Are expensive 1911's range toys or serious CCW guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So OP put in the time and money to be proficient with a modern SD gun but has emotional ties to a firearm that seems to be an emotional lightning rod for gun owners.

If what you carry is more important than the act of CC itself keep the gun that makes you feel good, if the act of carry is the sole purpose for the gun then sell the 1911 and buy another Glock.
 
In these kinds of posts it always tries to insert the idea that anything that costs less than a Wilson Combat, an Ed Brown or a Nighthawk 1911 is somehow not up to the task of defending ones self with.

Now I guess someone could defend themselves with a Hi Point if they had very little money and had nothing else. It’s been done before. It’ll be done again.

However most of the pistols that people own, use and carry for defense are somewhere between those two extremes (I. E. Glock, CZ, Sig, Walther, H&K, S&W, Beretta, FN, Ruger, Kahr and even a Taurus or ten etc). Most often in defensive shootings these kinds of pistols are the ones likely to turn up.

People don’t need to spend $3,380, $3,495 or $4,549 to buy a pistol to defend themselves with. That’s a false premise.

I don't read it that way. I read it as carry what works best and don't worry about the cost of losing it.

It's my philosophy, and it works for me.
 
I don't read it that way.
That’s the idea that I got from it.

I read it as carry what works best and don't worry about the cost of losing it.
I agree with your philosophy. If someone chooses a high end 1911 then that’s great. They’ve chosen to be armed and made a significant investment towards that goal. Won’t hear a peep out of me.

However there’s a few different issues at play here.

1. A - Carry
B - Don’t Carry

If you’re going to carry, what to carry?

2. What to carry.
A - Size
B - Caliber
C - Brand
D - Weight

3. Cost

For many people who own a pistol, usually for defense and carry (I’d venture to say most) are going to choose something other than a high end 1911 for reasons featured in category one and two.

Part of that is cost. Not everyone has that kind of money to spend. Plus not everyone wants to carry the weight of such a pistol for a single stack of that size.

Plus there’s that word again that so often crops up in these discussions (‘Best’). Even if I had the money available to spend that much on a single pistol (I currently don’t) I wouldn’t choose one of those. To me it wouldn’t be my idea of what is ‘Best’.

Then again I’m not going to try and make anyone else choose a pistol based on what my idea of best is. Some of you are going to be coming to the table with a different set of criteria.

It's my philosophy, and it works for me.
I’d agree with that.
 
Buy a very expensive gun. Find you shoot it better than anything else. Carry it with confidence. The gun gets beaten up in the process. You eventually die (hopefully of natural causes at a ripe old age). The gun is handed down to one of your kids, who mostly keeps it hidden away somewhere. But when they take it out, what a cool story they have about how their father (or mother) used to carry that gun daily, to protect themselves and the whole family, because they shot it so well.

I purchased a number of fine firearms from descendants. Don't waste money thinking your descendants or inheritors will appreciate the quality, workmanship, and features of your firearms. You don't understand their motivations and you won't be able to control what they will do. I will tell you what they really, really, want: they want CASH. They want cash quickly convertible to cases of Jack Daniels and cartons of cigarettes.

Buy and use the gun for yourself.
 
I read it as carry what works best and don't worry about the cost of losing it.
That's a philosophy that's hard to argue with.
I don't have any real expensive handguns above 1500ish, but have many that are in the 1K ish range, I'll carry anything from my $200 LCP to my $1100 (used) STI VIP.
 
Buy and use the gun for yourself.

I do just that! But I think many of us would very much appreciate inheriting a quality firearm with some good history, from a close relative.

I'm not saying it should be a factor in choosing a CC handgun. But perhaps it will take the sting out of carrying (and putting wear on) a more expensive gun, for some people.
 
I carried a 1911 for years but it was a cheaper one. I’d have to say I’m not carrying a high dollar shooter. Not that my life’s not worth it. But there is a bunch of guns in the 300-400 dollar price range that work quite well. I can’t afford that nighthawk or Ed brown at the moment but if I could I wouldn’t be carrying it. If you have to use it you won’t get it back.

If you have to use it, your lawyer is going to make that Wilson Combat seem pretty cheap.
 
And I don't think that anyone posting in this thread has said, or implied, this (except for you bringing this notion up).
If you say so.

Plenty of posts that say “If you have to use it, your lawyer is going to make that Wilson Combat seem pretty cheap”, “I’ll trade a $2,000 gun for my life any day” or something similar.

