Defensive Carry banner

The precision tool steel 1911 vs plastic and stamped

10K views 81 replies 30 participants last post by  NE45 
#1 ·
The precision tool steel 1911 vs plastic and stamped

Before I begin, you will see I use the Glock for comparison purposes. I do so because the Glock, better than any other gun, represents the antithesis of a 1911. I do not use the Glock as a better choice; simply a comparison of platforms and expectations and what it takes to make each platform as dependable, reliable, and durable as the other. And please note, I rarely, if at all, refer to accuracy in this discussion. This is not about accuracy, but specifically about reliability, etc. Accuracy introduces another realm that we have discussed in a previous thread. So, with all that in mind, here we go, try to enjoy….

What’s the difference in a new 1911 that costs $500 and one that costs $3000? Before you say precision made, special metals parts, hand fitting, etc. what I mean is, is it reliability? Durability? Dependability? Elitism? Pride?

OTOH, what’s the difference in a new Glock that costs $525 and one that costs, hmmm, there’s no place to go with that.

And we should at least ask ourselves which is more dependable, reliable, and durable, a $525 Glock or a $3000 1911 and how do we determine that? And before you answer that the 1911 was in four wars, etc. – those weren’t $3,000 precision, tool steel guns. I doubt there was a tool steel part in them anywhere. Nor were they anywhere near the precision or fit of a $3000 1911. So if the ‘wars’ are an indication, they prove, well you can decide for yourself what that proves. Just keep in mind as you decide there were no tool steel, precision machined, precisely hand fitted 1911s in any war.

My recent experiences with 1911s have raised a lot of questions in my mind about what it takes for a 1911 to be as reliable and dependable as a plastic gun, specifically the Glock. Even more so, can a 1911 ever be as dependable, reliable, and durable as a Glock? Keep this in mind as I say this: the XDs and M&Ps do NOT fit the Glock antithesis concept in that both the XD and M&P use precision sears (parts) where one part of a Glock sear is a piece of bent metal, literally, and the mate is essentially a non-precision bump on the striker pin.

I will justify the use of ‘non-precision’ with regard to the sear on the striker of the Glock, since precision and special metals seem to be a significant issue. Several years ago, I was looking at ways to reduce the trigger pull on a Glock without going to the 3.5 lb connector or changing striker and trigger springs. It occurred to me that one way might be to change the angle of the sear face on the striker. It’s essentially at a 90° angle and if it had some slope on it, it would let the trigger bar sear slide easier across the face. In fact, with enough slope, it could almost shoot itself! Before I did anything, I called Arthur Viani, president of Ghost Inc. to discuss this with him. It turns out, no surprise here, he’d already tried that and he couldn’t tell any difference. So when I say, non-precision, it’s true.

I presume the rationale behind tool steel is that level of toughness is required for dependability, reliability, and longevity of the 1911, else why go to the trouble and expense? But then, if that is true, then that’s indicative of a platform shortcoming. What I’m saying is if we design something and the success of the ‘thing’ relies heavily on precision and special metals that would NOT be required by a different design, then we have created demanding a design. We seem to gloss over this with the 1911, but what other gun is considered to be so dependent on special metals and hand fitting?

Interestingly enough, we would not accept this in most anything else. Would you want to pay for a car that required special metals and hand fitting to be reliable? The cost would be exorbitant. So either tool steel is needed for reliability and longevity in a 1911 or it is not. If it is not, why do manufacturers advertise tool steel parts in their 1911s and charge so much money for them?

The same can be said for precision hand fitting of parts. The implication is that a 1911 cannot be simply mass produced, but needs to be precisely hand fitted. Why does it need to be precisely hand fitted? A design shortcoming perhaps? Glocks aren’t hand fitted in any way that I’m aware of. Well, maybe the barrel to the slide, but I don’t know about that. You can certainly buy drop in barrels for Glocks. In fact you can switch from a .40 cal barrel to a .357 sig barrel by just dropping in a barrel. And there are drop in barrels readily available for 1911s also. Hmmm, if drop ins work maybe all that hand precision isn’t needed.

I can see the need for hand fitting if we’re wanting the ultimate precision gun. But what magnitude of precision do we gain in going from a $525 Glock to a $3000 1911 and for what purpose? But, for this discussion, ultimate precision is not the concern, ultimate dependability and durability is.

