Sidearms & Scatterguns 1911 Quality vs. Price

[R Moran]

What JMB envisoned is up for debate..he also envisoned a gun with two links on teh barrel, and no grip safety, etc.
Orginal blued 1911's(not 1911A1's) were hand fit by the Colt factory..loose clearances were not part of the design. Only later during WW2, did tolerances loosen...maybe. I think most of the looseness in GI guns, comes from the fact that we bought the last ones in 1945, over use and over cleaning.
FWIW, we had a hard time putting the Moros down with .45LC, 30/40Krag, 30/06 and 12g.

IIRC the Norincos had good hard forged frames, but the small parts left something to be desired. Either way, tehy are no longer imported, and demand a bit of a premium, last I checked.

Back during the Y2k craziness, a co-worker asked me about his Norinco 1911, & "what's it mean when the slide goes foward & the hammer drops"...I told him "it means you shoulda bought a Colt."

I beleive that Colt addressed the issue of the cracking frames well before it was selected by the USMC.

Bob

 

[shane45]

In what way do you "Heavily agree" with R. Moran? What have I posted that you "Heavily disagree" with? Is hand fitting necessary? Are mega springs necessary? Is minimal tolerance slide to frame fit necessary? Is a tight chamber necessary? Do magazine feed lips make a difference?

What have I posted that is provably false? None of the above are necessary for a reliable and accurate 1911.

Asperly, I am a long time student of the 1911. And like Bob have done a few rounds on the 1911 centric forums. So when I hear the rhetoric about "everything else is a copy" it triggers the rhetoric red flag. For being a hard core 1911 fan, I don't own a single Colt. But then again I don't own a single production 1911 save 1. Yes I just had to have the new STI Nitro 10! Guilty! Anyway, the other comments you made in regards to all the ninja super spring stuff again suggests some red flags. Like anything there is lots of snake oil out there. BUT there are also a lot of people out there that truly know how to build an accurate reliable fighting 1911. The comments you made could probably be found to be true in some circles also BUT it does not make it an absolute for the 1911 world. The link in this thread to Severn's test is one worth a read. I would simply add that in the same spirit a 1911 can be made accurate by everything that is done with it by a good smith, they can be made reliable as well. All the extra cuts, fitting techniques, reliefs etc etc put into it are absent on even mid level 1911's. I have said it before but in my opinion 1911's were designed to be manufactured when labor was cheap and technology was expensive. Today the opposite is true. So manufacturers try and skirt labor with technology by making it fit close enough without much human intervention. I would say they also bank on the fact MOST people put very few rounds through the majority of pistols that are sold. So much goes unexposed. This is not how the 1911 was designed to be produced and this is why a good smith can do wonders building one with all the personal attention placed where it needs to be. But all of this is likely lost on a person that shoots two boxes a year. And therein lies the difference of the guy that runs a platform and wants the pinnacle of performance, reliability and durability vs the guy after either bragging rights or is a casual shooter and it just don't matter what he buys. You can extrapolate that to just about anything. Rifles, cars, bikes etc. But a bone stock Remington is not a Surgeon, A Hyundai isn't a Ferrari, a Hyosung isn't a Ducati.....even though they all perform the same function more or less.

 

[FN in MT]

I heavily agree with R. Moran and heavily disagree with Asperely Aimless.

So many asinine comments here I don't have the energy to type out a reply. Shane 45 encapsulates things for me.

 

[Asperly Aimless]

So many asinine comments here I don't have the energy to type out a reply. Shane 45 encapsulates things for me.

Great job posting....nothing. Make sure you stick with them hunting bullets because match bullets don't kill stuff. however; I digresss...

