New "'non-serious" 1911?

[peterb]

Didn't want to hijack the other 1911 thread, so....

What would folks suggest for an inexpensive(maybe $700 or less?) 1911 for light range use? No plans to use it for carry, defense, or serious training -- just as a casual shooter and to gain some familiarity with the platform.

Or is it unrealistic to expect anything decent at that price point?

[TCinVA]

For around the $700.00 price range (give or take 100 bucks) you should be able to find one of Colt's new production basic models. They come with sights that are actually useful, they should feed hollowpoint ammo, and every specimen I've seen was built well and ran from the box. As a good basic 1911 that will do anything from looking pretty to being suitable as a base for a full custom gun down the line it's hard to beat.

I find the Remington 1911's intriguing, but I haven't had the chance to look at many of them. The ones I've seen all seem to be well made, but I've never seen a shot fired through one so YMMV.

If you can find an old Norinco 1911 on Gunbroker, they were good 1911's by most reports.

I've had mixed luck with lower-end Springfield 1911's so I'm always hesitant to mention them.

I've never seen a Ruger 1911 in person, so no idea how those are.

I'd advise staying away from Taurus or Para Ordnance.

[Al T.]

Only Remington I've laid hands on was pretty disappointing. Couple of S&Ws owned by buddies seem to run.

[Tamara]

Seven bills? A base Colt or, if you can find one, an "NM"-prefix Springfield.

[Dagga Boy]

For a cheap range only gun...........I actually liked the Ruger, especially compared to much of what else is in that price range.

[TheNewbie]

For range use only? Why not look at a Rock Island Armory? They are cheap and seem to be well made enough for range use. However I am sure there are people here who know much more about them than I do though.

[SecondsCount]

Colt has a firing pin safety on their lower ended models. Something I am not a fan of, especially if you wanted to do more with it in the future. They also tend to have sharp edges.

Springfield Loaded. New they are probably a little more than you want to spend but you may be able to find one lightly used.

Desert Eagle 1911. These remind me of the old pre-series II Kimbers. My friend has purchased two of them, 5" and a 4.25" version. The 5" has been a solid pistol with no failures while the 4.25" had some failures to extract. I adjusted the extractor and it has run fine ever since. Both guns had excellent triggers out of the box and one gunsmith I talked to said the barrels are excellent quality. I think they sell for $649 at the local gunshop if you can get over the DESERT EAGLE on the side of the slide.

Ruger 1911. There is one that is in the rental case at the range and they said there have been no complaints and no parts failures so far. I spoke to another guy at the range who had one and he said that it has treated him well.

The Remingtons are a little odd in some dimensions and they have a firing pin safety.

All of the above mentioned pistols have cast or MIM parts in them which can be prone to premature failure, typically early on.

I second what TCinVA said, stay away from Taurus and Para.

[ADKilla]

For $700 or less? Search the gun shows and look for a Colt Series 70 (not the O Model Series 70 manufactured between 2003-2009, but the original MK IV/Series 70 with serial numbers with a "70G, "70L," "70S," "70B" prefix or "G70" suffix). Those were made at the peak of Colt's hey day and generally good pieces; of course they won't have the now "standard" features of a tight slide to frame fit, beavertail grip safety, extended thumb safety, high visibility sights, etc. But for simple plinking they're accurate enough and reliable with 230-gr FMJ ammo enough to learn the platform on.

[P30shtr]

Didn't want to hijack the other 1911 thread, so....

What would folks suggest for an inexpensive(maybe $700 or less?) 1911 for light range use? No plans to use it for carry, defense, or serious training -- just as a casual shooter and to gain some familiarity with the platform.

Or is it unrealistic to expect anything decent at that price point?

1st, I own no 1911's, 2nd, I would say RIA. Have heard great things as far as cheap range plinker goes, even EDC for that matter.

http://centerfiresystems.com/AC-RI1911.aspx

$400 sounds nice and a bunch of ammo

[Nephrology]

My RIA has had about 1k + flawless rounds through it. The finish sucks, I'd never carry it, but I'll be damned if it doesn't feed and function just fine.

It was my first handgun, I'd take it back if I could but I didn't do all that bad all things considered. It was a good introduction to owning pistols... Glocks it is from here on out though.

edit: I can ONLY recommend RIA if you promise you won't carry it or put too much ammo through it or hell even give a shit about it. NO guarantees it will hold up to higher round counts, but if you don't plan on shooting it a ton it's really not the worst buy in the world for the money.