I would concede that the trigger can make a significant difference, but $500 1911s can be made to have 3.5 lb crisp trigger and often with the stock parts and in total cost more like $600. So why pay more? I’m not saying that makes it as accurate as a high dollar precision fitted gun, but we’re not discussing accuracy, but rather dependability, durability, and reliably.

So the focus question is, is the $500 1911 gonna break; prove to be finicky or unreliable? A Glock costs about $500 and suffers from none of these problems. So again, if the $500 1911 is subject to failure whereas a high dollar gun is not, then there is a insufficiency in the design of platform. We do have to face this: we’re comparing a machined gun of various grades of precision and special metals to a plastic and stamped metal Glock. And who would question the reliability, dependability, or durability of a Glock?

With respect to durability and reliability, which needs more attention to lubrication – a $3000 1911 or a $500 Glock?

So lets wind up by bringing this down to practice – where the rubber meats the road. A guy has shot a 1911 and really likes it and decides to get one for SD. Which one should he get? Does he need a $3000 1911 to have the dependability a 1911 SD gun should have? Does he need the hand fitting for a SD gun? Does it need to have tool steel parts? Are Colt parts so superior to others that only they should be used? Would a entry level SA 1911 serve him well or would it be a failure that just hasn’t happened yet?

In my days of ‘trail’ racing, the issue of what helmet came up. The cliché answer was “Do you have a $25 head or a $100 head?” Maybe the same applies to selecting a 1911 for SD, do we have a $500 or a $3000 life?

Anyway, these are some thoughts going through my mind, and right now, I’m quite undecided. Well, maybe I'm leaning; I am carrying a Kimber Tactical Pro right now.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
A buddy has a 1911 (Remington Rand) that was carried in WW2. It is sloppy, but it sure is a nice shooter.
 
#3 ·
It would boil down to personal preference; I do not own a $3000 1911 but 1911s are my favorite carry weapon. As to Glocks I don’t care for them or other plastic guns even though I own three other plastics, they see mostly range use and are seldom carried. And no a 1911 does no have to cost $3000+ to be reliable as there are many costing far less that function quite well.
 
#4 ·
It is a tough subject, lots of emotionally driven opinions and die hards on both sides of the 1911 and Glock camps. I've never owned a polymer semi auto, but I want an XD badly. I don't like how the Glock fits my hands at all, don't enjoy shooting it, and my muscle memory is fully dedicated to 1911's and revolvers. I have literally slept with a 1911 next to me for more than half of my life, and I've never owned a high end brand or build, and never had an issue. My current S&W A1 seems good to me, shoots great, hasn't failed me. My old used Para Ord 1911 was a great gun, cheap and reliable, and a very good shooting gun.
 
#5 ·
It's interesting how often this thought comparison floats through the minds of even the most experienced shooters.

I have other considerations in owning multiples of both platforms, which also include when I prefer an external safety and when I don't. When I want a heavy handgun and when I don't, as well as environmental considerations such as I'm vacationing at the beach right now. I'd never carry one of my 1911's in this moist, humid and salty environment. My G19 has accompanied me, and will be no worse for the wear.

Neither of my 1911's are 3K guns (one was $800, the other was $479). Both needed some break-in, and a little fluffing and buffing, but no additional $ was required. I trust them both to be reliable and good carry firearms.

I honestly love both platforms and am glad that I carry both, depending on the occasion.
 
#7 ·
The point is, what does it really take to make a 1911 reliable and does tool steel parts make them more reliable? Is a $3000 1911 more reliable than a $500 1911?
 
#8 ·
I would say generally speaking yes but not necessarily. I know of people who have base models from Springfield or Colt and they claim that they are completely reliable.
As you mentioned before, the design of the 1911 may be its shortcoming. It was designed during an era when plastics were not an option and hand labor was cheap. I think the reputation for poor reliability that 1911s have is because of manufacturers cutting costs (cheaper parts and less hand fitting). Also people tend to equate a tight fitting 1911 with quality so tighter fitting guns have been the trend and that requires even more careful hand fitting which doesn't always happen. One thing you can say about Glocks is, they are not tight fitting and that's for a reason.
I have 1911s that have been just as reliable as any of my Glocks or HKs have been (which is 100% so far) but I am willing to spend the money to get a higher end 1911 that has gotten the attention to detail that they require. If I buy gun for under $1000 it's probably not going to be a 1911 but that's just me.
If you go with a $500 1911 you are increasing your chances of having problems in my opinion unless you give it some attention. That's unfortunate but true.
 
