Printable View
I guess my definition of "low end" M1911A1's would be those in the $400-600 range and include brands such as Auto-Ordnance, High Standard/RIA, Springfield GI-types, and so on.
Some folks buy them just to have a platform to build on and a lot of people just like the 1911 design and want a cheap plinker/range gun. I would imagine some use them for HD.
Any thoughts on what brand(s) constitute the best of the low-end crowd, if there's such an animal?
Springfield mil-spec would be about the lowest I would consider.
My Norinco, which you can only find used these days, was a great low end 1911. $269 back in the day.
I concur 100% re a Springfield Mil-Spec as the floor in that price range. You might try to find a used Kimber Series I gun or perhaps a police duty turn in ( often Colts) for the the same money.
IMNSHO, you buy a 1911 knowing that you might have to either send it back to the manufacture or take it to a gunsmith who knows how to smith for a carry pistol when you are in your (our/my ) price range. if you buy a 500.00 1911 and it runs with WWB and modern hollowpoint of your choice from F/W/S/R that's great. I am not sure you can count on that in a bet your life kind of way.
Again, IMNSHO a reliable 1911 with sights you can see, a hammer that does not bite, a decent trigger and will feed a hollowpoint should not have to cost 1000.00. But, I bet it costs closer to 1000.00 than to 500.00 more often than not.
YMMV Greatly.
Edited to add- Demingod is spot on-a Norinco is a great base pistol if you can find one.
I think if you buy a 1911 and add alot of stuff to it you will be better of buying a used higher end . Parts and gunsmithing are not cheap , and resale sucks .
Not disagreeing as far as price is concerned, but owning a Springfield Mil-Spec and shooting it often and as hard as I can afford to (ammo and courses are expensive!) I have a hard time seeing it as a low-quality firearm. It's done everything I've been told 1911s can't do, and done it well and with all types of ammo. I certainly trust mine to HD duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by kihnspiracy
-B
A lot of guys are fans of the Philippine-made 1911's (Rock Island/High Standard/etc.). Never examined one so I can't comment one way or the other, but they seem to be doing well at their price point.
I won't even consider them unless I just needed a decent frame and slide for a complete custom build.Quote:
Originally Posted by kihnspiracy
Both base model 1911-A1 springers I owned were junk. (poor fit, misfeed city, marginal accuracy for a 1911) And this was years back. I still used to read the same complaints on TOS of problems I had with mine 10 or so years ago.
A lot of people have had good base model springers, but overall the quality is on par with the price you pay in my experience.
Even if you just want a range blaster, it's still embarassing and unprofessional to have an unreliable gun. It drives me nuts.
I have a good (so far) Springfield Mil-Spec. I only have 1557 rounds through it, but so far it has been functional.
I have had maybe 2 or 3 Fail to Feed problems (Wolf 230 Ball), but normally I can limp wrist is all day and never have FTF issues.
Accuracy is not great. I get 5" groups off a sand bag at 25 yards with Win. White box. My Glock 17s will group 3" to 3.5" with WWB. Maybe I need more practice. ;)
The most rounds I have shot through it without cleaning is 400, but I have never taken a class with it or really pushed it hard.
I sold a Charles Daly just like the one pictured above about a week after I bought my first Kimber. I really wished I hadn't sold it because it was a perfect plinker/range gun. I was under the impression that CD was doing away with the Empire series, I guess not. I've seen the RIA tactical (which is about the same as the Charles Daly) on Gunbroker for about 425. David
I have a bunch of 1911's and some so called low end are fine.
1. Charles Daly seems to have the 1911 down pat.
2. Taurus 1911 is just as reliable.
3. The STI Spartan has terrific reviews and I intend to get one this year.
4. My son has a Llama that never fails to fire. (but, this one is hit or miss)
I remember looking at the Spartan a while back. I think it has a cast frame. That's what made it unacceptable to me.
The Llama's non standard 1911 parts are the downside to that pistol. Not that much of anything drops into a 1911, but the Llama is flat out non-compatible with 1911 parts. My brother in law has one. It's not a very reliable sample.
Empire Grade, as it was used in our line of 1911's, referenced stainless steel models. Field Grade is blued steel, Empire SS.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwhitehorne
Daly has split from Armscor, the maker of our 1911's for the past 10 years. However, there are still many in the distribution channel. Perhaps that is the story you had heard.
We are coming out with a new line of steel, stainless steel and aluminum/steel 1911's starting in October. These are coming from another country, are of higher quality than the Armscor ones, but will also carry a much higher price tag.
I have a springfield GI 1911, very cheap and I purchased it ONLY for a build platform for a custom combat gun in final version.
Of course I shot it and found it unbelievable that a gun company would put out a gun that wouldn't feed ANY ammunition on a somewhat reliable basis. This gun wouldn't feed some crappy reloads I had. I bought white box, it didn't like that, I bought gold dot hollow points... didn't like that and so on and so on. It would not even go through a single magazine without a failure to either eject or feed. I played around with the extractor and managed to get a little bit better reliability out if it.
I ended up exchanging the extractor for a wilson combat bulletproof and changed to wilson mags and now the gun is 3/4 reliable. I would NEVER trust this gun to do what it was supposed to do out of the box. I still won't trust it but I'm going to be replacing everything but cylinder and slide and it won't much matter in the end.
Trust me, i'm not a 1911 hater. My Colt series 80 gold cup trophy is 100% after multiple thousand rounds of shooting. I'm not a springfield hater, I have an EMP that i love to shoot and carry. It's very reliable. The springfield GI 1911 out of the box is, in my view, worse than useless. I say worse than useless because i consider my kids useless but at least i don't have to depend on them to protect myself.
If you are considering a 1911 platform on the cheap and want it to shoot bullets out the end of the barrel. I would recommend you consider another pistol.
I consider Springfield Armory a Marketing Company more than a Gun company. They use the old Springfield Armory name on imported junk, and make a lot of money doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by exitinyourhead
Sorry about the bum scoop. I had the EFS and it was a very good shooter. I had a problem with one of the Mecgar mags but once I started using Act mags it wouldn't choke on anything, unlike the Kimber I replaced it with. If the EFS is around they make good shooters with a lot of features at the price of the Springfield Mil Spec. I think I got mine in 2002 or 03 from a local dealer listed on the CD website for about 415 with the transfer fee. DavidQuote:
Originally Posted by Charles Daly
I'd also look at used higher-end guns as an option. I bought a Colt Stainless Enhanced GM for $500 out the door from a local gunshop. High quality, loaded with features and drives tacks.
Amen. While they still turn a good product on some things others are s**t.Quote:
Originally Posted by demigod
Back when I was in my teens, my father had a SA base grade 1911, but it wasn't reliable with cast bullet reloads, and accuracy was average, at best, with a fairly rough trigger. He ended up trading it, so we were 1911-less for quite a while.
The only other lower end 1911 I've owned was a Colt Series 80 1991-A1. I wish I still had it today. Sure, it was a very basic 1911, but after I polished the feed ramp, it would feed anything I stuffed the mags with. It was suprisingly accurate, too. The only problem I ever had with it was my huge hands. Without a beavertail grip safety, I get hammer bit so badly that I'm bleeding within the first mag. So, I had to decide whether I should send the Colt off to my friend Karl Sokol at Chestnut Mountain Sports for a full custom gun, or trade it in for something with the options I wanted right from the factory. So, I decided to trade it. Big mistake.
I live in MA, where after the 10-21-98 "Consumer Protection Act" went into effect, there were no 1911's that were "compliant". The full size SS SW1911 was the first one that was finally approved, so I traded the Colt for it. The problem with the S&W was the grip safety. S&W has corrected the problems since, but on some of their early 1911's, the grip safety spring was so stiff that if you use a high grip, it was not strong enough to disable the grip safety. I ended up sending that one dwn the road, too.
Fast forward a few years, and now I traded into a Kimber Classic Stainless Target LE. It has a great slide to frame fit, outstanding trigger and very accurate. The reliability has been 100% with good mags. I had a few cheap mags left over from 1911's I had and they were not reliable. I bought some Wilson mags and the Kimber has fed thousands of ball, JHP and every shape cast bullet I've found a mould for.
Sure, the economy 1911's can sometimes be OK, but if you want to make them reliable (sometimes a problem on the cheaper 1911's) and to get the true accuracy potential out of them, you'll end up putting quite a bit of money into them. In the long run, it's less expensive to just buy a higher end 1911 to begin with.
What kind of accuracy would be expected for a typical World War II GI- production example?
Not to piss anybody off but the Rock Island Arsenal guns are not high standard or phillipine guns they were build here in the United StatesQuote:
Originally Posted by Slater
I can bounce a pop can until it disapears over the horizon with mine. I never shoot paper with it because that is boring, and that's not what I expect it to do. It is one of those guns that I feel like I can hit anything I aim at, and it never malfunctions. That said, on paper, I'm sure the old war horse is combat accurate at best. I love my old .45....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Slater
I own a Rock Island Armory (made in the Phillipines) and have done some research on them. The information I've found is that they are built with the Colt tooling machines from the 1940s...so IMO, they are a reproduction of what a 1940's Colt Army would look like.
I've had mine about 2 years now and it's never misfed anything I've put through it...hollow points or ball ammo. The Mil-Spec sights are a little hard to get used to, but it's dead accurate. I'm shooting point of aim at about 28 yards. From a sandbag, I've been known to put 2 rounds through the same hole. Only thing I did was replace the smooth wood grips with checkered grips.
The fit is good, not too rattly, but good enough tolerances to fire when dirty. It'll use any .45 magazine I put in it...Colt, Armscor, Kimber, etc. Field stripping is exactly the same as with any .45.
IMO, the RIA is a good competitor for lower-priced .45's.
I would think that there are so many variables involved in that assessment especially the condition of the piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
Are you talking about a typical A1 that is in excellent/new condition? an officer's personal sidearm? Which manufacturer? or a well used piece that has been in the inventory for many years?
If you're talking about the latter as a "low end" than accuracy wouldn't really be my main criteria.
My non-scientific observation from family members, gun stores and shows, the range etc. is that the average shooter wants "a .45" and doesn't want to pay too much money for one. He will probably shoot a box of ammo through it a month - if that. Malfunctions, if the pistol is ever shot enough for any to happen, will be accepted, complained about, and never rectified.
I see three 1911 courses of action:
-get a cheap plinker and love it for what it is ($400-500)
-get a good base gun and mod it accordingly ($1000-1500)
-get a super tactical depleted uranium slinging 1911 ($2500-3000)
Where I think people go wrong is getting a cheap gun and expecting great performance or buying the guns that are designed to look like a super tactical custom, but really aren't.
I wouldn't get a "cheap" gun for a base gun. I would get a basic 1911 set up with quality materials (cough Colt 1911/1991 cough) and have a competent person add the stuff I want.
I'm hearing alot of complaints about the Taurus. Lot of issues with parts failure. I don't see any of these low cost 1911's as being suitable for high round counts without a lot of parts replacement and refitting. Springfield would be the choice for such a base pistol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by threefeathers
+1.Quote:
Originally Posted by BAC
The milspec was my first pistol and the only 1911 I own now. About 3,000 rounds so far with no problems. Though I did put in a wilson BP extractor before ever firing it...
Mines has the "NM" in the serial. From what I've gathered, milspecs with this in the serial tend to be better fitted. :confused: