Warbird

From what I read there it appears he stated pretty clearly he was impressed from a spec and initial firing experience. Most builders of 1911's know the specs of a gun that will run and can tell you from those measurements what it will and won't likely do. Most of those builders will shoot those weapons 200-300 rounds with different loads, in a short period of time to come to an initial conclusion that the pistol is on the right path or isn't. Then it is up to the owner of said weapon to put it through its paces. It seems he followed the same course. He also said exactly where he thought the weaknesses were or were likely going to be, ie. the extractor and ejector were needing adjustment. Now some would claim his review shows the gun is good to go for carry. I think most people took this for what it was, an initial review. I for one, having shot a ton of 1911's including new ones, was impressed with that initial performance. Will I likely go out and buy one, no. I have a 1911 that has been put through its paces enough to prove it's carry worthy. I still don't carry a 1911 often. Many will buy one for fun and range shooting and never carry it. Personally I don't buy guns I don't use often. But, that isn't the case for everyone. Again, I don't think anyone said this was a torture test, it was simply an initial review of a new gun. I do understand your point. I am not necessarily impressed with any gun that is shot a few hundred times or even 2k rounds if it done over a long period of time. Most especially combat style weapons. This is often a very real issue on gun forums when people will say their gun is good to go or no problems here, in response to someone saying they are not durable. I find it especially true of pistols and AR or AK rifles. For carry and or long term durability I do not trust them as a general manufacturer or brand until they have proven to run hot, dirty, cooled, run again and run for several thousand rounds including high round counts in short order. This does not speak to their reliability as much as their durability. All of them break, but some makes break often. It becomes pretty apparent fairly quickly. It depends on the mission the firearm was deigned to fulfill. I have on numerous occasions put several of my Glocks through 1000-1500 or more rounds over the course of a 2-3 day period, including several periods of numerous mags emptied back to back sustained firing. They have all held up well. Naturally they are all mechanical devices and every shot fired is one shot closer to breaking. You can get a general idea of a guns basic reliability with a few hundred rounds. Durability is something else entirely. The 1911 design has proven itself reliable and durable. These factors form individual manuf. can vary wildly depending on the materials used and proper fitting. I think the best you can do on a 1911 is get a base idea and run it though its paces to see as time goes. It is without question a hobbyists gun. As Vicker's says, "If you treat your gun like you treat your lawnmower, buy a Glock". The 1911 will have to be tuned as time goes along. It simply is a hands on gun. And in today's world of expectations being for 1911's being tight as all get out as expected quality, they require more tuning than ever.

Nice objective review.

I don't know anything about the JSE set up or their quality. I can tell you the YHM rail systems are quite heavy in comparison to several of the competitors and not as durable. However, the weight may not matter for your purposes. If you carried it all day on a sling quite often it might. Otherwise maybe not.

The secret to shooting the Glock well is taking advantage of the very positive reset. Get used to letting the trigger come forward, after the first shot, only to the point where you feel it reset. Then squeeze again. After a bit of time you will be able to do this without even thinking about it. I have a co-worker who owns a Glock and has for several years. He is however, mainly a shotgun and rifle shooter. His accuracy with the Glock was only mediocre. I noticed he let the trigger come all the way forward after each shot and I taught him how to utilize the trigger reset feel. After about an hour his accuracy and speed was vastly improved. The reset was one of the reasons why I switched to the Glock to begin with. I hated the mushy crap feel of the XD, and the original M&P's were as bad. Speaking about striker fire guns here of course. Even though I am a fan of H&K, the only reset I ever liked was on my P7. All of the rest of their are crappy IMO and a couple of the variants are horrendous. Well I will say although long, the reset of the light LEM isn't quite as bad and the HK45 and 45C are not too awful. They are But those were not out when I switched to Glock a number of years ago. And I didn't want a DA/SA gun for carry anymore, which is why I got away from the Sig 228 to begin with.

Not only funny but, often true sadly enough.

I must admit that I not married to any sight type. I like different ones for different reason and find pros and cons with each. I have Heini's on my 1911 and like them pretty well. I have three dot night sights on a couple of my Glocks, one of them being the Tru-Glo and I like those a lot. I have the XS Big Dot on my G26 and I really like them on that gun. They are close range fighting sights on a close range fighting gun. With some knowledge on how to sight them and practice they are also easily adaptable for fairly long range shots as well. I have used them as well on fighting rifles and dangerous game hunting rifles. I have found it fairly easy to move from sight picture to sight picture as long as I have spent some time acquainting myself to each type. They do take some time in doing that. As I age I have noticed change in my eye sight and I can see where different sights would be better for people with aging eyes, shall we say. I do prefer night sights especially those with a strong glow. All black sights to me are probably fine for the range, but not for a fighting gun. And 99% of the work I do or practice for is with a fighting gun. I used to plink. I have no time for plinking anymore.

I am a big fan of middie gas systems. As far as barrels go you won't notice much difference between 16-18. And inside of 400 yards you won't notice the diff with a 20. Some just like the original 20 barrel and you do get more velocity. However I have shot many animals with a 16, mainly hogs, and the 16 has served me very very well. Regardless of barrel length a 22 cal bullet is not optimal for hog hunting, but dang it it is fun. And does the job as long as you are a good shot. I also do like the 14.5" bbl with permanent pinned/welded flash hider. This is how my AK is set up. It is good stuff. If you ever have an idea of taking fighting rifle courses the 16 bb or 16 OAL is the best bet for that. The only time I shoot a 20 bb AR is when I go to SD to shoot prairie dogs.

If it is your opinion it certainly is not useless. They make a lot of guns in a lot of designs for a reason; not all things match all people's tastes or needs. I am thankful for that. If you like the products you buy and they function as you expect, be happy with that. You don't have to explain to anyone why you would not spend a ton of money on a 1911, if it has no extraordinary value to you, regardless of whether you can afford it or not. There are guns I couldn't buy even if I wanted one and there are guns that I wouldn't buy even though I can afford them. It's cool. I am a person who buys guns based on their utilitarian use for what I need and do. Even my 1911, which doesn't see as much use as my Glocks, is built purely for combative purposes. It is not pretty. It doesn't have all of the gizmos available, just the ones that make it comfortable to carry and shoot and run well. There is indeed a lot of snobbery in the 1911 community about the use of plastic fantastics and you might well feel some gnawing angst about that. A lot of it IMO is based on common fallacies about the guns to begin with. Most people have mystical views about what the perfect 1911 should be based on old myths. For instance my 1911 is nowhere near tight as a drum slide to frame fit. It doesn't need to be. In fact they run more dependably if they are not. But everyone expects that now. And manufacturers tend to follow the trend even if it isn't true. In reality the gun needs to lock up tight with great fitting at the barrel lock-up and at the bushing. Anyway my guns all get used and if I find that won't use them I sell them. Period. I do have a few military guns that I haven't yet sold which I should that I likely won't shoot again. The only guns I never shoot, but won't sell are the ones with a familial history, handed down to me by family members. But some people just love guns and buy whatever they fancy even if the won't use it or it has no utilitarian value to them in the least.

Thanks. I admit that I am intrigued. All reports thus far have been positive. Ruger took their time putting this out and spent quite a lot of time trying to work out kinks beforehand. So we shall see. Time will certainly tell. I have long been a fan of Ruger revolvers and own several double and single action pistols. I also own a number of Ruger rifles. However I have never been a fan at all of their semi-auto pistols, neither in design or function. Caspian, and the many companies they make frames and slides for, has for many years made some excellent cast frame/forged slide guns. That framework doesn't bother me in the least. I am somewhat less positive about cast frame and slides. Past experience for the companies who have done those have not been great. However past experience in the world of manufacturing, with the advent of new and better techniques, is not always truly indicative of future success. Everyone failed to make a truly successful external extractor 1911, despite many companies trying, for a long time. However S&W and Sig seemed to have it figured out, as an example.

I thought the frame was cast and the slide forged on the Ruger? I'd have to go back and look. No big deal really. Plenty of cast frame 1911's out there with 100k rounds on them w/o any breakage. Ruger is as good as anyone in the world at casting. I was simply wondering for the point of clarification.

You could really make that analogy about many things gun related or not. Howeverif we stick to guns quality costs. Some people buy Rock Island 1911's and are happy, some are willing to spend the money for Wilson or Ed Brown. Others are willing to spend even more for a Vicker's or 10-8 Yam or Rogers 1911. These can easily cost $8-10k. For some those are absolutely worth the money. It all depends on how good the work really is and what you need it for. I am willing to spend money for something that is well built enough to withstand intense rigors if needed. I own and have owned O/U shotguns who cost I could buy 4 of for the price of my fitted Beretta O/U. But none of them would last more than a couple of seasons. Now I could also buy 2 of my Beretta shotguns for the price of a Perazzi or Krieghoff. I am not willing to do that. If I was only a clays shooter and put another 10k rounds through one a year, or 25-30k, I might would. It isn't always about how many you could have of something almost as good if what you need or really want is just one of this particular quality. I could have bought 3 pairs of hunting boots for what I paid for my Kenetrek mountain boots. But, I only need the one pair of Kenetreks that I know will survive the elements they are going to be put through. That all said, I do know Tony, but have never seen this product and cannot make any reference to its worth, value or quality. I can say though that I would buy a Vicker's 1911 if I could afford one and if my particular purpose or need was something that called for that level of quality. Everything is about need, want and priorities. I really don't blink at what people are willing to spend for guns they really don't have to have, or could have had nearly the same quality for thousands less. I go to auctions all over the country and see people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on guns that cost nearly, or more at times, what my house did.

A quality belt is definitely worth the cost. I wear my nylon Wilderness belt now more than any other due to the ability to fit it exactly where I want, but have several quality leather belt to wear as needed. All reports I have heard about Beltman has been positive.

