TexasCHLforum.com

Some guns are works of art, some guns are tools. A tool does its job, is effective, efficient and reliable. But I never marvel at the beauty of a tool.

This is good conversation, but let me refocus us back to my original question. A number of you have indicated that the plastic guns are a "modern design". Can someone clearly explain to me the benefits of a modern design, over say the established 1911 design. Just because it's newer, doesn't say much. How exactly is it better?

I'm not trying to make this a 1911 vs Plastic Guns debate. I view a gun as a tool, and as such, if there is a better tool out there that does the job then I want to make sure that I can recognize that fact. For example, if I'm a wood worker and I've been using screwdrivers for 30 years to assemble my items. The screwdrivers are metal, durable, last forever. However, I noticed that my neighbor next to me is able to take screw in screws faster because he is using one of them new "plastic screwdrivers", aka drill. Yes, the drill might not be as durable over the long term, but it does the job better. Because I was so locked into using screwdrivers I couldn't step back into seeing how the industry had changed, an even though the new "plastic screwdrivers" felt cheaper, they allowed me to do my job better. This is an example of what I'm trying to prevent.

I'm a big believer in the 1911 platform, but I don't want to get so biased that I immediately discount other platforms. I've tried in the past to like the polymer guns (as was stated, you can never have enough guns), but I've never got past the toy'ish feel of them, which has prevented me from buying them. However, I may be missing out on the best shooting, reliable gun out there and not know it. I don't want to buy one of these guns just because I don't have one. I want to buy one if they offer something that I'm not already getting from my 1911's feature wise, or if there are external benefits I receive from them (such as lower price).

So, let's refocus the discussion back on the merits of the polymer guns. I'll start again by saying one of the big selling points are that they are cheaper (cost wise) and should my luggage get stolen in the airport, then I'm not out alot. The last gun show I was had had new XD for $399, good grief. That's nothing after you come from the tables with the Kimber and Sig's.

BigBlueDodge wrote:
So, let's refocus the discussion back on the merits of the polymer guns. I'll start again by saying one of the big selling points are that they are cheaper (cost wise) and should my luggage get stolen in the airport, then I'm not out alot. The last gun show I was had had new XD for $399, good grief. That's nothing after you come from the tables with the Kimber and Sig's.

LOL...the focus on your question was never lost. The reasons folks prefer one over the other have been stated here and there really is nothing more to add. Quite frankly.... You should just stick with what you like.

carnaco wrote:I have two plastic guns a G26 & G33, they are just tools. I don't really want anymore.

BLASPHEMER! You Man card is revoked for 90 days.

I own 1911s, love them, and carry a 3" Kimber. I also own an H&K USP Compact in .40. I wore it just yesterday for the first time in a long while. I had forgotten how comfortably it carries. However, I've done most of my pistol shooting over the years with a 1911, and I'm just real familiar, and real comfortable with the design. Plus, even the +P loadings in my 3" gun are big pussycats to shoot, and the .40 S&W, even in the slightly larger and heavier H&K, is much snappier and harder to control. Also, the H&K just isn't as accurate as the Kimber.

That being said, even though the Kimber has been dead reliable for me, when it comes time to getting a gun covered in mud and dirt or dunked under water, I'm taking the H&K. The Kimber is just too pretty to jack up that way. The H&K may not have much personality, but it is dead reliable, no matter the conditions. So it would be the gun I would take as a hunting sidearm, or backpacking. I would not be upset if it got a little scratched up or dropped, or whatever. It's a duty pistol, not a carry weapon, if that makes sense.

BigBlueDodge wrote:So, let's refocus the discussion back on the merits of the polymer guns. I'll start again by saying one of the big selling points are that they are cheaper (cost wise) and should my luggage get stolen in the airport, then I'm not out alot. The last gun show I was had had new XD for $399, good grief. That's nothing after you come from the tables with the Kimber and Sig's.

If cost is the big selling point, I see the basic RIA 1911 for sale for less than a springer XD. Maybe do a little fluff and buff and you have a functional 1911 for under $400.

I think part of the problem is there are more differences between the 1911 design and XD or Glock than just plastic. If you don't like the feel of a polymer frame, you won't like plastic 1911s like the STI Edge. If you don't like a pivoting trigger, you won't like the SIG 220 and most DA/SA and DAO pistols. If you don't like striker fired guns, you won't like the HK P7. If a pistol doesn't feel good in your hands, put it down and try another. Shoot and carry what you like and don't worry about what's popular.

BigBlueDodge wrote: I'm a big believer in the 1911 platform, but I don't want to get so biased that I immediately discount other platforms. I've tried in the past to like the polymer guns (as was stated, you can never have enough guns), but I've never got past the toy'ish feel of them, which has prevented me from buying them. However, I may be missing out on the best shooting, reliable gun out there and not know it. I don't want to buy one of these guns just because I don't have one. I want to buy one if they offer something that I'm not already getting from my 1911's feature wise, or if there are external benefits I receive from them (such as lower price).