#9 ·
Tangled - your question is a great question. I've been told that the 1911 platform requires at least an amateur level of gunsmithing to really appreciate and make it work properly. Whether the gun is $500 or $3,000 depends on how much time you want the manufacturer to [allegedly] spend on doing that for you.

As you posted, even at >$1,000 you're not necessarily getting the product/service/fit/finish they marketed so your level of knowledge about the platform helps in this situation. At my level of knowledge, I'm hoping the $ I've paid would translate into the care that is needed.

Someone with the proper skills and knowledge can make a $500 hum like a $3,000 ... but that's where the rubber meets the road. The knowledge and know-how, which I severely lack.

SA supposedly has a great CS and that's part of what you pay for. I'm pretty sure that if you sent them the broken extractor, they would replace it and make the TRP hum. That's one of the reasons I bought it.

One of my projects is to buy a < $500 1911 and see what I can do to customize it myself. Without that acute level of knowledge, I'm trusting the companies to make it right and based on your reviews, I'm not sure if I have the confidence that any company making 1911s can do that without me taking it apart and looking at the parts myself.
 
#13 ·
Tangle - your question is a great question. I've been told that the 1911 platform requires at least an amateur level of gunsmithing to really appreciate and make it work properly.
I don't know that I could agree with that. There are an awful lot of guys shooting all kinds of 1911s that don't know the first thing about the internals and they aren't having problems. Some do, but, I'd be so bold as to say the vast majority don't have issues.

...As you posted, even at >$1,000 you're not necessarily getting the product/service/fit/finish they marketed...
Very true and it does vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. I know people are tired of hearing this, but MIM issues aside for the moment, the only non-high dollar gun I'd recommend right now is Kimber. I say that based on seeing how Kimber finishes their guns ON THE INSIDE, compared to the TRP and S&W 'E' series. That's quite limited as far as manufacturers go, but still Kimbers are assembled with everything done on the inside that I know to do. Well, maybe not everything, but just about.

The beveling of spring fingers, very smooth, polished surfaces, rounded corners and edges on disconnectors and sear legs, bevel on the slide breeh face - and more. Much attention to details even down to the little things.

...At my level of knowledge, I'm hoping the $ I've paid would translate into the care that is needed.
Well, that's the way it should be. We should be able to buy a gun, learn to load and shoot it and that's it. However, most manufacturers have some problems and are ususally very quick to fix any issues a user may have. Well, except polish parts the way they should have been.


Someone with the proper skills and knowledge can make a $500 hum like a $3,000 ... but that's where the rubber meets the road. The knowledge and know-how, which I severely lack.

SA supposedly has a great CS and that's part of what you pay for. I'm pretty sure that if you sent them the broken extractor, they would replace it and make the TRP hum. That's one of the reasons I bought it.

One of my projects is to buy a < $500 1911 and see what I can do to customize it myself. Without that acute level of knowledge, I'm trusting the companies to make it right and based on your reviews, I'm not sure if I have the confidence that any company making 1911s can do that without me taking it apart and looking at the parts myself.[/QUOTE]
 
#11 ·
There's a reason the US Army went from the Thompson sub machine gun to the M3 "Grease gun" during WWII - cheaper and faster to build, just as reliable, shot the same round. The Nazis on the receiving end couldn't tell the difference. The history of all small arms in all nations has followed the same path - mass produced guns that still needed hand fitting to work right, to mass produced guns that didn't.

My guess is that a "tight" but cheaper 1911 that didn't get hand fitted will probably have issues. A "loose" but cheap 1911 that didn't get hand fitted will probably shoot just fine. A "tight" but expensive hand fitted 1911 may - or may not - shoot properly, depending on the gunsmith doing the fitting.

That is a variable that is eliminated with polymer guns like the Glock. And - IMHO - when it comes to self defense, I want to eliminate as many variables as possible. My Glocks are reliable, I see no reason to tempt fate with anything else in that size class. A better "trigger feel" just isn't worth it, to me.
 
#12 ·
Tangle, thanks for a good "think about it" thread. I have and carry both 1911s (only the $1k variety) and Glocks and like and have confidence in both. If I had to put money on where my next malfunction would be, I would bet it would occur with one of the 1911s, even though the issues I've had have been few and far between and probably my fault more often than not. The Glocks are so utilitarian, but on the other hand, I find the 1911s just seem to be more fun to shoot.
 
