anyone still carry a 1911?

[kayt00]

I still do...most of the time. I've been walking miles every morning and what I discovered is that evidently my perspiration is highly corrosive, I've got a replacement belt on the way because of it and a nylon belt on order for my walks.

Now I'll carry either the P365 or G19 AIWB, or I'll carry my SS Pro Carry II, OWB to put a little distance between it and my body. It's easier to clean up rust from frame rails than it is to clean up an entire slide.

[flechero]

Nope, and actually thinking of selling a few of them, as much as it would pain me to do so. If one of my Glocks hit the ground and got kicked across the pavement; meh, who cares (and that's actually happened to me in a training class). It'll still run, and actually look BETTER with a little "battle wear" on it. If a Glock was in some insane scenario stolen; meh, it's a Glock. I'd be irritated, but hey, it's just another plastic gun among millions.

The 1911's, on the other hand,would be an absolute tragedy if any of the above occurred. I'm likely looking at it wrong, but the Browning design in steel is part of our heritage and freedom from the past, and so must be revered and protected. While I ABSOLUTELY LOVE 'em, the new polymer wonder guns are just better; "maybe" more reliable, fewer moving parts, lighter, higher capacity and easier for the average gun owner to run. Not to mention the ease of replacing and upgrading parts - generally NO gunsmithing or fitting required; just drop in and go. Add that to the fact that the ballistic engineers have now developed 9mm loads that work every bit as well as .45acp, and the 1911 just doesn't make carry sense to this engineer.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the 1911 platform, AND the .45acp. It was the second handgun I bought as a young man back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, and will always own a few. BUT, as always, technology has advanced the art, so now I pack, and rely on "plastic" guns. That said, I'm heavily invested in the .45acp, so am now contemplating a path forward beyond the Glock 30sf that I bought several years back, but haven't carried much. Do I keep the caliber for "fun", or does it make sense to buy a couple of larger "battle guns" that I can strap lights and optics on for home defense as backup to a rifle????

As always, GREAT conversation, and you're mileage may well vary...... Cheers all!!

If you separated the emotion from the logic, I think you'd find that the 1911 is still a great tool... and the right tool for many. Maybe a "newer" model or set up would alleviate some of the historical significance you feel, while preserving the shooting qualities.

My heartburn for a damaged or confiscated 1911 would also be real - but really short lived, since I would be alive to experience it. Not saying a glock or similar wouldn't work but I steadfastly believe that you carry what you shoot the best- regardless of whether it's plastic or steel.

[Rafe]

The 1911's, on the other hand,would be an absolute tragedy if any of the above occurred. I'm likely looking at it wrong, but the Browning design in steel is part of our heritage and freedom from the past, and so must be revered and protected. While I ABSOLUTELY LOVE 'em, the new polymer wonder guns are just better; "maybe" more reliable, fewer moving parts, lighter, higher capacity and easier for the average gun owner to run. Not to mention the ease of replacing and upgrading parts - generally NO gunsmithing or fitting required; just drop in and go. Add that to the fact that the ballistic engineers have now developed 9mm loads that work every bit as well as .45acp, and the 1911 just doesn't make carry sense to this engineer.

Not exactly on topic, and I don't know if it's a commentary on military bureaucracy or future trends. But with the U.S. military looking to make its first official change in battle rifles in about 60 years, the three remaining contenders (at least two of the three) have more moving parts than the M16 (the Textron offering has a...unique chambering and ejection system); a couple of them have kind of an oddball manual of arms compared to the M16; and the military finally acknowledged that the 5.56x45 round has probably always been too small a caliber for the purpose and will use 6.8mm.

And that 6.8mm round is likely to be very different from what we're used to, also. In the running--I believe mainly to make the ammo lighter and more similar in carry weight to the 5.56--is one with a polymer case, no metal, and another that has an odd-looking hybridization of steel and thin brass: supposedly the steel at the base and a few millimeters up the case provides the extra strength at the point of combustion/propulsion/extraction, and the thin brass is then just fine for the remainder of the case and the necking. The steel portion rides inside the brass and the two are joined by some sort of clip mechanism. Clearly, I would think, neither of those rounds would be reloadable...at least not easily; maybe you could use the steel portion again. Dunno.

The general reference to the new systems is "Next Generation Squad Weapon" and the 6.8mm will see use in a new rifle and a new light machine gun, replacing the M16/M4 and the M249. Won't be an overnight rollout, though; evidently once the two platforms are selected there will be a few hundred thousand ordered and put into service over the next 5 years. So the military is headed toward a (probably) more complicated platform; a platform that uses a larger caliber; a platform with a somewhat slow rollout so for quite a while there won't be broad battlefield pickup options for replacement parts or ammo; and a platform that uses a unique type of ammunition that we civilians probably won't see for years.

I'd love to shoot those new prototypes that are in the running, but gotta admit that the change seems like it will be radical enough that it leaves me scratching my head.

[bagman45]

Well, the Military Industrial Complex in the DC SWAMP is ALWAYS looking at new ways to spend our tax dollars on fancy new geegaws to enrich the manufacturers that will employ them once they put in their twenty and retire. It's like clockwork. More wars require more arms and "new" technology that very seldom does ANYTHING to advance the goal of killing the enemy beyond the tried and true calibers and weapons that have been doing GREAT service for decades. The only areas in which I believe they've actually advanced is Optics and Supression. Other than that, what has ALWAYS worked, WORKS......