So, let's refocus the discussion back on the merits of the polymer guns. I'll start again by saying one of the big selling points are that they are cheaper (cost wise) and should my luggage get stolen in the airport, then I'm not out alot. The last gun show I was had had new XD for $399, good grief. That's nothing after you come from the tables with the Kimber and Sig's.

Actually I thought we did a pretty good job of listing the Benefits. Put another way;

More gun for less money.

No real compromise of of reliability. A Glock or Ruger is every bit as reliable as a 1911, and we can expect plastic to last just as long.

Self lubricating. lubing isn't as critical. Plastic tends not to bind.

Choices. There is more Choice. a 1911 is after all a 1911. its a big world lots of different guns come in plastic.

While I consider even a cheap gun getting stolen a disaster. We don't worry about the wear and tear of daily wear on plastic.
Molded 1 piece grips might feel better to many people.

For me there is no disadvantage to plastic other than a real 1911 isn't made of plastic. I think the real issue though isn't about the benefits of plastic but more about varying gun styles. A Glock is as different from a plastic Ruger as it is from a 1911.

BigBlueDodge wrote:This is good conversation, but let me refocus us back to my original question. A number of you have indicated that the plastic guns are a "modern design". Can someone clearly explain to me the benefits of a modern design, over say the established 1911 design.

Well, one thing I haven't seen discussed explicitly is that most "modern" plastic guns use an external mechanism to lock the barrel in place, while the Browning-style autoloaders use internal lugs in the slide to lock the barrel. That's why 1911s are rounded and relatively slimmer than Glocks and XDs and such. On the plastic guns, the surfaces that lock the barrel into place are external, ergo the flat and square top of barrel and slide.

So is that an advantage? Yep; in some respects. Any grime or dirt that get into the locking surfaces can just fall off, or easily be wiped off. This is a big factor in the plastic guns' reliability, and why I mentioned earlier that I'll most often choose a plastic gun when I head off to take a shooting course that requires umpteen rounds per day. The 1911's internal barrel lock traps stuff like carbon build-up and fouling, and the more consecutive rounds fired the more likely is a malfunction, especially with dirty ammo. Oh...and external locking makes the gun less expensive to manufacture.

So when I need to shoot many hundreds of rounds per day without being able to stop and clean the gun, yep (blasphemy Longtooth, I know), I go for a Glock. But one reason tinkerers and gunsmiths love the 1911 so much is that it presents many options for accurizing. Done well, a 1911 with a 5-inch barrel, IMHO, can shoot more accurately than just about any 5-inch-barrel plastic gun. I have a number of pistols in my safe, but if you tell me I must make a 100-yard shot with one, I'll be choosin' one particular 1911.

IMHO, the only reason I can imagine that the Beretta 9mm has been the choice of the U.S. Armed Forces for over two decades is because the Glock--like it or not--doesn't have integrated safety features that can help keep an undertrained raw recruit from shooting his own leg. But for combat conditions, it's hard to beat a Glock.

I should mention that Glocks and 1911s and XDs and M&Ps, and on and on, are tilt-barrel mechanisms. That's the most common. After firing, the rear of the barrel tilts down so that the slide can move back and do its job of chambering the next round. This is the most common system in use today.

The Beretta 92F is a drop-lock mechanism. The barrel moves straight back via tandem lugs on each side of the barrel. There are no locking contact points on the slide, and this allows for a whompin' big ejection port. This mechanism is very reliable, but not the most durable. And by necessity this system has some thick steel on the slide, making it a heavy carry option.

Speaking of Beretta, the consumer demand for compact carry guns had the Italian manufacturer get creative. The PX4 is an example of a locking mechanism that uses a rotating barrel rather than the massive drop-lock system. You need to ask experts like age_ranger about this one; I don't own one. It allows a pistol to be relatively thin, and it would seem to be an accurate system since the barrel doesn't have to move vertically out of alignment during the shot cycle. I'm not sure if Beretta has a patent on this system, but I'll bet they do. 'Cause I don't know anyone but Beretta that uses the rotary-barrel mechanism; I could certainly be wrong.

I choose to carry a 1911. That's just my personal decision. But I own and shoot the heck out of Glocks and XDs. And I have my very first M&P on order: the new Pro series.

If you want a cheap gun so you don't loose alot if your luggage is stolen you should really look into the RIA 1911s (as mentioned above), I have never had to fluff and buff one of them plus they use your current accessories so you don't have to buy more. But back to polymer pistols, in my opinion the typical advantages over a 1911 usually are:

Increased capacity (most use a double stack magazine)
no need to worry about refinishing the frame
the striker fired ones tend to carry IWB more comfortably (no hammer to get into the love handles)
most modern polymer frames have an accessory rail (add a flash light and you have an excellent night stand gun)
the self lube factor (I prefer to lube my guns to minimize wear).

Their typical disadvantages:
Wide double stack frames don't conceal as easily as old slab sides
Grip choices tend to be stock and Houge slip on grips
Majority of their grip angles feel funny
Pivoted trigger
Also remember that a 1911 has a lot fewer springs and moving parts (even those with drop safeties)
1911s have had nearly a century to prove themselves, polymer guns aren't there yet.


If you really want to try a polymer framed gun I would suggest a Springfield Armory XD-45 with thumb safety, as its controls and grip angle are similar to your 1911s. If you want to try a something without the thumb safety I would suggest the new Springfield Armory XDm-40, I love mine, which has the same grip angle and controls as my 1911s (except for the lack of a thumb safety). The XDm can be found for $549 in my area.

I was a 1911 guy before, but until i got into plastic guns, i didn't know what a handgun was. My two 1911, Colt commander and Kimber Ultra Carry II, never worked right. Even though I carry the Kimber, but occasionally it still fails to feed. It was sent back to the factory twice. I am trying to figure out how it fails so that i can send it back one more time. The Colt was even worse.

However, my other collections, Beretta, Sig and Glock, never ever failed once. The Glock got the most range time and always runs and runs. It is an amazing machine!!! I used to hate Glock's boxy look but now I am in love. I loved it so much that I almost bought another one.

Since I bought my Glock, I have been very biased against 1911 style guns. I debated with myself when deciding on buying the Kimber, which in the end was not a good decision.

Just do a Youtube search for Glock +Torture and you'll see some pretty brutal stuff they can do to a Glock and it can still perform flawlessly.

Stupid wrote:I was a 1911 guy before, but until i got into plastic guns, i didn't know what a handgun was. My two 1911, Colt commander and Kimber Ultra Carry II, never worked right. Even though I carry the Kimber, but occasionally it still fails to feed. It was sent back to the factory twice. I am trying to figure out how it fails so that i can send it back one more time. The Colt was even worse.

However, my other collections, Beretta, Sig and Glock, never ever failed once. The Glock got the most range time and always runs and runs. It is an amazing machine!!! I used to hate Glock's boxy look but now I am in love. I loved it so much that I almost bought another one.

Since I bought my Glock, I have been very biased against 1911 style guns. I debated with myself when deciding on buying the Kimber, which in the end was not a good decision.

This describes me to a tee! Although I am not biased against 1911's, I think everyone should own at least one.

But even though a Glock is not pretty, boxy, a little top heavy, weird grip angle (that part is arguable) there is no denying that they are the best darn battle handgun on the planet. They are like a Timex, take a licking and keep on ticking. My Kimber takes much more finesse and maintenance than any of my Glocks. They are cheap to modify, mags are cheap, and parts in general are in more than plentiful supply all over the world.

I had a Springfield XD45 and after 2 incidents (downright dangerous failures IMO) I could NEVER trust my life to one. I trust my P3AT more than I could ever trust an XD.

I rcd my CCW in 1997. My principle carry guns at that time were a Paraord 14/45 and a Springfield Ultra compact 45 ported for 8+ years as my only examples of 1911's. And over the years I've had many FTF's with both. None due to limp wrist or technique that I could identify. For gigs I got a G27 in 1997 and I've got 3000+ rounds through my Glock 27 and not 1 FTF. Last summer I got a Springfield xd45c and have 2000 rounds through it with not 1 FTF. I continue to have ocassional FTF's with my 2 1911's...

I took the NRA PPOH course with 6 other students 3 of which used 1911's.... EVERY gun had at least 1 FTF except my xd45c (the course was 300 rounds)....The worst performer was a kimber 1911 that had a FTF on every exercise. The instructors tried their mags, gave special cleaning work to the gun, but it failed to perfrom at 100%.

I'm not a scientist on this stuff, but for whatever reason, the plastic performs with fewer FTF's.... I have no logical rationale for this, but since my life is on the line, guess what I carry every day....

I've never even held a 1911, but one day would like to. I chose plastic guns from day 1 because of the cost. I could get something functional now, or wait a long time to get the funds for a 1911. Apart from that, the only other reason I stick with plastic is the comfort factor. Something a few ounces a lighter tends hang better on the belt for me. One day I'll get a 1911, but then again, one day I'll get a Porsche too. It's personal preference. Any gun of decent quality will function very well if taken care of.

I have always hated 1911's, preferring 9mm in a pistol. Now i have 1 9mm left and quite a few 1911's, all in .45. They tend to grow on you and get addictive. I havent seen any other handgun besides 1911's and HK's that get people buying multiple versions. Glock owners seem to usually have 2 at most.