Savage - I didn't mean to offend. My apology. However, I think "unenlightened" is a bit harsh for someone whose enlightenment is unknown to you. I'm 62. I grew up with 1911s. In the military, the armory furnished "accurized" guns to those who had already qualified as expert. Back then, competition meant standing at 90 degrees to the target, and firing with one hand (slow, and fast) at a bullseye target at 25 and 50 yards. The accurized gun they gave me rattled when you shook it. It never failed, but neither was it accurate; it was just a lot more accurate than the regular issue, which rattled even more. Those guns were what the 1911 was desgined to be.
Since then, commercial guns have come a long way, but I stand by what I said in my previous post. I've owned and fired enough to know that "tight" means an eventual if not regular failure. Of all the 1911's I've owned, I've had only one that never failed, not once, not even right out of the box. It was a '70 series Colt.
Of all the big bore revolvers I've had, never have I had a failure.
Of all the Sigs I've had, never have I had a failure.
Of all the double-action Smiths I've had, never have I had a failure.
For those who imagine that 1911s enjoy that kind of reliability, I say you are lying to yourself. Why else is "reliability" such an important byword for 1911s? It's because they have such a reputation of failing.
Not all of them, of course. But many, many have jammed, and the failure ratio of 1911s to any other expensive pistol is tremedous.
Perhaps this is the wrong forum to make such statements. It's like promoting compound bows on a recurve forum. But as 1911 proponents, for people who would advance its advantages, we ought to be able to admit the plain truth that is so obvious to everyone else.
From an outside observer-- military guns often rattle, if you are going to subject it to dust, mud or nasty conditions of a combat zone, a tight gun, such as the Webley .455 auto was, is prone to failure unless one has time to continually, disassemble and clean it.
When I was in gunsmith school one gent there in his sixties, an retired Air Force service man, showed me his Bullseye Competition 1911, a accurized former service model, It did not rattle and he showed me targets with tiny groups which the gun could shoot (I considered buying it, but I did not like the anti-slip stippling on the frame.
At the same time my another older gent in class brought his, which did rattle, and he said it would not shoot Bullseye type groups, but would shoot a group small enough at 25 yds that one could shoot apples off of posts all day long.
He maintained it was one would any firearm, and that is all.
Now one reason Colt made, govt. models are often left to rattle, as said by my instructor who was a former armorer for the FBI, is that the slides on the Colt models is so hare that if one uses one of the tools to tighten up a slide (by squeezing) one runs a good chance of cracking the the slide and he brought one out of the back-room to show us what he meant.
When he had a private business, he either refused or had the customer sign a release with FULL knowledge that it might crack.
FAILURE-- please list the source you have that says 1911s have a high failure rate. If there is one thing they are know for it is NOT failing.
Bob
PS-- The instructor also said that the famed Glocks DO fail, the good thing in one ways is if one does, when you send it in, at least back then for to be fixed, you often simply were sent a new firearm.
What fails inside a Glock, and I worked on one, is a crucifix shaped piece. When it fails, if you do not have new one, the firearm is useless, and will remain so till you acquire one, there is not a way to make your own.
