0 - None, Nada, No Problems
1 - 5
6 - 10
11 - 20
20+ - I quit counting
Its a PITA/I had to sell it
I've had my SA for years and there have been no malf that I can attribute to the gun only some of my less than perfect reloads, which there aren't too many.
I've had 1911s for 40 years and only problem I've had is with some of my reloads and bad mags. US&S 1911A1 (retired), Colt 1991 Commander, RIA Tactical & new RIA Compact Tac. Got some "plastic" pistols too and they work fine too. Maybe it's "geezeritus" but I shoot 1911s better than any of the "plastics".
I bought a 1911 Springfield a few months ago and have had only three failure to eject jams. I've shot over 350 rounds through it and only cleaned it twice, once when I got it and once before I replied to this post. Great pistol, previous owner abused it since 2001 with a whole heap of range sessions. American Muscle Car of the Auto Pistol anything less than a 45.
So based on the poll results thus far, 41% of owners have 1911s that aren't terribly reliable. That seems about right to me, even if my recent Gunsite experience showed 100% unreliability.
I have two Springfields, A Colt, two Para Ord, a Taurus, and a Rock Island. Out of all of them only the RIA had one failure to feed right on the 1st mag. after that I've not had a problem out of any of them. The 1911 and clones and Sig Sauer are the the only guns I can say that about . I've had a lot of other designs over the years. I went ape over the poly-guns in the early 90's but come back to the 1911 because it was the only ones I'd not had problems with. I've heard horror stories for years from people that have had 1911's that didn't do the job but I've just not had that problem. In fact I let my Springer 45 get really dirty and started using downloaded ammo to see if it would stop cycling correctly and after 800 rounds it was still going....Not as accurate but it cycled.
I'm one of those people that ain't gonna fix something that ain't broke. For me a 1911 fits the bill great. I trust my life to one
No gun is perfect. I have taken part in a few gun trials and I have never seen one where any gun made it through without a failure or two. A gun having a failure 1-5 times during the course of it's use (including FTE's, FTF's, mechanical failure, and so on) is one dang reliable gun.
Anyone that tells you any brand of gun never fails or another brand always fails has a vested interest in selling a load of goods either to you or to themselves.
I have a friend that says his H&K's never fail, except the couple times I have witnessed them fail, but those were always his fault and not the guns according to him...so they do not count.
Again, it depends on "course of use." Most people don't shoot their guns hard, and I note that many of the folks in this thread who report perfect 1911s are also anal about maintenance. I sure as heck don't want a defense gun that is so borderline in its functioning that it can't go over 100 rounds without a cleaning.No gun is perfect. I have taken part in a few gun trials and I have never seen one where any gun made it through without a failure or two. A gun having a failure 1-5 times during the course of it's use (including FTE's, FTF's, mechanical failure, and so on) is one dang reliable gun.
Not sure what the round counts were in the gun trials you mention, but at the Gunsite course I just attended, we each shot 1200-1400 rounds. I note that none of the four 1911s made it, yet thirteen of the fifteen modern guns on the line worked with absolutely perfect reliability. I have seen the very same thing at another course at Front Sight, where five of six 1911s malfunctioned, and also at many pistol matches.Sort of like the posts in this thread that blame malfunctioning 1911s on bad ammo and bad magazines?I have a friend that says his H&K's never fail, except the couple times I have witnessed them fail, but those were always his fault and not the guns according to him...so they do not count.
People make excuses for guns they like.
I can honestly say that in more than 20 + years of shooting, I have never had any failures to feed or eject or to fire with any of the 20+ revolvers that I have owned
Actually, I am the one who put the too many failures with a 1911 to count. I purchased a used stainless Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec. It failed to reliably feed the last round of the magazine and as a result would jam on the last round about once every 25 rounds or so. So I bough new magazines, no significant change. I bought a new recoil spring, no significant change. I was told that it was the extractor/ejector and that I should send it back for repairs.
To hell with that I traded up to a brand new Springfield stainless mil-spec. Similar problems. Told I was limp wristing it - funny at the same range session I would fire my Glock or my Browning Hi-powers and my Colt 1911 made in 1918 and never have a malfunction of any kind. So I trade that Springfield away. Then I bought a brand new loaded Champion model (about the same size as the commander). After 200 rounds of flawless performance - it began to fail once ever 50 or so rounds. Failures load the first round of a new magazine when the weapon was reloaded from slide lock.
