# 1911 Vs Glock Which do you like better?



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

as if this topic hasnt been beaten into the ground yet..


Ps- I am a 1911 guy all the way!


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

I like em both. In my dealings with LE , I carried the Glock 21 and bought the 30 as a concealed carry gun. I then found 2 -1911's that I love to play with (Springfields). My only concern of late is hearing from the Weber Co. Deputies that they have had some "issues" with the Glocks coming apart on them at the range. They are issued the G22's and 23's. They were using factory ammo. Not good to hear. My favorite to carry right now (90% of the time) is a Springfield Compact.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

They are sort of apples vs. oranges to me. I own more than one of both, but not in .45 Auto. 
Glock is made by one manufacturer, while 1911s are made by a whole grundle with lots of different grades and quality. This makes straight comparisons much harder. Glock has a uniform quality and parts interchangability.

1911s use a SA operating system, while the Glock has a unique system that is more of a light DA-only. Definitely different from each other, but the Glock at least has a single-pull-weight/length trigger that is a bit more SA-like than normal DA auto pistols.
In .45 Auto the Glocks don't fit my hand except for the subcompact single-stack G36. I don't know about the new SCs.
.45 1911s have almost unbeatable ergonomics and with most being single-stacks they fit most hands very well. 
Glocks are much lighter to carry than most 1911s on your belt all day long. Aluminum frame 1911s can come very close though.
When it comes to field-stripping, the Glock beats the 1911 hands-down! This alone would make it superior take into an extended nasty, dirty, muddy, sandy, combat situation where a clean gun is king.
It is a much simpler design with a lot less parts and hand-fitting required. Not so the 1911. However a well-put-together 1911 is a thing of beauty.
The Glock is the 'Kalashnikov of pistols' because of its easy maintenance and incredible reliabilty. 
All Glocks have a superior corrosion-resistant Tennifer finish. 1911s vary by model and manufacturer so this is hard to compare.
The 1911 trigger is superior to the Glock trigger (_or can easily be made superior_), but the Glock won't go off when dropped like a lot of 1911s. The Glock trigger incorporates a couple of safeties (_which make the trigger pull not as good_) while you have to remember to wipe-off the 1911 safety in a high-stress situation. LE would rather defend the Glock trigger pull in court than the SA 1911 - possibly a small point however. The 1911 is a better match trigger.
The Glock lessens felt recoil over the 1911.
The 1911 has a million upgrades and parts available and some outstanding custom-grade pistols are available from Wilson Combat etc.
Glocks don't, but really don't need any improvements to function as a service pistol but you can't really make a decent custom out of it either.
The 1911 is much better looking, and you can do a lot more to change its looks than you can with the ugly Glock.
1911s are more reloader-friendly.
The 1911 is truly the greatest handgun design of the first half of the 20th Century, while the Glock hold the same distinction for the last half of the same century. Glocks may not be perfect, but they started a polymer/striker-fired revolution and are the most copied design extant with virtually every handgun manufacturer incorporating a Glock-introduced design feature.
The 1911 has an incomparable history in combat with U.S. and other forces. Owning one is owning a piece of the history of freedom. 
I like both, but for different reasons.
I like shooting the 1911 better, and think it is more fun to shoot, but likely would pick the Glock for a combat or service weapon (_but not in .45 for me!_) However both types can serve well in either role and are well proven.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Frisco Pete said:


> They are sort of apples vs. oranges to me. I have both, but not in .45 Auto.
> Glock is made by one manufacturer, while 1911s are made by a whole grundle with lots of different grades and quality. Glock has a uniform quality and parts interchangability.
> 
> In .45 Auto the Glocks don't fit my hand except for the subcompact single-stack G36. I don't know about the new SCs.
> ...


You have got to be crazy.....Man. He!! Mattel would not even tool up to build such junk. The 1911-A1 is the most proven and copied design of handgun ever designed. You tell me one elite force service man who is carrying a Glock into battle or on opse and I will eat your lunch.

Oh! the cops like them, because the ordnance officer specs them and does not know his left hand from his right hand, but that does not put the Glock even in the same sentence as a 1911.

I will take a Colt 1911 over a Glock every day of the week and twice on Sundays......


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

o-|| *OOO* o-||


----------



## eyecrazy (May 4, 2008)

I am a fan of both of these fine weapons but if it is self defense we are talking about most 1911's are out of the question where the use of hollowpoint ammo in concearned. The 1911 is a dated design and most (except ones with ramped barrels) were not designed to feed hollowpoint ammo-it is only close to 100% reliable with hardball ammo. This reason alone is enough for me to pick the glock in .45 or others like the Sig Sauer P220 over the 1911 as a serious defensive tool.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

eyecrazy said:


> I am a fan of both of these fine weapons but if it is self defense we are talking about most 1911's are out of the question where the use of hollowpoint ammo in concearned. The 1911 is a dated design and most (except ones with ramped barrels) were not designed to feed hollowpoint ammo-it is only close to 100% reliable with hardball ammo. This reason alone is enough for me to pick the glock in .45 or others like the Sig Sauer P220 over the 1911 as a serious defensive tool.


