Hey dakka. Let me start of by saying I do not own any guns, and I don't anticipate owning one anytime soon, but I do have a bit of an interest in them. /k/ is always there for Weapon talks, but one can only take so many "u jelly /k/" threads and "which glock is best hurr durr" threads, and I appreciate your opinions more.

So. I've been lurking around Colt's website, checking out their products, reading a little about Colt's history, and just generally drooling on myself. But I have to wonder... What does Colt have going for it? Sure, they make AR-15 platforms for the US military (and other governments), but they charge an arm and a leg for (from what I can perceive as) weapons that are no more reliable than any of the other numerous companies that make AR platforms. Am I missing something with the reliability of Colts?

Colt has a pretty big grip on the 1911 market too, probably because they make so many freaking variants, but what is the advantage to buying from them over Springfield Armory or any of the other companies?

Is Colt just a status thing for people who have nothing else to spend money on? Clearly, Colt has the US Military in it's pocket (at least until they eventually dump the M4/16), and that lends itself to their influence, but after that, what will happen to them? They seem like the GW of guns.

General Colt/gun thread, I guess. Just a little confused

Colt basically invented the modern revolver, so it has history on its side. Their weapons are steady and reliable, easy to find parts for...

Iunno, the first gun I bought was a Colt M1911 .45 calibur semiautomatic pistol, so I could be a little biased.

It is sad that Colt has focused on the government contract work, and made the civilian market secondary. But, colt is nothing like the GW of guns. They are more like the Bently of guns. Much more innovative in the past,(thanks to Mr. Browning) and clinging to a business model that stifles real innovation. Colts best efforts are restyles of older classics.

Colt has basically been living off of law enforcement and military sales. In fact of you remember the hubbub about the XM-8 and it's subsequent cancellation that's because Colt simply lowered the price on the the m4. It just so happens colt never actually had to compete for the m4 because in the procurement arm it was originally just a low rate production variant of the M16. Were they to compete at any point for an actual contract for a carbine they would undoubtedly lose.

In the LEO field they are simply well known for reliability even and especially when firing subsonics suppressed. In that arena they are actually budget priced compared to say Noveske.

Recently you can see a resurgent interest in expanding thier market base. Colt is far from the dominant 1911 manufacturer, the reason you see a lot of Colt branded 1911 frames is because they have literally been made continuously for 100 years. When comparing prices it's hard to beat SA in mid range 1911s that are not full customs. In fact many of the 1911's carried by MEU(SOC)s that were not original USGI were SA. It is hard to beat the reputation for out of the box quality and reliability Colt has however, many buyers will pay 10-50% more for pony reliability. The Gold Cup being an excellent example. Colt has restarted the Mustang line and *may* have a new offering in the next 5 years.

I have an uberti replica of a colt 1861 Navy cap and ball revolver. It's pretty much the closest thing you can get to the origional. It's definitely my favorite black powder gun that I own, and is actually quite accurate.

(not a real Colt I know, but close enough lol)

Looks just like this, except this one is brass for some reason. (The brass parts are case-hardened steel on mine) EDIT: I think this one is actually an original. Though I think there were steel ones as well.

I've actually been brushing up on my 1911 knowledge (youtube, mainly), and it seems like Colts are OVERALL pretty much worth the price, which was a surprise. When you compare a 1911 made by SFA and one made by Colt, there are definitely noticeable differences, mainly in the aesthetics, but it seems like they make a more reliable product, and their customer service department is good as well.

Colt offers all sorts of obtuse configurations that for one reason or another, do appeal to shooters (Like the Delta 1911 that shoots 10mm, or the old 70 series systems, or the various 1911s with adjustable back sights) so I guess that's cool.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I've actually been brushing up on my 1911 knowledge (youtube, mainly), and it seems like Colts are OVERALL pretty much worth the price, which was a surprise. When you compare a 1911 made by SFA and one made by Colt, there are definitely noticeable differences, mainly in the aesthetics, but it seems like they make a more reliable product, and their customer service department is good as well.

Colt offers all sorts of obtuse configurations that for one reason or another, do appeal to shooters (Like the Delta 1911 that shoots 10mm, or the old 70 series systems, or the various 1911s with adjustable back sights) so I guess that's cool.

Heck, every one is making1911s. Colt, Remington, Sig, Kahr, IIRC Ithica, and Mossberg do too. Everyone makes one

Not bad for a 101 year old design.

Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

Samus_aran115 wrote:
Colt has a pretty big grip on the 1911 market too, probably because they make so many freaking variants, but what is the advantage to buying from them over Springfield Armory or any of the other companies?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they have a "big" grip on the market for 1911s, as it was pointed out, just about everyone makes one... After firing them, I actually prefer Wilson Combat, and STI, at least over Colt.

Didyou try their 1991 or their 1911?

Melissia wrote:Didyou try their 1991 or their 1911?

Of which??

Wilson Combat, I shot a 1911 and in the STI, it was actually a "2011" with a double stack "mag"

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

Largely you can thank Smith and Wesson for that. They are now and always have been copycat artists. It's no coincidence the police positive and m and p are virtually identical, or the detective and j frame. It's not artful serendipity that an N frame fits into a form molded holster for a Python. When Colt was employing gunsmiths to hand build thier wheel guns Smith used machinists at 2/3s the cost and priced colt out of the market they created. I take great joy in Taurus doing to Smith what smith has done to so many others for decades. Modernity and copy cats drove Colt to drop thier Double action revelovers rather than retool, and we have all suffered for such a great loss to the firearms community.
It's worth pointing out the Woodsman was a victim of Smith too, take a good hard look at the model 41.

I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Melissia wrote:Didyou try their 1991 or their 1911?

Of which??

Wilson Combat, I shot a 1911 and in the STI, it was actually a "2011" with a double stack "mag"

The colt version.

Colt released an update tot he 1911 called the Colt Government Model 1991, which improved on the basic mil-spec 1911 design.

I too am in the market for a 1911, I know it WILL be my next handgun purchase. I can tell you though, from readin reviews, watching reviews, talking to people, Colts are indeed good, sure its a given. But you can get a nearly identical firearm, with arguably the same reliability, for hundreds less. So unless your a Colt fanatic, or get one for a really good deal, Id say, save yourself some dough, and shop elsewhere.

The nice things about the 1911 market, is the majority of the upgrades and such you can buy for one, will fit the others, as they are pretty much, the same gun. So with the cash you save buying a different brand, you could get yourself some nice sights and grips or whatever else you were looking to do with it. At the very least, youll have a good jump on ammo

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

SAA as in single action army? What's wrong with cap and ball revolvers? (Obviously they can't be used for self defense or anything practical really, but I buy guns mainly as a collector)

And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly. In fact, I think the 1861 is probably one of the most beautiful pieces colt has ever come up with. You don't see pictures of old naval battles imprinted into the cylinder of Colt's modern guns, do you?

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

Colt is moving back into the civilian market.
Don't underestimate them. They make fine firearms, and will continue to do so in the future.

KingCracker wrote:I too am in the market for a 1911, I know it WILL be my next handgun purchase. I can tell you though, from readin reviews, watching reviews, talking to people, Colts are indeed good, sure its a given. But you can get a nearly identical firearm, with arguably the same reliability, for hundreds less. So unless your a Colt fanatic, or get one for a really good deal, Id say, save yourself some dough, and shop elsewhere.

The nice things about the 1911 market, is the majority of the upgrades and such you can buy for one, will fit the others, as they are pretty much, the same gun. So with the cash you save buying a different brand, you could get yourself some nice sights and grips or whatever else you were looking to do with it. At the very least, youll have a good jump on ammo

Dunno if "Made in America" is a major sticking point for you, but both STI and Wilson combat are all made from parts made largely in america (the models that are made with parts not of American origin are kept to such a standard that it's really not noticeable between them). I am in the same boat as you KC, and as of yet, only found one shop in my area that carries anything I would legitimately consider (and that was a Sig), aside from a custom Wilson or STI.

Melissia wrote:I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.

.

