Why can't somebody just step up and do it?
- Thread starter Charlie Bravo
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Why?
Can't say about anything except the 1911 clones...but there seem to be several reasons. The biggest reason being...They don't have to. They know that they're marketing a toy or a conversation piece...or a showpiece to go with their M1 Garand and WW2 GI Joe gear, because they can't afford or can't justify the cost of a minty Remington Rand or GI Colt.
1. There's no need to. The military isn't contracting for the pistols any more, except on a limited, Spec-Op basis. Back when lives depended on the guns, they had to be right. Police agencies are going for the cheap, easy route with guns that qualify as the "Everyman's Gun. Guns that can be safely and effectively handled with minimal training...many times by recruits who have never fired a gun before signing on.
2. The manufacturers know that the buyer either simply wants a pistol like
Dad/Grandpa/Great-Grandpa carried in the war...and that they won't likely be shot much, if any. Or...on the other end of the spectrum, they know that
most of the guns will become a base for extensive customization...and the acting smith will make it right. A dealer once told me that 5% of the shooters are shooting 95% of the ammo...and that's probably pretty close.
3. None of the present-day manufacturers make all the parts for the guns in-house, and outsource everything except the slides and frames...and some even outsource those parts...and just assemble the guns as parts kits that come from all over hell's creation. In that light, they can control neither the quality, the grades of steel, nor the process closely enough to actually build a good pistol.
4. There is an acute shortage of trained, experienced people assembling the guns. They can't even seem to correctly tension the extractors on a consistent basis. The 1911 doesn't fare well when assembled from drop-in, pre-cut this and that components supplied by the lowest bidder. That many do as well as they do is a wonder.
5. Machined steel parts are expensive to produce. If Springfield would offer a 1911 pistol made in America from good quality machined steel, correctly built and tested...the cost of a plain GI Mil-Spec would nearly double. The only buyers would be the ones who truly know what the guns are...and those aren't in sufficient numbers, because Springfield would have to not only make most or all the parts in-house...they'd have to completely retool the facility
to accomplish that. We're talkin' costs in the hundreds of millions. They ain't gonna do that in order to sell to a small segment of the market when the majority wants a flashy, killer pistol with custom touches and match-grade accuracy...and are willing to pay for it, even if the insides are junk. They won't likely shoot it enough to break anything anyway.
It would probably be mind-boggling the know how many people buy one...shoot a half-box of ammo through it...and never shoot it again. Many have never been fired. Not hard to build a wicked-lookin' sports car that'll never put rubber on asphalt. The same goes for "tactical" pistols complete with all the fancy bells and whistles that'll probably never see a gunfight.
So...We're stuck with either taking a chance on getting a cranky one or two before stumbling onto a keeper...building/upgrading/having one built...or coughing up the bucks for a real 1911...and then shooting it only occasionally because it's a collector's item. The other alternative is to learn to troubleshoot and repair the current crop...which has a certain appeal of its own. "I turned this dud into a stud!"
Can't say about anything except the 1911 clones...but there seem to be several reasons. The biggest reason being...They don't have to. They know that they're marketing a toy or a conversation piece...or a showpiece to go with their M1 Garand and WW2 GI Joe gear, because they can't afford or can't justify the cost of a minty Remington Rand or GI Colt.
1. There's no need to. The military isn't contracting for the pistols any more, except on a limited, Spec-Op basis. Back when lives depended on the guns, they had to be right. Police agencies are going for the cheap, easy route with guns that qualify as the "Everyman's Gun. Guns that can be safely and effectively handled with minimal training...many times by recruits who have never fired a gun before signing on.
2. The manufacturers know that the buyer either simply wants a pistol like
Dad/Grandpa/Great-Grandpa carried in the war...and that they won't likely be shot much, if any. Or...on the other end of the spectrum, they know that
most of the guns will become a base for extensive customization...and the acting smith will make it right. A dealer once told me that 5% of the shooters are shooting 95% of the ammo...and that's probably pretty close.
