A few thoughts for opinions.
I have a few customs (although they are not custom made for me but rather made by custom makers). Are they better because they carry a well known name, because they cost more or is owning one a status symbol?
Comparing the 1911 of today by any of the makers (Colt, S&W. Remington, Clark, Baer, etc) with those made back in their beginning will show vast improvement. The 1911 made last year by any maker will likely be improved over what they did 15 yrs ago. I know for a fact S&W is building as good of a 1911 as anyone today. If anyone has a Remington 1911 from the early yrs will compare it to one of the modern guns, they will see a major difference in fit, finish, quality and lots more. I looked at a used Remington yesterday that would pass for new and may go back and get it this week for $675.
Has the 1911 changed so much it should not be a 1911? They come in about every handgun caliber there is out there. They have barrel lengths ranging from what could be called snub nose to scoped long slides that almost need a pickup truck to carry one in. Am I being a purist by thinking a 1911 needs to be 5" barrel and in .45acp just as they were when they became so popular and dependable?
Well, here's an opinion I will throw out (which others may well throw back at me
Maybe '15 years ago,' but not 30+ years ago IMO. I have owned / worked with many real 1911's and shot more than a few imitations (none $1,000 ones let alone $3,000) and the 'real' ones from the 70's were heads and shoulders above today's offerings for quality of, if nothing else, the steel. They could be polished/burnished to mirror finish thru-out their forged pieces from slide to frame to whatever and would therefore empty a magazine in unbelievable short order with any bullet w/o problems. That includes the pre Gold cup National Match (that did not 'shoot off' the rear sight) and was hand-fit at a bench at prices much less than the $3,000.00 'customs' currently offered, and some of the currently 'famed send-backs' that became so popular that they often slip thru quality control.
Some competitive shooters have had good luck with current 1911 imitations and justifiably perhaps touted them; but I wonder how many of them have had the privilege of shooting the older ones when craftsmanship - from the steel we made to the integrity of build - still meant something. (Perhaps they were over-built like the 'real' Cadillac cars of yesteryear?
I don't remember ever seeing an older 45 coming with a 'recommended break in period' either. IMO, that in itself is more of a caveat / excuse than a sign of assured manufacturing.
True, now they are mostly all 'good.' But I see that as simply being in comparison to their 'contemporaries;' i.e. their own group of 'equal lessers.' But 'better? Having greater and more consistent potential
from gun to gun? Not IMO.
And yes, I agree with you that the barrel should be the same as (when you yourself say) they were so popular and
dependable. And no, nothing is 'better simply' because it costs more. (IMO of course
It could happen ya know.
