Should have left that part out, it took away any credibility you might have had 
Up until that point your post almost made sense.
The problem with the 1911 is not the 1911, its the market. The dizzying array of manufactures of guns, mags, parts, etc. all of which need to be handfit, leads to the reliability problems we often see, and the accompanying price for a properly fit gun.
How many people make Glocks? I would not be surprized if the Glock situation does not end up much like the 1911 one. We already have aftermarket slides, barrels, frames, triggers etc. The Glock may fair better, though.
100% correct, I’ve had a couple small stocks parts fail on my 17’s, no big deal. The ones I’ve seen really fail are where the user starts to think he is a gunsmith and adds aftermarket parts or polishes this and that until it fails.
whatever.
it may not be a popular viewpoint but I do not consider a Glock to be a beginners’ gun.
Ummm…why?
My guess would be because it has no manual safety which might be a issue for people with little or no gun handling skills.
This is going to start a whole different arguement but a manual safety has NOTHING to do with safety. New shooters or experienced shooters need to remember the first rule, booger hook off the bang switch until your ready to fire!
concurred. this is a good point. I am a n.r.a. certified instructor, teach concealed carry classes, and work at a shooting range six days a week. Needless to say I get my fair share of shooter’s pass through; military, law enforcement, and civilian alike. Everyone loves a 1911, but carry a glock or similar polymer frame pistol for personal protection. My favorite two pistols are my 1911’s, they are my most accurate and “good feeling” shooters. However, this day and age, i rest easy knowing that my glock and xd eat up any ammo tossed in it’s chamber. 1911’s have to be babied just as ar’s do. Precision and durability/reliability are on two opposite spectrum’s in my experience. One must almost be o.c.d. to keep their precision pistol/rifle functioning like they should.
I carry a 1911, and a M4.
The mechanics are very similar – start to aim, - ensuring it is a threat remove stafety - aim and destroy.
I can maintain it myself in Iraq - and it has gone a lot of round w/o a stoppage.
I shoot it better than a G19, and I like 45 holes.
I’ve still never yet shot anyone with a handgun, rifle/carbine yes, but I want a handgun that works and I can use tot he best of my ability if I need to.
I can’t speak for ra2bach, but I’d guess his point, which is completely valid, is that whether new shooters need to remember that rule, sometimes they don’t. Period.
New shooters need to clear their semiauto pistols in the proper sequence, but sometimes they don’t. Period.
In both cases, a Glock is a lot less forgiving of newbie mistakes. If someone wants to get all holier-than-thou and argue that newbies shouldn’t make mistakes, more power to you. But a bunch of hyper-enthusiasts who spend their free time evenings and weekends talking about guns online doesn’t really make for a particularly broad slice of the gun owning public. Not everyone who starts as a “new shooter” progresses beyond that point.
I think people are making more out of the 1911 than it really is.
Get a good one, dont mess with it, clean after shooting, and it will work as well as any firearm sold.
Hell, I’ve put thousands of rounds through my Springer Operator during class and competition and its never let me down.
It is not complicated
It is not fragile.
I don’t have an argument. I have statistics which show which type of action has the most occurrences of ND. do you have a guess which type it is?
If the Glock and 1911 are not beginners guns, what are?
that depends. most importantly on the skill and adaptability of the beginner. someone who is truly a beginner at handgunning, it is my personal feeling that they should be started out on a Double Action revolver.
the next step up would be a DAO pistol but an auto pistol introduces a level of complexity that takes the focus off safety and operating fundamentals. having the inclusion of manipulating a slide, magazine, release buttons, etc., in my experience, causes a beginner to become unsure what to do, when, and how. to someone who has never handled a firearm before, there is some level of anxiety and this increases with complexity of the firearm. of course this is all directly relative to the individual.
for instance, my wife, is not really a “gun person”, even though she knows how to shoot and willingly joins me at the range if I ask her. she has been through basic Safety and NRA handgun training classes. She has had plenty of experience on all types of pistols, however, she still prefers to shoot my 4" .38SP revolver rather than any of my 9MM pistols. for her, it is less complicated and she knows that once the hammer is down, she does not have to manipulate the pistol further. this is totally aside from all the rules of safe gun handling which she knows and practices quite well, she is simply more comfortable handling a revolver than an auto. comfort breeds confidence while anxiety breeds confusion, and confusion is not something one should be exhibiting while handling a firearm.
yes, it’s a training issue. and some people are able to adapt quickly and confidently past a “beginners” level. but then, these people are no longer “beginners”, are they?
and I guess, IMO the next step up the level of complexity, would be a DA/SA auto. yes, I know that the decocker needs to be depressed after firing, but even that is one less step required than a single action which requires the use of manual safety both before and after firing.
now to someone who wants to argue that if all a person does is operate the gun according to safe gun handling rules, all this is a moot point and I agree. but that is to assume that ND’s never happen. and we all know the DO happen, so why make that argument? no gun is fool-proof, and no gun is going to “go off” all by itself, but the statistics show that single action (or light action striker fired arms with no manual safety) have a greater incidence of ND’s than other type of firearms.
these are my reasons. I have no argument if you feel differently. but to argue that a single action (or light action striker fired handgun with no manual safety) are as inherently safe as a DAO is to willfully deny reality.