3. None of the present-day manufacturers make all the parts for the guns in-house, and outsource everything except the slides and frames...and some even outsource those parts...and just assemble the guns as parts kits that come from all over hell's creation. In that light, they can control neither the quality, the grades of steel, nor the process closely enough to actually build a good pistol.
4. There is an acute shortage of trained, experienced people assembling the guns. They can't even seem to correctly tension the extractors on a consistent basis. The 1911 doesn't fare well when assembled from drop-in, pre-cut this and that components supplied by the lowest bidder. That many do as well as they do is a wonder.
5. Machined steel parts are expensive to produce. If Springfield would offer a 1911 pistol made in America from good quality machined steel, correctly built and tested...the cost of a plain GI Mil-Spec would nearly double. The only buyers would be the ones who truly know what the guns are...and those aren't in sufficient numbers, because Springfield would have to not only make most or all the parts in-house...they'd have to completely retool the facility
to accomplish that. We're talkin' costs in the hundreds of millions. They ain't gonna do that in order to sell to a small segment of the market when the majority wants a flashy, killer pistol with custom touches and match-grade accuracy...and are willing to pay for it, even if the insides are junk. They won't likely shoot it enough to break anything anyway.
It would probably be mind-boggling the know how many people buy one...shoot a half-box of ammo through it...and never shoot it again. Many have never been fired. Not hard to build a wicked-lookin' sports car that'll never put rubber on asphalt. The same goes for "tactical" pistols complete with all the fancy bells and whistles that'll probably never see a gunfight.
So...We're stuck with either taking a chance on getting a cranky one or two before stumbling onto a keeper...building/upgrading/having one built...or coughing up the bucks for a real 1911...and then shooting it only occasionally because it's a collector's item. The other alternative is to learn to troubleshoot and repair the current crop...which has a certain appeal of its own. "I turned this dud into a stud!"
I agree for the most part with Tuner. Most of the consumer base for this kind of pistol seem to be satisfied, or not know enough to not be. Those that are have either turned to some other make or model of handgun, or followed one of the options suggested by Tuner. It is a sad situation, but as long as these companies are selling these guns - and the are selling pretty well - they'll keep doing what the are doing. Their bottom line is to make money, not necessarily turn out a quality product that's dependable at least 95% or more of the time. The 5% they can fix.
Another part of the problem is that many buyers want their pistol to shoot like a match gun, without fulling understanding that true match pistols are pretty expensive. The old-time guns that made the 1911's reputation as a service pistol were many things, but they weren't made to win shooting matches. Tight slide-to-frame fit and undersized chambers contribute to reliability issues, as do out-of spec extractors and magazines. That and everything else Tuner mentioned. If the manufacturers address those problems the current guns will do much better, but I don't expect it to happen until (or when) buyers start to demand a change.
Another part of the problem is that many buyers want their pistol to shoot like a match gun, without fulling understanding that true match pistols are pretty expensive. The old-time guns that made the 1911's reputation as a service pistol were many things, but they weren't made to win shooting matches. Tight slide-to-frame fit and undersized chambers contribute to reliability issues, as do out-of spec extractors and magazines. That and everything else Tuner mentioned. If the manufacturers address those problems the current guns will do much better, but I don't expect it to happen until (or when) buyers start to demand a change.
kart racer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 482
I will say this,the nrm commander I just got and Tuner checked is very good.I measured everything I could and it is impressive,with a few small part changes Colt is back on track.It is much better than the springers I've had,but I still want a Gi to experiment with.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
NRM
Agreed! Joe's Commander is exceptional, and proves that Colt CAN build a good pistol. Let's hope that his is the new rule rather than an exception.
kart racer said:
Agreed! Joe's Commander is exceptional, and proves that Colt CAN build a good pistol. Let's hope that his is the new rule rather than an exception.
I guess both my Springfield 1911's, each purchased for less than $500, are exceptions. They both seem to be under the delusion that they are reliable and accurate. I'm glad they are from Brazil, so that they can't read the forums and learn how screwed they're supposed to be.
Old Dog
Member
Q - How many 1911 guys does it take to change a lightbulb?
