Glocks and 1911s

John Travis

Happy to be here
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
1,006
Location
Lexington, NC or thereabouts.
Glockers, why all the hate? Fans of Old Slabsides...why all the hate? Don't you understand that the two operate exactly the same way? Don't you know that they're more alike than they are different?

Fans of the Glock claim that their favored sidearm is a modern design compared to the 110+ year-old technology of the old warhorse.

But, is it?

Since the beginning of firearms development and evolution, everybody borrowed on their predecessors' ideas. Ain't no sin in that. Browning did it. One need only do a quick study of the Model 1892 and 1894 carbines to see the influence of Christian Sharps' falling block action. He got the idea for the push button detachable box magazine from Hugo Borchardt, and headspacing on the case mouth from Georg Luger.

But, the Glock serves as a study in borrowing ideas from those who came before...and in this case...many years before. Modern? I don't think so. Some improvements, to be sure...but that applies to everything. It's the natural order of things.

Everything that you see in the Glock came from somewhere else,and much of it predates Browning's 1911. Let's look at it.

But, first...a disclaimer.

The Glock is a good, solid pistol. If it weren't, it wouldn't still be around. It would have gone the way of the Chau Chat.

Sliding breechblock...Browning.

Front slide dismount...Browning.

Tilt barrel locking system...Browning.

Short recoil operation...Borchardt and Luger.

Push button detachable box magazine...Borchardt and Luger.

Striker fire...Borchardt and Luger. The pre-staged striker was present on the 1907 Roth-Steyr.

Double column/single feed position magazine...Saive and Browning.

Integral barrel feed ramp...Saive.

Frame mounted underbarrel readily removable action spring...Browning.

Left side extractor/right side solid mount ejector...Browning.

Camming barrel engagement and disengagement with frame cross member activation...Saive.

The use of synthetics/plastics for the receiver was first seen in the HK VP70...over 50 years ago.

So, the claims of modern technology just don't hold water. Most of the features of the pistol are older'n dirt.

Right down to...

This.

TriggerWidget.JPG
 
Last edited:
I love them all. I just appreciate interesting design and craftsmanship. Not to mention history. I've often said that everyone should own at least one 1911 and one Glock.
 
I've often said that everyone should own at least one 1911 and one Glock.
Honestly, if I could get my hand to wrap around one comfortably, I'd probably own at least a couple. I've tried'em, and they're just not my cuppa tea. For others, they seem to be like Baby Bear's porridge.

Suum cuique.
 
Last edited:
I think the controversy stems from arrogance on the 1911 side and ignorance on the Glock side.
The general view of 1911 guys is that this is the first and best pistol ever made and when it came out the firearms world was changed forever. This of course is a complete myth. If you look at the historical record the Luger was in actual service well over a decade before the 1911 and adopted by vastly more countries. As far as actual numbers produced the 1911 did not surpass the Luger until well into WWII. It did have good sales in the US but that is likely because of the adoption by the US military (see Sig P320) rather than strictly by its merits.
Glock guys view it as an high bore axis, unreliable, low capacity pistol with too many safeties. Some of this criticism is fair but fail to realize Glocks have had the benefit of 100 years of hindsight and changes in technology that allowed the Glock to be made.
Part of the unreliability complaints are rooted in cheap 1911’s. To get a 1911 to approach the quality and reliability of a out of the box $550 Glock you have to spend $1,000 and up. The 1911 requires more parts made by more expensive methods and put together by expensive labor. A $400 Turkish 1911 is not going to be as accurate or reliable but there are way more cheap 1911’s out there than expensive ones. The best 1911 comparison to a Glock is the Staccato and we all know how much they are.
 
Part of the unreliability complaints are rooted in cheap 1911’s
Thank you. A well thought out and articulated post...but I have to point to this part...like a facebook fact checker...as partly false. Norinco proved to us that a cheap knockoff can be exceptionally reliable, and they're generally accurate enough for the role they're intended to fill.