Only if you like assuckitude customer service.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I too am in the market for a 1911, I know it WILL be my next handgun purchase. I can tell you though, from readin reviews, watching reviews, talking to people, Colts are indeed good, sure its a given. But you can get a nearly identical firearm, with arguably the same reliability, for hundreds less. So unless your a Colt fanatic, or get one for a really good deal, Id say, save yourself some dough, and shop elsewhere.

The nice things about the 1911 market, is the majority of the upgrades and such you can buy for one, will fit the others, as they are pretty much, the same gun. So with the cash you save buying a different brand, you could get yourself some nice sights and grips or whatever else you were looking to do with it. At the very least, youll have a good jump on ammo

Dunno if "Made in America" is a major sticking point for you, but both STI and Wilson combat are all made from parts made largely in america (the models that are made with parts not of American origin are kept to such a standard that it's really not noticeable between them). I am in the same boat as you KC, and as of yet, only found one shop in my area that carries anything I would legitimately consider (and that was a Sig), aside from a custom Wilson or STI.

I personally love the Kimbers.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.

.

Only if you like assuckitude customer service.

I was talking about looks.

I cordially dislike how SnW revolvers look. The model 29 for example... ugh. Taurus revolvers

GalacticDefender wrote:And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly.

That grotesque handle and frame look hideously deformed. Ugh.

Kimber 1911s are good apparently. Someone was talking about them on one place or another, and had nothing negative to speak of.

I'm not a fan of revolvers in general, but the police revolver is nice. I sincerely hope Colt goes back to making civilian models after their contracts for M16 family weapons ends (and the m203 grenade launcher). They have the infrastructure to run a good business if they focus their efforts.


Mellisia, did you ever end up getting a piece for yourself? I remember you made a thread eons ago, and I don't remember what you decided on.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I do know the Taurus raging bull is better looking than the S&W revolvers at least.

.

Only if you like assuckitude customer service.

I was talking about looks.

I cordially dislike how SnW revolvers look. The model 29 for example... ugh. Taurus revolvers

GalacticDefender wrote:And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly.

That grotesque handle and frame look hideously deformed. Ugh.

Wo wo, thats something the Spawn of Satan would say. Model 29s are sweet, especially with Pachmyr grips. Whats fun is to put specials in them, and have gun scared gals shoot them. They become instantly hooked because of the low recoil.

weapons that are no more reliable than any of the other numerous companies that make AR platforms.

Yes and no. If you are talking about some of the companies that actually attempt to follow the TDP -like- Colt and a few others, no, they aren't.

However, between Ye Olde DPMS, Olympic, and several other members of the "it's just as good as...!" crowd, you start seeing minor little differences show up in the Colt`s favor like...

1:7 twist rather than 1:9 twist barrels (Important if you want to fling tracers and heavy bullets. A few freaks of nature have 1:9s that fling them normally, but my old 1;9s didn't like them.)
5.56 chambers that actually ARE 5.56, rather than .223 or .Wylde, and might actually BE hard chromed (REALLY IMPORTANT BIT, UNLESS YOU LIKE MALFUNCTION DRILLS.)
Properly staked gas keys FROM THE FACTORY (A job that can be done in most garages, but should not have to be by the end user.)
HPT/MPI bolt groups (REALLY IMPORTANT BIT. IF THIS GUN IS FOR ANYTHING BUT SHOOTING BEERCANS.)
Proper front sight base for use with a flat top back up rear sight. (Bushmaster still cant seem to get this one done.)
Generally good overall QC.

An "M4" from DPMS with a tight, unchromed .223 chamber and a Colt 6920 may look the same on the outside, but one intensive shooting session like a training class or a case-in-a-weekend funfest will quickly demonstrate that one is going to perform better than another. There are the abnormalities like a DPMS or Oly that runs like a top no matter the abuse, or the Colt that doesn't, but generally you can put money on the Colt to stand up to being ran much harder and with a greater amount of neglect.

It gets worse when the "Just as good as!" group charge prices almost on par with Colt and the other TDP-or-better companies like LMT or Noveske. My face gets an expression eerily similar to my avatar when I see the price tags.

Well that's good to know. I suppose that's why the Military has stuck with them for so long!

I'm glad they haven't entirely stopped production of M16A3 style weapons in favor of tacticool carbines. I started this thread expecting to hear how bloated and not worth the money colt weapons are, but I'm starting to think a bit differently. I may even make it a goal to save up and buy a colt as my first plinker/ display piece

Another point in favor of colt, but this is a minor detail and can be obtained with varying levels of work from most any company:

Their barrels, generally, are military profile or even pencil barrel. Thick at the end, thin under the handguards, the lower end manufacturers don't want to bother with the lathe work to turn them down to something efficient for practical use, so they just slap "HBAR" on it, use it as a sales point, and who cares if it adds over a pound to the weight? It's not like anyone would actually carry the thing any farther than from the pickup to the firing line, am I right?

But I will tell you right now, if you want a 20 inch M16-clone, an A1 or A2 profile barrel balances a -HECK- of a lot better than an HBAR and is a lot less of a PITA if you actually carry the thing....and in my experience the HBARs only shoot better on paper anyway.

....That said, even CA-neutered, my Colt 6940 is still my baby. Some will call it tacti-cool. I will call it a sewing machine from Hell.

This is part of the reason why I was looking at a colt government model 1991 as my handgun of choice. I just haven't gotten the money to get it, and have been focused in other areas of my life :/

Also when they say "monolithic upper", what exactly does that mean and how does that effect the gun?

People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Also when they say "monolithic upper", what exactly does that mean and how does that effect the gun?

Instead of a railed forearm you bolt to the upper reciever, the rails AND upper are one large forged and milled piece. there IS no detachable hand guard. There is no chance of it accidentally moving and your sights shifting if mounted forward, there is no chance of accidentally torquing the barrel nut loose yanking on a foregrip too hard or from impact, and you get a continuous top rail which allows you to mount all manner of large optical bits on top without worry of running out of room. Can also potentially allow for a 12 o clock mounting for a light.

...But use them rail covers, because if you mangle part of your rails, you cant simply unbolt the railed forearm and replace it. You get to buy a whole new upper half...which is going to be expensive. And in the 6940s case, a huge pain in the butt seeing as Colt will not sell the special barrel wrench needed to rebarrel a 6940 upper....so it's make your own wrench or send it to the factory!

People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

With consistency, but for my part this could change....assuming they ever decide to make a gun I actually like after putting my hands on it.

H&K make firearms? I thought they made waterguns.

SOFDC wrote:

People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

With consistency, but for my part this could change....assuming they ever decide to make a gun I actually like after putting my hands on it.

Fondle the HK45 or the P30, if you haven't yet. They finally came up with a formula beyond "ergonomics = brick" with those.

Melissia wrote:H&K make firearms? I thought they made waterguns.

Thats SuperSoaker. I understand your confusion



I agree though, every H&K Ive held on to, just flet weird.

It's an easy mistake to make.

Melissia wrote:It's an easy mistake to make.

One makes the finest combat firearms in the world, the other makes an invaluable aid to any budding wet t-shirt contest organizer.

Seaward wrote:

Melissia wrote:It's an easy mistake to make.

One makes the finest combat firearms in the world, the other makes an invaluable aid to any budding wet t-shirt contest organizer.

I don't think I would call supersoaker the "finest combat firearms in the world", but they are good designs. I never knew that wet t-shirt contest organizers liked H&K so much.

Seaward wrote:People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Yes because we are Amurikans and the Germans lost even with their Aryan uber cars.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Yes because we are Amurikans and the Germans lost even with their Aryan uber cars.

If you ever want to over engineer something, ask a German.

Frazz, Ive never seen someone make a post, and then quote their own post, to make fun of themselves

Kudos to you good sir


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ITs true though, they will over engineer something. Then you give it to a Russian, and when they are done, you get the best whatever it is ever made, and simplified

If you're trying to claim the kaloshnikov is the best there was ever made, simplified, I would have to say you're more than a bit wrong...

The AK is an amazing sub-machinegun.

You just need to remember that it wasn't ever intended to be an assault rifle.

KingCracker wrote:Frazz, Ive never seen someone make a post, and then quote their own post, to make fun of themselves

Kudos to you good sir


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ITs true though, they will over engineer something. Then you give it to a Russian, and when they are done, you get the best whatever it is ever made, and simplified

GalacticDefender wrote:

Melissia wrote:Given that they gave up on the revolver market*, and generally only have a tiny lineup of the same old same old in terms of he civilian market, I don't honestly know. I guess they survive off of military and police weapons.