A - 15. One to actually swap the bulbs out, 14 to sit around in support, nodding thoughtfully, and talking about how great the old bulb was ...
Buying a 1911 and not figuring out how the thing works and how to maintain it is like buying a Harley ... and then taking it back to the shop to change spark plugs or every time it just doesn't "sound right" to you ...
A - 15. One to actually swap the bulbs out, 14 to sit around in support, nodding thoughtfully, and talking about how great the old bulb was ...
I suppose all nine or so of my Springfields are exceptions as well ... and ya know: on a couple of 'em -- I didn't even (gasp) change out the MIM parts ...
Buying a 1911 and not figuring out how the thing works and how to maintain it is like buying a Harley ... and then taking it back to the shop to change spark plugs or every time it just doesn't "sound right" to you ...
GunAdmirer
Member
A friend and I both have Springfield GI .45s. His is parkerized, mine is stainless. Both of them have been extremely reliable with all types and brands of of ammo -even our experimental reloads. They are both amazingly accurate and aesthetically pleasing. I guess we were extremely lucky. We are also among the 5% who shoot 95% of the ammo. Mine was hard on brass to begin with but has gotten much better with use.
Not bad for less than $450 brand new.
Not bad for less than $450 brand new.
I am also one of those unfortunate guys who just can't get a good 1911 to save his life. I would like to have one but my plan is to buy a used Springfield, Kimber, or Colt and send it to a smith for reliability work before I even fire it. I have given up on getting an off the shelf one and expecting it to work.
GunAdmirer
Member
I'm surprised to hear about all the 1911 and Glock problems.
Over the last six months of matches at our local pistol club, I have never seen a Glock choke. I've only seen a few 1911s jam (probably cheap reloads). I did see a gunsmith "tuned" Springfield XD completely bite the dust and put its owner out of a match. All the different brands show amazing reliability in my experience.
Another local club has an annual 1000 round Glock vs. 1911 torture match. The Glocks won two out of three years, but the 1911s did well. I like them all and have had good luck with all the pistols I have bought over the years.
Over the last six months of matches at our local pistol club, I have never seen a Glock choke. I've only seen a few 1911s jam (probably cheap reloads). I did see a gunsmith "tuned" Springfield XD completely bite the dust and put its owner out of a match. All the different brands show amazing reliability in my experience.
Another local club has an annual 1000 round Glock vs. 1911 torture match. The Glocks won two out of three years, but the 1911s did well. I like them all and have had good luck with all the pistols I have bought over the years.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Torture
Hmmm...The two Glocks that I pitted mine against both lost. The 10-minute mud bath usually gets'em.
GunAdmirer said:
Hmmm...The two Glocks that I pitted mine against both lost. The 10-minute mud bath usually gets'em.
GunAdmirer
Member
The torture match was based on continuous firing through multi round stages. No maintenance, lubrication or adjustments were allowed after the match began. Any stoppages were noted and analyzed. The pistols weren't subjected to unusual or extreme circumstances like ice, heat, sand or mud.
At this year's match, 3 Glocks and one 1911 finished. There were five of each entered. The results were different the other two years.
I like and own both. I'm not for or against either one.
At this year's match, 3 Glocks and one 1911 finished. There were five of each entered. The results were different the other two years.
I like and own both. I'm not for or against either one.
CAnnoneer
Member
Why do the 1911's cost so much? For all the reasons above.
My short, short version: Supply and demand.
My short, short version: Supply and demand.
GoBrush
Member
Sorry save your money and buy a Kimber
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Game, Set, Match
So were both of mine. 2500 rounds without cleaning or lubing for the first stage. Guns were allowed to cool at approximately each 150 round mark
by submersion in water...shaking off the excess...and firing continued.
The second stage was a race.
After the cleaning and reassembling at the halfway point, the real torture started. Mud immersion stopped both guns. 1911 was rinsed in water and firing continued with no malfunctions. The Glocks fell way behind on the time/round count here and required more time to bring them back online.
With both slides locked, red Carolina clay dust was used to cover both guns.
