judaspriest
Member
Being a relatively young shooter myself, I have been wondering about the prices of 1911s for awhile. While I understand that these are very highly respected firearms for historical reasons, why do they command such a huge price premium over the more modern top off the line semiautomatics (Sigs and HKs for example)? I understand the emotional reasons (and appreciate their being made in the US vs. the foreign nature of Sigs & HKs), but is there a practical reason?
From what I have read and my own (extremely limited) experience with them, I don't see them performing consistently better than the two above. They aren't without a few problems of their own either. Yet, they consistently command a price that is roughly twice as high as that of the best modern semiautos. I am not sure if it's due entirely to the higher demand for them from the shooters or the cost of making them is significantly higher or there are some other reasons.
I am also surprised by the 1911s popularity among the IDPA shooters. Again, these might be great guns for their true fans, but when it comes down to practicality, I would think their limited magazine capacity would be a very serious handicap, would it not?
Speaking of IDPA, I am also very surprised to see a number of revolvers that people use. Again, don't get me wrong, it's my weapon of choice for home defense (utmost reliability and no harm in being stored loaded for a decade are among the reasons), but for IDPA purposes they have an even smaller mag capacity than the 1911s and are a bit harder to reload quickly, even with a moonclip and a lot of practice.
On the other hand, only several people out of several hundred use Sigs and H&Ks in IDPA. Given their rave reviews from just about everywhere, high capacity and significantly lower price, it seems strange they aren't used a lot more. Same goes for CZs and XDs - they are a tad less universally loved, but surely enough to expect to see them a lot more in IDPA.
I am very genuinely curious about the reasons for all of the above (esp. since I am considering buying a semiauto in the next couple of months). I don't want to start a flame here, but would love to hear everyone's take on the reasons for all of the above.
Thank you all very much
JP
From what I have read and my own (extremely limited) experience with them, I don't see them performing consistently better than the two above. They aren't without a few problems of their own either. Yet, they consistently command a price that is roughly twice as high as that of the best modern semiautos. I am not sure if it's due entirely to the higher demand for them from the shooters or the cost of making them is significantly higher or there are some other reasons.
I am also surprised by the 1911s popularity among the IDPA shooters. Again, these might be great guns for their true fans, but when it comes down to practicality, I would think their limited magazine capacity would be a very serious handicap, would it not?
Speaking of IDPA, I am also very surprised to see a number of revolvers that people use. Again, don't get me wrong, it's my weapon of choice for home defense (utmost reliability and no harm in being stored loaded for a decade are among the reasons), but for IDPA purposes they have an even smaller mag capacity than the 1911s and are a bit harder to reload quickly, even with a moonclip and a lot of practice.
On the other hand, only several people out of several hundred use Sigs and H&Ks in IDPA. Given their rave reviews from just about everywhere, high capacity and significantly lower price, it seems strange they aren't used a lot more. Same goes for CZs and XDs - they are a tad less universally loved, but surely enough to expect to see them a lot more in IDPA.
I am very genuinely curious about the reasons for all of the above (esp. since I am considering buying a semiauto in the next couple of months). I don't want to start a flame here, but would love to hear everyone's take on the reasons for all of the above.
Thank you all very much
JP