What makes some 1911s so expensive?

[ARNETT44]

I found out a few months ago when I decided to "fit" a new trigger system to a 80 series Commander. Hours of time spent getting the parts right and putting the gun back together 50 times, testing and dissasemble, assemble. God bless the gunsmith!!!!! I will gladly pay next time.
It did come out real nice though.

 

[Confederate]

...I guess that the gunsmithing forums on the Sig, Glock, S&W, and HK forums are just imagination? Anything that is made by humans will have problems, some early, some later.

No, I'm speaking generally. Any gun is subject to malfunction, and it's great knowing how to clear them. Firing rapidly, stopping, then starting again can cause any gun to occasionally malfunction. Some can't be limp-wristed. My point is that the newer designs are much, much less likely to malfunction and look at this — they're cheaper and shoot longer without needing the attention of a gunsmith.

There's a lot to be said for the craftsmanship, still, I wonder how S&W knocked out their excellent second and third generation of steel pistols at the prices they did. Those guns are exceptionally well made and yet they sold for a fraction of what a really good 1911 would. Why? Who knows?

I'm unable to understand why the design can't be tinkered with until it's ultra-reliable. I never tried the S&W 1911, but I hoped they would be the ones that could do the seemingly impossible and get one that would be as reliable as their 645/4506. These look a lot like 1911s, but seem to be far more reliable. They're a little bigger, double-action — but the guns go all day long without a burp.

I was surprised to see that Kimber fail twice in a little more than one hour. It really made me think, how could that guy spend that much money on something and have it malfunction twice?

The WWII performance, like most legends, is largely myth. Before the .45 auto came along, the military used heavy revolver bullets that had no stopping power. Of course the 230gr FMJ would be an improvement...a major one. Then the 9mm FMJ came along. No mystery here as to which one would be the better. But if you had been able to use lighter JHPs, the story would have been quite different. The problem is, the military has to follow this antiquated, insipid agreement to use FMJs. Since most of our enemies don't abide by international agreements anymore, we ought to look at better ammunition.

I like the .45 ACP round a great deal, but it's not my favorite. Like most calibers in the defensive line-up, they're more than adequate for the job. I'd like to see our military carrying 18 rounds of 9mm expanding ammo that also yield excellent penetration, and I'm convinced that the 1911 design can be kept and greatly improved upon. I like the cocked and locked feature on the pistols and the flat characteristics and think the Glocks could use a better safety device than just a safety on a trigger!

 

[JR47]

The WWII performance, like most legends, is largely myth. Before the .45 auto came along, the military used heavy revolver bullets that had no stopping power.

The performance of the Model 1911 from WWI's trenches, to Vietnam's jungles was one of reliability. We're talking about the gun, not the cartridge. Please give us a reference if you don't agree.

Just to make the point, the Colt SAA issued by the Army was a .45 Cal. using 255 gr bullets. They BRIEFLY, and in a period of peace-time, issued a .38 Ca. handgun. It failed miserably against the Moros, and the .45 Colt was re-issued. The military decided upon a semi-auto handgun, in .45 caliber, and the 1911 won the contest.

I have a number of box-stock 1911A1 pistols from Colt, Randall, Charles Daly, Springfield, Taurus, and Dan Wesson that have proven reliable, accurate, and durable. I also have a few boutique examples from Baer, Brown, and the like. I even have a couple of Korth firearms.

I don't care WHO made it, or HOW much it cost. It MUST be reliable, accurate, and durable before it's worth anything as a GUN. These are requirements. Anything else is a preference. Spend however much money as you want, but there is ZERO to be gained as far as it being a gun, beyond those three requirements. "Work of art" takes it right out of logic as far as being a gun goes.

rbernie, as far as Mil-Spec interchangeability goes, you are correct. However, the assembly bits and pieces in a Para line WILL be made to closer specs, for Para, than was available during WWII. My point was to bring attention to the lack of "hand-fitting" needed of today's parts, because of improved machine techniques.

 

[mljdeckard]

I must say it's largely a mystery to me. I can justify SOME difference in cost, but not the range you see today.

If you buy a frame and slide from Caspian, they will hand-fit them for (I think) an extra $150. (For most of us, this is more cost-effective than sitting in your garage with both pieces and lapping compound for a week.)

If MIM parts are doomed to fail, mine must be defective. As well as all of those in the guns of all of my friends who ran out and bought Kimbers because they liked mine so much. None have told me they have ever had a part break. I THINK, there is a degree of snobbery involved because Kimber shattered the myth that you have to pay north of $1k for a 1911 with a hand-fitted slide. Ever since then, it's been an ongoing game of explaining why it was a good idea to spend so much to begin with, and why it is therefore STILL a good idea.

I've shot Baers, Wilsons, Nighthawks, etc. I shot one Nighthawk with a $2700 price tag. Cool. Aluma grips felt REALLY nice. I shot it next to my Kimber, a hundred rounds, one mag through one, then the other, alternating. Better? Yes. MUCH better? Um, I dunno. Worth more than three times what I paid for my Kimber? You're out of your Vulcan mind, Spock.

I am reminded of Vincent Vega; "Wow. That may be the best milkshake I've ever tasted. But it ain't worth five dollars."

 

[russ45]

I have a Model 70 Government that I have changed sights, hammer, trigger, grip safety, worked on the trigger, throated, etc.... I played around with low power recoil springs to shoot light loads. Sometimes I would come across a bullet shape or load that wouldn't work well. I recently purchased a Model 80 Government Custom shop gun that has probably an 18# spring in it and it feeds, ejects, and shoots everything. Light, heavy, ball, wadcutters, everything. I have not had the first FTF with it in the first 1000 rounds with every conceivable type of ammunition. I have not done anything to this gun. The custom shop guns are much better and well worth twice the price. The Model 70 might have a very slightly better trigger, but not enough to make a difference in the accuracy.

 

[ACBMWM3]

Try to make one.

You'll appreciate what the gunsmiths do super fast.

When I built my first AR, I said to myself "this aint to bad, maybe next time ill try to build a 1911!"

That was 6 years ago and man was I way in over my head.

 

[mljdeckard]

I do have on my list, to build a dedicated 1911 frame for my .22 conversion kit, with lighter springs to be able to easily cycle more kinds of ammo.

 

[beltfed74]

Ive had cheap(Colt 1991's) to my new this year Brown to a full custom Garthwaite. You get what you pay for. Sure I could have bought 5 RIA's or 4.5 Glocks but why?


As I get older, Im 35 this summer, I find myself choosing quality over quantity.