*Yes, I nkow they produce replica SAAs. No, that doesn't count. The reason one would buy a Colt SAA is different than the reason one would buy a diamondback, python, or anaconda. Honestly, SAAs are boring, stupid, and ugly, unlike Colt's more modern revolvers.

SAA as in single action army? What's wrong with cap and ball revolvers? (Obviously they can't be used for self defense or anything practical really, but I buy guns mainly as a collector)

And Single Action army/navy revolvers are definitely not ugly. In fact, I think the 1861 is probably one of the most beautiful pieces colt has ever come up with. You don't see pictures of old naval battles imprinted into the cylinder of Colt's modern guns, do you?

The model 1861 and SAA are not the same gun.

Yes, the SAA is an entirely different monster.

I don't know that I agree with you on looks Mel but I literally grew up with a SAA in my hands. My grandfather gave me a pair of beautiful bone handled SAA toys. They had real metallic cartridges that you pressed plasic bullets into and shot. Presumably at targets but for me: older brothers. I suppose that today I am rather fond of Schoefields, but the SAA is rooted in childhood memory.

The M1911 is rooted in mine.

Melissia wrote:The M1911 is rooted in mine.

it would be interesting to see which is more accurate, a $2,700 Les Baer or STI racegun, or Sig X Five, both in terms of 25 yards accuracy and timed action. You can get an STI in 9mm to take out the differential variable for a second version of the test.

I know having shot both genuine GI 1911s and 9mm Lugers, i'd take a GI 1911 hands down.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Yes because we are Amurikans and the Germans lost even with their Aryan uber cars.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Yes because we are Amurikans and the Germans lost even with their Aryan uber cars.

If you ever want to over engineer something, ask a German.

If I ever want something engineered, a German's the only person I'd ask. 1911s are cute and fun to shoot, but I don't want a carry piece that needs more maintenance than a reality TV housewife. I fall into muddy quagmires far too often.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Yes because we are Amurikans and the Germans lost even with their Aryan uber cars.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:People voluntarily purchase firearms not manufactured by Heckler & Koch?

Yes because we are Amurikans and the Germans lost even with their Aryan uber cars.

If you ever want to over engineer something, ask a German.

If I ever want something engineered, a German's the only person I'd ask. 1911s are cute and fun to shoot, but I don't want a carry piece that needs more maintenance than a reality TV housewife. I fall into muddy quagmires far too often.

If I ever want a firearm engineered I'll find a Mormon.

Seaward wrote:If I ever want something engineered, a German's the only person I'd ask. 1911s are cute and fun to shoot, but I don't want a carry piece that needs more maintenance than a reality TV housewife. I fall into muddy quagmires far too often.

You must not have been around 1911s then. race guns yea. M&P types no way jose.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:If I ever want something engineered, a German's the only person I'd ask. 1911s are cute and fun to shoot, but I don't want a carry piece that needs more maintenance than a reality TV housewife. I fall into muddy quagmires far too often.

You must not have been around 1911s then. race guns yea. M&P types no way jose.

M&P types also don't shoot nearly as well as race guns. 's why I picked the HK45. The gun's more accurate than I am, and I could put 50,000 rounds through it without ever stripping it if the zombie apocalypse hit and I ran out of Remoil.

I love 1911 ergos, don't get me wrong. Find me one that I don't have to trick out like a teenager with a Honda Civic, that doesn't need as much lube as a geriatric swinger's convention, and that can be comfortably carried, and I'll convert.

Until then...H&K all the way.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:If I ever want something engineered, a German's the only person I'd ask. 1911s are cute and fun to shoot, but I don't want a carry piece that needs more maintenance than a reality TV housewife. I fall into muddy quagmires far too often.

You must not have been around 1911s then. race guns yea. M&P types no way jose.

M&P types also don't shoot nearly as well as race guns. 's why I picked the HK45. The gun's more accurate than I am, and I could put 50,000 rounds through it without ever stripping it if the zombie apocalypse hit and I ran out of Remoil.

I love 1911 ergos, don't get me wrong. Find me one that I don't have to trick out like a teenager with a Honda Civic, that doesn't need as much lube as a geriatric swinger's convention, and that can be comfortably carried, and I'll convert.

Until then...H&K all the way.

Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Frazzled wrote:
Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Well, as above, I could run 50K rounds through your average HK45 without ever lubing it, much less cleaning it, and it'd still perform. My suspicion is the same would not be true of a 1911.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Well, as above, I could run 50K rounds through your average HK45 without ever lubing it, much less cleaning it, and it'd still perform. My suspicion is the same would not be true of a 1911.

Have you known anyone to ever shoot a firearm 50,000 times without ever cleaning it? Pics or it didn't happen.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Well, as above, I could run 50K rounds through your average HK45 without ever lubing it, much less cleaning it, and it'd still perform. My suspicion is the same would not be true of a 1911.

Have you known anyone to ever shoot a firearm 50,000 times without ever cleaning it? Pics or it didn't happen.

Haven't seen it personally, no, I'll admit that much. Know I've seen it on one of the more serious review blogs, though.

Pistol-training.com ran 91K rounds through a P30 with only 15 total cleanings. A far cry from 50K, but 6000 rounds between field strips is pretty impressive all the same.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Well, as above, I could run 50K rounds through your average HK45 without ever lubing it, much less cleaning it, and it'd still perform. My suspicion is the same would not be true of a 1911.

Have you known anyone to ever shoot a firearm 50,000 times without ever cleaning it? Pics or it didn't happen.

Haven't seen it personally, no, I'll admit that much. Know I've seen it on one of the more serious review blogs, though.

Pistol-training.com ran 91K rounds through a P30 with only 15 total cleanings. A far cry from 50K, but 6000 rounds between field strips is pretty impressive all the same.

That is very impressive. Sure as hell isn't "never cleaned in over 50m rounds" though.

Having said all this I do like the HK. I prefer a 1911 for less recoil of a .45 round, and more safeties which is better for constant carry.
But I also like Walthers, and Sigs, and Wilson Combats, and CZ's, and Berettas, and Springfields, and Colt Pythons, and even on rare occasion-Glocks.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Well, as above, I could run 50K rounds through your average HK45 without ever lubing it, much less cleaning it, and it'd still perform. My suspicion is the same would not be true of a 1911.

Absolute and utter nonsense. Were you to not lube or clean your gun you would be DEMANDING that it fail. This gun was cleaned 7 times over 50,000 rounds and while it's performance is fantastic. Were you to not clean or lube it over the same period of time you could expect catastrophic failure.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/4027

Guns and Ammo ran a USGI 1911 through a torture test absolutely dry and it functioned flawlessly.
Don't make nonsense statements. You've managed to say that a gun designed nearly a century after the 1911 can edge it out. Bravo.
I certainly don't and would not carry a 1911 bust to claim that the HK45 is vastly superior to it is patently untrue. The 1911 and to a lesser extent the Hi Power is the measuring stick against which all combat pistols will be measured. It didn't become the standard against which others are measured by being unreliable, inefficient, and broken.

Still interesting to look at which would be the most accurate.

Melissia wrote:If you're trying to claim the kaloshnikov is the best there was ever made, simplified, I would have to say you're more than a bit wrong...

Well you simply cannot argue with the staying power, and ruggedness that the AK has, not to mention that in close engagements, you cant really say the AK is inaccurate compared to modern rifles, as they shoot pretty much the same groupings depending on shooters. But no that wasnt what I was referring to. I was meaning in general, and mostly as a joke.

KingCracker wrote:Well you simply cannot argue with the staying power, and ruggedness that the AK has

I can, however, argue that just because it's popular doesn't make it good.

It's a heavy, clunky weapon (nearly twice the weight of many of its competitors), which was a low quality mass production piece. Its only real qualities are that it's cheap and easy to maintain. Armed forces who can afford something better wouldn't settle for it, and for good reason.

Melissia wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Well you simply cannot argue with the staying power, and ruggedness that the AK has

I can, however, argue that just because it's popular doesn't make it good.

Like gay marriage. PA POW!
Had to.

Well yea, your trying to compare a weapon made in the 40s, with modern weapons. Of course a modern military wouldnt pick it, as compared to modern rifles, its short comings start to show. BUT! Its incredibly popular for reasons more then, hey its an AK! They made a gak load of Mosin Nagants too, I dont see those on countries flags anywhere. The AK is a staple, and like a 1911, its design has stayed and been proven in its long life. So at least give the AK some respect, and stop trying to punk it. It was, and still is a really good rifle.

KingCracker wrote:The AK is a staple, and like a 1911

No. Don't compare those two. The kalosh is way below the league of the 1911.

The reason it was so widely used is because it's cheap and easy to get. The reason that ti's popular is beacuse it's so widely used.

AustonT wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Define "more lube than a geriatric swinger's convention?" i've never noticed 1911s getting any more antsy than your average Beretta or Sig. I don't know about plastic guns.

Well, as above, I could run 50K rounds through your average HK45 without ever lubing it, much less cleaning it, and it'd still perform. My suspicion is the same would not be true of a 1911.

Absolute and utter nonsense. Were you to not lube or clean your gun you would be DEMANDING that it fail. This gun was cleaned 7 times over 50,000 rounds and while it's performance is fantastic. Were you to not clean or lube it over the same period of time you could expect catastrophic failure.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/4027

Possibly, possibly not. I know I've seen it put up somewhere, but I'll allow that it could well be vaporing. If any gun can do it, it's that one.

Guns and Ammo ran a USGI 1911 through a torture test absolutely dry and it functioned flawlessly.

For how many rounds? I can run a Charter Arms dry and it'll fire at least once.

Don't make nonsense statements. You've managed to say that a gun designed nearly a century after the 1911 can edge it out. Bravo.
I certainly don't and would not carry a 1911 bust to claim that the HK45 is vastly superior to it is patently untrue. The 1911 and to a lesser extent the Hi Power is the measuring stick against which all combat pistols will be measured. It didn't become the standard against which others are measured by being unreliable, inefficient, and broken.

I don't recall ever saying it was unreliable, inefficient, or broken. 1911s are fine guns. 1967 Shelby Mustangs are fine cars. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that nothing better has come along in either case.

KingCracker wrote:
I agree though, every H&K Ive held on to, just flet weird.

I must preface this by saying, I have never fired this one, but it did just feel nice... the MP7. My unit did some training with a sister unit, and one of the dudes there had an assigned MP7..I couldn't resist asking to see it, and like i said, it just felt nice.

Melissia wrote:

KingCracker wrote:The AK is a staple, and like a 1911

No. Don't compare those two. The kalosh is way below the league of the 1911.

The reason it was so widely used is because it's cheap and easy to get. The reason that ti's popular is beacuse it's so widely used.

The reason it's popular is because it's popular :p

I did look at getting a 7.62 Saiga and doing a conversion, but in the end, I decided to go with an AR-15, myself.

*cue AR-15 vs. AK variant debate*

Ronin-Sage wrote:

Melissia wrote:

KingCracker wrote:The AK is a staple, and like a 1911

No. Don't compare those two. The kalosh is way below the league of the 1911.

The reason it was so widely used is because it's cheap and easy to get. The reason that ti's popular is beacuse it's so widely used.

The reason it's popular is because it's popular :p

I did look at getting a 7.62 Saiga and doing a conversion, but in the end, I decided to go with an AR-15, myself.

*cue AR-15 vs. AK variant debate*

I like good AK's. They are clunky and feel great in the hands. Plus what else are you going to shout "WOLVERINNNNNNEEEES!!!" with?

Melissia wrote:

KingCracker wrote:The AK is a staple, and like a 1911

No. Don't compare those two. The kalosh is way below the league of the 1911.

The reason it was so widely used is because it's cheap and easy to get. The reason that ti's popular is beacuse it's so widely used.

Uhg, sometimes you make so much sense I have to shut off DAKKA, as its getting weird. Then other times, its like talking to an Oak. I guess all the gun experts and firearms historians or all proven wrong because Melissia has spoken






I too like the feel of an AK, they are just a solid rifle, through and through. Do I want one? Yes, Id definitely like to own one. Would I choose it over a good AR15 or any of its million variants.....probably not. I like them, they are fun to shoot, but a good AR is a fantastic little shooter. My oldest brothers ACR is a fething joy to shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Ronin-Sage wrote:

Melissia wrote:

KingCracker wrote:The AK is a staple, and like a 1911

No. Don't compare those two. The kalosh is way below the league of the 1911.

The reason it was so widely used is because it's cheap and easy to get. The reason that ti's popular is beacuse it's so widely used.

The reason it's popular is because it's popular :p

I did look at getting a 7.62 Saiga and doing a conversion, but in the end, I decided to go with an AR-15, myself.

*cue AR-15 vs. AK variant debate*

I like good AK's. They are clunky and feel great in the hands. Plus what else are you going to shout "WOLVERINNNNNNEEEES!!!" with?

Awww crap, Frazz has been up all night watching Red Dawn again

Man....living in Malaysia, where one cannot own a paintball gun without a Police permit...so jelly.

I fired a sling shot once though.

It was groovy.

I used to have a sling shot when I was younger. They are one of those weapons, that are hard to shoot UNTIL you learn the secret to aiming them. Used to goto the fishing holes out here and shoot beer bottles with them.

KingCracker wrote:Uhg, sometimes you make so much sense I have to shut off DAKKA, as its getting weird. Then other times, its like talking to an Oak. I guess all the gun experts and firearms historians or all proven wrong because Melissia has spoken

My hate of hte AK is probably a bit irrational, but at the same time, I'm tired of people saying "omg its the betsets tehng evar" all the time They don't even damn qualify.

Melissia wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Uhg, sometimes you make so much sense I have to shut off DAKKA, as its getting weird. Then other times, its like talking to an Oak. I guess all the gun experts and firearms historians or all proven wrong because Melissia has spoken

My hate of hte AK is probably a bit irrational, but at the same time, I'm tired of people saying "omg its the betsets tehng evar" all the time They don't even damn qualify.

You do?

EDIT: You don't get a lot of "AK is the best gun evah!" You get a lot of the 'AK is the best assault rifle in history' citing its effectiveness, durability, length of service, and ubiquitous nature.
A lot of survival types like the AK for these reasons.

The mistake most make with the AK series is treating them as rifles. They were never intended to be as their designers and never viewed as such by the military that used them> They were replacements for WWII-era sub-machineguns and in terms of range, accuracy and lethality they outdid the weapons they replaced so well they ended up as the primary issue arm of the Soviet Military.

There are worse plinkers out there. While not up to the latest western A rifles, a good shooter is reasonably accurate with one out to 150 - 200 yards. I say this of course, based years ago on Eastern Bloc versions so I don't know if current build quality is similar.

Actually I DO see tons of people arguing that...

Melissia wrote:Actually I DO see tons of people arguing that...

Who? Now for some considerations it is. I know if I am playing Zombiepocalypse I'd rather it because they are very very tough, reasonably accurate, and require minimal cleaning like evah.

If you want a good AK, get a Galil. If you want the perfect AK, get a Sig.
-ducks behind cover-

Insurgency Walker wrote:If you want a good AK, get a Galil. If you want the perfect AK, get a Sig.
-ducks behind cover-

or a Smitth and Wesson, or a Ruger.

Agreed. Melissia I think your distaste for the AK is whats clouding your judgment. Insert some Jedi saying here please. The durability of the rifle is friggin legendary, and for good reason. You pretty much, cannot break one. I once saw a video of some Taliban solider, "fixing" his. It was run over by a big ass truck and the barrel was all bent to feth. So he was bashing the barrel strait again, with a rock. He then spit down the barrel to "clean" it and then started firing the damn thing. Im sorry, but any rifle that you can do that with, and STILL fire, let alone hit anything, is pretty awesome.


But again, Im not saying its the best rifle ever, and like I commented on before, my Russian joke was mostly about Russians doing it the "Russian way" I honestly wasnt talking about the AK at all

Frazzled wrote:

Insurgency Walker wrote:If you want a good AK, get a Galil. If you want the perfect AK, get a Sig.
-ducks behind cover-

or a Smitth and Wesson, or a Ruger.

Well, the Galil and the Sig 556 are both have some AK parentage. ( the Galil a lot) I don't think s&w or Ruger have gone down that path yet.
On the subject of durability.
While AKs have a well deserved reputation for being tough, historically many others are also. I have seen a Ruger 10/22 run over by a truck with only stock scratches and a broken scope as a result. Shot the same day with iron sights, still zeroed. The thompson smg used to be demonstrated by a guy who would push the barrel into the dirt, and shoot the gun. This caused the barrel to blow off at the end, and he would repete the process untill no barrel was left. That is CRAZY! You can also YouTube video of some crazy guy shooting an AK untill it bursts into flames! But the argument will rage on. Personally, I like them all!

Insurgency Walker wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Insurgency Walker wrote:If you want a good AK, get a Galil. If you want the perfect AK, get a Sig.
-ducks behind cover-

or a Smitth and Wesson, or a Ruger.

Well, the Galil and the Sig 556 are both have some AK parentage. ( the Galil a lot) I don't think s&w or Ruger have gone down that path yet.
On the subject of durability.
While AKs have a well deserved reputation for being tough, historically many others are also. I have seen a Ruger 10/22 run over by a truck with only stock scratches and a broken scope as a result. Shot the same day with iron sights, still zeroed. The thompson smg used to be demonstrated by a guy who would push the barrel into the dirt, and shoot the gun. This caused the barrel to blow off at the end, and he would repete the process untill no barrel was left. That is CRAZY! You can also YouTube video of some crazy guy shooting an AK untill it bursts into flames! But the argument will rage on. Personally, I like them all!

Both S&W and Ruger have created 5.56s that use a piston driven bolt action now. I'd proffer thats the biggest AK heritage in the market currently.

Piston driven actions are not exactly unique to the AK or AK derivatives. The M1 Garand was using it for about a decade before the AK came into being.

One of the revolutions of the AR-15 series was that it didn't use a piston.

You can reasonably expect 1-3 MOA from most mass produced assault rifles. An AK can expect 2-4 ish. Which is well within the acceptable range. There are outliers on either side better and worse for any type. There are ARs that can't shoot, and ARs that can hold half MoA. Similarly there are AKs that shoot sub MoA and AKs that shoot 8-10 MoA. Truth be told the FAL and AK have similar accuracy expectations. And no one really argues that the FAL is junk(it kind of is).
The person that keeps saying the AK-47 was not designed as an assault rifle is flat wrong. Kalashnikov responded to a solicitation in 1944 for a carbine that lost out to the SKS. No one has ever argued that the SKS is anything less than a battle rifle.The AK 46 models 1 and two were designed for a Soviet solicitation for a main battle rifle. After the AK 46 cleaned up in the first year the Kalashnikov team redesigned the weapon into the rifle, automatic, model of 1947. Intended and specifically designed as a primary infantry weapon rather than a supplementary SMG.

I don't like AKs because of what they've stood for for so long. They reek of dictatorships, ruthless murder and cultural perversion. The vietcong used them to slaughter us in that war. African militants have used them to terrorize their citizens into submission since the 60s, and now radical muslims are using them for the same purpose across the middle-east.

The AK just gives off an aura of murder and crime. That's probably why I don't like it. Seems like a good gun for what it was designed for.

Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

Frazzled wrote:Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

I don't think polymers are going anywhere.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

I don't think polymers are going anywhere.

Who says they were? I'd like to see a Colt entrant. Put an inexpensive SA 9mm double column with active and grip safeties made in the US and I will give you cash.

Alternatively, give me a cheaper 9mm version of this and I will buy it within 30 days.
(Frazzled drools for this like TBone drools for a treed squirrel, yes the one in the back yard that escapes every time curse you squirrel demon!!!)
http://gunsgunsguns.net/sti-vip/

Frazzled wrote:Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

I'd like them to remake their snake line of revolvers.

Diamondback and Anaconda, specifically. An anaconda with extended barrel is just... sex. And the diamondback was an excellent looking and efficient self defense weapon.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

I don't think polymers are going anywhere.

Who says they were? I'd like to see a Colt entrant. Put an inexpensive SA 9mm double column with active and grip safeties made in the US and I will give you cash.

Ah, I misread. Thought you meant you wanted to see Colt challenge the polymer market with a non-polymer.

Why the love of grip safeties?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

I'd like them to remake their snake line of revolvers.

Diamondback and Anaconda, specifically. An anaconda with extended barrel is just... sex. And the diamondback was an excellent looking and efficient self defense weapon.

I was more particular to the Python, but always thought Colt's .357 revovlers were the personification of the perfect revolver. It didn't get better than that, and I love Ruger and S&W revolvers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Back to Colt. I'd like to see Colt spank the polymer market with a lightweight double column pistol, and of course a remake of their classic cap and ball revolver.

I don't think polymers are going anywhere.

Who says they were? I'd like to see a Colt entrant. Put an inexpensive SA 9mm double column with active and grip safeties made in the US and I will give you cash.

Ah, I misread. Thought you meant you wanted to see Colt challenge the polymer market with a non-polymer.

Why the love of grip safeties?

Its an excellent passive safety and if you're carrying cocked and locked with a 4-5 lb breaking glass trigger you like that. I don't trust Glock trigger safety bs. Thats not a safety. Thats an extra bit of trigger. Your mileage may vary.

I thought the python was okay but I still like the other two more.

I wouldn't mind seeing a revival of hte python though! Especially an 8" barrel marksmanship style python.

The diamondback I like because of its practicality combined with its good looks, while the anaconda I like purely because it is the best looking revolver ever made.

Yep. Having said that I'm not sure we'd such anytime soon. I'd proffer the nonCC revolver market is not what it was.

Problem is most concealed carry revolvers look uuuuuugly.

Especially snubnose ones, ugh. I just want to take a hammer to them whenever I look at them.

I know they fill their purpose perfectly well, but come on, gotta have SOME style.

Melissia wrote:Problem is most concealed carry revolvers look uuuuuugly.

Especially snubnose ones, ugh. I just want to take a hammer to them whenever I look at them.

I know they fill their purpose perfectly well, but come on, gotta have SOME style.

Nope. They are tools only.

Interestingly the new baby 9mm single column have some good pieces: Sig and Kimber especially. I've heard bad design and manufacturing QC on the Kimber solo though.
The newly restarted Colt Mustang looks choice and has good reviews, but its .380 ACP only at this point.

Frazzled wrote:Nope. They are tools only.

Yes, I know. I guess I'm biased by the fact that I see the gunsmith's work as an art form though.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nope. They are tools only.

Yes, I know. I guess I'm biased by the fact that I see the gunsmith's work as an art form though.

Yep, but not at the level of CC. Functional need outweighs all (pardon the pun). Of course I still think the Ruger SR9c is still oawfully sweet looking, and both the XDM Conceal and Walther PPS looking like baby predators.

I bought myself a Springfield MilSpec 1911. basically a Colt 1911 clone from WW2 specs. it fires alright, but the sights are crap and the grips as pretty as they were needed to go.

its not the most reliable firearm, but I like it.

I HIGHLY recommend a .22 LR to anyone wanting to get into shooting. reliable, cheap, abundant, cheap, accurate, cheap, parts available everywhere, and they're cheap. did I mention they're cheap? because they are cheap.

I know a few makers have an interchangeable system to go from a .45 1911 to a .22 for sighting and general pinking, and i've been looking for one of those.

eventually I want to get a bigger rifle, somethign in the .,223 family. been looking a LOT for a CAL legal AR-15. money though, all money. there isn't anything my .45 and my 12 gauges can't do for now.

I LOVE me some trap shooting! I have a remington 870 Express (cheap and reliable) and a Mossburg Onyx Black O/U all in 12 gauge.

as for Colt, the legend of the materials made by Colt is just held by history. can't argue with that. as they say:

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

You might just get a cheap .22 pistol - the conversion kits cost about as much and aren't as accurate.

AustonT wrote: . . ..
The person that keeps saying the AK-47 was not designed as an assault rifle is flat wrong. Kalashnikov responded to a solicitation in 1944 for a carbine that lost out to the SKS. No one has ever argued that the SKS is anything less than a battle rifle.The AK 46 models 1 and two were designed for a Soviet solicitation for a main battle rifle. After the AK 46 cleaned up in the first year the Kalashnikov team redesigned the weapon into the rifle, automatic, model of 1947. Intended and specifically designed as a primary infantry weapon rather than a supplementary SMG.

Oh wow, so many places this is wrong.

1) There is no such thing as a Battle Rifle. This is a fictitious criteria that was given to describe full powered select fire rifles that arose after the introduction of intermediate cartridge firing Assault Rifles. At the time of their manufacture, these weapons (ie the FAL, G3 and M-14) were considered Rifles not Battle Rifles as the term didn't exist.

2) The SKS was intended to be a Carbine, yes. Which back when the SKS was designed, meant it fired what was considered a low powered rifle round or a pistol round, instead of being a short rifle like the term is more commonly used today. Also it was never intended to be fully automatic. So the SKS was never intended to be something that matched the criteria of the so-called battle rifles, it was designed to be something much less.

3) The AK was not intended to compete with the SKS, but serve alongside it. The SKS replacing the SVT-40 and Moisin-Nagant as the primary longarm while the AK replacing the hordes of sub-machineguns that the Soviets had employed in WW2. When it later turned out that the AK was better all around than the SKS the AK was made the primary longarm, but in official nomenclature they still called it as sub-machinegun.


In comparison the AR-15 was intended to be a selective fire rifle from the beginning. However, it didn't enter the US service originally as a rifle replacement, but a carbine replacement. Specifically the M1 carbine variants used by the US Air Force. So in that it's path echoed the AK's in that it was originally purchased to replace a shorter ranged, weaker weapon than a rifle. This was not intentional in the design, but a happy side effect of the design characteristics. From there it launched into being the rifle replacement it was designed to be.

Frazzled wrote:You might just get a cheap .22 pistol - the conversion kits cost about as much and aren't as accurate.

cant argue you with you there. but it is a cheaper alternative to .45 ammo.

Frazzled wrote:Its an excellent passive safety and if you're carrying cocked and locked with a 4-5 lb breaking glass trigger you like that. I don't trust Glock trigger safety bs. Thats not a safety. Thats an extra bit of trigger. Your mileage may vary.

It does, but then I've only ever run DA/SA guns with at most one external safety, and every 1911 I've ever seen actually carried by anyone had the grip safety taped down anyway.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its an excellent passive safety and if you're carrying cocked and locked with a 4-5 lb breaking glass trigger you like that. I don't trust Glock trigger safety bs. Thats not a safety. Thats an extra bit of trigger. Your mileage may vary.

It does, but then I've only ever run DA/SA guns with at most one external safety, and every 1911 I've ever seen actually carried by anyone had the grip safety taped down anyway.

I've never eveer seen anyone tape down a grip safety. There's no need unless dee gun done broke.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its an excellent passive safety and if you're carrying cocked and locked with a 4-5 lb breaking glass trigger you like that. I don't trust Glock trigger safety bs. Thats not a safety. Thats an extra bit of trigger. Your mileage may vary.

It does, but then I've only ever run DA/SA guns with at most one external safety, and every 1911 I've ever seen actually carried by anyone had the grip safety taped down anyway.

I've never eveer seen anyone tape down a grip safety. There's no need unless dee gun done broke.

For me, the 1911s I've fired with grip safeties were nice, because it meant I actually had to have a good grip on the thing... means that "John Wayne"ing the weapon is much more difficult to pull off.

I don't trust Glock trigger safety bs.

For me I've never had an issue with it, to me it was just a really blocky DA revolver. Touch trigger, bang results. Don't touch trigger. Don't leave finger inside trigger guard while holstering. Don't use holster that doesn't fully enclose trigger area. Use holster.

been looking a LOT for a CAL legal AR-15.

Plenty of em around, Colt and S&W both make CA compliant AR rifles now. Bullet buttons though, I don't recommend these without what is called the "Ultimate bullet button tool" and getting really adept at firing with your left hand and a lot of practice to boot. No one makes a bullet button that can be released from the left side (Yet. Working on that.) ....what you CAN do is go "Featureless" and replace the M4 stock with a fixed stock, replace the flash hider with a "Muzzle brake", and the pistol grip with one of those idiotic sharkfin grips or a monsterman/hammerhead, and take any sort of VFG off (But a handstop is magically OK)....Now you can keep your fast mag changes.

I'm out of this hole as soon as I am done with school.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its an excellent passive safety and if you're carrying cocked and locked with a 4-5 lb breaking glass trigger you like that. I don't trust Glock trigger safety bs. Thats not a safety. Thats an extra bit of trigger. Your mileage may vary.

It does, but then I've only ever run DA/SA guns with at most one external safety, and every 1911 I've ever seen actually carried by anyone had the grip safety taped down anyway.

I've never eveer seen anyone tape down a grip safety. There's no need unless dee gun done broke.

I have.

thats stupid

Frazzled wrote:thats stupid

I can think of a couple reasons to do it.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:thats stupid

I can think of a couple reasons to do it.

What? It defeats the intended safety and condition the pistol is supposed to be in (stage 1). Absent a crappy pistol (I'll give on that one) there's no reason to do that. Brown is crying in his grave (right up to the moment he slips in a copy of true Grit into the celestial VCR).

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:thats stupid

I can think of a couple reasons to do it.

What? It defeats the intended safety and condition the pistol is supposed to be in (stage 1). Absent a crappy pistol (I'll give on that one) there's no reason to do that. Brown is crying in his grave (right up to the moment he slips in a copy of true Grit into the celestial VCR).

There are in fact good reasons to disable the grip safety. One of many is the concern that you may not be able to reliably depress it when firing weak sided or when wounded(this is in fact the reason cited by MEUSOC). There are better ways to achieve the same effect, pinning the safety or removing the actual mechanical block. The reason you see MEUSOC guys with it taped is because the local commander can authorize a temporary modification, but not make permanent mechanical changes. much the same way you used to see trigger shoes on navy 38 revolvers, and taped on cheek rests on m-14s in OEF/OIF.

I stand corrected.

Screw all of you, for the record. I'm now trying to figure out which 1911 to pick up.

Seaward wrote:Screw all of you, for the record. I'm now trying to figure out which 1911 to pick up.

Humph, last time I support your position.
Depends are you a tinkerer or do you want something that meets all of your immediate needs out of the box?

AustonT wrote:

Seaward wrote:Screw all of you, for the record. I'm now trying to figure out which 1911 to pick up.

Humph, last time I support your position.
Depends are you a tinkerer or do you want something that meets all of your immediate needs out of the box?

Indeed.
out the box: Kimber or the big boys: Wilson, Les Baer, STI.
Colt is again making 1911s. their build quality is better but I don't know how good now.
Cheaper: Springfield, Ruger (yes Ruger).
Real cheap: Rock Island.

Of course there are a buttload of others but I have less experience. S&W is probably good. I'd stay away from Taurus as their customer service is Russian like.

Idiot Frazzled I should have started with whats your amount willing to pay and primary/secondary purpose for this puppy.

Actually Frazz Kimber and Springfield should probably be switched. Kimber is using that MiM process for thier parts and thier build quality is slipping. SA on the otherhand is maintaining if not increasing in quality. They have for quite a few years produced the spare parts needed for maintaining the USMCs 1911s and all of the DoDs M14s. They can be forgiven for the XD...it is imported after all.

I would say that out of the box with no limit to price: wilson combat or nighteagle customs

A reasonable mid range out of the box: Colt specifically the Gold Cup, SA TRP, and Dan Wesson (sold through CZ these days)
low end, functional but require tuning: RIA, Hi Standard, And new production Kimbers. Lately I have heard several owners of new kimbers in the 1500-2000 range who had issues out of the box...unacceptable. Used kimbers before the use of MiM or whatever parts are more towards the mid to top end.

AustonT wrote:

Seaward wrote:Screw all of you, for the record. I'm now trying to figure out which 1911 to pick up.

Humph, last time I support your position.
Depends are you a tinkerer or do you want something that meets all of your immediate needs out of the box?

