Rock Island still the default for a 1911 on a budget?

I keep showing the same pistol, but...

I won this for a $379 GB bid, NiB, last year. GI sights are too small for my middle-aged eyes. I was looking for a new or gently used 1911 with larger sights, and maybe a largish beavertail. Looking at the expired "sold" auctions that had at least a few bids, it looked like getting that done for $400 wouldn't be that hard. I kept my eyes open for a couple of weeks or so and scored the new RIA below. It's a good shooter and has given me zero problems.

Also within the past year or so I found this Citadel (made by RIA) 1911 in 9mm at my LGS and talked them down to $300 plus tax. I'm a preferred customer and it hadn't been moving for some reason. It also shoots well and has been trouble-free.

hey Don't forget Auto Ordnance, i Have had a couple of them over the years , the new ones are better than the older ones , no problems from either

I have a basic Remington R1. It is a good gun, quiet accurate and malfunction free. I caught it on sale for 499. Though I like it, I find myself wishing it had some upgrades. If I had it to do over again I would want the extended beaver tail , long trigger, maybe better sights than three dot. The cast frame has not caused a problem but the line down the middle seems to cheapen it a little.
David

OP, look around, deals can be found. With the RIA pistols, the TAC model is usually on $50 more than the GI and you get a lot for that $50. Just looking at Bud's the Ruger and Springfield 1911s are running close to $300 more than the RIA. Is the adjustable rear sight and fiber optic sight on the TAC II worth the extra cost to you?

My latest 1911 purchase was the RIA GI 9mm. Even with the tiny GI sights, it shoots good. I use combat hold at 7 yards and 6 O'clock hold at 25 yards. So far it has been very accurate with factory 115 FMJ and my 115 FMJ reloads. I'm going to work up some 124 FMJ reloads to try next. My RIA TAC uses the same hold at 7 yards and 25 yards. It shoots good with my 230 FMJ reloads.

rskent said:

I have to disagree, sort of. The hammer is hardly balancing on the sear. It would take a heck of a whack to either totally rip the hammer hooks off the hammer or totally take off the nose of the sear on a 1911 making it fire from rest. Does your RIA hammer have a half cock notch? I think it’s far more likely that, without a firing pin safety or a lightened firing pin, that you could drop or hit it hard enough for inertia to take over and fire your gun.

Click to expand...

Have you worn out a hammer or sear on a 1911? I have, three hammers on my Kimber and one sear. I have had hammer over rides on my 1944 P38, FAL, and on bolt rifles when the trigger was set too light for the mechanism. It used to be very common for M1a's to double due to trigger sear/hammer sear wear. Guys were trying to get the absolute lightest trigger pull, and the things would double in rapid fire. Saw that on M1a's and on AR15's with the GI trigger and hammer. On my BSA International Martini's when the trigger mechanism is set too light, the firing pin will follow if the block is closed too fast. I have had enough hammer over rides just due to wear, out of tolerance conditions, etc, that I am not going to rely on a sear blocking safety for the safety of my butt cheeks or appendix.

And, I have heard of incidents where a cocked and locked 1911 hammer was hit, (in American Handgunner I think) by a double door and the pistol discharged, and at the range, a shooting bud told me of a third individual whose cocked and locked 1911 discharged when it was under a truck seat. I do not have a collection of incidents, not that it would matter to those who carry cocked and locked. You are going to do what you are going to do. But, all these incidents are a warning to me about trusting sears and sear blocking mechanisms. I do not trust a mechanism that solely relies on the integrity of sear surfaces not to discharge.

SRSTAdam21 said:

I have quite a range of 1911's. For the money, the Remington R1 has been an awesome gun. Love the finish on it, shoots well, been reliable. Can find these for sub 600

View attachment 915600

Click to expand...

^^^ This is what I recommend for a budget 1911 if you want made in the USA. However I got this barely used beauty at my lgs for $675 a month or so back.
MSRP on it is $1067.

I have several 1911s including five Colts, a Springfield Armory, and a 2011 .40. Recently bought a Kimber LW at Sportsmans Warehouse for $599 plus tax. Replaced the sights with Tru Glos, G10 grips. About 500 rounds and not a single failure with ball or hollow points. Friend has a Remington R1 that he likes and has had no problems. I had an RIA ten years ago that ran well, but my son talked me out of it. The RIA has worked fine for him. Lots of good options under a grand.

Slamfire said:

In 1917 the local Cabelas has RIA 1911's for $400 and I had a $100 gift card to spend.

Click to expand...

Been time traveling again? I mean we know you're no spring chicken, but...

A good friend ordered a Tisas 1911, and I am impressed with the fit and finish, and performance with ball ammo. $325 was what he paid. I paid $25 more for my used RIA ten years ago.

entropy said:

Been time traveling again? I mean we know you're no spring chicken, but...

A good friend ordered a Tisas 1911, and I am impressed with the fit and finish, and performance with ball ammo. $325 was what he paid. I paid $25 more for my used RIA ten years ago.

Click to expand...

I can't get the 20th century out of my mind. I lived most of my life in a century that starts with 19, and I keep on forgetting that this one starts with a 20. Opps.

Just yesterday I wore my 2000 NRA National Championship to a Smallbore Prone match. It does not seem that long ago.

I would comb the used market for guns like Kimbers, Springfields, Ruger, and Remington.

Slamfire said:

Have you worn out a hammer or sear on a 1911?

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I have not. Screwed up yes, worn out no. You do see the difference with a 1911 firing with the safety on and one doubling, right?
You do see the difference between a new out of the box gun and a gun modified for competition, right?

As far as what was written about or what may or may not have happened under your friend’s car seat. I got nothing.

In the end its kind of moot.

rskent said:

As a matter of fact, I have not. Screwed up yes, worn out no. You do see the difference with a 1911 firing with the safety on and one doubling, right?
You do see the difference between a new out of the box gun and a gun modified for competition, right?

As far as what was written about or what may or may not have happened under your friend’s car seat. I got nothing.

In the end its kind of moot.

Click to expand...

Well, do what you want to do, because that is exactly what you will do.

Just how many barriers to safety do you need?. If you are a Boeing Engineer, just one. The 737 AMAX, if the pitot tube fails, the plane crashes. The plane was designed that way, the pitot tube fails, the automation pushed the nose down, and a cabin of screaming passengers dies in terror. Yippie! More profit to the company!!!

Boeing divided the number of flights that did not crash, by the two planes that did, and decided the number was too small to bother with. And Boeing blamed the pilots. Boeing engineers have pushed so many design failures on the pilots to figure out, that the guys have to be super computers to puzzle out all the faults, failure warnings in the seconds they have. These planes crash in under a minute, but I am sure all the geniuses here could have figured it out. Some crews figured it out, as it was a systemic problem reoccurring many times, and a couple of crews did not figure it out. But they don't count, how about best three out of four?

Must be a bunch of Cult Cocked and locked working for Boeing. Denial is as denial does.

Well, alrighty then.

Slamfire said:

However, the original GI configuration was made to be carried hammer down on a round in the chamber, and ...

Click to expand...

Do you have any legitimate sources to back this up? I think someone may have given you bad information.

For example this 1940 US Army training guide https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf says on pages 11 and 12 that if the 1911 is to be carried ready for instant use it should be fully loaded (round in the chamber and full mag), cocked, and locked. It specifically says it is safe to do so.

The 1911 was designed to US military requirements and the US Department of War wrote the manual based on the the design, so obviously from their point of view it was designed to carry cocked and locked, not hammer down on a loaded chamber. Additionally, the design isn’t especially safe when hammer down on a loaded chamber compared to cocked and locked.

Ed Ames said:

Do you have any legitimate sources to back this up? I think someone may have given you bad information.

For example this 1940 US Army training guide https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf says on pages 11 and 12 that if the 1911 is to be carried ready for instant use it should be fully loaded (round in the chamber and full mag), cocked, and locked. It specifically says it is safe to do so.

The 1911 was designed to US military requirements and the US Department of War wrote the manual based on the the design, so obviously from their point of view it was designed to carry cocked and locked, not hammer down on a loaded chamber. Additionally, the design isn’t especially safe when hammer down on a loaded chamber compared to cocked and locked.

Click to expand...

Interesting manual. It will take time to reply, so let me think of how to answer this. I think you are interpreting this manual based on a narrative of someone who is living a civilian life and how you act, and what you can do, as a civilian.

brewer12345 said:

OK, so I would buy an inexpensive RIA GI edition, but there is no way I could see the sights. What is a good choice for a 1911 with a decent trigger, works without a fuss, and has easily seen sights?

Click to expand...

Another RIA Tactical for $500 and replace the front sight with fiber optic sight - https://www.budsgunshop.com/product_info.php/products_id/35190/rock+island+armory+rock+standard+fs+tac+45+acp+5+8+1+black+rubber+grip+black

Dawson Precision FO front sight - https://dawsonprecision.com/rock-island-1911-fiber-optic-front-sights/

Fusion Arms FO front sight - https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Island-Armory-Front-Sights/dp/B07BR936BH

Tallball said:

I won this for a $379 GB bid ... new RIA

Click to expand...

I consider RIA Tactical "Glock of 1911s" due to enlarged chamber mouth that will reliably feed even sloppy reloads.

Tallball said:

I found this Citadel (made by RIA) ... shoots well and has been trouble-free

Click to expand...

Citadel is target model of Tactical with tighter tolerances and actually shot smaller groups than my Sig 1911 XO dependent on ammo. It may not be popular among reloaders as like Sig 1911, has tighter chamber with shorter leade and require more consistent finished round dimensions - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/rock-island-1911s.863876/#post-11397123

BTW, my Sig 1911 with tightest chamber I have seen, Citadel 1911 and RIA Tactical all fed 200 gr LSWC reloads reliably ... That's not the case for some other 1911s - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...11+not+feeding+SWC+reliably&o=date&c[node]=33

brewer12345 said:

OK, so if I opportunistically watch for a deal (since this is obviously no rush), what am I looking for? How do you evaluate a used 1911?

Click to expand...

By range testing and checking for accuracy while inspecting for wear/breakage. People sell guns for many reasons and none of the reasons are "good reasons" for me and I won't buy a used gun without range testing for accuracy, even Glocks:

Reasons why people sell guns:

• Worn out/not reliable (Maybe the seller never changed consumable parts like recoil spring, mag spring, bad/damaged magazine, etc.)
• Not accurate for the shooter (May shoot accurate for you though)
• Won't feed reliably (Maybe the extractor needs adjustment/replacement, etc.)
• Magazines don't work reliably
• Don't like the trigger (You may be OK with the trigger or opt do trigger job/replace trigger)
• Breaks parts
• Had broken gun repaired under warranty and don't want to keep it
• Fear of gun breaking or not being reliable
• Finish is not wearing well, don't like the color, etc.

Many consider 10K-15K rounds through 1911 "worn" and group size could go from 2" to 3"+ at 25 yards. If group size you obtain using ammo you intend to carry is acceptable, then it's down to how much you want to spend for the used 1911.

Slamfire said:

Interesting manual. It will take time to reply, so let me think of how to answer this. I think you are interpreting this manual based on a narrative of someone who is living a civilian life and how you act, and what you can do, as a civilian.

Click to expand...

That’s certainly a possibility. Or maybe the English language has changed in the 80 years since that manual was written. There are many possible explanations, some less likely than others to be correct.

Another possibility is that you have misunderstood the mechanism involved. For example, this statement:

Slamfire said:

I do not trust a mechanism that solely relies on the integrity of sear surfaces not to discharge.

Click to expand...

That seems to be an incorrect interpretation of the design. The 1911 has a hammer blocking mechanism that prevents the hammer from falling completely if the trigger isn’t pulled. This feature, often mistaken for a half-cock, is intended to prevent discharge in the case of the hammer falling off the sear. You can see it in the diagrams here: https://www.m1911.org/1911desc.htm

I’m not saying you should carry in a way you are uncomfortable with, but it seems as though you are basing that decision on non-factual ideas you hold, and that’s not the best way to make decisions.

"brewer12345, post: 11498308, member: 235708"
Is there something better for the money? I prize good sights and a good trigger.

Click to expand...

Absolutely..... Europtics had Range Officers for $639 last week. You'd be hard pressed to do better than that.

I've been pleased with my Springfield Armory Defender 1911. GI-ish pistol. No frills or fluff but comes with 3 dot sights. Reliable as any autoloader I've owned.

I do like the RIA guns too. But my LGS had the Defender for 425 last year and I was down a 1911 and wanted a bare bones shooter. I've been pleased. Only issues I have had have been magazine related, and that's an obvious weak point of any autoloader.

