Comments on the "Shooting Times" comparison of autoloaders?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J-Bar

J-Bar

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
4,990
Location
Springfield, MO
OK, I am a wheelgun guy. You don't see me here often, and I think this may be my first post in this forum. You will see me in the Blackpowder and Revolver forums so I hope you will be kind to a newbie.

I received the latest issue of Shooting Times magazine yesterday, (very welcome, since we are snowed in by winter storm Cleon), and it has a "1911 Shootout" as a featured article. I am curious how the author's rankings will be received by you folks who participate in this forum. The only autoloader I own is a an old Ruger Mark I. I feel a bit guilty about not owning some kind of 1911, but have never taken the plunge. Your comments may push me over the edge to purchase a centerfire autoloader instead of only using wheelguns.

Mr. Paul Scarletta wrote the article. He ranks the following 1911s in this order:

1. Para 1911 Expert Stainless
2. Ruger SR1911
3. Magnum Research Desert Eagle 1911G
4. Springfield 1911-A1 Mil Spec
5. Auto-Ordnance Thompson Custom 1911
6. Taurus PT-1911
7. ATI FX45

Not necessarily trying to start arguments, although they can be great fun when the weather is bad.

How say you all?
 
Well, firstly I haven't read the article, but if that's the only 7 he tested then he is doing the world a great disservice unless he specifically stated he had failed to include many of the most popular or well known brands. Was this limited to some imaginary price point?

For instance he included an Auto Ordnance, and a Magnum Research? I didn't even know MR made a 1911 clone.

Why wouldn't he have included Sig, S&W, or perhaps even Colt?
 
He really liked the fiber optic sight on the Para.
Click to expand...
And I REALLY DISLIKE fiber optic sights on any handgun I want to shoot very accurately.

So, all that proves is, I'm an old 'black sight' NRA Bullseye shooter that went to all-army, and inter-service Olympic trials once.

And he isn't & probably hasn't.

One of us is obviously wrong.
But which one??

BTW: I would put the Springfield 1911-A1 Mil Spec right up there near the top.

rc
 
Their first mission is to sell magazines. A little controversy goes a long way to doing that. But lack of credibility would hurt also. A clever blend is required.
 
Last edited:
Michael Kassner did a hell of job when he put together the specs for the Desert Eagle 1911. He had a great looking gun about to go to market. When MR got their paws on it and put that disgusting billboard on the slide, it made my stomach turn.
 
That lineup is probably akin to a car test of a Chevy, Ford, Dodge, Hyundai, Kia, etc. They didn't really hit the BMWs, Audis, Mercedes and got nothing close to the Bentley, Aston Martin, etc.

Regardless, if you are just looking to branch out to autos, I think the question you should be trying to answer is "which semi-auto?" not "which 1911?" unless you already have tried a bunch of models and know the 1911 is the best for you.
 
I've not read this article, but it seems obvious he is ranking less expensive guns as opposed to comparing Para to Ed Brown or something.

If that is the case I still wouldn't put Para on top. In addition to generally liking Springfield guns, I heart my Ruger and I thought my early model Taurus was OK. I am not painting with a broad brush, but the one Para I shot was... not so good.
 
Last edited:
Just a note. I just got a Ruger (commander length) and really like it a lot. VERY accurate and 100% reliable. Nicely done gun for the price.
 
I always figured that gunrag-writers would be doing something else for a living, if they really knew how to write. ;) I'd assign no creditbility at all to the Shooting Times article!
 
Kind of a bad article in my opinion. If you only have one autoloader, what made you want a 1911 versus other types?
 
I didn't think much of the article or the scoring criterion. But two of them having parts breakage makes me wonder. I've never seen an ejector break, I had a Colt that was stovepipe city until I replaced the ejector, but I've never seen one break, extractors I've broke several -- easy to fix.

Infant mortality is a fact of life with modern manufacturing methods and the 2-3% "acceptable" failure rates due to the cost savings from not doing any serious QA/QC.

Should have included an RIA Tactical in the line-up best bang/buck going.
 
"Them's that can do, them's that can't are gun rag writers" (with precious few exceptions).
I would give zero credibility to anything I read in "Shooting Times".
 
The article wasn't that bad.

The writer addressed a handful of 1911s in the the low to middle price range ($500 - $800); it seemed fairly balanced. The writer gave clear explanations WHY he down-rated or up-rated specific models, so if you ignored the ranking and read the article, you got a good sense of what the guns were like.

Most of the guns got essentially the same score except for things like sights (for which the MILITARY models were down-rated), or other quirks: one had a terrible trigger; one had an ejector failure. He said, time and again, "except for that, this gun might have been in the top 2 or 3." They generally showed up well.

I found the article more balanced and sensible that many of the gun reviews I read, and think I could make some decisions based on the articles -- or at least know what to expect with the guns evaluated.
 
Last edited:
No Colt? No Kimber? No Dan Wesson? No STI? No RIA, for Pete's sake?

And a Para won it? I think this article has a few flaws, to say the least.
 
Comparing the average Dan Wesson to the guns on that list would be like comparing a great apple to a bunch of other, less tasty apples.
 
Kind of a bad article in my opinion. If you only have one autoloader, what made you want a 1911 versus other types?
Click to expand...

I don't know what it is, but 1911s continue to get more coverage and have a greater presence in gun magazines than their presence at gun ranges, gun competitions, or gun shops seems to justify.
 
Walt Sherrill said:
I don't know what it is, but 1911s continue to get more coverage and have a greater presence in gun magazines than their presence at gun ranges, gun competitions, or gun shops seems to justify.
Click to expand...
As for why they're featured in magazines a lot, that's easy. They make more interesting copy than most other guns. Because there are so many makers, purposes, and flavors of 1911, there's always some suspense in a 1911 article. The reader wants to know who made it, how it was built, what it looks like, how it shoots, and if it even works. The competing guns are much more homogenous, and therefore much less interestng to write about or read about. Think how those questions apply to a Glock, for example. You already know the answer to most of them. It was made by Glock, using stock Glock parts, it's probably black, moderately accurate and quite reliable. What's left to talk about?

As for presence at ranges, I don't know. When I go to a range, I usually have a few of mine along, and they usually get attention, so maybe they are a little uncommon there. Most gun stores I've been to, though, have their pistol cases split in three, one section of 1911s, one of revolvers, and one of everything else. At matches, they rule the 45 segment of bullseye, USPSA and IDPA both have divisions built around them, and if you count their descendant, the 2011 as a 1911, they rule Open and Limited, as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wojownik
  • Locked
SR1911 impressions and pricing
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
longhair75
L
rpenmanparker
  • Locked
Real experience with any ATI 1911 clone?
Replies
3
Views
406
rust collector
R
D
  • Locked
Talk me into/ out of a Sig p225
Replies
21
Views
4K
Theohazard
Theohazard
C
  • Locked
Need Recommendations and Appraisals for Classic 1911's (Five)
Replies
8
Views
715
Darkmind
D
H
  • Locked
Reflections on Guns for newbies
Replies
1
Views
336
gudel
G
Back
Top