 

[BassSlinger]

Les Baer makes a 1911 with Wilson quality without all the bells and whistles. They also can go for sub $2000. For $400 more than a TRP you get a 1911 that is hand fitted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Asperly Aimless]

Asperly, I am a long time student of the 1911. And like Bob have done a few rounds on the 1911 centric forums. So when I hear the rhetoric about "everything else is a copy" it triggers the rhetoric red flag. For being a hard core 1911 fan, I don't own a single Colt. But then again I don't own a single production 1911 save 1. Yes I just had to have the new STI Nitro 10! Guilty! Anyway, the other comments you made in regards to all the ninja super spring stuff again suggests some red flags. Like anything there is lots of snake oil out there. BUT there are also a lot of people out there that truly know how to build an accurate reliable fighting 1911. The comments you made could probably be found to be true in some circles also BUT it does not make it an absolute for the 1911 world. The link in this thread to Severn's test is one worth a read. I would simply add that in the same spirit a 1911 can be made accurate by everything that is done with it by a good smith, they can be made reliable as well. All the extra cuts, fitting techniques, reliefs etc etc put into it are absent on even mid level 1911's. I have said it before but in my opinion 1911's were designed to be manufactured when labor was cheap and technology was expensive. Today the opposite is true. So manufacturers try and skirt labor with technology by making it fit close enough without much human intervention. I would say they also bank on the fact MOST people put very few rounds through the majority of pistols that are sold. So much goes unexposed. This is not how the 1911 was designed to be produced and this is why a good smith can do wonders building one with all the personal attention placed where it needs to be. But all of this is likely lost on a person that shoots two boxes a year. And therein lies the difference of the guy that runs a platform and wants the pinnacle of performance, reliability and durability vs the guy after either bragging rights or is a casual shooter and it just don't matter what he buys. You can extrapolate that to just about anything. Rifles, cars, bikes etc. But a bone stock Remington is not a Surgeon, A Hyundai isn't a Ferrari, a Hyosung isn't a Ducati.....even though they all perform the same function more or less.

I don't "hang" on many internet forums so I'm not sure what you all have had to deal with on the 1911 centric.

A. Everything else is a copy. That is historical fact. Colt was the original manufacturer. While they can't claim the design, they are still the original manufacturers and the originals.
B. There is lots of snake oil out there. That is WHY I mentioned the ninja springs. I should have avoided the use of the term ninja. I find too heavy of springs to be snake oil. I also find that the hybid magazine feed lips are superior to other feed lip designs.
C. I am not talking of cutting corners or anything. What I am saying is, is that the things I mentioned are not necessary to the accurate and reliable function of a 1911. Nothing more, and nothing less.
D. I do not care if most people put two boxes of ammo through a month. That is irrelevant. Really, it is. I do not "run" 1911 pistols. I do shoot upwards of 13,000 rds a year and I use a dedicated super 1050 to load my ammo on. I expect my stock 1911 pistols to shoot my entire range trip with no malfunctions. I shoot lead bullets lubed with a smokey and sticky lube. My guns run fine and are bone stock.

I am not extrapolating anything. Just stating what happens on a monthly basis.

We can tweak accuracy and reliability requirements all day to fit which side we are defending. However; I choose not to an will move on from here and maybe go search out that 1911 centric forum.

 

[shane45]

So your sample of a couple pistols trumps the wisdom of those that have had hundreds if not thousands of 1911's through their hands? Im sure there is a Llama 1911 out there that has been a perfect storm of assembly and is dead reliable. Doesn't mean I want to run out and buy one, the odds are not in my favor. Id prefer to remove the luck of assembly from the equation and buy a well built 1911 and increase my odds. By your logic it would seem I should shun a Lamborghini Aventador because after all its just a copy of what, a model A Ford? If you think a stock Colt 1911 gets you a better pistol, rock on. But the reality is quite different in my experience.

 

[Asperly Aimless]

Never said my sample of 1911 pistols trumps anything. However; I do find it funny that now that you know (or at least I claim) I shoot more than "2 boxes per year" from my 1911's that you change tack. That's fine.

Nothing I have posted is provably false just as nothing you have posted is provably false.

I did not say shun other pistols. I just posted what is not necessary. The OP asked about a good carry gun, and I gave him my opinion as did you all.

