I would guess that most of the negative reaction you have received has more to do with Freedom Group and Remington more so than with this specific model.

Freedom Group has pissed a lot of firearm enthusiasts off the past couple of years, and many have sworn them off.

Examples:
Bushmaster: ACR debacle. Still a terrible failure. I'm sure those quick change barrels are just one more quarter away.

Bushmaster: closing shop and relocating.

Marlin: closing shop, got rid of all the employees and relocated. Nearly ruined the brand. Quality suffered immeasurably. What a travesty.

AAC: lost talent, relocated, stopped producing promising product lines.

Remington: QC in dirt, 700 Trigger cluster F, R51, refusal to market
ACR upgrades and other mil products to civilians.

Freedom Group is the evil empire of the firearms industry. I have a couple of pre-freedom group Remingtons and Marlins. But, I won't be buying anything from them in the future until they change course. Luckily, there are many other companys turning out quality products.

If your pistol consistently does what it's supposed to and you like it, then that's all the matters. I think the 1911 is among the icons of gun making and a supremely beautiful design. Here's two National Match Colts of mine from 1939 and 1966.

Lovely. I have a NM Colt from 1957. It is my favorite 1911.

If your intent was to make the original poster feel better about his purchase, you probably didn't succeed.

Sig, to answer your original question. In my opinion 1000 rounds in 3 years doesn't prove reliability. If that was the case your agency would be using just about any kind of firearm. And this is in large how I view firearms. To me reliability is those 1000 rounds in a 2 day course followed by other examples of the same to rule out a example of one. In other words ....set a track record. The way I view reliability is the Army tests or the FBI tests. It doesn't have to be exect all or nothing military test. If say a gun failed after 85k consecutive rounds but the minimum is a 100k I'm fine with that.

This is just my take on firearms and since I can't afford to buy them all and test them all like that I rely on reviews of people who do and can. Reading here or other forums about the reliability and not one hiccup after 100 rounds is not what I consider a good review. For carry gun reviews I use other forums that are more dedicated to that type of shooting.

So when RIA are cheap and cast I'd rather wait and buy something I know has proven performance instead of buying the first thing I see at a cheap price.

I learned yesterday that my indoor range's loaner Remington 1911 was taken out of service for repairs shortly after I had so much trouble with it jamming roughly a month ago. As of yesterday, they were still waiting for parts from Remington. Apparently they are unwilling to swap in generic parts or parts from a different pistol manufacturer.

In contrast, I used their Sig 1911 yesterday and it was smooth as silk. Not a single issue.

The first ones had some teething problems and ya know how the internet is.

Looks like they stayed true to the concept with a few worthy upgrades.

I own one of those horrible Filipino products and just kind of grin when I hear "You get what you pay for" from the 1911 snobs. Sometimes ya get more.

I like your example of a 2 day course where you fire 1000 rounds as a benchmark of reliability but your 100,000 military example IMHO is meaningless to 99.99% of civilian shooters, outside of professional gun games shooters.

Almost no one in civilian live is going to be shooting that much ammo out of a single pistol and if they did it would be over a long period of time. We are talking 10 to 15 years. At today's prices even if you are reloading we are talking about $16,000 worth of ammo. Those type of tests are pushing the realm IMHO because they are not based in a civilian reality where you shoot 300 rounds on a square range and go home and clean and inspect your gun.

I do however agree that firing 100 rounds of ball ammo and calling it good is not enough.

RIA use cheap labor and cast frames but they are proven to be as reliable as any other 1911 on the market IMHO. They have a better proven track record then a lot of 1911s on the market today which are sold for a lot more money. This does not mean they the end all be all or that there are not valid reasons to pass on them but lack of a proven track record is not one of them.

People have different standards for reliability. I was issued a Sig 226 in the FBI Academy in 1991 and put about 10,000 rounds though it before I graduated. We spent half of every other day on the range for 17 weeks. That gun never jammed.

Of course in 1991 everyone who read gun magazines knew you couldnt kill anything with a 147 grain 9mm Hydra Shok. I ordered a Sig 220 on my Dad's FFL and picked it up on my way to my first office - New Orleans.

I took it to the range still in the box. I took it out, loaded it up, shot a qualifying score, reloaded the mags, stuck it in the holster they gave me for the 226, and was good to go.

I spent 7 years on the violent crime fugitive task force in NO, during those pre-Katrina glory years of 435 murders a year. I once arrested 3 murderers in one day, all separate cases. I was impressed with myself but the NOPD guys could not have possibly cared less. They just wanted to get the booking sheets from central lockup and get to their second jobs.

Then I spent 17 years working violent crimes on Indian reservations, where it was just me and my Sig and a tribal criminal investigator hooking up guys miles away from everything.

Of course I eventually put more rounds through my 220. I never kept count but figure 250 rounds per qual times 4 quals a year times 24 years so far, plus firearms instructor school plus recertifications. At least 24000 rounds with no trouble.

The point of the above is I had faith in the Sig design and it never occurred to me to put thousands of rounds through the gun before trusting it to see me through some fairly dangerous stuff.

I think this idea of having to put 250 or 500 or 1000 rounds through a particular gun is the result of dozens of different 1911 makers churning out high dollar guns and putting the burden of reliability on the poor guy that just laid out two weeks of takehome pay on a custom or semi-custom 1911.

To bring it back to my 1911R1, I have faith in the 1911 design and after "only" 300 rounds through this individual gun I consider it thoroughly reliable.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I bought one also, different reason though, was looking for a dedicated lower frame for my Nelson 22LR conversion that I was shooting off of my Springfield Armory 1911 Loaded Model. Couldn't find a frame to start with in my Nanny state (Mass.) so i just broke down and bought the R1 Enhanced. I couldn't be happier, I do like 1911's, I only own two but have shot many. My R1 Enhanced is a great shooter, if I do my part it's a 3" group gun at 25 yards, the SA Loaded is slightly better. I have a great sentimental Attachment with the SA, bought it over 25 years ago to shoot with my USMC Korean war veteran father. Both of us lefties, but he trained with both hands and insisted that I did also. I could never sell it and I will cherish it forever.

#108 was a heck of a post, amigo - thanks.

__________________
Now go make God proud...