The 1911 - General question

[cskny]

Curious for some feedback.

Been researching a lot of 1911 opinions and I stumbled upon an interesting post on another forum that did an good job describing that poster’s perception.

Their premise was pretty simple. Generally, the names in each 1911 price point were equally reliable. Forget brand loyalty. If you take away costs that come from fancy scrollwork’s and finishes, etc, and really look at the quality in different price points, that "quality" is simply trying to achieve accuracy. And he had a breakdown something like:


If you can shoot 4” groups, off handed from 50 yards, you will perceive the accuracy afforded by the $3000 plus custom guns

If you can shoot 4” groups from 25 yards off handed, you will perceive the accuracy of $1500 semi-custom models, but beyond that won’t be able to perceive a difference.

If you can shoot 6” groups off handed at 25 yards, you will perceive the accuracy advantages of the $1000 guns, but won’t benefit from the semi or customs.

Etc.

I have the numbers wrong, I can’t find the post. But, in generally, is this a good way to think of the 1911 platform and pricing (again, ignoring finishes or scrollwork and other cosmetics that add cost).

If so, 1911 experts, what would YOU place as the group sizes and distances at different price points?

 

[1911Tuner]

Honestly...I don't base the pistol's utility on intrinsic accuracy alone. More of'em are more accurate than I can prove without a sandbag rest anyway.

I've found that the pistols that'll really hold 3 inches at 25 yards with ball ammo are plenty accurate enough for my purposes. My litmus test is reliability. The pistol has to run. Dirty or clean....hot or cold...wet with oil or as dry as a popcorn poot...gripped like a vise or barely enough to keep it from bouncin' out of my hand...upside down, sideways, and everything in-between. It has to run. If it won't meet those criteria, it doesn't matter if it'll put'em all through the same hole.

 

[SteampunkQueen]

Personally, i think that all handguns are going to be more accurate than we are. What changes accuracy in hand is how we stand, how we press the trigger and other such factors, like the trigger weight, the trigger style ie DA/SA.

I get the basis of pricing, obviously not everyone can afford a 3700 dollar Wilson Combat 1911, but while i can feel the difference in operation between a 2600 dollar Ed Brown versus an SR1911, both of them were equally accurate when i got right down to it.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree. A lot of people whine about degrees of accuracy which they will never be good enough to realize anyway.

 

[cskny]

I've found that the pistols that'll really hold 3 inches at 25 yards with ball ammo are plenty accurate enough for my purposes. My litmus test is reliability. The pistol has to run. Dirty or clean....hot or cold...wet with oil or as dry as a popcorn poot...gripped like a vise or barely enough to keep it from bouncin' out of my hand...upside down, sideways, and everything in-between. It has to run. If it won't meet those criteria, it doesn't matter if it'll put'em all through the same hole.

I get it, but that's because I'm assuming you plan to rely on that gun in defensive situations? But then, it seems like once you get one 1911, you somehow end up with about 1000 of them, so how you can guarantee you'll grab that one I don't know.

But some of us would only be using it for range fun and games. We trust our defensive situations can be handled by our plastic guns

Kidding aside though, at the different price points are you saying there will be different levels of reliability? It doesn't seem likely from what I've seen and read. The $1000 Kimbers, Springfields, Colts, or "whatevers" seem pretty comparably reliable within price-points, with a handfull of haters for every brand.

Are you saying that the $3000 customs or $2000 semi-customs are inherently more reliable then the $1000 factory offerings across manufacturers? Again, it doesn't seem that way.

So in the end...what are you buying as the price escalates (pretty looking options aside)? It's gotta be accuracy, no? I'm sure someone will say "fit and finish", but be realistic, why do you want better fit and finish? Improved accuracy, no?

 

[Olympus]

Unless you're shooting Bullseye, I don't give group sizing a second thought I choosing a 1911. I don't shoot mine from a rest, so any 1911 will be more accurate from a Ransom rest than it will being shot offhandedly by me.

Reliability is a big factor for me. Also quality of the components and overall build are very important. Tolerances on slide to frame is something I factor in. I look at features such as sights, frame checkering, and finish too. Trigger is something I check too. Basically, accuracy is rarely in my thought process because I know any 1911 will be more accurate than I can shoot offhand. I don't shoot much better than 3" groups at 25 yards anyway. So I imagine I would shoot the same 3" groups with a 1.5" guaranteed Les Baer that I would shoot with my $550 Taurus. I also tend to shoot more reactive targets than punching paper. So I'm happy with any gun that I can hit my target with.

 

[SteampunkQueen]

With my guns, the thing i notice between my 700 dollar 1911 and my 2600 dollar 1911 isnt accuracy, its the feel of the gun functioning.

When i shoot cheaper 1911 i can feel the function, its almost "clunky". With the Ed Brown i owned, it was smooth, all the way through.

Atleast thats how i always saw it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

that "quality" is simply trying to achieve accuracy.

That premise is flawed unless you are talking about a bullseye pistol for folks who can take advantage of a gun that will shoot into 1.5" at 50 yards

It has been my experience with the 1911 that tiers of price usually are the result of cost cutting taken in the proper fitting put into the gun. These steps are taken by manufacturers as a balance between what is correct and what their targeted buyers will accept.

For a properly fitted 1911, I think the sweet spot starts at $1500 and goes to $2500 for a gun I'd carry to defend my life. Above that and you get into features that have less to do with reliability, below that and you are cutting corners that will affect function and durability.

Most folks will never put enough rounds through their 1911 to really test it's reliability...for them it doesn't make a huge difference that their gun won't perform when they'll need it most. For those for whom it is important, the proper fitting and increased cost is a small price to pay for piece of mind

 

[9mmepiphany]

If you can shoot 4” groups, off handed from 50 yards, you will perceive the accuracy afforded by the $3000 plus custom guns

If your defensive pistol won't hold inside 4" at 50 yards, you really shouldn't be carrying it...this has long been (well, from the 60's) the minimum accuracy requirement and it has very little to do with price

 

[Peter M. Eick]

This logic is somewhat flawed because it does not take into account the mental part of shooting.

I buy 1.5" guarantee Baer's. Yes, off a bench I can occasionally duplicate his sub-1.5" 50 yrd groups. It is very difficult but I know the gun can do it.

When I shoot offhand, and I am banging away at my normal 15 yrds or 25 yrds, if I an not shooting at least a 1.0" group or better offhand, then I know it is me and not the gun. This forces me to focus, squeeze and put the shot just right.

It is not that I cannot perceive the differences between the quality of a Baer vs. a Colt NM or even a say Springfield run of the mill, it is the mental aspect of not being able to blame a missed shot on the gun.

This is something that you cannot underestimate the mental aspect of knowing the shot has to hit where it is aimed vs. lobbing out a bullet that will hit somewhere out there.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm going to disagree with 9mm. 4" @50 is pretty optimistic. Certainly better than army standards. That's the same as 2" @ 25, and we would say that's a better than average pistol.

 

[kyletx1911]

My 1911s are inexpensive but they are workhorses. I dont shoot bullseye idpa or such. But i do shoot alot
All find poa poi just fine, 15-20-25 yds all center mass
Thats all i want from me, the pistol is a better
Shot than i am, they hold up when i run 600+
In one sitting they run dirty, they run hot
What else do i need for edc, i want a baer brown
Etc but cant afford them. Those guys for me
Are a question of style.

 

[cskny]

It has been my experience with the 1911 that tiers of price usually are the result of cost cutting taken in the proper fitting put into the gun. These steps are taken by manufacturers as a balance between what is correct and what their targeted buyers will accept.

But this doesn't say much, what does that "proper fitting" actually get you in performance? "proper fitting" sounds nice but if different levels of fitting don't translate to accuracy or reliability differences, why would I care? If it doesn't impact reliability or accuracy, it's creeping into a cosmetic or "preference" category. That's why I don't think it's appropriate in the discussion if you are talking about performance, I'd rather talk about the 'performance result' of that "proper fitment" (if any).

 

[cskny]

That premise is flawed unless you are talking about a bullseye pistol for folks who can take advantage of a gun that will shoot into 1.5" at 50 yards

Actually, the premise is only flawed if there is a DIFFERENCE in reliability. That's part of the point. Is there really a difference in reliability within and across the 1911 price points? There's lots of brand chatter with lover and haters, but...I really can't tell.

 

[cskny]

If your defensive pistol won't hold inside 4" at 50 yards, you really shouldn't be carrying it...this has long been (well, from the 60's) the minimum accuracy requirement and it has very little to do with price

I think the statement is talking about your shooting abilities and ability to perceive differences, as much as it is inherent gun accuracy.

But regardless, suggest different numbers. What do you think is acceptable versus excellent? If you need to break it into a target gun versus a defensive gun because you think the numbers are different go ahead.

 

[JTQ]

Is there really a difference in reliability within and across the 1911 price points?

I think so.

I think the fitment point is a good one though. You could probably have equal reliability across price points for a time, say a few hundred rounds or a few thousand rounds. However, when you get to higher round counts the better fit guns will wear less because they were assembled better before they left the factory. The guns at the lower price point fit OK, but will probably wear out faster, aside from generally having lesser quality parts, but because they just don't fit together as well and the parts will wear out faster.

I think the cosmetic point is probably obvious to somebody that is a little more than the casual observer of the firearm. For instance, a Les Baer is pretty much a Les Baer. They are all fit about the same (not counting the 1.5" guarantee models). The lowest price Baer will probably perform just like the highest priced Baer. The difference between them are the features, if you want them, or the embellishments to the pistol.

Same with a Kimber. The lowest priced Kimber is made pretty much like the pricey ones, but you are largely paying for other stuff that you may or may not want.

However, I would expect just about any Les Baer to outperform any Kimber as far as long term durability goes. Will you find a Kimber that is more accurate than a Baer? Sure, but what will it be like 50,000 rounds down the road. That is generally what you are paying for rather than how small a group it will shoot. Especially since most 1911's have more accuracy potential than most of us can exploit.

 

[Ankeny]

This might sound stupid and maybe condescending (I don't mean it that way) but if you shoot several hundred thousand rounds through 1911's over a few decades you will probably learn to judge the pistol by how it runs in your hands. Guys who smith pistols can tell you a lot about a gun just by fondling it at their bench and by racking the slide half a dozen times.

 

[9mmepiphany]

But this doesn't say much, what does that "proper fitting" actually get you in performance? "proper fitting" sounds nice but if different levels of fitting don't translate to accuracy or reliability differences, why would I care? If it doesn't impact reliability or accuracy, it's creeping into a cosmetic or "preference" category. That's why I don't think it's appropriate in the discussion if you are talking about performance, I'd rather talk about the 'performance result' of that "proper fitment" (if any).

You betray the fact that you don't understand the meaning of proper/correct fit in the 1911 platform. A properly fitted gun will function reliability under hard use, when you compromise the fit of those parts, you are compromising the durability/reliability of the gun. Compromising fit also affects the usability.

I'll cite a recent example: the fit of the grip safety, in this case referring to the beavertail gripsafety that is currently very popular.

The upper radius of the grip safety should line up with the upper radius of the frame tang when the safety is at rest. The lower radius of the gripsafety should do the same with the lower radius lower tang when the safety is depressed. That lower radius should be flush when the safety is depressed. This is an area were many manufacturers choose to cut corners.

When not properly fitted. The edges of the lower tang will abrade the hand of the shooter, causing first discomfort, then pain, and then bleeding which compromises first grip and eventually trigger press through distraction. This is a function issue directly stemming from improper fit...but you have to shoot enough to understand the ramifications of improper fit.

Actually, the premise is only flawed if there is a DIFFERENCE in reliability. That's part of the point. Is there really a difference in reliability within and across the 1911 price points? There's lots of brand chatter with lover and haters, but...I really can't tell.

I'm trying to say that there is a difference, but it isn't measured in the way you've suggested. A shooter's ability should never be limited by the platform they are using, that is exactly what you are doing when you start cutting corners in correct fit.

But regardless, suggest different numbers. What do you think is acceptable versus excellent? If you need to break it into a target gun versus a defensive gun because you think the numbers are different go ahead.

Why suggest different numbers?

4" at 50 yards from a freestyle position (the original suggestion was the rollover prone) has long been considered the minimum acceptable accuracy for a defensive pistol. A shop that I am familiar with expects 2" at that distance from guns they have tuned. They worked with hundreds of SIG service guns a year and their expectation is 3" at that range...granted these are guys who can hold inside 2" at 25 yards

 

[cskny]

You betray the fact that you don't understand the meaning of proper/correct fit in the 1911 platform. A properly fitted gun will function reliability under hard use, when you compromise the fit of those parts, you are compromising the durability/reliability of the gun. Compromising fit also affects the usability.

I appreciate the feedback and I don't mean any disrespect, but again, the real point is 'by how much?'.

What gets somewhat exhausting in the 1911 world is the constant recitation of what I'll call "soft value", with no real explanation or quantification of what it gets in real life. And I'm starting to realize, maybe it's because it's realistically unknown.

I can accept that a tighter fit will probably result in longer term reliability. It's an easy enough concept. However, when an individual person is making a purchase decision there's a budget. We decide what to trade off with our money, and a mear 'concept' is completely unhelpful in the decision.

If, for example, the reliability difference is NOT in practical terms within a typical owners round count, then they should choose other features to worry about in their budget. Of course, out of the box accuracy is a pretty logical next focus point.

You may agree or disagree, but no one seems to be able to quantify any of it YET many rely of these "soft value points" to justify a brand or model.

For example, if a "loose fitting gun" will last 200,000 rounds and a tight one will be trouble free for 500,000. I'll bet you a lot of people would realize that paying extra $ for the 500,000 "tighter fit" lifespan may not be something they really need or want to do. If however, you tell a potential buyer that after 5000 rounds the loose gun will be unreliable and stop hitting the paper, that fitment takes on a different 'value' to the buyer. But the simple idea that better fitment is better, doesn't help much.

A shooter's ability should never be limited by the platform they are using, that is exactly what you are doing when you start cutting corners in correct fit.

Most shooters are limited by the platform they are using, that's the point. They have budgets and cannot afford to have this level of customization:

A shop that I am familiar with expects 2" at that distance from guns they have tuned.

So when they make a purchase decision, they want to apply their funds to the things they think are important. Cosmetic and ergonomic preferences are easy for a buyer to make their own informed decisions on, they can see the "fancy" and feel the ergonomics and decide if they like it.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of 'performance chatter' that makes it difficult or impossible to figure out just HOW important certain 1911 platform trade offs are to function.

 

[Ankeny]

Unfortunately, there's a lot of 'performance chatter' that makes it difficult or impossible to figure out just HOW important certain 1911 platform trade offs are to function.

If by function you mean over all "usability" as opposed to reliability, then that is one of truest statements I have seen regarding the 1911. If the gun runs, if it is accurate enough for your needs, and if it feels good in your hands, you have a winner.

 

[JTQ]

I appreciate the feedback and I don't mean any disrespect, but again, the real point is 'by how much?'.

I don't think that is quantifiable unless you are buying a gun that carries a particular accuracy guarantee, and most makers don't make a guarantee.

What gets somewhat exhausting in the 1911 world is the constant recitation of what I'll call "soft value", with no real explanation or quantification of what it gets in real life. And I'm starting to realize, maybe it's because it's realistically unknown.

It's not just the 1911 world, it is across makers. What makes a Sig cost $400 more than a Glock? Why do HK's, since they are also made of polymer, cost twice what a Glock costs? How much more accurate is the Sig or the HK than the Glock? Are they one inch more accurate at 25 yards? Two inches? Are they even more accurate? Will they last for more rounds? Can anybody answer those questions?

 

[jaktime]

Amen !......

"With my guns, the thing i notice between my 700 dollar 1911 and my 2600 dollar 1911 isnt accuracy, its the feel of the gun functioning.

When i shoot cheaper 1911 i can feel the function, its almost "clunky". With the Ed Brown i owned, it was smooth, all the way through.

Atleast thats how i always saw it. "

 

[tuj]

When you go to buy a musical instrument, the advice is often 'buy the best you can afford'. Why? Better instruments are easier to play, sound better, stay in tune better, have better intonation.

I have a 1.5" Les Baer and a STI Spartan. Pretty dramatic difference in price between those two guns. They are both accurate inside of 20 yards, such that I cannot discern the difference. But at 50 yards, the Les Baer starts to shine.

That's not counting the fact that despite the quite-good factory trigger on the STI, the Les Baer trigger is just superb. Obviously the trigger has no bearing on inherent accuracy, but it can make all the difference in the world when you're actually shooting the gun.

When I shoot the Baer, if a shot goes astray, I know it was me and not the gun. This is really important to be able to know when you are trying to improve your marksmanship skills. You need supreme confidence in your equipment, even if you cannot take full advantage of it yet.

 

[wditto]

I cannot think of ANYTHING more important than reliability with a pistol, as it may be capable of 2" groups, but what will the group look like if the pistol jams......THAT is what determines how much a pistol is worth, to ME.......I have found that consecutive serial numbers do not add to reliability, nor does engraving, so..........