I have owned many 1911's through the years from many price spectrums. I came to my current thinking and preferences through experience. I just don't feel the need to name drop or talk about "thousands of 1911's in my hands" to say anything. People can take what I say and maybe think on it, or they can call me a bozo and buy what they want (that is what I would do as I rarely listen to random internet posters).


My message has remained short and clear through out, while you have all felt the need to pontificate more and more with every reply. I'm good. You all have fun and continue to read into, and add to, what I said (which I thought I spoke clearly enough to avoid that issue).

 

[shane45]

Asperly Aimless, your starting to sound clueless! My tack has not changed at all. Your just missing the points presented to you. The POINT was the needs of a 2 box a year shooter that only shoots at paper are met by almost anything. The differences between the top and bottom don't mean anything to that person. A dedicated shooter wanting to run a 1911 platform will realize more of a benefit from their choice. The only thing you and I are disagreeing on is where that line is. What is muddying your perception of the topic is that you are taking all comments to mean you personally instead of the generalizations that they are. Re read my post from a broad spectrum of shooters perspective instead of applying the comments to you personally and I think you may arrive at a different conclusion. Honestly, I don't see how you arrived at any implication from me that YOU are a two box a year shooter....

 

[Asperly Aimless]

I have answered the OP's question. He put out his requiremants for the pistol. They are met by any plain vanilla (mid level like Colt, Kimber, Sig, Springfield) 1911 on the market right now. Not operator as F, but good for blasting a few thousand rds a year without going tits up. Actually good for more than that, but they do satisfy the OP's base requirements without costing his children's college fund.

Shane45: The letter "I" in reference to yourself was used a whole bunch in your previous post I replied to. So you can put your beliefs based on your experience (and...GASP...emotions) on here, but I am clueless when I do? Got it.

 

[shane45]

Fair enough. But keep in mind that the OP also asked what separates the top from the bottom.

"Shane45: The letter "I" in reference to yourself was used a whole bunch in your previous post I replied to. So you can put your beliefs based on your experience (and...GASP...emotions) on here, but I am clueless when I do? Got it."

Not at all. Point out to me where I questioned your experience. The problem is in your interpretation. As I said, you somehow concluded I said you shoot two boxes a year. I never said or even implied this. The two box a year comment was part of a greater point of what different needs are met by varying degrees of shooter. A perfect example of what I am saying. A customer at the shop was aware I am a 1911 guy. So he left the sales guy and came over and asked my opinion. His goal was to become familiar with the 1911. He stated he was a casual shooter and would shoot it only a few times a year. No interest in competing, home defense, classes or anything beyond a once in a while casual outing. To that customer, selling him a Wilson/EB/Nighthawk or full custom would only feed either pride of ownership or ego. So my answer for him was that the Taurus he was interested would be fine for his stated needs. I also told him that at that price point he could expect to lose between 100 and 150 dollars should he decide he wanted to sell it off down the road as experiment concluded or time to upgrade. Now if the customer told me he was dedicated to the 1911 platform and wanted a unit he could stake his life on and hit two or 3 high round count classes a year, the answer would have been entirely different.

 

[Asperly Aimless]

How about this: "So your sample of a couple pistols trumps the wisdom of those that have had hundreds if not thousands of 1911's through their hands?"

Followed by this facetious piece: "Im sure there is a Llama 1911 out there that has been a perfect storm of assembly and is dead reliable."

 

[buggsb]

I'll toss in a comment that at the moment I think the Dan Wesson/CZ 1911's are one of the top values out there. I own 1911's from Colt, Springfield, Para, Kimber, as well as a few Custom's. After recently completing a 90 day T&E on a Dan Wesson Specialist I am really impressed with the quality of components as well as fit and finish. Compared to my other "rack grade" guns this one was a lot closer to the custom builds. Little details like beveling sharp edges and the superb slide fit are usually only found on the higher end guns. Of course, it was reliable and accurate as well. When responding to similar requests to the OP in the past, the Springfield TRP was always my "go to" answer. While the TRP is still a good full featured 1911 the Dan Wesson's should be considered as well.