#14 ·
Tangle, thanks for a good "think about it" thread.
Thanks, I just kinda typed the thoughts going through my head.

...I have and carry both 1911s (only the $1k variety) and Glocks and like and have confidence in both. If I had to put money on where my next malfunction would be, I would bet it would occur with one of the 1911s, even though the issues I've had have been few and far between and probably my fault more often than not. The Glocks are so utilitarian, but on the other hand, I find the 1911s just seem to be more fun to shoot.
That's pretty much the way I feel. But, there's a shootability about a 1911 that I don't see in a Glock. Some don't see it, but I had the chance to shoot a Glock right after I shot my stock Kimber, and I can say without hesitation there is a world of difference in the amount of concentration I had to put into each shot.

Some may not consider the SA trigger that significant, but I do. And I shoot right at 1000 rounds a month and shot Glocks as the ultimate gun for a long time. Then a guy laid a Kimber Ultra Carry on my shooting bench and I was a changed person.

So there's no issue to me about which is more shootable, my question is a 1911 as reliable as it needs to be for a SD gun. And does it take tool steel internals and precision fitting to get that reliabiliy?

Although in fairness, a plastic Glock is more likely to malfunction with a weak grip than a steel 1911 and you can see this demonstrated on YouTube. Is a weak grip a concern? Only if you've been injured in a gunfight and that's all you've got left.
 
#15 ·
The point is, what does it really take to make a 1911 reliable and does tool steel parts make them more reliable? Is a $3000 1911 more reliable than a $500 1911?
Not anymore. With the advance in manufacturing techniques that we have seen in the last 30 or so years, what used to be a rather large gap has become slim to non existant.

I have seen several high dollar guns that were supposed to be the cream of the crop be plaqued with the same issues that a 400 piece may have.

Also, there are some instances where a plastic part may outperform the same part made of steel. If you look at the Glock, as far as precision goes, its pretty mickey mouse in comparison to a highly machined, hand fitted custom handgun, but not many can deny that mickey mouse stuff that is almost silly to look at dosent perform as it is supposed to. Also, that Glock will perform in conditions that would have the precision gun trying to slink back into its gun case to hide.

Thats my take on it anyway. The one thing that the high dollar stuff does do is give you bragging rights and and its great to start a conversation with.
 
#18 ·
Not anymore. With the advance in manufacturing techniques that we have seen in the last 30 or so years, what used to be a rather large gap has become slim to non existant.
That's what I want to think. Although after seeing the internals of a S&W 'E' series and the SA TRP, I wonder where we have come.

What I really want to think after seeing the internals of a Kimber and what a fine job they did, is that this excellent work also reflects the MIM quality as well, but I think only time can prove that. In that regard, remember when Glocks were first introduced and all the flack about plastic guns? Well Glocks more than proved themselves over time. I'm hoping Kimber's MIM will to.

...I have seen several high dollar guns that were supposed to be the cream of the crop be plaqued with the same issues that a 400 piece may have.
Interesting you should say that. I just recently read a post where a guy had a MIM part fail and replaced it with a WC part. The WC part failed in the exact same way and didn't last as long.

...Also, there are some instances where a plastic part may outperform the same part made of steel. If you look at the Glock, as far as precision goes, its pretty mickey mouse in comparison to a highly machined, hand fitted custom handgun, but not many can deny that mickey mouse stuff that is almost silly to look at dosent perform as it is supposed to. Also, that Glock will perform in conditions that would have the precision gun trying to slink back into its gun case to hide.
True. The only exception is the last statement. I recently read a post from a guy in the middle east whose unit was issed Glocks, I forget which model, but they were more than problematic. Can't say that 1911 would fair any better, but the platform has certainly been through adverse conditions.

...The one thing that the high dollar stuff does do is give you bragging rights and and its great to start a conversation with.
LOL are we supposed to say stuff like that out loud? :tongue:

When I was building 1911s, I used pretty much only tool steel parts - the absolute best as it were - kinda like you're saying - bragging material. Now, I'm not so sure what one really gains from tool steel parts - hence this thread. If MIM and carbon steel parts are well within their working limits, etc. does doubling that margin buy anything? I think not.

It would be alarming to think that manufacturers are running internals so close to the edge of their limits that they will inevitably fail and by the same concern that the 1911 requires tool steel strength parts to be as reliable as plastic and stamped metal parts.
 