That said for 700 bucks a Colt or Springfield might be a better bet, more resale value and probably a nicer gun overall.

[JonInWA]

The current basic SIG-Sauer 1911 XO might well warrant a look; there's some MIM (just what/how much is contested), but SIG seems to have worked the bugs out, and virtually all contemporary reports have been complimentry. You get a lot of bang for you buck. I've been pleased with my 2006 XO, but it's a significantly different gun that what's offered today from an internal parts standpoint, so without having a current production gun to evaluate, I'm hesitant to give an outright recommendation/endorsement.

Best, Jon

[SeaSoldier]

I'd be looking for a Sprinfield Armory MilSpec with a NM serial number. The Brazil marked guns are GTG also but I prefer the NM guns. A Springfield WWII would also be a good one. Either would make a suitable platform if you decide to go all in later with custom work.

[Tamara]

I'd be looking for a Sprinfield Armory MilSpec with a NM serial number. The Brazil marked guns are GTG also but I prefer the NM guns.
I never figured out Springfield's business model on that one. They've got to cost Springfield more, but they don't charge more for them. And they just mix them in with the regular Brazil-finished guns like the toy surprise in a box of Cracker Jack...

[JDM]

The current basic SIG-Sauer 1911 XO might well warrant a look; there's some MIM (just what/how much is contested), but SIG seems to have worked the bugs out, and virtually all contemporary reports have been complimentry. You get a lot of bang for you buck. I've been pleased with my 2006 XO, but it's a significantly different gun that what's offered today from an internal parts standpoint, so without having a current production gun to evaluate, I'm hesitant to give an outright recommendation/endorsement.

Best, Jon

Is there anyone that can go into more detail on this? I've been thinking about picking up one of these for a while now.

[TNWNGR]

MIM=Metal Injection Molding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Injection_Molding

While a very high tech and economical production process certain applications in high stress machines or tools have shown adverse failure modes. It’s now used with firearms manufacturing and has shown some mixed results.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

I've had GREAT luck with my RIA/Armscor 1911. There is a thread elsewhere here where I wrote about it. It looks like a carpule of ass, but it works well! I have replaced the trigger (10-8 flat) and the sights (Heinie) but it is otherwise stock, runs EVERYTHING (even the notorious CCI 200gr "Flying Ashtrays,") and runs with CMC Power Mags, Wilson's, Novaks, SA, and Tripps Cobra mags.

I couldn't be happier with it.

Total gun investment (with trigger and sights): $450

[Tamara]

It looks like a carpule of ass...

I just learned a new word. It's going to be a pain trying to work it into a sentence in the next couple of days, though... :o

[SecondsCount]

MIM=Metal Injection Molding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Injection_Molding

While a very high tech and economical production process certain applications in high stress machines or tools have shown adverse failure modes. It’s now used with firearms manufacturing and has shown some mixed results.

MIM is an excellent way of making parts but is just as susceptible to quality control issues as anything else. When you see a lower priced firearm or parts you have to ask why. Cheaper labor? Quality control? Fit and Finish? Lower cost materials? Or is the competition just charging more for the name, which happens from time to time.

I have several firearms with MIM parts in them, with round counts exceeding 10K rounds, and have seen no issues. It doesn't make me a proponent of MIM parts as I would rather have quality machined steel parts that are properly manufactured and heat treated but my examples have treated me well.

[JonInWA]

Is there anyone that can go into more detail on this? I've been thinking about picking up one of these for a while now.