 

[9mmepiphany]

I appreciate the feedback and I don't mean any disrespect, but again, the real point is 'by how much?'.

What gets somewhat exhausting in the 1911 world is the constant recitation of what I'll call "soft value", with no real explanation or quantification of what it gets in real life. And I'm starting to realize, maybe it's because it's realistically unknown.

Fair enough...I can see the source of your inquiry and frustration. I sense that your approach to value is a bit different than mine. Before the days of the internet, I learned about reliability and accuracy by listening to folks who had the greatest need for it and were always looking to make it more accurate while maintaining reliability at the lowest additional cost

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I hear you asking, "What is lowest price one can pay for a functioning 1911 to be used for a limited number of rounds?"

While factory may know that number, they haven't shared it. The last time a factory offer a gun that they determined would meet the demands of it's targeted market, as to rounds fired, and set it at a reasonable price....they were pilloried. So folks asking for the truth are often offended when actually offered it.

The problem with finding the information your are seeking, as to reliability and accuracy, is that it comes from the opposite end of the market that most research is conducted. Most research has been how to make the gun work under the worst/harshest conditions...reliability when you need it most. The harshest proving ground is action competition and the test have all been to refine the platform for performance rather than to reduce cost.

I've long held that a properly fitted 1911...without any, but with many of the additions desired for action shooting...would cost $2000-2500 off the shelf. There is a sweet spot in the 1911 range at $1200-1500 where most everything will be right...or it will be easy to correct. Granted that this might not apply to range toys, but then I wouldn't carry a range toy to defend myself.

I can accept that a tighter fit will probably result in longer term reliability. It's an easy enough concept. However, when an individual person is making a purchase decision there's a budget. We decide what to trade off with our money, and a mear 'concept' is completely unhelpful in the decision.

If, for example, the reliability difference is NOT in practical terms within a typical owners round count, then they should choose other features to worry about in their budget. Of course, out of the box accuracy is a pretty logical next focus point.

You may agree or disagree, but no one seems to be able to quantify any of it YET many rely of these "soft value points" to justify a brand or model.

That is the key isn't it...Is one's budget realistic?
Should you expect BMW/Audi/Mercedes performance at the price of a Toyota or Honda?
How much less would you be willing to accept for the price you are willing to pay?
How about at the price of a Fiat 500 or a Yugo?

If you think a working class 1911 is too expensive for your budget, you have a choice. You can either select a different platform or accept that there will be limitations to a lessor model. I don't know of any quantifiable study that has been conducted listing what you would be trading off as the price goes down. It is on the buyer to find creditable sources of experience to help them make their decision

For example, if a "loose fitting gun" will last 200,000 rounds and a tight one will be trouble free for 500,000. I'll bet you a lot of people would realize that paying extra $ for the 500,000 "tighter fit" lifespan may not be something they really need or want to do. If however, you tell a potential buyer that after 5000 rounds the loose gun will be unreliable and stop hitting the paper, that fitment takes on a different 'value' to the buyer. But the simple idea that better fitment is better, doesn't help much.

How about this.

A will fitted gun will be very shootable for 50,000 rounds. It will be comfortable to shoot, will group acceptability and will run every time the owner needs it.

I've seen a number of ill-fitted guns that wouldn't make it through a 1000 round class without drawing blood from it's shooter. Yes, they still functioned and if the shooter could put the pain out of their mind, they would likely still be accurate. I would think most folks wouldn't put much more than 15,000 rounds through their 1911 in their lifetime

Most shooters are limited by the platform they are using, that's the point. They have budgets and cannot afford to have this level of customization:

Than they shouldn't. I think many people fall under the mystic spell of the 1911 without good reason. It is like folks always wanting to own a Ferrari or even a Corvette

So when they make a purchase decision, they want to apply their funds to the things they think are important. Cosmetic and ergonomic preferences are easy for a buyer to make their own informed decisions on, they can see the "fancy" and feel the ergonomics and decide if they like it.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of 'performance chatter' that makes it difficult or impossible to figure out just HOW important certain 1911 platform trade offs are to function.

Than they should, but they shouldn't think that they are getting the same gun, minus the bling, as the more expensive models...because they won't be.

There is nothing wrong with getting a RIA 1911 Tactical, it won't ever be a Dan Wesson or a STI Trojan...I doubt it will be comparable to a S&W E-series. But it is a great value and their failure rate is only 0.25%