WTF---When I was first trained by the 101st. Airborne to use my 1911 our Drill Instructor told us that your 45 is like your prick don't pull it out unless you're going to use it! Looks like these two dip shits when never trained properly

 

I have a couple of switchblades on hand here along with a Fairbairn Sykes and a U. S. Navy Mark 2. If I tried to use any of those or the hunting knives on hand for personal defense I'd stick my own silly self. I have no training or practice in fighting knives.

Back to the "obsolete" 1911-gun. A 1918 vintage Colt Model of 1911 lives here which was a worn out clunk when I bought it in 1978. It'll still offer bottom-of-coffee-can accuracy at 25 yards in its present loosy-goosey condition if I'm in a shooting humor. It has never jammed and it suffers a sordid history of high volume shooting by me as a young shooter having endless opportunities to shoot and with inexpensive reloads. It suffered my early enthusiastic "experimental" reloading endeavors from mild to very wild, also suffering my learning how it worked through detail stripping and becoming acquainted with the "inwardness of the thing." Currently 14 1911-guns live here. The 1911'll see me out.

Double-action-only triggers, whether it has a dingle-berry safety in the middle of its trigger so it can be called "safe-action" or not, is a particular flavor of "yuck" to me and my doctor says I'm "mentally allergic" to plastic as a handgun component, just as I am "mentally allergic" to quartz watches and "smart" watches.

Handguns are devices for flinging projectiles. They all still use self-contained metallic cartridges, same as they did all the way back to before the American Civil War. Until ray guns become generally used, there just isn't as much difference in handguns as we would like to think there is.

 

Noelekal, I too have that plastic allergy and hate cruddy triggers. Which of course means I'll never own a Glock.

 

I did pick up a generation 2 Glock 17 about five years ago for cheap, just so I could better loathe them.

Really!

Unlike other guns I view it as a specimen and as tradin' goods.

 

Unfortunately for the Glock a long string of accidental discharges, many of them fatal, accompanied its adoption by several police departments.
There are a number of kabooms as well. These were mainly due to the projectile being shoved deep into the case as I mentioned earlier, an ammunition problem more than a mechanical problem.
While many modifications to the design have addressed these faults one never knows if an older model got the renovations to make it safe.
First time I ran across a Glock the owner was bragging on how safe these were, though he had somehow managed to shoot off the end of a finger the first time he took it to the range.
He field stripped it and examining the frame I felt it was no more substantial than that of a airsoft pistol I own. The inside was scored and battered after a few hundred rounds.
This particular gun owner was a local character, well known for blowing up guns with his reloads, losing an eye , and once shooting one of his cows that had walked behind the stack of hay bales he thought was a sufficient back stop for a .308. So his abuse of that Glock was likely more than it would have seen in normal service.

BTW I have seen all metal frame upgrades for the Glocks. Which sort of defeats the purpose.

 

Whoo. That'd be embarrassing to be touting the safety of the pistol all while while sporting a shortened finger from shooting it off.

Of course folks have shot their own silly selves with 1911s before too.

You are right about the flimsy nature and feel of the whole genre of plastic pistols. Of course they would all be defended by the argument that there's strength where it counts and that the construction is engineered to be amply strong while lending itself to beneficial weight savings. Back about six years ago I thought to try one of the Smith & Wesson Shields which were coming on strong in the market then and which I had previously examined and held. I liked the ergonomics of the pistol and felt it had a quite decent "big pistol" feel for such a compact gun. So, acquired one in .40 S&W.

While examining it I noted how thin the plastic on the sides of the frame are and one could just lightly press on the sides of the stripped down frame and cause much flexing. Very thin it was and light and bend-y. I'm sure its a wonder of design innovation, but ... what'a piece'a junk!

Besides, I view weight as beneficial and don't even admire lightweight handguns. Handgun marketing has made an entire generation come to believe that less is more. Less quality in materials, less quality in execution.

Still, it has resulted in keeping handguns affordable and that's a good thing.