I have a Norinco...one of four...that, aside from the springs and the grips...is bone stock. The only work done was to knock a couple warts off the angle at the back of the disconnect spade and smooth up the barrel ramp a little because it didn't feed my homegrown SWCs as smoothly as I like for one to. The pistol shows little slide to frame play. The trigger is very good, and it hasn't missed a beat with anything I've run through it. Even with my failing eyes, I can clear a falling plate rack at 25 yards with regularity firing PMC Hardball. Can't ask for much more than that from a 300 dollar clone.

I've also seen some pretty expensive pistols that fairly drove their owners over the top with intermittent malfunctions of variable frequency. I've also seen that happen with high end semi customs. Fixed a few of'em myself. I won't name names.

"Execution of the design" is the operative term.
 
Last edited:
Glockers, why all the hate? Fans of Old Slabsides...why all the hate? Don't you understand that the two operate exactly the same way? Don't you know that they're more alike than they are different?

Fans of the Glock claim that their favored sidearm is a modern design compared to the 110+ year-old technology of the old warhorse.

But, is it?

Since the beginning of firearms development and evolution, everybody borrowed on their predecessors' ideas. Ain't no sin in that. Browning did it. One need only do a quick study of the Model 1892 and 1894 carbines to see the influence of Christian Sharps' falling block action. He got the idea for the push button detachable box magazine from Hugo Borchardt, and headspacing on the case mouth from Georg Luger.

But, the Glock serves as a study in borrowing ideas from those who came before...and in this case...many years before. Modern? I don't think so. Some improvements, to be sure...but that applies to everything. It's the natural order of things.

Everything that you see in the Glock came from somewhere else,and much of it predates Browning's 1911. Let's look at it.

But, first...a disclaimer.

The Glock is a good, solid pistol. If it weren't, it wouldn't still be around. It would have gone the way of the Chau Chat.

Sliding breechblock...Browning.

Front slide dismount...Browning.

Tilt barrel locking system...Browning.

Short recoil operation...Borchardt and Luger.

Push button detachable box magazine...Borchardt and Luger.

Striker fire...Borchardt and Luger. The pre-staged striker was present on the 1907 Roth-Steyr.

Double column/single feed position magazine...Saive and Browning.

Integral barrel feed ramp...Saive.

Frame mounted underbarrel readily removable action spring...Browning.

Left side extractor/right side solid mount ejector...Browning.

Camming barrel engagement and disengagement with frame cross member activation...Saive.

The use of synthetics/plastics for the receiver was first seen in the HK VP70...over 50 years ago.

So, the claims of modern technology just don't hold water. Most of the features of the pistol are older'n dirt.

Right down to...

This.

View attachment 665071
mostly agreed.
one important note: Peter Luger did not design anything. He wasn't neither engineer, nor inventor, but trade representative of Parabellum. What he was for sure: convinced patent thief.
Name "Luger" was given to Parabellum by USA inspectors during trial in 1910. bcs of difficulty of pronunciation.
Glock is a good pistol. Not the first, not the lightest, not the most comfortable (not at all), not the most reliable, not the best grouping. just good middle range in its class.
like in the cars: competition shows who is the Best. so, in guns. Years of using shows...
today's 1911-2011 are much more modern then any polymer gun. Most of the guns used at competitions, are the guns based on 1911 (and browning, as CZ) platform.

R package.jpg

IMG_1062.JPG
 
Last edited:
one important note: Peter Luger did not design anything.
Not Peter. Georg. And Gaston Glock didn't design his pistol, either. That was the work of contracted engineers in his employ.

And, John Browning wasn't an engineer...and was quick to correct anyone who referred to him as one.
 
Last edited:
Glockers, why all the hate? Fans of Old Slabsides...why all the hate? Don't you understand that the two operate exactly the same way? Don't you know that they're more alike than they are different?

Fans of the Glock claim that their favored sidearm is a modern design compared to the 110+ year-old technology of the old warhorse.