 

[shane45]

How about this: "So your sample of a couple pistols trumps the wisdom of those that have had hundreds if not thousands of 1911's through their hands?"

Followed by this facetious piece: "Im sure there is a Llama 1911 out there that has been a perfect storm of assembly and is dead reliable."

Understand the reference. You are saying your stock guns have run fine. Just about every well know smith out there says that a stock Colt will need a reliability package of some sort. This dovetails with the bazillion, "my new Colt is having issues" threads.

Its not facetious at all. I was attempting to get you to understand that a pistol without human intervention may actually run right. But the vast general experience is different.

 

[Asperly Aimless]

Ell oh ell.

If I made my money 'smithing 1911 pistols, I'd say they all need a reliability package as well.

 

[Riggs308]

This thread needs a poll

 

[clmayfield]

I agree, the Dan Wessons look like the bargain in the market right now for a semi-custom pistol. I own a Baer. I would like to have an Ed Brown some day after I own a Les Baer Monolith and maybe a Baer Bullseye Wadcutter (more for the optics mount than anything). I wouldn't mind carrying a DW CBOB. For whatever reason, I just don't drink the Wilson Kool-Aid. I am not saying their bad... they're just not for me. Solid reputation, though, and I have never heard of anyone getting a bad one.

 

[ZombieMonkey]

My vote for the best value for quality/price is going to be the Dan Wesson pistols.

If you're not quite wanting to spring for that much cash, the next step below I would recommend is the TRP. It's a solid pistol and my particular TRP has been a great performer over the course of the 2000+ rounds I've put through it in the last year and a half. Bone stock minus VZ grips and a threaded storm lake barrel for when I shoot it suppressed. No issues, though I may at some point change the 2-piece guide rod out just for the hell of it.

 

[Jefe~]

I have a 70 series Gold Cup NM and a SIG Nightmare. Both are great, but I was pleasantly surprised by the SIG Nightmare. I bought it with a small nudge from my local dealer and I am glad that I did. I have no doubt that it shoots better than me, it does what I ask of it, and hasn't given me any issues at all.
The attached picture is slow fire at 10 yards

 

[R Moran]

Aimless,
I'm confused..I thought this was a discussion forum, where people discuss topics. A question was asked, and I brought forth some things I've learned over the years. But, since it wasn't a short tweet of an answer, it's "pontificating"?
The OP asked what seperated more expensive 1911's from cheaper one's, and I responded to the question and other responses.
Short answers that usually end with "nuff said" are rarely enough.
All you did was state your belief about heavy springs, tight chambers and ninja mags...how does that help? What is considered a heavy spring? What is considered "accurate"?
Never mind whether or not someone disagrees with you, it's pointless, because your original post contained little supporting information to know what to agree or disagree with.

FWIW, I noted where to find some good info from people who are very knowledgable about the 1911. I'm fairly certain the amount of 1911 use LAV has performed and witnessed is not insignificant. Same for Hackathorn and Yam...not your everyday "random internet poster".

I stated I liked the Colt, and some of the new guns like the XS and Rail gun are some of the best guns they've made. Anything I changed on one would be for personal preference.
Taking what I've learned over the years, I would be looking to spend about 1-1.5K on a 1911, which is hard to stomach...I would not spend much more then that...the juice is not worth the squeeze IMO...on the other hand...I wouldn't spend much less on a 1911 meant for Duty/Carry/hard use.

Both Vickers and Yam, have pretty much moved on from the 1911. They usually never recommend them for anyone but the hard core dedicated "enthusiast".

Whenever people start talking about what JMB & God intended, dead nazis, etc. the discussion usually goes south.
When I said 1911 centric forum, I meant a particuliar forum dedicated to the 1911, the name of which I'll keep quiet. As far as I know, there is no "1911centricforums.com"
I post as R. Moran everywhere, so I'm sure you'll be able to dig up my old posts,regarding the 1911 at numerous forums.

Bob

 

[Asperly Aimless]

I have enjoyed the discussion immensley and have learned from it.

 

[EddieNFL]

I don't know why it matters that Colt didn't design either the 1911 or AR.

It doesn't. Just as the Colt rollmark doesn't guarantee a well built, reliable anything. If someone wishes to nitpick, we should all be driving de Rivaz automobiles (or Benz Motorwagens, depending on who you think deserves credit). All other automobiles are just copies.

 

[Unknown]

I feared that this thread was digressing into bickering, but I am pleased to see that it seems back on track. There are some very interesting opinions, personal experiences with various pistols, and overall a very informative thread. I find it interesting to hear what other people's experience with various 1911's has been. I have only owned about a dozen over the past 40 years or so, so my experience isn't nearly as deep as many people's.

While I like the 1911's, I have sold or traded off most of them because they no longer did what I needed. Most of the ones I owned were more than accurate enough for the shooting I did. If I could do reasonably fast head shots on IPSC targets at 15-20 yards, that was plenty accurate enough. Frankly I never imagined myself trying that in the real world in any case. I always struggled more to get the reliability I wanted.

As I carried a pistol on duty for many decades, I believed that reliability was FAR more important than accuracy. I wanted a pistol that went bang every time. When I got to decide on my agencies qualification, it ended up with zero alibis, and a cold qualification... No warm up, draw the pistol you carry from your duty carry gear, and get to work..if it doesn't work, you simply don't qualify. There sure aren't any alibis on the street.

In any case, to the OP's questions about cost and quality... You can try any brand of pistols, and will likely find that while many may be great, the next pistol off the same line is nothing but headaches. And the reverse can happen in that most are junk, but the factory produces the occasional fluke that runs great. However, I wouldn't recommend (and I doubt other people would) trying out crap pistols in the hopes that you find the odd one that runs great.

If you buy a pistol of reasonably good quality, with the expectation that it will take some tweaking to make it run like you want, you won't be disappointed. If you buy a pistol costing $700-1000 with the expectation that it will run perfectly, and be very accurate out of the box, you will probably be disappointed. But it could happen that you get lucky and get one that runs great.

Accuracy, reliability, low price...pick any two. (something like that)

 

[Abq-Defense]

We all can pick a 1911 who's looks we like. Many of us have a good idea about which are generally more accurate. But knowing which will have few/no issues over 50,000-100,000 rounds seems hard to ascertain.

So out of the brands of 1911 discussed so far (Kimber, Colt, Les Baer, Ed Brown, Wilson, etc), which ones are PROVEN to be reliable over tens of thousands of rounds? I am talking experience, not theory.

 

[steve123]

OT a little bit but...

I remember back in the 80's and 90's in our local IPSC matches that the "go-to" pistol was the 1911, mostly Colt's but most every other brand too. I quickly learned that if I wanted a reliable pistol then I needed to steer away from 1911's. I got a BHP, which ran like a top and was winning most of the matches with it even though it was minor PF. Later I got a G22, the first one in our town, which enabled me to dominate because it ran so well and had major PF. Afterwards, I had a $1800 38 super 1911 built by a well known smith down in Phoenix. It was just like all the 1911's i had owned which malfunctioned occasionally so I got rid of it. Next was the STI 2011 in 40 cal - IMO it is the up there with the most reliable pistols ever created. The only times it's ever malfunctioned was when there was a good reason like bad reloads/ primers backwards, uncharged case, etc. Like a dumbass I sold it to try other pistols again! I then sold most of them and bought another 2011/40 which always works, is super accurate and is incredibly soft shooting.

After owning four, I will never own another 1911, just sayin.

 

[madarcher427]

I have a dw valor it's been excellent so far . I have been considering getting a springfield mil spec or a rock island .

 

[clmayfield]

We all can pick a 1911 who's looks we like. Many of us have a good idea about which are generally more accurate. But knowing which will have few/no issues over 50,000-100,000 rounds seems hard to ascertain.

So out of the brands of 1911 discussed so far (Kimber, Colt, Les Baer, Ed Brown, Wilson, etc), which ones are PROVEN to be reliable over tens of thousands of rounds? I am talking experience, not theory.

I can tell you which will have no issues in 50-100,000 rounds. None of the above. There is a match called the 1,000 round challenge. Here is a summary of one of the matches:
Glock vs. 1911 1000 Round Match in OK 10/20/2007 - THR

The challenge is to fire 1,000 rounds with no maintenance (including no lube). They are firing for record though, so if you last 1,000 rounds, the high score wins. Any gun can compete. Very very few actually finish the course of fire. This includes all malfunctions including failure to lock back on an empty mag. You are only allowed to manually cycle the first round.

The year in the post (2007), a Glock and a Colt 1911 Government made it to the end. The Glock won on time. In the previous years, a 1911 won once and a Glock won twice. It is an interesting thread. The guy who ran that match said that after running a few matches, the Glocks tend to be both the first to crap out and the last to crap out. 1911 issues tend to be feed-related to slide stop related (failing to lock back). As I said before very few guns make it 1,000 rounds. None of those zero malfunction guns seem to make it to the matches where they test function (just like I haven't seen any half MOA at 100 yards .22's show up at a 100 yard match).

2 points: 1) all guns choke. Sooner or later, it is guaranteed. 2) all manufacturers have put out lemons. I have heard about horror stories from all manufacturers. You probably hear more horror stories from Kimber owners, but then, there are more Kimber owners out there. A lot of people complain that Kimbers aren't like they used to be. But, yeah, you are going to hear more bad stories because they are mass produced. I do think some of the semi-custom manufacturers make fewer lemons than the mass produced guns. And, yeah, I think a lot of the full custom places tend to produce a lot fewer lemons because they tend to test fire their pistols a lot.

Getting a 1911 is just like getting a rifle. With a factory rifle, it might shoot well. If you get a full on custom, it is much more likely to function and shoot well, but in neither case is there a guarantee. I have relatively few problems with my Bae, but I read a post by a guy who runs matches who claims he has never seen a Baer not malfunction in a match he has run (I find that hard to believe). You will not find a person who has run enough rounds through every manufacturer's pistol to determine which manufacturer makes pistols that run the best. So you can just stop right there.

 

[Name Enough]

Mu suggestion is that if cost is an issue you may be well served with a used 1911. I purchase a Wilson CQB with four mags for $2100. It was owned by a LEO that decided he need the cash more than the pistol. I currently also own a Kimber Custom II which I purchased for $695 with three Mags. It has one idiot scratch and the fellow said he took it to the range three times. so I probably had less than 200 rounds down the pipe. It runs.
I have owned five Kimbers and will say that they run well with Wilson mags. I think Wilson got his start making mags that work.
I would not hesitate to purchase an STI or Dan Wesson used if it was very clean.
As you have noticed Colt has a very strong brand which has been supported by the Colt factory since day one. Since I had an issue Colt during my military service I am not a fan. However it was probably a reissued WWII weapon and a pistol that you don't own is not as well cared for as one which you spent your hard earned cash for.

 

[Lucky Se7en]

I've had my Kimber Gold Match II for about 4 months now & I love it. I haven't put more than 600 rounds through it yet so I can't really vouch for the reliability but so far it has taken every round and shot it well. The only setback I've had with it is the screw to adjust the windage in the rear sight snapped in half while I was shooting. One of the guys at the range was telling me that Kimber doesn't have very good customer support and he was doubtful that they would fix it. I called last week and told them what happened, they e-mailed me a paid Fed-Ex slip and told me that I should expect it fixed in no less than 3 weeks. I boxed it up and sent it out this Sunday, received it this Thursday which I was extremely happy about even though this was about as simple of a fix that can be done.

