Former Army Ranger Nick Irving compares the Glock and 1911

@sofrep-59e0b2658e9f2e77f8d4d83f8d07ca84:disqus "under pressure"... I assume you are not equating shooting 'targets' of paper to that of an active shooter encounter ?? The stakes are considerably higher when the 'target' has an opportunity to return fire, thus raising the 'prize' of winning considerably... "My times are always in the top 10%".. I'm sure that's admirable in 3 gun, however, in the real world it's necessary to be 100% during such encounters... ie, the perp is 100% the Loser... while most of us practice as much as possible, as do you, it simply is a different situation when encountering an active shooter(s) as Carl C was saying... I know of no one in the LE community who 'attempts a head shot' with a pistol, of any caliber, in a shooting engagement... note "pistol" comments only...best...6

I have had the opportunity to shoot with a lot of police/sheriffs casually and in 3 gun. The result in 3 gun is always the same, they consistently shoot to the torso, I consistently shoot to the head. My times are always in the top 10% overall, so while I know I am giving up some level of speed, I also know that my 9mm is likely to end a "confrontation" with fewer shots than a .45acp to the torso. My point is knowing the gun/caliber and practicing accurate shot placement, with as much practice as you can get should be what we are focused on. The rest of the discussion is pure preference and confidence. I am confident with my 1911, 2011, striker fired handguns - because I practice, not because of the debate between calibers. I have a lot of respect for the man who can consistently hit their target under pressure - regardless of caliber. I practice a lot with my .22 caliber handguns to get better at shooting, moving, drawing, timing and judging distance - and then polish off the efforts with a larger caliber. These days you can acquire a .22 in almost any model/configuration - they pay for themselves over time (lower ammunition costs) and enable me to teach others on the range. I am pretty confident that someone who can consistently hit the central mass of a head shot quickly can hit any part of an exposed target - for instance in a hostage situation or concealed shooter. I am not so confident that the guy in the bay next to me who celebrates shooting a hand cannon into anywhere in the torso at 5 yards is the guy I want to "rescue" my family in a hostage situation.

The conversation gets a bit convoluted - is the debate between .45acp and 9mm, higher capacity vs. lower capacity, or the ergonomics and weight of the weapon? I like to have the best of the 3 debates in one handgun (albeit a pricey solution). I shoot 3 gun with a STI 2011 Marauder - 9mm, 20 round, alloy frame. It shoots as "easy" as a 1911, but has all the capacity and response of a 9mm. This platform would be what I would take back into the suck above all others. I love the 1911, and have high regard for 45acp (I own a few) but the STI gives me the same sight radius, options for optics/lights and 20 rounds with a slightly faster recovery on target. I shot 3 gun for years with a 1911...until I got my STI 2011.

Copy... as you said, "many shooters have the pleasure of owning both"... never had issues with Glocks after extensive use, cannot say the same about the 1911, but then I remember a time when ours were totally worn out... currently they are quite excellent...6

I believe many shooters in this site like myself, have the pleasure of owning both. It does not take much cleaning and disassembling these two fine guns to know that Glocks have MUCH fewer parts. So when the author states "The 1911 is an extremely reliable pistol. I believe this to be in favor of the weapon having less “mechanical” parts than that of a Glock." I would respectfully disagree. While 1911's are in fact very reliable, the standard issue 1911 has 51 moving parts (source http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_parts_in_a_colt_1911?#slide=2) while a G17 has 34 Component (meaning moving + non-moving parts). The Glock website ( source https://us.glock.com/technology) proudly announces the fewer moving parts of a Glock as a selling point (as if the need one). I would not want to engage in a theoretical discussion of what constitutes a component versus a moving part. Suffice to say that the SEAL TEAMs are not replacing their Sigs by 1911's now, are they? I would NEVER part with my 1911 (a prized heirloom..a blued 1939 100% original ) but for reliability......no discussion here.