The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: JLawson on October 20, 2011, 09:14:24 PM
-
Hey y'all, we were discussing today which handgun manufacturers we considered to be "second tier." It's easy for me to list some of the top tier makers - S&W, Sig, Beretta, Springfield, Colt, etc. It is harder for me to decide who is second tier.
What are your thoughts? Is there a third tier... and who would be there?
-
I'd have to weigh that a spell to come up with a set list. With modern manufacturing processes these days, the lines have definitely been blurred significantly from what it was a few decades ago.
-
I think this is a question that requires defining terms first (yes I'm an academic geek, can't help it :-[). But seriously, before you say something is "the best" you have to answer the the question "Best for what"?
I'll put it this way. I can say, I think without contradiction, that the Colt Pyton .357 was the best all around revolver of its type, period. It was sui generis. But now that its gone? Well, the Smith is smooth and light and I like its trigger. On the other hand, the Ruger is more durable, will handle a steady diet of hot loads and their CS (on the occasions its required) is better. Plus they are cheaper. Advantage....? Well, damned if I know, but unless you want to punch paper I'd buy a Ruger. If you do, I'd buy a Smith. I like this thread and would like to hear more responses. Maybe we can lure BAC back. ;D
FQ13
-
Two of the gun makers that garnered the most discussion were Taurus and Charter Arms. I don't currently own guns from either one of them and they do not appear on my "to buy list." I don't consider them to be bad products... just not the best you can buy. I guess, in my opinion, that makes them second tier.
-
Hmmm.... definitions. I guess the things that I think about when considering this question would include (in no particular order): reliability, durability, quality control, accuracy, aesthetics, and consistency. Consistency is very important - and can be used to describe all of the other qualities - consistent reliability, consisitent quality control, etc.
-
Two of the gun makers that garnered the most discussion were Taurus and Charter Arms. I don't currently own guns from either one of them and they do not appear on my "to buy list." I don't consider them to be bad products... just not the best you can buy. I guess, in my opinion, that makes them second tier.
15 years ago I'd have agreed. Now I'm not so sure. Think of Hyundai. It used to be a cheap Korean ripoff of Honda. But they were cheap and offered a 100,000 mile warranty. Now they have lived up to tha,t and are priced only a little bit below Toyota and Honda. I'm wondering if it might be the same for Charter and Taurus. I've not shot either in a very long time so I am asking for feedback, not stating an opinion. I am just saying that sometimes its worth while looking at what we think of as second tier because if you look down your nose, you might be missing something really good. Rock Island 1911's spring to mind. Yes they are made in the Phillipines, but I think you are getting more gun for your dollar than if you buy a Ruger or a Remington. Just my .02.
FQ13
-
Hey y'all, we were discussing today which handgun manufacturers we considered to be "second tier." It's easy for me to list some of the top tier makers - S&W, Sig, Beretta, Springfield, Colt, etc. It is harder for me to decide who is second tier.
What are your thoughts? Is there a third tier... and who would be there?
WOW! good question.
It would depend on specific criteria, but while I agree with most of your choice for top tier I would replace Springfield with Glock.
While Glock may lack the esthetic appeal of the other top tier makers, it is an outstanding performer, and their own design.
I would consider the second tier to consist of Those who make reliable clones of other 's designs, placing Springfield, Kimber and Rock Island Armory all on the same level with Taurus and Charter Arms.
These companies are all lacking either originality, or else while the quality is acceptable the workman ship is not up to first tier standards.
For the 3rd tier I would say companies like Hi Point, Cheap, bulky and clunky, but still retaining high reliability.
At the bottom of the barrel would come the .25 ACP crap, Rohrbaugh,and other pistols with either poor reliability, excessive ammo sensitivity, or extremely short performance life.
One thing I notice in my own list is that price has little to do with it, the Glock I classed as Top tier is around $500 while the Rohrbaugh, I put as "bottom of the barrel" is several thousand.
-
WOW! good question.
It would depend on specific criteria, but while I agree with most of your choice for top tier I would replace Springfield with Glock.
While Glock may lack the esthetic appeal of the other top tier makers, it is an outstanding performer, and their own design.
I would consider the second tier to consist of Those who make reliable clones of other 's designs, placing Springfield, Kimber and Rock Island Armory all on the same level with Taurus and Charter Arms.
These companies are all lacking either originality, or else while the quality is acceptable the workman ship is not up to first tier standards.
For the 3rd tier I would say companies like Hi Point, Cheap, bulky and clunky, but still retaining high reliability.
At the bottom of the barrel would come the .25 ACP crap, Rohrbaugh,and other pistols with either poor reliability, excessive ammo sensitivity, or extremely short performance life.
One thing I notice in my own list is that price has little to do with it, the Glock I classed as Top tier is around $500 while the Rohrbaugh, I put as "bottom of the barrel" is several thousand.
Well said and I agree. Your inclusion of Glock as innovator is noted, as, more importantly is a disregard for price. Just because its expensive doesn't mean its good and the reverse is true. Is there anyone here who can honestly say they wouldn't rather carry a Glock or a Rock Island Arms as their primary SD weapon rather than a Kimber Solo? Would you trade either of the aforementioned $500 pistols for the $750 Kimber? I know that I wouldn't. We all have our favorites, but I think that to be "top tier" you need to offer something different and something reliable. It has to be made to do the job its designed for and do it reliably. (Ie., it goes bang every time and offers consistent performance, good, bad or mediocre I should know what I'm buying) , and the price point should be no more than what the quality demands. I think Glock, Ruger, Bond and Smith fit that bill quite nicely. The others, its a bit of a tradeoff. But that said, if it will do the job it says it will do at a realistic price point, I'll look at it.
FQ13
-
I was going to use the Kimber Solo as an example of the bottom of the barrel because it is so finicky about ammo, but I decided to leave them in level 2, their own design may be crap, but they seem to have excellent workmanship when copying Colts product.
-
I'm wondering if it might be the same for Charter and Taurus. I've not shot either in a very long time so I am asking for feedback, not stating an opinion.
I have two Taurus guns, a PT1911 and a 45 Colt single action. (Taurus single actions are now discontinued)
Both are solid performers, but the single action is load picky for accuracy. The 1911 has been flawless. It could be finished a little prettier but for 500 bucks it doesn't shoot THAT much different than my $1200 1911s.
They are copies of other designs like Tom mentioned but Taurus has some new small models that a friend of mine loves.
I'll put it this way. I can say, I think without contradiction, that the Colt Pyton .357 was the best all around revolver of its type, period.
Well, the Smith is smooth and light and I like its trigger. On the other hand, the Ruger is more durable, will handle a steady diet of hot loads and their CS (on the occasions its required) is better.
I will argue that.
I think in a S&W Mod 27 or 586/686 vs Python duel the S&W comes out on top.
