1911 price premium and popularity in IDPA

[judaspriest]

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

 

[mpthole]

One can easily find a 1911 for an equivalant (or less) price of an HK or Sig. Not all of them are a Les Baer or Ed Brown. However, the high end makers do command a price premium because most of them really are, I suspect, that good. I wouldn't know as I've never owned a 1911 that I paid more than $600 for.

Part of the 1911 mystique is that they are so easy to shoot and carry. IDPA gives you the opportunity to get some decent practice in with your carry gear - and carrying a 1911 in an IWB holster all day is much more comfortable for most people than carrying a thicker polymer-framed gun like a HK, Sig, Glock, XD, etc.

Sure, polymer-framed guns may give you more capacity (and in some cases better reliability), but if you can't shoot them fast and accurately (IDPA), then you won't be as competitive as you could be. Of course some folks are concerned with being competitive and some aren't. All depends on why they chose to shoot IDPA. I suspect most start to have fun and to get some time in with their carry gear... and get competitive later on. Either way, again IMO, shooting a 1911 has it's benefits over the polymer guns in both cases.

As far as reliability goes - I've seen just as many Glocks have malfs as 1911s at the various matches I've shot in. Why is that...? I suppose because that's what the majority of people are shooting. I suspect many of the reliability problems have been ammo (bad reloads) or magazine related and not necessarily gun related.

If you haven't shot a 1911-style gun, I would highly recommend you give it a try. I started out shooting HK's and even though I still own several, 1911's are my go-to and carry guns.

Hope that helps.

 

[nonquixote]

As far as shooting in IDPA, there are 5 different classes: CDP - for .45 caliber pistols mostly (but not necessarily) of the 1911 form factor, ESP - for SA semi-autos from 9mm up, SSP - for double action and DA/SA service style semi-autos from 9mm up, ESR - for revolvers that use moon clips, and SSR - for revolvers that use speed loaders. So the different types of weapons mentioned only really compete against others of the same basic type.

 

[45auto]

I don't have any "emotional" or "historical" attachment to the 1911, but I shoot one.

Basically, if you like the grip angle/feel and trigger pull style...they are fun and accurate to shoot. More so, then the "modern" type guns IMHO. And, you pay a higher price given "how" they are made and you "pay" skilled labor costs and higher quality "parts" as you move up the scale. Not needed in IDPA with relatively short distances and big targets. But, generally the people that have the "higher cost" 1911 practice a lot, enjoy shooting and like most sports, if your "in" them, gravitate towards the higher quality "tools".
If you play baseball or softball several times a week in leagues, I'll bet you didn't buy your mitt for $50 in Walmart...but those mitts "work".

In the "real world", as a civilian... not counting television, , you probably have a better chance of getting hit by an asteroid than having to reload. So, I don't think capacity is an issue IMveryHO.

Glock dominates IDPA in their divisions. I doubt you'll be seeing Sigs and H&K too much with their "type" of design and trigger systems. Clearly, these types of guns are "popular" in the real world, but you are shooting a sport with reduced loads, reloads and on the clock.

Just opinion of course.

 

[Jim Watson]

1911 prices are all over the place. You can buy Philippine steel for less than Austrian plastic if you want to get into the type cheaply. What costs extra is US made with machined parts.

I shoot the 1911 because I have long familiarity with the type, since before the Glock was a gleam in Gaston's eye, and can get better hits faster than with other autos.
I worked hard on revolver shooting at one time and could do ok with them.

I have shot a fair amount with CZ75, P226, and USP but with very ordinary results. The various "constant action" guns like Glock, XD, and Plastic M&P are difficult for me to shoot. I could probably do better if I worked at it, but I just don't care enough to dedicate the time and effort when the Colt works so well.

 

[jfh]

at the risk of oversimplifying the issue--

a good chunk of what you are dealing with is simply the 'advancements' in manufacturing and metallurgy technology and its related impact on a product's cost to the buyer.

The 1911 is a firearm designed 100 years ago, well into the second part of the Industrial Age. John Moses Browning did not have access to today's materials (modern polymers) nor manufacturing techniques (CNC machining to make molds). The only plastic available was Bakelite--and that was used for electrical insulators. As a gunsmith, he designed and built firearms using advanced blacksmith techniques from the late 1800s and then expanded the designs to fit with more-advanced metalworking tools like metal lathes and mills.

In short, compare the mostly-metalworking procedures used to produce the nominal 40 parts of a 1911 with the 30+ parts of a Glock, and see which takes more time. Gaston Glock designed the 17 from the very beginning to be as cost-efficient as possible for manufacturing as well as for its inherent reliability in use. Looks, and related aesthetics were secondary (that's obvious).

That alone accounts for some of the "premium price" differential for firearms like the 1911.

A second issue is that of "aesthetics" and personal values. Firearms like the 1911 and the '98 Mauser were designed at a time when personal values for firearms incorporated care and maintenance and an appreciation of the labor that went into making a product. The pervasive values for ownership today have been shaped by modern business practices of marketing and consumption, and the knowledge for those practices barely existed 100 years ago (think "Freud had not impacted the world thought yet.") We now buy products based on our (subconscious) values and desires, not on well-developed aesthetic standards based on concepts like 'durability' and 'quality'. Or, maybe--given pervasive values of Western Civilization consumption, there is a shift in the concept of quality: is a well-made injection-molded receiver perceived to be of equal quality to a machined 1911 frame?

Finally, in terms of today's dominant user values, were have another shift going on. In another technological area, for example, I am still stuck in a mindframe that says high-quality audio recording is done (at best) on major name brand casette decks (B&O) I bought twenty-one years ago; I don't incorporate Ipod / digital recording at all.