Ed Ames said:

This feature, often mistaken for a half-cock, is intended to prevent discharge in the case of the hammer falling off the sear.

Click to expand...

That feature is the half-cock, according to TM9-10050211-34, Direct and General Support Maintenance Manual, Pistol Caliber .45 Automatic, M1911A1. (Dated 22 June 1964.)
There is no more authoritative source on the M1911 than this. Please cease and desist your attempt to prove Slamfire wrong. I've been watching you digging your hole for a while now, and it has been amusing, but enough is enough. I dug out my old -34 from when I was an Armorer with an SMOS of 45B, Small Arms Repairer, those whom that manual was written for. I know whence I speak. Half-cocks on 1911's CAN fail, as can sears, disconnectors, and grip safeties. I have seen and repaired all of the above.

Slamfire said:

I do not trust a mechanism that solely relies on the integrity of sear surfaces not to discharge.

Click to expand...

Nor do I. I have repaired many that have failed over the years.

“Cease and desist”? lol lighten up Francis. Unless you are a lawyer who can articulate some right under which you can make cease and desist demands, you just sound like a tool when you use that phrase. And even if you were a lawyer, you’d sound like a tool if you used it in a forum discussion. You really sound like you need to relax. Deep breath.

Everything mechanical can fail - that was never a question. This sub-discussion is about the intent and actual practices of people long dead, not mechanical failures or the terminology adopted by their grandchildren.

Slamfire made the claim that the GI 1911 was designed to be carried hammer down on a live round. I provided documentation indicating that the army trained to use the gun cocked and locked, not hammer down, and considered that configuration safe. As far as I can find, “hammer down” carry may or may not have actually been doctrine and if someone says it was I’d like to see credible documentation.

It may be called half-cock in your manual from 60 years after the gun was designed. It may have been called half-cock on the original sketches for all I know. But - as far as I’ve been able to find - the feature wasn’t and isn’t a half-cock in the same sense as was used in guns (e.g. the Browning-designed M92 lever action rifle) that were intended to be carried at half-cock. The intent of the designer was different.

If you can provide some documentation of the intent, that would be a meaningful addition to the conversation. What can you give us?

Ed Ames said:

What can you give us?

Click to expand...

Logic. The gun was designed by John Browning-the same John Browning who designed the Model 1892 lever action. Both have a half-cock, the one on the M1911 so-named in Army nomenclature. Why would that not have been it's function, (and indeed, after reassembling the pistol, it is required to function test the half-cock) SO I'll put that one back on you. Prove to me it isn't a half-cock.
I'm kidding-don't bother. You can't -I already cited the most authoritative source on the subject short of Browning's own blueprints and design notes.

Whether the pistol was designed from the get-go deliberately to be carried with the hammer down and a round in the chamber is actually immaterial, because it was designed with a firing pin that has a return spring, which allows this to be done. It again comes back to logic that unless there were Army directives that specifically prohibited that, it was figured out rather quickly that carrying it in this fashion would allow quicker deployment in combat, the user merely having to thumb the hammer back during the draw. Indeed, even in the face of directives to not do it, soldiers in a combat zone would probably do it anyway.

I will relate my own use (not repair) experiences with the 1911 while in the Army. Cocked and Locked was expressly forbidden by directive when I was in. ('86-'89) So was carrying with hammer down, round in chamber. The only modes of carry allowed (officially) were mag in, hammer down on empty chamber, or mag out, hammer down on empty chamber. At least when guarding with a 1911, you could have a loaded magazine, and in the pistol even. If you were guarding with a rifle, you were issued a sealed box of M198, and one 20 round magazine. (Until we had to turn the 20 rounders in, then one 30 rounder.) You were not authorized to open the box unless you had challenged an intruder and they failed the password for the day. I guess command figured they'd wait around while you loaded your magazine.....
I only drew my M16A1 for guard duty once. I grabbed a 1911 everytime after that. (I was the Unit Armorer, so I could grab what I wanted.)

Per Army regs,the 1911 was meant to be carried in what we today call condition 3, empty chamber, hammer down. After unholstering due to combat conditions the gun could be carried in condition 1, cocked and locked, ready for firing in combat.

This thread ran off a cliff...