I don't have any CS experience with Ruger because I only own a couple of their 22s but Smith and Wesson CS - the ONE time I had to use it was excellent. Lifetime warranty on any gun with their name on it....that's hard to beat.
As for the Ruger durablility, yes they will take a beating, which is a good thing as long as you like farm machinery.
Look at revo competitions - you will be hard pressed to find anything but S&Ws and those guns get a HELL of a beating.
My Smiths have taken quite a lot of use and abuse. They are still working just fine.
-
Bogan,,
So by your reasoning would Kel-Tek be a top tier? They had the first little .380 and 9mm and some of the first if not first pistol caliber carbines. Also they came up with the .22 mag pistol that holds more than 10 rounds (wish they'd make a 22.LR the same way). They also have the eject out the front rifle and now a new shotgun is coming out http://www.keltecweapons.com/news/preview-kel-tec-shotgun-ksg/
Then there is HiPoint who warrants their fire arms for life!
-
It's easy for me to list some of the top tier makers - S&W, Sig, Springfield, Colt, etc. It is harder for me to decide who is second tier.
If you are talking 1911s these guys are all second tier.
Your discussion is poorly framed and without any real definitions or parameters. Such is common with discussions of this type. Another Ford-Chevy thing.
-
Personally, I could care less what a handgun looks like as long it goes bang every time. I like 1911's so Colt would be my choice but they are no longer the most dependable 1911 on the market. My Para does fine for me but I had few other choices since I was living in MA when I bought my 1911 and their list is rather short in that regard.
I'm warming up to polymer pistols but haven't handled enough or shot enough to make a determination. Glock is at the top for most folks but that's not what I'm looking for in a polymer handgun.
Revolvers are kindergarten easy, go bang every time, clean up easily and are fairly easy to tweak. I'm kinda coming full circle again and looking at a J-frame pocket gun again. At that level, S&W would be 1st if I can afford one or find one without the silly little locky thing.
Top tier 1911's don't have to cost 3K, they just gotta work and I don't think some of the high end ones are all that reliable. Are they at the top of the/my list? Nope...
Oh, yea....Springfield is still the last 1911 I'd consider...
-
Bogan,,
So by your reasoning would Kel-Tek be a top tier? They had the first little .380 and 9mm and some of the first if not first pistol caliber carbines. Also they came up with the .22 mag pistol that holds more than 10 rounds (wish they'd make a 22.LR the same way). They also have the eject out the front rifle and now a new shotgun is coming out http://www.keltecweapons.com/news/preview-kel-tec-shotgun-ksg/
Then there is HiPoint who warrants their fire arms for life!
I would have to say yes . Unlike some one like Kimber, they are producing their own innovative designs, with reliable quality and performance.
Please note that my lists at each level used examples rather than listing and classifying every handgun maker in the world.
Another thing, to clarify in relation to Tim's reference to Colt 1911's.
While they may no longer be the "best" 1911's, they were the originators of the design, so all other 1911's, regardless of quality, are simply
copies of some one else's proven design.
-
I would have to say yes . Unlike some one like Kimber, they are producing their own innovative designs, with reliable quality and performance.
Please note that my lists at each level used examples rather than listing and classifying every handgun maker in the world.
Another thing, to clarify in relation to Tim's reference to Colt 1911's.
While they may no longer be the "best" 1911's, they were the originators of the design, so all other 1911's, regardless of quality, are simply
copies of some one else's proven design.
So your tiers are driven more by innovation not fit and finish or even reliability? Or is reliability also a factor? (I am NOT saying Kel-Tek or even HiPoint are poor in that department. I own both and have had zero problems with them).
-
WOW! good question.
It would depend on specific criteria, but while I agree with most of your choice for top tier I would replace Springfield with Glock.
While Glock may lack the esthetic appeal of the other top tier makers, it is an outstanding performer, and their own design.
I would consider the second tier to consist of Those who make reliable clones of other 's designs, placing Springfield, Kimber and Rock Island Armory all on the same level with Taurus and Charter Arms.
These companies are all lacking either originality, or else while the quality is acceptable the workman ship is not up to first tier standards.
For the 3rd tier I would say companies like Hi Point, Cheap, bulky and clunky, but still retaining high reliability.
At the bottom of the barrel would come the .25 ACP crap, Rohrbaugh,and other pistols with either poor reliability, excessive ammo sensitivity, or extremely short performance life.One thing I notice in my own list is that price has little to do with it, the Glock I classed as Top tier is around $500 while the Rohrbaugh, I put as "bottom of the barrel" is several thousand.
I think you take this even a step further. I believe there are more tiers and what was listed by the OP is really 2nd or 3rd tier. I think 1st tier manufacturers are the ones who still build all or mostly by hand, Ed Brown, Wilson Combat, Les Baer and similar companies. True gunsmiths, not just a company that can program and run a CNC but someone who can hand build and hand fit a rifle or pistol. Some of the stuff from bigger companies custom shops can fit here as well like Springfield and Kimber's shops.
Next tier is stuff that still gets some hand fitting like Dan Wesson or cataloged custom shop offerings from Kimber or other similar shops. In this tier you can argue rifle builders who hand fit and build like LaRue and Noveske and similar companies. You then have another tier or sub tier for companies like STI, Doublestar and some others who are still building a better and somewhat hand-fitted pistol than say Colt, standard factory Kimber, Sig, S&W etc. I agree that Glock should replace Springfield, unless it comes from their custom shop Springfield really doesn't build their own guns anymore. They buy and re-label XD's and just about all their 1911's but the high end and custom shop stuff are being built by Imbel in Brazil.
You can put Taurus in a lower tier but they build a 1911 that is equal or better than most Springfields, sometimes for half the price. Talking about which Brazilian company builds the better 1911 is about hte same as arguing who produces a firmer turd as far as I'm concerned. I've kind of come to the realization that unless you plan on spending a couple grand minimum for a pistol you're getting a 2nd tier gun at best. It comes down to what feels best in your hand, what you shoot best and what your happy with. Don't let someone rag on your... insert brand here pistol if that's what you like and shoot well. I carry a Glock 19 as much or more than any other pistol I own even though I've got pistols that cost 4-5 times more. I do it because it's easy to carry and I know it works every time. Most companies outside of the High Points and similar are made pretty much the same. Taurus has a great warranty, even High Points, ugly bulky and cheap are supposedly pretty damn reliable. As long as it goes bang when it's supposed to and you are carrying rather than leaving it in a safe or drawer then it's 1st tier for you. No major manufacturer makes a gun with the quality, care and precision they used to when they employed actual gusmiths that fit parts rather than factory line workers who assemble parts. Add in all the government regulations, additional unneeded crap like multiple safeties, loaded chamber indicators etc. and guns that have to be complaint to certain states and you can't really expect anything 1st tier or really even 2nd tier from a normally cataloged major manufacturer.
-
So your tiers are driven more by innovation not fit and finish or even reliability? Or is reliability also a factor? (I am NOT saying Kel-Tek or even HiPoint are poor in that department. I own both and have had zero problems with them).
My choices were based on innovation and reliability about evenly with fit and finish being kind of a secondary consideration.
That was why opposite of Bafsu, I rated the "custom maker's", like Ed Brown, at the #2 level since ,yes, they have outstanding production methods, but the real intellectual work of conceiving, perfecting, and proving the design was already done for them.
As an example, I would rate the Kel Tec P3AT higher than the Ruger LCP since, regardless of materials or appearence Ruger simply cloned a proven popular design.
-
Not only are their several tiers, it might be viewed as different aisles on the same tier.
For instance. Savage may make a rifle as rugged, dependable and close to as accurate as a Weatherby.
Based upon practical criteria, they both could be top tier, but Savage is not in the same class as Weatherby in terms of finish.
So, we might have something like Top Tier Standard (Savage), Top Tier Exclusive (Weatherby) and Top Tier Custom ( Les Bear)
I never think of Savage as a Top Gun Manufacturer but that is solely based on popularity, not quality. Do we even want to give popularity a weight in this ranking?
Kel-Tec is another good example for defining our criteria. Amazingly innovative and daring, actually creating, or spotlighting an existing niche, that is then jumped on by more established companies.
Great topic here...might come up with a DRTV Rating System ;D ;D
-
Not only are their several tiers, it might be viewed as different aisles on the same tier.
For instance. Savage may make a rifle as rugged, dependable and close to as accurate as a Weatherby.
Based upon practical criteria, they both could be top tier, but Savage is not in the same class as Weatherby in terms of finish.
So, we might have something like Top Tier Standard (Savage), Top Tier Exclusive (Weatherby) and Top Tier Custom ( Les Bear)
I never think of Savage as a Top Gun Manufacturer but that is solely based on popularity, not quality. Do we even want to give popularity a weight in this ranking?
Kel-Tec is another good example for defining our criteria. Amazingly innovative and daring, actually creating, or spotlighting an existing niche, that is then jumped on by more established companies.
Great topic here...might come up with a DRTV Rating System ;D ;D
I think you're way wrong there, Solus. Savage is much more accurate than Weatherby.
-
Not only are their several tiers, it might be viewed as different aisles on the same tier.
For instance. Savage may make a rifle as rugged, dependable and close to as accurate as a Weatherby.
Based upon practical criteria, they both could be top tier, but Savage is not in the same class as Weatherby in terms of finish.
So, we might have something like Top Tier Standard (Savage), Top Tier Exclusive (Weatherby) and Top Tier Custom ( Les Bear)
I never think of Savage as a Top Gun Manufacturer but that is solely based on popularity, not quality. Do we even want to give popularity a weight in this ranking?
Kel-Tec is another good example for defining our criteria. Amazingly innovative and daring, actually creating, or spotlighting an existing niche, that is then jumped on by more established companies.
Great topic here...might come up with a DRTV Rating System ;D ;D
It would be a fun discussion, but we would never agree.
For example, Bafsu and I seem to disagree on the priority of workmanship versus innovation.
Another thing, the OP was about the "Manufacturers", not necessarily just their product, with that in mind we should be considering things like management, customer service, and responsiveness to the desires of the market as well as purely product related items.
Truth is though, few of us give a crap about any of that as long as we are happy with the new blaster. ;D
-
I think you're way wrong there, Solus. Savage is much more accurate than Weatherby.
I own a couple of Savage rifles and have found them to be great value....and accurate...and they have gotten better than the ones I purchased in the 90s.
I've never shot a Weatherby, or even held one, but I've seen them at gun shows and their beauty left me staring.....not willing to touch such a work of art....I hadn't just washed my hands and hadn't a pair of soft white gloves to wear.
I felt comparing my humble Savages to a Weatherby, as I did, was going far enough.
-
It would be a fun discussion, but we would never agree.
For example, Bafsu and I seem to disagree on the priority of workmanship versus innovation.
Another thing, the OP was about the "Manufacturers", not necessarily just their product, with that in mind we should be considering things like management, customer service, and responsiveness to the desires of the market as well as purely product related items.
Truth is though, few of us give a crap about any of that as long as we are happy with the new blaster. ;D
Yeah...we know the bottom line is how each of us feels about his weapons....except those 1911 junkies...what are they thinking anyway? ;D ;D ;D...and just joking...I like my 1911, but carry a Glock.
But, all that aside, I bet we could come up with a rating system with weightings and enough categories at the various tier levels to achieve a happy consensus....but who is gonna care enough to do all the work?
I'll do it for ammo ;D ;D ;D lots of ammo.
-
It would be a fun discussion, but we would never agree.
For example, Bafsu and I seem to disagree on the priority of workmanship versus innovation.
Another thing, the OP was about the "Manufacturers", not necessarily just their product, with that in mind we should be considering things like management, customer service, and responsiveness to the desires of the market as well as purely product related items.
Truth is though, few of us give a crap about any of that as long as we are happy with the new blaster. ;D
AMEN! ;D
-
I own a couple of Savage rifles and have found them to be great value....and accurate...and they have gotten better than the ones I purchased in the 90s.
I've never shot a Weatherby, or even held one, but I've seen them at gun shows and their beauty left me staring.....not willing to touch such a work of art....I hadn't just washed my hands and hadn't a pair of soft white gloves to wear.
I felt comparing my humble Savages to a Weatherby, as I did, was going far enough.
I hate to spoil another man's gun lust, but this is for your own good Solus. I owned a Weatherby Mark V. It had a Monte Carlo stock of deeply burled three shades of color walnut, gold trigger and a bluing so deep you could read the paper in it. I traded that sucker for a Ruger M77 MarkII and never looked back. Enough said. ;D
FQ13
-
I own a couple of Savage rifles and have found them to be great value....and accurate...and they have gotten better than the ones I purchased in the 90s.
I've never shot a Weatherby, or even held one, but I've seen them at gun shows and their beauty left me staring.....not willing to touch such a work of art....I hadn't just washed my hands and hadn't a pair of soft white gloves to wear.
I felt comparing my humble Savages to a Weatherby, as I did, was going far enough.
I have shot both. At a gun range I used to belong to a guy was next to me cursing his rifle. I had my (then new) Savage 111F 30-06 with a 4x Tasco Pronghorn scope on it. He kept complaining about his accuracy then noticed I was doing pretty damn well (I was having a 'good' eyes day). He asked if I would shoot his and see if I could get the size of the groups down.
I shot it and could not get below 2.5 inches at 100 yards. My Savage was putting them in a quarter. Drove him crazy. He spent a BUNCH of cash on the gun and the Swavarski glass and my $500 outfit was destroying him. He said damn pretty, next time he was buying a Savage!
