quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Hahahahaha. SOG are know if all’s.

You forgot the ermaghad it might fog over panic. (Or pick another fake argument from the flat earth)

The tired “which is more reliable” tripe is about as dumb as “shotguns are superior to carbines because they can breach doors” nonsense.

We had some old flat earthers at the academy who used all the same arguments. When asked if their daughter was held hostage and about to be killed, would you want the sniper using iron sights “because reliable” they start blubbering in search of another BS platitude. Some people just refuse to evolve.

It’s cute that people think they know better than the guys actually doing this as what works and what doesn’t. They could save so much money to search internet gun boards for their answers instead of actually putting in the work.

Didn't we go through this in another thread? I've been to many matches and have witnessed, first hand, top level shooters occasionally stumble finding the dot on presentation or lose the dot during a course of fire. These are guys that shoot at least 500 rounds a week. They don't sit at their keyboard all day like other people. It doesn't happen to them often but it does happen to EVERYONE (except you apparently).

We'll put aside the times their battery died or they forgot to turn the unit on.

Aren't you an instructor or an operator or something or other? You've never seen any of this happen? How's that possible? I know, it's a training issue. I guess 500+ rounds a week just isn't enough and they should put in more time like the typical leo does.

I'll let him speak for himself but, in my experience, yes, you're correct. I am currently shooting a dot, I squad with the dot shooters, and we do lose it occasionally, usually when shooting position affects the indexing. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. Now, since you shoot matches, you can tell for yourself how the dot users..
- shoot low prob targets with higher degree of speed and accuracy
- shoot moving targets better and faster
- shoot better on the move
- shoot better in awkward positions when iron guys struggle to get an alignment at all
- call hits and misses with much higher degree of certainty
- shoot with a target focus 100% of the time
... on a systematic basis.

Everything is a trade off. You didn't find it worth to take for yourself- fine, but concentrating on dot's negatives alone and presenting them as an impasse for serious users doesn't lend your position much credibility.

After about 1,000 rounds down with a dot I can say that it becomes intuitive and easy to pick up two hand square range. Not so good one handed, both strong and support. I was testing just the dot, no back up irons. I would think that quality irons would be a sufficient adjunct although I haven’t tried it. I would think that comprehensive training would encompass both and have a cumulative effect.

I can tell you this. I don’t know why but shooting a dot was more fatiguing than iron. Or the figure that one out.

Looks like they'll have no problems indexing with those backup irons on them.

quote:

Originally posted by car541:

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:

quote:

Originally posted by car541:
That’s one John wick movie too far.

The agency issued fancy 1911 trend died a painful death for a good reason. I will give it a year before they go back to Glocks.

I know of at least one. sheriff’s department in my state that has been using 1911s for 20 years or so. About 3 years ago, they turned in their Series 1 Kimbers for new 1911 Kimbers with a rail. I know the department’s gunsmith and he is as high on the new Kimbers as they were on the old ones.

I’m not saying that you are wrong in general but there will always be outliers that will buck the trend.

We have about 200 1911’s in service today (several brands are an option on a list of approved, personally owned pistols). That number was over 500 ten years ago, it has declined steadily since I started being a firearms instructor 20+ years ago.

The main reason for the decline is that they are higher maintenance than the more modern designs. Many guys who keep one on the books wear it to court, academy graduations, funerals and parades, but keep a simpler weapon for night shift etc.

Almost all of them like shooting them more, and shoot them generally better (score wise), but like the simplicity of the Glocks, M&P’s, sigs, berettas, etc for everyday work.

The department I’m thinking of doesn’t allow other weapons. I suspect that if they did, many would carry a GLOCK. That being said, I was able to snag one of the original Kimber Series I they traded in for $330. I put new Wilson springs in it and it shoots extremely well. But I prefer my SIG P220 if I’m shooting 45 ACP. I think the P220 is a softer shooting platform. That being said, I’ll never sell the Kimber.

Shot a guys competition pistol with old style red dot type of optic and chambered in 9x23 back in the mid 90's. It was fun. The concept has been around for a while.

