Hiya all.
I've been contempating getting an entry-level 1911. All the reading I've done points me toward the Rock Island 1911 in .45 ACP.
Today, I was in a gun store for a few minutes to see what they had. I looked at a Springfield Armory Mil-Spec, a Taurus 1911, a Paraordanance wide-body 1911, and a Kimber Custom II.
All felt nice in my hand.
The Springfield Mil-spec was closest to what I wanted to spend and I was pleasently surprised to learn that the lack of a beaver tail would not really up my chances of hammer bite (I have smaller hands-- I doubt I could fire the gun and have my fingers up there at the same time).
The Paraordanance wide-body did not feel as "fat" in my hand as I thought it would, but I doubt it would have worked near as well for concealed carry for me-- so it is out.
The Taurus seemed to be a solid gun.
The first thing I noticed about the Kimber Custom II was that it was significantly heavier than the Springfield Mil-Spec. I liked the Kimber, but I did not like the price tag that this shop had on it (this shop is not known for good prices on anything.)
The clerk and I were talking about my options and the Rock Island 1911 came up. I told him that I have read a lot of positive reviews of the firearm on several gun forums-- including the 1911 forum.
His immediate response was "I don't like them." He cited the whys as not liking the trigger, and the slide "rattles" a bit.
Someone please talk to me about this.
I've read both of those things on some forums. On reason I purposely looked at the Springfield Armory Mil-Spec was to check slide "rattle." Someone said that slide rattle was common on "Mil-Spec" 1911s in order to be more reliable with looser tolerances. My logic is that if both handguns are designed to mil-spec, they should have the same tolerances and therefore the same looseness. I really didn't find any "rattle" in the Springfield 1911 slide.
I've also read that the slide "rattle" is one thing that allows the RIA to feed so many different types of rounds with no hickups. I can see that logic.
Still... I am wondering what I would get my hands on if I got a RIA. I don't mind a bit of movement--especially if that allows me to feed it hollow points reliably. But I don't want something that feels like I built it in my basement out of old Datsun parts.
The purpose of this firearm will be:
1. Basic knock-around carry.
2. Concealed Carry
Needs the firearms must meet:
1. Reliability
2. Able to feed hollow points reliability
3. Ability to hit fairly accurate. (Pie-plate at 20 paces is fine)
Would the RIA fit the bill? I'd love to hear from some owners.
Thanks!
-- John
I've been contempating getting an entry-level 1911. All the reading I've done points me toward the Rock Island 1911 in .45 ACP.
Today, I was in a gun store for a few minutes to see what they had. I looked at a Springfield Armory Mil-Spec, a Taurus 1911, a Paraordanance wide-body 1911, and a Kimber Custom II.
All felt nice in my hand.
The Springfield Mil-spec was closest to what I wanted to spend and I was pleasently surprised to learn that the lack of a beaver tail would not really up my chances of hammer bite (I have smaller hands-- I doubt I could fire the gun and have my fingers up there at the same time).
The Paraordanance wide-body did not feel as "fat" in my hand as I thought it would, but I doubt it would have worked near as well for concealed carry for me-- so it is out.
The Taurus seemed to be a solid gun.
The first thing I noticed about the Kimber Custom II was that it was significantly heavier than the Springfield Mil-Spec. I liked the Kimber, but I did not like the price tag that this shop had on it (this shop is not known for good prices on anything.)
The clerk and I were talking about my options and the Rock Island 1911 came up. I told him that I have read a lot of positive reviews of the firearm on several gun forums-- including the 1911 forum.
His immediate response was "I don't like them." He cited the whys as not liking the trigger, and the slide "rattles" a bit.
Someone please talk to me about this.
I've read both of those things on some forums. On reason I purposely looked at the Springfield Armory Mil-Spec was to check slide "rattle." Someone said that slide rattle was common on "Mil-Spec" 1911s in order to be more reliable with looser tolerances. My logic is that if both handguns are designed to mil-spec, they should have the same tolerances and therefore the same looseness. I really didn't find any "rattle" in the Springfield 1911 slide.
I've also read that the slide "rattle" is one thing that allows the RIA to feed so many different types of rounds with no hickups. I can see that logic.
Still... I am wondering what I would get my hands on if I got a RIA. I don't mind a bit of movement--especially if that allows me to feed it hollow points reliably. But I don't want something that feels like I built it in my basement out of old Datsun parts.
The purpose of this firearm will be:
1. Basic knock-around carry.
2. Concealed Carry
Needs the firearms must meet:
1. Reliability
2. Able to feed hollow points reliability
3. Ability to hit fairly accurate. (Pie-plate at 20 paces is fine)
Would the RIA fit the bill? I'd love to hear from some owners.
Thanks!
-- John