Bought a Colt stainless 1991a1. Like it...feels like I bought some history. But, compared to my HK's, it is lacking. The sights are small, the trigger gritty and its bite is as bad as its bark. I'm told $400 - $450 will get the gun where I want it - reliable and fun to shoot. WHY? Why is the 1911 style gun so admired if it doesn't work out of box? At $1000, I should have bought another HK!
1911 frustrations
- Thread starter Kermit
- Start date
4thHorseman
New member
Kermit, my Colts out of the box have been a real pleasure to shoot. Never had a lick of problem out of them. If I were you I, would contact Colt and let them know. I'm sure they can help you on the matter.
TurkeySlayer
New member
This is just my opinion, but I can't understand why someone would pay over 500 dollars for a gun that you have to spend another several hundred dollars just to get it to shoot well and be reliable. Now I'll admit, Kimber makes a fine weapon, but for that price, buy a Sig or HK. Or, do like I did, and buy a Ruger and pay half that for a gun that works just as well, if not better. I could buy any major make right now (under 1000.00 ), but don't need to because my P97 has NEVER failed to fire, eject, or make me happy. Save the time and money, buy a pistol that works to begin with. The 1911 was and is a great design (I love John M. Browning as much as the next gun nut), but this is the 21st century and there are better guns out there.
Just my opinion.
), but don't need to because my P97 has NEVER failed to fire, eject, or make me happy. Save the time and money, buy a pistol that works to begin with. The 1911 was and is a great design (I love John M. Browning as much as the next gun nut), but this is the 21st century and there are better guns out there.Just my opinion.
"The sights are small, the trigger gritty and its bite is as bad as its bark."
So it has a single action trigger you aren't used to and its slim size for a big cartridge makes it bite your hand and the sights are "small" (compared to what?). New sights aren't $400. Change your grip on the gun.. not the grip panels the way you grip the gun. An out of the box Colt is as good as any other gun. Does yours have the plastic trigger? That was replaced on later models.
People tend to customize 1911s because they can. Not because they should.
So it has a single action trigger you aren't used to and its slim size for a big cartridge makes it bite your hand and the sights are "small" (compared to what?). New sights aren't $400. Change your grip on the gun.. not the grip panels the way you grip the gun. An out of the box Colt is as good as any other gun. Does yours have the plastic trigger? That was replaced on later models.
People tend to customize 1911s because they can. Not because they should.
I dislike the Colt 1991A1. It is, in my experience, cheaply and poorly made and overpriced. A much better choice for not much more money is the Springfield Loaded parkerized model. Friend of mine has one and it was reliable and accurate right out of the box.
I have also found Kimber Classic Customs, which run about $600, to be reliable and very accurate right out of the box. Even the new Colt XSE series guns, though a bit overpriced, are reliable and accurate right out of the box.
The 1991A1 is ideal for someone who wants to buy a basic gun and then have it customized immediately, but I dislike it as a basic defense gun...if you want a USGI style 1911 you're much better off with a Springfield Milspec.
I have also found Kimber Classic Customs, which run about $600, to be reliable and very accurate right out of the box. Even the new Colt XSE series guns, though a bit overpriced, are reliable and accurate right out of the box.
The 1991A1 is ideal for someone who wants to buy a basic gun and then have it customized immediately, but I dislike it as a basic defense gun...if you want a USGI style 1911 you're much better off with a Springfield Milspec.
lonegunman
New member
Kermit, why did you buy it if you didnt like its small sights and gritty trigger?
Replace the sights and trigger. It'll cost you at the most $150.
Why did you buy the 1991A1 if you didn't like the sights? You could've bought a used Springfield Loaded for around the same price and had a high beavertail, Novak sights, better trigger, etc etc.
I just bought a used 1991A1 as a base gun for some custom work for $275
Why did you buy the 1991A1 if you didn't like the sights? You could've bought a used Springfield Loaded for around the same price and had a high beavertail, Novak sights, better trigger, etc etc.
I just bought a used 1991A1 as a base gun for some custom work for $275
bad_dad_brad
New member
Sorry Guys and Gals, but everytime I read a forum like this, I think, get a Glock. I also like Kahr's. Being fairly new to the handgun realm, I guess, I have not been imprinted on the SA or DA/SA guns. Just my opinion.
