1911 v. Pincus
I have gotten tired enough of watching people fight with 3″ “subcompact” 1911 .45’s to put this video (and the accompanying challenge) out in public.
I think 1911s are a bad idea to start with, but it is simply reckless to offer these mini-versions as defensive firearms to the public. They have a ZERO PERCENT Success rate in my training courses…. Never had one not fail. Yes, people will undoubtedly post how they have the magic unicorn Ultra Carry that never chokes. Cool— SHOW UP at a class and prove it…. I’ll refund your tuition and pay for the ammo if it really runs and you really run it
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:36 am
A defensive firearm needs to be able to put, generally, far less than a full magazine on target when needed. It does not need to fire magazine after magazine flawlessly over the course of an entire day. Nice if it can, but not necessary.
There’s a hell of a difference between a defensive encounter and a training class.
I understand his point, but I think it’s overwrought. And Tam had something to say about it several days ago.
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:48 am
I think his challenge says a lot about training courses and their relationship to the real world.
May 22nd, 2012 at 10:58 am
Yet he still teaches Tap-Rack failure drills.
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:01 am
You gotta admit, when Pincus grooms the drama llama to drum up business, it’s fur is silky smooth by the time he’s done.
I’ve been on TV when my Glock, the “Goes bang every time” did not go bang. My KelTec P3AT? The POS that should blow up every 3rd magazine? Never has failed me.
I’d be more interested in failure rates from a regular outing at the gun range than some thousand count per day weekend course that teaches you not to shoot the cameraman downrange.
May 22nd, 2012 at 11:32 am
Well this past weekend in the Rangemaster class 16 shooters, other than the poor guy with a J frame, 2 9mm M&Ps an a 40 XDm, everyone else had at least one stoppage, but none of the guns failed or broke. The stoppages were on modified guns or students using reloads.
May 22nd, 2012 at 12:45 pm
My short 1911 has never jammed yet while being beaten on a speed bag.
May 22nd, 2012 at 1:13 pm
If your gun hasn’t broken at some point, you aren’t shooting it enough. I have had failures that required repairs of two different models of Glocks, three different Sig models, and three different 1911s from two different manufacturers, and others. My M&P hasn’t failed yet, but I have only put about 2,000 rounds through it so far.
With that being said, the 1911s failed at a rate that was much higher than the rate of the others. Sure, you only intend on firing it 10 or 20 times when it counts, but your life depends on its functioning properly.
If I own two parachutes, one that is known to have a 1:10,000 chance of not working, and one which is known to have a 1:1,000 chance of not functioning when I need it, I know which one I will be wearing when I jump out of the plane.
May 22nd, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Pincus can suck it.
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:49 pm
1911’s suck. Doesn’t matter how many excuses people make for them; they are unreliable and not suitable for personal defense.
And, to those who claim otherwise, Mr. Pincus issued a challenge. Surely one of you internetigencia will be able to prove Mr. Pincus wrong. Right?
I eagerly await the follow-up video.
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:56 pm
No, Gunnutmegger, because I don’t want what I would “win”. A free class from someone who I don’t respect.
May 22nd, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Having taken a couple of courses from Rob, I think some here are being a bit unfair. Never in his course did he pull the “just trust me” or say something was “another tool for your toolbox” – he was always willing to explain the how and why behind what he was having you do, and his dislike of the 1911 was no different.
The issue is not the common failures, but mechanical malfunctions like a broken extractor or bent firing pin that require more than just a “Tap-Rack” drill to clear. Malfunctions that would effectively take the gun out of the fight entirely, and that he has noticed much more often in the 1911s than in Glocks.
It is true that the average defensive encounter is not a 2000 round three day affair, but that doesn’t mean the statistics are a non-issue. A higher failure rate will apply to the 20 defensive rounds every bit as much as the 2000 training rounds. You can make the argument that for you the risk is “low enough” or that there are other tradeoffs to consider, but in doing so you’re coming very close to agreement with Rob in saying “my platform isn’t reliable enough for one of these courses, but I don’t think that matters”.
I don’t understand the animosity based on “training” being different than reality – that will always be true. And from a trainers’ perspective, a gun that dies halfway through the class is a waste of the student’s time, even if it’s good enough for carry purposes.
May 23rd, 2012 at 12:02 am
Gunnutmegger Says:
May 22nd, 2012 at 6:49 pm
1911′s suck. Doesn’t matter how many excuses people make for them; they are unreliable and not suitable for personal defense.
