Are the current Colt 1911 .45 models any good?

Are the current Colt 1911 .45 models any good? Would you buy one?

 

Iron Sight,

Yes and yes. And only just yesterday I had an opportunity to shoot a friend's new Gold Cup. All I can say is sweeeeet!

 

Yes and no, and a possible maybe....

None of today's 1911 platform pistols are being made to the original U.S. Government blueprints and material specifications. These older guns were the ones that established the pistol's reputation for reliability under the most difficult conditions. Reliability should be the first and principal feature when one is selecting a pistol to use or carry as a weapon. Otherwise this issue may not be so important.

In what they perceive to be customer expectations manufacturers have tightened or “adjusted” some dimensions and tolerances that are more in keeping with a match or target pistol, and degraded the materials used to make some parts. While the results may (or may not) offer better accuracy this sometimes comes at the expense of reliability.

Only a handful of makers actually manufacture the pistol, in the sense that they make the frames, slides, and barrels that go into their products. The rest buy the parts from various vendors, and assemble the parts into guns. Thus they are dependent on the vendor’s quality control procedures, which can vary from good to nonexistent. All of the current makers buy smaller components from outside sources, and again these parts may be good, bad or indifferent. They also buy magazines (which is a critical component) from different suppliers, and too many guns come with magazines that are simply junk.

Because of all this, currently manufactured 1911 platform pistols are most often the subjects of posts that concern functional problems, and in fact these complaints outnumber all other service pistols combined.

It would be unfair to say that all current production consists of absolute junk. But it is clear that when it comes to out-of-the-box reliability these new guns are a crapshoot – most work fine, but too many don’t. This isn’t the way it used to be prior to about 1965 when cutting costs became more important than making quality products, and in all fairness this observation should not be limited to 1911 style pistols.

If one is looking for a big boy toy and not a serious weapon the gamble may be worth it when buying a current production gun. Speaking for myself, I’m not willing to gamble considering the price most of these go for. Others of course have a different opinion but you will find endless posts on this forum from the buyers that got burned.

What you do is up to you, and your decision should be governed by what purpose the pistol is going to be used for, and how much risk regarding a lemon you’re willing to take.

 

Sometimes... but the issue is that too many don't, and that all of them have reliability issues built in, that the government specification guns didn't.

The makers believe (maybe correctly) that the buyers want big boy toys, so this is what they build. That, and because of production costs they keep going to more and more materials that don't have any place in an early 20th century design.

What interests me is that they can do this and get away with it...

 

Thinking about a new Colt Gold Cup .45

 

The advantage is that the Gold Cup has adjustable/more visable sights. This may or may not matter depending on the intended use. If one is more accurate it's a matter of individual guns.

At one time, during the dark, dark past - Colt test fired and targeted each Gold Cup, and included the target in the box.

Today's buyer will find a fired cartridge case, because the gun might be sent to New York or Maryland... :banghead:

 

My S 70 repo as well.

To the OP: the two Colts I bought recently - models O1970 and O1091 – have worked perfectly with no problems. I believe Colts are top quality and I can recommend them.

 

My new Combat Commander had a horribly-fitted bushing that I had to replace, beyond that, looks & function are pretty good.

 

And I doubt they could.

What Old Fuff has not mentioned that the original Colt M1911 was never made to a TDP. My source is "The Colt .45 Service Pistols" by Charles W. Clawson. Colt built the M1911 following a master model, in the model shop. All dimensions, critical or otherwise, were measured off this master model.

When WWI kicked off, only Colt could make M1911's. There were not enough of them, so now you know the origin of the M1917 45 ACP.

Colt was given a contract to develop drawings, and the due date was 6 Feb 1918. The drawings were so dimensionally incorrect and did not contain all important information that a functioning pistol could not be built from them. Instead of using the Colt drawings, Remington UMC received ten functioning Colt pistols, five of which were acceptable for taking measurements.

Remington created a set of "Salvage" drawings based on the average measurements taken from these Colt pistols. While you could not build a functioning pistol from these drawings, this TDP formed the basis for all subsequent production, including the WWII pistols.

From an gunsmith friend of mine, who was on the Armalite 50 design team, he has gotten pages of the Government M1911 TDP (I think it took a Freedom of Information act to get those), and he has found inconsistencies and tolerance problems with the existing TDP. So it appears that you cannot build a functioning M1911 from the obsolete M1911 TDP.

What I think is going on is manufacturers have created their own standards for dimensions in the M1911's they produce. This is the same situation for AR-15's. So at some level you can interchange parts without problems, but also at some level, you are going to find that some parts won't drop in.

Now, as for the New Colts being any good. Everything I read is that they function and go bang. Few gun stores carry them anymore because they are very expensive. A local high volume store claims that they are not as well built as other premium manufacturers, so they don't stock them. I don't doubt that, I have picked up new Colt M1911's and found they rattled more than the cheapest Springfield Armory M1911. At half the cost. I also have heard directly from people who have been to Colt that their machinery is obsolete. At least five years ago, when I heard this from a guy who was offered an important manufacturing position in the company, they did not have something as modern as a modern CNC machine center.

If Colt ever facilitizes, gets new equipment, their quality will get better. Subcontracting with quality manufacturers will help. If they will sub contract everything but the final fitting inhouse you will get a well built product. This is what they did on the Colt Blackpowder series. All the major components were made by Uberti, content laws allowed Colt to stamp “Made in the US” on the pistols. For Colt, we will see.

 

In my experience, some 30 + years hence, that "rattle" in an issue government model .45 equaled a functioning weapon. In my particular situation, on a distant cold beach, with a shot-dry M-14, cast aside, that old, "rattley" pistol loaded with 230 grain ball ammo did it's job with enough reliability and combat accuracy to turn the tide and earn it's wielder a decoration for proficiency with same. I own and shoot several rattle-prone .45's to this day.
MM

 

My last 2 new colts have been great right out of the box Relieable and accurate

 

The current Colt Government Models are excellent pistols hand built built with quality material.

 

I read a review of a Colt plant tour and it does seem that their equipment is not current state of the art and maybe because of their union, much is still hand done. I think that can work for you or against you depending on the particular hands putting the guns together. I was so impressed with my recent new LW Commander that I bought a steel one a week ago. I haven't shot it yet but I dry cycles just fine, fit and finish are top notch.

 

hmm, well, conventional wisdom seems to be that they are not the gun to order sight unseen--you want to be able to look it over in person beofe buying as they are prone to things like the dustcovers/guiderod holes being off center an such. I have two nrm Colt's as well and 1911's by several other makers, mostly S&W and Springfield. On the down side the Colt's are the least accurate of my 1911's, but they are what I would consider "combat accurate" and comparable to most auto's. Finish is probably about comparable to the springfield's, with the smith's having a bit better finish/semi melted quality, though I have seen some with poorly fitted triggers or grip safeties or with the odd blemishes in the finish. ALL of my 1911's have been completely reliable--guess I've just been lucky as I hear they are all jamomatics

My advice is go to a shop with a decent selection, handle them all, and buy the one that looks good and feels the best to you (they tend to have subtle differences in grip safeties, etc.)

 

I own two Colt 1991A1 pistols. The first needed some work but is a good shooter now. The second came out of the box with a good trigger, accurate and reliable. My initial thought was to send it to the 1* custom work done, but then thought, "Why? It's fine as is." The recent Colt 1991 and Series 70 pistols have improved much over the Colt pistols of the 80's.

 

Absolutely yes to both questions!!

 

My last three Colts have been flawless from the get-go. And yes, my Series 70 repro is my most accurate 1911 I own.

They may not be what they where 30+ years ago, but given the choice between a Colt and most other 1911's, I will take the Colt.

You experience may differ, mine says buy.

 

Got my Gold Cup today. Still looking at it! It appears very fine and I ran some unloaded dummy's through it. Did a field strip & mopped up what I thought was excessive almost dripping lubrication. I will not get to shoot it for 2 or 3 days and it will be some of my re-loads. 230 FMJ and 200 Lead SWC's that my Kimber Custom II likes. Interesingly it came with an extra recoil spring + extra magazine. Did not have the paper proof target described by Gun Gallery? If its like my Kimber it will take at least 500 rounds before judgement. (Kimber is good)

 

I have owned two colts. The first, my first pistol, is an Officers model, and I have had feeding and ejecting problems. It was my carry gun but was replaced and is now kept for sentimental value.

The second was a new Colt Gunsite Pistol. I LOVED that gun... until the sights fell off. The front sight was a Trijicon and the rear was a Novak. Turns out the slide was over-milled. I returned the gun.

My personal opinion is that you are paying a couple hundred $ for the "Colt" logo. I feel very confident in saying that because I am also a Colt certified armorer. I have seen a lack of quality in their 1911 and AR-15 line. They are good quality, just not as good as they claim or charge.