Here's the short version: There are essentially (and arguably) three generations of the SIGARMS/SIG-Sauer GSR/1911. The first version, roughly produced during the 2004-2005 timeframe, featured a Caspian manufactured receiver and slide set, with a Storm Lake barrel. Visually, this is distinguished from later production by the receiver's grooved frontstrap and undercut triggerguard. The first generation guns featured very high quality components, from noted vendors such as Wilson, Greider, Caspian, Novak and others. Unfortunately, the consensus was that SIG underestimated the assembly time and skill requirements in putting the guns together; that you simply can't throw together 1911 parts, no matter how high quality, and come out with a functioning (not to say smoothly functioning) 1911. Significant amounts of gunsmithing skills are requisite, particularly since the 1911 aftermarket industry is geared towards producing slightly over-sized components to allow for individual gun/manufacturer variations. There is also more than a suggestion that SIG's external vendors were overwhelmed by the scale and magnitude of the project, and their contribution's quality suffered, slowing production and impinging upon the gun's overall quality in cases. Bruce Gray (and others) are particularly critical of Caspian's receivers in this regards, but there's evidence of issues with Wilson components and others in this regard. Specifically, first generation gun problems included too tight mainspring housings, hammer lean, drifting extractor pins, various cosmetic issues, some chambering issues, magazine issues and others. Not all of the first generation guns were accordingly cursed; some (and perhaps many) performed (and continue to perform) quite well, but these problems were somewhat systemmic; potential buyers of these first generation guns are well advised to very carefully scrutinize, test-fire, and ideally have them gone over by a competant 1911 smith before purchasing. In fairness to SIG, they have stood behind their 1911, usually providing shipping labels for warranty repairs necessary, and replacing or refunding problematic guns.

These issues led to SIGARMS taking over the receiver, slide, and barrel production, creating the second generation. They are easily recognized by their frontstrap checkering. The second generation guns still had the high quality (and improved) small part components, and SIG had belatedly significantly beefed up their 1911 production line, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Interestingly, the content of the guns increased (i.e., with the 25 lpi frontstrap checkering and Novak nightsights on most models), and the price actually decreased slightly. These guns were produced roughly from 2006-2007. During this period, models proliferated from 2 to some 18.

Sometime in 2007, SIG started to incorporate some significant changes: visibly, the method of retaining the firing pin safety was changed, eliminating what had been termed the "manhole cover" (the small circular access hatch on the right side of the receiver-this was supposedly red loctited closed by the factory, but some escaped unloctited, with not good results when the hatch fell off and the components did some interesting things, requiring factory corrections)-a false internal extractor appearing component was adopted at the rear of the slide to retain the firing pin safety components (the actual extractor remained the stainless steel Caspian produced external piece). During this period, MIM components were introduced-initially just the disconector.

These changes (which occurred gradually, and not necessarily in a chronological serial number pattern-SIG changes seemingly occurred via parts bin engineering, so for some time mixed results occurred on the production line) resulted in what's considered to be the third generation. Over time, other lower-priced parts were substituted; most visibly seen in changes in the safety levers, the grip safety, and the slide stop. There have been allegations of increased MIM content, and less expensive/lower quality offshore parts; these allegations have never really been substantively answered by SIG, but complaints over the guns seem to have diminished over time, with relatively few surfacing on the internet over the past year or so. Of course, part of the problem is that there may be relatively few hard users of the guns actually purchasing them and putting significant amounts of rounds through them...

One of the early proponents, Bruce Gray has publicly disavowed his previous glowing endorsement of them, and is very critical of the Caspian receivers of the first generation guns, among other things/issues with these and subsequent generation of the SIG 1911s. He has also come up with a replacement carbon steel extractor to reduce, if not ourtright eliminate the extractor hook chipping and breaking issues of the earlier OEM extractors; SIG themselves have redesigned this component. I've been beta-testing Bruce's extractor for several years; it's performed flawlessly, but it looks like the SIG redesigned component has addressed the previous issues (it seems that SIG, like Beretta previously in the 92 Inox pistol, has discovered that stainless steel is not necessarily the best of steels to use for an extractor...).

My own personal thought is that the proverbial "sweet spot" of these guns is during the early second generation, prior to the firing pin safety change and the introduction of MIM components. These guns featured very high quality components, and a fire-tested ramped up assembly/production team. However, the contemporary production guns may well be as good (although I'm personally unimpressed with the MIM slide stop-I personally prefer a tool steel component for this relatively high stress part, but that's an easy and relatively inexpensive switch).

I hope this information helps.

Best, Jon

[JDM]

Here's the short version: There are essentially (and arguably) three generations of the SIGARMS/SIG-Sauer GSR/1911. The first version, roughly produced during the 2004-2005 timeframe, featured a Caspian manufactured receiver and slide set, with a Storm Lake barrel. Visually, this is distinguished from later production by the receiver's grooved frontstrap and undercut triggerguard. The first generation guns featured very high quality components, from noted vendors such as Wilson, Greider, Caspian, Novak and others. Unfortunately, the consensus was that SIG underestimated the assembly time and skill requirements in putting the guns together; that you simply can't throw together 1911 parts, no matter how high quality, and come out with a functioning (not to say smoothly functioning) 1911. Significant amounts of gunsmithing skills are requisite, particularly since the 1911 aftermarket industry is geared towards producing slightly over-sized components to allow for individual gun/manufacturer variations. There is also more than a suggestion that SIG's external vendors were overwhelmed by the scale and magnitude of the project, and their contribution's quality suffered, slowing production and impinging upon the gun's overall quality in cases. Bruce Gray (and others) are particularly critical of Caspian's receivers in this regards, but there's evidence of issues with Wilson components and others in this regard. Specifically, first generation gun problems included too tight mainspring housings, hammer lean, drifting extractor pins, various cosmetic issues, some chambering issues, magazine issues and others. Not all of the first generation guns were accordingly cursed; some (and perhaps many) performed (and continue to perform) quite well, but these problems were somewhat systemmic; potential buyers of these first generation guns are well advised to very carefully scrutinize, test-fire, and ideally have them gone over by a competant 1911 smith before purchasing. In fairness to SIG, they have stood behind their 1911, usually providing shipping labels for warranty repairs necessary, and replacing or refunding problematic guns.

These issues led to SIGARMS taking over the receiver, slide, and barrel production, creating the second generation. They are easily recognized by their frontstrap checkering. The second generation guns still had the high quality (and improved) small part components, and SIG had belatedly significantly beefed up their 1911 production line, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Interestingly, the content of the guns increased (i.e., with the 25 lpi frontstrap checkering and Novak nightsights on most models), and the price actually decreased slightly. These guns were produced roughly from 2006-2007. During this period, models proliferated from 2 to some 18.

Sometime in 2007, SIG started to incorporate some significant changes: visibly, the method of retaining the firing pin safety was changed, eliminating what had been termed the "manhole cover" (the small circular access hatch on the right side of the receiver-this was supposedly red loctited closed by the factory, but some escaped unloctited, with not good results when the hatch fell off and the components did some interesting things, requiring factory corrections)-a false internal extractor appearing component was adopted at the rear of the slide to retain the firing pin safety components (the actual extractor remained the stainless steel Caspian produced external piece). During this period, MIM components were introduced-initially just the disconector.

These changes (which occurred gradually, and not necessarily in a chronological serial number pattern-SIG changes seemingly occurred via parts bin engineering, so for some time mixed results occurred on the production line) resulted in what's considered to be the third generation. Over time, other lower-priced parts were substituted; most visibly seen in changes in the safety levers, the grip safety, and the slide stop. There have been allegations of increased MIM content, and less expensive/lower quality offshore parts; these allegations have never really been substantively answered by SIG, but complaints over the guns seem to have diminished over time, with relatively few surfacing on the internet over the past year or so. Of course, part of the problem is that there may be relatively few hard users of the guns actually purchasing them and putting significant amounts of rounds through them...

One of the early proponents, Bruce Gray has publicly disavowed his previous glowing endorsement of them, and is very critical of the Caspian receivers of the first generation guns, among other things/issues with these and subsequent generation of the SIG 1911s. He has also come up with a replacement carbon steel extractor to reduce, if not ourtright eliminate the extractor hook chipping and breaking issues of the earlier OEM extractors; SIG themselves have redesigned this component. I've been beta-testing Bruce's extractor for several years; it's performed flawlessly, but it looks like the SIG redesigned component has addressed the previous issues (it seems that SIG, like Beretta previously in the 92 Inox pistol, has discovered that stainless steel is not necessarily the best of steels to use for an extractor...).

My own personal thought is that the proverbial "sweet spot" of these guns is during the early second generation, prior to the firing pin safety change and the introduction of MIM components. These guns featured very high quality components, and a fire-tested ramped up assembly/production team. However, the contemporary production guns may well be as good (although I'm personally unimpressed with the MIM slide stop-I personally prefer a tool steel component for this relatively high stress part, but that's an easy and relatively inexpensive switch).

I hope this information helps.

Best, Jon


Thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU!

That was awesome.


So for general 1911 Tom Foolery, a new production SIG XO is a safe bet? That's what I gathered from your very informative writing above.

[JonInWA]

I think you'd most likely be fine with one.

Best, Jon

[JDM]

...all I want for Christmas is a SIG XO...

