Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '1911 Forums' started by Rinspeed, Nov 17, 2012.
Is it a series 80?
Yes it is.
I know it has stainless parts, but have not heard that it has a stainless slide and frame too. Would make sense, as they said the stainless "parts" were to help in harsh conditions.
Colt must have bought stock in Cerakote or something because they put that over practically everything nowadays.
As you already know, it's based on the Rail Gun series and the Rail Gun series (3-options) all have stainless steel slides, one option has blued frame, the other option has bare SS slide mated to cerakoted SS frame, and the third option has cerakoted SS slide mated to cerakoted SS frame.
I believe that the USMC pistol is the third option with cerakoted everything (different color, of course) and some minor cosmetic changes (G10 grip panels for one).
So it's essentially a Rail Gun with a paint job and G10 grip panels. As far as the civilian version goes, the video claims that it comes from the custom shop with hand fitting...what does that mean? How much hand fitting? Is it worth the extra $800 over the standard Rail Gun?
I don't know and I ain't the one to cough out two Ks to find out. I like the Gyrines just fine but I don't feel the compunction to carry or own a gun that looks like a MEUSOC gun.
Looks more like Desert White than Desert Tan.
Not blowing a gasket by any means, just didn't understand how hand fitting would be a minus? As asked previously, care to elaborate the significance?
I think you've stated this several times but I'm not really interested if you'd buy one or not. I'm interested to know what the gun will be without people casting worthless opinions based on pics in lieu of fact. The Colt WW reproduction I did own that came out of the Custom Shop was a well built 1911. Possibly these might be nice aswell? I'm just interested/curious. Who knows maybe they'll drop the ball, but I'd like to handle one before making any assumptions.
Well, as far as the Marines are concerned, it's a minus because they've already gone down the hand fitting road with the old MEU(SOC) M45. The reason they're picking up the Rail Gun to begin with is that the Precision Weapons Shop on Quantico simply can't keep up with the demand for both more hand-built 1911s, and maintenance on the ones already out.
The solicitation for an off-the-shelf replacement specifically required a 1911 that was capable of parts interchangeability - this is, according to some documentation, the main reason that Springfield's MC Operator lost out. The Colt, on the other hand, demonstrated parts interchangeability between all test guns.
For the Marines, hand fitting is a minus because it sets them right back on the path of being unable to keep up with maintenance demands, the path they've already gone down. For the consumer? It's not a minus.
Unless you want exactly what the Marines will be issuing, anyway. I personally don't, but then I'm not likely to buy it regardless. Doesn't keep me from feeling mildly annoyed when gun companies slap a misleading label on a commercialized version of a gun and sell it to the public as the real deal. Same thing annoyed me about the later P226 Navy from Sig.
Red herring ramblings aside, this is the point.
Now you can get annoyed that it's not exactly the same because it's likely to be built better but the specs are the same aside from possibly closer fitting.
Just about every 1911 maker has cheesy marketing now, I'd say this one will be as close to the original as they come. Don't see anything as misleading when it's supposedly going to be a step UP from the original.
I wouldn't call it red herring rambling. What if I wanted a 1911 with easy rebuilding potential due to parts interchangeability? I actually do, by the way.
As for being built 'better,' time will tell. Built differently, certainly. Just depends on what you're after. I've already got a bank vault-tight 1911 that can do 1" groups at 50 yards; what I'd like to find is one I can abuse as badly as my HKs and still have it run like a sewing machine. I suspect that's what the Marines are after, too, and likely why they picked a looser tolerance production gun over a hand fit - in addition to the primary requirement of interchangeability, of course.
How would "interchangeability" be significant between the two? Be VERY specific as in which parts are you speaking of that you believe would be easier to swap vs how often you believe.... as a civilian.... you'll need to swap.
Yeah the whole myth of needing looser tolerances is wasted on those that don't know any better. Granted that's just my opinion of seeing multiple hand fit 1911s go into some pretty significant round counts including ~100K rounds. I wager that the logistics of price and time vs need was a factor. Essentially, they probably don't have the time or money to wait for thousands of hand fit customs. They probably figure since the old Colt did the job for what the military needed, these would too.
Also FWIW, from what I've seen H&Ks don't take abuse well.
This is an entertaining thread. I've seen a lot mention to a $2K price tag for this pistol but I'm still confused where this number is coming from. Anyone have a link or some support of this number?
I read on another forum that MSRP is $1999. I have no idea if that's true because of all the misinformation running around.