Water rinse and shake returned the 1911 to function for one mag and half of another before stopping. One Glock choked on the second round and required 30 minutes to get back up and running after water bath. The other made it through a half magazine before stoppage put it out of the race. In both contests, the 1911 was detail-stripped without tools, parts rinsed in the now dirty water...shaken off...reassembled...and contined without further stoppage to the 150-round mark...in under 12 minutes including firing time. No oil was applied. Note that the pistol doing the test wasn't a rattletrap, nor was it specially built or prepared. It was a basically stock 1911A1 Colt with a used USGI extractor and good magazines...with the lawyer parts removed to provide a closer approximation of the real deal. The gun and its twin still do range service weekly. Both have been rebarrelled three times, rebuilt/tightened/refitted once...and one has never had a malfunction. Ever. In almost 15 years and over 125,000 rounds...not one malfunction.
My beaters are detail-stripped and cleaned every 2500 rounds or so...whenever it's time to swap recoil springs...and I shoot some funky reloaded ammo with home cast bullets. A thousand rounds of factory ball? Cakewalk. Where do I sign up? Bring on the Glocks and Sigs. I'll lay a dozen pistols on the table and you pick one.
If you're gonna torture it...Torture it. Most Glock/Sig owners get cold feet when they see old Slabsides go into the water anyway.
Standin' by. Any takers within driving distance of Lexington, NC? Come destroy your tupperware for funsies.
GunAdmirer said:
So were both of mine. 2500 rounds without cleaning or lubing for the first stage. Guns were allowed to cool at approximately each 150 round mark
by submersion in water...shaking off the excess...and firing continued.
The second stage was a race.
After the cleaning and reassembling at the halfway point, the real torture started. Mud immersion stopped both guns. 1911 was rinsed in water and firing continued with no malfunctions. The Glocks fell way behind on the time/round count here and required more time to bring them back online.
With both slides locked, red Carolina clay dust was used to cover both guns.
Water rinse and shake returned the 1911 to function for one mag and half of another before stopping. One Glock choked on the second round and required 30 minutes to get back up and running after water bath. The other made it through a half magazine before stoppage put it out of the race. In both contests, the 1911 was detail-stripped without tools, parts rinsed in the now dirty water...shaken off...reassembled...and contined without further stoppage to the 150-round mark...in under 12 minutes including firing time. No oil was applied. Note that the pistol doing the test wasn't a rattletrap, nor was it specially built or prepared. It was a basically stock 1911A1 Colt with a used USGI extractor and good magazines...with the lawyer parts removed to provide a closer approximation of the real deal. The gun and its twin still do range service weekly. Both have been rebarrelled three times, rebuilt/tightened/refitted once...and one has never had a malfunction. Ever. In almost 15 years and over 125,000 rounds...not one malfunction.
My beaters are detail-stripped and cleaned every 2500 rounds or so...whenever it's time to swap recoil springs...and I shoot some funky reloaded ammo with home cast bullets. A thousand rounds of factory ball? Cakewalk. Where do I sign up? Bring on the Glocks and Sigs. I'll lay a dozen pistols on the table and you pick one.
If you're gonna torture it...Torture it. Most Glock/Sig owners get cold feet when they see old Slabsides go into the water anyway.
Standin' by. Any takers within driving distance of Lexington, NC? Come destroy your tupperware for funsies.
DHart
Member
From my experience, HSMITH, dfariswheel, dsk, Tuner, and OldFuff.... all nailed it down!
I should add, however, that I think the 1911 is the type of gun that an owner really needs to get intimate with... to understand the care, needs, feeding, and tweaking of. Oftentimes when a 1911 doesn't run well, the solution is a really simple fix. I'm sure many 1911 buyers have sold otherwise reliable guns which were only in need of an extractor tweak, magazine brand/follower/spring change, or recoil spring change to make run reliably. But if you have little knowledge of 1911's, this is the detail stuff which can kill it for you. If you want to own and thrive using 1911's, you really need to get knowledgeable about the guns.
Not that buying a Glock or Beretta will guarantee trouble free use either! Problems can and are encountered daily with every brand and type of firearm you can name.
I've bought perhaps 25 or more new 1911's in the last four years or so... the vast majority of them Colts, with several Kimbers, a few Springfields, and an Ed Brown. I've had extensive custom work (because I could, not because it was needed) done on three of my Colts.
Had just a few minor cosmetic issues with two or three of the over twenty Colts (which were fully corrected by Colt at no cost to me). Functionally, the Colts have been outstanding... exceptionally reliable with a variety of magazine brands and ammo brand/types. They are my top pick among production 1911s. These guns can be counted on to run reliably right out of the box. NO break-in period (which is as it should be as far as I'm concerned.)
The Springfields have been pretty good... had one "Loaded Stainless" which was a nightmare, but it was my first 1911 and had I been more experienced, I probably could have straightened it out.
Have several early (pre-Series II) Kimbers... which have performed well with one exception. That one went back to Kimber twice with no satisfaction. Finally after being worked over by a custom 'smith and subsequently by myself (now that I finally have the knowledge and experience to really figure this stuff out reasonably well) it's a good running gun. Wouldn't have or rely on a new Kimber if you GAVE it to me, though.
Couldn't agree more that from what I see, most gun buyers shoot a very little bit and then barely, if ever, use the guns. You can buy 10 year, 20 year, 30 year and older guns that have never been used... still NIB! Great finds, but not that uncommon either! I have bought a bunch of older S&W revos in the last couple of years that were like brand new when I found them.
ALL current gunmakers turn out their share of duds these days. Modern manufacturing has some real high points and also a huge amount of low points. Many of today's products are NOT built to take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.
I believe the sweet spot in today's 1911 market is truly with Colt. They are still making 1911's with excellent grade components (for the most part), fine metallurgy, and superb reliability. Some of their guns (as with guns from EVERY maker) have slipped out which need to slip back in for re-work (mostly cosmetic with the Colts, not so much with functional issues), but it seems that most recently, Colt is pulling things together well.
I think Springfield is making a decent product and stands behind it, but their component quality is not great and aesthetically, I think they pale in comparison to Colt.
Kimber is a lost 1911 brand, as far as I'm concerned. Between all the MIM parts breakages, Series II/Schwartz system malfs, external extractor failures, and customer (dis)service dis-satisfaction complaints, I wouldn't even consider buying a new Kimber. Kimber appears to have completely sold out to mass marketing, advertising glitz, pedaling little more than doo-dads, fru-fru, and bling. Quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction seem to be mostly gone at Kimber, even though some buyers of their current production guns seem happy (so far) with their guns. I consider them fortunate consumers.
S&W seems to be satisfying a great many buyers of their 1911's, but I have no interest in a 1911 with the Schwartz system, and with the Colts available, I have no motivation to buy any other production-grade 1911 besides Colt.
Another poster made what I feel is a particularly valuable point... try to resist the urge to extensively modify a new 1911 simply because "you can". Many a 1911 buyer has taken a perfectly reliable 1911 and screwed it up through modifications that weren't needed. Beware not to subscribe to the maxim some governmental agencies seem to subscribe to: "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"
Semi-Customs and Custom 1911's are cool, but don't offer any more reliability than a box-stock Colt offers and you pay a heck of a lot more money for the bragging rights. I have some of them and I do enjoy having and shooting them, but they are no substitute, when it comes down to defense-use, for my basic Colts. Defense-use is my primary purpose when it comes to 1911's.
As was said earlier, in a defensive shooting situation, you will be lucky to even hit your target in a meaningful way, much less be concerned about 1" precision at 50 yards... that's absurd. For me, it's TOTALLY about reliability. Nearly every decent quality 1911 today has all the accuracy anyone would need for defense use.
