1911 to Glock

[Tnfalconer]

I used to enjoy having the 1911/glock discussion ( I am staunch 1911 by the way). In training LEO for I service it was amazing to me how many do no practicing or skills tests on their own unless forced to and provided ammo from the department. It wasn't always this way. They took pride in their weapon and treated it with care and learned to use it efficiently. Unfortunately a lot of that has gone by the wayside. Sidearms never come out of the holster unles entering the jail or after shift is over.

Had one sheriff tell me that a 1911 cocked and locked looked too "Aggressive". As in those wearing it were looking for a fight. He didn't like it when I told him that every glock that was carried chambered was also "Cocked and locked" you just couldn't see it. That went over like a lead balloon. Now there is a trend of officers being forced to carry an open chamber on duty in their weapon. This trend is meant to force the officer to make a conscious decision to use his weapon and put a stepping stone in front of him using it without thought. THis has also resulted in several job related injuries and fatalities. After a good amount of data, thankfully this is going by the wayside.

Another point to make is that most departments are Monkey see, monkey do. One one sidearm is allowed for the entire department. That means once the sheriff or chief decides on a weapon they all have to carry it. Good or bad. I feel like this is a horrible precident to set but hey, they are free to run things anyway they feel appropriate. I appreciate a glock, they are damn near indestructible. Handle little care with ease and have a solid reliability. However choosing one because it is less maintenance is foolish at best. I have always felt like officers should carry whatever they are comfortable with and can qualify with. That gives them some personal pride in their weapon. I know several LEOs that carry revolvers on the job to this day. The thing is I wouldn't point a gun at any of them. Those guys feel safe with their wheel guns and most are extremely proficient with them. Certainly as good as the average auto shooter. Just some thoughts.

[Walkingwolf]

Personally after buying the wife a witness I would opt for a CZ platform. The CZ has a FP block, and can be carried just like a Glock, or carried Condition 1, or 2. Personally I liked the model 39's that the state of Illinois issued when I was a University cop.

If a officer cannot maintain his equipment they need to ride a desk.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Tnfalconer--I enjoyed reading your post immensely. We certainly see eye-to-eye on a number of things.

I also believe that one is best armed with that which they have the most confidence in and are the most proficient with. Another area of agreement is the value of a good 1911. Until very recent years it was always my favorite sidearm in .45 ACP, and only in later (I guess "older") age have I strayed away to a Star Mod. B.

But I still own and shoot several 1911s. All my life I have had run-ins with the anti-1911 crowd who parrot the line that "cocked and locked is dangerous", and most of them are unfamiliar with either the weapon or how it operates; and still continued with that prejudice despite the addition of the redundant firing pin safety.

I think I encountered the height of ignorance on the last job that I held before retirement. The company had a written rule that all semi-autos carried had to be double action, but prior to the arrival of a new manager it had been largely ignored. I carried a 1911 until "called" on it at a Training Day meeting. The manager reminded me of the rule and said that all semi-autos had to be double action like his Glock. So, in front of the rest of the group (big mistake--egos involved) I invited him to demonstrate the Glock's double action feature. He removed the magazine, cleared the chamber, pulled the trigger, "click", but when I insisted that he pull the trigger again, of course nothing happened. Positively not double action, a "Safe Action" as we all know Glock advertises. He kind of choked up a bit when it was explained that a double action semi-auto would be something like a P-39 or S&W Mod. 39, and that in all fairness he should dump the Glock which was the weapon of choice of almost everyone else present. The following day I started carrying a Para Ord LDA 7:45 and was called into his office where he reminded me that semi-autos had to be double action, and he telephoned the home office for guidance. He informed the person on the other end of the line that we had a conflict. He asked for my LDA which I had cleared, and pulled the trigger. "Ah hah," he informed the listener. "It only clicks once! Not double action," using the knowledge I had just given him the day before. A very tired sounding voice came over the speaker phone, "Is the officer present with you?" "Yes, he is." "Leave him alone. Was there anything else you wanted to talk about? Bye."

The foregoing, absolutely a true story, is related to illustrate how ignorant about the workings of handguns in general many supervisors tend to be. This fellow had the goal in mind of terminating me for carrying a 1911, but didn't know the difference between a standard 1911 and an LDA. The myth of the dangerous 1911, even worse when cocked and locked, persists--and I despair that it will ever be put to rest.

[Tnfalconer]

I actually know a department in Texas that still uses revolvers only. The sheriff carries a VERY tricked out single action in 45LC. His officers shoot regularly, train weekly and are proficient with them. Everyone I saw was a S/W 686 plus. Damn fine weapon in my opinion and all of his officers could speed load one in under 4 seconds. I don't care what you are shooting, that's lightning. His best statement to me after a quick question of why everyone carried the 686 plus he quoted " if they squeeze the trigger and it doesn't go bang, they squeeze the trigger again". Made perfect sense to me and his deputies were EXCELLENT marksman. WAY above average for any skills level test.