Glocks are fine guns, but they don't point right for me and I am nowhere near as accurate with them either in aimed fire or in point shooting. And since all the factory 1911s I've owned have been reliable out of the box, there's no plus for me getting a Glock reliability-wise that outweighs the negative of my poor accuracy with one compared to the 1911.
bad_dad_brad
New member
Hmm, I shoot consistent 3 inch groups with my 9mm Glock's, no bench, stationary at 25 yards, and on the move, at 10 yards. That is combat accuracy for a pistol, good enough for me.
The Glock always shoots, never hangs up, never lets me down, and they are so simple!
Look, this argument has been around forever, but the Glock is almost an 80 year technological improvement over the M1911. That is hard to ignore. They are both great guns, but if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the Glock.
The Glock always shoots, never hangs up, never lets me down, and they are so simple!
Look, this argument has been around forever, but the Glock is almost an 80 year technological improvement over the M1911. That is hard to ignore. They are both great guns, but if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the Glock.
Well, Brad, that's YOU. Notice I said that the Glock was not accurate as the 1911 FOR ME. That's me, not everyone...
And the reliability issue is moot, since I've yet to have an inherently unreliable factory 1911.
As for being an 80 year improvement...that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 1911A1 was redesigned in the 20s, while the Glock is based on designs which date back to the 70s IIRC. That would be 50 years, which is still a lot, but some designs don't NEED to be constantly improved.
If you love your Glock, go for it...they are great guns. They don't fit my hand as well as a 1911. It's just that simple. I won't compromise accuracy for a PERCEIVED notion of reliability that I have not seen in real shooting experience.
And the reliability issue is moot, since I've yet to have an inherently unreliable factory 1911.
As for being an 80 year improvement...that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The 1911A1 was redesigned in the 20s, while the Glock is based on designs which date back to the 70s IIRC. That would be 50 years, which is still a lot, but some designs don't NEED to be constantly improved.
If you love your Glock, go for it...they are great guns. They don't fit my hand as well as a 1911. It's just that simple. I won't compromise accuracy for a PERCEIVED notion of reliability that I have not seen in real shooting experience.
Well, 1st, I got rid of my Glock 21. (By the way, consistently shot 1.5" groups at 20 yrds.) Glock had fixed it after it went kaboom. Not exactly confidence inspiring...
2nd...I had always liked the basic Colt and when they became available again not too long ago, I got one while I still could. Just got it in my head that I could avoid all the smithing.
3rd...didn't get a Kimber because of all the negative hype they receive re: MIM parts, FTF problems and QC problems that I read about on different forums.
4th didn't get SA because of how sharp the edges where when I checked one out last Dec. '00.
My Colt will turn into a project gun and I'll have everything fixed that it should have had done before it left the factory. For now, it will sit in the safe
This says alot for me. I don't normally keep guns I don't shoot regularly. I have wanted a Colt for awhile and now that I have one, I will make it work for me, I'm just frustrated.
2nd...I had always liked the basic Colt and when they became available again not too long ago, I got one while I still could. Just got it in my head that I could avoid all the smithing.
3rd...didn't get a Kimber because of all the negative hype they receive re: MIM parts, FTF problems and QC problems that I read about on different forums.
4th didn't get SA because of how sharp the edges where when I checked one out last Dec. '00.
My Colt will turn into a project gun and I'll have everything fixed that it should have had done before it left the factory. For now, it will sit in the safe
This says alot for me. I don't normally keep guns I don't shoot regularly. I have wanted a Colt for awhile and now that I have one, I will make it work for me, I'm just frustrated.
Long gunnman seems to be the only person who has offered the best critique, why did you buy a 1911 if you did not like the features. If the guy advocating Glocks wants a pistol that is a glock in a Sig package, he will be disappointed, as you seem to be. I do not like some pistols, but I own one because I can, not because I wanted a H&K with the three safeties.
yeah, you couldve bought a springfield or kimber if you did not like the sights and other things.
dont forget, most of the mods on 1911s are competition based.
yeah they are great to have, but not the most necessary of things. they have come to be the norm, and thats not such a bad thing. there is some stuff i have come to like but also some things that i realize arent the most important of things(such as the beavertail safety). i get safety bite, not hammer bite(its not beveled).
work on the good ol 1911 is more or less preference. such as that nice 4# trigger pull, or the pretty beavertail or checkering.
not necessary but and it can definately help you shoot better.
shooting a glock, thats about as good as youre going to get.
it will work in a defense situation just fine. so will a Browning spec 1911a1. however, 1911 fine tuning is an art and science.
you can make it so you can print 1" groups blind folded.
ive had glocks fail on me. a broken in g 19c of all things(is there a glock with less recoil???) and while i blame the rounds (reloads) on some of the failures there, how many 1911 failures are from reloaded ammo? a huge majoity i would say...
you can make a 1911 sing with a little bit more money.
with other firearms, what you see is what you get. and a lot of times that is a good thing.
but you dont have a choice in the matter.
k.s.
dont forget, most of the mods on 1911s are competition based.
yeah they are great to have, but not the most necessary of things. they have come to be the norm, and thats not such a bad thing. there is some stuff i have come to like but also some things that i realize arent the most important of things(such as the beavertail safety). i get safety bite, not hammer bite(its not beveled).
work on the good ol 1911 is more or less preference. such as that nice 4# trigger pull, or the pretty beavertail or checkering.
not necessary but and it can definately help you shoot better.
shooting a glock, thats about as good as youre going to get.
it will work in a defense situation just fine. so will a Browning spec 1911a1. however, 1911 fine tuning is an art and science.
you can make it so you can print 1" groups blind folded.
ive had glocks fail on me. a broken in g 19c of all things(is there a glock with less recoil???) and while i blame the rounds (reloads) on some of the failures there, how many 1911 failures are from reloaded ammo? a huge majoity i would say...
you can make a 1911 sing with a little bit more money.
with other firearms, what you see is what you get. and a lot of times that is a good thing.
but you dont have a choice in the matter.
k.s.
FANATICS = wankers
"Glockaholic" "1911-nut" "XYZ-addict"..........
Excuse me, but I've noticed that my 1911 (Caspian, of course) prices out at around $3,500-4,000.
Bother you?
(My M20 ended up at around $1,400 before I sold it; that bother you, too?)
A well-tuned HANDGUN is priceless; all brands can fail; I have seen/touched/witnessed all brands fail (NOTHING quite like the look on a Glock-owner's face when his Glock pukes at an IPSC match); everyone's hand is different; aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder ONLY; one shooter's 'too small sights' is another shooter's 'just right'; mankind has customized their "JU-JU" tools since the beginning of history; I wouldn't own any gun that wasn't modified just for me.
All brands are good; some are better. Glocks and Rugers and Berettas and H&K's and S&W's and CZ's and Kahrs and -- you get the picture (notice I didn't include SIG hahahahahahahahahaha!).
Kermit, you should be EXCITED about your gun; just wander through the BROWNELLS and order up your favorite goodies; install them yourself.......
Acquire the gun(s) you like, and damn the rest of us.
"Glockaholic" "1911-nut" "XYZ-addict"..........
Excuse me, but I've noticed that my 1911 (Caspian, of course) prices out at around $3,500-4,000.
Bother you?
(My M20 ended up at around $1,400 before I sold it; that bother you, too?)
A well-tuned HANDGUN is priceless; all brands can fail; I have seen/touched/witnessed all brands fail (NOTHING quite like the look on a Glock-owner's face when his Glock pukes at an IPSC match); everyone's hand is different; aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder ONLY; one shooter's 'too small sights' is another shooter's 'just right'; mankind has customized their "JU-JU" tools since the beginning of history; I wouldn't own any gun that wasn't modified just for me.
All brands are good; some are better. Glocks and Rugers and Berettas and H&K's and S&W's and CZ's and Kahrs and -- you get the picture (notice I didn't include SIG hahahahahahahahahaha!).
Kermit, you should be EXCITED about your gun; just wander through the BROWNELLS and order up your favorite goodies; install them yourself.......
Acquire the gun(s) you like, and damn the rest of us.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
I think this situation brings up something we may all have run into at some point in our lives. We try to buy something without really paying attention to what we are looking for. Have done it myself, and learned my lesson, although it was not really painful-I sure learned that high priced purchases demand my undivided attention. For me, the 1911 series just fits. Its slender for carrying concealed, has enough power in 45ACP to get the job done, parts availability is wonderful, the SA trigger is so familiar to me that I can close my eyes and feel exactly what its doing, and it hits where I aim it. The double stack magazine pistols I've tried, with the possible exception of the Hi-power, seem way too bulky for an IWB carry, even though the Ruger has been very reliable in my hands, as well as Glocks and SIGs. The Beretta 92 just doesn't seem quite as accurate, although the Cougar is. Now with everything new restricted to 10 round mags, I find that 8 round mags+1 leaves me at most, a 2 shot disadvantage. After a 30 year love affair with the 1911 style, it still holds no surprises for me, and to my way of thinking, is the best part of it.
I have said this before and this is just my opinion.
