1911Forum banner

Why the 1911 Co's made me buy a Glock

9K views 113 replies 52 participants last post by  JohnC 
#1 · (Edited)
Why the 1911 Co's made me buy a Glock (update on pg 4)

To start off, I needed a pistol with specific needs in mind. It is for carry so it needs to be small, go bang every time, be a substancial cal (.45), and it had to be affordable.

Well what I wanted was an Officer sized 1911. I am a Colt man so I started looking for a Defender. I could not find one. And it would be on the way upper limit of what I could afford. I found one used one that someone had ported.

I tried a Springfield mil-spec (not the GI, but the true mil-spec) micro compact. The SOB shot 6 inches low, had extraction problems. I got frustrated and out the door it went. And the micro was a tad bit heavy for what I wanted.

I looked at Kimber, I just can afford a grand for what they had that fit the bill.

I shared this with a guy I know from the gun store. He shows me a Glock 36. I told him I did not think it would fit the bill. It is light, had night sights, a stiff but better trigger than I recalled on the 19 and 17 I had shot and out the door for around 6 bills with night sights.

So the guy says, if you really want a 1911 compact you should just get it but if you need a tool you should think about this Glock. I went home and slept on it. I picked it up the next day.

Then I ordered a Milt Sparks Watch 6 from Lightning Arms and it arrived a day or two later. At 20 oz it does very well in the Watch 6.

Shooting the G36. One guy told me it was a hand stinger, BS! I have a Colt CCO that I don't want to beat up carrying it 24-7. The 36 is every bit as controlable as the CCO. I was able to shoot the center out of the target at 10 to 15 yards after a clip or two.

Why can the 1911 builders give us a small 1911 that goes bang every time and is under $700? Is that too much to ask.
 
See less See more
#77 ·
I'm dragging this morning. Last night was rough, I'm tired and I want to go home. After things settled down and I thought at length about how I am too old for this, I thought about this thread for a min.

I've been packing in one way or another, work, as a private citizen for 16 years now. Started in 1989, back then you had to go before a judge and be bonded (the local was not shall issue back then). So I think I know a little about what I'm talking about when it comes to what works for me.

I appreciate folks suggesting options. But you know, if I say a Commander or a CCO isn't going to work for me, I know better than anyone. I can put a G36 in my pocket. I can not put my CCO in my pocket. The 36 works in an ankle holster, I can not carry my CCO in that manner. I feel like I could have done those things with an Officer or smaller sized 1911. And right now I don't have room for mistakes.

Instead of centering the discussion on 3 and 3.5 inch 1911's, it seems like a lot of energy has gone into you should just get a CCO or a Commander (which I own both). When I am heading out to the store, the CCO is what I pack. But reasons reguardless, I needed something smaller. And on top of that why do they have to cost a grand?

I did get a constructive message to look at the SA Defender when it comes out. I figure it will prob cost more than the Glock but by that time it is out, I might be able to swing it. Doing some research, the combination of the shorter round, changing the slide and frame from the ACP version, the SA Defender is supposed to be over all more dependable than the ACP versions
 
#78 ·
Well I hope it works out for you brother... You take it easy out there and watch your back.... :)

Good Luck!!
 
#82 ·
FreeAmerican, you're absolutely right. You are the final arbiter of what you will carry. I've carried a G-19 w/a G-26 as a BUG for quite awhile, and you sure must have bigger pockets than mine. The G-26 was "on the bubble" for me as a pocket pistol. I always carried it in a pocket holster, though. No just dropping it in the pocket, or stuffing it into my waistband, either. I've seen too many documented reports of my fellow agents doing so with less than harmonius results.

For me, anything the size of a G-19 or G-36 is a holster gun. For a pocket rocket, I recommend the Kahr PM40 or the G-27 as the maximum. The 1911, compact or not, has too many things to catch on the pocket lining for a reliably fast presentation. Smooth is better for a pocket gun. For a toss-in-the coat-pocket gun, any of the S&W Airweight or AirLite shrouded-hammer revolvers get my nod. Unlike semi-autos, one can empty the pistol w/o having to draw it out of the pocket. (One might need a fire extinguisher, though.) YMMV.

Good luck in your search for the perfect pocket gun. I've settled on the Kahr PM9. (I've got LOTS of 9mm ammo.) :D
 
#83 ·
abnranger said:
Cost to manufacture is not relavant...does the large coffee at Starbuck's cost 2.50 make...more like .0.25 per pot...but we fork over the bucks for it.

