Which 1911?

[chickenfried]

the Colt......the quality of the components are crap

Colt has a reputation for using better quality internal parts than the Springfield or Kimber, not sure about the S&W. Less MIM and more forged parts.

When talking to reputable 1911 smiths about having work done, a couple said fewer internal parts would need to be replaced on the Colt vs. the Kimber.

[xenophobe]

Fewer internal parts? Hmm... well externally, to bring it up to par with pistols in relatively the same price point I listed you would need to replace the hammer, the sights, the trigger, the safety, the girp safety, add a full length guide rod, etc... So wanting to or needing to replace those few internal components turns out to be a savings on the Kimber, but seriously, I don't buy that.

When you count up the $$$ you'll need to spend to get it to resemble a modern combat handgun like the other three that I compare it to, you'll need to spend at least another $200.

Colt lost it's good standing in quality some time ago. Compare a modern Gold Cup to a Series 70 Gold Cup. Compare a 3rd Gen SAA to a 4th. Compare an Uberti to a Colt Cowboy. Compare a Python to a new Anaconda. Colt is geared for consumers who want the logo. Their commitment to quality died a long time ago.

[chickenfried]

Disclaimer:I own both a Kimber and Colt and like them both.

"resemble a combat handgun" I think you mean resemble a Kimber . The parts listed seem a matter of cosmetics or personal preference rather than items needed for a combat handgun.

Hammer-only needed if you get hammer bite
sights- personal preference, what's so bad about the colt three dot sights?
trigger-why would you need to replace that?
safety-personal preference
grip safety-personal preference
FLGR-Jury's still out on this one

Fewer internal parts? Hmm... well externally, to bring it up to par with pistols in relatively the same price point I listed you would need to replace the hammer, the sights, the trigger, the safety, the girp safety, add a full length guide rod, etc... So wanting to or needing to replace those few internal components turns out to be a savings on the Kimber, but seriously, I don't buy that.

When you count up the $$$ you'll need to spend to get it to resemble a modern combat handgun like the other three that I compare it to, you'll need to spend at least another $200.

[Mute]

I'd probably replace all those parts on the Kimber. I just don't trust their MIM parts. Nothing wrong with MIM parts in general, but Kimber seems to have a knack for getting some bad ones.

[xenophobe]

"resemble a combat handgun" I think you mean resemble a Kimber . The parts listed seem a matter of cosmetics or personal preference rather than items needed for a combat handgun.

Not specifically Kimber, but to resemble any modern 1911 variant... Kimber, S&W, LesBaer, Wilson, Springfield, Sig GSR, etc... ANY modern variation.

The Colt 1991 was originally supposed to be a throwback gun... lol It should have been thrown back. Seriously though, it was supposed to be a modern version of the 1911A1, and it did that, though not very well. Ever compare a real Colt 1911A1 to a 1991? It's a joke.

Hammer-only needed if you get hammer bite
sights- personal preference, what's so bad about the colt three dot sights?
trigger-why would you need to replace that?
safety-personal preference
grip safety-personal preference
FLGR-Jury's still out on this one

Well, the person who STARTED the thread asked for the best 1911 to buy in regards to customization. Well, most of the brands, except for the Springfield Mil-Spec or WW2, or the Colt 1991A1 don't need to be upgraded or modified.

Personally, a Mil-Spec or WW2 Springfield is nicer than the Colt 1991.

[Mute]

Have you even seen a 1991 NRM? The quality on those are quite a bit different from the early 1991s or even more recent ones with the Old Roll Marks and I dare say as good if not better than some of the older 1911A1s. You need to make sure you're looking at newer guns and not some gunshop's older stock.

SA Milspecs are best bang for the buck in my opinion, but the finish really does not compare to the NRM Colts. Kimber again gives you a very good frame and slide (although I hate front cocking serrations), but their small parts have on recent guns can stand some improvement.

As to the matter of upgrades. No 1911 need the upgrades, but if you're satisfied with the upgrades offered by the manufacturers than I would go with Kimber, S&W or Springfield, if you're not picky. Truthfully, I find even Les Baer and Wilson less than idea. I would rather have a base gun without the additional goodies and have a good smith add them on. That being the case, I would have no problems with any of the above listed guns, though again, S&W and Kimber would be out for me because I hate front cocking serrations, and I don't want to have to pay to remove them.

Now if we were to get back to the poster's original choices between a Kimber Custom II or a Springfield PX9154L than I say the only way to determine this is to try the gun. Pick the one that feels best in your hands. Truthfully, I don't find one gun has any greater advantage than the other. The only other thing that might sway me is whether or not you feel it's important to have a firing pin safety, or more accurately, not have one. If you hate the idea of a FPS, than it's a simple answer. Only the Springfield will do.

