1911 sacrilege

[Jim Watson]

If any of the "modern" plastic and pot metal guns ever get popular enough that everybody and his brother are making copies and think they know better than the designer, you will see the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the 1911 that rigid adherence to design and quality control cannot take care of. It is just that building to design and making sure that everything is right gets expensive for a steel gun.

 

[tntwatt]

I think the OP was talking about the "feeling of betrayal" for not instantly loving a pistol that has become an American icon. I can really relate to this feeling as I went straight from revolvers to Beretta's(in the service) and then Plastic. When I first tried the 1911 I simply didn't like it. I almost thought there was something I was missing.

 

[xsquidgator]

I did a little bit of the "exercise the slide" bit (200). I also ordered an 18.5# and a 20# recoil spring (thanks for the tip, dschulte!) also. I figure I'll run another one or two hundred more rounds through it this weekend and see how that goes. If it doesn't loosen up by then, then I'll try the next higher recoil spring (18.5#) and see how that goes.

Thanks all for the back and forth on 1911s and why they are what they are. I think I have a better feel for why they're not for everyone now. Until going through this and thinking it through, I thought the only reason for not liking a 1911 was liking a safety catch where up equals "fire"! I'm confident I'll improve the performance of this entry-level 1911 one way or another and it's fun to be learning about them. I've also wanted one since 18 years ago when my shooting buddy (another JO on my ship who's now a C.O. himself) and I both got new pistols. I got a Ruger P85 in 9mm, and he got a parkerized 1911 .45. Since then I've wondered many times that maybe I should have gotten the 1911 instead, well it took me almost 20 years but now I have one too and I'm glad.

I think the OP was talking about the "feeling of betrayal" for not instantly loving a pistol that has become an American icon. I can really relate to this feeling as I went straight from revolvers to Beretta's(in the service) and then Plastic. When I first tried the 1911 I simply didn't like it. I almost thought there was something I was missing.

You are correct, I thought I was wrong for not bowing down to the 1911. Listening in to the debate here though has helped me understand what one should expect from various levels of 1911 pistols. I honestly didn't know any of that. I'll just say I like both modern pistols and the 1911 for what I think they are. That high-cap 9mm Ruger P85 of mine may not have any cachet like the 1911 but I like it too. The only guns I've had that I don't like are the cheap POSs that were always breaking!

 

[ambidextrous1]

No one has addressed the OP's complain abouy the sharp checkering irritating his hand.

It's easy to lightly sand the grips to take the tops off the diamonds. Use 300 grit paper, and don't overdo it! When you're finished, the grips will still look the same, but be much more comfortable.

You may want to remove the grips for sanding, to avoid damaging the finish on the frame.

 

[Old Fuff]

Remember that when you go to heavier recoil springs that slam they slide into battery, but they also tend to batter the lower lug and slide stop pin.

There is no such thing as a free lunch...

 

[VARifleman]

Remember that when you go to heavier recoil springs that slam they slide into battery, but they also tend to batter the lower lug and slide stop pin.

And if the problem is that the rim isn't jumping up behind the extractor, it really won't solve the problem at all.

 

[George Hill]

The problem is the Springfield GI is a low rent 1911.

True that. If it was a Kimber or Smith or one of Springfield's better examples... you would feel differently. The mediocre trigger and the nasty old sights are not going to win any converts.

 

[dschulte]

I disagree that the Springfield GI is low rent. I have one and with the upgrade of the recoil spring it is accurate to 3" at 25 yards, same hole at 25 feet. It is not the best looking one in my collection, but it is a great shoot. Any 1911 that performs that well for under $450 and backed by a solid manufacture, is certainly not low rent.

 

[1911Tuner]

It is not the best looking one in my collection, but it is a great shoot. Any 1911 that performs that well for under $450 and backed by a solid manufacture, is certainly not low rent.

While I'll have to agree that the low-end Springfields can be very good...they can also be pretty bad. It's not that some are and some aren't. It's consistency that we look for.

Or...as Jeff Cooper so eloquently put it, when referring to marksmanship:

"I don't care what you've done once, or even occasionally. I want to know what you can do on demand."