[Talo1911]

In the price range you have mentioned ...... your best bet for and quality and craftmanship would be the new Stainless Ruger SR1911. This pistol is a beauty, with a stainless steel barrel and bushing, plus the slide to frame tolerance levels and finish are excellent. That's providing you can locate one ..... :eek:
I'd love to pick one up as a range 1911, but already have that (1911) area covered.
This is just my choice, but opinoins will vary, as shooters do. It's always best to choose a pistol in person, so you can make the right decision.

[LittleLebowski]

...all I want for Christmas is a SIG XO...

Hopefully Todd will chime in on the problems SIG had with building a 1911. Myself, given the silliness of SIG's management; I won't touch anything they sell.

[Tamara]

Hopefully Todd will chime in on the problems SIG had with building a 1911.
Sadly, the problems SIG had building a 1911 were apparent to anybody well-versed with the platform just looking at the early guns. (My gunsmith at the time called them "Brownells 1911s".)

They were pretty obviously a collection of top-shelf parts thrown into an outsourced frame & slide.

There's not anything inherently wrong with the idea, as long as you have people putting the guns together who know what they're doing and there's nothing dimensionally wrong with your frames (get a bad batch from Caspian, however...)

Once upon a time, some guys bought a semi-defunct Oregon company and used the Type 07 to throw together some pretty fair 1911s under the old rifle maker's name using Chip McCormick parts, but constant cost-cutting over the years made their guns into gingerbread-encrusted jokes. I hear that the head dude from that company then went on to work at some gun company in New Hampshire...

[ToddG]

Hopefully Todd will chime in on the problems SIG had with building a 1911. Myself, given the silliness of SIG's management; I won't touch anything they sell.

To be honest, my involvement in the project waned early on. SIG hired some new folks mid-stream during development and they didn't want any interference from the idiots in LE/military sales! The VP for commercial sales at the time, a fairly well known guy in the industry, pushed very hard to make the first GSR model a 6" because, and I quote: "No one else makes them anymore and according to some guys I spoke to, there's a real demand." Yes, boys and girls, that is how decisions get made at big gun companies. Luckily, I was able to gather enough evidence that a 6" gun would be DOA.

The original guns were never advertised as anything but what they were: hand built with premium parts. Some ran incredibly well, some had serious problems. It was an effective way to test the waters without spending a fortune on tooling to build frames & slides. When people kept buying the GSR even after the problems surfaced, well, who wouldn't see that as a big ole dollar-printin' machine?

I had two samples, a very early pre-production GSR and then a later one. I cannot remember whether the second one was a Caspian or not. I showed the guns to the few customers I had who actually knew anything about 1911s in an operational sense (Delta and HRT) and neither of them had the slightest bit of interest after a cursory examination.

Given my indefatigable antipathy toward 1911s in general, I couldn't honestly tell you whether the current production guns are awesome or, um... other-awesome. :cool:

[Corvus]

The base model Kimber is available in my area for a little under $700

[Tamara]

The base model Kimber is available in my area for a little under $700
See my above post where I said:

Once upon a time, some guys bought a semi-defunct Oregon company and used the Type 07 to throw together some pretty fair 1911s under the old rifle maker's name using Chip McCormick parts, but constant cost-cutting over the years made their guns into gingerbread-encrusted jokes.
Kimber was once the best deal in a NIB 1911, but that was a decade ago. Now there's no point in spending the premium over a Taurus, Ruger, or base-model Springer.

[jetfire]

Kimber was once the best deal in a NIB 1911, but that was a decade ago. Now there's no point in spending the premium over a Taurus, Ruger, or base-model Springer.

Tam casts "Summon Kimber Fanboys" - roll for initiative against the oncoming horde.

In all seriousness though, I just had a related thought to my idea for the budget 1911 challenge. Buy a brand new Kimber to use as a control gun. If ANY of the budget guns outlast or out perform the Kimber, well you get the idea.

Back to the Sig 1911 issue, I have one of the newer ones, a Sig TacOps and it runs very well. I did have to try three different brands of magazines before I found one that would feed it, and it turned into an even better gun after I ditched their terrible ambi-safety (which is made out of razorblades) for an STI single sided safety.

[TCinVA]

The only two guns Sig makes at the moment that I'd have any interest in are the P210 and the X-Five...and the X-Five mainly because I've flirted with shaving my head, wearing a shemagh and ordering some egg-fu-yung.

Tam is right about the state of the modern 1911 market: Most of what's out there just isn't worth the asking price. Hence my preference for a Colt.