-
I hate to spoil another man's gun lust, but this is for your own good Solus. I owned a Weatherby Mark V. It had a Monte Carlo stock of deeply burled three shades of color walnut, gold trigger and a bluing so deep you could read the paper in it. I traded that sucker for a Ruger M77 MarkII and never looked back. Enough said. ;D
FQ13
Oh...any lust I had for a Weatherby quickly turned to one based solely on looks.
After shooting my Savages and even my Olympic Arms Match AR, I realized that an improvement in accuracy, if any improvement was to even be offered, would be so small I'd be paying thousands for each .1" that might be there.
But it was beautiful and carried a mystique.
I must have been drooling over it because the one selling it at the gun show walked up and told me not to even touch it unless I could afford it.
-
Oh...any lust I had for a Weatherby quickly turned to one based solely on looks.
After shooting my Savages and even my Olympic Arms Match AR, I realized that an improvement in accuracy, if any improvement was to even be offered, would be so small I'd be paying thousands for each .1" that might be there.
But it was beautiful and carried a mystique.
I must have been drooling over it because the one selling it at the gun show walked up and told me not to even touch it unless I could afford it.
If you really want one I think you can still get one for "free" or as near as. The Bank of Boulder was, and still might be, offering this deal where if you put some bucks into a zero interest long term CD you got your choice of a Weatherby rifle, shotgun, or Sage rod combo. Given that interest rates on CDs are so low, I'd jump on it if its still there. The Weatherby did shoot well, sub MOA, but I just thought it was so ornate as to be tacky. I like simple in my guns. Its just a personel thing. Nothing wrong with flash if thats what you like. I just got lucky with my Ruger as it is a tack driver that shoots as well or better than the Weatherby. I have heard from other Ruger owners that this is about a one in three chance. Some are great, others just good. You pays your money and takes your chances. I'd have bought a Savage, but they weren't making LH models standard at the time and the gun dealer offered me a straight up trade on the Ruger and a nice piece of glass.
FQ13
-
As an example, I would rate the Kel Tec P3AT higher than the Ruger LCP since, regardless of materials or appearence Ruger simply cloned a proven popular design.
Another example of not looking past the "looks" and actually looking at the design. I'm guessing the clone your implying is the LCP is supposedly a clone of the P3AT? Sure they look a little alike, although that ugly extractor on the P3AT that looks like my 8yo son designed and installed sets them apart instantly. The LCP is a completely different design and the key difference is it works. I would not count on a P3AT to defend myself, I've owned 3 all jamming little pieces of crap. Sure Kel-Tec warranties them well but I got tired of sending them in. I don't have anything against Kel-Tec I've got a Sub-2K and a RFB and think they're both great designs. I also think the P32 is a decent pistol, especially for the price. I've yet to see one of their 380's digest 50 rounds without a hang up though, mine or anyone else I know that owned one. My LCP, before I got rid of it, had 300+rds of mixed ammo, and I mean everything from cheap, import surplus crap to glasers to +p premium ammo with no hicups. The only reason I got rid of it was I never carried it once I got my 357 airlite j-frame.
Kel-Tec is a tier 3 or lower to me, sure they're innovative but when half the stuff they innovate is pure crap that you can't depend on until it's been tweaked 3 or 4 times by them how can you call them a quality manufacturer? Customer service is very important but if you do it right from the beginning, perfect fit and finish and a well thought out design, be it yours or someone elses then customer service isn't that important. I don't know how Ed Brown's customer service is, my Ed Brown Special Forces 1911 is almost 15 years old, it was about 4 years old with nearly 5k through it when I bought it. I've put another 10k easy through it over the last 11 years. It has more bare metal than finish right now but will still shoot 1 mag into 1 ragged hole from 15 yards. I've never had to see how the customer service is since it was done right from the start. I've had 2 malfunctions in all those rounds and they were both magazine related. Sometime in the next few years I plan to send it back in to get it fully checked out and refinished, maybe a new barrel. So far the only thing I've done to it other than cleaning is a new recoil spring a couple years ago. I'vve got friends who have similar experiences with Les Baer and I've got similar stories with STI. I've got Kimber's that have run nearly as well and I've got Kimber's I've sent back.
I'm totally pleased with Kimber's service. I had issues with a pistol that had an external extractor and after 3 trips back they put on a brand new, custom shop tuned internal extractor top end and refinished the frame and sent it back with 3 brand new tuned magazines as well. That's why I own 7 (as of today) Kimber's. I know even if I get a dud I'll get it back better than it should've been to start with.
-
Yeah...we know the bottom line is how each of us feels about his weapons....except those 1911 junkies...what are they thinking anyway? ;D ;D ;D...and just joking...I like my 1911, but carry a Glock.
Watch it pal! My 1911 can beat up your glock. ;D
I don't think you can make the list based solely on the manufacturer. I think it needs to be based solely on the firearm as one manufacturer may make one gun well but the other could be a total POS (insert Kimber). You can grade the company as a whole but you still need subgroups.
Just a thought. Makes my simple brain hurt.
-
Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.
-
Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.
Its always going to be hard to classify a company. Look at Ruger. They gave us the 10/22. But they also gave us the mini-14. The revolvers are great, but their pistols.....? I guess you have to look at overall reputation. With Ruger I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. With Charter or Kel-tec I am sceptical until I'm convinced otherwise. Its not exactly fair to the new kids on the block, especially those who start out by making cheap entry level guns to get started, and then move up to higher quality pieces as they can afford to do so. Still, I think its just human nature to view things in that manner.
FQ13
-
Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.
I think it is possible, but it would take a lot of "bookkeeping" work to set it up and I doubt folks are interested enough to spend time at it.
-
Its always going to be hard to classify a company. Look at Ruger. They gave us the 10/22. But they also gave us the mini-14. The revolvers are great, but their pistols.....? I guess you have to look at overall reputation. With Ruger I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. With Charter or Kel-tec I am sceptical until I'm convinced otherwise. Its not exactly fair to the new kids on the block, especially those who start out by making cheap entry level guns to get started, and then move up to higher quality pieces as they can afford to do so. Still, I think its just human nature to view things in that manner.
FQ13
You are correct, but if we rate the products instead and use a summary of the ratings of the products, we can get an approximation of the company's rating.
-
You are correct, but if we rate the products instead and use a summary of the ratings of the products, we can get an approximation of the company's rating.
True, but even then its tough. Lets take a Les Baer or equvilent 1911 and a Glock. When it comes to fit and finish and accuracy, that 1911 will run cirles around the Glock. If I were to get to choose one free of charge as a range toy, or even a nightstand gun I'd take the 1911 and giggle all the way home. On the other hand, if it were my carry gun I'd take the Glock any day due to the lack of an external safety to mess with (and maybe trip up on), reliability, durability and the fact that they will shoot just fine dirty. Is the Glock the better gun? Not really, but its the one I'd rather carry if things got serious. We could make the same arguments about Ruger or Smith revolvers and the list goes on. Its a fun topic though.
