[oldmanmontgomery]

Obsolete? By some magic, it doesn't stop villains anymore? It isn't a rather handy and fairly simple mechanism to carry or operate?

The only thing 'lacking' (if that matters) is it has a lower round count, which is only important in gun games. And those who miss a lot. Or those who carry a sidearm requiring several well placed shots or more to end a problem.

For those who connect the first time with an opponent, I do not see obsolesce.

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

I guess it depends if you want to wound or kill. Obsolete? Not by a long( or short) shot.

To my knowledge, 'shooting to wound' is not considered legal.
Generally (no doubt variations exist somewhere), one may only use lethal force (a gun for instance) under certain conditions. The conditions are one is faced with the immediate and obvious danger of death or great bodily harm (like rip off an arm, but not kill). This does not include harassing or threatening the defender with idle threats. The wording of the laws may differ, but that is usually what it means.

It has been held by case law that when one is so threatened and lethal force is made by the defender, the defender is intending to immediately stop the aggressor from continuing the attack. The net result is the defender acts to prevent death or great bodily harm. Any thought of only wounding the attacker is an indication of the defender not being fully (in the eyes of the law) in danger.

This then becomes rather muddled. Was the defender in reasonable fear of life and limb?

If one - defender - shoots someone without appearing to 'wound only' (like center body mass) and does not kill the attacker, that does not indicate a lack of fear. Just for the record, NO, one cannot finish off the attacker if the attacker is disabled.

In my own quaint phrasing, "Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting well".

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

In Oregon (where I live) 'reasonable fear' is in effect a de facto consideration IF an intruder is illegally inside one's domicile for whatever reason.

Forced entry, burglary, heck, even if a drunk/drugged person enters a domicile mistakenly ( armed or unarmed) he/she can be 'taken out' with very little chance of any charges against the domicile owner.

It is not called 'castle doctrine' but for all intents and purposes this is what it is.

NOW - with regard to the 'outside' the laws are dramatically different and this makes for a few problems here in Oregon but this is similar with most states that have 'castle doctrine'.

I did say the details were different and that which I said was the general tone, this sounds like one of 'alternatives'.
I grew up in Portland, on the Willamette. Haven't lived there since 1974 or so. As you are aware, Oregon is now owned and operated by the leftists and since I wasn't tied there (folks are dead and so on) I live in the Mid-West these days.

Just out of curiosity, in what part of Oregon do you live?

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

I did grow up in Portland (when it was just odd, not stupid). But my family and I spent two or three summers on the Rouge River, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, just outside Halfway. Great part of the world. ...sigh...

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

Over rated? I think it depends on the subject.
For competing with hopes of winning in a current 'run fast and shoot a lot' gun game, it is a poor choice.
For concealed carry when wearing only swim trunks and shower shoes, not so good.
For serious defense against an assailant - none better. Perhaps a couple 'just as good' but none better.

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

Really ?????
I'm glad you told me because I did it for many years along with thousands of others.
IPSC, IDPA, etc.

I probably don't run as fast as you. Did rather well shooting NRA 2700 about five decades ago.

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

The 1911 is not for amateurs.

I agree in one sense and disagree in another.

A Government Model pistol is not for amateurs in that anyone freshly acquiring one cannot instantly Carry and shoot it as well as one might. It does require knowledge and familiarity and practice.

On the other hand, the Government Model is an excellent choice for someone seeking to find the ultimate defender and willing to learn - and willing to work at learning it.

Is it over-rated? Again, it is and it's not. It is quite unqualified for sniping or cutting a hangman's noose at 200 yards or more. It is totally unsuited for current gun games requiring many rounds fired in a certain time limit.

It is not over-rated for personal defense in most places where human beings travel. Exceptions would include fending off attacks of more than five armed adversaries at close (less than twenty feet) range, large, dangerous game attacks, or thermo-nuclear weapons.

I must confess that in my middle 70s, the recoil does bother my hand and wrist somewhat. But then, that is from a Lightweight Commander, not a Govt Model.

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

What cracks me up is when I read/hear the '1911 is an old design and is too complicated'

Trust me - there are some modern guns that are WAY more complicated than the 1911.

More complicated? Well, yeah.

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

I am an old guy, no kidding. One of the phenomenons I've noted and considered over time is the 'new is better' assumption.
I presume the assumptions here are several, to wit:

"Single action cocked and locked pistols are more dangerous than double action trigger systems".
"9x19mm rounds are more better than .45 ACP rounds".
"Any design in the 22nd Century is more better than anything adopted in 1911".

I'm not so convinced. But like I said, I'm an old guy.

 

[oldmanmontgomery]

Well old man I ain’t no young rooster myself.

Good to make your acquaintance, sir. Somedays those young'uns speak a different language.

Sure I love my S&W 325 Thunder Ranch revolver in 45 ACP tuned as a Performance Center product.

The Lord set me up to buy a S&W model 25 DA revolver that already had the barrel cut back to around 4" or 5" and the front sight remounted. I like double action revolvers that work well in double action.

Not as easy as 1911 45 ACP with spare magazines.

I'm retired and am not as likely to face a human wave attack. Probably two or three at the most.