More gun than I need

[trainwreck100]

Seems to me if you send a chunk of lead spinning out of anything at 1500 fps, whatever it hits is gonna look a little rough. It doesn't really matter if it's coming out of a $200 chunk of iron or a $1200 super-mega-ized alloy, something's gonna go thud.

Greg

 

[Majic]

If you buy a high-end gun make sure you get a model that can deliver match grade accuracy, not a standard model with all the bells and whistles that shoots like any other standard model.

 

[TimboKhan]

I have posted roughly 10^35 times on this topic, so I will say it short and sweet this go around. I agree with you. To argue that a more expensive gun somehow makes you a superior pistoleer is about the same as arguing that a more expensive hat makes you smarter. Certainly, there are match-grade pistols (and rifles and shotguns) that are more expensive that do indeed offer a substantial increase in potential performance, but the reality of that situation is that very, very few of us have the time, talent or the money to really take advantage of that performance.

This is why guys like Doug Koenig, Jerry Miculek and Rob Leatham continue to win multiple and frequent championships. There is some competition out there, but even then, its usually the same 4 or 5 people that offer the strongest competition. They are all super talented guys that have the luxury of being able to shoot for a living. Personally, even if you handed me several large buckets of cash and gave me a year off from work and school, I still don't think I would ever present a serious challenge to those guys. I have long since accepted that I will likely never be able to shoot to the potential of any one of my guns. I submit that my progress as a marksman would proceed at the same incremental pace that it always has regardless of the price tag.

 

[nelson133]

While i own a couple of high end .45s, what I usually end up taking to the range is a RIA $300 milspec. With my old eyes, it shoots as well as anything else, it will digest any ammuntion I have tried in it, including 15-20 year old reloads that kid did when they were learning reloading. It's reliable, it works, and if I drop it or knock it off the table, so what.

 

[ZipperZap]

If i like it ... I buy it ... just for the fun of it.

Simple as that.

 

[CajunBass]

It seems to me that at some point you're going to ask yourself, "Is it me or is it the gun?" I can shoot my Springfield XD-9, a LOT better than I can my Hi-Point C-9. Doesn't mean the Hi-Point is bad, just the Springfield is better.

 

[Ala Dan]

I think the right choices of sights also plays into the 1911 picture as well.
You take an old person (like myself with failing eyesight; combat night
sights found on some of the high end models can't be seen with the
ol' naked eye, and in some cases bifocals don't help much either.

After owning a couple of SIG's with Trijicon's, I said I would NEVER own
another handgun with night sights. What did I do? I bought a Kimber
Raptor with Meprolights; then traded the Raptor for a brand NIB Les Baer
Thunder Ranch Special 1911 with factory Trijicon's---so, I'm right back to
the place where I started~!

 

[Wes Janson]

What's wrong with night sights? IMO, they're much easier to use than adjustable target sights (at least for me).

 

[10-Ring]

Yeah...NO! I don't share tha opinion. The reality is that you need the best tool possible for the job...eliminate as many variables as possible, make the action as repeat as possible and remember that the better tool will perform better long & more consistently.

 

[Werewolf]

I've got a Kimber. It's a fine .45.

Whether or not the difference between it and a Mil-spec is worth $250 is debatable - especially since mine is a carry gun and not a target or competition piece. Considering that my $700 1911 has never FTF'd or FTE'd and the Kimber has the issue becomes even less debatable (which is probably why I carry the $700 gun more than the $950 gun.

 

[dragongoddess]

You can put a $3,000 in a persons hands and they are not going to shoot any better than with a $300 gun. The $3000 gun does not cure flinching, pulling or any of the other impedimates to accurate target shooting. Only practice will cure those problems. So I practice with my Rock Island.

Now I will admit that its in the shop having a trigger job (6lb to 3.5lb) a new hammer and beavertail, Seems the gun was a biting my hand. Some sights for these ageing eyes and I should be just fine and still have less than $500 in the gun.

 

[XavierBreath]

2 pesos

How much accuracy do you require?
If you require greater accuracy, use tactics to close the distance on your intended target.
I own several accurate 1911s.
I did not pay $1200 for any of them.

I can tell the difference between my Gold Cup, my Clark 1911 and my Mil-Spec, and I'm not that great a shot either. Frankly, the accuracy of all of them is probably degraded by my sorry cleaning habits and inadequacy behind the trigger. I still shoot the Gold Cup and Clark gun better than the Mil-Spec. I don't think I'm out shooting the Mil-Spec's potential so much as the other two compensate some for my failings.

I don't think I would pay $1200 for a Kimber.
I'd save a bit more and get a Clark or a Baer gun.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

I'd hate to spend a grand on a gun, use it for a carry piece, have to shoot someone at 5 feet or less, then say bye bye to $1000 bucks, especially, when I could've gotten a springfield for half that that in all reality is sufficient for the needs of most... I had one, GI 1911, with thousands of rounds, no issues, accurate... then again, a 2" group at 25 makes me happy...

