Which 1911?

[tallball]

Hard to say. If the OP hasn't had a 1911 and just wants to see if they like them, I would recommend something along the lines of a plain-Jane RIA GI. That is how my stepbrother got started, and how I did as well. We both liked them, eventually got others, and they both still function just fine many thousands of rounds later. A 1911 doesn't have to cost very much to go bang every time and be decently accurate.

If the OP has very large hands, the double-stack would be heavenly. I have enormous hands, and my double-stack 1911 is one of the few semi-automatics that really gives me enough to grab onto.

Other than that, I got nothin'. I was raised in poverty and can't get my mind around the concept of paying $1,000, or even close to $1,000, for a handgun.

 

[dakota1911]

One thing is, at least down here in the SW, that Ruger, SA (usually ROs), and Colts are often on sale at very good prices. Granted you may have to wait in line at the gun store the first day of the sale to get one of the 10 SR1911s they have for $599, but at least there are sales on these.

Look at the Rowland web site. They have one of their kits on a Ruger SR1911. Of course I would trust Pine Tree (Ruger) cast over a lot of other manufactures "forged someplace" frames.

 

[Nathan]

I have owned Colt, SA, Dan Wesson and RIA.

Dan Wesson is too much $ for this thread.

Colt is great, but hardly best bang for the buck if tou want modern 1911 shapes.

SA, Ruger and RIA are left. RIA is a rough gun that will likely serve you well. SA is as expensive as Colt, but not quite as well made. Still good. Ruger is a bit more refined and seems to be about your best compromise. Trouble is that if you plan to get it checkered, the SA would be less risky.

 

[AKexpat]

Hawg states:

A cast frame doesn't mean squat unless you're going to build a .460 Rowland out of it. Unless looks are a major factor the Rock Island is the best bang for the buck. I'd put my Rock Island tactical up against anybody's for reliability with any ammo you want to run and it's probably more accurate than a Colt right out of of the box. I have several thousand rounds out of mine and never had one single hiccup, even when it was brand new.

I have to agree 110%, Hawg. Investment cast frames have been around for years and have worked well for ANY .45 ACP or lesser caliber pistol.

It seems to me that a LOT of you folks are of the younger generation and are willing to rely upon the manufacturer to cure any ills that may befall your pistol, real or imagined.

If you folks want to spend your hard-earned bucks on the latest and greatest, it's your money going out the door.

If I was in the position to acquire a first 1911, I would go with the basic RIA, get the books, study, learn, and decide whether I could modify it to my needs, or whether it is beyond my capabilities.

I could then decide if I need all of the bling parts (like a rail, commander hammer/associated grip safety, magwell, exotic sights, lights, etc.), and then go from there.

I am just a plain jane 1911 guy from way back.

I'm 64, old and in the way, and have worked on firearms all of my adult life. The key, IMO, is to educate yourself about the basic firearm you own (or wish to own) and learn how to disassemble and reassemble it without damaging it, all the while observing how all of the parts work together.

Insofar as the basic 1911 is concerned, one can do no better than downloading a copy of Jerry Kuhnhausen's bible on the 1911 Colt pistol. Just Google it. You can download both Volumes I and II from at least 2 different sources.

While it primarily is about Colt 1911 pistols, nearly all of the clones fit the bill.

Just study it well.

While you folks will probably laugh, I don't own a Colt 1911; rather an AMT Hardballer. Rest assured, AMT never turned out a pistol like this as it has been thoroughly gone through and modified by me (surprised?) and has been my SD/HD/CC/Truck gun for 24 years. Bought it for $150 with 2 factory stainless mags in 1992, added many blued carbon steel parts back then (pins, firing pin/stop, extractor, thumb safety, etc.), throated the barrel for all manner of hollowpoints, and I have less than $250 in the gun, other than sweat equity. (Things were cheaper back then.) It ain't pretty and was never meant to be. It is a tool, and nothing more. It runs...

And some of you guys have the money to spend ~$1500+ on one 1911, not learn a thing, and think you are on top of the world (temporarily).

I would rather buy 2 $500 RIA's and spend the rest on select parts and experimentation. After all, you can use one to experiment upon, and the second gun can be ready for all of the knowledge you have learned in the process. And the first gun is still a work in progress for whatever you have in mind.