But, is it?

Since the beginning of firearms development and evolution, everybody borrowed on their predecessors' ideas. Ain't no sin in that. Browning did it. One need only do a quick study of the Model 1892 and 1894 carbines to see the influence of Christian Sharps' falling block action. He got the idea for the push button detachable box magazine from Hugo Borchardt, and headspacing on the case mouth from Georg Luger.

But, the Glock serves as a study in borrowing ideas from those who came before...and in this case...many years before. Modern? I don't think so. Some improvements, to be sure...but that applies to everything. It's the natural order of things.

Everything that you see in the Glock came from somewhere else,and much of it predates Browning's 1911. Let's look at it.

But, first...a disclaimer.

The Glock is a good, solid pistol. If it weren't, it wouldn't still be around. It would have gone the way of the Chau Chat.

Sliding breechblock...Browning.

Front slide dismount...Browning.

Tilt barrel locking system...Browning.

Short recoil operation...Borchardt and Luger.

Push button detachable box magazine...Borchardt and Luger.

Striker fire...Borchardt and Luger. The pre-staged striker was present on the 1907 Roth-Steyr.

Double column/single feed position magazine...Saive and Browning.

Integral barrel feed ramp...Saive.

Frame mounted underbarrel readily removable action spring...Browning.

Left side extractor/right side solid mount ejector...Browning.

Camming barrel engagement and disengagement with frame cross member activation...Saive.

The use of synthetics/plastics for the receiver was first seen in the HK VP70...over 50 years ago.

So, the claims of modern technology just don't hold water. Most of the features of the pistol are older'n dirt.

Right down to...

This.

View attachment 665071
Why all the hate? Because for many people everything is a zero sum game. Whatever I like is the most bestest thing ever, and anyone who doesn’t like what I like is a stupid doo-doo head. Everyone has to take a “ride or die” position and admitting that the other side might have a point is heresy.
It’s an unfortunate attitude rampant in many parts of life/society.
 
Last edited:
Norinco proved to us that a cheap knockoff can be exceptionally reliable
The Norinco certainly deserves a better reputation than it got at the time. When they were available I foolishly opted for an Auto Ordinance 1911 instead and that ended up being a complete dumpster fire.
 
I own 6 1911s and no Glocks, too late for me to change!
I think “improved Glocks” may also count, so poly framed double stack pistols with the features popularized by Glock but designed with the human hand in mind. So a good chunk of the pistols designed in the last 40 years…
 
Peter Luger did not design anything. He wasn't neither engineer, nor inventor, but trade representative of Parabellum. What he was for sure: convinced patent thief
That is straight up slander. Luger was specifically tasked to rework the Borchardt design into a practical pistol by DWM. What were his ideas or not are immaterial, at the very least he had the vision to see what an automatic pistol should look be-a vision that still holds true today. I would say that is genius and worthy of respect.
 
When they were available I foolishly opted for an Auto Ordinance 1911 instead and that ended up being a complete dumpster fire.
Oh, don't get me started on those things. The Thompson Auto Ordnance clones...and I use the term "clone" loosely...were the stuff of nightmares. I understand that they've been much improved under Kahr's banner, but I haven't had one in my hands to make a call on that claim.
 
Oh, don't get me started on those things. The Thompson Auto Ordnance clones...and I use the term "clone" loosely...were the stuff of nightmares. I understand that they've been much improved under Kahr's banner, but I haven't had one in my hands to make a call on that claim.
Now that you know the Auto Ordinance was my first experience with a 1911 you will upon my criticism of it with a gentler eye.
 
Now that you know the Auto Ordinance was my first experience with a 1911 you will upon my criticism of it with a gentler eye.
Oh, yeah...but it seems that you're still judging them based on that bad experience. A mistake, in my way of thinking.

One of my early...romantic...experiences resulted in two trips to the doctor for painful injections of massive doses of penicillin, along with an embarrassing exam and a tough question and answer session with him and my parents. It didn't sour me on...romance...with other women, though it did serve to make me a bit more cautious and selective.
 