That being said, I'm absolutely drooling over the carry versions the marshals get. WOW. I'm in.

quote:

Originally posted by highroundcount:
Shot a guys competition pistol with old style red dot type of optic and chambered in 9x23 back in the mid 90's. It was fun. The concept has been around for a while.

True. Pistol red dots have been around since the 1970s. But what has changed in just the last few years is they have finally developed miniaturized red dots that are reliable and durable enough for military/duty use, while also being small enough to be unobtrusive plus cowitness with iron sights.

No more resorting to something like this:



Or this:

My memory from that far back is a bit fuzzy, but that top picture you posted sure looks familiar except I believe the gun was based on a CZ design and the iron sights were completely gone.

Oh, and the barrel was shot almost smooth so they told me not to expect much accuracy. Still fun and I could definitely hit things with it

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

Glock-style weight and capacity, with 1911-style trigger and handling.

My long dust cover plastic gripped 5" STI is about a pound heavier than my Glock 17 with a Deltapoint and a steel guide rod. I don't have my 4" gun any more, but it was substantially heavier than a full size polymer service pistol. I'd guess 10-12 oz or so heavier than a comparably sized/equipped glock.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
What's more reliable, iron sights or glass? Simple question. You don't need to bend yourself into a pretzel avoiding the obvious answer.

I can only speak for myself: neither. I can't hit the broad side of the proverbial barn. Still focusing on fundamentals, when I feel like I've got them down enough, I'll start playing with electronic sights. They offer a multitude of advantages, even if the electronics fail. Given that some of them can go for months to a year without a battery change, unless the pistol gets hit with an RPG or slammed in a car crusher, it's probably going to fight on.

I used to hear arguments about the lack of walnut stocks on battle rifles, and the collapsible stocks instead of a standard full stock on rifles; can't knock in a door with one or butt stroke with one, was the argument. Probably can't use it as an anchor and rappel from one either, but I'm not sure it really matters.

My son completed his USMC training without ever seeing an iron sight; all he used were electronic sights. Imagine that.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:

If you're ok giving up some reliability in exchange for cool factor and hundredths of a second split times, that's fine with me. Just say so and stop pretending that there's no down side to your toy.

Not too long ago, I had an iron sight fail. It was a Trijicon XR sight, front, and the sight came apart while shooting a steel match. I finished the match with what was left (didnt' come close to winning, but I never do). I watched the front sight come off another guy's Glock. He finished without the sight. Placed fairly well, too.

Some guys co-witness, or have visible suppressor height sights for their red dot. Others dont. They still have options. For those who have a cracked or crushed or mud covered optic, there's still sighting down the side of the pistol, but let's not forget that the pistol isn't the primary weapon for many of these guys. They're also not walking to three weeks of protracted combat.

I have very little experience with an electronic sight on a pistol, but I've been suitably impressed with the ones I've handled, and for a guy with glasses (a recent development), it makes a world of difference in acquiring the dot and target at the same time.

As for the STI pistol; if they can afford it, let them. The 2011's are highly regarded.

quote:

Originally posted by tha1000:
I don't have my 4" gun any more, but it was substantially heavier than a full size polymer service pistol. I'd guess 10-12 oz or so heavier than a comparably sized/equipped glock.

Looks like this new 2011 is ~9 ounces heavier than a comparable Glock, but still ~7 ounces less than their previous all-steel duty 1911s.

FWIW the steel front sight of my M&P CORE broke off in the middle of a stage last match. No drops or other impacts. Pistol has just over 12K rounds through it. I've also had my gen 1 RMR go down in a match 2X. *shrugs*

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by tha1000:
I don't have my 4" gun any more, but it was substantially heavier than a full size polymer service pistol. I'd guess 10-12 oz or so heavier than a comparably sized/equipped glock.

Looks like this new 2011 is ~9 ounces heavier than a comparable Glock, but still ~7 ounces less than their previous all-steel duty 1911s.