 

[Tom Fury]

The reason for buying new magazines when the gun is new is because noone will take the gun back and I assume he wants it to work right now.
The change in recoil spring angle is worth looking into; The change in mags is an upgrade.
If the 1911 critics are correct (whether it should or should not be this way aside) then one should simply expect to tweak; To me, this is more fun than raging about what the gun isn't in this day and age; having a 1911 that does work is more important (and pleasureable) than the questionable, limited pleasure of bitching about expectations that aren't met.
If you have lived with a 1911 for so long, get honest and admit you have to tweak some and some you don't; individual guns, not guns from specific manufacturers. You guys know its' true...
A CMC mag is as cheap as a recoil spring; you might need to do both.
BTW check out Esmeralda grips.
Cheers, TF

 

[Old Fuff]

Tom:

Without question, today’s 1911 style pistol buyers are dedicated tweakers, and that may be part of the problem. A cottage industry has provided them with an endless selection of superfluous gadgets and I seen examples that were literally tweaked to death.

But the issue isn’t that. It is outrage on my part that an individual can’t buy a pistol, take it out of the box, load the magazine(s) that came with it, and go shoot it successfully – and not have to do any tweaking.

If one buys a Glock, SIG, Beretta, Springfield XD (but not one of their 1911s) Ruger, H&K – the list could go on, or one of the 1911 pistols we used to buy, this was and is the case.

But these day’s people are willing go out and buy 1911style pistols (and no others) with the expectation that they may not work out-of-the-box, and accept that to be a necessary fact of life.

I’m only pointing this out, and asking: “If previous manufacturers could make ordinary 1911 or 1911A1 service pistols that did work consistently out-of-the-box (which they did, and often under wartime conditions), and other manufacturers can make different service pistols that also work the way they should…”

“Why can’t current makers of 1911 style pistols do the same, and why isn’t it expected that they do so?” :banghead:

 

[1911Tuner]

“Why can’t current makers of 1911 style pistols do the same, and why isn’t it expected that they do so?”

Bingo. In 1944, Colt and Remington Rand were delivering thousands of 1911 pistols to the military every month...for about 50 bucks a copy.
They worked. No break-in and no tweakin' needed.

I don't know how much that comes to in 2008 dollars...but it couldn't be much more than 10 times the amount...and with CNC machinery taking over what people used to do...it should be even cheaper than that.

So...Why CAN'T they get it right...with 98% consistency...on a 600-dollar pistol? It's not like the gun is still in the developmental stage. That part was resolved handily many decades ago.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Modern pistols like the MP have just become very ergo. I just can't believe that no one has yet made a pistol with a lower left side grip a bit concave and padded, so that when wearing it at 4:00 or so, right side, while seated, it conforms to the curvature of the waist rather than digging into your side or kidney area.

 

[crebralfix]

It's a 1911 that's not been hand fitted to specs.

No surprise...took me three times to figure that most 1911's just suck.

 

[LiquidTension]

I really wanted to love the 1911 as well. I bought my first one (Kimber Pro Carry) in 2001. It's been to the factory 3 times now. The kinks might finally be worked out of it. I won't get into how the custom shop said it was my fault for not lubing the gun when I shot it exactly how they sent it back to me after they said it worked fine, or how the brass still hits me in the face about once per mag. At least it now feeds correctly. I've had similar issues with a Springfield Loaded. I also fired a Remington Rand a few weeks ago. It couldn't go more than 2 rounds without a FTF or FTE, even after replacing the recoil spring with a new one with less wear on it.

Then I go pick up my Glock, Witness Match, USP, Ruger MkII, or FN P9M and they all run flawlessly...it's hard to love the 1911. I'm kicking around the idea of an STI Spartan, but it's pretty far down on my list of wants at the moment.

 

[mister2]

...took me three times to figure that most 1911's just suck.

it's hard to love the 1911.

With all due respect, the 1911 isn't for everyone. Mine love me.

 

[crebralfix]

LOL

No, it is not for those who demand performance without hassle and expense.

It doesn't keep me from looking, though. The process of testing, poking, prodding, and troubleshooting is fun (though expensive).

In fact, I asked one of my contacts to keep an eye out for "a reasonably reliable 1911". We'll see what happens...maybe I'll get that Colt WW One repro at the store.

 

[dschulte]

"It's consistency that we look for."

Absolutely! Some product lines are more consistent than others. Small issues, easily corrected, do not bother me. I enjoy tweeking, it is part of the hobby.

Out of the box %100 guarenteed = Spending the $$$

 

[George Hill]

My Kimbers and S&W's have been PERFECT out of the box. I've yet to see any of them jam with any FMJ loads or any of the JHP loads I use... IE Winchester SXT.

 

[Tom Fury]

I hear you...

Old Fuff. I really do.

What can I do? I love the 1911, warts and all.
I insist that if I do have one they must work, and I have become an inveterate tinkerer; currently, all of my 1911's work.
Only the best gunsmiths ever work on mine; I do not apologize for keeping EGW, Novaks' and Terry Tussey in business, because until your campaign to get the manufacturers to do a better job succeeds, I have to shoot whats' out there. As said above; mine love me...

My first 1911 was a Para built from a kit with a Colt Combat Master upper. (The upper was probably worth more than the while bloody gun) but I was hooked on 1911's, and really have had nothing but good experiences ever since (I have never had a bad one with a less than 4" gun either).

I have no experience with the say pre 1940 guns you speak of; I can't afford them at the moment. I also wouldn'r have the heart to have one cut on to bring it up to the standard of what I like to carry. I'd love to own one; maybe I'll find one thats' not so gorgeous she has to be a safe queen, and not so ugly I will still feel OK about carrying her. Not yet. An early Combat Commander maybe...

When I got into guns, It was in the days before the current "factory custom" thing really worked. I had 1991a1's customized, and a couple of Caspian build ups done. The solution I had to crap from manufacturers in those days was to have it customized. I learned to love the 1991 and the Mil Spec because they were generally honest platforms for a piece I could trust (make no mistake; I started carrying guns because I needed one; from day one my criteria was it HAD TO work).

I hear the love you have for that quality that is lacking in modern product; I agree, its' lacking; but whats' a guy to do in 2008? When I had my first custom guns built at Novaks and EGW it was more expensive than stock, but far and away a better value than what you could get OOB; the market is driven now by guys who want that kind of quality but only want to pay $500 for it and isnsist that it has to be perfect OOB (a myth perpetrated by Glock salesmen...) and then want to bitch endlessly (instead of learning to fix it themselves, or hiring a top notch 'smith to fix it) about it. It ain't the manufacturers; its' the market. Nobody wants to pay for that quality; they just want to demand it and for cheaper. The manufacturers are responding to the market; they can give them what they want now for cheaper than they could do it in the late 80's, and every day make more money at it with less quality
.
There's no turning back mate; sad but true I think.

The kind of seminal quality we'd both love to see in todays' market is either total custom, or flashes of brilliance when someone seizes on it as a marketing tool and brings out their new line (Kimber gen1 or maybe S&W and CZ/DW) at that standard and then it deteriorates (pointing at the very vocal block of disappointment with Kimber gen2). The big custom guys have already figured this out (Ed Brown, Wilson, Nighthawk, Les Baer) and thats' who they sell to. They seem to be doing well.
Geez, Detonics is back because of this.

Who are they kiddin'? HK, Glock, Steyr, M&P, XD; None of the plastic pistols are built to that standard; their design lends itself to mass production. Thats' why they function like that OOB. Fit and finish? On a Glock? Fuggeddabboudditt...

1911's forever; God help me, I love them all, I cry over the worst ones I've ever seen for what they should have been.

More in common I think than meets the eye. Colt is definitely trying harder than they used to in the
80's.

Cheers, TF

 

[Tom Fury]

Until the market tells them they must; they won't.
As long as you hear the argument that the "value" line 1911's are "just as good", it won't happen.
You get what you pay for.
We need to get over this idea that you can get just as good for less; No, you can't... Ugly truth.
We live in a world that values its' right to bitch more highly than its' right to expect to not be disappointed, and confuses them as the same thing.
We have become conditioned to be satisfied with bitching, and not getting what we want.
This thread is making me depressed.
TF

 

[Tom Fury]

I hear you...