As a civilian? I rarely need to swap much of anything. I also have never needed my JHPs to expand, but I still like the feature.
I'm not sure round counts have much to do with getting it muddy, sandy, bloody, etc., but I'd generally prefer a looser-fit 1911 if I had to, say, swim ashore and take a beach.
Yep, as I said, they simply can't afford to have these guns needing to go back to gunsmiths for rebuilds as frequently as the old hand-built MEU(SOC) pistols were needing to go.
I wouldn't buy one, then, were I you.
Bottom line on this thing: same parts, built differently. If that equals the same gun to you, so be it.
I figured I wouldn't get an answer here.
Right and as I said some only follow cliches from the internet. By the same theory several "tighter fitting" platforms wouldn't survive in the combat like lets say the AR or Beretta.
The reality is.... that "loose" or "tight" is not a measure of reliability. It's how the gun is set up and how the working parts are clearanced.
Same parts built with a higher level of fitting. In which a properly fit gun by hand will only enhance the life of the gun. Coulda, shoulda, woulda mythical modularity aside, I think it's obvious that for any practical application it's a benefit.
I'd go back and re-read.
Ah, this may be where the issue lies. If you've never had something like a Baer, it's difficult to convey how tight 'tight' can get, and I suppose that might make you think we're talking about, say, Beretta production levels of tightness. Not the case.
And you've verified this with extensive environmental testing, a la the acquisition process for the new M45? Excellent.
You know, I'd actually go read the solicitation and, provided you can find them, the testing results. Or contact the MARSOC folks directly and let them know they're doing it all wrong. They've been working with hand-built 1911s for over two decades, and wanted a commercial replacement with parts interchangeability that required zero hand-fitting. You'll want to let them know they're making a huge mistake, because a hand-fit gun is always better. It's why everyone else uses nothing but hand-fit customs.
Read it just fine. Asked for specific parts, that you think you're gonna drop in, got an analogy.
Try again my friend, there's a well broken-in TRS in my safe, among other semi-customs and full house customs. I've tried just about everything at one point, including a Colt custom shop gun. Rather, I'm speaking from experience of ownership..... you?? Hint: They're not SACS or Baer, hardly anybody is in terms of building em that tight. Only those with limited experience will assume the extreme that any "hand fit" 1911 will lock up as tight as these guns. Otherwise, ownership of..... take your pick of several custom and or "hand-fit" 1911s that don't lock up that tight...... will provide otherwise.
The original point really should be obvious though, many people think relatively tighter built platforms will fail in combat, and history and experience proves different.
I'm going on anecdotes just as you are for sure, unless you can provide any reference of your own? However, I'll stick with logic and understanding of the platform with reaffirmation of some of the best of the business. If you disagree, great, most people tend to just parrot what they hear or see on the internet instead of investigating how things work.
Why would I contact them? Even though your points are erroneous to a degree, I stated earlier that I understand THEIR situation, regarding the logistics of equiping a 1911 for a force. My comments were pertaining to YOU.
This all started because you think the marketing is misleading you because of your experience with other platforms yes? I then asked for the signficance of the difference of hand fitting as pertaining to the civilian market or even you. Problem is, and what I've been hinting to, in terms of part wearing out in a 1911 I understand which are likely to go first. I understand that properly hand fit parts are likely to increase the life of said parts and the 1911, opposed to anyone believes that these critical parts in a 1911 are truly drop-in or that they could drop them in without any knowledge? If they DID have a rememdial amount of said knowledge, maybe they'd understand they'd want a properly spec'ed 1911 and fitted in the first place IF they were to start switching out parts to make life easier. The whole TRUE modularity, drop-in theory just doesn't pertain to 1911s as a whole relative to let's say..... polymer platforms.
....because y'all are a bunch of 1911 drama-queens
Oh, you want the specific parts they're looking to change between individual guns? It's everything.
From the Initial Technical Evaluation Report:
The other two manufacturers, by the way, are Springfield Armory with the MC Operator and something built by Karl Lippard.
So, any part, requiring any hand fitting, was a failure to meet testing requirements. The Colt failed because the new recoil system initially required a recess be hollowed out in the slide, which led to structural integrity issues that caused the much-noted frame cracks we've all seen pictures of. Colt was allowed to redesign and declared to have passed without retesting, which is a whole other ball of wax not germane to this thread.
See above. I'm going on some obscure-but-open-to-the-public reports and OFUO info.
No, I think the marketing is misleading because the marketing is misleading. This is a good summary from another forum by someone who, while not involved in the testing, has access to the results: