1911's

TonyD

TonyD

One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,762
Likes
26
Location
South of the Mason-Dixon
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
So as not to hijack the Build it thread any more than I already have, maybe some of you 1911 guru's can help me out.

What makes a $1,200 1911 more combat accurate / reliable than say a $400 SA GI .45? Aside form the obvious improved sights and trigger, what is necessary and what is 'feel-good'?
 
There's Combat, Accurate and Reliable. Very accurate won't be reliable, and won't be worth anything in Combat. A reliable combat gun won't be accurate.

The basic differences are parts fit and sights. A target 45 requires a lot of hand work, since they are TIGHT.
 
Quality of materials and parts. Take an off the shelf SA- made in Brazil with a two piece barrel and parst from who knows were. Then take a LesBaer, barstok and hammer forged major parts. Kart barrel, barstock sear and hammer. Hand assembled in the US by craftsmen. The options available are also a cost factor. Take MSH's some makers use a composite material some use MIM and the better makers use pieces milled from barstock.

I like to make the comparison with furniture. Solid wood vs. gleud sawdust. They both work, one will last long enough to pass on to the kids.

Greg
 
TonyD said:
This is a statement I very much disagree with. My HK and Glock are very accurate and very much combat firearms.
Click to expand...

HK's I don't know. Glocks I do. Yes, they are fairly reliable, but not as reliable under abuse as a rack grade 1911A1. Of course accuracy for said rack grade 1911A1 is Minute of Wash Tub. M9's don't take anywhere's near the abuse the 1911A1 took. AMHIK.

Added - A match grade 1911A1 sucks for reliability.
 
Nickle said:
TonyD said:
This is a statement I very much disagree with. My HK and Glock are very accurate and very much combat firearms.
Click to expand...

HK's I don't know. Glocks I do. Yes, they are fairly reliable, but not as reliable under abuse as a rack grade 1911A1. Of course accuracy for said rack grade 1911A1 is Minute of Wash Tub. M9's don't take anywhere's near the abuse the 1911A1 took. AMHIK.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ and say my 19 will take more abuse and function than a rack 1911. However, back on topic...
 
TonyD said:
Nickle said:
A reliable combat gun won't be accurate.
Click to expand...

I made this statement to a top notch 1911 gunsmith and he just laughed. He said that if a gunsmith says this to you that you should walk away and save your money.

As to Tonyd's question about "What makes a $1,200 1911 more combat accurate / reliable than say a $400 SA GI .45? Aside form the obvious improved sights and trigger, what is necessary and what is 'feel-good'?

First you have to ask what the gun if to be used for? Is it just to shoot or to carry and shoot occasionally.

Most of the cost differences reflect what the owner want on his gun and how he wants it to shoot The list of different thing that people want is endless. The Springfield GI model is a very good gun that shoots well at a decent price. This is the gun that Ted Yost uses as the basis of their 1* series of gun, The following list shows the items that are done to the gun to $1,295.00 ($895.00 on your gun)

Deluxe trigger job, using a Yost-Bonitz aluminum trigger, and a tool steel sear. The hammer is high cut and bobbed to prevent bite.
Novak low mount sight system, in black, rear sight notch opened to .140.
Flare ejection port
Extended and dehorned thumb safety
Tool steel slide stop
Full reliability job, including a tuned Wilson extractor
Steel serrated mainspring housing incorporating the Yost designed lanyard loop
Hand filed beveled magazine well
Match grade barrel bushing, re-crown barrel
Wolff spring set
Checkered exotic hardwood stocks
Complete dehorning, satin blue or stainless finish, and the 1* logo
One Wilson 47D 8 round magazine or Novak magazine
Gun rug with 1* logo patch

If you look at the list , you will see that there is a lot of hand labor and not very many new parts
Click to expand...
 
Jim, that really explains a lot. I even looked at the site and didn't put 2 and 2 together. As I stated previously, this would be for carry and IDPA, as I always use my carry gun during any type training.

I think there is a few things in their list that more feel-good than accually necessary. However, I'm starting see that my high cap .40 1911 is not out of the picture.

Start with the GI .45 13+1, upgrade innards as necessary and can always replace slide and barrel to make the .40.

Any thoughts?
 
Jim, from a military standpoint, I beg to differ with the 1911 Smith you're referring to. Your reliability standards are obviously far off from the military's. I understand that, though.

Unless he's figured out some way to keep the gun loose enough to let dirt out when it's exposed to it and still stay tight enough for competition (or make a loose gun shoot well), I figure he's the one slinging the bull.

If he has figured it out, he needs to keep it a secret, and start building 1911's for top dollar, because NOBODY has yet to accomplish it.