I’d bet there isn’t a 7 oz difference once you load them to capacity. My 4” tactical was ridiculously heavy for a “carry” gun.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by tha1000:
I don't have my 4" gun any more, but it was substantially heavier than a full size polymer service pistol. I'd guess 10-12 oz or so heavier than a comparably sized/equipped glock.

Looks like this new 2011 is ~9 ounces heavier than a comparable Glock, but still ~7 ounces less than their previous all-steel duty 1911s.

I found a pic from where I weighted my 4.0 Tactical when I sold it, it was 38.3oz with a dpp and an empty 126mm mag. My 17mos weighs 26 oz with a dpp and an empty stock mag. Guessing the difference in weight is your value didn’t include the mag? Or Marshals are running an alloy frame?

I swear some of us think that someone high up in the US Marshals just kinda said "Hey, that looks cool, make SOG use those!"


You do know that there's testing, trials, and actual USE of these weapons and equipment in the field? A lot of that use is by THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE USING THEM...

And those people that actually use these weapons and equipment REALLY KNOW HOW TO USE THEM... I don't think they pulled stuff out of their ass or got stuff because the high "Chicks dig it" factor. Again, these people know what they are doing, and the stuff they use can stand the abuse of their day to day operations.

Let's call them "subject matter experts" or "professionals"... "Pro" for short.


I'm gonna take the SOG "Pro"'s word over guys (and gals) bickering on the Internet.

(You also know that these and other "Pro's" laugh at all the hate stirred up because they got some new toys)

Big Nick O'Brian, with his RMR sighted FN FNX-Tactical 45 shot the shit out of Ray Merriman, who only had an iron sighted P226.

Ray even started the fight with a M249 SAW Paratrooper, for cryin' out loud.

Poor Ray never had a chance.

There you have it.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Big Nick O'Brian, with his RMR sighted FN FNX-Tactical 45 shot the shit out of Ray Merriman, who only had an iron sighted P226.

Ray even started the fight with a M249 SAW Paratrooper, for cryin' out loud.

Poor Ray never had a chance.

There you have it.

So, was that the good, or bad, guy?

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:



So, was that the good, or bad, guy?

Actually, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
Big Nick O'Brian, with his RMR sighted FN FNX-Tactical 45 shot the shit out of Ray Merriman, who only had an iron sighted P226.

Ray even started the fight with a M249 SAW Paratrooper, for cryin' out loud.

Poor Ray never had a chance.

There you have it.

He’s such a bad Lieutenant.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
I swear some of us think that someone high up in the US Marshals just kinda said "Hey, that looks cool, make SOG use those!"


You do know that there's testing, trials, and actual USE of these weapons and equipment in the field? A lot of that use is by THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE USING THEM...

And those people that actually use these weapons and equipment REALLY KNOW HOW TO USE THEM... I don't think they pulled stuff out of their ass or got stuff because the high "Chicks dig it" factor. Again, these people know what they are doing, and the stuff they use can stand the abuse of their day to day operations.

Let's call them "subject matter experts" or "professionals"... "Pro" for short.


I'm gonna take the SOG "Pro"'s word over guys (and gals) bickering on the Internet.

(You also know that these and other "Pro's" laugh at all the hate stirred up because they got some new toys)

Red dots are definitely the wave of the future. No question.

However, these infallible warriors that people have been fawning over in this thread also signaled that the 1911 is the best design available and therefore the future for LE. Obviously, they can't possibly be wrong.

Didn't the Navy Seals recently switch to Glock? I guess the Navy Seals are old hat now. Wait, I forgot. When Glock is selected it's not based on merit and solely due to price (BTW, I'm no Glock fanboy). Plus, Glock and similar firearms lack the visual appeal that their gun has. That's an important factor.

So, you agree with the Marshal Service that the 1911 is the currently the best design available to use as a combat sidearm?

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
Red dots are definitely the wave of the future. No question.

Wait... These "mall ninja gizmos" and "toys" used by people with "questionable judgement and skills" are now all of a sudden "the [unquestionable] wave of the future"?