I think the 1911 was/is a great design with a lot to recommend it. That said, I think a lot of people get hung up on the "cool" factor and the history and believe it's the best handgun regardless of any features it lacks compared to newer designs. A lot has happened in the gun industry over the past century. Why not embrace progress? I like shooting 1911s, but I have a lot more faith in my P220 when the chips are down and it was cheaper than most of the premium 1911s I've seen.
"It's impossible to get a quality 1911 made in the USA for under $2,000"
- Thread starter StrikeFire83
- Start date
- Status
millertyme
Member
Funny thing about opinions; everyone has one and you might guess the rest.I don't have a 1911 and I don't know that I ever will. If I do purchase one it most certainly won't be some over-priced codpiece that some people insist you must get otherwise it won't be adequate in some regards or another.
On a side note, I don't know of any military that issues either a 1911 pistol or the .45ACP for a general service issue sidearm. If anyone knows feel free to let me know so I can remove that information from my database.
There isn't a lot of truth to this. Not much at all, in fact. I would wager more troops (usually under the banner of special forces, etc) carry an HK than a 1911, and there aren't a whole lot of them out there. Obvious, most troops carry an M9 or variant by an overwhelming majority. And they aren't used often enough for a soldier to have more than an uninformed preference. And in any battle I'd bet on the guy with the most ammo to win after I bet against the guy who thought he was going to count on a pistol to win the fight against the guy with the assault rifle.
Those are all fine and dandy, but you're showing your colors to be a little more than just patriotic. You also have a preference for the exaggeratedly priced options. Why, might I ask, is Ruger not in your pile? I'm not sure if you've ever heard of them, but Korth (Germany) makes a pretty fine revolver. I would put it on par with any of the ones you mentioned as far as workmanship is concerned. I don't think I've ever handled a finer revolver in my life.
Now we're all confused. You threw Savage in with all your other high-priced preferences. What's going on here? You must only be talking about the really nice Savage rifles. After all, if they aren't at least $800 they couldn't be worthy of your discerning trigger finger. And they better not come with a scope or bipod or any other extras. It's great that those guys can make some pretty amazing rifles (Accuracy International is a British company, I believe), but only Colt (who bought a license to a design patent from Stoner/Armalite) was able to make it cheap enough to get it into service.
I'm all about America being the best. I would even take our filthy scumbag politicians over foreign scumbag politicians.
In short, I don't care for 1911's other than the man who designed it. I appreciate when someone calls their 1911 a Browning, since by that time Colt wasn't so heavily invested in designing firearms as much as they were interested in buying design patents and putting their name on them. If Browning comes out with a 1911 I'll pony up the dough and buy it for relevance then shoot the heck out of it. Heck, I don't even care for the caliber unless it has a dash and some double or triple digit behind that.
millertyme
Member
For sure the couple DW's I've handled were pretty impressive for the price. I think one was a Valor for around $1200 OTD. Maybe I'm wrong. It was bobbed(?) and seemed as well put together as the $2000 Kimber the guy wanted to show me.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
My 1911's from low end too high; have run reliability without any major issues:
A)Springfield Armory 5" box stock G.I. model S/N: WW12xxx
B)Kimber 3" Stainless Ultra Carry II .45 ACP S/N: KU36XXX
C)Smith & Wesson 5" Stainless SW1911 .45 ACP S/N: JRF 5XXX
D)Les Baer Custom 5" Thunder Ranch Special .45 ACP S/N: TRS 02XXX
all of these have been 100% reliable, straight from the box; and NONE
have had to go back to the factory for warranty repair work~!
A)Springfield Armory 5" box stock G.I. model S/N: WW12xxx
B)Kimber 3" Stainless Ultra Carry II .45 ACP S/N: KU36XXX
C)Smith & Wesson 5" Stainless SW1911 .45 ACP S/N: JRF 5XXX
D)Les Baer Custom 5" Thunder Ranch Special .45 ACP S/N: TRS 02XXX
all of these have been 100% reliable, straight from the box; and NONE
have had to go back to the factory for warranty repair work~!
OP
OP
StrikeFire83
Member
^ Did the Springfield GI fire hollow points reliably or just FMJ? If so, I'm impressed.
Then again, newer designs lack some features that the 1911 has, such as its trigger, and the combination of large size and thinness that makes it so controllable yet concealable. It may not be the be-all-end-all for everybody, and it never was, but it fills a significant niche even for those who aren't just into it for the history or coolness. In addition, there are updated 1911s that add some newer features without significantly detracting from its other qualities.
On the other hand, why embrace "progress" for its own sake? Because newer is cooler or something? Are the infamous S&W internal locks a type of "progress" that we all should embrace? Maybe people should send their old revolvers in to get them retrofitted.
