Any Recommendations on 1911s?

[MistWolf]

Disagree.

While yes, any gun will launch bullets down range with varying degrees of reliability, if there is a particular use in mind then a particular model may be better suited.

It is common to see posts like the OP with no mention of usage only to have the person return and poopoo various suggestions due to information they withheld in the initial post.

I find it helpful to not only ask what the person thinks they are going to be doing with the new gun but also to find out what kind of shooting they currently do. If they don't have a particular use in mind, chances are it's going to get used just like the guns they currently own.

can any gun do any thing? Maybe. Doesn't mean there aren't better options for particular applications. In this case, for example, the OP clarified wanting a light rail, which drastically limits the field.

I do agree that the want for a rail does narrow the choices but it doesn't change the pistol mechanically. It's a feature that doesn't affect reliability, durability or precision. Take a general purpose pistol and add a rail and it's still a general purpose pistol.

We shouldn't ignore purpose completely, but sometimes we get wrapped around the axle about defining exactly what a firearm is going to be used for. Now that Tzin had made it clear he wants a rail, folks will recommend a 1911 that basically has the same features as what was recommended before, but has a rail and chances are, it'll be a good one

[JonInWA]

For a railed gun, I would recommend Colt or Springfield. Unless you have excess disposable income to burn, I really don't feel it's necessary to start out with a semi-custom or custom 1911 from the get-go. I think you'll be better served by starting out with a decent variant from a reputable manufacturer, and after putting down some significant rounds downrange, in practice, training and use you'll be in a better position to determine what, if any mods need to be made (or future more refined 1911 purchases).

For magazines, I use and recommend Check-Mate, and am particularly partial to variants with their patented bull-nose follower, and extra-power springs. I've had consistently good results with their 8 round extended tube magazines and 7 and 8 round welded baseplate magazines-the springs and followers seem to be the key components in the reliability equation. 5" 1911s are more forgiving than shorter-barreled variants. In a 1911 to be utilized for defensive purposes, the shortest barrel I will go with is 4.25"

While I disagree with some of Hilton Yam's prescriptions, his 10-8 information is still probably the best single-source read for one jumping into the 1911 pool; on their home page wand over the "1911" and you'll get a drop-down menu containing several worthwhile articles: http://www.10-8performance.com/ and you'll find excellent guidance on this forum as well. Stephen Camp's "The Shooter's Guide To The 1911 Pattern Pistol" is also quite good, although since his untimely death several years ago has become a bit dated regarding some of the specific 1911s he discusses-but it's still a very worthwhile read.
http://hipowersandhandguns.com/1911%...;s%20Guide.htm

Best, Jon

[HopetonBrown]

I assume he means full-length guide rods vs bushing guns. I also wouldn't buy a full-length guide rod gun and prefer the bushing.

Not buying a 1911 because of the guide rod would be like not buying a car because of the rims. But I think he might've talking about bull barrel vs bushing.

If a bull barrel isn't the real 1911 experience and a bushing is, does that make a collet bushing 1911 the realer experience? ;-)

[JAD]

Not buying a 1911 because of the guide rod would be like not buying a car because of the rims. But I think he might've talking about bull barrel vs bushing.

If a bull barrel isn't the real 1911 experience and a bushing is, does that make a collet bushing 1911 the realer experience? ;-)

Why worry about the difference between 0.355 and 0.452 when you can hurl an inch of metal downrange?

[Totem Polar]

Since magazines have come up, I'll throw another article on the fire:

http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines/

I found this article (and the follow up) to be a nice primer on the whole controlled feed design, and why the original specs were so, but I am NO 1911 expert. I'm sure many here have seen this write up before; if anything in there is fatally retarded, someone here will let us know.

"Feeding a cartridge into the chamber of a 1911 is not a matter of opinion; radically different magazine designs cannot all function equally well."
-the article

[JTQ]

Since magazines have come up, I'll throw another article on the fire:

http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines/

Both articles are very interesting reads. However, many folks have, what I consider the wrong takeaway from those articles.

First, the number of folks that have sworn off Wilson mags and subsequently moved to McCormick or Tripp, based on those articles because Wilson loses "controlled round feed". These folks fail to realize both McCormick and Tripp also use wadcutter feed lipped mags, and McCormick's feed lips are nearly identical to Wilson's.

Second, while the author makes the claim of a "loss of controlled round feed" with the Wilson mags, he actually never proves it, even in the very detailed pictures in the second article. If wadcutter mags actually did lose controlled round feed (which they may in fact, though I don't really know), don't you think it would show up at all the shooting schools like Thunder Ranch or Gunsite where Wilson mags are probably used every day and shot at odd angles all the time, or by the USMC that specified Wilson mags with the M45 pistols, or all the folks using CMC PowerMags or Tripp CobraMags. If you combine the three, Wilson/McCormick/Tripp, they are probably the most used mags by 1911 shooters by a huge margin. If these mags lost controlled round feed, I'd suspect we hear about it.

[Tuesday]

Second, while the author makes the claim of a "loss of controlled round feed" with the Wilson mags, he actually never proves it, even in the very detailed pictures in the second article.

There's an entertaining video of LAV shooting a Wilson Combat pistol in slow motion. In the shots where the feed isn't edited out you can see the round bounce around on the barrel before it chambers. It's hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69KzvyDeT6I

Or you could grab a set of calipers and prove it to yourself...

[Totem Polar]

If these mags lost controlled round feed, I'd suspect we hear about it.

Only if the switch over to the slide throwing rounds at the chamber resulted in an inordinate number of failures to feed, yes? As the author notes, many good pistols--including the vast majority being issued to LE agencies here--take this approach.

[45dotACP]

Since magazines have come up, I'll throw another article on the fire:

http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines/

I found this article (and the follow up) to be a nice primer on the whole controlled feed design, and why the original specs were so, but I am NO 1911 expert. I'm sure many here have seen this write up before; if anything in there is fatally retarded, someone here will let us know.

"Feeding a cartridge into the chamber of a 1911 is not a matter of opinion; radically different magazine designs cannot all function equally well."
-the article

All mechanics of controlled round feed aside, if the conclusion you come to is to toss away the standard of 1911 mag reliability and carry ball ammo in a 7 round magazine, then you fucked up somewhere in the logic department.

[Totem Polar]

^^^point taken.