Are high end 1911s worth the money?

[rugerdude]

Everyone wants the best, which is fairly natural if you're spending your hard-earned money, but many times I feel that people don't consider how much they are REALISTICALLY going to shoot the thing. Most people can't REALLY appreciate the difference between a Sig 1911 and a Nighthawk 1911. I certainly can't.

As with anything, 1911's embody the law of diminishing returns. $400 will get you a useable 1911, while an $800 1911 will be much nicer but still only one gun. As the price increases, the quality increase becomes much more subtle.

For me, there is absolutely no reason that I would pay more than $1200 on a 1911. MAX. To make full use of the extra time and work put into a higher end gun I have a lot to develop as a shooter first.


Don't let it be about the gun, instead let it be about what you can do with it.

Get a Ruger, Kimber, or Springfield Loaded and take a REAL class and you'll be light-years ahead of the guy who just went and bought a Nighthawk because he heard they were the best, and you'll still have spent less money!

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Most people can't REALLY appreciate the difference between a Sig 1911 and a Nighthawk 1911. I certainly can't.

So what you're doing is projecting your inability to evaluate the difference between guns onto everyone else? Or, do you have a formal study you can point to that supports your contention?

I don't think it's all that difficult to discern the differences in fit, finish, handling, and performance between different manufacturers' 1911's. All you have to do is handle them, shoot them, and critically assess what is different between them. Doesn't seem all that demanding to me.

As with anything, 1911's embody the law of diminishing returns. $400 will get you a useable 1911, while an $800 1911 will be much nicer but still only one gun. As the price increases, the quality increase becomes much more subtle.

Not really - if you know what to look for and have handled finely made 1911's the differences are immediately noticable - to the point that when people make statements like that it only points out their unfamiliarity how and what to look for in 1911's.

For me, there is absolutely no reason that I would pay more than $1200 on a 1911. MAX. To make full use of the extra time and work put into a higher end gun I have a lot to develop as a shooter first.

That's a fine philosophy for you, but hardly a guide for everyone else...you'd be surprised at what a better tool can do for helping you develop as a shooter. And please, don't give me the over used "put the money in ammunition" dreck. The cost of ammunition will far outstrip the cost of the gun if you shoot a lot - no matter the initial cost of the pistol.

I've shot more ammunition than the cost of my Wilson Supergrade in the past year, and I couldn't get out as much as I wanted.

 

[OilyPablo]

I can easily tell the difference. But that's not the question.

 

[mljdeckard]

Nope. I'm with post #53 entirely. I think there is a certain point where people start to feel like they paid so much for a gun, it MUST be better than everything else. The Emperor's New 1911 Syndrome.

You can say a more expensive 1911 is better. It's VERY difficult to prove that it is proportional to the cost.

 

[Skylerbone]

Just so everyone is clear, cost does not, dollar for dollar account for "higher quality". Take that $400 example, say a RIA. Made with ok parts, but assembled with cheap labor. That $700 Kimber has a considerable amount of its asking price going to US labor and US (New York, to be exact) taxes. Produce it in the PI and the price can come down but then it's viewed as just another cheap foreign knock-off.

On the subject of labor, consider those who assemble a given product. A 15 yr. old in Brazil, an assembly-line worker in Maine, a gunsmith in Iowa, a Master Gunsmith in Arkansas. If your life depended on it working right when you need it, whose 1911 would you choose? Here's my partial list of persons whose services I seek that I do not bargain shop for: doctors, lawyers, investment brokers, mechanics and gunsmiths.

FWIW, I consider my firearms to be more than just tools. I do not shoot thousands of rounds year after year as practice for one possible encounter, I actually enjoy it! As for carrying, I've got a few rifle scopes that cost more than a Kimber. Hard to hunt without taking to the woods.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The reason I would say so, is that I have shot the higher end guns, including Wilson, Les Baer, etc, and I have no idea what it is they are supposed to do for more than three times the price. Better? Somewhat. THREE TIMES BETTER? I don't see how. The Nighthawk I shot at the range, with a $2700 price tag, jammed on me.

You're absolutely right.

For example, you can get a hunting knife at Wal Mart for $20. Of you can get a Randall for $800. Is the Randall "better?" Yep.

Is it 40 times better? Nope.

 

[tuj]

It's VERY difficult to prove that it is proportional to the cost.

Very few things involving performance are linear in terms of cost / performance. It's usually exponential, or another way of saying each $500 increment you add brings less return than the previous $500.

 

[MCMXI]

For example, you can get a hunting knife at Wal Mart for $20. Of you can get a Randall for $800. Is the Randall "better?" Yep.

