I am unapologetic in my fondness for the 1911. It's my standard for correct feel; for me, nothing point shoots like a 1911. It's concealable, has mild recoil, but carries a punch. If you are accustomed to it, the thumb safety lock is easy to use, and keeps the arm from discharging until it is raised to the target and the safety swept down. It's THE pistol.
BigJimP said:
You absolutely get what you pay for in many well made 1911's ! The idea that you don't, just makes no sense to me.
***
In my view, there's a lot of cheap, poorly made 1911's out there...with really low quality internal parts...price is not the only way to tell they probably cut some corners on those guns, but its a strong indication...and on many of them, they sure don't have much of a warranty.
It sounds as if you've spend wisely considering that you've put $20,000 or $30,000 in ammunition down the barrels of your pistol.
Unlike you, most pistol buyers aren't looking to spend more than a thousand dollars on something they will probably lose if they ever have to use it. This means that they are probably looking at 1911s in the $500 to $700 range. In that range, more modern and more durable designs abound. For the price of a mediocre (or substandard) 1911 that would benefit from some further work, lots of people will see a Sig or HK as a better choice.
I think a modernised 1911 would have a place. Ruger came close with the P345 - a single stack using essentially a 1911 magazine, but with a CZ/Sig style barrel to slide lock-up, but it had some QC and design issues. I gave up on 1911s when the tunnel that holds the plunger and spring for the safety lock separated from my frame. My P345 was a better pistol (not better than yours, but better than my 1911).