 

[AJAX22]

If I wanted a target pistol, I'll spend a few bucks on a .22 target pistol, If I want a knock down gun that can put all seven in a dinner plate at 25 yards (which is about all that you need) then I'll buy a cheap reliable handgun. the extra half inch that the group is tightened won't make a difference at any distance that I'm likely to use it.

likewise the paper doesn't care what calibre is poking holes in it.

Someday when my budget is rediculous, I may get a kimber as a BBQ gun, but It wouldnt be a practical purchase, just a fun purchase.

 

[.38 Special]

The November/December issue of American Handgunner tested the Springfield and High Standard 1911s, both retailing in the neighborhood of $400.

Best groups from both ran around 2"@25 yards.

This is better than the great majority of casual and semi-serious handgunners are capable of, in my experience. Which makes the discussion moot, IMO, and certainly would seem to put lie to the notion that one cannot improve with such a pistol.

 

[Huddog]

I purchased my Kimber used and love it. I had a less expensive .45 when I purchased the Kimber and intended to keep both. Upon shooting the Kimber and discovering how much better it shot I traded the other.

 

[Srigs]

I won't spend 1200 for any gun! I carry $300 or less guns every day and they work as required. I can use the other 1k bucks some where else!

 

[1911JMB]

I wanted a cheap 1911, so I got a Springfield GI. I also wanted an accurate .45, so I got a used Sig P220. Couldn't be happier with my choices. I agree, high end 1911's are a waste of money.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Why is it that the only difference the majority of those dismissive of a more expensive 1911 sees is in terms of accuracy?


And why is it that we are limiting the discussion of the increased benefits only to that of accuracy?

 

[.38 Special]

What advantages do high end 1911s have over introductory level guns, and how do they benefit the new handgunner? (Not a flame, but a serious question.)

 

[XavierBreath]

What advantages do high end 1911s have over introductory level guns, and how do they benefit the new handgunner?

This is kind of like asking what advantages a Lexus has over a Toyota. Both will perform the same basic function. For the person who is an occasional shooter the introductory level gun is a good deal. The introductory level gun is also the better deal for the person who tends to want to customize their own pistols. The high end guns offer pre-packaged "custom" options at an affordable price, compared to a bespoke gun.

If a new 1911 shooter believes he will eventually move towards a high end gun, then it might be best to start out with that gun. That way, he does not suffer the financial loss of trading in the intro level gun.

 

[BullfrogKen]

.38 Special said: What advantages do high end 1911s have over introductory level guns, and how do they benefit the new handgunner? (Not a flame, but a serious question.)

A McDonald's Happy Meal will make turds just as easily as a porterhouse steak. There are times when Mickey D's is appropriate, and others when only a nice steak will do.


Look at the features between them. You are paying for more than accuracy. A new shooter? Go buy a Happy Meal. Eventually one might learn to appreciate the steak.


If that shooter never carries regularly - in excess of 8 hours daily; trains and shoots in quantities approaching several thousands of rounds through that handgun a year; or simply wanted a gun for fun . . . . Well, I agree, I don't believe the additional cost of a custom, or in Kimber's case a higher end production gun, is all that justified for practical purposes.

 

[rangerruck]

oh yeah, one really good 45 out there right now, nice and rugged , is the rock Island 45, and it is under 400 usually.

 

[The_Antibubba]

My primary shooting gun used to be a Makarov. Inexpensive, fun, went BANG every time, and I usually hit my target, and usually not in the center. I didn't care much, it was fun, and the Mak isn't known for it's extreme accuracy anyway.

Now I have a Smith & Wesson M66, and an M10, in 357 and .38, respectively. They are fine guns. Their sights are way better than the Mak's, with a longer sight radius. The triggers aren't mushy, and the consistency of the ammo (ammo quality) is better.

I still can't hit the center of the target. It's me, not the gun.

I don't shoot anywhere near as much as I'd like, or should. I would like to be a better shot, and, using these two guns, the M10 especially, I have gotten better. I've discovered some of the things I was doing wrong (If I could shoot every weekend, I'm sure I would learn those lessons better).

Eventually, with regular practice, I should reach a point where I'm not improving. Is there a block on my ability to learn, or am I as good as the gun? And would I be experienced enough to know the difference, at that point? Maybe. But I sure wasn't when I was shooting the Mak.

 

[Texas9]

Repitition

It's been said, but I must agree (on two points). You can have a $600 (+/-) Mil-Spec, or a $1,200 Kimber. Don't matter for some (dare I say, most?). If you love the feel of a Springer and hate the feel of the Kimber, you just wasted $600. You shoot the gun that works best in your hand. Period. I would love to own an H&K USP in 9, except that I shoot like poo with it. A Beretta 92, however, is like PFM in my hand. I own a 92.

Now, that "too much gun" thing? Well, again. You shoot/carry/own/etc. whatever works best for you. If you're a friggin ogre and can conceal a Desert Eagle .50 (I'm afraid of you, for starters) because that's what works, then you carry that beast with (concealed) pride.