Originally Posted by waffles

I've owned plenty of 1911s, and most of them have been pretty darn reliable (and never in the $3,500 range). None of them have ever been quite Glock 19 reliable, but the most reliable of them (Dan Wesson Specialist, Dan Wesson A2, Springer MC Operator, and a RIA GI model) were certainly reliable enough that I'd not hesitate to carry any of them.

It is also true that the 1911 is large, heavy, and low capacity. There are higher capacity options, more accurate options, safer options, lighter options, smaller options, and all manner of other improvements available with other pistol designs made in the last 110 years.

Vickers had a career where those improvements we have now could have made a real difference to him and his friends, and he (mostly) speaks with that in mind. There have been attempts to breathe new martial life into the 1911, the best examples that come to mind being the MEUSOC program and its eventual offspring the M45, with an honorable mention to things like the FBI's HRT 1911 program that got us the Springfield Professional (still want one), but eventually those programs always go quietly away and the groups with the options wind up Glock 19s or similar.

Vickers is right that the Glock 19 (or honestly plenty of other similar pistols) beat out the 1911 platform for martial and other serious uses, and I'm sure there are people on this forum for whom that the differences between the two could matter. For most of us, it really doesn't, just as the difference between revolvers and autos will never matter to most of us. It's ok to carry or love whatever guns we want while recognizing that time marches on.