Well, I took the Ruger SR1911 out to the range today, and shot it for the first time, putting it through its paces. What a major disappointment.
I've been reading here from "experts" that this thing is bound to be a piece of junk, sure to fail, go bad, do something wrong, or be wildly inaccurate, in other words, surely, Ruger's first attempt at a 1911 will be a bad one, or one only half-way well done.
It performed flawlessly, through over 400 rounds, not a single misfeed, FTF, or FTE. Nothing, and I tried my best to get it to stutter and cough. It would not hear of it. Unlike my Springfield Loaded through its first few hundred rounds, the Ruger SR1911 had not a single issue.
I stripped one off the mag and had one in the chamber and shoved the magazine back in fully loaded...perfect performance. I used four different magazines with it, Ruger's own 8 and 7 rounder, that it came with, some relative inexpensive Kimbers, a bunch of Kimber Pro-Tac and one Wilson ten round magazine. Again, I was disappointed that it performed flawlessly with each magazine. I shot it as fast as I could through four magazines in a row, one right after the other...flawless.
Sure, however, I thought...using the least expensive crappy ammo I could find would be its undoing. I just knew the "experts" had to be right. But, again, disappointment. Shooting the cheapest FMJ brass ammo I could find, from some Hungary or Czechoslovakia company...400 rounds, no problems.
I was so disappointed, I have posted a series of range reports showing you how it failed to live up to the negative predictions of experts.
At 25 feet, from a bench rest, I shot a one inch group, at 25 yards, put them into about a two inch group and at 50 yards, I got most of the shots in the black on the bulls-eye target.
How can I trust the "experts" who predicted my Ruger SR1911 would be so bad?
Here are the videos: