TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:This whole thread is nonsense. Everyone should know by now that a revolver is the only reliable type of handgun.

BUNK! A single-shot TC Contender is much more reliable

Seabear wrote:

A-R wrote:

Seabear wrote:I have a S&W 625JM

Let me help you unload that worthless, antiquated wheel gun that shoots old technology .45 ammo by trading you a Glock for it. Heck I'll even trade you a 1911 for it

You're welcome to come to Corpus and "unload it" as many times as you want, however I don't think it will be going for a ride with anyone else but me.

kjolly wrote:What does he have against fence posts?
Seriously I perfer the separate thumb safety or DAO. If the safety is on the trigger and I've already made the mistake of putting my finger inside the trigger guard I don't see that as an adaquate safety.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=bTalnzcO0xk[/youtube]

* oh and TAM is right, dumb people should not own Glocks

Seabear wrote:I have a S&W 625JM

Let me help you unload that worthless, antiquated wheel gun that shoots old technology .45 ammo by trading you a Glock for it. Heck I'll even trade you a 1911 for it

MasterOfNone wrote:

A-R wrote:As for NDs, it's a stretch to compare 1911s to Glocks in this regard because of sheer numbers (how many more police officers etc. use Glocks daily than 1911s?) and because of the change over that was made in law enforcement from revolvers with relatively heavy triggers (8-15 pounds vs. about 5-6 for a stock Glock) but still no external active safeties of any kind. And yes, I realize the US military used 1911s for 75 years, but it was not the primary weapon of many (most?) who carried it and and likely not subject to number of unholster/reholster repetitions as a LEO-used handgun.

Also, I see at the shop all the time a cultural factor that surely contributes to a greater likelihood of Glock owner-caused incident. The average thug who doesn't know a thing about guns generally has no clue what a 1911 is (probably thinks its the long-distance emergency number). But he sure knows what a Glock is, if only by name. So the population of 1911 owners is likely to include a smaller percentage of ignorant people.
Both guns are great tools in the hands of a skilled operator. It's just that Glock's name draws more of the unskilled.

Great point.

The Annoyed Man wrote:For one thing, a typical 1911 has at least three safety mechanisms to the Glock's one

Sorry good buddy, but this is inaccurate. Glocks have three safeties - one active (trigger safety) and two passive/automatic (firing pin safety and drop safety).

Original 1911s only had two active (grip safety and thumb safety) and zero passive/automatic (though later models have integrated various drop safeties and firing pin safeties).

In a nutshell, the 1911 safeties would "allow" someone to press the trigger of a loaded 1911 without it going BANG. Depending on your point of view, this good (extra level of safety) or bad (false sense of safety, as in "look I can press the trigger and nothing will happen" ... until you fail to realize your muscle memory already subconsciously deactivated the thumb safety and ... BANG).

Both are great handgun systems, likely the best two ever developed. And each user should choose the system that fits them best.

As for NDs, it's a stretch to compare 1911s to Glocks in this regard because of sheer numbers (how many more police officers etc. use Glocks daily than 1911s?) and because of the change over that was made in law enforcement from revolvers with relatively heavy triggers (8-15 pounds vs. about 5-6 for a stock Glock) but still no external active safeties of any kind. And yes, I realize the US military used 1911s for 75 years, but it was not the primary weapon of many (most?) who carried it and and likely not subject to number of unholster/reholster repetitions as a LEO-used handgun.

He's dumb about dropping any gun and reacting to it as if "no big deal". But on a fundamental level, I don't disagree with his theory. The KISS principle alone - applied to its extreme - would lend itself to an argument that the fewer moving parts a machine has the more reliable it will likely be. I'm no engineer, and I'm sure an engineer could poke all kinds of holes in that argument. But it's a valid argument, nonetheless.

Not saying the 1911 is junk (which apparently your friend was). Just saying I've always believed there's some fundamental truth in the KISS principle.