SelfProclaimedExpert
member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 323
No grip safety = Ballestra Molina
And a better safety, too, for $249.
And a better safety, too, for $249.
NIB KIMBER Failure in the first 100 rounds!
- Thread starter Will Fennell
- Start date
- Status
Grip safeties can be locked out without drilling the frame, you just need to insert a small " U" shaped piece of metal at the bottom of the grip safety. If you are getting blisters that implies to me that the gun is moving in your hand. That's not good for accuracy or your hand . You should try rubber grips or better checker the front and back straps. The checkering should be flat top , not brought to sharp points.
Tamara:
I know. I was in-and-out of retailing for many years, starting in the 1960's. Of course price is important to customers, and the rest of us as well. I fully understand the situation from you're side of the counter because I've been there.
Also as a staff menber of a Firearms Industry Trade Association I sat in on many discussions with manufacturers, distributors and dealers concerning the economic issues within the trade.
What your customer wants is a Government Model pistol "like they used to build" at a price that fits his pocketbook. Reality says that no maker located in the United States can produce a "like they used to make" gun that isn't expensive. Sometimes I think, a knowledgeable dealer has to explain the facts of life to some customers. One has four possible options:
1. Buy the top-quality pistol and pay the price.
2. Pay what you want to spend, but understand that the pistol contains some manufacturing short-cuts and alternative materials and technology, that may effect performance.
3. Buy a "modern" gun, such as a Glock, that is designed to take advantage of current manufacturing technology and still be a satisfactory product from a performance point of view.
4. Make a lucky find, and buy a good, used "older/like they used to make" gun for an affordable price.
Anything else is wishful thinking.
I know. I was in-and-out of retailing for many years, starting in the 1960's. Of course price is important to customers, and the rest of us as well. I fully understand the situation from you're side of the counter because I've been there.
Also as a staff menber of a Firearms Industry Trade Association I sat in on many discussions with manufacturers, distributors and dealers concerning the economic issues within the trade.
What your customer wants is a Government Model pistol "like they used to build" at a price that fits his pocketbook. Reality says that no maker located in the United States can produce a "like they used to make" gun that isn't expensive. Sometimes I think, a knowledgeable dealer has to explain the facts of life to some customers. One has four possible options:
1. Buy the top-quality pistol and pay the price.
2. Pay what you want to spend, but understand that the pistol contains some manufacturing short-cuts and alternative materials and technology, that may effect performance.
3. Buy a "modern" gun, such as a Glock, that is designed to take advantage of current manufacturing technology and still be a satisfactory product from a performance point of view.
4. Make a lucky find, and buy a good, used "older/like they used to make" gun for an affordable price.
Anything else is wishful thinking.
The curse of the semi-custom .45...
From the book of John Moses Browning, verses 13 to18:
13 and in the end times the people ignored the law, and built 1911s that were not sanctified by (J)Moses(B); and they worshipped the pagan guns of Springfield, Kimber, Smith, and Wesson.
14 The pagan guns were an abomination before (J)Moses(B), with their front serrations, and grip safties named after the unclean portions of unclean animals.
15 Their false safties fell out, their guide rods bent, and the people's holsters were abraded without cause.
16 So the pagan guns were jammed and broken, and their false extractors fell out like the teeth of a rotting carcass.
17 And because these pagan guns were not sanctified by (J)Moses(B), his anger was kindled against them. His parts would not fit them.
18 So there was wailing and gnashing of the teeth, and much confusion throughout the land.
From the book of John Moses Browning, verses 13 to18:
13 and in the end times the people ignored the law, and built 1911s that were not sanctified by (J)Moses(B); and they worshipped the pagan guns of Springfield, Kimber, Smith, and Wesson.
14 The pagan guns were an abomination before (J)Moses(B), with their front serrations, and grip safties named after the unclean portions of unclean animals.
15 Their false safties fell out, their guide rods bent, and the people's holsters were abraded without cause.
16 So the pagan guns were jammed and broken, and their false extractors fell out like the teeth of a rotting carcass.
17 And because these pagan guns were not sanctified by (J)Moses(B), his anger was kindled against them. His parts would not fit them.
