Glock 20 10mm vs .45 1911?
the glock 20 10mm has a 15 round magazine..
a springer or kimber/wilson .45 is nice looking..low rounds..
which should i go for? for reliability and accuracy?
- durden351Lv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
Okay, IF you're talking reliability and accuracy only, then a Wilson .45 will generally be more accurate than a stock G20. Now, that being said, the average shooter isn't going to know the difference because, I dare say, the average shooter isn't going to have enough skill to "challenge" either gun's limits. YOU MIGHT! Bless you if you do, but most shooters won't.
As for reliabilty, feh, a match grade/competition 1911 had BETTER be amazingly reliable. The reliability on the Glocks is about as solid as you could want. To me, it's a wash.
If you want "ultimate" performance and your choices are a $2k-$3k hand built 1911 or a stock G20, the 1911 is probably the better choice. That being said, you could put the price difference into the G20 and have a weapon that would be just as accurate and reliable . . . with more power and 7 extra rounds. It just depends on what way you want to go.
As for a "gun fight", I'd give the advantage to the Glock 20. It's one of the few non-45 ACP automatics that the .45 ACP cult can't fall prostrate on the .45 ACP round on and say "it's so much more powerful and effective". The 10mm plenty of round, plenty of energy, plenty of diameter, and plenty of penetration. I say that as a person who carries a .45 ACP sometimes and a person who's married to a "high priestess" of the .45 ACP cult. LOL! I love the .45 ACP, BUT it's not magical, and it's not superior to the 10mm. Let's face it, though, no one wants to get shot by either anytime soon. And before anyone blows a gasket, can ANYONE here think of a plausible manner in which one could say that they'd have a much better chance surviving being shot by a 10mm instead of a .45 ACP? I can't. That alone at least equates the rounds for discussion.
As for the "plastic gun" thing, it's hardly worth discussing. Glocks aren't "plastic" in the manner that the term is intended. They're plenty durable. For practical durability, it's a wash.
We all know that MOST gunfights don't last but a few rounds. Most . . . most . . . most. Odds are, I won't need my seatbelt today, but why risk it if I don't have to? Why carry 8 when I can carry 15 equal to or better?
When I look at my Wilson 1911 and my Glock 20 side by side, this is what I see. I see an 8-9 round powerful, precision, accurate, reliable, and beautiful machine that requires me to normally take three actions to employ in combat: 1) retrieve, 2) drop the safety, 3) pull the trigger. Beside my 1911 is a 14-16 round powerful, accurate, and reliable machine that requires me to normally take TWO actions to employ in combat: 1) retrieve, 2) pull the trigger. In combat, removing the nostalgia and lore, which one do you pick? In combat, no one cares that you have a classic 1911 made by the genius John Browning and it has a history as storied as any other handgun. All other things being equal, the guy with the 7 or 8 more rounds and one less mechanism to operate has the advantage. Nostalgia, beauty, classic lines, reputation . . . and $1.25 buy you a Coke . . . in a gunfight. :)
Honestly, if I had $2k - $3k to spend either on a G20 or a Wilson . . . I'd buy the G20 . . . and a $600 1911 . . . and take the $1,200 left over, send them both off to Wilson and whoever else to tune BOTH guns! LOL!Source(s): I have a Wilson .45 and a G20 . . . love them both, and have thousands of rounds through each.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
What do you want it for ? .. and how much is your weight so I know how much you recoil you can handle . And if you are an accurate shooter .
For home security I suggest the Glock . Doesn't matter if you shoot 3 in the heart , or two one . One well placed shot will get the job done but being sure is good . And plus these days robbers come in pack of 2 3 so you might get something that you don't have to reload .
For fun , I say go with 1911 . It's a great little machine and very fun to shoot . Very power full and the accuracy is great as well as the reliability . You will have a great time shooting it .
And I'm not saying 1911 would be bad for self defense but glock is better . And I am a 1911 nut so imagine my disappointment .
- Higgy BabyLv 71 decade ago
I would go for the 1911 even for twice the money.
Kimber/wilson are over priced.
I have a Springfield 1911 Mil Spec (and an XD 40) and a Glock 22. Trust me-the Glock doesn't shape up at all. The only advantage the Glock can offer is that its lighter in weight and will hold more rounds. That just doesn't seem to measure up to me.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I had a colt 45, too many safety's to deal with in a pinch. I bought a glock in a 40cal. and its fantastic. a 40 cal is in between a 9 mm and a 45 cal 1200 ft per sec with 1300. ft lbs of ENERGY at 25 feet. stopping power with out a pass threw. bullets are cheaper and easier to get then 10mm
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I have both and I love them both. The price is much better when going with the Glock but there are many more attachments/customization you can do with the 1911.
Buy them both!
- 1 decade ago
I like both, but lean towards the 1911, because it's a classic, and I like pistols with hammers. Both are reliable and powerful.Source(s): You will probably never use it on somebody, and if you do, I seriously doubt you're going to need more than 7 rounds, so i say get the 1911, because it looks good, and intimidating.
- acmeravenLv 71 decade ago
a springer or kimber/wilson .45
- Poor RichardLv 51 decade ago
I'd go for the Springer first.
- JohnnyLv 41 decade ago
no offence but i don't like plastic pistols like glock , i prefer 1911s