[tazman]

I just recently( last 6 months) became familiar with the 1911 in both 45ACP and 9mm. I never really handled one much before. I had fired a friends 1911 a couple of times during a range session but couldn't hit anything. I was a confirmed revolver man.
A few months ago I was at the range when an old Army Sergeant walked in with his 1911. During conversation, he asked if I ever tried one. I told him about how poorly I shot one. He said he could fix me up in just a few minutes as he had been a range training officer for much of his military career.
He was right.
I had been trying to shoot the 1911 like I did my revolver. It turns out you can shoot a revolver wrong and still do fairly well. After a few minutes under his tutelage he had me shooting the 1911 fairly well. At least as well as I was shooting my revolver.
Since then I have been using what he taught me and my shooting with both the 1911 and revolvers has much improved.
He also showed me how to properly handle and use the 1911 and how safe they can be.
Unfortunately, I haven't run into him at the range since then. I would like to thank him properly for taking the time to help me the way he did. The things he taught me in just a few minutes may save my life someday.
I am thoroughly impressed with the 1911 as a weapon design and a really fun gun to shoot.
I put 150 rounds through mine this morning at the range.
I really didn't know enough about the 1911 before this recent experience to have an opinion about them. I still don't consider myself expert enough to advise anyone about them but I do know they are a lot of fun and a great pistol.
I also have no experience, none, with Glock pistols. I have never shot one. From what I hear on this site, I would expect them to be an excellent shooter as well.

[psweigle]

Ahhh. . .the joys of trying to find something that's idiot-proof, coupled with the failure to realize that idiots are ENDLESSLY inventive.


Now that's a thought provoking statement. I like it.

[Potsy]

I've seen a dry Glock jam. On more than one occasion. Granted, the worst offender wasn't broke in. It was a pistol that was bought new, wiped off, loaded, and thrown in a nightstand for a few years. A few sprays of Rem oil later it was functioning perfectly, but it was a paperweight before that.

That said, I think a Glock is a fine weapon. Never owned one. Never shot a bad one (and I've shot a bunch of them) that was properly maintained.

Those that think Glocks are far superior to the 1911 often forget that WWII, Korea, Vietnam, where the 1911 design was proven, were not sanitary environments. I think a lot folks feelings about the durability/reliability of a Glock stems from the fact that they'd not beat on their pretty 1911 or revolver they way they would a Glock, ergo, confusing incidental abuse with a general lack of maintenance.

It seems to be the general consensus, some folks would be extremely well armed with an old 4" Smith Model 10, others would be hapless and helpless regardless of the design of their equipment or how much ammo they can carry.

[9.3X62AL]

People don't change the engine oil in their expensive new cars and trucks. People don't clean or lubricate their carry arms. I was Hell On Earth with deputies who didn't keep their firearms maintained and/or who had shade-tree gunsmithing and armorer work performed. In the cases of shade-tree mods, the firearm got DQ'ed immediately, and would only be re-certified with written documentation of repair by a factory-certified 'smith or armorer. It only took 3 or 4 such actions to get the point across.

Our guys and gals were given time after quals was complete to clean and maintain their sidearm(s). It is 10-15 minutes well-spent for a number of reasons. A few sergeants and LTs carped about these 10-15 minutes, and needing troops back in the field ASAP. I ignored them enthusiastically throughout my career. G-- d--- cubicle farmers.

[Lloyd Smale]

cant wrap my mind around a police officer that doesn't maintain his weapon. To me its about like grabbing a 30 year old parachute that's been sitting in a back room strapping it on and jumping out of a plane! Don't they realize that there ability to go home after shift might be compromised!!

[Der Gebirgsjager]

True, it is hard to understand, especially to those of us who like guns.

We admire their design, craftsmanship of manufacture, utility, and just plain like to shoot them. But, like 9.3x62AL says above, some folks will spend thousands for a new truck and not change the oil. LEOs are people too, and this illustrates the point.

Now days it seems fashionable to think of the police as being a bunch of blood thirsty thugs that are itching for the opportunity to shoot someone, anyone, even a bystander. Actually, my experience was that about 25% of officers liked guns, 2% were rabidly anti-gun, and the other 73% just didn't much care about guns at all, just viewing it as a necessary tool of the trade. So the 73% is why the larger departments have armorers, and why their existence is necessary at all, because among that 73% are those who neglect maintenance. Not the entire group--just some of them.

