Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Does anyone else on the board not like 1911's?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WhiteyMacD" data-source="post: 1227791" data-attributes="member: 7633"><p>We agree then, its subjective. And I agree with every point, Im just more of a fence rider on the 1911 vs Glock debate.</p><p></p><p> Agree with the statement about Wilson. Cant argue the point with Glock CS as I have never had an issue that warranted contacting them... <evil grin></p><p> Agree here as well. Dont think that my questions are trying to say they arent worth it.</p><p></p><p>I agree here as well, but reliability claims from either side is conjecture is it not?</p><p></p><p>Not related to GMTs post, but I need a definition of "Combat Reliability." I take that as reliability during combat which involves the possible adverse condition. So by saying said cost difference buys you "Combat Reliability" are you saying a custom matched 1911 will outperform other guns of lesser cost (since this turned into a Glock vs 1911 discussion, lets say a glock) in, say, the "sandbox" or "swamp" or "arctic" zones? I could see that arguement if we were talking about the WWII 1911s and their very loose tolerances, but that would also mean Combat Reliability is gained by the sacrifice of accuracy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WhiteyMacD, post: 1227791, member: 7633"] We agree then, its subjective. And I agree with every point, Im just more of a fence rider on the 1911 vs Glock debate. Agree with the statement about Wilson. Cant argue the point with Glock CS as I have never had an issue that warranted contacting them... <evil grin> Agree here as well. Dont think that my questions are trying to say they arent worth it. I agree here as well, but reliability claims from either side is conjecture is it not? Not related to GMTs post, but I need a definition of "Combat Reliability." I take that as reliability during combat which involves the possible adverse condition. So by saying said cost difference buys you "Combat Reliability" are you saying a custom matched 1911 will outperform other guns of lesser cost (since this turned into a Glock vs 1911 discussion, lets say a glock) in, say, the "sandbox" or "swamp" or "arctic" zones? I could see that arguement if we were talking about the WWII 1911s and their very loose tolerances, but that would also mean Combat Reliability is gained by the sacrifice of accuracy. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
Does anyone else on the board not like 1911's?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom