for all practical purposes, nowadays, without getting into extended mags, the 1911 45ACP is 8+1.  for Hawaii, the Glock 21 is 10+1.  the HK45 with standard mag is 10+1 for the world.  Gotta admit, a good 1911 is a beautiful piece of craftsmanship, bordering on art, but also, the economy USGI mil-spec 1911 sure leaves a lot to be desired, the as-issued 1911A1 horrible front sight, and you have to go to a real gun smith machinist to have a dove-tail installed.  just my 2 cents.

to improve a Glock trigger (above all, without compromising safety!), is rather straight-forward:  pre-travel, over-travel, springs out the wazoo, connectors, triggers ala carte or complete drop-in, and judicious polishing of sliding surfaces.  The Glock 17/19 have sort of become the "small block Chevy" of the gun world, with infinite aftermarket improvements and hot-rod add-ons, totally cloned.  Even red dots (RMR) have become simple bolt-ons for Glocks.  To improve a 1911 trigger, in my mind, best left to a qualified gun smith that's got the jigs, the angles, and the range of polishing stones.
 
in Hawaii, with 10rd mag limits, I don't see the point for a Glock 17 (unless you're in the LEO upper caste, unlike us bottom feeder civilians), or unless you really want that 0.47" extra barrel length.  Sorta like the Colt Commander gives up 0.75" barrel length at 4.25", but still 8+1.  The G19 makes more sense for Hawaii, you're still giving up 5 rds capacity compared to the free states, vs 7 rds for the G17, and you still get a full hand grip, and a legitimate (for 9mm) barrel length.  The Glock 26 with the Pearce grip extension (Hawaii legal +0) fills the hand nicely, but the abbreviated rear bottom of the grip leaves the bottom of the palm wrap-around a little lacking, and with only maybe 2" of rifled barrel, probably similar to a Chiefs Special but with 10+1 rds.  In my mind, the G26 is a nice package also, but certainly not a micro-gun.

Just off-the-top of my head, miscellaneous observations and ramblings.  not to be taken as gospel, YMMV.

This is a very important part of the debate. A Glock 19 having a malfunction is different than a 1911 having a malfunction. Typically, the more money that is poorer into a Glock, the less reliable it gets whereas the opposite is true. It’s easy to hand-wave the aspects for discussion and claim that both are of equal reliability, but the cost difference there will likely be pretty big.

Personally, I love the 1911 and I’ll orobably shoot the platform a lot more when I get a 9mm, but if it’s for anything other than range fun, my Glock will be used.

I recall something about a 1911 generally needs more effort to keep functioning properly and reliable enough for defensive use.  I couldn't find the source, so I didn't post.  I am not very experienced with 1911s, so mostly just going off of what little experience I have with my RIA 9 mm 1911, shooting other folks 1911s, observing others shooting their 1911s, firearms trainers, and internet experts (of all levels).  Things like some 1911s being more sensitive to bullet head shape and polishing of the feed ramp to ensure proper feeding.  Then with the pursuit of accuracy, I wondered if guns that tried to cut tolerances way down would start to malfunction over time.  I was watching a show on Rock River 1911s and they were striving for better accuracy by cutting every fraction of a milimeter out of the fitup, but like any mechanical device, there's a fine line between tight tolerance and sufficient tolerance to ensure reliable function. 

I haven't spent much money on my Glocks.  Well, other than my RMR slide, which was a splurge item.  That said, I would expect to spend more on a 1911.  Even then, it would most likely be for range fun and maybe some competition. 

Hawaii's 10 round limit is, to me, the only argument for 45 over 9mm.  Obviously off topic since this is an apples to apples discussion in regards to ammunition.  That being said, I will always choose 9mm over 45 because of cost and availability and because of the box of "magazine repair kits" I have in my safe lol.

As for Glock vs. 1911.... I'd get a $5000 Nighthawk Custom before I bought a Glock in 45... because I'll probably never own either so I might as well shoot for the moon lol.

I'd go "slumming it" as low as a SA HRT or Trophy Match 1911.  If I were to go into the $3000+ range, Wilson Combat and Nighthawk would be in the consideration.  Like you, I don't think I'll ever spend that kind of $$$ on a single gun.  At least not in the foreseeable future. . . 

As for 10 round capacity situation and 9 mm vs .45 ACP, would you choose .45 ACP?  Assuming comparable relability and accuracy between the two guns?  What about if ammo costs were closer?  Say $200/1000 for 9 mm and $300/1000 for .45 ACP?  Hell of a what if, but what if?   

I recall something about a 1911 generally needs more effort to keep functioning properly and reliable enough for defensive use.  I couldn't find the source, so I didn't post.  I am not very experienced with 1911s, so mostly just going off of what little experience I have with my RIA 9 mm 1911, shooting other folks 1911s, observing others shooting their 1911s, firearms trainers, and internet experts (of all levels).  Things like some 1911s being more sensitive to bullet head shape and polishing of the feed ramp to ensure proper feeding.  Then with the pursuit of accuracy, I wondered if guns that tried to cut tolerances way down would start to malfunction over time.  I was watching a show on Rock River 1911s and they were striving for better accuracy by cutting every fraction of a milimeter out of the fitup, but like any mechanical device, there's a fine line between tight tolerance and sufficient tolerance to ensure reliable function.

Most of the shooters I’ve talked to has said the same thing, and the complexity of the 1911 compared to the Glock makes that seem reasonable, but I’ve not had that experience yet. I think it’s more applicable if you get a 1911 for Glock money. Pay enough for a quality 1911 that strikes that perfect balance of fit and tolerance as you mentioned, and hopefully the time and effort to keep it running are significantly less. There’s no getting around some parts of it though, if you shoot out the barrel in a 1911, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to just drop in a good match grade barrel and not have to fit it at all, not true with the Glock.

if you shoot out the barrel in a 1911, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to just drop in a good match grade barrel and not have to fit it at all, not true with the Glock.

In my experience a good quality aftermarket drop in 1911 barrel (I like RemSport) will usually shoot every bit as good as a factory barrel, if not better.  If you're talking about a dedicated bullseye gun that's a different matter.

I appreciate Glocks for what they are but I prefer my 1911s.

In my experience a good quality aftermarket drop in 1911 barrel (I like RemSport) will usually shoot every bit as good as a factory barrel, if not better.  If you're talking about a dedicated bullseye gun that's a different matter.

I appreciate Glocks for what they are but I prefer my 1911s.

 

As for 10 round capacity situation and 9 mm vs .45 ACP, would you choose .45 ACP?  Assuming comparable relability and accuracy between the two guns?  What about if ammo costs were closer?  Say $200/1000 for 9 mm and $300/1000 for .45 ACP?  Hell of a what if, but what if?   

Nah, I would never pick 45 over 9mm, the data just doesn't support bigger calibers being more deadly than .380 and 9mm.  I've actually been considering getting some .380's for teaching weaker/physically challenged students.

I'm really looking forward to putting a few thousand rounds down my new CZ SP-01 tactical... like a 1911 but better ;-)


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I haven't shot enough with a Glock to make a fair comparison, but today I shot some rounds through a G19x and I was surprised it shot pretty good. Comfortable, accurate, it was easy to shoot.
It's a good handgun

I haven't shot enough with a Glock to make a fair comparison, but today I shot some rounds through a G19x and I was surprised it shot pretty good. Comfortable, accurate, it was easy to shoot.
It's a good handgun

...
Glock are like cheap hookers. Not too good looking but always functional when you need it.
They can be dressed up to look better if necessary.

Owning a 1911 is like getting married to the prom queen as a trophy wife.
Pretty, but high maintenance. Functions most of the time, but can be finicky.
Other men envy you when you bring her out.

...
Glock are like cheap hookers. Not too good looking but always functional when you need it.
They can be dressed up to look better if necessary.

Owning a 1911 is like getting married to the prom queen as a trophy wife.
Pretty, but high maintenance. Functions most of the time, but can be finicky.
Other men envy you when you bring her out.

1911's are definitely pretty.  Don't think I've ever envied anyone's 1911 though...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

...
Glock are like cheap hookers. Not too good looking but always functional when you need it.
They can be dressed up to look better if necessary.

Owning a 1911 is like getting married to the prom queen as a trophy wife.
Pretty, but high maintenance. Functions most of the time, but can be finicky.
Other men envy you when you bring her out.

Next time I shoot a Glock, I better wear latex gloves. 

1911's are definitely pretty.  Don't think I've ever envied anyone's 1911 though...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 1911 

1911's are definitely pretty.  Don't think I've ever envied anyone's 1911 though...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

===========
 well yeah...…....some guys just swing that way
 

I've seen some 1911's that i've ... admired.  and appreciated the craftsmanship.

Without weighing in on the actual "preference" side of this debate, I just want to address the idea some people are shoveling that the 1911 is delicate, finicky or demanding of high maintenance. Adopted in 1911, and used as the standard service sidearm for all branches through 1986, and still in service for select outfits, the 1911 has been through: two world wars; insurgencies in the US, Thailand, and Bolivia; civil wars in Russia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Cambodia, and Lebanon; Vietnam; Korea; the Bay of Pigs; Zaire; rescue operations in Iran; and the invasions of Grenada and Panama, to name a few.

And you know what the millions of US soldiers participating in these various degrees of combat, which include muddy trench warfare, desert warfare, and Russian winter warfare, did not bitch about? They did not bitch about the unreliability of the 1911.