#16 ·
the glock is the easier choice: you put down $549, chose small, med or large and a caliber. nite sights? add 10%.

the 1911 for a similar degree of reliability will cost more, but still under $1000.
i would suggest the 1911 for the knowledgeable shooter--one who want to practice often

but years down the road, the 1911 may get handed down where as the glock got traded.
yet one must acknowledge that the glock out of the box is reliable, accurate and affordable.
 
#17 ·
I equate 1911's to wine. Once you get past 100-150 dollar bottle my palette is not sophisticated enough to tell the difference. I think 1911's are a bit the same way, once you go past about 1,500 it's all about throwing money away with regards to reliability. A 3,000 dollar 1911 just has some of the nice finishing touches that others don't.
 
#19 ·
Kind of the same thing I was saying in response to Hotguns. Although, what finishing touches could justify nearly $2000? E.g., and you guys are gonna hate me for continuing to tout Kimber, but, my $1089 Tactical Pro has an AL frame (whole thing weighs 28 oz), checkered front strap, mag chute, ambi safety, match grade barrel, night sights, has custom grips, and is as accurate as I can shoot.

The internals are finished down to the smallest detail, and here's a pic that shows how well the disconnector is finished. This pic is marginally in focus, one of the few I made of the Kimber parts that were in focus. Notice the flat, smooth surface, completely void of seams, etc. Also notice how rounded the edges and corners are.


disconnector spring side by ron.0000, on Flickr

Well, ok, one more Kimber detail - done by Kimber to be clear - notice the bevel at the breech face. This is the way it's supposed to be done. This was completely absent in my S&W 'E' series and SA TRP.


slide - disconnector run by ron.0000, on Flickr

What would $2000 more dollars buy?
 
#20 ·
"What would $2000 more dollars buy"

Pride of ownership more than anything else. In my view one is kidding himself that the 1911 can only be dependable enough to be relied on to defend his life if it costs more than "X" dollars. One can get to know a good ol' Rock Island 1911 and unerringly depend on it without being considered foolhardy.

If it fills a person up to own "trick" 1911s then great. Just don't delude oneself that it is essential.

The farther the 1911 clone strays from original U.S. military contract models the more I raise an eyebrow at it. When an owner of such a gun begins preaching about the goodies and their necessity I mentally tune them out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G-man*
#22 ·
"What would $2000 more dollars buy"

Pride of ownership more than anything else. In my view one is kidding himself that the 1911 can only be dependable enough to be relied on to defend his life if it costs more than "X" dollars. One can get to know a good ol' Rock Island 1911 and unerringly depend on it without being considered foolhardy.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but I guess the question that comes to mind is, how do we know? i.e. confirm what we think about a gun? Is it by the number of rounds without a failure we've shot through it?

I know if it's a Glock, we can go by history, i.e. its widespread use and success - essentially reputation.

But what do we go by on say a Rock Island?

Again, not disagreeing at all, just wondering how we gain confidence in a particular platform or brand???
 
#21 ·
It isn't about reliability.

An $18k Hyundai these days is more reliable than a $250k Rolls Royce. But people still buy the RR. Why? Multiple reasons. The name, the fit and finish, the customer service, the features, the materials used, the attention to detail, the customization options, etc.

Or, consider a Toyota Camry vs. a Ferrari 458. Both will take you from point A to B and back, but one costs a LOT more. Why? What are you getting with the extra money? Ultimately, much is subjective, because a Corvette ZR1 can do most of the same things much more cheaply, but you won't get the Ferrari name, sound, and material and assembly quality. It all ultimately comes down to how much you care about such things. If I was in that position, I could certainly appreciate the F458, but I would buy the ZR1 (assuming I was rich, anyway).
 
#23 ·
More History.
The Colt Model 1911 was the product of a very capable person, namely John Moses Browning, father of several modern firearms.

The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thompson (inventor of the Thompson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.

In the selection process, which started at 1906 with firearms submitted by Colt, Luger, Savage, Knoble, Bergmann, White-Merrill and Smith & Wesson, Browning's design was selected, together with the Savage design in 1907. However, the U.S. Army pressed for some service tests, which revealed that neither pistol (Colt's or Savage's) had reached the desired perfection. The Ordnance Department instituted a series of further tests and experiments, which eventually resulted in the appointment of a selection committee, in 1911.

Browning was determined to prove the superiority of his handgun, so he went to Hartford to personally supervise the production of the gun. There he met Fred Moore, a young Colt employee with whom he worked in close cooperation trying to make sure that each part that was produced for the test guns was simply the best possible. The guns produced were submitted again for evaluation, to the committee. A torture test was conducted, on March 3rd, 1911. The test consisted of having each gun fire 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and the pistol would be allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and some more tests would then be conducted.

Browning's pistols passed the whole test series with flying colors. It was the first firearm to undergo such a test, firing continuously 6000 cartridges, a record broken only in 1917 when Browning's recoil-operated machine gun fired a 40000 rounds test.

The report of the evaluation committee (taken from 'The .45 Automatic, An American Rifleman Reprint', published by the National Rifle Association of America) released on the 20th of March 1911 stated :


"Of the two pistols, the board was of the opinion
that the Colt is superior, because it is more
reliable, more enduring, more easily disassembled
when there are broken parts to be replaced, and
more accurate."


On March 29th, 1911, the Browning-designed, Colt-produced .45 Automatic pistol, was selected as the official sidearm of the Armed Forces of U.S.A., and named Model 1911.
 
#25 ·
"...just wondering how we gain confidence in a particular platform or brand?"


Owning it and shooting it. My son tried a Rock Island a few years back and it's working out great. A nice reliable "bang" with each trigger pull and no hassles for the operator. What could be simpler? Can't say yet whether it will hold up for the long haul as my son is currently a Marine, grousing that he can't bring his .45 along rather than the issued M9. The Rock Island hasn't seen much use in the past couple of years though he ran a lot of ammo through it before he enlisted.

The 1911 as is defined in my mind is not the temperamental pistol that so many claim. I have no particular knowledge of the many current 1911 makers and don't really care about their relative reputations for reliability. I'm keeping an eye out for a good deal on a Colt Government Model, Series 70 or older. It has to be original and unfooled with and it will stay that way once I get it. I will not be adding one single accessory or after-market giz-wichet. Only standard springs as required through use. This is the best way to do 1911 in my view; keep it simple. Kept clean and lubed, I can say in advance that I'll trust the platform to deliver the goods thousands of times over.

I may even find a good one this weekend as I'm going to a small regional gun show.
 
#26 ·
I carry a G29 from time to time, and it's reliable and fun to shoot. However, my first handgun was a 1911 and it's my favorite platform.

I had a dream gun in my head a few months ago. An officers size 1911 in 10mm. No one made one (production). I found Fusion Firearms. After talking with Bob Serva I decided to go with the CCO (officer frame with commander slide) in said 10mm. They do make the officer in 10mm but I didn't want to put up with reliability issues with hot loads (his advice). I then wanted certain features: beveled bushing, flush crown barrel, chain link front strap and MSH, fancy serrations on top of slide, round but frame and mag well, polished slide sides, French border and press checks. I got it all in the platform I wanted, AND the two tone look I wanted (matte black Ion DLC finish with stainless small parts, hammer, trigger, MSH). Well north of $2,000. But it's what I wanted in the perfect carry piece for ME. doesn't mean it will be more reliable or shoot better, but from what i have read, it will be.

So for me, it's my dream design and platform, and not a pride, reliability or any other issue. Especially when compared to my Glock. I have many other guns that can be reliable, but this will be the first of what I fell will be my PERFECT CCW's.
 
#27 ·
I love my 1911's! I have a "few" and I do have some $2000+ 1911's I am 100% comfortable carrying them. This said if I was "marching into battle" I would take my Glocks. I shoot them well and in the rain, mud and muck I just couldn't feel safer with anything else.
 
#34 ·
This is my favorite type of thread, one that has absolutely no good answer. For myself, i compared a Glock 36 and a Colt Defender back to back on the range before I bought. As for accuracy, no real difference, both shot extremely well. So it came down to feel. The Colt felt right, felt good in my hand, and the Glock didn't. I thought the Colt Defender was probably more concealable due to the 1911 thinness, but I am splitting hairs. I now have over 1,000 rounds out of the Defender with no problems. Would the Glock do as well? Probably. Did I pay $3000? No. It was about $800. Moral of the story? Shoot both a 1911 and a comparable Glock, back to back at the same time. My bet is that you will have no doubt which one you prefer as a shooter, be it either the Glock or the 1911.
 