That implies that something else isn’t up to the job. That attitude needs some revisiting. Pistols aren’t magic talismans.

Want to carry an expensive 1911? Go for it. You don’t have to justify your purchase to anyone. Least of all me. I’m just glad you’re armed and that you can protect you and yours.

Just so long as you can afford continued training and ammo along with that high end 1911 you’re good.
 
Still not seeing how you got here from there ... Perhaps there's some over-thinking going on? I'm simply seeing some realistic attitudes (that actually don't need revisiting) about letting go of property if the property does its job.

And if I drive a luxury car, does that imply that I don't think a Kia is up to the job? No, it just speaks to the fact that I can afford something more expensive, and have made a personal choice.

Certainly, nobody in the thread claimed pistols are magic talismans. I suspect most members here are pretty pragmatic about the limitations of any handgun with regard to the realm of self-defense.
 
That implies that something else isn’t up to the job. That attitude needs some revisiting. Pistols aren’t magic talismans.

As one of the few posters who carry a semi custom 1911. I certainly never stated nor implied that. I am rather glad that reliable pistols exist at all price points to meet everyone's budget. My only contention with the entire thread is the evidence room excuse.
 
As one of the few posters who carry a semi custom 1911. I certainly never stated nor implied that. I am rather glad that reliable pistols exist at all price points to meet everyone's budget. My only contention with the entire thread is the evidence room excuse.
No, you weren’t one if the ones I was talking about. Then again you’re always pretty straightforward in your approach without any posing.

Are you meaning the afraid to carry anything over a certain dollar amount mentality in case a shooting happens because they may or may not get the pistol back?

Probably because of sentimental attachment. I had one in the evidence room of the Denison Texas PD (eventually got it back) and it really bugged me that I couldn’t just go get it and it was only an almost $600 pistol. So I kinda get it.

People get attached to their weapons and tools. They don’t want to lose them even though it’ll cost them a greater amount in legal representation in the case or lawsuit. They already know they’ll probably have to pay out for an attorney. Losing the pistol too is adding insult to injury.

Wouldn’t stop me if it was better for my uses.
 
Are you meaning the afraid to carry anything over a certain dollar amount mentality in case a shooting happens because they may or may not get the pistol back?

Yes

Probably because of sentimental attachment. I had one in the evidence room of the Denison Texas PD (eventually got it back) and it really bugged me that I couldn’t just go get it and it was only an almost $600 pistol. So I kinda get it

My first handgun was stolen from my home. A few weeks later it was used in a murder and recovered at the scene. I never got the gun back. So i do know the feeling.
 
Personally, I would get a good gun costing a reasonable price and put the difference in ammo and more training. If someone needs a high cost, high end gun to get the job done, then I say go for it.
What ever gun you have, it is necessary to become one with the gun. Know it like the back of your hand, work it, often, train often. If you want a safe queen fine. I do not have the money to spend for those kind of luxuries. And even if I did have the money I would not.
 
Last edited:
If you say so.

Plenty of posts that say “If you have to use it, your lawyer is going to make that Wilson Combat seem pretty cheap”, “I’ll trade a $2,000 gun for my life any day” or something similar.

That implies that something else isn’t up to the job. That attitude needs some revisiting. Pistols aren’t magic talismans.

Those don’t read that way to me at all.

To me, their point is more along the lines of if you end up needing to use that expensive gun to defend yourself it’s cost/value will be the least of your concerns.
 
Me?

1. $500 - isn't expensive.
2. Hits Count.
3. Good Hits - count more.

So, the 1911 is really neither.

It is a Home/Office/Truck/Camp/Trail pistol.

GR

For some reason I find the 1911 pictured in your post actually more interesting and desirable than a high end model. It just has so much "Character", uniqueness, etc. And trustworthy.
 
Those don’t read that way to me at all.

To me, their point is more along the lines of if you end up needing to use that expensive gun to defend yourself it’s cost/value will be the least of your concerns.
I agree, I don't think that there is any implication that less expensive handguns are incapable of being successfully employed to defend one's life.

The only implication to me is that a more expensive 1911, or more expensive gun in general need not be treated as a range toy only.

The word need keeps coming up also. If someone chooses to carry a more expensive gun, why does that matter to anyone but the person carrying it? How many things in life do we indulge in that we don't need at all? Lots of people drive pickup truck who don't need them. No one actually needs cable or satellite tv. I don't need 15 different handguns, but I want them, so I own them.

It in no way detracts from or implies that someone choosing a less expensive gun is making a bad choice. Choose what works for you and what you are confident in, at any price point. If it's within your means, what does anyone else care?
 