There are lots of functional firearms out there under $600, XDs, Ruger P series, Preowned Certified Sig. Putting the restriction of caliber is a personal option. With todays modern hollow points...take your pick 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP...all are lethal.

Not trying to fish for an arguement, however there are lots of good firearms and ammo to match.

"With todays modern hollow points...take your pick 9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP...all are lethal."

It's true. we all have preferences but with their best loads, each of the combat calibers will give you 90-98% one-shot stops (to those that follow Marshall-Sanow).

Pick a caliber/gun combo that you're good with. Carry a proven HP and you are well defended. :cool:
 
#84 ·
Update

I wanted to give an update. I have been packing this G-36 for over a month now with over a thousand rounds down range with it. I have to say I am pleased so far. It has seen a lot of use in the past month. It has been dunked, banged, covered in dirt. So far so good and not a single hickup. It is not as easy to shoot as my CCO, but that has more to do with the grip than the build of the gun. I have also found the night sights to be a good investment. I am not giving up my 1911's, but this G-36 has it's place in my tool box of weapons. Here are some pics

Here the top of the rear sight on the 36 is level with the rear sight of my CCO and the rear of the 36 is lined up with the rear of the CCO. You will see the 36 is a good bit more compact than the CCO. Enough that it is a very CCW friendly package.


I'm using a Milt Sparks Watch six for the 36, I could not find a VMII for it. Here you see the 36 in the watch six next to my CCO in the VMII.


Here is a better look at the 36 for those who are not familar. Note the smoothed edges and the compact size.
 
#86 ·
Alfadog said:
The 1911 was designed to have quality tool steel small parts and to be fit and finished by skilled craftsmen. You ain't getting either of those things for less than $700 in today's economy.
Really? I thought the 1911 was designed to be dragged through the mud, sent down stream, rolled around in the sand, and was still supposed to function.

My Firestorm 1911 cost me $300.00 plus tax. ;)
 
#93 · (Edited)
FreeAmerican, it's been 23 years since I bought my first 1911, and 17 years since I bought my first Glock. Having owned and used both designs over the years, I think you made a good choice. There's a lot to like about 1911s, but for daily carry the Glock has several marked advantages over Old Slabsides--light weight, controllability, and outstanding out-of-the-box reliability.

The polymer frame that some 1911 aficionados decry as "cheap" is actually a strong point of the Glock design--it makes the gun much lighter to carry and helps make the gun more controllable. It's even a good thing for reliability--you can run a Glock completely dry and get good reliability for a while, thanks to the inherent lubricity of the polymer. Note: I don't recommend it, I'm just saying it's possible.

And as you've already pointed out, the Glock design does better in extra-short versions than the 1911 does. There are many examples of extra-short 1911s out there that work reliably, but as a group short Glocks are more reliable than short 1911s. It doesn't make much sense to argue otherwise.

I never understood why people get so adamant about one side or the other in these Glock-vs.-1911 debates. Each weapon has its good and bad points. Why not simply recognize them, and choose accordingly?
 
#95 ·
FreeAmerican said:
Why can the 1911 builders give us a small 1911 that goes bang every time and is under $700? Is that too much to ask.
Sorry to make this my first post, but maybe you didnt' do enough homework. I have a Kimber Ultra Carry II, chambered in .40cal and have found this gun to be 100% reliable in it's 2000 round lifespan. I know having a 1911 stye gun chambered in something other than the beloved 45acp is a faux pa, but so is comparing a Glock to a Kimber, SA, etc. Two completely different designs, with two different function.
 
#97 ·
powereng said:
Sorry to make this my first post, but maybe you didnt' do enough homework. I have a Kimber Ultra Carry II, chambered in .40cal and have found this gun to be 100% reliable in it's 2000 round lifespan. I know having a 1911 stye gun chambered in something other than the beloved 45acp is a faux pa, but so is comparing a Glock to a Kimber, SA, etc. Two completely different designs, with two different function.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head... 2 very diff designs, the Glock is a compact design from the ground up, the 1911 isn't.
 
#101 ·
This is why I'm interested in checking out the SA GAP Defender when it comes out. Not in love with the GAP round, but rumor has it that because of the shorter casing, they were able to improve the reliability of the short barrel 1911 design...something to do with timing being better for the shorter slide travel distance and less distance for the slide has to travel? SO if I had a choice between a more reliable 1911 designed subbie but in GAP, or a reliable 45 ACP in plastic, I might opt for the GAP.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top