#36 ·
As noted above by you, the 1911 is selling like hotcakes, but I believe it is more due to historic and hype propagated by the gun media, who are probably getting a little palm greasing by the Gun smiths Guild. That and the fact that they are "the American Icon" gun.

Your Kimber may be a lightweight, but its still heavier than a g26, or 19, or 23, and only holds what, 7 or 8 rounds. Once again, weight to capacity ratio.

I would love to see anyone here, anyone, take their 1911 into the ocean surf for an entire week, no rinsing off, no lubing, only air dry, and compare that to a Glock treated the same way. Not one spring, or piece of metal, coated with oxide or not rusted. The barrel was absolutely free of rust. None anywhere, nodda, zilch.
And the best part is that protection, called a Tennifer treatment, which is a part of the steel and metal on every Glock that leaves the factory, is included with the price.

If they companies already are charging over 1000 bucks for an over the counter 1911, can you imagine what they would charge to make them as rust free as the Glock? That would probably put them at about $10,000?:scruntiny:
 
#38 ·
...Your Kimber may be a lightweight, but its still heavier than a g26, or 19, or 23, and only holds what, 7 or 8 rounds. Once again, weight to capacity ratio.
Sure, 28 oz is heavier than a Glock, I didn't say otherwise. But what I was saying, if one wants to carry a 1911, then weight doesn't have to be an issue. I can tell a huge difference in carrying a government model 1911 and my AL Kimber. I can't tell so much difference between the Kimber and a G17. It seems like a threshold effect.

...I would love to see anyone here, anyone, take their 1911 into the ocean surf for an entire week, no rinsing off, no lubing, only air dry, and compare that to a Glock treated the same way. Not one spring, or piece of metal, coated with oxide or not rusted. The barrel was absolutely free of rust. None anywhere, nodda, zilch.
And the best part is that protection, called a Tennifer treatment, which is a part of the steel and metal on every Glock that leaves the factory, is included with the price.
Well first, I think you're assuming. You might be quite surprised what modern lubricants can do to prevent rust - more on that in a minute.

Are you absolutely sure every internal part is Tennifer treated? I mean you're not assuming, you know for sure? I don't know, I'm asking.

But, you could say the very same thing between a Glock and a Sig, an H&K, whatever, so the 1911 is not alone in that respect and a Sig and H&K both cost more than my Kimber Pro Carry.

Back to the lube thing. I have seen specs, I wish I could lay my hands on them but I can't, that specify how long a particular gun lubricate will resist a forced salt spray directed onto the surface. It's amazing. That's why I wonder if you really know that 1911 couldn't do that.

Then again, why would anyone want to take a gun in the salt surf if they didn't want to? Did you check your mag springs? Are they Tennifer treated too?

...If they companies already are charging over 1000 bucks for an over the counter 1911, can you imagine what they would charge to make them as rust free as the Glock? That would probably put them at about $10,000?:scruntiny:
Oh, I think companies do have that good of protection on certain models, and there's stainless steel too. And Birdsong treats guns with a finish for a very reasonable price, so does Robar. It's and added expense yes, but nonetheless shows manufacturers can add those treatmens at a very reasonable price.

I had one of my 1911s I built hard chromed and every part in it for about $150. I'll put it in the surf with your Glock. What am I saying, I wouldn't put one of my Glocks in the surf on purpose.
 
#39 ·
Anyone out there want to subject their 1911 to a little abuse to see just how well they really hold up under bad conditions? I realize this has no real bearing in the real world, but I would be curious to see how a 1000 dollar gun holds up to salt compared to my $399.00 G26. I have already ruined a S&W MP that a friend put up to the challenge.

I just think its interesting to see what we really get for the money. Hey, if its a war gun, it ought to be able to really be put to the test.

I just read your post, lol. I will gladly put it in the surf. Ive already done it. I am pretty sure all parts are Tennifer treated, not coated. The Tennifer is actually part of the steel composition.

Now as far as lubes go, just wipe it dry of all lubricants, and dump it in there. Salt eats away most lubes anyway, especially after extended periods of time.

Why not put it to a little test? Thats the best way to find out what its made of, lol.

My mag spring is still working fine, although I did have a lot of fine sand and dryed salt in the mag, but, no rust. All for under 430 bucks.
 
