But I read on the internet that 1911s suck and 9mm sucks more!
Springfield/Warren 9mm 1911 Endurance Test: 2,287 rounds 0 stoppages 0 malfunctions 0 parts breakages
4 Responses to “But I read on the internet that 1911s suck and 9mm sucks more!”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 18th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
If CZ made a 97 with 82 ergonomics, I would own at least three. ‘Till then….
July 19th, 2012 at 12:21 am
Let’s see the same test with a non-custom gun. Let’s consider reliability and accuracy as compared to popular alternatives.
Sorry but the 1911 has a fascinating history, but it’s a dead platform for realists. Great guns, but is anyone really arguing a 1911 in 9mm is a good carry option because it went 2k rounds without breaking?… Even if it went 50k, there are still a lot of problems there.
July 19th, 2012 at 2:28 am
Nice round number, 2287. I’ll just assume the barrel separated from the frame at that point.
July 23rd, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Not amazing. Seriously, if you think a functional platform that nearly all semi-auto handguns in existence are based directly off of is a dead platform, you’re a silly, silly person. A Glock is just a 1911 with an economy frame and a shitty trigger. JMB made a 9mm, large cap, cam cut barreled, striker fired handgun, but decided the striker fire was shitty, so he put a hammer back on it. That gun was called the “Hi-Power”.