Is it 40 times better? Nope.

Which one would you have for the rest of your life? Which one would a grandson have 50 years from now? Which one would make that grandson think about his grandfather who's been dead for 30 years? I think a Randall is 1,000 times better.

 

[Detritus]

Very few things involving performance are linear in terms of cost / performance. It's usually exponential, or another way of saying each $500 increment you add brings less return than the previous $500.

And for those unaware of why this is..

The amount of work, care and attention to detail involved in each step-up in quality/performance follows the same pattern. 1911s are alot like high quality optics in this regard.

$400 to around $800 1911 the differences are usually in materials and labor costs, ie mostly non-US labor, lowest bidder internals, short cuts taken to speed production.

$900-1500 will typically get you fewer production short cuts, better internals/small parts (but not always), and more care taken in fit and finish.

$1,500-2,000 is a grey area that may or may not give a buyer anything. sometimes you get improved fit and finish or top of the line mechanicals out of that $500 but many times this is the realm of "Hood ornament syndrome"

$2k and above is where in my veiw you truly start seeing exponential growth in the amount of work/care/attention to detail, and the attendant cost to the customer, compared to quantifiable improvement in the gun itself.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Which one would you have for the rest of your life? Which one would a grandson have 50 years from now? Which one would make that grandson think about his grandfather who's been dead for 30 years? I think a Randall is 1,000 times better.

That's relevant only if you want it as an heirloom. As a tool, the Randall isn't all that more functional or stronger than the Wal Mart Special.

A carry gun is the epitome of functionality -- you carry it for what it can do, not for aesthetics.

 

[MCMXI]

A carry gun is the epitome of functionality -- you carry it for what it can do, not for aesthetics.

While function is the most important variable with any object or system designed to save lives, function and aesthetics are not mutually exclusive. Ask anyone who hunts dangerous game with a Biesen rifle.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I didn't say function and asethetics were incompatible, I said function is the prime consideration in picking a defensive weapon. If you want to spend a couple of thousand dollars more, spend it on ammo and practice more.

 

[Bozwell]

From a practical point of view, no, they aren't worth it. But that can be said for any luxury purchase. Just like a nice car, it can still be "worth it" in the sense of the enjoyment you get out of it. This is particularly true where you're in a financial situation where you don't have to sacrifice a lot to purchase the luxury item.

Personally, if and when I do get a 1911, I'll probably get a semi-custom like an Ed Brown, just so that my only 1911 is a nice example of one and because it'll be a babied range toy anyways. For a carry gun, I wouldn't choose a 1911 to begin with - I don't trust the reliability of the less expensive ones, and I don't relish the thought of holster wear after dropping $3-4k on a gun. But for a good looking gun for punching holes in paper and to look at and admire? Sure, I could see myself getting one at some point.

 

[Skylerbone]

While function is the most important variable with any object or system designed to save lives, function and aesthetics are not mutually exclusive. Ask anyone who hunts dangerous game with a Biesen rifle.

Amen to that!

Threads I've seen:

My new Kimbers going back.
Help! New SR1911 Galling!
FTF New Springfield.
Reverse Plug Cracked on New ATI.
New E-Series Back to S&W...Again!

Threads I've yet to see (and suspect I never will):

My Chambers Custom Broke Today.
My Rogers Precision Won't Feed Hollow Points.
Disappointment With My Harrison Custom.
Clark Custom Can't Hit a Barn.

 

[1911 guy]

Depends what you expect from a higher priced 1911. I have cheaper pistols that are accurate and reliable. The higher cost goes into better fit and finish, better tolerances and often higher quality components. It's a case of the "little things" adding up over the entire pistol. If that's worth it to you (and I feel it often is for most people) then step up some in price. If you're interested in function only, lower prices might suit your needs well. I own a smattering of both, ranging from $350 guns to a $2,000 gun. They all serve the purpose they were intended for.

I'll compare the polar ends of my own collection, a Charles Daly bought new for under $400 and a custom built Springfield that ended up right about two grand. They both function fine. The S.A. is a little more accurate. It has a much better trigger. The sights are exactly what I wanted, not a standard factory offering. The bluing is deeper and resists corrosion better. Also resists holster wear better. The S.A. slide is forged, the C.D. is cast. No machinging marks on the S.A., small ones on the C.D. Barrel is hand fit on the S.A. and not on the C.D. Same with barrel bushing. Checkering on the MSH is a little fuzzy on the C.D., sharp and clear on the S.A. S.A. frame is milled and drilled absolutely square, the C.D. would be a nightmare to work on due to being "almost" square.

You get the idea. I like the C.D. for what it is. I like the S.A. for what it is. Sorta like the Ford Festiva Vs. Corvette argument. What do you want from it?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

For a carry gun, I wouldn't choose a 1911 to begin with - I don't trust the reliability of the less expensive ones, and I don't relish the thought of holster wear after dropping $3-4k on a gun. But for a good looking gun for punching holes in paper and to look at and admire? Sure, I could see myself getting one at some point.

There's some element of self-fulfilling prophecy here. Remember that the original 1911's submitted for the Army trial all went 6,000 rounds without a single malfunction.

On a lesser scale, I took a brand new $450 Rock Island Armory 1911 to Gunsite and ran it for 1,200 rounds without cleaning it (well, 6 drops of CLP hardly counts as "cleaning") and didn't experience a malfunction that wasn't related to screwing up a manipulation or failing to insert a magazine all the way.

That's not to say that I was completely happy with it -- new grips and a different safety made a huge improvement, as did having the on-site gunsmith lower the trigger pull by about a pound. But the design is solid if you have a well-built copy.

And it's that last part that can be a problem. There are a few models (Sig, S&W, others) that use an external extractor rather than the original design. These work really well if designed properly (as evidenced by all the other handguns out there with external extractors that function reliably and have for decades) but cause issues if not. But saying a 1911 is a reliable design is like saying a straight-six or a V8 is a reliable design -- lots of them are, but build quality and the proprietary things a particular manufacturer does can completely void the accuracy of that statement for your particular instance of the design.

My point, though, was this: you don't need to buy a $3,000 custom 1911 in order to find one that's acceptable for defensive purposes. I've got S&W and Kimber Commanders that are perfectly reliable and work well for carry. I've got the aforementioned full-sized RIA that I trust completely, though it's a full-sized pistol. I've got a Kimber full-sized that is reliable enough for carry, but I don't like target sights on a carry gun. I've also got an American Classic (supposedly better built quality than an RIA) that has never run though a magazine without a malfunction.

The 1911 is a solid design. There are solid implementations out there. There are also some that are significantly lacking. There's a strong negative correlation between cost and the likelihood of getting a lemon. But you don't need to spend that sort of money to get a good one. I'd expect any new RIA, Kimber, Springfield, etc gun to run well out of the box. If it doesn't, then the company should make it right.

If they don't, then that's an issue with the company in question, not the overall design.

 

[rugerdude]

So what you're doing is projecting your inability to evaluate the difference between guns onto everyone else? Or, do you have a formal study you can point to that supports your contention?

I don't think it's all that difficult to discern the differences in fit, finish, handling, and performance between different manufacturers' 1911's. All you have to do is handle them, shoot them, and critically assess what is different between them. Doesn't seem all that demanding to me.

Note: I said "REALLY appreciate" which implies experience with several models side by side or over time to compare and contrast features and to have shot enough rounds out of each to identify performance improvements with X model etc.... Do you honestly think that this sounds like "most people?" I also include myself in to this group to make sure that it is not taken as "I'm holier than thou because I have the money/time to play with high end 1911's"

Not really - if you know what to look for and have handled finely made 1911's the differences are immediately noticable - to the point that when people make statements like that it only points out their unfamiliarity how and what to look for in 1911's.

I'm not talking about "noticing" I said very specifically "REALLY appreciate" which goes far beyond simply noticing. The benefits of a hand fitted barrel and bushing are not READILY APPARENT to someone who wants to set the gun on their nightstand and forget about it until it's needed. Also your statement helps prove my point because you first qualify your response with "if you know what to look for and have handled finely made 1911's" This is not the majority of shooters, and is most likely not the OP if he's posting this thread.

That's a fine philosophy for you, but hardly a guide for everyone else...you'd be surprised at what a better tool can do for helping you develop as a shooter. And please, don't give me the over used "put the money in ammunition" dreck. The cost of ammunition will far outstrip the cost of the gun if you shoot a lot - no matter the initial cost of the pistol.

But that's just it "If you shoot a lot." Did you ever stop and think that maybe not everyone has the time and money to buy a Wilson Supergrade AND shoot its worth in ammo every year? Lots of people have a budget and have to sacrifice one way or another. In my opinion it is all too often about getting the nicest hardware without enough concern for actually improving as a shooting in order to get the bullets to go where you want them to. I'm not giving YOU anything, I'm giving it to the OP, whom I bet isn't shooting $2,000 worth of .45 ACP a year.