 

Question: A very close friend that has never carried an automatic ask my opinion of which brand and model he should buy.
I'm an old school .45acp Colt 1911 guy for over 5 decades. However I know that he won't put 500+ rounds thru it before he's willing to bet his life on it. My understanding is that you can run "erasers" thru a Glock as they will reliably cycle almost anything. My wife carries a Glock 30 with 185gr. Hydro Shock rounds and she's had no issues from the first round thru the 200 or so she's ran thru it. Please give me a better choice for my friend.

 

Go to a gun range with gun rentals. Use the range type ammo and enjoy! Shoot lots of guns you may never buy, but always wanted to try. Maybe try a caliber other .45 and see if you/he likes it.

1911, Glock, Sig, HK are simple easy choices but when choosing the exact watch strap there are nuances that can really fine tune firearm/watch strap selection. Grip angle, texture, weight, safety placement, size and others all factor in. Budget or availability may be the ultimate determining factor though. Regardless of the selection, it sounds like a fun day at the range.

 

Hell it's always a fun day at the range. My friend has a large hand with long fingers so grip size and comfort are especially critical for him.
Most of us old Vietnam guys that carry 45s 'cause they don't make 46s I would recommend either a 45 or a 40. What do you think?

 

Go 10mm. Glock 20, 1911 or maybe bren ten if able to be found. Maybe the s&w 10mm revolver? On the Glock (I have a Glock 20, love it) the frame is the same size as the .45 glocks and gen 4 gives you back strap options. Also, 15 rounds of 10mm with standard glock 20 mag. 10mm is same diameter as 40 s&w, but longer case, so more powder.

I have never shot 460 Rowland or 50 gi, but it might tickle your fancy. More time may be spent on decision making than at the range...

 

Thanx but I'm sure he's not a 10mm guy. If not a .45 then I'd have him try a Glock 23 40cal.

 

I have a few Glocks and HK's on hand. I would trust them to go bang when needed. Triggers on both brands needed work with a few part changes and tuning the triggers are now acceptable for my needs. However I prefer an all steel handgun most of my handguns are all steel. The HK's and Glocks are the exception. "plastic wonders" Weight can be an issue but also a huge benefit.

 

An old gunsmith friend of mine always told me if you can't get the job done with 6 shots you don't deserve to carry a firearm. The guy owned just about every type of firearm you could imagine but he always carried a S&W model 19 or J frame He also is an accomplished 1911 shooter in matches. But for carry it's a revolver.

 

Considering that the most important shot in a gunfight is the first shot then I would agree that 6 shots is more than enough.

 

I've not done any gunfighting, but it would seem that the first shot, properly applied is more important than the 15th shot.

 

Accidental discharge of a Glock? This needs to be reworded to negligent discharge. A Glock or any weapon that discharges when not intended, 99.99% of the time it is negligent.
For those of you with the plastiphobia, the following should be enough to put you in shock.

Mass rounds, I am a true believer of “there is never enough“. Enough rounds get you out of a bad situation. Cover fire and run, mothers milk of livin to the next day.

 

When an unintentional discharge is due to a basic design, manufacturing or mechanical flaw its not a negligent discharge.
The FN 1910, when worn, is known for doubling and occasionally going off when racking a round into the chamber.
I once repaired a Savage .32 auto pistol that if the trigger were squeezed while the safety was engaged would not go off but later when the safety was disengaged would go off without the trigger being touched.
This particular pistol suffered from spread frame rails that made the action too loose for the sear to work properly. I used a block of wood cut to the correct width and a small bench vise to return the rails to spec and the problem was solved.
The Savage though having what looks like a hammer is actually striker fired.

Because of the quarter cock notch a hammer fired auto is less likely to double or go off without the trigger being pulled than a striker fired pistol.

I like my FN 1922 but due to it being striker fired I hesitate to carry it with a round in the chamber.

 

Mechanical flaw, thus my 99.99% negligent theory.

 

I did not know that about the FN 1910... which is what the FN 1922, one of which I have, is based on. I have never shot it because it's prettty nice and relatively early, just after the Nazi occupation of Belgium. I got it from a friend whose father took it from a Japanese(!) officer druing WWII.

I must admit the Glock and others with that trigger system scare the crap out of me. Because I was trained on a 1911? I don't know. But I refuse to use a gun without a manual safety, revolvers excepted.

 

Careful or you’ll shoot your eye out