Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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