Eyecrazy,

I can tell you from first hand experience, after having a Glock come apart at the range, having the slide broken and fifteen feet in front of you on the ground is a real coming to Jesus experience. I have heard and read several accounts of this happening to other Glock users. Oh yes! Glock sent me a new one, which went straight to Norm Van Wagonens for a new Sig P220 stainless, which is one sweet deal. However my Colt S series out of the box, no modifications, is still the weapon of choice, on the range and in the holster.

Yes the 1911 was designed around ball ammunition, however, I can never recall ever having a Speer Gold dot 240 grain hollow point ever miss feed. Everyone raves about the safety features of the Glock, but I will testify to the fact that they are nothing more than a hand grenade in a pretty package. I would never buy a used Glock, unless you have the slide inspected for micro cracking.

Bigbr


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

*Facts or fiction?*

I think that all of the experts in this tread are getting a bit caught up in the hype of gun manufactures and missing the point.....and that is incapacitation of your intended target? We can all conjecture about what pistol maker is best or what bullet should be shot, but here is a little hard evidence one should consider before you go out and buy that so called "ultimate defense weapon." The following are excerpts from a great site:

"Incapacitation
(Hey! STOP that, right now!)
The subject of incapacitation is one of vital interest to anyone who depends upon a firearm to either protect their life from an assailant or who needs to stop a dangerous animal. What is needed in both cases (and even in the case of a non-dangerous game animal) is to turn off--S T O P--whatever the target is attempting to do, whether it is trying to kill you, someone else, or simply trying to run away. Whether or not the target eventually dies of the wound(s) is of only academic interest at the moment the shot is fired. You want (need) instant (or as near to instant as you can get) results! This function is commonly referred to as "stopping power" but a more precise term is Wound Trauma Incapacitation (WTI).

Interestingly, while the hunter, police officer, or civilian has always been interested in the immediate termination of all actions of the individual or animal that was shot, the military hierarchy was, is for the most part, primarily interested in creating a wound that will require medical treatment and hopefully the use of several other enemy troops to help the individual who was hit--which takes several people out of combat effectiveness with one wound. Thus, the military considers that an "effective" hit as one that simply delivers approximately 53 foot pounds (some sources say 35) of energy to the target rather than one that instantly shuts down the target. Thankfully this attitude is being replaced with the proper mindset.(The poor GI actually IN combat wants the same results as the hunter, police officer, or civilian--making the other guy stop trying to kill him. As the famous Patton quote goes, "... making the other dumb ******* die for HIS country.")"

"Most authorities agree that for anti-personnel use a minimum penetration in calibrated ballistic gelatin of about 12" (with 14" - 15" being considered ideal) is needed. This is necessary to achieve reliable performance under all conditions against a human target. It should be noted that minimum depth for major blood vessels and organs in a human is about 15cm ( 6")--from straight on, but it is considerably more from various angles. With bullets used for hunting the general consensus is the deeper the better. In both cases this has to be coupled with the ability to create the largest diameter permanent hole possible. Most authority seem to agree that the permanent hole needs to be at least .4" or greater in diameter and as deep as possible. A problem arises here in that as a bullet expands it tends to penetrate less, so expansion and penetration have to be carefully balanced by bullet weight and bullet construction. This bullet design problem is exacerbated by the fact that if a target is covered by some material such as cloth, glass, metal, etc. the expansion--and hence the penetration of the bullet--can alter dramatically."

"One word about depth of penetration. Some people in law enforcement hold that too much penetration with ammunition used for self defense is a bad thing. They warn that a bullet that passes through a target may hit someone else resulting in all kinds of law suits. However, considering that according to action reports from the NYPD that 80 - 90 percent of the shots fired in law enforcement situations fail to even hit the target (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and a few other school grads excepted!) I wouldn't worry too much if your ammo is penetrative. Better too much than not enough when the chips are down. However, ammunition that meets stated requirements above for optimum performance will in most circumstances not exit with a torso hit" http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal.htm

Hope you read this and learned sompun....Bigbr


----------



## scattergunner (Sep 21, 2007)

No Glock or 1911 hatin' here. I'm an equal opportunity shooter... :wink: I lean towards the Glocks, just because that's what I'm issued and tend to shoot better. But 1911's are not without their charms.


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

Al Hansen said:


> o-|| *OOO* o-||


+1 LOVE IT!


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

I think the 1911 is the easiest full frame handgun to conceal hands down. I've carried models from all the major manufacturers at one time or another, and for IWB holsters there really isn't anything to compare them to. The Browning Hi-Power is close, but in terms of the slide width the 1911 is slim and comfortable to carry. They are also very accurate for me.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't like Glock's....


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

> Mattel would not even tool up to build such junk


 is the very best quote of all! :lol: 
I had to look twice to make sure this thread wasn't about S&W Sigmas or Hi-Points! :twisted:

One thing that I have noticed over the years is that Glocks seem to inspire an unusual amount of extreme emotion from a lot of people, often clear to the far end of the emotional scale, and always have since their introduction - _amazing_ for such a common and bland-looking pistol...


----------