For the money/quality/reliability/performance equation, I think the sweet spot in 1911's is Colt's 1991A1 for a mil-spec styled gun:
and Colt's XSE for a contemporary-styled 1911:
I should add, however, that I think the 1911 is the type of gun that an owner really needs to get intimate with... to understand the care, needs, feeding, and tweaking of. Oftentimes when a 1911 doesn't run well, the solution is a really simple fix. I'm sure many 1911 buyers have sold otherwise reliable guns which were only in need of an extractor tweak, magazine brand/follower/spring change, or recoil spring change to make run reliably. But if you have little knowledge of 1911's, this is the detail stuff which can kill it for you. If you want to own and thrive using 1911's, you really need to get knowledgeable about the guns.
Not that buying a Glock or Beretta will guarantee trouble free use either! Problems can and are encountered daily with every brand and type of firearm you can name.
I've bought perhaps 25 or more new 1911's in the last four years or so... the vast majority of them Colts, with several Kimbers, a few Springfields, and an Ed Brown. I've had extensive custom work (because I could, not because it was needed) done on three of my Colts.
Had just a few minor cosmetic issues with two or three of the over twenty Colts (which were fully corrected by Colt at no cost to me). Functionally, the Colts have been outstanding... exceptionally reliable with a variety of magazine brands and ammo brand/types. They are my top pick among production 1911s. These guns can be counted on to run reliably right out of the box. NO break-in period (which is as it should be as far as I'm concerned.)
The Springfields have been pretty good... had one "Loaded Stainless" which was a nightmare, but it was my first 1911 and had I been more experienced, I probably could have straightened it out.
Have several early (pre-Series II) Kimbers... which have performed well with one exception. That one went back to Kimber twice with no satisfaction. Finally after being worked over by a custom 'smith and subsequently by myself (now that I finally have the knowledge and experience to really figure this stuff out reasonably well) it's a good running gun. Wouldn't have or rely on a new Kimber if you GAVE it to me, though.
Couldn't agree more that from what I see, most gun buyers shoot a very little bit and then barely, if ever, use the guns. You can buy 10 year, 20 year, 30 year and older guns that have never been used... still NIB! Great finds, but not that uncommon either! I have bought a bunch of older S&W revos in the last couple of years that were like brand new when I found them.
ALL current gunmakers turn out their share of duds these days. Modern manufacturing has some real high points and also a huge amount of low points. Many of today's products are NOT built to take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.
I believe the sweet spot in today's 1911 market is truly with Colt. They are still making 1911's with excellent grade components (for the most part), fine metallurgy, and superb reliability. Some of their guns (as with guns from EVERY maker) have slipped out which need to slip back in for re-work (mostly cosmetic with the Colts, not so much with functional issues), but it seems that most recently, Colt is pulling things together well.
I think Springfield is making a decent product and stands behind it, but their component quality is not great and aesthetically, I think they pale in comparison to Colt.
Kimber is a lost 1911 brand, as far as I'm concerned. Between all the MIM parts breakages, Series II/Schwartz system malfs, external extractor failures, and customer (dis)service dis-satisfaction complaints, I wouldn't even consider buying a new Kimber. Kimber appears to have completely sold out to mass marketing, advertising glitz, pedaling little more than doo-dads, fru-fru, and bling. Quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction seem to be mostly gone at Kimber, even though some buyers of their current production guns seem happy (so far) with their guns. I consider them fortunate consumers.
S&W seems to be satisfying a great many buyers of their 1911's, but I have no interest in a 1911 with the Schwartz system, and with the Colts available, I have no motivation to buy any other production-grade 1911 besides Colt.
Another poster made what I feel is a particularly valuable point... try to resist the urge to extensively modify a new 1911 simply because "you can". Many a 1911 buyer has taken a perfectly reliable 1911 and screwed it up through modifications that weren't needed. Beware not to subscribe to the maxim some governmental agencies seem to subscribe to: "If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"
Semi-Customs and Custom 1911's are cool, but don't offer any more reliability than a box-stock Colt offers and you pay a heck of a lot more money for the bragging rights. I have some of them and I do enjoy having and shooting them, but they are no substitute, when it comes down to defense-use, for my basic Colts. Defense-use is my primary purpose when it comes to 1911's.