Out of the box. I hate mucking around with guns. Grips and sites will be the most I'd ever want to change.

Threaded barrels easy to come by with 1911s?

Also giving some thought to a Commander-sized frame. I don't like owning pistols I can't carry concealed.

I actually recommend Colt's Model 1991. It's quite a good mil-spec model which has a lot of good reviews.

It's what I plan on eventually getting.

Yeah threaded barrels are pretty easy to get, although a lot of times you have to go after market.

For a flawless gun out of the box expect to pay 900-1500. I happen to think the TRP is THE best semi-custom 1911 on the market. New for about 1300 it's pretty reasonable too.
A Colt Gold Cup Trophy will run you about 1100 new, also a solid choice.
They are two very differed guns but they give you a good baseline. One is a combat style shooter with improvements in reliability and accuracy, the other is an adjustable target pistol. Not a race gun, more of the NRA/Camp Perry style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mel you might put serious thought to the 1991 in 38 super, granted you almost have to start reloading for it, but I have NEVER met a 38 super owner that didn't love it.

Well the round WAS designed for use in 1911 pistols.

Frazzled wrote:I stand corrected.

Nope, still stupid.

I have never, ever had a hard time with a grip safety, shooting left or right handed. I've shot Old style and new (bump)style grip safety's. In fact, I love uzi's partly because of the grip safety. If I feared being so shot up I couldn't deactivate a grip safety, i would carry a lower recoil revolver as backup.
Now magazine safety's are another thing. If you want to break something on a perfectly good pistol, consider breaking the magazine safety.

Oh, and I just can't think of piston driven AR's as being AK like, though you are correct on that point. To me the piston AR's are are like boob jobs on prostitutes. Might make them more desirable, but I don't want to be caught with one just the same.

AustonT wrote:

I would say that out of the box with no limit to price: wilson combat or nighteagle customs

Do you mean Nighthawk?? Reason I ask is that apparently, Nighthawk was created by guys who were "fed up" with working at Wilson, so they left and formed a new 1911 making company and called it Nighthawk.


The two that I am most heavily looking at right now, are STI and Wilson Combat. Both companies have a solid "entry level" or "cheap" 1911 available, and having fired both brands, I know that each is a solid shooter.

AustonT wrote:Actually Frazz Kimber and Springfield should probably be switched. Kimber is using that MiM process for thier parts and thier build quality is slipping. SA on the otherhand is maintaining if not increasing in quality. They have for quite a few years produced the spare parts needed for maintaining the USMCs 1911s and all of the DoDs M14s. They can be forgiven for the XD...it is imported after all.

I would say that out of the box with no limit to price: wilson combat or nighteagle customs

A reasonable mid range out of the box: Colt specifically the Gold Cup, SA TRP, and Dan Wesson (sold through CZ these days)
low end, functional but require tuning: RIA, Hi Standard, And new production Kimbers. Lately I have heard several owners of new kimbers in the 1500-2000 range who had issues out of the box...unacceptable. Used kimbers before the use of MiM or whatever parts are more towards the mid to top end.

Kimber's quality control has indeed slipped. However, their design features are closer to match grade with throated barrels, match grade trigger and trigger action, skeletong hammer, extended beavertail and match grade barrels. Plus they are made in NY. For the record my Kimber, is old school, so old school it doesn't have night sights on a model known for them.

Springfield has a greater array from stripped down "GI" versions up to Kimber/Sig competitor level. Its my understanding though that much of their 45 ACP production is non US (I know their XD line central Europe). I can't verify that but thats a negative to me.

Good to hear on Colt. I suspected as much, but there was a period of time where Colt quit making 45ACP and I didn't know the quality of the restart. I know reviews for the little Mustang have been good.

I didn't note SIG but they have an expensive version that is likely quite good.

I'll put in anothr word for STI. They have competition to high end tactical versions. Their non race gun single column pistols can be midpriced and I haven't heard anyone on the planet say anything but rave reviews about an STI. Plus they are in Round Rock about 8 miles from the Austin house so buy local! (dueling bumper stickers: Keep Austin Weird, Keep Round Rock normal!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Seaward wrote:Screw all of you, for the record. I'm now trying to figure out which 1911 to pick up.

Humph, last time I support your position.
Depends are you a tinkerer or do you want something that meets all of your immediate needs out of the box?

Out of the box. I hate mucking around with guns. Grips and sites will be the most I'd ever want to change.

Threaded barrels easy to come by with 1911s?

Also giving some thought to a Commander-sized frame. I don't like owning pistols I can't carry concealed.

Colt er Commander
Kimber Ultra Carry or slightly larger Carry
STI Spartan (you can stop here ) http://gunsgunsguns.net/sti-spartan-iii/#more-7456
SPringfield Armory Ultra Compact or Micro Combat

This might be a good internet to start your search
http://gunsgunsguns.net/categories/20,14/search_type/and/order/default/

Yes Nighthawk...I was close.
I was aware of the close lineage of the two. STI has had a reputation for needing work out of the box despite being semi custom. No one has ever said they made gak guns, just that the needed a little more babying than they probably should.
Granted those complaints come out of 1911 elitists so salt liberally. Normally I figure if you want to build a highend custom gun you should find a used Colt frame pay bottom dollar for it and have a reputable gunsmith combine a parts catalogue and your frame into the gun you need.

Frazzled wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Seaward wrote:Screw all of you, for the record. I'm now trying to figure out which 1911 to pick up.

Humph, last time I support your position.
Depends are you a tinkerer or do you want something that meets all of your immediate needs out of the box?

Indeed.
out the box: Kimber or the big boys: Wilson, Les Baer, STI.
Colt is again making 1911s. their build quality is better but I don't know how good now.
Cheaper: Springfield, Ruger (yes Ruger).
Real cheap: Rock Island.

Of course there are a buttload of others but I have less experience. S&W is probably good. I'd stay away from Taurus as their customer service is Russian like.

Idiot Frazzled I should have started with whats your amount willing to pay and primary/secondary purpose for this puppy.

Ive looked into that company plenty on my exploits of finding a 1911 to own, and honestly, its on the list of possibles. Many reviewers say its a surprisingly well made gun, and many reviewers have put over 1000 rounds through them with no problems past the initial first couple mag break ins. Ive also seen many people mod them to fantastic little shooters, stating that since the price is so low on them, you can mod and customize them quite a bit until you hit the same price tag as a bone stock Colt. And that was one of the reasons Im wanting a 1911, so I can play with it AND shoot it

There are two Phillipines companies that make 1911s. Both have good reviews (the name escapes me on the other one). Its like my Kia, for the price you pay its incredible value.

Rock Island is one of those two Frazz, Springfield may be the other you are thinking of. They have a facility there too, but I don't know if it's just parts or full firearms.

Back when Sprigfield Mil Specs were 450 it was hard to pay 50 less for a RIA and risk maybe it sucking. Now it has several years of reviews and they seem to be excellent and cheap shooters. They need to be polished and by need I mean I would do it but it's not essential, and it's a great start to a full custom.

AustonT wrote:Rock Island is one of those two Frazz, Springfield may be the other you are thinking of. They have a facility there too, but I don't know if it's just parts or full firearms.

Back when Sprigfield Mil Specs were 450 it was hard to pay 50 less for a RIA and risk maybe it sucking. Now it has several years of reviews and they seem to be excellent and cheap shooters. They need to be polished and by need I mean I would do it but it's not essential, and it's a great start to a full custom.

No its like something star or something. I read a head to head comparison of them once.

Colt Gold Cup does look nice. 1100 ain't bad at all.

O8570NM is really purdy, but I've heard blueing always looks like crap after a while. It's also high carbon steel, so it would be solid as crap.

Also, really interested in a .45 ACP to .22 LR conversion kit. That sounds like heaven, even if it doesn't shoot that well. Damn, I hate not having any money!

Samus_aran115 wrote:Colt Gold Cup does look nice. 1100 ain't bad at all.

O8570NM is really purdy, but I've heard blueing always looks like crap after a while. It's also high carbon steel, so it would be solid as crap.

Also, really interested in a .45 ACP to .22 LR conversion kit. That sounds like heaven, even if it doesn't shoot that well. Damn, I hate not having any money!