Just remember that the frame has the serial number and is THE GUN. Never modify it when fitting parts. If you screw up the fitting of parts, you can always buy parts.

The basic idea is education.

 

[AKexpat]

@RickB

The M1911 did not pop out of John Browning's head, already perfected.
It was developed, over a five-year period, in conjunction with army ordnance and Colt.
Without all three, there would be no 1911.

That is complete BS. There would be no 1911? That is purely laughable. Are you not aware of Browning's work on the earlier semi-auto pistols he designed?

What do you mean by "perfected"? I would assume with all of the modern day purveyors of 1911 pistols that it probably is not perfected to this day.

Browning designed the 1911 without the assistance of Colt or the U.S. Army. Colt had nothing to do with that. Colt just bought the rights to produce the pistol from Browning.

Later on, after WWI, the Army insisted that, in order to be a military pistol, and adopted as such, it would have to have a few changes, most significantly the arched MSH and the curved cutout behind the trigger guard. And that did not happen until 1925, well after WWI when all of the 1911 pistols had the straight MSH.

Sure would like to see some evidence for where you are coming from insofar as that "5 year period".

And there are many modern day 1911 shooters who prefer the non-perfected WWI era flat MSH as opposed the "perfected" arched MSH.

 

[peggysue]

Every one needs a long slide in their 1911 collection...

 

[samsmix]

^ I nearly bought a Javalina in 10mm in about 1998, but alas I was young and poor, and even $275 seemed like a lot of money.

 

[RickB]

That is complete BS. There would be no 1911? That is purely laughable. Are you not aware of Browning's work on the earlier semi-auto pistols he designed?

What do you mean by "perfected"? I would assume with all of the modern day purveyors of 1911 pistols that it probably is not perfected to this day.

Browning designed the 1911 without the assistance of Colt or the U.S. Army. Colt had nothing to do with that. Colt just bought the rights to produce the pistol from Browning.

Later on, after WWI, the Army insisted that, in order to be a military pistol, and adopted as such, it would have to have a few changes, most significantly the arched MSH and the curved cutout behind the trigger guard. And that did not happen until 1925, well after WWI when all of the 1911 pistols had the straight MSH.

Sure would like to see some evidence for where you are coming from insofar as that "5 year period".

And there are many modern day 1911 shooters who prefer the non-perfected WWI era flat MSH as opposed the "perfected" arched MSH.

If you have a spare $500 laying around, buy "the big book" by Charles Clawson, or, on a budget, try The Government Models by William Goddard.
The development of the M1911 is no secret, so there's no reason to go through life so ignorant of the events. Have a nice day.

EIDT: To be fair, "perfected" did not mean the change from M1911 to M1911A1, it meant the development of the Colt 1905 into M1911 (so my math sucks, six years). The army tested the 1905, sent it back for changes, tested a revised gun, etc., repeatedly. There were numerous prototypes built by Colt, each modified to further satisfy the army's desires. External hammer, internal hammer, grip safety, thumb safety, etc., finally arriving at the pistol that was adopted by the government. Without a customer in the U.S. government, and without a manufacturing partner in Colt - which also did some of the engineering and most of the prototyping - there would be no 1911.

 

[samsmix]

ONLY Colt can make a 1911. All others are copies!

Even if technically accurate, this statement smacks of....I dunno, by the point is Colt has had an on again/off again reputation for quality control. I'm not interested in building a good 1911/clone, I want to but one. Several in fact. I'll buy a nice mil-spec to get my WWII on, and it will probably be a Colt...but it doesn't have to be.

So I will stop agonizing over which one, and buy 3

Any cheap POS with a parkerized or what's-left-of-bluing finish...to approximate my veiw of Colt quality, and spurred on by Colt Superiority Complex types. I will spend as little as possible, and call it a Colt's Government Model as often as possible.

An accurate gun of the 1911 (ish) mechanical design, with or adaptable to adjustable sights, with a good trigger. I do not want to spend $1000....or $800 if I don't have to. It will MOSTLY be a range toy, but might see some CCW and Whitetail hunting use. This will probably be an SA, Ruger...maybe a Kimber.