I discovered the 1911 early on in my (reawakened) firearms passion of the late 1980s. I learned what a mil-spec SA was like, and I modified it to the standards of that day into a decent IPDA-type pistol. As I gained knowledge, I gained shooting expertise that allowed me to favorably value the 1911 design. I tried Glocks--and after blowing up a Glock 20, abandoned them.

No matter what the use, a product comes along that simply becomes timeless in its appreciation by its users. The 1911 is one, and the Glock is another. But, it really is the complexity and manufacturing requirements of the design that has the most bearing on price, I think.

Jim H.

 

[scubie02]

well, to me the 1911 is the pinnacle of handguns, but that aside, as has been mentioned it's pretty easy to get a quality new 1911 for the price or cheaper than that of a new Sig or HK. Something like a Springfield Loaded, SW1911, or even a basic 1991 Colt are all going to be comparable to a Sig or HK. Nothing I have used shoots like a good 1911. Even the ones that are ho-hum in the accuracy department that I have owned have compared well to your average garden variety auto pistol. My least accurate 1911 was still more accurate than the Sig Pro I used to own, and as good as my ex's dad's 226 and 229 I believe they were. 3 of the 4 1911's I happen to own at the moment are my first three most accurate handguns. All have been totally reliable so far. I'm generally pondering what 1911 I might like to add to the stable at any given time...I haven't considered buying a Sig or HK in I don't know when.

Why the 1911? The trigger is the first/most obvious thing generally mentioned. Again, the worst of my 1911 triggers have compared pretty well to most other auto's triggers. The slim profile makes it pretty much the most comfortable full sized carry piece out there. (some might like it's cousin the hi-power as well). It points and shoots very naturally. In it's most common 45 ACP configuration it is still a creampuff to shoot in terms of recoil compared to many "modern" 40's, 357 Sigs, etc. It may be single stack, but I would bet the average shooter is going to connect with more of the lead he or she is tossing down range out of a 1911. What's not to love?

 

[Joe D]

You can purchase a perfectly good 1911 for less money than a Glock - RIA Tactical. The reason Glocks own IDPA is they are easy to shoot fast and accurately. Sigs and HKs have a very high bore axis and a difficult trigger to master.
If I had to go into harms way I would choose a Glock 22 over any Sig or HK.
I hardly ever see a revolver in IDPA competition.
Remember a handgun has two functions in the real world. It is a back up if your rifle breaks or it buys you time to get to your rifle.
Guess there is a third - you would probably get some strange looks if you carried your rifle to church.

 

[judaspriest]

Very interesting - I am glad I asked.

Thanks,

JP

 

[Lastmohecken]

The 1911 is still the best fighting handgun ever made, Plus it is made of steel for the most part, and walnut. They are a beautiful gun that makes it's owner want to take pride it it. It's hard to get emotional about a piece of plastic. That is why it is so popular espacally with civilians and even some special operation's personal.

But it has fallen out of favor with many police departments, because for one they don't need a fighting handgun, as much as a threat management gun. The 1911 is not such a great threat management tool, because of single action, and light trigger, and it looks too dangerous to many oficials. The Glock, Sigs, and other more modern double action variations, are safer threat management tools for the average police officer who usually isn't much of a gun nut, anyway, and seldom shoots his weapon, except to qualify.

The 1911 isn't a threat management tool, it is more of a pull all of stops out, full blown fighting handgun, for the service man who has just had his world turn to crap up close, it's his last resort. And it still also makes a pretty darn good concealed carry handgun for the trained civilian CCW holder. It's one of my first choices.

 

[Hoppy590]

center fire systems offers a couple of 1911's under 400$ includinga a Rock Island 38 super!

\these are foreign made guns, philipines if im correct. http://www.centerfiresystems.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=257

I would think their limited magazine capacity would be a very serious handicap, would it not?

many 1911's can be had in High capacity versions with 14 or 15 round mags. and to be honest. if you need more than 7 shots of .45 you should either improve your aim, or Kiss you butt goodbye

 

[Jenrick]

I've done a lot of research into the origins of the modern shooting sport. Here's the quick and dirty answer. Back in the day when the main shooting sports were NRA Bullseye, Law Enforcement PPC, and the Leather Slap, the DA revolver ruled the roost. The leather slap was an outgrowth of the western fast draw craze. Where basically the fasts hits counted. The original rules allowed a condition zero 1911 to be basically sat on a belt mounted shelf (I'm not calling something that would let the pistol fall out if you move to fast a holster). Needless to say that 1911 posted very favorable times compared to single action revolvers.

Well from there multiple targets were added or multiple engagements, etc. Eventually the round count got over 6 rounds. Suddenly the automatic is at an advantage. Now to top all that off, someone came up with the idea of power factors. Since according to the rules designers shooting a .45 fast and accurately counted for more then shooting a .38 or 9mm in the same manner. Looking at the orginal power factors tables the .45 had a HUGE advantage over other cartridges in terms of scoring vs. recoil. To get more points per hit you had to shoot a .41 magnum or up, which is obviously not even close in the recoil department. So as the rules evolved into very codified courses of fire (the Mexican Defense anyone?), and focused less on raw speed out of the holster, the power factor became more important. With the only only automatic pistols really in use at the time being 9mm or .380's, the scoring advantage rested massively in favor of the .45.

As all of this evovled into IPSC this has continued to be true. Shooters shot the cartridge that gives them the max points with the best recoil control. Now add close to 40 years of tuning on the 1911 to max it shoot well in these type of competitions and you see why they do well. If you look at production in IPSC on the other hand you'll see a whole lot of other guns being shot. In production it's a free for all, that basically ends up with the best match of skill and gun fit.

-Jenrick

PS Sorry for spelling or grammar mistakes, it's late