MTMilitiaman
Member
I understand why steel framed guns by and large tend to cost more than polymer framed guns. Their frames have more machining and aren't poured into a mold. Metal tends to cost more than polymer. That is why the prices HK asks for their handguns are so ridiculous.
But I was wondering why a 1911 should cost 50%+ more than other automatic handgun designs with steel or alloy frames and comparable quality or features. For example, I want a .45 ACP. I have a Glock 20, and that is it. I don't mind the Glock. Like an AK, it is what it is and I can admire its simple and rugged simplicity. But whether it is the cartridge or the handgun, or a combination of both, I don't shoot it as well as a 1911 .45. So while the 10mm might still get the nod for hiking and hunting, I would like a .45 for a bedstand gun. I require night sights, a rail for a light, and if the pistol isn't a striker fired design, the safety must be ambi, framed mounted, and down-swept. I am leaning towards a 1911, in which case I have an additional requirement--it must be a Series-70 design with internal extractor, half-length guide rod, ect.
I have been eye-balling the Springfield Armory MC Operator. But I can't get one question out of my mind--why should the Springfield 1911 cost so much more than, say a SAO SIG P220? Both have rails, night sights, SAO mechanisms (albeit slightly different in design), ambi safeties, quality metal coatings, as well as similar capacities and barrel lengths. Yet the MC Operator retails for ~$1200 while the SIG retails for ~$800, as near as I can tell. Esp with the Springfield's use of MIM parts, supposedly to reduce costs, this makes no sense to me.
Again, I understand why 1911c cost more than Glocks and should cost more than HKs, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why they should cost more than SIGs or other competing steel or alloy framed autos.
But I was wondering why a 1911 should cost 50%+ more than other automatic handgun designs with steel or alloy frames and comparable quality or features. For example, I want a .45 ACP. I have a Glock 20, and that is it. I don't mind the Glock. Like an AK, it is what it is and I can admire its simple and rugged simplicity. But whether it is the cartridge or the handgun, or a combination of both, I don't shoot it as well as a 1911 .45. So while the 10mm might still get the nod for hiking and hunting, I would like a .45 for a bedstand gun. I require night sights, a rail for a light, and if the pistol isn't a striker fired design, the safety must be ambi, framed mounted, and down-swept. I am leaning towards a 1911, in which case I have an additional requirement--it must be a Series-70 design with internal extractor, half-length guide rod, ect.
I have been eye-balling the Springfield Armory MC Operator. But I can't get one question out of my mind--why should the Springfield 1911 cost so much more than, say a SAO SIG P220? Both have rails, night sights, SAO mechanisms (albeit slightly different in design), ambi safeties, quality metal coatings, as well as similar capacities and barrel lengths. Yet the MC Operator retails for ~$1200 while the SIG retails for ~$800, as near as I can tell. Esp with the Springfield's use of MIM parts, supposedly to reduce costs, this makes no sense to me.
Again, I understand why 1911c cost more than Glocks and should cost more than HKs, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why they should cost more than SIGs or other competing steel or alloy framed autos.