[damoncali]

1911's are by modern standards sloppy, inaccurate and unreliable unless you put huge amounts of effort into maintaining precise tolerances. Modern designs (Glock, et al.) have far fewer components, and much less trouble with the tolerance stack ups that plague the 1911.

That said, it's a hell of a design to still be in use 100+ years later.

[exabrial]

You're joking right? A 1911 is one of the most accurate pistols ever made. Go to any firearms competition and your shooters will have them. They do require maintenance, but it's not unreasonable, it's on par with keeping a rifle or shotgun clean.

You're absolutely right about more complexity in the design though. Modern "hole punchers" like M&Ps and Glocks are far simpler and exceed a 1911 in reliability. But a 1911 will wipe the floor with either of those pistols in an accuracy contest.

[Zancarius]

I'd imagine it also depends on the manufacturers. Nearly everyone makes a 1911 these days, and the cheaper models are most certainly not the sort you'd use in competitive shooting like a Les Baer. On the other hand, only a competitive shooter would sink a couple grand (or more) on a heavily accuratized firearm.

That said, I own both a Glock and a 1911. Both shoot well and are probably far more accurate than me. :) I tend to like the Glock a little more because of its simplicity and ease of taking it apart. That's not to say the 1911 is that much more complicated, but it can be off-putting to some. I happen to enjoy cleaning my guns. So, there's that.

[damoncali]

unless you put huge amounts of effort into maintaining precise tolerances

[joshuapants]

1911s require a hell of a lot of hand-fitting to be quality products as well, because that's the way it was designed.