I purchased a number of fine firearms from descendants. Don't waste money thinking your descendants or inheritors will appreciate the quality, workmanship, and features of your firearms. You don't understand their motivations and you won't be able to control what they will do. I will tell you what they really, really, want: they want CASH. They want cash quickly convertible to cases of Jack Daniels and cartons of cigarettes.

Buy and use the gun for yourself.

Agreed. My daughter will keep a few, some were my fathers and one was my grandfathers. She is also interested in the black-powder arms.

Beyond that, her plan is to contact the Masonic lodge and ask them for fair valuation.
 
I agree, I don't think that there is any implication that less expensive handguns are incapable of being successfully employed to defend one's life.

The only implication to me is that a more expensive 1911, or more expensive gun in general need not be treated as a range toy only.

The word need keeps coming up also. If someone chooses to carry a more expensive gun, why does that matter to anyone but the person carrying it? How many things in life do we indulge in that we don't need at all? Lots of people drive pickup truck who don't need them. No one actually needs cable or satellite tv. I don't need 15 different handguns, but I want them, so I own them.

It in no way detracts from or implies that someone choosing a less expensive gun is making a bad choice. Choose what works for you and what you are confident in, at any price point. If it's within your means, what does anyone else care?

I have not seen any post that any one cares one way or the other. Most people are just giving individual opinions. But Care? Lol, If you decide to jump into a lake today, I do not much care one way or the other. Have a good swim.
 
Personally, I would get a good gun costing a reasonable price and put the difference in ammo and more training. If someone needs a high cost, high end gun to get the job done, then I say go for it.
What ever gun you have, it is necessary to become one with the gun. Know it like the back of your hand, work it, often, train often. If you want a safe queen fine. I do not have the money to spend for those kind of luxuries. And even if I did have the money I would not.
I don't believe anyone thinks they "need" a $3000+ 1911 for a carry gun and most will at least admit to a very steep diminished return of function vs $$$.
Some people just like nice stuff AND can afford to use it.
 
I don't believe anyone thinks they "need" a $3000+ 1911 for a carry gun and most will at least admit to a very steep diminished return of function vs $$$.
Some people just like nice stuff AND can afford to use it.

Agree, but nice stuff is in the eye of the beholder. Expensive may be nice to some, where as a old beater may be a beauty to the next guy. But, I get your point. I use to have a Beagle, not Pedigree or high cost, but man could he hunt. Others need the Pedigree. That is fine. What ever works.
 
In these kinds of posts it always tries to insert the idea that anything that costs less than a Wilson Combat, an Ed Brown or a Nighthawk 1911 is somehow not up to the task of defending ones self with.

Now I guess someone could defend themselves with a Hi Point if they had very little money and had nothing else. It’s been done before. It’ll be done again.

However most of the pistols that people own, use and carry for defense are somewhere between those two extremes (I. E. Glock, CZ, Sig, Walther, H&K, S&W, Beretta, FN, Ruger, Kahr and even a Taurus or ten etc). Most often in defensive shootings these kinds of pistols are the ones likely to turn up.

People don’t need to spend $3,380, $3,495 or $4,549 to buy a pistol to defend themselves with. That’s a false premise.

I agree completely.

My post wasn't about having to spend a certain amount of money to properly defend yourself. I was referring to the argument of not carrying an expensive handgun (that you presumably already own) in favor of a less expensive one because you would be upset for having do without it after it saved your life. IMHO any money spent on a gun that saved your life is money well spent, even if you never see that gun again.
 
So what pistol do you carry and in what condition? A cocked and locked 1911 is one of the safest pistols one can carry.
I don't carry because in my Country (Italy) a carry license is very very hard to obtain. I'd carry (round in the chamber) a DA/SA pistol with a decocker-only feature like my Walther P99 AS or a revolver. In short I like having a gun ready to fire without previous actions like cocking the hammer or disengage the safety. And I'd like to have at least a firing pin safety in my carry gun.
I don't even like the idea to use a cocked-and-locked pistol as home-defense gun. That's why my 9mm Pardini is restricted as a range-only pistol (it's also too big of a pistol). If I only had it, then I'll use it but I have a couple better options for that role.
In many cases top end 1911s have very tight tolerances and need a break-in period to can trust them 100% as reliable carry pistols and this is even more true when going to Commander or Officer size of 1911 pistols. Not all people are willing to accept this.
I belive it's a "to each his own" situation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top