It's probably not too different than a lot of other occupations where some neglect the tools of their trade(s). Carpenters and mechanics with rusty tools don't inspire the greatest confidence in their workmanship, and the best machinists usually keep their machinery spotless, cleaning up after every job. LEOs are pretty much a cross section of the population. There is some comfort to be found in the still valid statistic that the vast majority of officers, even in today's world, will never have to fire their weapons defensively.

How's about another true story, one of those so extreme that thinking about it will have you shaking your head for days? Way back in the very early '60s there was an older officer who had been a waist gunner in WW II bombers. He saw lots of action and contrary to all of the PTSD today, he "mellowed out" as an individual. He held the LEO job before the war, and when he came home he resumed his duties.

He hated the revolver hanging on his waist, and maybe had a bad back, although I'm not certain about that. Anyway, right after leaving the office for his beat he would take his gun belt off and hang it over the headrest on the passenger side of the front seat. One day he responded to a traffic collision at a remote coastal location and found a drunken young man behind the wheel. He arrested this individual, and also somewhat unusual for this old officer, he handcuffed the arrestee and put him in the back seat. The patrol cars didn't have cages separating the front and rear seats in those days, and the normal procedure would have been to place the arrestee in the right front seat, handcuffed behind and seat belted, but I guess the officer's gun belt was occupying that position, so the rear seat seemed best.

Well, while he was filling out the necessary paperwork for the tow truck to haul the wrecked vehicle away he heard an engine start, and looked around to see his patrol car being driven away up the coast road. The arrestee, being one of those sufficiently agile individuals able to undo the seat belt and pass his hips and legs through his cuffed wrists so as to now have his hands in the front, had then climbed over the front seat and driven away in the patrol car with the officer's revolver. Well, there was a cement plant nearby with a pretty steady stream of trucks bringing in materials, so the officer commandeered a gravel truck and gave pursuit. Very fortunately he was able to overtake the patrol car when the driver, still being drunk, crashed it into an embankment this time being injured to the extent that he was unable to exit and flee on foot.

So what happened to the officer? Remember, this was a long, long time ago and things were a bit different. He was formally reprimanded. He was very "Mayberry" and the entire incident was kind of "Keystone". He never lived it down. Of course the entire incident was an example of what not to do, but the telling and retelling conjured up such hilarious images that everyone laughed and laughed for years whenever it was mentioned.

Let me say that I knew this fellow for several years and he was really a "salt of the earth" kind of a guy. Stopped by my house one day in his patrol car (gun was hung over the seat) with a kitten he had found and insisted that my little daughter adopt it, which she was happy to do. Personable, generous, well liked within the department and had many, many civilian friends. The year that he was finally due to retire he died of cancer. His funeral was by far the largest I've ever attended with a couple of hundred people having to stand outside the large church.

But, in summary, I guess after the war guns just weren't Danny's thing. A good man. R.I.P.

[tazman]

I have known a number of really good people who were police officers. Many would go out of their way to help keep a young person out of trouble. I heard a lot of stories about that while I was growing up and even had the good fortune to have a couple of them save me some trouble when I was young.
Good hearted people are a treasure, whoever they may be.

[9.3X62AL]

If a officer cannot maintain his equipment they need to ride a desk.

Or go sell shoes at the mall.

Der G's assessment is pretty much the same as my own.

[Smk SHoe]

When you finally build something completly Idiot Proof, they will build a better idiot

Glocks are solid, accurate, and dependable ( I still don't like them)

[9.3X62AL]

When you finally build something completly Idiot Proof, they will build a better idiot

Glocks are solid, accurate, and dependable ( I still don't like them)

Yessir--you and Bigslug (I'm acquainted with him) are quite correct about idiocy being self-upgrading.

A lot of the guys and gals that post here regularly can probably take most decent sidearm systems and run them quite capably. We don't have to "like' them necessarily, but for myriad reasons we have been obliged to learn our way around them and make them do the right things at the right times for us. This came in handy for me as a part-time range trainer at an agency that approved some 300 make/model/caliber variants of rollers and sliders. I would have given vast sums to be allowed to carry a 1911A1 in 45 ACP, but single action self-loaders were never approved until about a year ago for a limited number of folks. Glocks were not among the makes approved in the first wave of self-loader adoptions in 1987--it was S&W and SIG-Sauer, but were added in 1994 along with H&K and Beretta. The 40 S&W and was added, and the 9mm was amended for uniform use from its former relegation to plainclothes, back-up, and off-duty carry. The 380 ACP came on as the relegation choice and remains as such to the present day.