The worth of the gun is clearly a very subjective matter and ties in very closely to its intended use. Clearly those who shoot many rounds per year find the higher end guns to be worth the cost, whereas someone who wants a home defense gun or plinker and also wants to be able to pay rent for the next few months might find that he gains very little by buying anything more than a basic Springfield. Like it or not, the latter guy is much more common than the former, and it doesn't matter how well the slide mates to the frame and how even the checkering is if he's going to shove it in a sock drawer.

 

[rugerdude]

I also can't help thinking of the business card scene in America Psycho

"Just look at that deep, even finish....the tasteful thickness of the slide serrations.....Oh my God, it's even got adjustable night sights!"

 

[Peter M. Eick]

To answer the original posters question, I would say first that DW is not high end. Midrange at best. I have DW's and yes they are nice but not high end.

I buy high end Baer's. I have dabbled in midrange DW's and low range Colts and now regret buying the Colts. I would not go below a Colt in quality and go back and forth if I should put any more money into fixing up the Colts.

The problem with buying a high end gun like a Baer (I have 5 now) is that it makes the lesser guns seem cheap and poorly made.

So is it worth it to buy Baer's over say Colts? Yes to me. I like the quality, and accuracy of the Baer. It is more reliable, accurate than the Colt and better made.

The real question is it worth blowing good money after bad to fix up a low end gun like a Colt? I have not decided that one yet.

Let me build on this point.



50 shots, 15 yrds offhand, first 50 shots from my Baer.




Trust me I don't have a picture of the first 50 shots out of my Colt Super Stallion which is a Gold Cup Colt in 38 Super. Look at that barrel and guess what sort of shotgun pattern it tossed?

So do you want target level quality and accuracy, along with reliability or do you want shotgun level accuracy, doubling of the shots due to the steel trigger and a crappy barrel of the Colt? Both guns costs nearly identical price. You decide.

 

[Hangingrock]

If one requires a MSRP of $2500.00 to produce a non-problematic extended service life functional design then there is basically some thing wrong. The polymer framed striker fired pistols while not considered esthetically pleasing are functional in the extreme and functionality has a beauty all of its own.

 

[ku4hx]

They are to me, or were rather. When I was competing the final cost of the build was determined by where you had to start to get to where you wanted to be. For many yearly shooters low end may be just fine, but if you are going to require a great deal from your gun, you'll be best served buying the highest quality.

It all depends on the gun's purpose and what "value" means to you. For me, there is no limit when buying a defensive weapon I believe I need. For weekend plinking and dirt clod bustin' I can see spending a whole lot less.

 

[Skylerbone]

If one requires a MSRP of $2500.00 to produce a non-problematic extended service life functional design then there is basically some thing wrong. The polymer framed striker fired pistols while not considered esthetically pleasing are functional in the extreme and functionality has a beauty all of its own.

Diamonds have a beauty all their own too, after much assistance from a master cutter. Some will choose a cubic zirconia and feel it's a bargain. A 1911 doesn't require an MSRP of $2,500 to function reliably, that sort of money buys the design and a lot of wants. A Glock does not require an MSRP of $2,500 because injected polymer doesn't require forging or machining. Funny that more polymer goes into a Plano pistol case and its MSRP is about $8.00 Even with all the extra cost including well paid Union labor, I can buy a new Colt for under $800, that's less than some polymer framed competitors charge. Solo cups are functional, Swarovski has a bit more panache.

As for Colts being low end pistols not worthy of modifying, have a look at what top pistolsmiths use for builds. If yours is doubling Peter you should contact Colt and mention the accuracy woes as well. At half the price of a Baer you've got plenty of budget to do as you wish with it.

 

[FMF Doc]

It depends on what you are using it for. If it is a BBQ gun, then it is worth it if you like people to stop, stare and drool over custom engraving and a $2500 price tag. I you are going to be betting your life, and the lives of others on it as part of a tactical team, then the $3200 Knighthawk Customs GRP Recon might be worth it to you. If, however, this is just going to be a nightstand gun, probably never really needed, and even then probably at 20ft of less, or a range gun just for fun, then you can get it done with a RIA MilSpec in the price zone you are looking at. Half the question is how much is is worth it to you (cool facor). The other, how much performance do YOU really need. Odds are, a $375 ATI GI model is more accurate than the person shooting it.

 

[357autoloader]

I have had quite a few 1911s. Now, I have one.
Ed Brown Kobra Carry.
Hopefully I'll find the time and money for more.
But since I only have one, it'll do.

 

[EddieNFL]

As a tool, the Randall isn't all that more functional or stronger than the Wal Mart Special.

Interesting opinion.