18 So there was wailing and gnashing of the teeth, and much confusion throughout the land.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Like they used to make'em
Fuff...One more alternative is to build one. Works for me!
Cheers!
Tuner
Fuff...One more alternative is to build one. Works for me!
Cheers!
Tuner
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Verily!
Sarge! TESTIFY!
The 1911 has been around for so long...and so many have tried to
"improve" it...and so so many have been tryin' to outsmart ol'
John Moses for so long, that they actually think they have.
Tuner's Law #1:
Whenever something is changed, three other things must be
changed to compensate for the "improvement". There endeth
the lesson.
Cheers!
Tuner
Sarge! TESTIFY!
The 1911 has been around for so long...and so many have tried to
"improve" it...and so so many have been tryin' to outsmart ol'
John Moses for so long, that they actually think they have.
Tuner's Law #1:
Whenever something is changed, three other things must be
changed to compensate for the "improvement". There endeth
the lesson.
Cheers!
Tuner
Hi ‘Tuner …..
Build one ….. Yes I sometimes do that, and they function like a well-behaved pistol is supposed to. But I usually don’t recommend this on a forum to someone else because I have no idea what skills and knowledge they may have - - and I have seen some awful homebuilt guns along with some very nice ones.
Present company is exempted from the above noted caution …..
Dobe ...
Adding aftermarket accessories doesn’t necessary degrade a pistol or effect its reliability. But everything depends on what the part(s) are and how they are installed. There is something to be said about the KISS principal in connection with defensive sidearms. Playtoys are another matter.
I have observed that on both the much-lamented TFL and now THR that many if not most of the posts regarding malfunctioning 1911-style guns usually involve the much-modified models.
Build one ….. Yes I sometimes do that, and they function like a well-behaved pistol is supposed to. But I usually don’t recommend this on a forum to someone else because I have no idea what skills and knowledge they may have - - and I have seen some awful homebuilt guns along with some very nice ones.
Present company is exempted from the above noted caution …..
Dobe ...
Adding aftermarket accessories doesn’t necessary degrade a pistol or effect its reliability. But everything depends on what the part(s) are and how they are installed. There is something to be said about the KISS principal in connection with defensive sidearms. Playtoys are another matter.
I have observed that on both the much-lamented TFL and now THR that many if not most of the posts regarding malfunctioning 1911-style guns usually involve the much-modified models.
Old Fuff,
I can agree, and your post was well phrased. Yet what once was modified has now become common place. In other words, these 1911's that are being sold by solid manufactures are much, much more than "play toys".
I have nothing against simplicity. As a matter of fact, I know many that would stake their and their families personal protection on a good single-action revolver. That is between them and their's. The enhancements that I have purchased (from factory) are appreciated by me. I do like them. And, I suppose as long as I am having this cake and eating it too (reliability), then I am content.
Thanks Friend
Dobe
I can agree, and your post was well phrased. Yet what once was modified has now become common place. In other words, these 1911's that are being sold by solid manufactures are much, much more than "play toys".
I have nothing against simplicity. As a matter of fact, I know many that would stake their and their families personal protection on a good single-action revolver. That is between them and their's. The enhancements that I have purchased (from factory) are appreciated by me. I do like them. And, I suppose as long as I am having this cake and eating it too (reliability), then I am content.
Thanks Friend
Dobe
Dobe:
I know some folks that carry single actions that I’d never want to have a serious dispute with ……
Jeff Cooper (who I know) once told me that there were some modifications that should always be done if the pistol didn’t come with them, and some that should **never** be done, and some optional ones that wouldn’t hurt and would allow the owner to modify a personal weapon to better address individual needs.
Yes, today’s gunmakers do load on the gadgets, just like carmakers do. Both call them “accessories.†Some are well thought out, while others are intended to simply make the seller more money. Over the years I have known many lawmen that carried the Government Model by professional choice, and most were notable for the lack of do-dads attached. Those that were “accessorized†were limited to a very few changes.
The key to this is RELIABILITY. If your guns are unquestionably dependable then whatever may have been done in ways beyond the basic design is moot.
Unfortunately I think too many of today’s makers are more tuned to attracting the unwary buyer by “duding-up the piece†then paying attention to important basics. That’s why we see so many “my gunjams all the time†posts.
I know some folks that carry single actions that I’d never want to have a serious dispute with ……
Jeff Cooper (who I know) once told me that there were some modifications that should always be done if the pistol didn’t come with them, and some that should **never** be done, and some optional ones that wouldn’t hurt and would allow the owner to modify a personal weapon to better address individual needs.
Yes, today’s gunmakers do load on the gadgets, just like carmakers do. Both call them “accessories.†Some are well thought out, while others are intended to simply make the seller more money. Over the years I have known many lawmen that carried the Government Model by professional choice, and most were notable for the lack of do-dads attached. Those that were “accessorized†were limited to a very few changes.
The key to this is RELIABILITY. If your guns are unquestionably dependable then whatever may have been done in ways beyond the basic design is moot.
Unfortunately I think too many of today’s makers are more tuned to attracting the unwary buyer by “duding-up the piece†then paying attention to important basics. That’s why we see so many “my gunjams all the time†posts.
SelfProclaimedExpert
member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 323
O.F.
I understand what you're saying about accessorizing, in principle, but I don't see the application.
The greatest majority of "doodads" are parts for the fire control, safety and magwell of the 1911. None of those should have any even indirect bearing on how the gun feeds. How does a beavertail, ambi safety or magwell chute cause a gun to jam?
I understand what you're saying about accessorizing, in principle, but I don't see the application.
The greatest majority of "doodads" are parts for the fire control, safety and magwell of the 1911. None of those should have any even indirect bearing on how the gun feeds. How does a beavertail, ambi safety or magwell chute cause a gun to jam?
SelfProclaimedExpert
member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 323
Fair enough.
The funny thing here is that it really doesn't cost a manufacturer any more to make a beavertail than an A1 grip safety. Most of the doodads aren't really an extra expense to make. So it isn't really that the maker is choosing doodad over quality - it's more like they're choosing doodads and hoping you won't notice the crummy quality.
Personally, I think a basic 1911 would be assisted if stamped parts could somehow be used in more places. Stampings seem to be very consistent and hard, but don't tend to crack. Just a thought.
The funny thing here is that it really doesn't cost a manufacturer any more to make a beavertail than an A1 grip safety. Most of the doodads aren't really an extra expense to make. So it isn't really that the maker is choosing doodad over quality - it's more like they're choosing doodads and hoping you won't notice the crummy quality.
Personally, I think a basic 1911 would be assisted if stamped parts could somehow be used in more places. Stampings seem to be very consistent and hard, but don't tend to crack. Just a thought.
S.P. Expert:
My reference was to **reliability** which entails more then feeding/ejection problems. A magazine chute if struck a hard blow from the side can wedge the magazine. Chutes are fine on game-guns (not met as a dig) but I wouldn’t have one on a weapon. If I considered it to be important I'd get a frame (such as Caspian makes, or at least used too) where the chute is an intregal part of the frame.
I’m not so concerned about the other options you mentioned, although ambi-safeties that have a key-and-grooved shaft can go bad if the shaft or key breaks.
The greater problem is that manufacturers are tending to use lesser quality parts in an attempt to attract buyers who want the “cool looks†they see on a cover of some news stand “gun-bull†magazine while holding down the gun’s cost to make the price attractive. Then they pay less attention to basic fitting to save money. From the manufacturer’s point of view they only have to fix the ones that come back. The rest are money in the bank. The greater emphasis on gadgets vs. fitting obviously effects reliability in all aspects.
If my budget was limited (and most buyers budgets are) I’d much rather have a “basic†gun that had been properly assembled with attention paid to important adjustments (example - the extractor) then a bunch of accessories. The alternative is good assembly work using quality parts and accessories. But that costs more money then most buyers can, or will pay. Of course there are exceptions.
My reference was to **reliability** which entails more then feeding/ejection problems. A magazine chute if struck a hard blow from the side can wedge the magazine. Chutes are fine on game-guns (not met as a dig) but I wouldn’t have one on a weapon. If I considered it to be important I'd get a frame (such as Caspian makes, or at least used too) where the chute is an intregal part of the frame.
I’m not so concerned about the other options you mentioned, although ambi-safeties that have a key-and-grooved shaft can go bad if the shaft or key breaks.
