1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Comments on the "Shooting Times" comparison of autoloaders?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by J-Bar, Dec 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J-Bar

    J-Bar Well-Known Member

    OK, I am a wheelgun guy. You don't see me here often, and I think this may be my first post in this forum. You will see me in the Blackpowder and Revolver forums so I hope you will be kind to a newbie.

    I received the latest issue of Shooting Times magazine yesterday, (very welcome, since we are snowed in by winter storm Cleon), and it has a "1911 Shootout" as a featured article. I am curious how the author's rankings will be received by you folks who participate in this forum. The only autoloader I own is a an old Ruger Mark I. I feel a bit guilty about not owning some kind of 1911, but have never taken the plunge. Your comments may push me over the edge to purchase a centerfire autoloader instead of only using wheelguns.

    Mr. Paul Scarletta wrote the article. He ranks the following 1911s in this order:

    1. Para 1911 Expert Stainless
    2. Ruger SR1911
    3. Magnum Research Desert Eagle 1911G
    4. Springfield 1911-A1 Mil Spec
    5. Auto-Ordnance Thompson Custom 1911
    6. Taurus PT-1911
    7. ATI FX45

    Not necessarily trying to start arguments, although they can be great fun when the weather is bad.

    How say you all?
  2. Jolly Rogers

    Jolly Rogers Well-Known Member

    No way I'd rank a Para over a Springer.
  3. browningguy

    browningguy Well-Known Member

    Well, firstly I haven't read the article, but if that's the only 7 he tested then he is doing the world a great disservice unless he specifically stated he had failed to include many of the most popular or well known brands. Was this limited to some imaginary price point?

    For instance he included an Auto Ordnance, and a Magnum Research? I didn't even know MR made a 1911 clone.

    Why wouldn't he have included Sig, S&W, or perhaps even Colt?
  4. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Well-Known Member

    How does one assign a ranking to such similar guns?
  5. J-Bar

    J-Bar Well-Known Member

    The attributes compared were:

    Recoil Control

    He really liked the fiber optic sight on the Para.
  6. Wow! Guess my Sigs and HK's are nothing but trash.
  7. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    And I REALLY DISLIKE fiber optic sights on any handgun I want to shoot very accurately.

    So, all that proves is, I'm an old 'black sight' NRA Bullseye shooter that went to all-army, and inter-service Olympic trials once.

    And he isn't & probably hasn't.

    One of us is obviously wrong.
    But which one??

    BTW: I would put the Springfield 1911-A1 Mil Spec right up there near the top.

  8. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Well-Known Member

    Their first mission is to sell magazines. A little controversy goes a long way to doing that. But lack of credibility would hurt also. A clever blend is required.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2013
  9. tarosean

    tarosean Well-Known Member

    Which company had the most ads in the rag?
  10. private snowball

    private snowball Well-Known Member

    Michael Kassner did a hell of job when he put together the specs for the Desert Eagle 1911. He had a great looking gun about to go to market. When MR got their paws on it and put that disgusting billboard on the slide, it made my stomach turn.
  11. eldon519

    eldon519 Well-Known Member

    That lineup is probably akin to a car test of a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Hyundai, Kia, etc. They didn't really hit the BMWs, Audis, Mercedes and got nothing close to the Bentley, Aston Martin, etc.

    Regardless, if you are just looking to branch out to autos, I think the question you should be trying to answer is "which semi-auto?" not "which 1911?" unless you already have tried a bunch of models and know the 1911 is the best for you.
  12. TimboKhan

    TimboKhan Moderator

    I've not read this article, but it seems obvious he is ranking less expensive guns as opposed to comparing Para to Ed Brown or something.

    If that is the case I still wouldn't put Para on top. In addition to generally liking Springfield guns, I heart my Ruger and I thought my early model Taurus was OK. I am not painting with a broad brush, but the one Para I shot was... not so good.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2013
  13. critter

    critter Well-Known Member

    Just a note. I just got a Ruger (commander length) and really like it a lot. VERY accurate and 100% reliable. Nicely done gun for the price.
  14. hentown

    hentown Well-Known Member

    I always figured that gunrag-writers would be doing something else for a living, if they really knew how to write. ;) I'd assign no creditbility at all to the Shooting Times article!
  15. wford

    wford Well-Known Member

    Kind of a bad article in my opinion. If you only have one autoloader, what made you want a 1911 versus other types?
  16. J-Bar

    J-Bar Well-Known Member

    I thought it was un-American to not own a 1911???
  17. wally

    wally Well-Known Member

    I didn't think much of the article or the scoring criterion. But two of them having parts breakage makes me wonder. I've never seen an ejector break, I had a Colt that was stovepipe city until I replaced the ejector, but I've never seen one break, extractors I've broke several -- easy to fix.

    Infant mortality is a fact of life with modern manufacturing methods and the 2-3% "acceptable" failure rates due to the cost savings from not doing any serious QA/QC.

    Should have included an RIA Tactical in the line-up best bang/buck going.
  18. huntershooter

    huntershooter Well-Known Member

    "Them's that can do, them's that can't are gun rag writers" (with precious few exceptions).
    I would give zero credibility to anything I read in "Shooting Times".
  19. Rinspeed

    Rinspeed Well-Known Member

    Didn't know HK was building a 1911. :confused:
  20. Walt Sherrill

    Walt Sherrill Well-Known Member

    The article wasn't that bad.

    The writer addressed a handful of 1911s in the the low to middle price range ($500 - $800); it seemed fairly balanced. The writer gave clear explanations WHY he down-rated or up-rated specific models, so if you ignored the ranking and read the article, you got a good sense of what the guns were like.

    Most of the guns got essentially the same score except for things like sights (for which the MILITARY models were down-rated), or other quirks: one had a terrible trigger; one had an ejector failure. He said, time and again, "except for that, this gun might have been in the top 2 or 3." They generally showed up well.

    I found the article more balanced and sensible that many of the gun reviews I read, and think I could make some decisions based on the articles -- or at least know what to expect with the guns evaluated.
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page