Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's back, it's bad, you know it as the 1911

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    I have been trying to understand what this means. Is it really, really bad or not so bad and not actually crappy?

    The problem with actually not owning a piece of this means going to Gun forums and reading about them, which mean (snooty) posters turning down their noses at anything below the higher brand names :pari:
    Well, I handled Kimber Custom II and Sig 1911 at the shop, as well as a Springfield xxx (forgot). The first thing that you would notice, comparing those 3 to an RIA, is the more expensive gun felt more solid. It's hard to describe. It could be a combination of less rattling, better balance (I know, same design, but...), and more polished finish.

    Then comes the operations. The parts felt smoother on the more expensive guns. Not broken in, but "closer" to being broken in than the RIA.

    I don't have extensive experience shooting any 1911 so I can't comment. I have never shot an RIA 1911.

    The more expensive 1911s might be more accurate, to an expert. However I would not notice such a difference in performance. I'm a happy camper as long as the gun can lob rounds at the general area I'm aiming at.

    I'm a firm believer in getting the most bang for your buck. Spending twice the money for a few percentage points of performance or feel is simply not worth it in my book. Guns are tools (I do collect, but not like mad). They are as effective as the man using them. I'm not very good at using them. So the last bit of performance is wasted on me. I'd rather spend the extra money on more ammo or more guns.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Cheap also means lousy construction. Calling RIA 1911 "cheap" would be a disservice to crappy workmanship everywhere.
    I have been trying to understand what this means. Is it really, really bad or not so bad and not actually crappy?

    The problem with actually not owning a piece of this means going to Gun forums and reading about them, which mean (snooty) posters turning down their noses at anything below the higher brand names :pari:
    Last edited by antimony; 03 Aug 12,, 21:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    So, am I hearing you right? You say the RIA M1911 is cheap? Or is it cheap?
    We shouldn't use the word "cheap." The correct term should be "affordable."

    Cheap also means lousy construction. Calling RIA 1911 "cheap" would be a disservice to crappy workmanship everywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    RIA is cheap and I've heard very good things about it from 1911 fans. The Tactical model can't be beat at $527 out the door, with Kommiefornia taxes.

    I was planning on a Springfield 1911 Mil Spec, until I saw the RIA 1911 Tac. Tac has Novak sights (much easier to spot and front sight is dovetailed), beavertail, skeletal trigger and hammer (no practical value, but look good), and did I mention cheap?

    I admit the RIA's workmanship isn't at the level as a Sig, Kimber, or Springfield. But it's cheap.
    So, am I hearing you right? You say the RIA M1911 is cheap? Or is it cheap?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Aha, so I get at least some credit for "reforming" you

    Question, why did you go for RIA when more "reputed" models (amongst noobs like me) like Springfield are also available for just a little bit more?
    RIA is cheap and I've heard very good things about it from 1911 fans. The Tactical model can't be beat at $527 out the door, with Kommiefornia taxes.

    I was planning on a Springfield 1911 Mil Spec, until I saw the RIA 1911 Tac. Tac has Novak sights (much easier to spot and front sight is dovetailed), beavertail, skeletal trigger and hammer (no practical value, but look good), and did I mention cheap?

    I admit the RIA's workmanship isn't at the level as a Sig, Kimber, or Springfield. But it's cheap.

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    I'm not following.

    No traditional handgun is going to have an explosive wound channel like a 5.56mm. They are all big, slow, solid pieces of metal. When you go slow, size matters greatly, which is why in black powder days, the calibers were enormous compared to what we have today. And .45 beats .40, it's basic math.

    As far as combat performance, I'd have to give the nod to the .45ACP, which has been killing people quite easily since WW1.
    What looks good on paper doesn't always translate to the real world. I am not knocking the .45 but I don't think the .40 is getting the credit it deserves. Being true to form the military will always end up running from 9mm to .45 and back again like a dog racing between two fire hydrants.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    It's all your fault.
    Aha, so I get at least some credit for "reforming" you

    Question, why did you go for RIA when more "reputed" models (amongst noobs like me) like Springfield are also available for just a little bit more?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    No. Not without some real world hardball comparisons on the battlefield.
    I'm not following.

    No traditional handgun is going to have an explosive wound channel like a 5.56mm. They are all big, slow, solid pieces of metal. When you go slow, size matters greatly, which is why in black powder days, the calibers were enormous compared to what we have today. And .45 beats .40, it's basic math.

    As far as combat performance, I'd have to give the nod to the .45ACP, which has been killing people quite easily since WW1.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by antimony View Post
    Woo Hoo

    Congrats

    Here is the one I set my heart on:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]29687[/ATTACH]

    Springfield MILSPEC 5" 45SS Package $682.00 SHIPS FREE
    It's all your fault.

    Leave a comment:


  • antimony
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Guess who just bought a 1911?
    Woo Hoo

    Congrats

    Here is the one I set my heart on:



    Springfield MILSPEC 5" 45SS Package $682.00 SHIPS FREE
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    But once again, you've got to use ball ammo in these. No ball pistol cartridge has the velocity to do anything except plow straight ahead, intact and unexpanded. The .45 wound channel is going to beat the .40 easily. Wouldn't you agree?
    No. Not without some real world hardball comparisons on the battlefield.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    Nice!

    Is it a Baer or a Kimber, or just a stock M1911A1?
    Are you kidding? I can't afford a Les Baer, or even a basic Kimber.

    I bought a RIA 1911 Tactical on sale for $460. It comes out to be $527 after all the kommie taxes and fees I have to pay here.

    Back to topic, I thought the Sig P220 is a much simpler and reliable design as a combat handgun than a 1911. They are about the same price too (if that 1911 is a Colt).
    Last edited by gunnut; 30 Jul 12,, 23:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    Guess who just bought a 1911?
    Nice!

    Is it a Baer or a Kimber, or just a stock M1911A1?

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    Guess who just bought a 1911?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    Sigh. Just once I wish a branch would not bypass a Sig 226 in .40S&W on their rush to go from 9mm to .45 and back again.
    But once again, you've got to use ball ammo in these. No ball pistol cartridge has the velocity to do anything except plow straight ahead, intact and unexpanded. The .45 wound channel is going to beat the .40 easily. Wouldn't you agree?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X