I don't believe that personal preferences are rendered obsolete just by the mere passage of time. For example, I for one have no use for certain newer features such as DA/SA trigger systems. I don't fault those who prefer it for their own reasons, though, any more than I would fault anybody for preferring the 1911. My own primary defensive handgun happens to be a newfangled polymer pistol, so I'm not against "progress" per se, but I'm not saying that it's better just because it's newer, either (and the 1911, old as it is, still has some advantages over it and other more modern pistols).
Would it mean anything if they did? I think that military organizations make a lot of poor decisions about equipment and many other things.
I don't know about 1911s and HKs, but I see a lot of them carrying Glocks these days. I guess that means the old M9 is becoming obsolete (or is it?).
The M9 is most frequently carried because it is issued, but soldiers who show a preference tend to carry Glocks, at least from what I've seen. I'm not trying to promote Glocks here (I don't even own one), but I think that's a smart choice because Glocks are exceptionally well suited for the environments in which our troops typically operate. Not that I'd fault anybody for preferring the M9/Beretta 92FS overall for personal use, but the fact that the US military issues it does not mean that it is inherently superior to any other pistol, or for that matter even that it is the best choice for their troops.
Perhaps that is the main niche that many American handgun manufacturers currently find themselves in--producing the best quality at higher than mass-produced prices, while European manufacturers currently dominate the mass-produced gun market. If the situation were reversed, I am positive that somebody would use it to make American manufacturers look bad, as well.
Korth--nice workmanship alright, but now you're really talking OVERpriced.
millertyme
Member
Yeah, the one Korth I was allowed to touch certainly didn't make me desire it. Especially at over two grand. I built skyscrapers for close to a decade. Steel is just steel to me, for the most part. A nicely engraved piece I might have appreciation for.
I never cared much for Beretta's. I don't know exactly what it was, but in basic and outside they just never spoke to me. I would have rather pulled a field knife on a combatant than that pistol. (but probably not)
Glock's certainly don't sing to me either. Never met one I had to have.
I think the biggest difference in the European guns and the American guns has already been mentioned; that Americans are consumers of handguns whereas the people who live in a lot of the places where European guns are manufactured are not. We tend to drive the market up for certain designs. And when it comes to something American vs. something not, I would hope that we'd choose the former for our identity's sake. Now I'm thinking I might need a 1911 to define my patriotism. Oh the conundrum...
I never cared much for Beretta's. I don't know exactly what it was, but in basic and outside they just never spoke to me. I would have rather pulled a field knife on a combatant than that pistol. (but probably not)
Glock's certainly don't sing to me either. Never met one I had to have.
I think the biggest difference in the European guns and the American guns has already been mentioned; that Americans are consumers of handguns whereas the people who live in a lot of the places where European guns are manufactured are not. We tend to drive the market up for certain designs. And when it comes to something American vs. something not, I would hope that we'd choose the former for our identity's sake. Now I'm thinking I might need a 1911 to define my patriotism. Oh the conundrum...
I like the idea of buying American-made, but I have to ask the question why Europe can mass produce quality guns but we can't (at least not for the same price). We're not talking about competing with third-world sweatshops here, but countries like Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Italy, etc. Companies like S&W and Ruger have started to give Glock some real competition, so maybe we'll see that trend continue. I certainly hope so.
Glock is the most sold, yes, but it's had a head start over new models like the M&P series. A lot of people who would have bought a Glock in the past have now opted for an M&P, SRx, XDm, or what have you. Glock doesn't have the market cornered anymore.
If a reputable American company started producing SIG clones (or insert your favorite Euro brand) with comparable quality and a similar price, I'd probably opt for the American-made product. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If a reputable American company started producing SIG clones (or insert your favorite Euro brand) with comparable quality and a similar price, I'd probably opt for the American-made product. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Jed Carter
Member
STI, make some of the most reliable and accurate 1911 pistols right out of the box, for under 2K. SIG and S&W have external extractors but shoot and function as a "modern" 1911 should. The S&W Performance Center 1911 can be had for less than $1900. If I could only own one 1911 it would be an STI, if I could get a refund on one of my 1911s it would be the Para Ordnance GI Expert.
Lobo_79
Member
Do you know if DW has another manufacturing outlet other than the Czech Republic? http://www.cz-usa.com/products/view/dan-wesson-pointman-nine/
I'm probably mistaken but I thought DW used CZ for their manufacturing in part to hold the line on manufacturing costs.
Zerodefect
member
I don't think that's true. But I really don't know for sure. I know for a while alot of high end 1911's got thier rough base forgings from Korea, then finish machined and fitted them here in the US.
DW's come from Norwich, New York.
But even if they were machined in Czech, that might be a good thing. The Czech's are excellent machinists from what I've seen in other industries.