FQ13
-
Bafsu's last post illustrates why we would have such trouble coming up with any break down.
There is to much subjective opinion involved, his experience is that the P3AT sux, mine on the other hand is just the opposite.
The same will hold true for any other category.
Customer service for example, Taurus was excoriated in several past threads for lousy CS, but each of those threads contained posts by people who were quite pleased with the way they were treated and the service they recieved.
Truly classifying hand gun manufacturers is going to ultimately be just as personal as preferences in the guns themselves.
We quite frequently agree to disagree but I couldn't have said it any better myself. Like I said from my first post what tier your gun is in should only apply to you. If you like it, shoot it well and carry it as much as you can then screw other people's opinions, it's a tier 1 gun to you.
-
True, but even then its tough. Lets take a Les Baer or equvilent 1911 and a Glock. When it comes to fit and finish and accuracy, that 1911 will run cirles around the Glock. If I were to get to choose one free of charge as a range toy, or even a nightstand gun I'd take the 1911 and giggle all the way home. On the other hand, if it were my carry gun I'd take the Glock any day due to the lack of an external safety to mess with (and maybe trip up on), reliability, durability and the fact that they will shoot just fine dirty. Is the Glock the better gun? Not really, but its the one I'd rather carry if things got serious. We could make the same arguments about Ruger or Smith revolvers and the list goes on. Its a fun topic though.
FQ13
It's a good point. I feel comfortable knowing my Glocks will always go bang. It's funny because I'm very comfortable and confident with my 1911's. Just about every training class I've taken paid for has been with a 1911 but I've probably got more rounds through the Glocks because of work and the classes and training I've done with the Glocks. I shoot both Glocks and 1911's in IDPA so I get a lot of rounds through both. Today I carried a Kimber Pro Raptor 1911 that is 100% reliable, while yesterday I carried a Glock 19. I feel fine with either and if either lets me down I still have the 357 airlite J-frame in my front pocket.
-
Its always going to be hard to classify a company. Look at Ruger. They gave us the 10/22. But they also gave us the mini-14. The revolvers are great, but their pistols.....? I guess you have to look at overall reputation. With Ruger I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. With Charter or Kel-tec I am sceptical until I'm convinced otherwise. Its not exactly fair to the new kids on the block, especially those who start out by making cheap entry level guns to get started, and then move up to higher quality pieces as they can afford to do so. Still, I think its just human nature to view things in that manner.
FQ13
You might be interested to know that these 2 "New kids on the block " have been around for quite a while.
http://www.keltecweapons.com/about/
Kel-Tec CNC Industries, Inc. was founded 1991 in Cocoa , Florida . Initially, a CNC machine shop, Kel-Tec started to manufacture firearms in 1995. Specializing in innovative rifle designs and handguns for concealed carry by law enforcement personnel and qualified citizens, we are now one of the top five handgun makers in the US , making us one of the largest firearms manufacturers in the World.
http://www.charterfirearms.com/about%20us/about_Charter_Firearms.html
A Proud History
In New England's Gun Valley, gun making is a tradition that stretches back for generations. In 1964 a new tradition was born, when a young gun designer named Douglas McClennahan founded Charter Arms
-
Personally, I don't have a problem with Charter Arms revolvers. I've shot a few and their not bad considering. They do what they're advertised to do and you can't ask for more than that. I thought it was quite a statement when the ownership of Charter gave away the transfer bar technology to make carrying safer.
I can't buy a Kel-Tec here so I can't comment. I've heard (read) both sides of that argument.
Tier one = "Trust your life to it"
Tier two = "use it for competition"
Tier three = "use it to punch paper or have some fun"
Tier four, five, six, seven.....= "everything else"
-
After reading all 4 pages, what are the parameters...? It can't be price, or "custom" vs. "stock"...to determine a tier. I've seen Luke Skywalker competition race guns with a Tiffany, Cartier list of mega bling components FAIL...
and a cheap utterly neglected and abused Taurus always work..
So, I'll use a performance car analogy,
Stock Ferrari: "Top Tier"
Stock Aston Martin "Top Tier"
Custom 69 Camaro with a "package" to run 9's in the 1/4 mile and remain street legal...."top tier"?
Seen a tweaked up Mustang come close also....... ::)
Certainly a Mustang/Camaro can't compare to an Aston Martin in the stock fit and finish category,.....but,....with a little tweaks and love....it would leave them behind.
So the Les Baer, Ed Brown, "custom's" tweak an otherwise "stock" pistol and give it tweaks and love to make it top tier.
While a $500 Glock (and some others), out of the box, are damn hard to get to fail, even with cheap a** steel case dug up surplus.
Great ideological question, certainly manufacturers, over the years, got "some" models right, and "some " models wrong.
I don't think that necessarily changes a "tier" rating.....
Plus there is caliber considerations....and that is another "tier" in the mix,.... ;)
-
After reading all 4 pages, what are the parameters...? It can't be price, or "custom" vs. "stock"...to determine a tier. I've seen Luke Skywalker competition race guns with a Tiffany, Cartier list of mega bling components FAIL...
and a cheap utterly neglected and abused Taurus always work..
So, I'll use a performance car analogy,
Stock Ferrari: "Top Tier"
Stock Aston Martin "Top Tier"
Custom 69 Camaro with a "package" to run 9's in the 1/4 mile and remain street legal...."top tier"?
Seen a tweaked up Mustang come close also....... ::)
Certainly a Mustang/Camaro can't compare to an Aston Martin in the stock fit and finish category,.....but,....with a little tweaks and love....it would leave them behind.
So the Les Baer, Ed Brown, "custom's" tweak an otherwise "stock" pistol and give it tweaks and love to make it top tier.
While a $500 Glock (and some others), out of the box, are damn hard to get to fail, even with cheap a** steel case dug up surplus.
Great ideological question, certainly manufacturers, over the years, got "some" models right, and "some " models wrong.
I don't think that necessarily changes a "tier" rating.....
Plus there is caliber considerations....and that is another "tier" in the mix,.... ;)
Pretty much what you think is important, it seems that every one of us has different criteria, and personal experience influences how we rate each product.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Charter Arms revolvers. I've shot a few and their not bad considering. They do what they're advertised to do and you can't ask for more than that. I thought it was quite a statement when the ownership of Charter gave away the transfer bar technology to make carrying safer.
I can't buy a Kel-Tec here so I can't comment. I've heard (read) both sides of that argument.