I am done with Springfields for the time being. I still have my old beat up Colt, and one day I may purchase another 1911 but for now - I will stay with only one 1911.
By the way, at my local club IDPA shoots. 90+% of our gun malfunctions are from 1911.
The extractor being bad would not cause it to fail on the last round in the mag each time. That is a magazine spring issue.
"G.I.-loose" 1911s are completely reliable, even when not particularly clean.
It's the "accurized," tight ones that fail if they're not kept clean obsessively.
My competition 1911s are loose.
I never had a failure in competition.
I had very few failures during lots and lots of practice (see my much-earlier post). Many, many more failures were due to worn-out magazines (three) than to broken pistol parts (one).
"G.I.-loose" 1911s will never make minute-of-angle groups, but I can't hold my groups to even "minute-of-mountain," so it doesn't matter. I limit my shooting to 20 yards and under.
I know for a fact that my pistols will make consistent and predictable five-point (A-zone) center hits at 50 yards—but not in my hands, of course.
That's quite good enough. I don't need an "accurized" pistol.
People who like tight, accurized 1911s don't understand what a "practical" pistol is.
Mike, the mags were WWII vintage that finally needed new springs and the bullets weren't seated deep enough to fit chamber of 1911 it was being used in.
I shoot every week in the fall and winter and see all types/brands have trouble once in a while. Almost always related to poor cleaning habits.
Yes even Glocks will quit if some dummy never cleans them.
My Les Baer is at the 200 rnd mark and I had two issues related to my hand loads being a tad weak. I suppose I should blame my gun for not putting enough powder in?
I wont use more than a bore snake in mine until I get over 550 round through it. And that's just because it start to but be as accurate. I still think most people having troubles rather a High end Kimber or something equal design. Using some custom shop pistol like it's a combat weapon it just not right. They are way too tight and require more maintenance being there are less places for powder and other nasty stuff to go. Look at a Mil Spec 1911 next to something that had had a lot of work done. You will see there are a lot tighter tolerances on the high end pistol. better fit isn't always better
Edited because I'm a moron and can't count apparently..heh
Last edited by DevilsJohnson; 09-08-2008 at 02:00 AM.
This all depends on the 1911 I was shooting, I currently have 4, have sold 2, and I am looking at 1. Out of the ones that I own and have sold 3 are rock solid, never even a burp, 1 is still in the break in period but I have had limited issues with it, and the 2 I sold were POS's and I would never buy one of either again.
The 4 I currently own are 1960's era Colt Gov't Model with Clark Mods and Colt Gold cup, a Kimber Stainless II, and a SA 1911a1 Mil-Spec. I like all of these weapons.
The 2 that we're sold we're a Auto Ordnance/Kahr Arms 1911, and a Charles Dailey 1911. These 2 we're poorly made and in my opinion trash.
Not to say there are not reliable 1911s. Based on this thread, at least, there are some. But every single time I go to a class or match where guns get shot hard, the 1911s almost aways puke and the modern guns generally run.
It's great that you clean your 1911 every 100 rounds and it's reliable. But my Glock 17 is currently at about 1700 rounds without a malfunction or a cleaning. I like the margin for error with the latter gun.
I suppose. I clean my Glocks twice a year, whether they need it or not. Neither has ever malfunctioned. I took my Glock 17 to Gunsite and fired 1400 rounds with no malfunctions. The weekend after that I went to the desert and shot another 300 or so rounds. Still no malfunctions. I guess it will stop at some point, but I'm still waiting.I shoot every week in the fall and winter and see all types/brands have trouble once in a while. Almost always related to poor cleaning habits. Yes even Glocks will quit if some dummy never cleans them.
The XDs, M&P, and HKs at the Gunsite course all performed perfectly also, in contrast to the puking 1911s.It's always something.My Les Baer is at the 200 rnd mark and I had two issues related to my hand loads being a tad weak. I suppose I should blame my gun for not putting enough powder in?