Here We Go Again

Dave Campbell just won't stand for someone trash-talking the 1911.

So I was a little bored this morning and was trolling around on Facebook when I spotted another “expert” trash-talking the 1911 pistol. To wit, this individual links to a site that goes into detail regarding the various stoppages and failures one should expect if they choose to carry this antiquated warhorse. Well…maybe.

After some six decades on this old rock, I have learned that experience is a lot like statistics. As one old saw goes: There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Experience can be deep but narrow. It can be broad but shallow. Few of us are fortunate enough to have both depth and breadth in any one category of experience, much less many. I have a fair breadth of experience in firearms, but some experience is deep; others not so much.

In terms of the 1911, I have been shooting one for some 43 years. I have also carried one quite a bit during that time. Thankfully, I have never had to shoot someone with it, or any other gun for that matter. I have never been in the military and only spent a short period of time in law enforcement. If I may be so bold, I have never set myself up as an authority on gunfighting nor presented myself as some testosterone-overloaded ninja.

However, I am capable of critical thinking. I know what works for me. For example, most double-action semi-autos feed from a double-stack magazine. That means the grip area on such pistols is wide. Combine that with a long and relatively heavy DA pull that switches to a SA trigger after the first shot, and my rather short, fat fingers, makes this type of pistol difficult for me to operate in an efficient manner. A 1911 with a flat mainspring housing and Wiley Clapp’s Tactical Oval grip scales fits my hands perfectly, and after putting some 200,000 rounds through several 1911s it could be accurately stated that I am familiar with it.

The 1911 pictured at the top of this page is my first one. I have told its story before, so there’s no need to repeat that. The only parts that are original on this pistol are the frame and slide, and both have been extensively modified. About 20 years ago I started using this pistol as it was more-or-less originally issued at some shooting schools I covered for another publication, as well as a couple of IPSC matches. At the time it had somewhere between 50,000 and 75,000 rounds through it. I’m not sure because I bought it used. Any gun that has had that many rounds through it will show its age, and I had a number of failures—stovepipes, failures to eject or feed; I even had the extractor fly out of the gun during an IPSC match. Hence the rebuild. Since it has been rebuilt I have put somewhere around 5,000 rounds through it without a single failure. I keep it clean and properly lubricated.

Am I implying that the more modern guns like DA semi-autos and the striker-fired semi-autos are unsuited for service or self-defense? Absolutely not. The choice of a self-defense pistol is a very personal one, and those who choose a modern DA or striker-fired semi-auto are probably making the right choice—for them. But to imply that these modern pistols are flat-out superior to a design that has flourished—and still does—for more than a century when comparing a new or just broken-in gun to a veteran with thousands of rounds through it or one that is poorly maintained isn’t simply dishonest; it’s childish.

Share |

Comments

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours


Your Name


Your Email


Your Comment

3 Responses to Here We Go Again

faultroy wrote:
February 25, 2014

I won't comment about your gun, but I will tell you that I had a Series 70 Colt Combat Commander that I bought back in the very early 1980s. I had all kinds of jams and during those days we were told by everyone that we should only use 230 Grain Ball Ammo unless one sent the gun out to have the feed ramp altered for hollow points and the ramp polished. At that time, I sent it out to one of the premier gunsmiths in the USA and the darn thing still wouldn't fire hollow points reliably. I'm not a gun ninja. I just like to pay my money and after the dust settles, I expect to work every time. I remember the Bill the customized work cost during those days $675.00--that is without the cost of the gun--and that was 1981 dollars. I still own two 45 calibers--one a Kimber Eclipse Target which is a very nice gun. The other is a Glock 45 caliber. Can you guess which is the one that I would keep for a combat pistol? The Glock never gives me any trouble and always goes bang when I want it to. The Kimber is a beautiful gun that shoots like a dream. I sold that Colt Series 70 a long time ago and wouldn't have another. During the 80s, many people just dealt with the idiosyncrasies of those 45s when we wanted to shoot hollow points. Maybe you've just forgot all the problems we had with 1911s in those days. You had a choice--you could either have a dependable 1911 if it rattled like a tin can and you only shot 230 grain ball and wouldn't even think of putting in a hollow point for self defense purposes, or you bought a new gun, and sent it to a 1911 specialist to have him fix it to make it shoot both accurately and reliably--for what was then a LOT of money. Somehow, that doesn't sound like people ragging on the 1911 to me. Maybe the reason people are still ragging on the 1911s is all the problems they had trying to get the gun to shoot hollow points. And when you compare today's stock guns to those 70s 1911s, there is no comparison and no, THAT ain't dishonest or childish.

Butch Kent wrote:
February 13, 2014

Dave, Credentials aside, though not disputed at all, what you say makes a lot of sense. That's what is missing from most expert testimony. Too little 'common sense' and too much 'sense of self' is what you usually find. Keep it on the narrow road. Cocked 'n locked.

Lucky Bill wrote:
February 12, 2014

So now your new alias is: Overload Ninja? Not that you need validation, I agree 100[%].