And, to those who claim otherwise, Mr. Pincus issued a challenge. Surely one of you internetigencia will be able to prove Mr. Pincus wrong. Right?
I eagerly await the follow-up video.
___________________
*rolls eyes*
1911s suck? How many other products that debuted over a hundred years ago are still being manufactured?
I mean seriously man, I know some of you tactical guys get all het up about your sensei/guru and his One True Way, but you’re just crazy talking here.
May 23rd, 2012 at 1:05 am
He teaches the tacticool crossfit classes right?
May 23rd, 2012 at 1:58 am
Let deep seas roll into shallow waters.
How about we look to Lt. Herman H. Hanneken’s use of of 1911 in battle to determine its efficacy . Or numerous other medal of honor recipients. Has there been another pistol used in the course of combat heroism? How many enemies of America have been slain by 9mm while we’re at it.
Good enough for them, good enough for me.
Maybe all the people behind me in IDPA rankings can attest to my correct and full size version 1911 reliability and accuracy placing 230grs on target faster than they can.
It’s a shame we have this wonderful tool that people devote so much wind to, or finger tapping, yet the outcome is only an improved means to an unimproved end. Hm I was referring to the Internet but guns fit that description too.
May 23rd, 2012 at 2:08 am
There were 50+ comments on that Facebook circle jerk and not one mention of the 1911 use in COMBAT for over 100 years. Not good enough for a defensive pistol? It does that, and can go on the offense! Did anyone clear the jap trenches with a glock? Or hunt vc in tunnels with an XD? What is the point of all this gun blog ecosystem if everyone is ignorant or full of shit?
May 23rd, 2012 at 8:30 am
OK, mentioning the non-use of a pistol during WW2 or Vietnam as evidence that it isn’t as good as a 1911 is ridiculous if the pistol didn’t exist then. After all, I could easily say that the 1911 wasn’t used to kill Yankees as Gettysburg, the Indians at Little Big Horn, or the Earps in Tombstone and the comment would be just as relevant.
May 23rd, 2012 at 8:33 am
Also, he is mostly slamming on the 3 inch Colt, and that design was not invented until 1985, so no one cleared Japanese trenches or chased Vietcong with it, either.
May 23rd, 2012 at 9:08 am
SPQR:
Are you claiming you never need to practice or take a class? You must be one of those high-speed/low-drag operator types, huh?
Seriously, you actually have a litmus test for deciding what personal opinions a trainer must hold in order for you to learn something from them?
Britt:
I am not a “tactical guy” and I don’t have a guru. But I know a crappy design when I see it fail over and over. And I can also spot a guru who pushes such crappy designs in spite of well-documented shortcomings.
HardCorps:
Leave caliber out of the discussion. This is not, and has never been, about the caliber.
And, why dont you suggest that civilians use military holsters? Or maybe the needs of the military and the needs of civilian shooters aren’t the same…?
DiveMedic:
Pincus’ challenge is not restricted to 3″ 1911s.
I just hope one of the chest-thumping 1911 fan-boys/fan-girls can muster up the integrity to accept Pincus’ challenge. If the 1911 is so reliable, it should be a piece of cake! And the video rebuttal would go a long way towards silencing the 1911 detractors. Finally, proof on video that the 1911 can be reliable.
But I suspect all we will get is excuses for why they can’t take the challenge.
May 23rd, 2012 at 10:16 am
Gunnutemegger:
Thank you for reading and understanding my point, but no need to change the subject. My lesson for all is that not only is there enough evidence that the 1911 is good enough for personal defense, there isn’t any other pistol with proof of combat.
This pincus guy is totally ignorant of history, or is just full of shit and refuses to accept the evidence and is causing a stir. Video proof of reliability? How about the thousands of dead bodies slain by American heros with the 1911?
May 23rd, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I am not a “tactical guy” and I don’t have a guru. But I know a crappy design when I see it fail over and over. And I can also spot a guru who pushes such crappy designs in spite of well-documented shortcomings.
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
Ok, seriously, you’ve got to be trolling now. I mean, seriously, you have to be.
Fail over and over again? Tell it to the Moros, tell it to the Kaiser’s men, tell it to the (original, actually badass) Sandinistas, tell it Cacos, tell it to Japanese, the Nazis, the North Koreans, the PLA, the Viet Cong, the NVA, and all the various brigands and bandits and goblins that have fallen over the years with holes in their anatomy measuring .45 inches.
Look, if you’re one of those mouth breathing shitbrains that think all the people who buy a product you don’t like are just brainwashed dupes, I don’t know what to tell you.