The Para-Ord is coming home with me. It will be my .460 Rowland conversion and while big, will be more pleasant to pack in the mountains of Montana than my 7.5" Super Blackhawk. It won't hit quite as hard either, but it holds a lot of ammo. Besides, humans are more dangerous than bears.

 

[samsmix]

...and I will scold my phone, shaming it at great length for having the audacity to change "Ordnance" to "Ordinance" without requesting permission in triplicate.

 

[dahermit]

So, yeah, if it isn't a Colt it's a clone, and the Colt 1911 is still built to specs, something that cannot be said of many of the other companies producing "1911" pistols today.

Yeah...they built my Colt to specs with a plastic mainspring housing. Did John Browning specify that?

 

[44 AMP]

when quality guns with $5 plastic frames cost $600, I question where the corners are cut on the all-steel gun?

I think you ought to turn the question around. Instead of asking where the steel gun has corners cut, ask instead, why are we accept being ripped off paying $600 for a gun with a $5 plastic frame???


If anything but a Colt is a clone, ok, fine. That means all the GI WWII guns with parts made by Remington Rand, Singer, Ithaca, and others are clones as well.

As far as I know, Colt hasn't made a production 1911 since the switch over to the 1911A1 in the 1920s. (not counting commemorative re-productions, and wasn't their 1911 pattern gun called the 1991??)

Also, as far as I know, Colt NEVER made 1911s for sale to the public. 1911/1911A1 is the military designation. Guns made for the civilian market are "Government Models" and are so marked!

Odd to hear disparaging comments about "cast" frames, and so little about MIM parts which are also "cast" though using a different process.

I think Ruger has done a good job over the last 60 some years, PROOVING that their "cast" frames and actions are as good as forged, from a functional standpoint, anyway.

I know there must be others, but sometimes, it seems like I'm the only guy left on the planet who has never had trouble with the original GI 1911/A1 or Government model grip safety, never gotten hammer bit. I don't need a beavertail grip safety, don't like the even larger "whale tails" and DETEST the so called "memory bump". For me, its just an uncomfortable lump of metal is the wrong place!

Had my years of fooling with extended everything, found the drawbacks to outweigh the advantages, most of the time.

I've had lots of 1911a1 STYLE guns over the years, Colts, GI guns, mostly but also some others, including foreign made guns (Llama, Star, and some others)

The only one I've kept and intend on keeping forever is the pre series 70 Colt Government Model that my father bought in the late 60s. Looks straight stock, except for Micro adjustable sights. Wonderful trigger pull, and if I do my part, will still put 5 shots in one ragged hole at 25yds. (one ragged 2-2.5" hole)

I regretfully inherited that gun over a dozen years ago. Its a fine gun, and I'm keeping it in the family, though, if I had the choice, I would give it up to get my father back...

I didn't vote in the poll, none of the choices interested me in the slightest, and if I'm not interested, or have no personal experience with it, I won't recommend it to others.

Enjoy the new toys, lads, be well, and be happy. I've got mine, not looking for more...

 

[RickB]

Quote:
when quality guns with $5 plastic frames cost $600, I question where the corners are cut on the all-steel gun?

I think you ought to turn the question around. Instead of asking where the steel gun has corners cut, ask instead, why are we accept being ripped off paying $600 for a gun with a $5 plastic frame???

And you're absolutely right. It's been 35 years since I took an Econ class, but I remember the term "elasticity of demand"?
When Colt, SIG, Beretta - everyone - is making all-metal guns that cost $700, and Glock comes along with a plastic-framed gun that is perceived to do exactly the same job, and it costs only $500, nobody is going to ask if it shouldn't cost only $300 because it's plastic, they're going to rejoice in the saving of $200 on a quality service pistol.

But, there are corners being cut on almost all "1911" pistols that stray from the original specs that call for all parts to be machined forgings.
I remember reading an article about (custom 1911 maker) Ed Brown ruminating on a fully forged and machined pistol costing $3000.
When a perfectly serviceable gun made from an appropriate mixture of forged, barstock, cast, MIM, etc., parts can be sold for $600, there's probably not much of market for the $3000 gun.

 

[samsmix]

Personally, to me, a 1911 by any other name is....still a 1911. I too thought of all the Singers, Remington Rands, Ithacas...