I strongly feel that you pay way to much for 1911s compared to what you get. As of right here and now I think that there are so many proven, better guns available at less that half the price of a 1911 out of the box with no tweaking.
Things that make me wonder and this is what I have come to realize over teh years. It seems as if 1911 buffs seem to accept the fact that spending $1000+ on a 1911 does not mean that you are going to get a gun that will function reliably out of teh box. My question is this, why would you lower your standards to that way of thinking when you are paying that kind of money?
I have always been a type of guy that does not spending allot of money as long as I feel it is money well spent. I find it very hard to justify dropping the $ on a 1911 when you have all the Glocks, Sigs and HKs out there that are tried and proven. Those three companys I feel offer something for everyone and you can take for granted that they will work flawlessly out of the box. Sure you can get a lemon but that is a rare occurance.
If I spend $1000+ on a gun I expect it to work, no if's and's or Butt's about it. I dont care iwho makes it.
The 1911 to me fills a certain nitch for people that love to have a gun to work on, tweak out and fiddle with. One day and time it was the combat handgun to have, there was nothing better. Now we are here and there is some serious super cpombat guns to stake your life on. That is my greatest demand by far, it has to work all the time, 90% of the time a reputation of a gun is accurate in the shooting community. 1911s are not known to be the most reliable when stacked against the Glocks, Sigs and HKs. They are known to be more accurate sure, but how important is that slight advantage in accuracy to you in a gun for self deffence.
For a target hobby gun the 1911 is great, to stake you life on they dont even make the list this day and age.
Before I get flamed just remember that I said this is my feelings and my feelings alone.
Jason
I strongly feel that you pay way to much for 1911s compared to what you get. As of right here and now I think that there are so many proven, better guns available at less that half the price of a 1911 out of the box with no tweaking.
Things that make me wonder and this is what I have come to realize over teh years. It seems as if 1911 buffs seem to accept the fact that spending $1000+ on a 1911 does not mean that you are going to get a gun that will function reliably out of teh box. My question is this, why would you lower your standards to that way of thinking when you are paying that kind of money?
I have always been a type of guy that does not spending allot of money as long as I feel it is money well spent. I find it very hard to justify dropping the $ on a 1911 when you have all the Glocks, Sigs and HKs out there that are tried and proven. Those three companys I feel offer something for everyone and you can take for granted that they will work flawlessly out of the box. Sure you can get a lemon but that is a rare occurance.
If I spend $1000+ on a gun I expect it to work, no if's and's or Butt's about it. I dont care iwho makes it.
The 1911 to me fills a certain nitch for people that love to have a gun to work on, tweak out and fiddle with. One day and time it was the combat handgun to have, there was nothing better. Now we are here and there is some serious super cpombat guns to stake your life on. That is my greatest demand by far, it has to work all the time, 90% of the time a reputation of a gun is accurate in the shooting community. 1911s are not known to be the most reliable when stacked against the Glocks, Sigs and HKs. They are known to be more accurate sure, but how important is that slight advantage in accuracy to you in a gun for self deffence.
For a target hobby gun the 1911 is great, to stake you life on they dont even make the list this day and age.
Before I get flamed just remember that I said this is my feelings and my feelings alone.
Jason
I understand it's your feelings JMack and I won't flame you for them, but you're incorrect about how much you have to pay for a 1911. A new Glock costs around $550-600. A new SIG costs around $700. A new Smith auto costs around $700. A new Kimber Classic Custom costs around $600. A new Springfield Loaded stainless costs around $650. A new Colt XSE 1911 costs around $800.
So where is this huge price difference?
Now, if you're talking about factory custom guns like Les Baer or Wilson, those are hand-fitted and have a guaranteed accuracy rating out of the box, which is not the case with factory guns like Glocks, SIGs, etc... so it isn't very accurate to compare them to them.
Again, a factory 1911 is just as likely to be reliable out of the box as a SIG, Glock, whatever...at least in my experience. And much more likely to be accurate in my hands.
The people who talk about how the 1911 is "outdated" or "overpriced" don't make much sense to me.
So where is this huge price difference?
Now, if you're talking about factory custom guns like Les Baer or Wilson, those are hand-fitted and have a guaranteed accuracy rating out of the box, which is not the case with factory guns like Glocks, SIGs, etc... so it isn't very accurate to compare them to them.
Again, a factory 1911 is just as likely to be reliable out of the box as a SIG, Glock, whatever...at least in my experience. And much more likely to be accurate in my hands.
The people who talk about how the 1911 is "outdated" or "overpriced" don't make much sense to me.