[Tamara]

Tam casts "Summon Kimber Fanboys" - roll for initiative against the oncoming horde.
I don't sweat them. ;)

There's a yawning gulf between the $500-$700 price bracket and the $1500-$2000 price bracket in the 1911 market.

Currently, most anything under $1500 is a hobby gun/range toy. Serious 1911s start at around $2k. Your basic Kimber/Springfield/Colt is a Pistol Starter Kit. :(

[jetfire]

Which sort of leads me to wonder, why can't we make a stone reliable 1911 for less than a grand? I mean, if they can make an HK45 for less than a grand, why not a 1911? I'll be the first person to admit that I don't know what it is that makes a proper 1911 so expensive.

[Tamara]

Which sort of leads me to wonder, why can't we make a stone reliable 1911 for less than a grand? I mean, if they can make an HK45 for less than a grand, why not a 1911? I'll be the first person to admit that I don't know what it is that makes a proper 1911 so expensive.
Manufacturing technologies.

Modern pistols are designed to take advantage of injection molding, stamping, inexpensive little coil springs like the kind you find in ballpoint pens...

Try and reverse-engineer all that stuff into a weapon designed back in the day when the only way to make a firearm was to take a block of steel and whittle away everything that didn't look like a gun and you wind up with... well, a Kimber or an RIA (or a Remington 710.)

And it's not like one way or another is "better" or "worse". Nobody with a brain in their head would deny that a Glock is a sound pistol, but if you try and make a 1911 or a High-Power or a CZ-75 as cheap to manufacture as a Glock, you'll end up with a wretched, compromised ball of suck and fail, because the Glock was designed from the outset to take advantage of that stuff and the others weren't.

[jetfire]

I kind of wonder if this is why in part there has been a huge spike of polymer framed guns in CDP, especially at the major match level. I saw a bunch of dudes at world shoot running M&Ps and Glock 21s. In terms of cost, it makes sense - if I can make my Glock 21 in to a top tier competition pistol in CDP for say, $700, then the $1300 I'm saving buy not buying a 1911 could buy me 3000 rounds of ammo to practice with.

[BWT]

I might give a look at the Ruger, I haven't heard anything really in depth but, I think that would be fine for range toy.

Maybe one of the lower end SA's or maybe even (and I base this on no feedback of the gun) a Remington.

Now let's go ahead and let me qualify what I mean by "non-serious", You expect to shoot at or around 1,000 rounds a year through it.

You'll never depend your life on it. You'll never take it to a high round count class and expect flawless performance.

That's realistic.

Other then that... Tamara is right, 1911's demand $$$ that I'll probably never spend in that volume for that level of performance.

Same thing for 5.56mm Arsenal AK's that now hover around a Grand when they used to go for $600-700, or even another non-serious firearm, I'd say a Saiga-12, when they went past $300 for the base gun I said "No".

[JAD]

Which sort of leads me to wonder, why can't we make a stone reliable 1911 for less than a grand?

I'm not sure that they aren't. I haven't heard about a bad ruger, springer mil spec, or (gasp) colt 1991 in several years. Tam sees way more volume than me, but I have no compunction about sending new shooters out to buy a basic 1911.

[Tamara]

I'm not sure that they aren't. I haven't heard about a bad ruger, springer mil spec, or (gasp) colt 1991 in several years. Tam sees way more volume than me, but I have no compunction about sending new shooters out to buy a basic 1911.
True, and for the most part, they're fine, at least for buying and shooting. And probably even for CCW; I mean, face it, I don't jump out of helicopters with a knife in my teeth for a living, and the harshest environment my CCW pistol faces is the parking lot at the local grocery store on double coupon day... But even in those guns there are things I'd prefer to change before I'd carry one, and I'd be a lot more harsh in my scrutinizing of how well it cycled my carry ammo.

Answer me this: In front of you are two brand-new loaded guns, each with a full magazine of JHP. One is a (insert generic modern plastic gun here) and the other is a Springfield Milspec. You get a million bucks if the gun fires the full magazine without a malf and locks back on the empty mag. Which gun do you pick up?

[JConn]

Answer me this: In front of you are two brand-new loaded guns, each with a full magazine of JHP. One is a (insert generic modern plastic gun here) and the other is a Springfield Milspec. You get a million bucks if the gun fires the full magazine without a malf and locks back on the empty mag. Which gun do you pick up?