The cheapass (technical term) Ruger 22 has similar grip angle and features to a 1911 frame (intentioanlly) and is often used for practice in this area. PLus its cheap as sin.

http://gunsgunsguns.net/ruger-2245-bull-barrel/

Academy regularly puts it on sale. On sale its usually about $250.
http://www.academy.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_10051_126575_-1?N=329211139+4294965660

And the 10/45s are more accurate than any conversion. Plus you can always get an integrated suppresor from PACnor.

Conversion 22s can expect the same accuracy as 22s like the Sig mosquito and p22 which is passable but not tack driving. Even the cheapest Ruger mark can make a tight cloverleaf in capable hands.

Worn bluing is a badge of honor. You would either have to holster a colt hot blued gun everyday for a decade or go out of your way to rub it off.

I'm not gonna find a Commander frame with a rail, am I? That STI Spartan is pretty damn tempting though, I won't lie.



Alright then. I could probably get away with concealing a 5" 1911. So, needs a rail, needs to be good to go out of the box, needs to not be fething stainless, I'd prefer something parkerized but not a huge deal, needs to come in at or under $1000 so I don't get my head lopped off.

Seaward wrote:I'm not gonna find a Commander frame with a rail, am I? That STI Spartan is pretty damn tempting though, I won't lie.



Alright then. I could probably get away with concealing a 5" 1911. So, needs a rail, needs to be good to go out of the box, needs to not be fething stainless, I'd prefer something parkerized but not a huge deal, needs to come in at or under $1000 so I don't get my head lopped off.

Rail - you've got me on that one. Are you needing this for CCL? A full size .45 ACP is... difficult to conceal unless you're consistently wearing a jacket or suit coat.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:I'm not gonna find a Commander frame with a rail, am I? That STI Spartan is pretty damn tempting though, I won't lie.



Alright then. I could probably get away with concealing a 5" 1911. So, needs a rail, needs to be good to go out of the box, needs to not be fething stainless, I'd prefer something parkerized but not a huge deal, needs to come in at or under $1000 so I don't get my head lopped off.

Rail - you've got me on that one. Are you needing this for CCL? A full size .45 ACP is... difficult to conceal unless you're consistently wearing a jacket or suit coat.

I wear a suit jacket five days a week, but I've also been told by folks on the 1911 forums that thanks to the frame being so damn thin, a lot of people can get away with it even without a coat. I may just run down to the local and see if they'll let me try it out.

Apparently the Colt Commander line comes with a railgun option. May go that route.

Seaward wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:I'm not gonna find a Commander frame with a rail, am I? That STI Spartan is pretty damn tempting though, I won't lie.



Alright then. I could probably get away with concealing a 5" 1911. So, needs a rail, needs to be good to go out of the box, needs to not be fething stainless, I'd prefer something parkerized but not a huge deal, needs to come in at or under $1000 so I don't get my head lopped off.

Rail - you've got me on that one. Are you needing this for CCL? A full size .45 ACP is... difficult to conceal unless you're consistently wearing a jacket or suit coat.

I wear a suit jacket five days a week, but I've also been told by folks on the 1911 forums that thanks to the frame being so damn thin, a lot of people can get away with it even without a coat. I may just run down to the local and see if they'll let me try it out.

Apparently the Colt Commander line comes with a railgun option. May go that route.

The shorter barrel would be more helpful, if you are suit wearing.

AustonT wrote:And the 10/45s are more accurate than any conversion. Plus you can always get an integrated suppresor from PACnor.

Conversion 22s can expect the same accuracy as 22s like the Sig mosquito and p22 which is passable but not tack driving. Even the cheapest Ruger mark can make a tight cloverleaf in capable hands.

Worn bluing is a badge of honor. You would either have to holster a colt hot blued gun everyday for a decade or go out of your way to rub it off.

Same sort of thing as a Kabar with most of the carbon coating missing, I guess? That makes sense.

Seaward wrote:I'm not gonna find a Commander frame with a rail, am I? That STI Spartan is pretty damn tempting though, I won't lie.



Alright then. I could probably get away with concealing a 5" 1911. So, needs a rail, needs to be good to go out of the box, needs to not be fething stainless, I'd prefer something parkerized but not a huge deal, needs to come in at or under $1000 so I don't get my head lopped off.

There was a time when Caspian made a Commander frame with rail...although I don't know if the still make frames at all any more.
Springfield and Kimber both make 4inch compacts with rails, they aren't true commanders if you want to be snobby about it(commanders are 4 1/4) the SA Compact Operator will run about 900-950. If memory serves they come with black hardcoated alloy frames and either blue or satin steel slides.

Were I you I wouldn't discount stainless for daily carry, if you don't like the look(and I certainly do not) another 200 ish dollars will get you Birdsong's Black or Green T finish, that will likely outlast you. For less than that you can have it Cerakoted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

AustonT wrote:And the 10/45s are more accurate than any conversion. Plus you can always get an integrated suppresor from PACnor.

Conversion 22s can expect the same accuracy as 22s like the Sig mosquito and p22 which is passable but not tack driving. Even the cheapest Ruger mark can make a tight cloverleaf in capable hands.

Worn bluing is a badge of honor. You would either have to holster a colt hot blued gun everyday for a decade or go out of your way to rub it off.

Same sort of thing as a Kabar with most of the carbon coating missing, I guess? That makes sense.

Eh...if you mean looks wise then yes. Bluing and carbon coatings are very different though.

Seaward wrote:I'm not gonna find a Commander frame with a rail, am I? That STI Spartan is pretty damn tempting though, I won't lie.



Alright then. I could probably get away with concealing a 5" 1911. So, needs a rail, needs to be good to go out of the box, needs to not be fething stainless, I'd prefer something parkerized but not a huge deal, needs to come in at or under $1000 so I don't get my head lopped off.

I was thinking for some reason that Wilson Combat would fit your bill.. but seems I either can't find a "cheap" one (or one in your range)... but here is one of my "front runners" from STI:

http://www.stiguns.com/the-sti-ranger-ii/


The Wilson's are indeed pricey, but the one I shot was an extremely easy shot... when it came down to it, I told my brother-in-law that I loved the feel of his Wilson Combat, but loved the accuracy of the STI.. so you may wish to look more at STIs.

A couple people on other boards have told me that Colt makes a Commander with a rail, but I can't for the life of me find it.

I may just go full-sized. I'm thinking more and more I could conceal it, and I've always got the HK45 if I can't.

Of course, I may also completely blow my budget and pick up a Nighthawk.

I'm not a particularly large man. 5'9/215, and I live in a summer state where jackets are impractical...I conceal on a regular basis either a P220 or G17/22 without printing. A 1911 is a shade easier than those...so it can be done.

I have never heard of a Colt manf Commander/Rail, but they did shake up thier line recently.

Women trying to wear skin-tight jeans and belly showing halter tops might have a problem with it, but usually they're not the type to have a CC gun to begin with or if they do it's in their purse.

Though frankly the pursei s the worst place to put it.

I'm having a very, very hard time not pulling the trigger, so to speak, on this guy:

http://www.nighthawktactical.com/GRP_Recon.html

The only thing keeping me from doing it is the knowledge that it's stupid to shell out that kind of money for a CC gun that's going to get beat up, sweated upon, etc. I've had the pleasure of shooting a Nighthawk before, and holy Christ is it a fine weapon.

Meh. Three grand is too much if it's your first 1911 that you own. I'd really start at USGI A1 and work out from there. You can either upgrade or buy a different gun based on some experience with your gun.

AustonT wrote:Meh. Three grand is too much if it's your first 1911 that you own. I'd really start at USGI A1 and work out from there. You can either upgrade or buy a different gun based on some experience with your gun.

Why's that?

Part of it is feel and function, the USGI is about as basic as gets. Part of it is I don't like wasting money, I find a lot of times people who buy a really top end gun don't need, use, or understand some of the features they paid for. The upside of buying that USGI first is if you love it as is, it's done; if not you can make a list of I wish it had/did. And find the gun that has has all of those or add it to the one you have.

That's also part of the reason why I'm looking more for mil-spec 1911s (or in this case, 1991s) over highly customized ones.

Unless it has been customized specifically for me, I think I'll go with the basic stuff.