The military used to have a test (suppossedly) of pistols. They dropped the pistol in a bucket of mud, took it out swished it around in a bucket of water, replaced the mag, worked the slide, and then fired it. If it failed to fire, it failed the test. Most pistols failed it, including tight tolerance 1911's.

Of course, any pistol that passed wasn't very accurate was it?
 
I agree with JimConway. I have a few custom guns and they all have been reliable and incredibly accurate. Gunsmiths would be out of work if their $2000 guns weren't reliable. I actually think most guns are pretty reliable and that most problems are magazine and ammo related.

Poke around www.louderthanwords.us, I'm sure the topic has been brought up before.
 
OK, I think I qualified my statement when I said "A reliable combat gun won't be accurate." I'll stand by that statement.

I'm referring to military usage. Ask me about the M9 Beretta that I got full of sand because I forgot to take it out of it's holster (Military type holster, on military web gear).
bianchi-m12.jpg


Guess what I had to do next? Yup, strip down the gun and clean it, IT WAS LOCKED UP. An older issue 1911A1 (remember loose and inaccurate) would not have locked up.

Now, it's all a moot point, seeing that NOBODY makes 1911A1's that loose anymore.

Tony, buy the Springfield. You said you like it. I wouldn't hesitate a microsecond to buy one myself.
 
TonyD said:
Where does the controversy concerning the internal v. external extractor lie?
Click to expand...

Check your Glock. It should have an external extractor. It appears that they may be more reliable. Whether they're any better for a 1911A1, I have no clue.
 
Nickle said:
TonyD said:
Where does the controversy concerning the internal v. external extractor lie?
Click to expand...

Check your Glock. It should have an external extractor. It appears that they may be more reliable. Whether they're any better for a 1911A1, I have no clue.
Click to expand...

It was the 1911 I was referring to. My HK and Glock both have external, I was just wondering what the deal was with 1911's and what experienced 1911 owners use and why.
 
Nickle said:
I just checked Springfield's website. They were all internal extractors, like the original 1911's and 1911A1's. Must be they work.
Click to expand...

I know theirs are but I saw Caspian offers the external. Just wondering if the 1911 external had merit or a mere fad.
 
Well, Caspian doesn't tend to get into fads, but, it may make a difference for competition. I can 100% vouch for the 1911A1NM (military) having an internal extractor. And those guns work pretty decent.
 
Nickle said:
The military used to have a test (suppossedly) of pistols. They dropped the pistol in a bucket of mud, took it out swished it around in a bucket of water, replaced the mag, worked the slide, and then fired it. If it failed to fire, it failed the test. Most pistols failed it, including tight tolerance 1911's.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you said that.

I have a buddy on the NAPD. He was telling me when they were looking at guns for thier service pistols. They went with Para's because of that.

He said that the Para guy came out with buckets of mud, sand, and water.

Would drop one in the water, then fire off three shots, then just drop it in the mud, fire off more shots, then drop it in the mud and finish the magazine.

I guess that he said that they did that with over and over with four or five magazines. That's why NAPD are now carring Para P-14 LDAs as their Duty Pistol.
 
The internal extractor is one of the 'weak' points of the classic 1911 design. Even JMB changed that when he developed the High Power.

I've seen internal extractors break in IDPA competition. It's not real common, but I've never seen any external designs break.

That said, there are millions of internal extractors out there that are functioning fine.
 
I do like the S16-40. Pretty much what I had in mind. I know nothing of Para's, do they take 1911 replacement parts? How do hold up - function, reliability, accuracy, etc?

Thanks for pointing this out!
 
Tony, though I've had no experience with Para-Ordnance products, I've heard nothing but good about them, from several ssources. I'm sure the folks here will tell you about them.
 
C-pher said:
Did you read my post above about the local PD? They swear by them just from my demo.

I have WAY too many Para's. I love them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did and I appreciate it. What's the going rate for the one you sold? Single action, .40 with 15 rounds?
 
Adam, I appreciate the input. Seems like nothing but kudo's for the Para's. I should have looked into them sooner.

My local dealer does not have the S16-40 in stock but says he can order. Out the door $840 + tax. Also, won't work a trade for an USP 9.
 

Similar threads

Which 1911?
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Gerbs54
G
Western themed Colt 1911
Replies
9
Views
536
PL-52
PL-52
Bushmaster S/N
Replies
9
Views
317
PCK9
PCK9
S&W 657 4"
Replies
4
Views
315
whatluck
whatluck
S&W I Frames, worth considering?
Replies
3
Views
369
RKG
R
Back
Top Bottom