Which M1911's the BEST??

[Jay-Jay]

With so many companies making the M1911 pistol (Colt, S&W, Springfield, STI, Kimber, Taurus, Charles Daily, Remington, etc.), which one(s) are the best??

Anyone had any experience with the new Remington 1911? Price looks good on them... :cool:

[D.R. Middlebrooks]

I know Taurus really sucks and I have a Remington coming in this week for customizing. We shall see... :cool:

[Ernie Johnson]

It's just like what happened with the Colt AR-15's. The patent ran out and now everybody makes a 1911, some good, some not so good. :rolleyes:

Ah, if Colt only would have done their job right the first time...:(

[GutShot John]

It's just like what happened with the Colt AR-15's. The patent ran out and now everybody makes a 1911, some good, some not so good. :rolleyes:

Ah, if Colt only would have done their job right the first time...:(

1911s have been made by numerous manufacturers for decades mostly because the military gave others contracts to feed their demand that colt couldn't manage. Even still just about any 1911 (even a quality one) is going to require some work to make it function as it should.

As for the AR Colt and FN are the only ones that procure for the military so they are quite good. There are only about 3 other manufacturers that get anywhere close to Colt standards. I wouldn't waste my money on the others. Same goes for the 1911. Colt, Springfield and STI are going to be your best options short of a semi-custom like Nighthawk. Then again for the same price as a Nighthawk you can get a custom made 1911 made by D.R.

[D.R. Middlebrooks]

A client of mine sent me a "NEW" Remington M1911 Pistol to work on. Basically, he needed a trigger job and some reliability work. After working on his P.O.S. Taurus M1911 I was bit apprehensive to say the least... :rolleyes:

First off, the pistol case is really nice. A plastic hard case with a soft rubber areas where it contacts the gun. Nice bushing wrench, too. :cool:

The gun at first glance looked pretty good. It had a WWII era look to it, except for the 3-dot sights (with a cross dovetail front). Finish was fairly good. It had some machining marks, but overall it had a decent Mil-Spec look to it. :cool:

I disassembled the gun completely for inspection. The barrel was impressive. A nice barrel to bushing fit and a good link to feet fit. Something akin to a low budget "drop-in" match type barrel. :cool:

Looked like it had a Colt sear spring with a nice (short) aluminum match trigger. Hammer hooks were sharp and square (something not seen on low budget M1911 models). :cool:

The disconnector was the right length and the Series '80 parts looked just like Colt (yes, it had a Series '80 firing pin block system in it. Oh, well... :(

The barrel needed some feed ramp work and the trigger need to be much lighter. The customer asked me for a clean, 4-4.5# carry pull, which he got.

To my surprise the Remington gun shot well and shot to point of aim! :eek: At 10 yards off hand I clover leafed 5 shots with H&G #68 200 grain SWC with 5.8 of 231 with Federal primers. This was my old favorite load from the days of yesteryear. I enjoyed shooting the Mil-Spec gun and the memories brought me back to a simpler time. :cool:

Although this was only ONE sample specimen, for the money it seemed like decent quality. Basically the overall quality of machine work was acceptable. Tolerances were good overall, a lot tighter than some Colt Series '80's I've worked over the years. :cool:

DISCLAIMER: I did NOT do any hardness tests on the frame/slide or hammer, nor did I see any evidence of the factory doing it either. :( Only time will tell us how well this gun will hold up with heavy use. Many of my clients are competitive shooters who shoot the hell out of their guns (25-50,000 rounds per year! :eek:). For them, I'd suggest a higher quality weapon platform to start with. But if you're an average Joe Shooter, I think this pistol would be just fine. :cool:

Pricing: Although I haven't compared the prices of this gun to others in it's class, I think if you're looking for a decent shooter and you're on a budget, this may be a good choice. :cool:

[GutShot John]

D.R.

Have you done any work on Springfield Armory 1911s? If so how do they compare to the new Remington?

Thanks.

[D.R. Middlebrooks]

I've built a LOT of Springfields over the years. The slides and frames are GOOD and HARD. I know because I've machined the slides for sights and checkered the frames many times. :cool:

On the down side, the internal parts are junk and need to be replaced. The barrels are a 2-pc, soldered together P.O.S. Even the so called "match" barrels are junk...:(

[GutShot John]

I've built a LOT of Springfields over the years. The slides and frames are GOOD and HARD. I know because I've machined the slides for sights and checkered the frames many times. :cool:

On the down side, the internal parts are junk and need to be replaced. The barrels are a 2-pc, soldered together P.O.S. Even the so called "match" barrels are junk...:(

Would it be fair to say then that the Remington is about the same in terms of the frame/slide but has far better internals?

Do the higher-end Springfields have better internals or are they about the same across the board?

If it's not too much to ask, how do you rate the Colts?

[D.R. Middlebrooks]

Would it be fair to say then that the Remington is about the same in terms of the frame/slide but has far better internals?

Better internals, yes, but that doesn't say much as the the parts in the Springfield are cheap. :(

Now, the hardness of the frame/slide of the Remington is still an unknown (I didn't have time to do a hardness test). Tolerances were as good or better than say a Colt, (which isn't saying much either) but not as good a Kimber...

Do the higher-end Springfields have better internals or are they about the same across the board? Unless you go REAL High End (a la Springfield Custom Shop) they are about the same IMO.

If it's not too much to ask, how do you rate the Colts?The early Colts were awesome. The latter day Series '80's are sloppy for the most part, but I have seen a good one or two show up on my bench occasionally. The Colt parts are GOOD and HARD, so are the frames & slides. But tolerances vary a lot. I've seen some real crap in regards to machining also, especially during the bankruptcy days. :(

[Mike Wood]

The early Colts were awesome. The latter day Series '80's are sloppy for the most part, but I have seen a good one or two show up on my bench occasionally. The Colt parts are GOOD and HARD, so are the frames & slides. But tolerances vary a lot. I've seen some real crap in regards to machining also, especially during the bankruptcy days. :(

As with any company there were a few even during the 70's that slipped though sloppy. I had a 70 Series Gold Cup (their premier target model- go figure) that rattled bad when you shook it! You could press down on the "match" barrel hood and get movement there when it was in battery and the slide frame fit was really sloppy both vertically and horizontally. I have had a few really nice ones and a few nice series 80 ones but I hate the stupid firing pin safety.
Colt had a huge strike back about the time they came out with the series 80 guns. Scabs came in and started building handguns for them and the QC just went downhill overnight. Some say they never really recovered from this. They have been building shitty handguns for a long time now and most good shooters won't even consider them. Their AR's rock though.
MW