 

[EddieNFL]

I can tell you which will have no issues in 50-100,000 rounds. None of the above. There is a match called the 1,000 round challenge. Here is a summary of one of the matches:
Glock vs. 1911 1000 Round Match in OK 10/20/2007 - THR

The challenge is to fire 1,000 rounds with no maintenance (including no lube). They are firing for record though, so if you last 1,000 rounds, the high score wins. Any gun can compete. Very very few actually finish the course of fire. This includes all malfunctions including failure to lock back on an empty mag. You are only allowed to manually cycle the first round.

The year in the post (2007), a Glock and a Colt 1911 Government made it to the end. The Glock won on time. In the previous years, a 1911 won once and a Glock won twice. It is an interesting thread. The guy who ran that match said that after running a few matches, the Glocks tend to be both the first to crap out and the last to crap out. 1911 issues tend to be feed-related to slide stop related (failing to lock back). As I said before very few guns make it 1,000 rounds. None of those zero malfunction guns seem to make it to the matches where they test function (just like I haven't seen any half MOA at 100 yards .22's show up at a 100 yard match).

2 points: 1) all guns choke. Sooner or later, it is guaranteed. 2) all manufacturers have put out lemons. I have heard about horror stories from all manufacturers. You probably hear more horror stories from Kimber owners, but then, there are more Kimber owners out there. A lot of people complain that Kimbers aren't like they used to be. But, yeah, you are going to hear more bad stories because they are mass produced. I do think some of the semi-custom manufacturers make fewer lemons than the mass produced guns. And, yeah, I think a lot of the full custom places tend to produce a lot fewer lemons because they tend to test fire their pistols a lot.

Getting a 1911 is just like getting a rifle. With a factory rifle, it might shoot well. If you get a full on custom, it is much more likely to function and shoot well, but in neither case is there a guarantee. I have relatively few problems with my Bae, but I read a post by a guy who runs matches who claims he has never seen a Baer not malfunction in a match he has run (I find that hard to believe). You will not find a person who has run enough rounds through every manufacturer's pistol to determine which manufacturer makes pistols that run the best. So you can just stop right there.

Won't make many friends throwing truths and facts around like that.

... but I read a post by a guy who runs matches who claims he has never seen a Baer not malfunction in a match he has run

I remember that. I suspect his experience was limited to one observation. I also recall some of the other remarks he posted. I see the user name now, I skip to the next post.

 

[clmayfield]

Won't make many friends throwing truths and facts around like that.

Ahhh, the interwebs. Where all guns shot quarter MOA all day long, when you do your part. Where pistols never fail and people shoot up tens of thousands of rounds a year without every burning up a barrel.

The interwebs, where people seem to post their average group or worse group, somehow forgetting to post the loads of better groups they shot. Where all fliers are cold bore shots. Where people who have never made a match are better long distance shooters than classified master class shooters. The Internet is a magical place.

 

[Yaaker]

Difference between a $1000 Sig and a $1400 Kimber? The Sig will probably run out of the box.

My opinion is:

Under $1000 - Colt (springfield a close second though)

Under $2000 - Dan Wesson

$2000+ - Wilson

I would have to agree here. Don't buy a Kimber. They put all their money into making a gun look pretty, rather than run right. the old Kimbers were the bee's knees though. I would add a couple here though:

Under $1000 - Springfield uses nicer, non-MIM parts than Colt, so Colt is a second for me. Don't underestimate the Ruger SR1911 out now. I personally think it is the most "bang for the buck" 1911 on the market.

Under $2000 - Dan Wesson. I would also add a lot of the STI line into this category to look at.

$2000+ - Wilson. I would add Nighthawk here too, just because they are amazing quality as well.

 

[the m700 project]

I would say get what you can with as few mim parts as possible, then look at reputation, then looks.

 

[devldogs55]

I picked up a Springfield 1911 Loaded model a couple of months ago and have been extremely impressed. It feeds everything I put through it, never has a hiccup - and the price was right... I think it was $899. Are there better 1911s? Yes, most definitely. You will pay quite a bit more too.