Tier one = "Trust your life to it"
Tier two = "use it for competition"
Tier three = "use it to punch paper or have some fun"
Tier four, five, six, seven.....= "everything else"
Tim seems to have come up with a good system, but again it will be dependent on the product.
Would you "Trust your life to" a Sig P226 ?
What about the Mosquito ?
-
If you are talking 1911s these guys are all second tier.
Your discussion is poorly framed and without any real definitions or parameters. Such is common with discussions of this type. Another Ford-Chevy thing.
Yes... I wanted to offer an open-ended question. In your opinion, Ichiban, which 1911 makers are top tier?
-
Still looking at Top Tier as a single category.
In the automobile category, Mercedes and BMW might be Top Tier, but not when measured by the performance criteria of a Ferrari and vice versa.
the categories for a firearm need to be specific to the purpose it was designed to perform....and some of those features might be a disadvantage for other considerations.
Again, back to the automobile example. A tweaked Camaro can outperform a Ferrari at the dragstrip, but put it on a road course and and the Camaro will lag behind.
Also, from the automobile example, the cost of maintaining a Ferrari just to keep it tuned and replacing normal worn parts would probably buy a Camaro or two over it's life.
How well it meets it's design objectives/dollar of cost might also be a criteria.
You can't expect a Ruger Mark II to meet the performance criteria of a .45 Casull and vice versa. And neither one will meet the performance criteria for a Concealed Carry weapon.
This is what lead me to consider the performance of a firearm company would really be how well it's products met the criteria for the performance for which they were designed.
-
I don't place them in any order. If I have a chance to try something I haven't, I do, otherwise I will not buy a brand I haven't tried out. I just buy what I like if it is a good deal and forget the rest. I might be loosing out on something special, but that is my loss.
FWIW
Richard
-
Yes... I wanted to offer an open-ended question. In your opinion, Ichiban, which 1911 makers are top tier?
I consider top tier 1911s to include (but not limited to) Wilson, Brown, Baer, Nighthawk, Volkmann, Rogers, and a handful of others that currently slip my mind. While they may not function any better than the second tier, the fit, finish, and accuracy is better. Oh, and of course, the bragging rights that come standard with a $3000.00 handgun. ;D
Personally, I can appreciate but do not covet guns of that status. YMMV.
-
I consider top tier 1911s to include (but not limited to) Wilson, Brown, Baer, Nighthawk, Volkmann, Rogers, and a handful of others that currently slip my mind. While they may not function any better than the second tier, the fit, finish, and accuracy is better. Oh, and of course, the bragging rights that come standard with a $3000.00 handgun. ;D
Personally, I can appreciate but do not covet guns of that status. YMMV.
I'm disappointed Ichiban, You left out Randall and Coonan. ;D
-
I'm disappointed Ichiban, You left out Randall and Coonan. ;D
"and a handful of others that currently slip my mind. " Always CYA. ;D
-
The whole "Top Tier" thing comes from the AR-15 world where it defines if all of the Mil-Spec requirements are met. Colt, BCM, Noveske, Daniel Defense all meet the Mil-Spec and TDP, and are therefore considered "Top Tier". It filters down from there as to how much of the gun is Mil-Spec, and how much isn't. Some companies batch test MPI and HPT for bolt carrier groups, while other "Top Tier" builders check every one. Others like Olympic Arms don't do much of any of it. Their guns still run fine, but would never be considered by the military, anymore than they would consider a $9.95 toilet seat from Home Depot when they could get one for $10,000.00 by having contractors submit bids.
Now when you get into handguns all of this goes totally out the window because there is no Mil-Spec to be met, except for the Beretta M-9 Service Pistol. Many handguns cover that easily. From there it's all apples and oranges. In short, I don't think you can apply it because it all falls into personal choice, not a dictated specification.
For example someone might consider Weatherby a "Top Tier" builder because they like the high luster finish on a Mark V DeLuxe. Others think it's too pimped out, and prefer a matte "Tactical" finish, and so on. A Kel-Tec might wind up running better than a Springfield XD, or it might not. Which is "better"? It's almost impossible to ascertain.
-
The whole "Top Tier" thing comes from the AR-15 world where it defines if all of the Mil-Spec requirements are met. Colt, BCM, Noveske, Daniel Defense all meet the Mil-Spec and TDP, and are therefore considered "Top Tier". It filters down from there as to how much of the gun is Mil-Spec, and how much isn't. Some companies batch test MPI and HPT for bolt carrier groups, while other "Top Tier" builders check every one. Others like Olympic Arms don't do much of any of it. Their guns still run fine, but would never be considered by the military, anymore than they would consider a $9.95 toilet seat from Home Depot when they could get one for $10,000.00 by having contractors submit bids.
Now when you get into handguns all of this goes totally out the window because there is no Mil-Spec to be met, except for the Beretta M-9 Service Pistol. Many handguns cover that easily. From there it's all apples and oranges. In short, I don't think you can apply it because it all falls into personal choice, not a dictated specification.
For example someone might consider Weatherby a "Top Tier" builder because they like the high luster finish on a Mark V DeLuxe. Others think it's too pimped out, and prefer a matte "Tactical" finish, and so on. A Kel-Tec might wind up running better than a Springfield XD, or it might not. Which is "better"? It's almost impossible to ascertain.
I think if any high level specialty agency military or police, select a pistol as their issue gun then it should at the very least get a top tier nomination. Examples would be the HKmk23 (US Spec-Ops among others), Kimber TLEII/SIS (LAPD Swat/SIS), Springfield TRP (FBI-HRT [also allegedly use Nighthawk and Wilson pistols]) Les Baer Ultimate Recon (Dallas SWAT, Kansas City SWAT & more) etc. I put more stock into pistols used by groups who have a choice of anything they want.
-
I think if any high level specialty agency military or police, select a pistol as their issue gun then it should at the very least get a top tier nomination. Examples would be the HKmk23 (US Spec-Ops among others), Kimber TLEII/SIS (LAPD Swat/SIS), Springfield TRP (FBI-HRT [also allegedly use Nighthawk and Wilson pistols]) Les Baer Ultimate Recon (Dallas SWAT, Kansas City SWAT & more) etc. I put more stock into pistols used by groups who have a choice of anything they want.
Or GLOCK!
-
Or GLOCK!
Kind of, I think you can't beat a Glock for price to quality to reliability and even though it is without doubt the highest used handgun by rank and file police and lots of the world's military I don't know of one special operations group or unit that uses them. I would assume the vast majority of "regular" cops and troops like them, easy learning curve and easy to maintain. The thing is true operators who can choose exactly what they want to carry, sometimes right down to the man never picks a Glock. Someone who has an advanced level of training and isn't really worried about ease of use and maintenance pick something that's pretty much hand built, usually by their own hand, an armorer/smith they personally know or a custom shop smith from one of the big 1911 builders or HK spec-ops division. For that reason only I'd have Glock right on top of the 2nd tier. Honestly though if you can't afford a pistol that's $1500-$2000 minimum and if you don't know how to take every piece off that pistol and rebuild it then a Glock is probably your best choice.
-
And this is what puzzles me Basfu. I don't get that. If I were operating in a clean environment and wanted pin point accuracy a Glock would be far down on my list. If I were operating in the sand box or in a jungle and 4" was good enough, even if cleaning meant stripping it down and pissing on it and running a knotted shoe string through the barrel, I can't think of a hand gun I'd rather own. It's weird to me that more of our SF and particularly SEAL types don't carry them. I mean hell, the tennifer isn't just a coating, its embededd in the metal. For sand and salt, what is there better on the market?
FQ13
-
The thing is true operators who can choose exactly what they want to carry, sometimes right down to the man never picks a Glock. Someone who has an advanced level of training and isn't really worried about ease of use and maintenance pick something that's pretty much hand built, usually by their own hand, an armorer/smith they personally know or a custom shop smith from one of the big 1911 builders or HK spec-ops division. For that reason only I'd have Glock right on top of the 2nd tier. Honestly though if you can't afford a pistol that's $1500-$2000 minimum and if you don't know how to take every piece off that pistol and rebuild it then a Glock is probably your best choice.
"Afford" isn't a question for military (or LE) operators is it? Our TAX dollars pay for it.
The HK Mk 23 is listed as a SEAL handgun as well as the SIG 228 (M11). At least by this link:
http://information.usnavyseals.com/2010/01/navy-seal-weapons-handguns.html
-
The fact there is no "Tier" system that is set for handguns, means there is really no way one can be met. Saying this one is "better" than that one is all based on conjecture and personal opinion, not on what the parts are made of. Is a H&K USP "better" than a Glock? Not in my book, and I own and shoot both. If my life were to depend on one single handgun it would be a Glock based on how well they run, not if a Special Forces outfit uses them along with their own custom gunsmith, who basically rebuilds the gun from the ground up on the taxpayers dime before the soldier fires shot one.
It's the same with all of these 1911's these guys use. I seriously doubt if one of them is a box stock model. I remember in the 70's Armand Swenson had a year long waiting list for his 1911's. If you were a soldier wanting one of his guns, he would "bump you up" on the waiting list if you were on active duty. Today these outfits have their own custom gunsmiths and armory's that build pretty much whatever they need or want. This no longer requires the military to go to the private sector to get their guns customized the way we do.
All of this complicates the issue even more. The Mk. 23 SOCOM Pistol by H&K sells out of the box for around $2,300.00. Then God only knows what the Special Ops. gunsmiths do to it before Joe Seal gets deployed with it. I can all but guarantee you not one gun carried into Bin Laden's house was a box stock model, regardless of make. While there is nothing "wrong" with this, it makes it all but impossible to establish a "Tier" system of what guns qualify, and which ones don't.
-
HK's are nice, but they cater to the miiltary/police, not civilians. For the price, I could own several Glocks that I would bet my life on.
Hi Point was put on a lower tier. I think they do not get the respect they deserve. I have owned a Hi-Point and would be willing to own another. Just hate the low capacity magazines but they also have a lifetime warranty.
Currently own, or should I say my wife owns, the Taurus 92 AFS in 9mm. It also is an absolute tack driver. More accurate than any Beretta I carried in the Air Force. Love the key that shuts down the trigger to keep it safe.
Smith and Wesson are really nice for revolvers and the Smith and Wesson M&P. Never cared for their other semi-autos. But customer service has a lot to be desired.
Never cared for Rugers till I purchased the LCP. Totally changed my mind about Ruger that I always thought of as cheap. Now they are putting out quality semi-autos with the SR9. Did like their revolvers by the way.
We all have our opinions and not matter what, we would disagree on one portion or another which is one thing I really enjoy about this forum. ;D
-
"Afford" isn't a question for military (or LE) operators is it? Our TAX dollars pay for it.
The HK Mk 23 is listed as a SEAL handgun as well as the SIG 228 (M11). At least by this link:
http://information.usnavyseals.com/2010/01/navy-seal-weapons-handguns.html
I didn't mean that towards operators, I meant to the general public, if you can't afford one of those then you should probably choose a Glock since it would be your most reliable choice if you don't have the money and knowledge.
-
And this is what puzzles me Basfu. I don't get that. If I were operating in a clean environment and wanted pin point accuracy a Glock would be far down on my list. If I were operating in the sand box or in a jungle and 4" was good enough, even if cleaning meant stripping it down and pissing on it and running a knotted shoe string through the barrel, I can't think of a hand gun I'd rather own. It's weird to me that more of our SF and particularly SEAL types don't carry them. I mean hell, the tennifer isn't just a coating, its embededd in the metal. For sand and salt, what is there better on the market?
FQ13
I wouldn't be surprised if they would use a Glock for certain missions when the handgun was only a backup weapon. The difference is for most regular troops a sidearm is a last resort defensive weapon, right before you go to rock, knife or fist. For an operator the entire mission plan might be based around a handgun as the primary assault option, especially in a cqb setting with a suppressed pistol. The Glock's don't really suppress well from my experience where pistols like the Mk23 are designed from the bench up to be suppressed. Same thing with the custom 1911's they choose, they are bench tuned to a suppressor if that is part of the op. The Glock is probably the very best "jack of all trades, master of none" type pistol. If you could only own one psitol in 99.9% of the cases it should probably be a Glock. If you can own as many as you want you really don't have a need to own even one Glock. If you're somewhere in the middle like most people are then you probably own a couple of them and know you can count on them even when your higher priced toys may fail you.
-
I didn't mean that towards operators, I meant to the general public, if you can't afford one of those then you should probably choose a Glock since it would be your most reliable choice if you don't have the money and knowledge.
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this thought. If someone doesn't have $2000+++ for a Wilson or Brown or Nighthawk 1911 or God forbid a chunky, oversized HK and know how to rebuild it, they should get a Glock?
Doesn't make sense.
Why should I have stopped myself from owning the fine Colt and SIG 1911s I have or any of the SIG P series pistols I have just because I can't "rebuild it myself" and it didn't cost mega-mega-bucks? That's what pistolsmiths or customer service is for.
The 1911s had the $140 for the gunsmith trigger/reliability jobs added in my head to price. They are 100% reliable, accurate as hell and eat ANY ammo. They cost damn less, with the sight upgrades and gunsmith than the custom builders want for a basic gun.
A SIG armorers DVD only cost $23. The SIGs only need new springs once in a while and have been 100%.
None of these P series or 1911s have a custom builders name on them but looking at the tidy groups they shoot, the target doesn't care. Can they make a brainstem shot at 25 yards if I do my part? You bet your ass they can.
And none of them go full auto like some high dollar custom guns...cough...les baer...cough.