Oh, yeah...but it seems that you're still judging them based on that bad experience. A mistake, in my way of thinking.

One of my early...romantic...experiences resulted in two trips to the doctor for painful injections of massive doses of penicillin, along with an embarrassing exam and a tough question and answer session with him and my parents. It didn't sour me on...romance...with other women, though it did serve to make me a bit more cautious and selective.
I have had several over the years and retain two nice Colts for nostalgia but I understand their failings and have the perspective to see that they don’t do anything better than any other design. That said they are still fun to shoot.
 
As @John Travis has said before, if a 1911 is made to specs (JMB's specs) and is fed proper ammo, it will run.
 
the perspective to see that they don’t do anything better than any other design.
At the end of the day, do any of them really do anything better than the others? If it works reliably, and is accurate enough to engage a target within its range limitations under the conditions that it's operating under...it's filled its intended role.
I understand their failings
They all have failings to one degree or another. None are perfect.
 
As @John Travis has said before, if a 1911 is made to specs (JMB's specs) and is fed proper ammo, it will run.
I do not prescribe to that logic.
The 1911 has some fundamental design defects that affects reliability.
1. Magazine design. They are not great and tend to go bad for seemingly no reason without warning. I have yet to see a 1911 magazine that has fed thousands of rounds without failure.
2. Bullet feed into the chamber. Related to the magazine but compared to newer designs it is far less direct.
3. You sacrifice reliability for accuracy. Generally speaking the tighter you get them to shoot the less reliable they become. If you are lucky to have an unmolested WW2 era 1911 you will find the legendary reliability but “pie plate” accuracy.

As an example I have a Walther PPQ 45 that out of the box can shoot a ragged hole in the paper at 10 yards and has a fantastic trigger and zero feeding issues. Even if you go out and spend $4000 for a custom 1911 that can match the accuracy and trigger you are still stuck with those magazines.
 
That is straight up slander. Luger was specifically tasked to rework the Borchardt design into a practical pistol by DWM. What were his ideas or not are immaterial, at the very least he had the vision to see what an automatic pistol should look be-a vision that still holds true today. I would say that is genius and worthy of respect.
When Borchardt refused to redesign his pistol. Love (patent holder) has requested Mauser technicians (part of Love company) to do this. And appointed their sale representative (clerk) Georg Luger to control this process. Later, G. Luger delivered the gun to USA 1906 pistol trial, when 1911 won.
 
Last edited:
I do not prescribe to that logic.
The 1911 has some fundamental design defects that affects reliability.
1. Magazine design. They are not great and tend to go bad for seemingly no reason without warning. I have yet to see a 1911 magazine that has fed thousands of rounds without failure.
2. Bullet feed into the chamber. Related to the magazine but compared to newer designs it is far less direct.
3. You sacrifice reliability for accuracy. Generally speaking the tighter you get them to shoot the less reliable they become. If you are lucky to have an unmolested WW2 era 1911 you will find the legendary reliability but “pie plate” accuracy.

As an example I have a Walther PPQ 45 that out of the box can shoot a ragged hole in the paper at 10 yards and has a fantastic trigger and zero feeding issues. Even if you go out and spend $4000 for a custom 1911 that can match the accuracy and trigger you are still stuck with those magazines.

I see your point, and I see his.

If something is built, anything, a car, a TV, a toaster, and it does not work, something is not going according to spec. It's usually not a design flaw, but can be if a lot of copies have that same issue (see Ford Pinto, etc.). But if that 'thing' is in spec, and there is no inherent design flaw, then it has to run, unless influenced by outside things (other parts, screwing with it, heavy use or overuse).

If the 1911 had a fundamental design defect that affected reliability, we'd see that on a far greater scale I would think. To your 3rd point, I totally agree, and I think that is where that road really diverged: everyone wanting a competition level gun, or a single-hole CQB shooter. At that point you leave the world of the the stock Ford Mustang and enter the Shelby world, where they get so damn finicky and need constant love and attention.

