Sad to say, Ron has nailed it:
The little 1911's are something of a gamble from what I've read over the years. Many have no problems but quite a few do.
We have a commander-sized Springfield model 1911 in the case at the gun shop where I work. I've looked at it several times, but can't quite seem to talk myself into buying it.
I think John M. Browning's original 1911 design and Colt's implementation thereof worked so well because a.) Browning was very fortunate, and b.) Colt's tolerances were decidedly loose. I don't mean Browning wasn't a genius at firearms design: merely that what he tried to do really shouldn't have worked at all.
When I compare the model 1911's design with that of, say, Smith & Wesson's K frame revolver's, it amazes me that the model 1911 works at all. The barrel bounces around. The lug has to be fitted just exactly right, or accuracy flies out the window. The feed ramp's polish is critical to feeding. The main spring and hammer strut are rugged, but the leaf spring and sear have always looked awfully improbable to me. The model 1911 seems to have quite a few more parts than the revolver, whose design is about a decade older, and more of those parts are in motion at any given moment.
The "looseness" of Colt's tolerancesI'd personally prefer to call it "sloppiness"seems to have allowed the finicky, complex design to work in the real world with amazing reliability. Both of my 1970s Colt model 1911s were veritable paragons of unreliability, which I think was attributable to the company's effortshaphazard as alwaysto tighten up the gun. Colt model 1911s made for military use in both World War I and World War II seem to have decidedly loose tolerances, which resulted in the desired reliability at the cost of match-type accuracy. Five- and six-inch groups at 50 yards are good enough for battle, whereas bullseye shooters want one- and two-inch groups at that same distance.
Modern high end model 1911s such as those made by Rock River rely on extremely tight tolerances for accuracy, plus lots of gunsmithing voodoo magic for reliability. My first series Kimber,
circa 2001, is everything my Colt Gold Cups weren't; in fact, topped with a Kimber .22 long rifle slide, it's both a match quality .45 and equally accurate, equally reliable .22.
It seems to me the minute manufacturers start altering the fundamental design of the model 1911, they radically complicate an already complicated, picky pistol. Shorten the barrel an inch? That changes everything. Lighten the slide an ounce and a half? Again, since all the parts are completely interdependent, that trivial-looking alteration means everything else has to be tweaked. Lighten the trigger and and remove nearly all the creep? Well, suddenly, the multiple-function leaf spring no longer works the way it used to.
Some manufacturers invest the time and effort required to contend with all the variables that suddenly have been altered; unfortunately, most appear to believe they can whittle a little off here, shorten a bit there, tighten things up here, loosen them up there, and still turn out top quality pistols. Current production series 2 Kimbers, especially the compact models, have a well-earned reputation for being only fairly reliable. Our brand new shrunken-framed Springfield EMP 9 millimeter pistol doesn't seem to be able to feed more than about 50 rounds before requiring a thorough cleaning. I personally might be willing to trust a Rock River commander-sized model 1911, but only after I'd put at least 500 rounds through it with zero problems, and more likely 1,000. I wouldn't be at all surprised if such a gun required some ultra-fine tuning by a super-competent gunsmith; even then, it might need more than one trip to the shop.
I think our expectations of model 1911 pistols exceed the design's inherent capabilities. The best manufacturers seem to do an outstanding job of meeting most of our unrealistic expectations most of the time in most waysbut I've never heard of a K frame revolver that needed even 2% of the tender, loving care that's lavished on 1911 pistols.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rock River, along with the custom shops at Kimber, Springfield, Les Baer, and a few others, too, would expedite production of a firearm destined for use by a soldier in Iraq.
If I were going to carry a .45 ACP pistol in a hostile environment, I believe I'd look long and hard at the Springfield XD. We rent them where I work. They do and don't get cleanedmainly don't. They're ugly, of course, and made of plastic, but a.) they just keep on keeping on, and b.) they seem to be every bit as accurate as model 1911s hot-rodded for bullsye shooting. The grip safety impresses me as ludicrous, but even with that complication, the guts of the pistol seem much more straightforward and rugged than the model 1911's.
Personally, I've never had enough faith in the .45 ACP cartridge to carry anything chambered for it. It's never impressed me as having the inherent accuracy of .44 caliber rounds, nor do I consider it a one-shot stopper. I'm willing to shoot bullseye with it, but stake my life on it? I've considerably more faith in the .357 and .44 magnums.