Old Fuff. I really do.

What can I do? I love the 1911, warts and all.
I insist that if I do have one they must work, and I have become an inveterate tinkerer; currently, all of my 1911's work.
Only the best gunsmiths ever work on mine; I do not apologize for keeping EGW, Novaks' and Terry Tussey in business, because until your campaign to get the manufacturers to do a better job succeeds, I have to shoot whats' out there.

My first 1911 was a Para built from a kit with a Colt Combat Master upper. (The upper was probably worth more than the while bloody gun) but I was hooked on 1911's, and really have had nothing but good experiences ever since (I have never had a bad one with a less than 4" gun either).

I have no experience with the say pre 1940 guns you speak of; I can't afford them at the moment. I also wouldn'r have the heart to have one cut on to bring it up to the standard of what I like to carry. I'd love to own one; maybe I'll find one thats' not so gorgeous she has to be a safe queen, and not so ugly I will still feel OK about carrying her. Not yet. An early Combat Commander maybe...

When I got into guns, It was in the days before the current "factory custom" thing really worked. I had 1991a1's customized, and a couple of Caspian build ups done. The solution I had to crap from manufacturers in those days was to have it customized. I learned to love the 1991 and the Mil Spec because they were generally honest platforms for a piece I could trust (make no mistake; I started carrying guns because I needed one; from day one my criteria was it HAD TO work).

I hear the love you have for that quality that is lacking in modern product; I agree, its' lacking; but whats' a guy to do in 2008? When I had my first custom guns built at Novaks and EGW it was more expensive than stock, but far and away a better value than what you could get OOB; the market is driven now by guys who want that kind of quality but only want to pay $500 for it and isnsist that it has to be perfect OOB (a myth perpetrated by Glock salesmen...) and then want to bitch endlessly (instead of learning to fix it themselves, or hiring a top notch 'smith to fix it) about it. It ain't the manufacturers; its' the market. Nobody wants to pay for that quality; they just want to demand it and for cheaper. The manufacturers are responding to the market; they can give them what they want now for cheaper than they could do it in the late 80's, and every day make more money at it with less quality
.
There's no turning back mate; sad but true I think.

The kind of seminal quality we'd both love to see in todays' market is either total custom, or flashes of brilliance when someone seizes on it as a marketing tool and brings out their new line (Kimber gen1 or maybe S&W and CZ/DW) at that standard and then it deteriorates (pointing at the very vocal block of disappointment with Kimber gen2). The big custom guys have already figured this out (Ed Brown, Wilson, Nighthawk, Les Baer) and thats' who they sell to. They seem to be doing well.
Geez, Detonics is back because of this.

Who are they kiddin'? HK, Glock, Steyr, M&P, XD; None of the plastic pistols are built to that standard; their design lends itself to mass production. Thats' why they function like that OOB. Fit and finish? On a Glock? Fuggeddabboudditt...

1911's forever; God help me, I love them all, I cry over the worst ones I've ever seen for what they should have been.

More in common I think than meets the eye.

Cheers, TF

 

[Old Fuff]

I get this "I would like to have an older Government Model/1911A1/Commander pistol, but only the rich can afford one" story all of the time.

Really? A short time back I spotted a pistol on Gunbroker that consisted of an Essex frame and 100% of the rest was USGI. It went for about $400. Get a decent frame and what have you got? And if you want to revise it to your personal ideals - why not? It wasn't any kind of a collectable.

On another occasion I noticed an early post-war commercial Government Model that someone had mounted Micro adjustable sights on. Those sights were functional but ugly. It went for slightly over $600 and removing and changing the sights wouldn't have been a serious challange. Such a pistol would have made an excellent 100% real steel platform to build one of your personalized gun on.

Those mega-buck guns the collectors buy are in absolutely perfect condition. I have little interest in them, and wouldn't pay the going price - especially for a builder. But for those with a sharp eye that can think outside the box there are opportunities.

Having a top 'smith build you a pistol to your specifications isn't a bad idea if you can afford it, although that particular option isn't always necessary, but an even better idea is to have your dream gun created from the real thing.