You're talking about a gun that was DESIGNED for warfare. It can be 100% disassembled with no tools (ok, you need a screwdriver to take off the grip panel.) The mainspring retaining plug can be replaced by a .45acp shell. It can be operated, including operating the slide, one-handed.

I'm not casting aspersions on the Glock's reliability. I'm saying that the 1911 has a track record of reliability in actual, genuine, real-world war.

No doubt the 1911 design is great. The problem is everybody in every country makes a copy and the sad part is that some parts are made of inferior steel or tolerances are too loose, or workmanship is poor. Unlike Glocks which are mostly homogeneous.
Another issue is high expectations. Since the standard 1911 build is designed for military ball, people tend to be discouraged when it balks at hollow points or semiwadcutter ammunition. Hence the modern reputation of being finicky.

BTW, to remove the grip panels without a screwdriver, use the leaf spring.

Disclaimer...
I am definitely not a Glock fanboy. I do own more 1911 pistols than any other firearm.

No doubt the 1911 design is great. The problem is everybody in every country makes a copy and the sad part is that some parts are made of inferior steel or tolerances are too loose, or workmanship is poor. Unlike Glocks which are mostly homogeneous.
Another issue is high expectations. Since the standard 1911 build is designed for military ball, people tend to be discouraged when it balks at hollow points or semiwadcutter ammunition. Hence the modern reputation of being finicky.

BTW, to remove the grip panels without a screwdriver, use the leaf spring.

Disclaimer...
I am definitely not a Glock fanboy. I do own more 1911 pistols than any other firearm.

One reason I chose the Sig Nightmare Fastback 1911 is their attempt to make upgrades to the design, mainly ergonomics, sights and improved concealed carry.

Without weighing in on the actual "preference" side of this debate, I just want to address the idea some people are shoveling that the 1911 is delicate, finicky or demanding of high maintenance. Adopted in 1911, and used as the standard service sidearm for all branches through 1986, and still in service for select outfits, the 1911 has been through: two world wars; insurgencies in the US, Thailand, and Bolivia; civil wars in Russia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Cambodia, and Lebanon; Vietnam; Korea; the Bay of Pigs; Zaire; rescue operations in Iran; and the invasions of Grenada and Panama, to name a few.

And you know what the millions of US soldiers participating in these various degrees of combat, which include muddy trench warfare, desert warfare, and Russian winter warfare, did not bitch about? They did not bitch about the unreliability of the 1911.

You're talking about a gun that was DESIGNED for warfare. It can be 100% disassembled with no tools (ok, you need a screwdriver to take off the grip panel.) The mainspring retaining plug can be replaced by a .45acp shell. It can be operated, including operating the slide, one-handed.

I'm not casting aspersions on the Glock's reliability. I'm saying that the 1911 has a track record of reliability in actual, genuine, real-world war.

There isn't any American military unit that still uses the 1911 which, while it is the right choice, is kind of sad.

Decent video by some guys who know the gun (turns into stories after the first few minutes):

a little car analogy
this is the base model 1911


this is a Glock


this is a high end 1911


this is a high end Glock


either one will more than get the job done, but I prefer the high end 1911   

Thanks Stang, not it makes more sense.  I don't own either.  HK fanboy.

Most of the shooters I’ve talked to has said the same thing, and the complexity of the 1911 compared to the Glock makes that seem reasonable, but I’ve not had that experience yet. I think it’s more applicable if you get a 1911 for Glock money. Pay enough for a quality 1911 that strikes that perfect balance of fit and tolerance as you mentioned, and hopefully the time and effort to keep it running are significantly less. There’s no getting around some parts of it though, if you shoot out the barrel in a 1911, I wouldn’t expect you to be able to just drop in a good match grade barrel and not have to fit it at all, not true with the Glock.

My only 1911 is a RIA 9 mm and it's been flawless.  I think I got that one for less than what I paid for my Glock 17s.  That said, the round count on the 1911 is maybe 500 or so.  The round counts on my 17s and 34 is well beyond 10s that amount.  I wouldn't mind shooting the 1911 in a pistol class and see how I do. 

As mentioned above and in the video posted with Hackathorn, the 1911s seem to need some level of fitting and more than assembly of a bunch of parts.  Another good point in the video was the wide range of companies that produced 1911s and even some maker that used to be known for producing quality guns had their rough patches.  I think about how when the AR market blew up and there were tons of companies that jumped into the market and there was a range of quality that you encountered (and still is the case). 

I've even heard of a lot of negative feedback for Kimber when they started using MIM parts.  I think it was in their "II" series.  I came close to buying the original Kimber Eclipse in the mid-90s.  When I looked into them again they were in the "II" series guns and they had a lot of negative reviews.  Part breakage, bunch of malfunctions, etc.  Maybe a case of a company that had some growing pains.