The greater problem is that manufacturers are tending to use lesser quality parts in an attempt to attract buyers who want the “cool looks†they see on a cover of some news stand “gun-bull†magazine while holding down the gun’s cost to make the price attractive. Then they pay less attention to basic fitting to save money. From the manufacturer’s point of view they only have to fix the ones that come back. The rest are money in the bank. The greater emphasis on gadgets vs. fitting obviously effects reliability in all aspects.
If my budget was limited (and most buyers budgets are) I’d much rather have a “basic†gun that had been properly assembled with attention paid to important adjustments (example - the extractor) then a bunch of accessories. The alternative is good assembly work using quality parts and accessories. But that costs more money then most buyers can, or will pay. Of course there are exceptions.
S.P. Expert:
Just noticed your remark about stampings ....
Several manufacturers have designed up-dated Government Model designs with entirely different internals along the lines you may be thinking of. But none of them has been produced because market studies showed that potential customers insisted on the original Browning/Colt, not a "cheaper" edition. Colt faced the same problem with their Single Action Army. Buyers insisted the company couldn't change "their gun." S&W changed to MIM lockwork and now they are catching all kinds of flack. Gun-folks simply can't or won't stand change.
Just noticed your remark about stampings ....
Several manufacturers have designed up-dated Government Model designs with entirely different internals along the lines you may be thinking of. But none of them has been produced because market studies showed that potential customers insisted on the original Browning/Colt, not a "cheaper" edition. Colt faced the same problem with their Single Action Army. Buyers insisted the company couldn't change "their gun." S&W changed to MIM lockwork and now they are catching all kinds of flack. Gun-folks simply can't or won't stand change.
For What It's Worth
My personal observations on the Kimber phenom.
When the Kimbers first came into the gun shoppes, there was ONE model, a plain black 5" clone of the 1911A1/Colt Government Model priced at ~ $349 - around the same as a contemporary 1991 Colt. Obviously nicer than the comparable 1991, even a little nicer than the much more expensive Colt Government Model (~$699 IIRC). Fit and finish was extremely well done for a basic model pistol. AFAIK, Kimber had made its name selling nice semi custom rifles prior to the 1911 type pistol.
I admit I was a snob. Whenever I went into the gun store, with the price of a Colt Government/Gold Cup/Delta in hand, that's what I walked out with. Fellow gunshop denizens raved about the plain Jane Kimber and some derided me for buying Colt which had seen their glory days sometime in the past. I never bought the $349 Kimber that was selling like hot cakes.
Fast forward a few years or five. The gunshops now had thousands of Kimbers although no two were alike as far as I could see. Fancy sounding names adorned the slide, doodads abounded, and some were given radical dehorning treatment straight from the factory. Oh yeah, the price had also risen to about $900 or a large for most models. No more plain Jane $349 models that I could see.
The rumors of parts failures and quality control problems also starting buzzing around at that time.
The one thing I will say is my Colts may be plainer in appearance than some doodified pistols, but they are regularly shot and have never let me down in reliable, accurate shooting. They are almost as boring to shoot as a SIG or Glock in terms of self loading perfection.
Thanks for reading!
My personal observations on the Kimber phenom.
When the Kimbers first came into the gun shoppes, there was ONE model, a plain black 5" clone of the 1911A1/Colt Government Model priced at ~ $349 - around the same as a contemporary 1991 Colt. Obviously nicer than the comparable 1991, even a little nicer than the much more expensive Colt Government Model (~$699 IIRC). Fit and finish was extremely well done for a basic model pistol. AFAIK, Kimber had made its name selling nice semi custom rifles prior to the 1911 type pistol.
I admit I was a snob. Whenever I went into the gun store, with the price of a Colt Government/Gold Cup/Delta in hand, that's what I walked out with. Fellow gunshop denizens raved about the plain Jane Kimber and some derided me for buying Colt which had seen their glory days sometime in the past. I never bought the $349 Kimber that was selling like hot cakes.
Fast forward a few years or five. The gunshops now had thousands of Kimbers although no two were alike as far as I could see. Fancy sounding names adorned the slide, doodads abounded, and some were given radical dehorning treatment straight from the factory. Oh yeah, the price had also risen to about $900 or a large for most models. No more plain Jane $349 models that I could see.
The rumors of parts failures and quality control problems also starting buzzing around at that time.
The one thing I will say is my Colts may be plainer in appearance than some doodified pistols, but they are regularly shot and have never let me down in reliable, accurate shooting. They are almost as boring to shoot as a SIG or Glock in terms of self loading perfection.
Thanks for reading!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
More on Reliability
Old Fluff nailed it. In addition to feed/extract/eject/bang every time,
not having small parts break is a big plus...and not having to worry
about it makes for more confidence in the weapon.
I have several 1911 pistols that are older than I am...and a couple
are in their 80's that are still tickin' along with the original...or
at least era correct... grip and thumb safeties, slide stops, extractors,
firing pin stops and mag catches. Even the firing pins are likely original or correct. Most of them have been rebuilt by me at least once, and retain the parts that were with the guns when I bought them. Any that were
missing were replaced with GI parts, or the best aftermarket parts
available.
These small parts that pop like matchsticks and extractors that lose
tension while you wait are unacceptable. I would pay more for a
pistol with good small parts. If you shoot the gun a lot, you're eventually
going to have to replace them anyway. If you carry the gun for serious
purpose, you'll replace them for peace of mind if for no other reason.
It should at least be a factory optional upgrade-at-extra-cost for those
of us who are buying a tool instead of a toy.
Colt? Ya'll hearin' this?
Tuner
Old Fluff nailed it. In addition to feed/extract/eject/bang every time,
not having small parts break is a big plus...and not having to worry
about it makes for more confidence in the weapon.
I have several 1911 pistols that are older than I am...and a couple
are in their 80's that are still tickin' along with the original...or
at least era correct... grip and thumb safeties, slide stops, extractors,
firing pin stops and mag catches. Even the firing pins are likely original or correct. Most of them have been rebuilt by me at least once, and retain the parts that were with the guns when I bought them. Any that were
missing were replaced with GI parts, or the best aftermarket parts
available.
These small parts that pop like matchsticks and extractors that lose
tension while you wait are unacceptable. I would pay more for a
pistol with good small parts. If you shoot the gun a lot, you're eventually
going to have to replace them anyway. If you carry the gun for serious
purpose, you'll replace them for peace of mind if for no other reason.
It should at least be a factory optional upgrade-at-extra-cost for those
of us who are buying a tool instead of a toy.
Colt? Ya'll hearin' this?
Tuner
Tuner,
All of these companies are in competetion with each other. You and I and others may have been raised in a time when craftmanship mattered. Well, I have good and bad news for you. It still matters, but labor is through the roof, and you have to pay for it.
So, you can still get what you want, you just have to go to some of the semi-customs to get it. I don't have a problem with that. You just said that some would be willing to pay the difference. That route is and always has been available. Craftsmanship in some arenas has been replaced by engineering design and technology. Unfortunately, this is what it takes for the average Joe to purchase a firearm.
But for those who want and can afford more, it is there and always has been. Me, I am happy with my MIM parts. If I want more, I know where to get it.
Have a good one,
Dobe
SelfProclaimedExpert
member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 323
Thinking more about my stamped parts comment, I've come to the conclusion that the problem with the 1911 is that everyone wants a perfect example of a post Victorian bit of tool work, but want it at the prices commensurate with modern production.
That's already been noted, but I was thinking that one could build a gun, using modern techniques: stamped parts, CNC production, mechanisms that work better with the current material, and make a gun that looks like a 1911 on the outside but functions like a Sig. No questionable retrofit pin safeties, no variable barrel lockup depth. It may end up with a ramped barrel and a kidney cut-out like a CZ, and the internal extractor might have a spring, but it would run; every time.
You keep the handling and durability of the original but add the precision and intelligent cost savings of a modern gun. Kind of like the SW 945, but even closer to the 1911.
I know, no one would go for it.
That's already been noted, but I was thinking that one could build a gun, using modern techniques: stamped parts, CNC production, mechanisms that work better with the current material, and make a gun that looks like a 1911 on the outside but functions like a Sig. No questionable retrofit pin safeties, no variable barrel lockup depth. It may end up with a ramped barrel and a kidney cut-out like a CZ, and the internal extractor might have a spring, but it would run; every time.
You keep the handling and durability of the original but add the precision and intelligent cost savings of a modern gun. Kind of like the SW 945, but even closer to the 1911.
I know, no one would go for it.
>> I know, no one would go for it. <<
True, at least that's what market surveys say. But they were asking probable Government Model (or clone) buyers. Maybe other might. But so far no manufacturer has been willing to risk the money for tooling it up.
The next thing I expect is to see more Colt-clones coming in from overseas where the labor costs are lower, both from the point of view of making parts, and then making guns.
If these guns are well made (something that hasn't happened so far) from quality materials and function reliably, and don't cost an arm and a leg they'll sell like hotcakes so long as Colt parts interchange. Buyers will want the option of using popular after-market magazines and accessories.
True, at least that's what market surveys say. But they were asking probable Government Model (or clone) buyers. Maybe other might. But so far no manufacturer has been willing to risk the money for tooling it up.
The next thing I expect is to see more Colt-clones coming in from overseas where the labor costs are lower, both from the point of view of making parts, and then making guns.
If these guns are well made (something that hasn't happened so far) from quality materials and function reliably, and don't cost an arm and a leg they'll sell like hotcakes so long as Colt parts interchange. Buyers will want the option of using popular after-market magazines and accessories.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re: Cost Out the Roof
It wouldn't be all that bad, Dobe. With my discount at Brownell's, here's
what a small parts upgrade would cost me: (All prices are approximate)
Wilson Bulletproof Slide stop............35 dollars
EGW firing pin stop..........................10 dollars
Cylinder&Slide Extractor...................22 dollars
Nowlin S-7 Sear................................15 dollars
Ed Brown Hardcore Thumb Safety.....25 Dollars
MGW steel Barrel Bushing..................10 Dollars
If a hammer is needed, add 40 bucks...Colt Hammers are steel.
Disconnectors are 15 or so, and grip safeties and mainspring Housings
are really optional, as they rarely break unless something is wrong elsewhere. A pin set is 10 dollars. Colt, Springfield, or Kimber would
get a huge price break on these parts ordered by the truckload, so the
cost of a small parts upgrade might cost an extra 150-200 dollars.
I'd be willing to give 600-700 dollars for a no-frills Colt that had those
upgrades, and spend the time/money tweaking the feed/bang/extract/eject/bang issue. Even if a pistolsmith had to be
contracted for a basic reliability package, you'd only be up another
75 bucks.
Works for me! Colt?
Cheers!
Tuner
It wouldn't be all that bad, Dobe. With my discount at Brownell's, here's
what a small parts upgrade would cost me: (All prices are approximate)
Wilson Bulletproof Slide stop............35 dollars
EGW firing pin stop..........................10 dollars
Cylinder&Slide Extractor...................22 dollars
Nowlin S-7 Sear................................15 dollars
Ed Brown Hardcore Thumb Safety.....25 Dollars
MGW steel Barrel Bushing..................10 Dollars
If a hammer is needed, add 40 bucks...Colt Hammers are steel.
Disconnectors are 15 or so, and grip safeties and mainspring Housings
are really optional, as they rarely break unless something is wrong elsewhere. A pin set is 10 dollars. Colt, Springfield, or Kimber would
get a huge price break on these parts ordered by the truckload, so the
cost of a small parts upgrade might cost an extra 150-200 dollars.
I'd be willing to give 600-700 dollars for a no-frills Colt that had those
upgrades, and spend the time/money tweaking the feed/bang/extract/eject/bang issue. Even if a pistolsmith had to be
contracted for a basic reliability package, you'd only be up another
75 bucks.
Works for me! Colt?
Cheers!
Tuner
Sounds like you need to contact Colt's custom shop, and place the order. I think of course you do understand the problem with out of sync assembly line orders. Logistics, logistics, which answers your question why. You see, even with the materials cost, and labor there is the off-line work that cost more than one would expect. It is kinda like stocking two thousand gallons of blue and two thousand gallons of red paint. It cost more than four thousand gallons of just red or just blue. Logistics and cost efficiency is bear, isn't it?