To me, the Glocks remain as ugly as a mud fence aesthetically speaking. Their beauty lies in their utter reliability if given minimal care & maintenance, and reasonable accuracy for service usage. Their best attribute has been a large cadre of factory-trained armorers in citizen, law enforcement, and military circles able to do armorer-level repairs without heavy investment in shop tooling or fixture acquisition for 90% of the work needed for periodic maintenance. THEY VERY SELDOM BREAK. I'm not a Glockophile, but I do respect their reliability and utility for reasonable initial cost and VERY reasonable refurbishment cost and fast turn-around times--usually on the order of 15-20 minutes shop labor time, with nominal parts cost. I believe the Armed Services will come to regret opting for the Sig-Sauer P-320 modular system over the Glock 17/19 and its maintenance simplicity.

[tazman]

This has been very informative about the Glock pistols. I have never handled or shot one since I didn't care for how they looked. Seems I may need to look into then a bit.
Are some models better than others or are they all pretty much the same type of quality?
Are there any specific models I would need to avoid?

[9.3X62AL]

Generation 2 Glock pistols in 40 S&W caliber were the usual suspects in the "Glock ka-BOOM" scenarios that were reported in the early years of that variant/caliber combination. The Generation 3 & 4 pistols seem to have overcome that trait, and don't give fired cases that "Glock Bulge" or "Glock Smilie" or "Guppied Appearance". Aftermarket barrels that give case-head support sell well, and if a Gen 2 in 40 S&W is selected then a barrel swap might be wise.

Some folks have excellent results with Glock OEM barrels using cast bullets. Other folks do not. In 45 ACP I found Glock barrels to be VERY lead-friendly; cast bullet work in 40 S&W, 10mm, and 9mm may follow soon. Glock twist rates in OEM barrels are quite fast (excepting 45 ACP), 4 turns/meter (1 in 9.8") which can complicate cast bullet mechanics. The slower twist rates in aftermarket barrels and their tighter internal dimensioning might be justification enough to spring for a swap tube. From some comments made by Doug Guy concerning Glock barrels, they are harder than woodpecker lips and a real bee otch kitty to machine. Brushing out any leading you might install inside one likely won't damage the finish or the metallurgy.

Between our girls and ourselves we have 7 of these wunderplastic critters in hand. Our girls love the ugly things, and they are kind of like the runt puppy the kids brought home who grows up to be a great watchdog and faithful family friend. I have seen close to a thousand examples in the hands of my old shop's deputies in 9mm--40 S&W--and 45 ACP. I have one each of 20SF and 29SF in 10mm. I have yet to personally see any glaring manufacturing flaw in any example. Our range staff has seen a couple such things, and Glock handled the matters very quickly via replacement.

Best of breed? To me, Glock 23--the mid-sized 40 S&W. The grip length fits just about everyone's hands but is small enough to conceal with minimal hassle, barrel length is 4.02". 14 rounds on deck when full-up, 40 rounds on hand with 2 spare mags along for the ride. And the 40 S&W round is no freakin' joke as felon disincentivizer. A close second would be either the Glock 32 (357 SIG), a round that duplicates the FBI's Federal #357B loading (125 grain JHP @ 1425 FPS), or simply fit a swap barrel in 357 SIG to your existing 40 S&W. Same mags, swap barrel and go play.

Glock REALLY SHOULD make the mid-size models in 45 ACP and 10mm. These are the only gaps I see in their expansive lineup.

[william l evans]

I was a leo from 1969 until 2001 and an armour from 1981 until retirement. Every three months the Dept. qualified. I was not a instructor but was there to inspect the officer's weapon. I kept records of the condition of their handguns. I made the slackers clean their guns in my presence, you would be surprised how quickly they would get with the program.

[9.3X62AL]

Yessir. DQ 3-4 sidearms, and the word will get around most ricky-tick.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Kimbers are nice guns, and should be taken care of.

Glocks tend to be looked at as tools, and as a result receive not nearly as much attention.

A Kimber in a day to day role would really need to be looked at closely several times a month.

A Glock in a similar role would be just fine being looked at once a month or maybe twice if shot.

The one thing I find problematic is guys loading the same rounds back into the magazine each day when they unload the gun.. Just jamming the mag back in puts a flat spot on the top round and if you chamber it from the magazine it is only a matter of time until the bullet is being shoved back into the case from bouncing off the feed ramp.

Best to rotate rounds in the magazine and load the barrel manually so you avoid this problem.

I personally think that if you are going to carry a gun for a living that you should both know how to use it with a great degree of proficiency, and take care of it,,, and not ever take it for granted. your life kind of depends on it,,, Right?

My .02.

Randy

[Thumbcocker]

What would constitute "taking care of"? My idea would be a weekly disassembly and wipe down with a good looking over. I do tend to put a tiny film of grease on locking lugs and slide rails. Other friction points get one drop of oil from a needle oiler. I have never carried day in and day out so I am genuinely ignorant here.