#43 ·
Anyone out there want to subject their 1911 to a little abuse to see just how well they really hold up under bad conditions? I realize this has no real bearing in the real world, but I would be curious to see how a 1000 dollar gun holds up to salt compared to my $399.00 G26. I have already ruined a S&W MP that a friend put up to the challenge.
Maybe we should start another thread for this challenge, esp. since it has nothing to do with the focus of the thread. Plus, this would include not just Glocks and 1911s, but Sigs, H&Ks, etc. which again cost more than my Kimber Pro Carry.

...I am pretty sure all parts are Tennifer treated, not coated. The Tennifer is actually part of the steel composition.
Sorry, did a 'coated' sneak in there on me?

...Now as far as lubes go, just wipe it dry of all lubricants, and dump it in there. Salt eats away most lubes anyway, especially after extended periods of time.
The purpose of the lube is to protect the parts in salt water environments. Of course if you remove all the lubricant it won't be protected.

Did you read the part where the lubes are subjected to a salt spray at an elevated temperature for extended periods of times and no rust developed?

And most of us can't get a Glock for anywhere near $430 unless we buy a used one. But then if we buy any gun used the price will be less.

Again, there's a lot to like about Glocks, but that can also be said for many guns.
 
#42 ·
I think some of our special ops men has and are doing the war test.I carried one in 67-68 during the raining season and in sand and saltwater and it work. I have one 1911 with about 129,000 by my log book. It's on it's third barrel.It was shot in action shooting, but it works.I carry one every day.Yes, I have seen 1911's blow and also Glocks blowup also seen both jam.I even seen S&W'S six-shooters jam.But point is most of the time it's the shooter that cause it.There is no such thing as a perfect weapon.
 
#44 ·
"So either tool steel is needed for reliability and longevity in a 1911 or it is not.
If it is not, why do manufacturers advertise tool steel parts in their 1911s and charge so much money for them?"


I think a big part of this is that the "machined from bar-stock - hardened, tempered, Cryo Treated Tool Steel" parts are somewhat overkill.
That is to say that a Very Reliable 1911 CAN be had with standard COLT factory parts and Genuine GI Surplus parts.

Part of the problem is that there is one manufacturer making GLOCKS & that is GLOCK.

There have been at least FIFTY past & present makers out there making 1911 pattern pistols with "parts" of varying quality.
Also there are SO MANY aftermarket 1911 parts makers out there and all of their part tolerances & specs differ slightly.
Thus...the necessary hand fitting.

Historically, at the COLT factory there ALSO were slight differences and variances "part to part" BUT, the COLT Factory Assemblers had a HUGE advantage.

They had 100 of each part sitting right there and if say...a mag release did not quite fit right....they had 99 others "right there" to choose from.

SO that really cut down on the "hand fitting" and it was often more like "keep swapping" until you found the "drop in" part...of the many....that perfectly dropped in.

Of course "some" hand fitting on some parts was usually necessary.

So...I think that we can all agree that some of the super duper ultra high quality (expensive) parts are overkill with regard to the quality necessary for durable & flawless functioning.

That fact does not change the fact that some other Gun Maker installed parts are "underkill" as in possibly inferior for their intended function.

TRUTHFULLY if a person could locate a supplier of "known origin" Government Issue Military Surplus 1911 parts....you could build a super reliable Colt 1911 from those parts. :yup: And...a whole lot cheaper.

Some of THE BEST 1911 magazines that I have are MIL Surplus "Assy Mags" ~ and back then I must have bought 50 of them for $4.00 each. I wish that I had 50 more.

There is a problem though...availability of those Genuine GI parts has either totally dried up...or sellers are claiming their parts are Genuine GI but, in reality they are Chinese or "maker unknown" parts of questionable quality.

So.........that has caused the aftermarket 1911 uber-quality high dollar parts boom & being that this is America & Americans LOVE to spend money on their favorite "toys" it has become a really huge business.

I should add that COLT factory barrels are (in reality) great accurate barrels. So WHY do so many shooters take out a perfectly good factory barrel and replace it with a more aftermarket expensive barrel with accuracy that will always shoot better than they do? - Answer: I have no idea.

I know that I do it because I happen to like STAINLESS STEEL barrels but, that is the only reason why I do it. But, a properly fit COLT barrel is MORE accurate than I am. :yup:

Guess what though....The 1911 Parts Craze is quickly being overtaken & overshadowed by the AR15 AFTERMARKET PARTS CRAZE & exactly EXACTLY the same thing is happening with the aftermarket $$$$$$ AR parts.

God Bless America & Hold Onto Your Wallet. :rofl:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top