Saturday, February 26, 2011

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The other question

The reason we debate Glock (and clones) vs 1911 is to answer the age old question* “what hand gun should I buy”, usually asked by a new shooter. I have three criteria I’d use to answer this: 1) will you be treating that gun like a lawn mower or a classic Porsche 2) what fits in your hand 3) what will your carry routine be?

Finding one gun to meet your requirements in all three categories may be impossible, so you’ll have to accept some tradeoffs.

That may lead to learning to maintain your 1911, which is frankly not rocket science, and if you can change your oil and a flat tire you can learn to maintain a 1911.

It might also mean learning to deal with the ergonomics of a plastic double stack.

The best case you can hope for is that it gives you an excuse to buy several guns and use the appropriate one for the appropriate job.


*Other than being bored, and having nothing better to do then argue on the internet.

Asking the wrong question

All the discussion of the 1911 platform over the last couple weeks got me thinking, and 4 pages of statistical analysis, discussion of abusing the central limit theorem, and questioning the link between the reliability of a pistol design to the reliability of the one in your holster* right now I came to this:

Magazines are the weak link for self-loading firearms.

If this assumption is, true does the Glock/XD/M&P vs 1911* reliability debate really come down to an inherent reliability advantage in double stack magazines over single stack magazines? This could come from two things: 1) a mechanical advantage to the double stack, because of the feed lips, the tapered upper mag body or the wider spring or 2) most of the mags for these guns are made by the company which designed the gun and the mag as a matched pair.

*I'll spare you my sleep deprived analysis.