This is where the small shop has the advantage. The small shop may not even run a true assembly line. They can therefore afford to turn-on-a-dime. But, I am of the type that believes that all should have what they wish ........ as long as they are willing to pay.
But just for the sake of discussion, why do you think neither Kimber nor Colt nor SA offer this upgrade?
Good shooting,
Dobe
This is where the small shop has the advantage. The small shop may not even run a true assembly line. They can therefore afford to turn-on-a-dime. But, I am of the type that believes that all should have what they wish ........ as long as they are willing to pay.
But just for the sake of discussion, why do you think neither Kimber nor Colt nor SA offer this upgrade?
Good shooting,
Dobe
You boys are easy to please...
Here's what I want- a GI format 1911, in either full or Commander length. It's gonna cost me 500-600 bucks, but it better work. I ain't talking two boxes of shells, either. Thousands of rounds of ball, equivalent reloads, or hardball-profile JHP's. No jams. Not one.
Impossible? Not by a long shot. I bought a new 1991-A1 Commander in 98, and it did just that. As a matter of preference I put a set of wood grips and a steel MSH in it. It lived on a steady diet of Universal Clays and 230 RNL loaded in mongrel brass; 230 Hydra Shok carried for duty, and shot up occasinally to make room for new ammo. If the barrel was nice and clean it would plant 5 of those Hydra Shoks in 3.5 inches at 50 yards from the sandbags. It was the stock Colt barrel that came in the gun.
I had a 70 Series GM that was just as good as the '91, as well as an old AMU-built Ithaca that was every bit the gun that my best Colts were. About 6500 trouble-free rounds into my ownership of the Ithaca it needed a new extractor. Heaven only knows how many thousand it digested before that. It got a GI replacement and is still running strong 8 years later.
Reliability has nothing to do with fad parts, big custom names or gaudy billboards down the side of a gun. The design is reliable already. Proper execution of that design is all that's required, using materials up to the original specs that were established nearly 100 years ago.
Manufacturing technology and metallurgy have improved astronomically. Ammunition and components are better than ever. In this day and age you should be able to do just what I described in the first paragraph, for well within the price I described. You shoudn't have to pay abybody else a damn dime to make it run, either.
The marketers will sell what they can get away with. We are letting them get away with selling us fad gadgets at a premium price, instead of real quality at a fair price. I don't look for that to change in the near future- but when it DOES change, it will be because WE required it of the people who make the guns for us to spend our hard-earned money on.
It's up to us what we get.
Here's what I want- a GI format 1911, in either full or Commander length. It's gonna cost me 500-600 bucks, but it better work. I ain't talking two boxes of shells, either. Thousands of rounds of ball, equivalent reloads, or hardball-profile JHP's. No jams. Not one.
Impossible? Not by a long shot. I bought a new 1991-A1 Commander in 98, and it did just that. As a matter of preference I put a set of wood grips and a steel MSH in it. It lived on a steady diet of Universal Clays and 230 RNL loaded in mongrel brass; 230 Hydra Shok carried for duty, and shot up occasinally to make room for new ammo. If the barrel was nice and clean it would plant 5 of those Hydra Shoks in 3.5 inches at 50 yards from the sandbags. It was the stock Colt barrel that came in the gun.
I had a 70 Series GM that was just as good as the '91, as well as an old AMU-built Ithaca that was every bit the gun that my best Colts were. About 6500 trouble-free rounds into my ownership of the Ithaca it needed a new extractor. Heaven only knows how many thousand it digested before that. It got a GI replacement and is still running strong 8 years later.
Reliability has nothing to do with fad parts, big custom names or gaudy billboards down the side of a gun. The design is reliable already. Proper execution of that design is all that's required, using materials up to the original specs that were established nearly 100 years ago.
Manufacturing technology and metallurgy have improved astronomically. Ammunition and components are better than ever. In this day and age you should be able to do just what I described in the first paragraph, for well within the price I described. You shoudn't have to pay abybody else a damn dime to make it run, either.
The marketers will sell what they can get away with. We are letting them get away with selling us fad gadgets at a premium price, instead of real quality at a fair price. I don't look for that to change in the near future- but when it DOES change, it will be because WE required it of the people who make the guns for us to spend our hard-earned money on.
It's up to us what we get.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
