I can't get a straight answer. I am saving up some dough for a 1911 and I figure a thousand or so should do it. But I can't seem to get an answer whether or not a cast frame is going to be inferior, or if forged is better. It seems people say a good cast can be good, but will never touch forged. So now I am looking at Sig Sauer's offerings in 1911s, and I thought they were forged. Nope, cast....apparently. But they're very highly regarded. Same with the STI Trojan, which is supposed to be an amazing gun. Cast frame. So then people will say, "Well there you go, great guns use cast." But if you go up the STI ladder, they start becoming forged frames, which makes me believe that the casting was a budget alternative and is used to keep cost down (at the expense of strength/quality). Then Caspian, a not cheap 1911 frame, is cast. So are most Dan Wessons, which again, aren't cheap. Hell, many competition 1911s, that see high round counts, are cast. But you can buy a much cheaper Springfield that's forged. I know I will never shoot as many rounds through this gun as to test the strength of the metal. But it drives me nuts to think the gun may potentially use inferior methods or frame or whatever. Kind of like buying a luxury car and finding out the leather is actually vinyl to cut down on costs, or it has hubcaps. It seems it would bother me, with what I know now, to spend good money on a cast-frame 1911, not because I worry about its long term reliability but because they 'cut a corner' in making it when others do it 'the right way.' Somebody set me straight here.