Regarding mag issues, they are a legit thing. I have thrown away sooooo many crappy mags. Except the Wilson 47d, which never, ever failed me. Others may not have had that experience; mags, too, have it's own bell curve and a turd slips through.
 
When I mentioned owning both a Glock and a 1911, I was referring to owning two examples of pistols that are fundamental to the history of handguns and knowing how they work. Not necessarily adopting them as primary. (There are other guns in this category as well, like a S&W Model 19 or a Colt Single Action.)
They both have their own advantages and flaws. I love shooting both and feel comfortable going into conflict either one. But, if I know I'm going into battle, I'm grabbing a long gun. And that's another decision... Hmmm... AR or M1A?

The real answer to all questions... depends.
 
Last edited:
I'm a 1911 45acp fan and Glocks in 9mm only. The Glock 45acps are just thick to fit in my fat hands with oompa loompa fingers. But I love the MP's in 45acp because they fit my hand so much better then Glocks.








So in my conclusion Glocks suck.
 
Last edited:
Why does everyone hate or love these damn plastic guns ?
As stated above both the 1911's and Glocks are fine pistols and I feel comfortable using either to protect my self and family. I can and do shoot both very well and have no problem protecting myself and family with either pistol. If I need a handgun to protect myself and family I will grab any handgun close by and feel totally protected with either one....
 
Why does everyone hate or love these damn plastic guns ?
As stated above both the 1911's and Glocks are fine pistols and I feel comfortable using either to protect my self and family. I can and do shoot both very well and have no problem protecting myself and family with either pistol. If I need a handgun to protect myself and family I will grab any handgun close by and feel totally protected with either one....
Because someone else likes them so it’s an entirely normal and natural response to come in and take a big dump right in the middle of their happiness.
Plus I mean…plastic guns? What kind of modern tomfoolery is that? That won’t work and they’ll clearly fall apart the first time you shoot them. Just some new fangled fad that will blow over as soon as level heads enter the room…just like fuel injection, computers, and not smoking in restaurants.
Two world wars gentlemen…that is all
 
Last edited:
Isn't it nice that we have so many choices when it comes to finding an autoloading handgun that suits us. I have owned and used 1911, Glock, Ruger, Springfield, S&W, H&K, Mauser, Luger, Sig, Beretta, and CZ autoloaders. I have been able to get them all to work reliably. Each has their own set of features and characteristics. I like some sets of features and characteristics better than others for the ways I use a handgun. A full size 1911in 45 Auto set up the way I like suits me better than any of the other combinations I have tried. Others, obviously, are better suited with other handguns. That is not a bad thing.
 
Luger delivered the gun to USA 1906 pistol trial, when 1911 won.
Not quite true. No pistol was adopted at the time although the Savage, Luger and 1905 Colt made the cut to go on. In 1907 ordnance ordered 200 Savages, Colts and Lugers. Luger cancelled the order in 1908 exactly why is not known but the adoption by the German army in 1908 of the Luger likely had something to do with it.
Colt and Savage failed tests AGAIN both would on to another round of changes and trials where the Colt finally got it right. Below is a good reference. Note it is over an hour in length so only gun geeks like @John Travis and myself would watch the whole thing!


 
Not quite true. No pistol was adopted at the time although the Savage, Luger and 1905 Colt made the cut to go on. In 1907 ordnance ordered 200 Savages, Colts and Lugers. Luger cancelled the order in 1908 exactly why is not known but the adoption by the German army in 1908 of the Luger likely had something to do with it.
Colt and Savage failed tests AGAIN both would on to another round of changes and trials where the Colt finally got it right. Below is a good reference. Note it is over an hour in length so only gun geeks like @John Travis and myself would watch the whole thing!



I just saved it to watch later!
 
Back
Top Bottom