Dude's entitled to his opinion, naturally, but there's simply a preponderance of evidence to the contrary regarding his opinion on the reliability of the 1911 platform. Products don't last for over 100 years in the marketplace -- in essentially their original form, no less -- if they don't work and work well, especially since often life and limb are on the line.
And as previously noted, it doesn't lend to his credibility that he begins by defending himself against Internet commandos by alluding briefly and obliquely to being a tactical instructor (a title with no inherent meaning and that anyone can bestow upon themselves), a police officer (where, when and in what capacity?) and having been "in combat environments" overseas, another meaningless reference outside of contextualizing information.
Also, note his response in the comments section to someone teasing him about his shirt; hardly the reply one wants to see from a supposed professional (though I might've done the same).
But the real problem here is use of logic, or lack thereof:
1)
"A 1911 that works correctly is just as rare as a Glock that doesn't". Broad, polarizing statement for which he cites not a shred of hard, numerical evidence.
2)
"1911 users have too much ego invested in the platform". Maybe, maybe not, but this is a criticism of the user that he mistakes for evidence against the platform.
3)
He doesn't like the grip safety. Okay, that's personal preference, not platform flaw. He seems to be indicating that it can fail, but so can any moving part on any platform one cares to name. Unless he can cite good numbers illustrating that the grip safety is a fail point to a statistically greater degree than other moving pistol parts in general, he's just mistaking subjective preference for objective fact; vague reference to "gunmen in the '40s, '50s and '60s" (uh, what?) disengaging the grip safety as proof of his point is so critically unsound I'm losing IQ points just mentioning it.
4)
Modern production methods can't build a good 1911 because the 1911 was first made by artisanal handcrafters. Well, by that logic, nothing made in the days of handbuilders can be made reliably well now because a computer or automaton was involved -- yet my chair still holds me up, my car still runs and my 442 goes bang every time.
There's nothing inherent to the 1911 platform -- no part nor the way it runs -- that necessitates the old way of building to ensure a superior product.
His complaint about the deficiencies of the production assembly process applies equally to any multiple-moving-part product made on an assembly line, including other pistols, yet he applies it exclusively and therefore erroneously to the 1911.
In other words, much like with the complaint against 1911 users, he mistakes a complaint about something associated with the platform for a complaint against the platform itself -- in this case, the quality of production line work.
4) "
As a trainer I have seen very few 1911s that have come through our two day pistol class that have gone through it with no problem". Ah, the illusion of the central position: if it is true for me, it must be true. He fails to remember that he's just one data point, and statistically insignificant therefore, especially if one considers alternate explanations.
While it's possible his unique observations are representative, it's also possible that he's been witness to a statistical anomaly: a disproportionately large number of 1911 malfunctions that doesn't represent the average. Or perhaps he runs the kind of seminar that doesn't attract individuals who own quality 1911s; or that attracts shooters who don't take good care of their weapons; or...
Point is, he mistakes his personal experience for a universal truth and fails to consider other possible implications of his experiences, choosing instead the answers that supports his own bias -- the very thing he accuses 1911 supporters of doing.
5)
1911 owners refuse to acknowledge a malfunction of their weapon as a malfunction of their weapon. Again, true or not, this is a complaint about the user, not the platform -- why can't he tell the difference?
6)
As the 1911 was designed, it had an arched mainspring housing. Not a failure of critical thinking, here, just a failure of fact: the 1911 had a flat mainspring housing; the later 1911A1 introduced an arched one.
Does he have an essential point I might agree with? That out of the box more Glocks are going to run without a hitch than 1911s? Yeah, I'll agree with that -- but he extremitizes that notion far into the dumb, closing by saying that the Glock will work "every time" and the 1911 will "rarely"?
Well, Glocks have their documented difficulties, too -- the Gen4 issues only the most recent -- but mostly, Glocks run.
Can you get a lemon 1911? You bet. Does that platform require a little more care than your typical Glock? I'd say that it does.
But give me a guy who says every Glock he's seen works every time and virtually every 1911 he's seen hasn't and I'll show you someone who is either witness to anomaly or is playing loose with the facts for the purpose of brand affiliation or "look at me" polemics.
Either way, he shows a serious lack or rigorous analysis of his own experience and where it may (or may not) fit into the larger picture.
But it's cute the way he thinks he creates controversy.
For the record, I love Glocks and 1911s.
And mind you, I think OP's a troll...