JohnBT
Member
" but I have to ask the question why Europe can mass produce quality guns but we can't (at least not for the same price). "
What? Where do you get this stuff?
What? Where do you get this stuff?
JohnBT said:
I get it from observing that people who depend on their pistol (LEOs, military, etc.) generally buy a European product. Meanwhile, the American-made 1911s cost more than something of similar quality (albeit different design) from Europe.
Zerodefect
member
I'll give ya that.
1911's in thier current form just can't be produced as cheaply as a Glock. And the Glock handily outperforms cheaper 1911's. Not to mention PD's and LEO's aren't exactly overflowing with cash to put towards finicky 1911's and proper training. Glocks are cheaper to get, and easier to use.
The Glock is based on CNC type technology. 1911's are based on an old guy with a file, Arkansas stone, and 100 hours labor technology.
Glocks require no fitting at all. 1911's require a ton.
Could a hightech single action 1911 style gun with a modern linkless barrel be made, and be redesighned to incorporate modern machining techniques, no fitting. Sure. But noone has made such a thing....... yet.
millertyme
Member
They get some pretty sweet deals on Glocks. LEO discounts are pretty deep and if the pistol is that reliable and already fairly inexpensive to begin with the LEO discount make it that much better.
Another issue is the loss of fine motor skills under pressure. A fine motor skill like aiming a gun and firing accurately while taking fire from some crazed criminal. I would prefer to have 15 and 17 round magazines to 7 to 10 rounds. Like I said before, in a fire fight I'll bet on the guy with more ammo at his disposal.
Technically, we can and are doing it. The question is whether American companies can recapture the various markets, which is a different issue.
Yes, and it only goes to show that future behavior is best predicted by past behavior.
What you're describing as permanent characteristics based on geography are really just part of cycles in business. The recent problems Toyota has been having, for example, are the result of company management looking at how Americans have been doing business in recent decades--namely cutting corners while jacking up prices--and wondering "Why can't we do that?" So they did, and then they paid for it later, too. In the meantime, American automobile manufacturing has improved in quality and continues to do so because they've finally realized that if they don't, then they won't survive. This all looks like human nature to me, wherever you're from.
If you'll recall, the Sigma was originally rushed to market and had a lot of problems as a result, despite the proven system. I'm not very familiar with the PPK issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened. Back to the Sigma, it is quite a reliable pistol now, so that answers the question of whether quality mass-produced pistols can be manufactured in the United States for a reasonable price (significantly lower than that of Glocks). So I guess what you're saying is that American manufacturers cannot design their own reliable pistols, but that's not true as we can see with the S&W M&P that competes directly against the Glock at a similar price point.
dickttx
Member
Bought a Colt SS Rail gun off Gunbroker a couple of months ago. $1,018 to me. About 700/800 rounds thru it so far. First 250 were white box WW and bulk RP. Since then 200gn MBC FNRP, 12 BH in several loadings with HP38 and Unique. I have used the two 8 round Colt mags and two 7 round SA SS's. NO hitches, PERIOD.
I don't think that quality mass-produced 1911s (e.g. from Colt) cost significantly more than SIGs or HKs. The issue is that so many customers, particularly police departments, want a different system that takes less training to avoid accidents (maybe firearms training is what really became obsolete). Yet the one pistol that has taken over the market, namely Glock, gets around this issue by providing a relatively light trigger that is called "DAO" even though it really isn't exactly that. There is no shortage of accidents with it due to inadequate training, but police departments generally feel pretty good about it anyway because it is "DAO." By the way, S&W has now gone one step farther by fooling everybody into thinking that their M&P is "DAO" when it's really a true SAO, period. Whatever works for marketing, I guess, which brings me to another point, which is (surprise!) the importance of marketing.
OP
OP
StrikeFire83
Member
We hear this argument again and again, how single action firearms with safeties "require so much more training" than guns without them I think it's bogus. If a person is following the 3 rules of gun safety, they shouldn't be any more likely to have a negligent discharge with a 1911 than with a Glock. The only advantage for PDs I can see in having a Glock over a 1911, besides cost, is that the longer trigger pull give them a better argument in court for situations where a nervous officer got spooked and "accidentally" shot a person he wasn't supposed to.
But, frankly, you're not going to have a ND with a 1911 if you don't thumb the safety down and pull the trigger, period. Likewise, you're not going to have a ND with Glock if you don't pull the trigger until you're pointing at something you intend to shoot.
Manco said:
You make some good points. I'd counter that a gun that's easier to learn is probably better if it can deliver similar performance, but I realize there are subtle differences that make people prefer one system or another. I agree that the 4.5-5.5 "DOA" trigger on a Glock is a little light if you're foregoing a safety. That's about the same weight as the SA pull on a DA/SA SIG.
- Status