As was said earlier, in a defensive shooting situation, you will be lucky to even hit your target in a meaningful way, much less be concerned about 1" precision at 50 yards... that's absurd. For me, it's TOTALLY about reliability. Nearly every decent quality 1911 today has all the accuracy anyone would need for defense use.
For the money/quality/reliability/performance equation, I think the sweet spot in 1911's is Colt's 1991A1 for a mil-spec styled gun:
and Colt's XSE for a contemporary-styled 1911:
Last edited:
Like DHart I have had good luck with Colts. I've bought quite a few used complete with the original box of ammo. As he says, it pays to get familiar with the guns before you buy. That way you have a much lower chance of buying something you won't like.
Mad Magyar
Member
I certainly have asked similar questions, especially about the so-called "Break-In" period for autoloaders. Many excellent responses. Since I shoot frequently, I'm interested in a pistol that will accept different types of ammo and of course: No jams.
I recall reading an article some years back that surveyed a number of Bianchi Cup participants and they were asked what do you expect from an out-of-box .45 and list the revisions you'd make if needed.
It boiled down to four areas:
A. They wanted for the most part a 4 lb or little less trigger pull.
B. Most were divided about using a heavy recoil spring & shok buffs.
C. Most wanted the ejection port enlarged.
D. All of them agreed on having the barrel ramp throated & polished to accept all types of ammo.
E. Almost forgot, most respondents were not happy about fixed factory sights...
Personally, I think all of these things can be done at the factory and out-the-door for a little more money. However, that little extra cost can place them at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. But, like the auto industry there are so many parts-service industries connected to their products as not to make the "perfect pistol". As someone mentioned, many purchasers hardly shoot, if at all, and mfgr's can take the position of why bother making a quality gun. Those of you that are fortunate to have a pistol that meets your expectations: hold on to it...
I recall reading an article some years back that surveyed a number of Bianchi Cup participants and they were asked what do you expect from an out-of-box .45 and list the revisions you'd make if needed.
It boiled down to four areas:
A. They wanted for the most part a 4 lb or little less trigger pull.
B. Most were divided about using a heavy recoil spring & shok buffs.
C. Most wanted the ejection port enlarged.
D. All of them agreed on having the barrel ramp throated & polished to accept all types of ammo.
E. Almost forgot, most respondents were not happy about fixed factory sights...
Personally, I think all of these things can be done at the factory and out-the-door for a little more money. However, that little extra cost can place them at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. But, like the auto industry there are so many parts-service industries connected to their products as not to make the "perfect pistol". As someone mentioned, many purchasers hardly shoot, if at all, and mfgr's can take the position of why bother making a quality gun. Those of you that are fortunate to have a pistol that meets your expectations: hold on to it...
Last edited:
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
1) Don't shoot bad ammo (A-Merc, that aluminum cased stuff)
2) Buy good mags.
That'll fix nearly any problem with any gun. I suspect that many problems with such firearms show up because nobody wants to spend $30 on well-made magazines.
2) Buy good mags.
That'll fix nearly any problem with any gun. I suspect that many problems with such firearms show up because nobody wants to spend $30 on well-made magazines.
Part of it gun makers trying to turn a combat/SD gun into a target gun, part of it is tinkerers trying to turn a combat/SD gun into a target gun with mail order parts.
Hard to say which one causes more problems...
Hard to say which one causes more problems...
Huh? With some practice you can detail strip a Glock and reassemble it in 10 minutes or less. I've seen at least one fellow who could do it in only a couple of minutes. What took so long?
Something broke?
Last edited:
gunfan
Member
Charlie Bravo said:
Strange, My Dan Wesson Razorback (a Series 70 pistol, I might add) works just fine, thank you very much! It is a "John Moses Browning-pattern" pistol if there ever was one.
JMB had it right.
Scott
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
Dunno what happened. The guy had the gun apart and back together twice before he got it to run again. Broke? Nope...He lost somethin' and couldn't find it again.
JohnKSa said:
Dunno what happened. The guy had the gun apart and back together twice before he got it to run again. Broke? Nope...He lost somethin' and couldn't find it again.
George Hill
Member
Crosshair said:
Ahem... CZ-97.
- Status