Sorry buddy, but a thousand round weekend training class is not what your defensive carry pistol will be used for. If you fire more then four mags in the course of an incident, then you did it wrong. If you need that many bullets, you should be moving towards your rifle.
May 23rd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
HardCorps,
You’re comparing apples & oranges. You might as well claim that the # of people killed by the AK-47 is “proof” that it is an accurate weapon. The 1911 design is notoriously unreliable when the gun/ammo deviates from the original military design (bone stock with 230gr ball ammo). Which all “defensive” 1911s do.
Britt,
“Fail over and over again?”
Yes. British Sten guns killed many thousands of Axis soldiers, but they were unreliable pieces of junk. Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich
And, thanks so much for resorting to ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with you. It just proves that you are fully aware (on some level) that your position is untenable.
May 23rd, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Concern troll is concerned. I didn’t use any ad hominem attacks against you, if you’ll reread the section in question. You can read correctly right?
Sten guns….I thought we were talking about 1911s. Am I not correct?
So let me see if I understand your position. You admit that the 1911 has served in about a dozen major wars and police actions, all around the world, and functioned just fine in its designed purpose, but you continue to insist it’s unreliable. Is that the position you’re taking?
May 23rd, 2012 at 11:18 pm
No, my 1911 is 5in and shoots American eagle .45 ( ya know, the type made at lake city.) The question is if the 1911 is suitable for personal defense, to which the answer is clearly yes. Michael bane knows what I’m talking about and I cannot vouch for those variants that deviate from the govt model.
To your speak to your other comment, the AK47 is a fine example of a battle rifle.
May 24th, 2012 at 10:54 am
InSights Training Center instructor Greg Hamilton once observed that guns tend to work best in their original design. For example: 5″, steel frame, .45 ACP 1911, Glock 17 9mm. That’s because the majority of the R&D and testing work was done on that model, and that’s the way it was originally designed. John Moses Browning never intended the 1911 to be a 3.5″ gun, nor did he design it to have an aluminum frame.
Those variants were kludges, jammed into the original design by companies to meet the market demands of customers that whined that the original 1911 was too big and too heavy.
A semiauto firearm is a system of springs and masses and ammo, all of which have to function within certain parameters to run reliably. When you shorten the slide, that causes the recoil spring to be shorter and heavier, and dramatically decreases the “dwell time” at the back of the slide stroke – that critical time window during which the new round has to pop up out of the magazine so the slide can pick it up on the way back forward. Worn out springs, dragging your thumb on the slide, “limp wristing”, reloaded ammo with inconsistent powder charges and/or inconsistent overall lengths, magazine bodies that are marginally in spec, changes in technique that occur as a result of higher stress & shooting speed during classes – many variables in play that can cause problems.
The burn rate of the powder used in .45 ammo was matched to the 5″ barrel length. When you run that ammo in a 3.5″ barrel, you lose velocity and some of the powder that should have been used to drive the slide ends up burning in the air instead of in the barrel. Depending on what brand of ammo you run, that could also affect reliability, since different brands (and even different product lines within a company) use different powders.
Every instructor and gunsmith I’ve ever met or trained with, including a bunch of “big names” who love and specialize in the 1911, have consistently said that the sub 4″ 1911’s, particularly those with lightweight frames, are less reliable than their 5″, steel frame brethren. That’s been my experience as well, not just with 1911s but with all semiauto handgun product lines. Some have reached that conclusion through observation of many, many guns on the firing line, some through understanding of the technical issues.
Rob’s opinion on the sub 4″ 1911’s is not new, nor is it unique. History and physics are on his side.
May 24th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Britt,
Not only can I read, I can read between the lines.
I’ll type slow so that even you will be able to follow along easily: the fact that the military-issue 1911 was the only .45acp handgun available for use during the last batch of wars does not mean that civilian 1911s (which deviate from the original design) are reliable. Why don’t you look up “Apples & oranges” on wikipedia, hun?
It doesn’t even mean that the military 1911s were reliable, since there were 2.7 million 1911s issued and we have no accurate records on how many times it was used and how successful each of those uses was. Even a gun that jammed 50% of the time would amass quite a body count with 2.7 million of them blasting away.
Reliability is not directly related to how many people got killed with a particular type of gun. But, to use your phrasing, “if you’re one of those mouth breathing shitbrains that thinks that the mechanical reliability of a gun design is directly correlated with how many people got shot with it, I don’t know what to tell you.”