Give me a brass case from an expended round, .45 ACP of course, and I can take the grips off.
Won't the lip at the bottom of the magazine do that, too?
They keep sticking to this anciet and revered thing called the Geneva Convention, wherein you only are allowed to have FMJ bullets.
Actually, it's the Hague Convention (as Chris mentioned later).
For the record, I didn't complain about the old 1911s being rattle traps- if anything I was trying to convey that an old rattletrap is the only 1911 I would trust in field conditions. But guess what? They don't make 'em that way anymore...
And perhaps they never did. I read an article recently (sorry, don't have the URL) where a guy had recently picked up a minty 1911 made in 1913. He was surprised at how tight it was. Like you, he thought it would be a rattletrap because everyone just knows that's the way it is. However, if one stops to think about how guns were built in that era, one thinks of crafsmanship and well-fitted parts. A 1911 that rattles when shaken goes against that visual. Does your 1908 shake? Why would the 1911 be markedly different? This guy's theory (which makes sense to me) is that the "rattletrap" 1911 comments are from Vietnam-era guys who were shooting guns that had had thousands of rounds through them. These guns had been through two or three wars and a lot of trainees by then. Just because the guns had been shot loose by that time doesn't mean they came from the factory that way. Granted, they probably weren't bullseye-tight, but I doubt they were a loose conglomeration of parts in a 1911-shaped container. (My aplologies, as BikerRN brought this up after I wrote it.)
As an aviator, I have to carry the M9. I say "have to" because my hand size is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Eric's. I can shoot expert with an M9, but it's an incredibly easy course. In all honesty, the trigger reach is a bit too long for me. I'd rather have a carbine than a pistol, but that's just me.