Regardless of your data with ND’s and Glock’s - Glock as are one of the widest issued and used firearms in the US.
I view them as a perfect stupid person’s gun – load and holster. Great for the avg LE or Mil user.
- Draw
- pull trigger - repeat as necesarry
- reload and reholster.
Nothing to make their OODA loop longer or complicated.
I’ve taught troops and other personnel handgun and rifle stuff – teaching a Glock to a new to pistol user is much easier than a Sig, or some other designs.
KevinB, I think you hit the crux of the debate squarely.
Is a Glock an easy gun to teach? Yes.
Is a Glock an easy gun to shoot under stress? Yes.
If those factors are what you care about when recommending a gun to a new shooter (ra2bach’s statement that started this tangent), then the Glock is fine.
There is a difference between a gun that is safe in combat, and a gun that is safe the 99.9999% of the time it won’t be in combat. Safety during administrative handling, safety when disassembling to clean … these are valid concerns some people may have, whether as new buyers or as experienced shooters recommending a gun to a new shooter.
I’ve got a report in my office from a federal agency about a senior agent, an intelligent college-educated guy who went through months of initial academy training as well as many quarterly qualification/training sessions. He managed to AD his issued Glock while taking it apart at home, firing a round through his exterior wall and into the nursery of his neighbor’s home. The bullet ended up just a few feet from where the baby slept in its crib. This might be a dramatic example, but it’s certainly not unique.
I’m not condemning the Glock, but its particular takedown procedure is more prone to accidents and pretending otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand.
by your definition are the troops and other personnel you train in Iraq, beginners?
most of the people who I see plunk down their money and walk out the door or up to the range with a glock could legally be considered a danger to themselves and others. and what type of training or knowledge these people SHOULD have is irrelevant to what occurs in the real world. maybe you’ve never had a round impact next to your foot, or in the ceiling of whatever range you shoot at but I have. the evidence is there for anyone to see.
and I couldn’t give a shit about OODA loops. I care about getting capped in the ass by someone who has barely handled a firearm before.
you want to talk about training warriors as though that has something to do with recommending an individual start out with a revolver. I don’t see the connection…
I would suggest anyone who forgot to unload their gun prior to disassembly for cleaning is an idiot - be it Glock, Sig, BHP or 1911…
I agree that those may be more forgiving in that respect - but I typically don’t beleive the Glock to be any “unsafer” than any other pistol. Stupid people, or smart people having a brain fart will have accidents regardless of what they are using.
The trick is to give the student a GOOD fundemental understanding of safety.
I think that everyone should own at least one reliable, quality made 1911, Glock, Sig, H&K USP (compact & full size), Shotgun and AR-15.
Bob has a good point. 1911’s and parts are made by everyone, similar to what has happened to AR’s. Weeding out the good and bad is were most people run into problems. 1911s need a chart to.
1911’s are enthusiast guns because we have good results under bad situations when using them. But like AR’s they have been put to the test and served well (still are in a lot of places). My first handgun was a 1911. I own 1911’s, Glocks, Sig, H&K. Colt and S&W handguns but a 1911 will always be my go to gun.
So they are enthusiast guns but are great for the new to guns person.
Training is the key to all things.
Trained, Un-Trained or JAFO
I still believe plastic is for tupperware, I can’t stand the feel of Glock pistols and can’t hit the broad side of a barn with one, I can however pick up my 1911 and put 7 rounds in your chest at justifiable self defense distances with either hand and if I run out of ammo I can beat you to death with it.
However, I really like the feel and accuracy of my Sig so the 1911 stays at the house most of the time. Woud I recommend one to a casual shooter, probably not (good ones are expensive).
OK. But there are a lot of idiots who own and carry guns.
I agree that those may be more forgiving in that respect - but I typically don’t beleive the Glock to be any “unsafer” than any other pistol. Stupid people, or smart people having a brain fart will have accidents regardless of what they are using.
But experience doesn’t bear that out. Yes, accidents can happen with any weapon system. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that some systems are more prone to mistakes than others. Or put another way, they are more prone to unwanted loud noises when a mistake is made.
The trick is to give the student a GOOD fundemental understanding of safety.
I think this is where the disconnect is occurring.
First not all gun owners are going to be students. In fact, the majority will never get any significant training. Second, not all students are going to internalize safety rules to the point that they’ll use them subconsciously for the rest of their lives.
So perhaps that’s the disconnect: there’s a difference between a soldier being issued a pistol and then given continuous training, and a private citizen who walks into a gunshop to buy a gun for his nightstand. Both are “new shooters,” but there is a massive difference between the two.