If the 1911 was new
 

Hypothetically, lets say, the 1911 never existed, and was just released today. How do you think it would do?

I don't think it would fare very well, personally, at least not for a while. One thing that makes 1911s so popular is how time proven they are for durability and reliability. Problem is, these days everyone wants tacticool guns, high capacity is king, and people dont like SAO. It seems DAO is getting big (to my disappointment, I hate DAO autos) and polymer frames are the norm.

I believe, eventually, though, people would notice its excellent accuracy and trigger, and it would be taken in by target/idpa shooter, and work its way into the mainstream. What do you think.?

"Single action? Single stack magazine? No rails? What, was this gun made in the 1800's or something?"

If it was made today, who's to say it wouldn't be built with a polymer frame, high capacity magazine, rails, and a DAO/Double-Single trigger? Maybe Para-Ordnance conveys what the 1911 would have been had it been made in this day and age...

We have to keep in mind the 1911 was built when automatics in general were pretty new, today many guns have features that some prefer over the 1911, but we still love it today because it is the basis of all major handgun designs, and has proven capable for almost 100 years, still capable of outperfoming the competition in many roles.

Im not fond of double stack 1911s, it makes the grip too wide. Im not a big SAO fan, but on 1911s I really cant see them any other way. And we all know, SAO beats DAO, Im mad that things like glocks and the DAK system and all the other DAOs are so prevalent....

Well I don't consider Glocks as being DAO, because they are on half-cock at all times, which allows a pretty good trigger pull and consistency throughout.

And I'm not picky on grip width, and while .45 double stacks are a little wide, it makes reloading easier.

The single stack just fits right in my hand. Maybe a grip using polymers could be a bit thinner though. I heard the FNP-45 is quite slim for a double stack because of this. And glock triggers feel...weird. Their grip angle....who desighned that? Its seriously awful. the barrels, well, just replace them. Not to mention gatson produces them for 55 bucks and sells em for 500

Eh, it's the father of all high-capacity tupperware guns, so you gotta give it that respect.

Sorry John,
The VP-70 came long before the Glock 17 came into existance.

I don't think it would do so bad.

Look at the Kahr Arms series, their weapons are similar/simplistic to the 1911 in that they don't have rails, are fullmetal as oppose to polymer, single stack, etc -but they did pretty well considering they started up in 1995.

I said high-capacity polymer guns. And from what I recall, the VP-70 can't shoot underwater or operate flawlessy after being soaked in salt water for a week, cleaned, and then fired. :D

A week in salt water will deteriorate the barrel on anything. And who cares about working underwater, a bullet travels like 6 inches in water. Also, a double stack, polymer, dao 1911 is almost inconceivable, how would you call it a 1911?

The best thing about KAHR is the 9mm pocket guns. REAL small package, and plenty of firepower, considering most guns that size are .32 and such.

I'm just saying... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I seriously hate those little Kahr pocket guns. Sure, with a pocket clip you can carry them as easy as a cheap folding knife (which I do carry), but I can wrap three fingers on it barely, this lack of grip makes the tiny .32 have some good recoil, and without some type of laser, it's hard to shoot accurately with one. It's also only built to last about a 1000 rounds before it craps out, so don't practice too much with it.

Oh, the first one I shot also had a HORRIBLE DAO trigger that took forever to pull and completely threw off aim. My dad was asked to lighten the trigger pull, and he did, but it only made it a little better, because it still wasn't a pleasant gun to shoot. And .32 ACP isn't the best in stopping power, so buy some hollow points or throw some rocks instead. :D

Uh.... are you sure you're not thinking of a Kel Tec or something? Kahr doesn't even made a .32.

*face palm* :o

I had just woke up when I wrote that (in the middle of the afternoon, because my sleeping pattern is so messed up). I do mean Kel Tec.

Shit, now I can't remember if I ever shot a Kahr or not...

Summer fuckin' your schedule up too?

Yep, and my dad pulling my ass out of bed to do manual labor doesn't help either.

The Kahr is supposed to be qite controllable, reviews are positive. The KAHR p9 and pm9 both.

I really like the look of the Kahr T9.
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n...3/000_1918.jpg
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n...3/000_1919.jpg

I'm interested in the new Kahr TP45. It's a tad too big for conentianal concealed carry, but it has a lightweight polymer frame that looks like it fits the hand well. It holds 7 + 1 rounds of .45 ACP. I don't like that it is double action only, but the trigger pull is supposedly light and the barrel has an integral feeding ramp that is offset to the left to allow the trigger bar to pass alongside it instead of under it. This allows the axis of the bore to ride lower to the frame. It's said to make controling muzzle flip much easier.

Hard thing to imagine, because many of the firearms today were inspired at least partially by the 1911, and contain many of the same features. Extremely hard question to answer.

Im wondering what other guns would have as big an aftermarket/custom shop selection like the 1911 if it didnt exist.

If the 1911 didn't exist, who's to say the modern handgun would be like it is now at all. Many guns based their designs and operations on the 1911 design, so perhaps these designs would not exist at all.

I'd guess maybe the Beretta 92F/FS would be somewhat popular, since I think that gun wasn't really built with the 1911's inspiration. And it was all the rage when it came out in the 80s, with its 15+1 capacity and its soda can frame :rolleyes:.

Exactly! So who really knows what we'd get? And thank god we got it!

So let's stop talking about it. If the liberals ever build a time machine, they could go back and assassinate John Browning for this very reason... :D

Exactly what I was thinking. :D

Oh come on, I have seen enough back to the future to know that doing so would create a paradox and destroy the space time continuum. :D

Well, the paradox would definately hurt us gun lovers if John Browning's inovation never existed.

And the series ended with such a contradiction. Doc was always complaining about creating paradoxes, yet he decided to live in 1885 in the end. Like doing so wouldn't effect the future?

I never thought he had that good a grasp of reality in the first place.

If they killed John Browning we'd all be carrying SAA Colts, Mauser C96 Broomhandles, Webleys, Lugers and the Smith & Wesson large frame 44.

Not just Webley revolvers, but autos. Last time I was at home I took apart my Webley & Scott 1910 and decided one of the things I liked about it is how mechanically, it owes absolutely nothing to John Moses Browning (other than being chambered in .38ACP). It works fine, but the methods used to solve all the problems were definately NOT borrowed from Browning. The mainspring is a V shaped spring under the grip panel, the barrel assembly slides up and forward with the slide locked all the way back, even the mag release is a push button on the bottom the grip - completely un-Browning.