[NoTime2Shoot]

Well, the person who STARTED the thread asked for the best 1911 to buy in regards to customization........

I'm, (personally), too lazy for that. I purchased a Kimber Gold Combat Stainless II from their custom shop. I really like it. Super accurate, feels great in my hands and thus far, problem free. The only thing that I changed was buying a couple of Chip McCormick 10rd'ers.

[xenophobe]

Have you even seen a 1991 NRM? The quality on those are quite a bit different from the early 1991s or even more recent ones with the Old Roll Marks and I dare say as good if not better than some of the older 1911A1s. You need to make sure you're looking at newer guns and not some gunshop's older stock.

Yes, I recently handled a new Gold Cup, and I was not impressed. It wasn't a bad gun, but it was horribly overpriced and either a Stainless II or Springfield Loaded would have been a much better and equivalent firearm for $400-$500 less, that's a considerable cost difference, IMO.

SA Milspecs are best bang for the buck in my opinion, but the finish really does not compare to the NRM Colts. Kimber again gives you a very good frame and slide (although I hate front cocking serrations), but their small parts have on recent guns can stand some improvement.

Comparing a Mil-Spec to a Colt 1991 isn't valid. I already explained this. If you're going to compare the Colt to anything, at least keep it in the same price point. You're comparing a firearm that sells for $450 to $500 to one that sells for $750-$850 or more. Don't be unresonable.

As to the matter of upgrades. No 1911 need the upgrades, but if you're satisfied with the upgrades offered by the manufacturers than I would go with Kimber, S&W or Springfield, if you're not picky. Truthfully, I find even Les Baer and Wilson less than idea. I would rather have a base gun without the additional goodies and have a good smith add them on. That being the case, I would have no problems with any of the above listed guns, though again, S&W and Kimber would be out for me because I hate front cocking serrations, and I don't want to have to pay to remove them.

Well, this is more personal preference. It has nothing to do with overall quality of the firearms mentioned.

[Mute]

Yes, I recently handled a new Gold Cup, and I was not impressed. It wasn't a bad gun, but it was horribly overpriced and either a Stainless II or Springfield Loaded would have been a much better and equivalent firearm for $400-$500 less, that's a considerable cost difference, IMO.


That's not a 1991 NRM. And I agree. I've never met a Gold Cup I liked.


Comparing a Mil-Spec to a Colt 1991 isn't valid. I already explained this. If you're going to compare the Colt to anything, at least keep it in the same price point. You're comparing a firearm that sells for $450 to $500 to one that sells for $750-$850 or more. Don't be unresonable.


I wasn't the one who started the comparison. But the fact is you stated the Mil-Spec is a way better gun. Are you now saying it's not? Regarding the price difference, you take that additional $300 and put it into the Springfield, you're going to get about the same level of fit and finish, so I don't think the comparison is all that unreasonable


Well, this is more personal preference. It has nothing to do with overall quality of the firearms mentioned.

Agreed. But you made it sound like Colt is nothing but crap while SA and Kimber can do no wrong. My own experience shows that they're all about the same with their own strengths and weaknesses, which makes any one of these suitable for the right person.

[xenophobe]

Okay, well a new Gold Cup is a more expensive and higher quality line than a 1991 with a new roll mark. *shrug*

And you've never met a Colt GCNM you never liked? Whoah... okay. Even the series 70 isn't quite up to the level of these new guns in features, but overall quality is pretty much top of the line. Okay, you're praising the Springfield Mil-Spec, but you don't like the Series 70 Gold Cups.. You're really starting to lose some credibility with me. The pre-Series 70 and Series 70 Gold Cup National Matches are overall the finest 1911's that have ever came out of any factory production line. Fit and finish were nicer than anything coming out off a standard production line today. Period.

Mind you, I'm talking about genuine 70's and 80's Series 70 pistols, not the new stuff they're coming out with today.

Agreed. But you made it sound like Colt is nothing but crap while SA and Kimber can do no wrong. My own experience shows that they're all about the same with their own strengths and weaknesses, which makes any one of these suitable for the right person.

No, I'm not. Colt is pretty much crap. I don't care for Kimber (overrated), nor would I ever pay Springfield (made in Brazil) a dime for one of their pistols.

I think the SW1911 is probably the best pistol for the money in the $700-$800 range, though it's not for everyone. I personally think it's nicer than either Springfield or Kimber, but I did say that I thought all three were pretty much in the same ballpark.

Come by the shop with your 1991. I'll let you handle the Springfield, Kimber and SW1911, and we can field strip all four, examine parts... examine the machining, fit and finish and overall quality of the bunch. If you've ever done this with all the pistols side by side, you would see the difference in quality. I've done this for my customers on a number of occassions.

[handbook]

I have a Kimber TLEII(Dec 2005, internal extractor). The gun has performed flawlessly. The finish is a little better than Springfield Armory 1911s I cross-shopped. The only negative about the Kimber is the 1 yr warranty(but I doubt I'll need it) as opposed to Springfield's lifetime warranty. The Kimber is made in the USA versus Springfield made in Brazil.

TenPercentFirearms gave me a great price, which clinched my decision.

[Mute]

Yes. I have compared these guns side by side, as I have owned guns from Colt, Kimber and Springfield. Regarding Gold Cups, I guess my distaste for them is that I tend to prefer guns that I can trust my life with. Gold Cups were accurate and had great finish, but I've always found them to be finicky with ammo.

It seems clear you just plain don't like anything that isn't a S&W. If you want to discourage people from actually making a reasoned choice, be my guess.

[sohijiro]

ill sell you my custom 2 if you dont mind external extractor



do the S&W 1911's use standard 1911 parts in them? i noticed they had external extractors but i wasnt sure if it was a true 1911, i always thought it was some hybrid 1911 with a decocker and double action

[xenophobe]

Yes. I have compared these guns side by side, as I have owned guns from Colt, Kimber and Springfield. Regarding Gold Cups, I guess my distaste for them is that I tend to prefer guns that I can trust my life with. Gold Cups were accurate and had great finish, but I've always found them to be finicky with ammo.

Well, yes, they can be finicky with ammo. Gold Cups aren't defense guns, they're target guns. Hence, the National Match branding.

It seems clear you just plain don't like anything that isn't a S&W. If you want to discourage people from actually making a reasoned choice, be my guess.

That's pretty far off from the truth. You're sitting there waving your Colt flag and you're calling me the brand loyalist? lol I'm just saying they're not all that, especially these days. I would trust a Gold Cup, even though you're right, they are ammo particular. I wouldn't carry a self defense pistol with ammo I did not know wouldn't cycle relaibly in any particular firearm, nor would I use any ammo for defense I hadn't shot at least a couple hundred rounds to be familiar with adjusted POI, so that arguement is pretty moot.

I like the Kimbers, but I think they're overrated. I would trust one with my life. I don't particularly like the way Springfield does their stainless, similar to the Colts, but nicer. Springfields have a much nicer trigger from the factory than any of the Colts, and are usually a little more crisp than Kimber, but not every sample is identical.

The Sig GSR is a really nice gun, I hate the weird grip safety, which I would change out, otherwise it's a great gun that should have been built with a recoil guide, but nevertheless, is way overpriced. I wish I would have kept one of the first ones we got in... wholesale price started at about $879, but by the time I could get more of them, the wholesale price jumped to $1150.

I love the Springfield Mil-Spec and WW2 guns. Great value, and fit and finish for parkerized guns are excellent, though I'm too used to Novak Lo-carry sights to consider using standard blade sights for carry. I also love the Les Baers.... they feel like $2000, though I don't see myself ever spending that kind of money. Never shot a Robar Thunder Ranch, but I've handled one. Looked pretty, but I thought it was overpriced. I love Robar quality though.

Do I think any of the Colts are nice guns? Yes, absolutely... Do I think some of them are crap? Well, to an extent, when I compare them to their former glory, yes. Do they even come close to their former (and well deserved) glory? Not a chance in hell. Do I think they're way overpriced for the quality level they offer? Yes, without a doubt.

Old Springfields? SUCK. Old Kimbers of Oregon? Awesome. Sorry, I'm not really a brand loyalist by any means, maybe you should re-read what I've typed previously, and that much should be apparent.

[Mute]

Brand loyalist? I've OWNED each of the guns listed except the S&W and I have said that they are all about equal with a few subjective differences. How exactly is that being a brand loyalist? I like you to point out where I said, Colt is "all that".

However, you make a sweeping generalization that Colt IS crap. Now you're saying that their just overpriced for what they deliver (which I don't disagree with, especially since the price increase). No one here including myself, is saying that Colt is anywhere near what they were back in the good days, but they are still capable of turning out some good guns. I would say that's a far cry from being crap.

Don't get me started on Les Baer and Wilson. They're fine guns, but if you want to talk overpriced, I believe they fall into that category. And no, I don't think Baer feels like a $2000 gun, at least not nowadays. For that, I'd stick to an Ed Brown or something done by a good gunsmith.