There are REASONS that 1911s have held up all these years and that people still consider them the finest semi-autos on the planet. Some of them are emotional, some of them aren't. A lot of people forget those non-emotional reasons because it's human nature to try and fault-find with the accepted classics. Hey, I do the same thing with Glocks. Their very popularity makes them targets of criticism. Personally, I think Glocks are WAY over-rated. I can't stand polymer, plus I believe there's a stigma of Glock shooters in popular culture, where they're seen as poorer shooters too heavily dependent on high capacity and spraying bullets--like gangbangers--than they are shot-placers. I didn't invent that stereotype, but I certainly get a chuckle out of the grain of truth in it. Especially when I see it reinforced in a place like GlockTalk. In the quest for the best, or to understand the industry and where it's going... we sit here like armchair quarterbacks and analyze why a certain model got to the top, and question whether it deserves it. It's a guy thing. I do it all the time, and I'm not ashamed of the fact. There's nothing wrong with putting forward opinions and criticism. That's basically how things improve. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 1911s deserve their place in history. So don't Glocks. Revolvers too. But 1911s and revolvers have much more of the weight of history behind them. And I think the issue that is missing from this discussion--and those that have been routinely closed on account of passion, lol-- is the mechanical simplicity of a SINGLE ACTION semi-auto (or the single action pull on a revolver). The trigger does one thing, and one thing alone: drop the hammer. There's a kind of unsullied mechanical purity of the trigger break, resulting in increased shooter accuracy. You can argue that 1911s are no more accurate than Glocks, and you'd be wrong. Are there drawbacks? Abso-friggin'-lutely. It seems to me, a 1911 and a Glock are a good comparison/contrast because they both have multiple safety mechanisms. Glock says they have 3, a 1911 has two. They are just deployed differently. On a 1911, you have a grip safety, which more or less does the same thing a Glock trigger safety does. The difference is where it is and what you have to do to disengage it. The Glock's safeties always struck me as a lot like a 1911's grip safety, easily defeated. A trigger-pull is enough of a safety on a revolver, why even bother with a little hinged tab on a trigger? The safety is defeated by anything whatsoever getting in the trigger guard and touching it, not just a finger. There is some doubt as to whether all the Accidental Discharges with Glocks are a result of their huge popularity, or their weak trigger safety. Likewise, a 1911's grip safety is disengaged by anything pressing on it... it doesn't have to be a combat grip. If that's all there was for safety on a 1911, I think there'd be tons of ADs too. Both guns have passive safeties that are a little bit of extra mechanical nonsense that functions, but isn't foolproof. Then there's the thumb safety on a 1911. MUCH more foolproof. Much more of a real unabashed "safety" and harder to casually defeat. It takes a very specific blow right on the switch to disengage it. And it also takes a conscious user action to disengage it. Meaning one more thing you have to worry about in a fight. That's its biggest drawback. And so the benefit of the mechanical simplicity of the single action trigger and hammer is balanced by the need for a more robust mechanical safety. But when it comes to safeties off and time to shoot? It's about weight, balance, and trigger pull. And there, the 1911 kind of soundly kicks the crap out of most other semi-autos in one key area: accuracy. It just shoots better. It's easier to shoot well. And I think that's all about it being single action. You can LEARN to pull a double action trigger correctly and increase accuracy, but a crisp 1911 trigger pull is one of those undeniably superior things that doesn't take all that much to master. I'm not saying you don't PAY for that, with the extra safety... but if shot placement is what it's all about, that's where the 1911 design hasn't really been surpassed. The same goes for shooting a revolver in single-action mode. Cocking the hammer takes time. As much time as it takes to disengage a mechanical safety switch. It could be the waste of a precious second. But a single-action trigger pull is going to give you a better shot. You pay for it, but there's not much that can beat it, if what you're trying to do is make the most accurate shot possible. The prevailing wisdom however, which I'm not sure I agree with, is that CAPACITY beats it. As in, you don't have to worry about accuracy, if you put twice as many bullets into the air. If you tend to jerk the trigger badly and shoot poorly, you cover that up by shooting MORE, faster, with less control... but increasing your chances of a "lucky" shot by virtue of taking a greater number of shots. The only problem with that, is that in a civilian self defense situation, you're responsible for where every bullet ends up. Sometimes I wonder if carrying less capacity, as in a revolver, or a 1911, or a compact semi-auto is good because it forces the shooter to think about delivering every shot in control. It seems to me it's easier to be "lazy" with a Glock, and simply over-rely on greater capacity. I wonder if Glocks aren't the shot-wastingest pistols on the planet. They are in the middle east! When it comes time to celebrate by shooting off weapons into the friggin' AIR like a retard, it's always higher capacity small arms that you see. But I hate to break the news, handguns aren't firecrackers. That mentality where greater numbers of rounds equals it being OK to "throw away" shots is not doing anybody any good. So people come on GlockTalk and get into these pissing contests over which guns are better. It's like rooting for your favorite baseball team. Guys get all lit up and upset if you badmouth their team. If I say Glocks suck, Glockers come out of the woodwork to defend them. 1911 guys and wheelies roll their eyes at plastic guns, and the types of people who seem to prefer them. And yet underneath all the posturing and poking fun at each other, there's a pretty interesting issue: better, more accurate shooting with fewer rounds... delivered more carefully; or less accurate shooting with more rounds, delivered in a way that sacrifices accuracy for quantity, and gives up more to chance. The really fascinating question is whether the type of gun has anything to do with the likelihood that the individual shooter will be all one way or the other based on the way it functions. Does the greater capacity and poorer balance and trigger of a Glock mean that shooters are more likely to live up to the worst-case stereotype... and does the crisper trigger pull and lower capacity of a 1911 (or revolver) mean that everyone who owns one of those is suddenly going to be a champion shot-placer with icewater in their veins during combat? My personal view is, human nature is pretty predictable. If you make it EASY to waste shots by design, people will. If you get it through people's heads that they have only six, and they're precious: they realize that they HAVE to be better, less wasteful shooters.