you want to be doing.
seans,I have no clue as to what “spec” you are referring to. The only official specification I am aware of is from the US Army Ordnance Department, and I see nothing there which speaks of particularly tight tolerances. They were designed to throw FMJ bullets and nothing else. The fact that the 1911 passed the 6000 round test required by the Army I think says what the pistol was capable of.
My experience began in the Army in southeast Asia as a medic, which we were issued 1911s so that we could have both hands free to do our jobs, or at least that was the idea. I could and can fire a 1911 accurately enough with either hand and have never had to tape the standard issue grip safety down, whether I was shooting bare handed or with gloves. Never did hear of anyone in my outfit doing it either, but then we were using the old style grip safety, not these duck bill or upswept safeties. As I don’t use them I cannot speak to their faults, if any. If they are an issue, get rid of the issue I say.
The 1911 and A1 models really are a miracle of engineering. If assembled and repaired with properly specced parts, they are a modular design. There isn’t a whole lot of hand fitting required which is why you still find old issue pistols with a Colt frame, an Ithaca slide and internal parts made from various manufacturers including some who never built a firearm in their corporate lives. Folks such as Singer, Remington-Rand and others.
I watched more than one armorer tear down a batch of 45s for detail cleaning, toss them all in cleaning solution, pull them out and reassemble the parts from different pistols and never did see much of any problems with their function.
David you are getting the terms Tolerances and Clearances confused.
All the 1911s that were in use with the US military prior to the Marsoc M-45 and CAG were all made before 1946. All made to the Technical Package for the 1911 to extremely high tolerances, that is what allowed you to have the 1911 being made by various manufacturers and all of the parts working together.
If you can take a gun from each manufacturer that produced them, strip them completely, throw them in a bucket, and reassemble them and they work flawlessly, that is only possible due to high manufacturing tolerances. If you have loose manufacturing tolerances that is going to require hand fitting of parts.
Clearances are what allows a weapon to work well when dirty. And those old 1911s were designed with a decent amount, its why they were super reliable, but only combat accurate.
Well gee seans….the 1911 was never designed to be anything BUT combat accurate and reliable under combat conditions. I think, and Id bet I am not alone in thinking that John Browning was at least a borderline genius. Its not a target pistol even though some amazing modifications have been dealt to the design to make it so, I still stand by my original post. If the 1911 stays true to its original specifications, it is not the problem child some believe it is. And I see nothing from anyone to disprove my original statement.
David that is almost exactly my point. Those WW2 era 1911s are all but extinct. No one makes them that way and to those specs. Go find me a single manufacturer who makes a 1911 that way. They don’t exist. It was a amazing design for its day, it held its own and more for decades. But it doesn’t compare to newer weapons. 6000 rounds back in the day was insane. Nowadays that’s a joke amount. Yes Browning was a absolute genius, but the design is not ageless. Yes, it worked amazing when it was adopted, worked well past what it should have, but it’s a design that is on its last legs these day as a combat pistol.
@seans, that’s funny right there….and reedonkulus.
seans. just because nobody builds them to the original spec these days doesn’t mean it can’t be done. The originals weren’t built in a hollow tree by magic elves. They were built by machinists using common metals and production methods of the day, using proper heat treating. If the government put out an RFP for a 1911A1 built and specced to Army Ordnance specifications, there are competent companies out there who could easily step up to the plate.
In fact, with the metallurgy and machining techniques available today, it would be easier for companies to do just that.
As to the 1911 platform being on its last legs as you say, Browning’s locked breech action is still being used by most pistol manufacturers even today. Companies such as SIG, Glock and others still use the dropping barrel as designed by Browning, although SIG uses the Petter improvement using a block to lock into the slide vs internal lugs of the original. Some use a lug instead of a swinging link but the principle is exactly the same-the only difference is that the lug cannot be replaced as the link and pin can be.
There are 2 other pistol actions out there which are popular, the straight blow back which would require really stiff springs and/or a really heavy slide for function, and the Walther style dropping block of the M-9. Beretta advertises that their pistols will go up to 30K before parts failure. My oldest 1911A1 has gone well over 250K without breaking anything. The only thing changed periodically are the springs which is a normal wear item.
Last legs indeed. Maybe in your mind, but that’s all its based on. Certainly not fact.
@David N, careful there David….you obviously haven’t drunk enough from the faddish trough of Koolaid du jour. You are liable to be labled a troll because of it. That 250k 1911 you have really doesn’t exist….(Jedi mind trick wave of the hands…)
I know people who have many thousands of rounds through their 1911s and continue to keep on functioning. I am not really bashing other designs-there are a lot of them out there and they do a good job, but they really don’t do it any better.
For those who do not know, the Petter modification to the Browning patent is a manufacturing improvement. Instead of mating internal lugs to those machined in the slide, the barrel chamber contour is machined to mate with the ejection port. It doesn’t make the pistol more accurate. Just makes it cheaper to manufacture. When it wears, you replace the slide. The same goes with the linkless barrels. When the lug area wears, as does any link, you replace the barrel because you have no swinging link which is easily replaced. Gee, I wonder what is cheaper and easier to replace?
So far as drinking the Kool-Aid flavor of the week, I will pass. I have owned some Beretta’s and a few others and while they shoot okay, I don’t see them as any sort of improvement over the 1911. They may do things a bit differently, but they don’t do it any better.
I hear a lot of squawking about the 1911s mainly by those who do not know the platform as well as they think they do, or passing on internet opinions as facts which the OP has done. Sure, there are other pistols out there of different designs, but I think the 1911 platform is as relevant now as it was a hundred years ago. If there was any fault on the original GI models, it was the fact that they used softer steels in the slide and frame than what you see in the modern makes. That meant you had to replace parts more often.
The only valid complaint I hear against the 1911 is that it is heavy. You have me there. Its a 2 and a half pound chunk of steel and for a grunt, every pound they carry has to be important. Personally I would rather suffer the weight and have the dependability but that’s just my personal opinion.
One thing I do notice is that the pistols hawked by the various fans of this or that are constantly compared to the 1911. Why?
Spot on again David. And we both know why those comparisons are made to the 1911 design….
@DavidN
It doesn’t make much sense to cite the many people who’ve used a modification of a design as evidence that the design is still the best out there; it could be taken as indicating it could be improved upon, just as any design is; and once it has been, it’s no longer the best out there, is it? (It could even mean that the design badly needed to be improved upon.) It becomes something that was very good in its day and served as the basis for many improved designs. But in a way, that’s exactly what the people in seans’ camp and those who call it “outdated” are saying. (“Outdated” is far more complimentary than asserting it was never any good, btw.)
There are many arguments that could be made that the 1911 is still a viable weapon today, and you’ve made many of them, but this argument isn’t one of them.
It’s not unlike claiming that the Model T is still a good car, because it’s the inspiration for a whole bunch of other cars out there on the road today–when the simple fact of the matter is, I’d never take one out on the road except to show it off. Going on a long roadtrip in one is impractical enough compared to other options that it’s something one does as a stunt.
I’m NOT claiming that the 1911 is that outmoded, but I’m using the analogy to try to illustrate why this particular argument that it isn’t at all outmoded is actually an invalid one; worse, it’s really an argument that it is outmoded, even if only a little bit. The only way out is to show that all the changes made to the design since then are not, in fact, improvements, and you haven’t done that. (That would be a tall order, indeed, even if it were true, because there are so many different variations and you’d have to examine each one and show why they are worse.)
Now if someone tries to say the locking lugs, link or lug, tilting barrel design in general are out of date, then I’d say they are out of their minds. (They’d be arguing that the internal combustion driven car in general is out of date, rather than specifically the Model T.) To the contrary, if a semiauto isn’t a blowback–quite impractical in 9/40/45/10–it’s a variant of JMB’s concept with very few exceptions (the Beretta 92 et. al. being the most prominent). Even the dreaded Glock uses that concept though they definitely do it quite differently, using the ejection port as the locking lug, and not even having a fully enclosed “hole” for the barrel to cam on to drop. (I don’t know all the technical terms, but I’ve seen the innards.) Fortunately, no one seems to be arguing that the general concept behind JMB’s design is out of date.
As an aside, I don’t take a lot of guns apart to examine them, but as far as I know the swinging link is not something commonly kept by other designers. I suspect the complexity of the thing over-rides the desirability of being able to replace it, particularly since the integral designs today are beefier than it is. (In other words, “I like this better because it can be replaced if it should break” is not better than “this can not be removed and replaced, but it doesn’t break so it’s not an issue”) Of course I’m making an assumption here and I have to check it. I’d have to ask, how often does the integral lug break on other models?
Think this is old new most SOCOM units had used Glocks G-17/19 and G-21s for years many of them unofficially. I seen many pics of MARSOC and other SOCOM units using M-45 or 1911s still seen them use M-9s as well. Overall it shows unlike the BIG services SOCOM lets its operatives use the pistol of there choice. Some like Glocks other old schoolers use 1911 based pistols some use Berretta still. Overall this is for USMC SOCOM anyway. I don’t see BIG USMC going away from the M-9 a Military time article states the USMC like home based USING TO GOTO 9mm HP ammo soon.9 and M-9A1s.
PS
G-17 uses a 17rd mag G-19 use 15rd mags. Never trust everything you get from Matt Cox he’s a good man but like his M-9A3 post he jumped the gun and he sometime has to recant his news.
They use the 17 rounder and even larger mags with it. Nice thing about the the 19 it takes the 17 mags.
Yes true but I doubt the USMC is buying G-17 mags to go with a different Glock.
Socom provides them from the SOCOM funding, not the USMC.
I also add that the G-19 use is less to do about Glock itself than the fact both M-45 and M-9 are large framed pistols meant for infantry and or normal sized men. The G-19 fill in for a compact weapon. Most users in MARSOC benefit a G-19 are boat and helicopter operators or small handed operatives. The G-19 is a tiny size handgun like the sub compact Glocks are but large enough to fill in a void for a smaller pistol. Glock fill in nicely since most other pistol are doesn’t fill in for a vehicle/boat operator.
Let me first state that I don’t want to get into a polymer vs metal war, or a caliber war. With that out of the way, I can understand if they want to use the g19 over the 1911 because with the g19 you get a larger mag capacity and there are no external safeties. Also with most of the military issuing the m9, you can use the same 9mm ammo. Those are the only points I want to make. I have shot both platforms and am accurate and proficient with both.
@alex, I’m curious, how do you shoot a platform?
To shoot a platform, one must find a platform and shoot at it. I understand my mistake now thank you for pointing it out. What i meant to say is “i have shot both pintle mounted weapons and am accurate and proficient with both”…pew pew pew
…’er ya go.
I think it is hilarious that the military went with a bunch of tight tolerance and tight fitting competition style 1911s for combat side arms. Some Gunsite type tacticool commando was involved in this cluster frick. I think the WWII issue pistols may have been sloppier, but they might actually work for the purpose at hand. Of course both my father in law and father chose the Thompson over the Colt for protection at the front.
High Tolerances are a good thing.
Tight Clearances on a work gun aren’t.
As a former Marine Corps officer I’m a bit of a 1911 fan, having trained with and carried them. But if the boys want to carry a Glock, I say give ’em what they want!
Couldn’t agree more with you Angus. Most of us are on the outside looking in. The men who protect us say what they want and we should give it to them with a smile and a thank you.
@Col. Angus, I highly suspect that is exactly what units do…and that is the way it should be. If a dude wants to carry a 1911, he does so. And if the dude standing next to him wants to carry the other, he does so.
Personally, if they want to run Glock, Sigs or 1911s, let them. We’re supposed to support them, not restrict them. I feel that the entire military should have options in at least 3-4 sidearms and 2-3 calibers. That would make each individual shooter more deadly with their preferred weapon.
But anyway, I prefer the 1911 controls. I trained, qualified(Expert) and carried a Colt in the mid 80s. Today, every handgun I own(save one revolver) has similar controls to the 1911. That way I don’t have to think about which gun I’m carrying. The safety flips off as soon as the weapon clears the holster. Flips on, on the way back into the holster. It’s ingrained.
I do however prefer the double stacks over singles now. For me, better, more comfortable and tighter grip. So much so that I sprung the $1200 for a Para Ordnance Black Ops in .45 with 14rnd(20rnd optional)mags. The mags also fit my Taurus EDC. It’s now my HD/compition/shtf sidearm. There really is a difference in quality between the high and low end guns. As for reliability, after the 1st two mags, the only issues I’ve had have been breaking in new mags. Typically after one run through, all is gtg. For accuracy, in my first compition with it, I out shot all but two of the the other 30 shooters, mostly 9ers. The two(both 9s) took the targets down slightly faster, but used more ammo doing it. Too bad Remington took over Para and is dumping the brand name. Keeping the guns and model names as well as warranties on Para guns.
Not possible.Having 3-4 pistol in 3 calibers would be logistically and fiscally unsupportable.Then theoretically the best weapon would be selected to be fielded to the soldiers. Naturally that would never happen but in the mean time we could hope they pick something that functions and has some level of lethalality.