-
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this thought. If someone doesn't have $2000+++ for a Wilson or Brown or Nighthawk 1911 or God forbid a chunky, oversized HK and know how to rebuild it, they should get a Glock?
Doesn't make sense.
Why should I have stopped myself from owning the fine Colt and SIG 1911s I have or any of the SIG P series pistols I have just because I can't "rebuild it myself" and it didn't cost mega-mega-bucks? That's what pistolsmiths or customer service is for.
The 1911s had the $140 for the gunsmith trigger/reliability jobs added in my head to price. They are 100% reliable, accurate as hell and eat ANY ammo. They cost damn less, with the sight upgrades and gunsmith than the custom builders want for a basic gun.
A SIG armorers DVD only cost $23. The SIGs only need new springs once in a while and have been 100%.
None of these P series or 1911s have a custom builders name on them but looking at the tidy groups they shoot, the target doesn't care. Can they make a brainstem shot at 25 yards if I do my part? You bet your ass they can.
And none of them go full auto like some high dollar custom guns...cough...les baer...cough.
The point I was trying to make was the Glock will basically do everything the $2k pistols will do, outside of maybe the degree of accuracy, and they are pretty simple to work on yourself. If you like a Sig, or other brand better than the Glock have at it. Liek I said from the very beginning I think a true tier 1 pistol is one you will carry as much as possible and shoot the most effectively, regardless of brand. I've personally streamlined my auto pistol inventory to only 1911's, 9mm Glocks and 9mm & 45 FNP's. I've done this for a few reasons, personally choice, ease of training, parts/magazine interchangeability etc. I think more in a survivalist mode of one is none, two is one etc. so I like owning in redundancy. I've got a few other pistols in the safe, mostly inherited items or stuff for my wife & kids, .22's etc. I personally don't like Sig auto pistols.
I've owned a few and don't like the high bore axis, double action/single action changeover or the fact that they aren't really left hand friendly. I've tried XD's, M&P's etc. and they're all decent guns but won't do anything better than a Glock will. I can buy Glocks cheaper and I think they're easier to work on and parts are easier to get and more plentiful. I've got huge hands and have never had an issue with the grip or angle of a Glock. I don't really like the finger grooves but I can fix that to my liking in under an hour. I fix all my own stuff for the most part, I use gunsmiths for certain things, more for convenience. I like the fact that I can fix my own stuff and modify it the way I want.
I kind of like to use the Casio G-Shock versus a nice hand fitted automatic watch argument for the Glock vs. tuned 1911. Both will keep adequate time and serve the needs of most people. The Glock like the Casio is rugged and will do it with little to no service needed. The tuned 1911 may run better, and more accurately, but like the hand fitted automatic watch movement it will need more servicing to stay at the highest level. If you don't know how to do at least some of this tuning yourself then it might not be the best choice for you. If you decide you still want to own one and can't work on it yourself then be prepared to pay for somewhat regular maintenance and tunings. Therefore if you just like it but don't really "need" it then you would probably be better buying a Glock or "Brand X" pistol that doesn't need so much attention.
If you really want a 1911 but don't want to go through the trouble of a tuned model then a Sig or S&W 1911 is a good choice. The external extractor takes a lot of the tuning issues away. I think they're very nice pistols but don't really consider them a true 1911, a good compromise though. And before you beat me up I own a S&W 1911 and my wife has a Sig 1911 so I'm not hating on them. I just don't see them in the same light I do a fine tuned, perfectly fitted and running "real" 1911.
-
Understood.
I didn't mean for my post to be as snarky as it read...my bad. If we were able to have this conversation over a beer it would be SO much better. ;D
I can't afford custom built guns anymore. Just getting the tuning, finishes, barrels and tweaks on the ones I own now is plenty for a retired guy.
A "custom mass produced" like NightHawk or STI is out of my reach. Forget about true custom guns. My SIG 1911 & Colt GCT are the only 'higher' dollar 1911s I have currently with the work done on them. Sending them off for a full blown custom redo is out of the question unless I sell some guns - and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Both are EDC reliable but due to weight, size and summer sweat, I carry a G27 for EDC/CCW.
After shooting all my SIGs today (SIG forum get together) my first SIG, the 226 9mm was by far the one that I shot best with in moving/shooting/reloading drills. It's like running home to momma when I pick up that gun.
Tie for second was the P225 due to it being so much like the 226 and the SIG GSR 1911 due to it just being so damn accurate.
Like an idiot, I left the range bag with the Colt 1911 at home.
More frequent service/tuning needed in a custom built 1911 or anything else for that matter is not where I'm at right now. It's kinda like asking the Jag owner, "So, how long have you had it out of the shop?"
I want dead nuts reliability, have it on hand, and accuracy...in that order.
-
Understood.
I didn't mean for my post to be as snarky as it read...my bad. If we were able to have this conversation over a beer it would be SO much better. ;D
I can't afford custom built guns anymore. Just getting the tuning, finishes, barrels and tweaks on the ones I own now is plenty for a retired guy.
A "custom mass produced" like NightHawk or STI is out of my reach. Forget about true custom guns. My SIG 1911 & Colt GCT are the only 'higher' dollar 1911s I have currently with the work done on them. Sending them off for a full blown custom redo is out of the question unless I sell some guns - and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Both are EDC reliable but due to weight, size and summer sweat, I carry a G27 for EDC/CCW.
After shooting all my SIGs today (SIG forum get together) my first SIG, the 226 9mm was by far the one that I shot best with in moving/shooting/reloading drills. It's like running home to momma when I pick up that gun.
Tie for second was the P225 due to it being so much like the 226 and the SIG GSR 1911 due to it just being so damn accurate.
Like an idiot, I left the range bag with the Colt 1911 at home.
More frequent service/tuning needed in a custom built 1911 or anything else for that matter is not where I'm at right now. It's kinda like asking the Jag owner, "So, how long have you had it out of the shop?"
I want dead nuts reliability, have it on hand, and accuracy...in that order.
I hear you, the only place worse to misunderstand someone's tone is a text message. As far as custom 1911's go if you get in the market take a serious look at Les Baer. I've owned some of the "higher end" guns like Wilson, Knighthawk (I think are highly overrated) and Ed Brown that are good guns but a lot of money. Both Les Baer's I've owned (still have one) were every bit as well made and accurate for less than half the price. Every one of their pistols are still 100% hand fitted and you can buy a new one for under $1500. I've seen models advertised new for $1299 and I bought one on gunbroker (they usually have a bunch) for right at a grand. I know its still a lot of money to spend on a pistol but you're in the Springfield, Kimber price range, even cheaper than Dan Wesson. I think you get a lot more gun for your money and I've been a Kimber person for almost 15 years. I still own more Kimber's than any other 1911 brand but I'm really sold on the Baer pistols.