There is no question here. There are bad polymer guns out there but by and large if you are buying from a reputable manufacturer your weapon will have very few problems. This is why as much as I like the idea of carrying a 1911, I probably will never spend the money to have a 1911 that is reliable enough to carry.

[Comedian]

True, and for the most part, they're fine, at least for buying and shooting. And probably even for CCW; I mean, face it, I don't jump out of helicopters with a knife in my teeth for a living, and the harshest environment my CCW pistol faces is the parking lot at the local grocery store on double coupon day... But even in those guns there are things I'd prefer to change before I'd carry one, and I'd be a lot more harsh in my scrutinizing of how well it cycled my carry ammo.

Answer me this: In front of you are two brand-new loaded guns, each with a full magazine of JHP. One is a (insert generic modern plastic gun here) and the other is a Springfield Milspec. You get a million bucks if the gun fires the full magazine without a malf and locks back on the empty mag. Which gun do you pick up?

I get a kick out of your posts.

[JConn]

But of course this thread is about non serious 1911s and it seems that if it doesn't have to be 100% then you should get something that has a good frame slide and barrel and just shoot it and fix what you want to. Springfield, colt or ruger seem like they fit that bill.

[Spr1]

Answer me this: In front of you are two brand-new loaded guns, each with a full magazine of JHP. One is a (insert generic modern plastic gun here) and the other is a Springfield Milspec. You get a million bucks if the gun fires the full magazine without a malf and locks back on the empty mag. Which gun do you pick up?

Well, if it had been the gen4 G17 I briefly owned I would have been crying over my bad choice.......

Otherwise, I certainly agree.

[BWT]

I get a kick out of your posts.

Me too, I think I'm going to start calling her Terrible T, I think she jumps out of her car with a knife in her teeth on double coupon day. :D

She reminds me of my Mother, lol. (Not in the age thing, she's just... merciless ETA: Let me disclaim this, in a good way, I agree with a lot of what she says.)

I do think 1911's are great guns to shoot and own, honestly, I'd be lieing if I didn't tell you I've looked at some Government 1911's and thought "Man that gun looks great, feels good in the hand".

So I occasionally watch some youtube videos from certain people, hickok45 specifically, if I'm bored, whatever, I'll cruise over and watch shooting videos.

So he had a Kimber Warrior 1911 he was shooting, and I looked at it and I remember thinking, my first love was a Wilson CQB, I wanted that as my first handgun, outlandish for a 16-17 year old right? (I ended up with a Dan Wesson CBOB)

But I wanted it, it was perfection as far as I was concerned. But they also sold for $1800 from the factory new back then, then they made the jump to $2,300, then they gutted the model of features I wanted and through it on the CQB Elite for $3,000, and I just said screw it.

Which ironically, the CBOB went the same route subsequently, they discontinued the cast frame models, went to forged frames and I think they run about $1,600-1,800, where they used to go for $900-ish.

Anyway, I was watching the video and I was thinking "Maybe I just had a bad run with my 1911" first magazine through the gun, it has a magazine related stoppage, lol! Ah yes, a stroll down memory lane. The gun ran pretty well from then on, he said he had better luck with Wilson Magazines (I had last round hold open issues), but anyway, if there was a gun I'd look at it'd probably be the Ruger 1911.

They've got a great warranty, etc, and if you're not crazy about the finish, you can get it dura-coated by someone black, which, I'd recommend, as an owner of a SS 1911, bead blasted areas get all kinds of scratched up, and they rust there too.

I'd also give a strong look at the Springfield Loaded, specifically the PX9109LP. Basically the same lay out.

I'd go with the a Ruger if I was in the Market.

ETA: Let me disclaim something else, I strongly believe that the 1911 market, there are quality manufacturers that make stuff on the lower end, but usually like Dan Wesson, they ditch that for minimal profit margins/hard work and pursue Semi-Custom, put out honestly, similar quality guns, with a few tweaks here and there with maybe a few higher end parts.

Most true values are only around for awhile before they figure out they can charge a lot more for that same product, with some slight changes, I don't know who started the trend, but that's what's happened IMHO. I totally believe a cast frame, forged slide, checkered frame, internal extractor, government size (with a standard recoil guide rod), 1911 could be made to run pretty reliably for $750-850.

ETA 2: It's when they throw a magwell, "custom" on the slide, front cocking serrations, G-10 grips, a light rail and a 3-hole trigger on there that you know you're about to be sexually assaulted.