Id be against it as well. Too many calibers would be a quartermasters nightmare also same for pistol parts and mags. Overall they should stay with the M-9 for general infantry because the other mentioned pistol offer nothing real over the current M-9 and M-9A1.
I’m sorry, this is still a fluff story masquerading as news.
“Young operators have had trouble with the 1911’s beavertail grip safety, according to one former Marine weapons instructor who trained MARSOC members…Many shooters wearing gloves tend to grip the 1911 too high…”
This is a training issue, nothing more, nothing less. It’s called getting to know your sidearm. I’m not sure why we even need to differentiate “young” operators from some other populous of operators, but it’s irrelevant. hell, you can short strok a glock by not gripping it right, so what’s the point? In both cases, you train to the platform. Wear gloves, correct your grip and carry on.
“The 1911 design is also known for feed-way stoppages, a malfunction caused when a round gets stuck feeding into the chamber, experts said…”
Again with the ambiguious statements. What experts? What 1911s? Does this even relate to the new marine 1911 or are we just painting with a broad brush here? Don’t know because it apprently wasn’t important enough to include. Aside from the fact that modern 1911 have ramp/feed improvements and low cut ejection ports to mitigate these issues. After that, it’s all about quality mags. My 1911 with these features certainly didn’t have these problems.
I’m not even saying the that glocks are a bad choice. I’m more than lambasting this piece of media purporting itself to be a source of knowledge.
@ozzallos, Spot. On.
We know the “experts”. Ex being a has been and spurts a drip under pressure
You folks are all arguing “Preference”
I have a Glock 26 that I carry often, but I hate its trigger.
Now let me explain “Hate”… Love it at the range, but hate its lack of all safety. There is a reason there is a term called “Glock Leg” ask Plaxico Burress about it. No safety and a light trigger… My preferred trigger is on my HK45 Tactical which isn’t a carry gun… But I can chamber a round and de-cock it so my first shot would be a deliberate 9 lb pull, follow up shots are nice and light like the Glock and have a nice short reset. I’m also a fan of safeties, cause I can carry with it off, but for de-clambering and putting the gun away I can have the safety on. I think in my opinion that if I disengage the safety upon Holstering the whole fumbling with the safety in a pressure situation becomes mute, besides that my HK has a super easy to manipulate safety. Unfortunately… I cannot carry my HK45 except for when I am in the UP for my week of Hunting (Don’t actually hunt, but do sit in a blind and there are a lot of wolves in the UP)
I am not arguing for the the Sig necessarily either, because the Sig does not suit me for controls at all, I own 2 sigs that are in my carry rotation, but they do not suit my ideal trigger at all… If I could get the Operation of my HK45 in a M&P Shield size that would be my ideal gun, but that gun does not exist… So a G26 is in my rotation but I wish it wasn’t. So my point is trigger is a preference. A good DA/SA has its SA portion which for me is better than a Glock Trigger, but the DA is a safety mechanism. The whole Safety part of the Glock trigger to me is laughable… You really think that little Safety Trigger does much of anything… Google Glock Leg and tell me again how safe that Trigger Safety is… This of course when the Glock fans ring in with “Operator Error” which I agree, but a DA first pull can remedy a possible accident and that makes me feel better and if you can’t handle a first round pull of 9 lbs than you need to get your butt to a gym cause you got some serious granny fingers…
Scott, I had to laugh at your last line because its basically what I tell people who complain about how heavy their 7.5 pound AR is – GOT TO THE GYM! 🙂
“Many shooters wearing gloves tend to grip the 1911 too high and do not properly disengage the beavertail grip safety, so the pistol won’t fire, he said. A lot of professional shooters who run custom 1911s will disable that beavertail grip safety to avoid this problem, he added.
The 1911 design is also known for feed-way stoppages, a malfunction caused when a round gets stuck feeding into the chamber, experts said. Horizontal and vertical stovepipes – types of malfunctions that occur when an empty shell casing gets caught in the ejection port – are also a problem with the 1911 design.”
More outright lies! Many shooters do not disengage the grip safety? Which ones? The ones with an IQ of 4!?!? Since when does anyone use the terminology “feed-way stoppages?” I think the person who wrote this prefers . . . . Oh wait. It’s absolutely clear which firearms he prefers! That is why he can’t stop lying!