Glock made the decision to redesign due to the fact that the 40 Glocks were the most problematic in the line. Issues of some functionality problems when they were used with lights attached. Also Glock was not happy with the service life of the .40 Glocks in comparison to the rest of their guns. The high pressure load of the .40 was causing frame flex, most noticeable with the lights attached and the spring they felt needed redesign, not simply weight changed. Since LEA's made the G22/23 the most sold guns sold in the US. They catered to them. They also work changes in their total lines due to manufacturing simplicity. the grip changes were but a simple addition easy to make to satisfy competitive demands. However it wasn't the main reason for the change. Unfortunately the G19 is now suffering from issues due to a gun being redesigned mainly for the G22/23. The opposite of the previous gens.They will get it worked out as they always do. As all good manufacturers do. That said I am happy with my G3 G19 and will seek another while they are still readily available. If Glock stops making them then G3's will likely go higher in price. Glock fans are notoriously aberrant to change and always gripe about every new gen and then they eventually a few yrs after they are introduced they buy them, and by the next gen they wail that there wasn't wrong with that one.

I do not own one, but have shot several of them quite a bit. I have seen them used in classes and in group settings numerous times. I have also been to their facilities. My experiences and conversations lead me to believe they have some issues yet to work out. They do look neat and from all I have seen and heard the coating holds up pretty well to abuse. But, owners reports have not been glowing. The issues have been in functionality. Now these are guys who also run rifles very hard and they are not happy with but the toughest and well built AR's and AK's as well. They put thousands of rounds down the pipe month. They are also the only people who I have spoken with who own this brand, so I have no knowledge from people who only shoot their POF on occasion for range fun. Just because they can fetter out issues doesn't mean most people will. Also not everyone has the need for that. If it was me, I would personally look to a more proven piston gun, considering the cost or different design if you are not enamored of the standard AR platform or just want something different. That all said their CS seems to be pretty good if issues arise, the people there are great and they are supportive your right to keep and bear arms.

Others have already stated my opinion on chrome. I'll just stand behind that. Chrome lining is best unless you are a bench rest or competitive long range precision shooter. As far as twist, the 1/9 will handle the very lightest 223 loads with no probs, but will not handle the heavier bullets well. The 1/7 will handle the heaviest 223 or 556 bullets very well and the medium weights as well. It handles the most often used weights well, but has been known to keyhole the very lightest 223 weights. If the vast majority of what you are doing will be medium to heavy weight bullets, then I'd go with the 1/7.

I think it would be very hard to find a P30 with a light LEM. There is more than one LEM and the standard has a horrendous first pull. Most people buy a standard P30 and buy the parts to convert it. The guys over at HK Pro forum could fill you in on how to get those parts. They will dazzle with knowledge about HK, but also are quite biased as most forums dedicated to a particular manufacturer are. You will acclimate to another or a larger gun with a couple of weeks wear. Most anything that is easy to shoot in a major caliber will be about as big as the M&P sub or the Glock subs. We aren't talking government model 1911's in size. Now that does take some getting used to in my book, though there are those who carry those too.

LEM light even. Good point on the mags. ALL HK mags are steep. They are well made and tough as all get out, but you can buy at least 2 M&P mags for every HK mag in general

I forgot to add that I find the Glock 19, which I carry a 26 more often than the 19, conceals better than the Sig. The Sig has a longer grip which is one reason it has nice ergos. But, it is harder to conceal from my experience.

I owned a 30 and have shot numerous M&P's. The P30 is indeed a nice handling gun. It is durable and very well built. The HK has a higher bore sight axis and has a number of different trigger modules available at a price, not cheap. I personally prefer the M&P config better, but had no prob with the P30's profile. One thing I did have a prob with on the HK was the long slide release handles which caused me to hit that lever and kept the slide from locking back on last round. I do have a very high hand hold though. Maybe not the case for you. As far as price I guess I would have a hard time saying they are worth that much of a difference. Is a higher dollar 1911 always worth the extra money over the less expensive models? Tough to say. Not for everybody it isn't. Depends on the use and abuse, the needs, etc. Sometimes the extra price of guns are worth it and sometimes not. Doesn't answer your question I know.The HK does have more trigger and safety avenues to go down than the M&P. The M&P's I have shot have benefited drastically with the Apex trigger assembly. Actually it was David here at TGO who turned me on to that, after I complained of the standard trigger, and I sought out some people who had made the change and shot their guns. He was right, much improved. The M&P's area fine guns and S&W does stand behind their products. They have now proven themselves to be durable and dependable. They are the only guns out there IMO to give Glock a run for their money in terms of market and LEO share. All that said, I have been an HK fanboy I guess. I have or still do own the HK4, P7, P7M8, P30, HK45C, USP. They all ran well. I was a died in the wool P7 fanboy and if they were almost as light to carry the P7M13 as say a Glock or Sig I would pay for the cost and live with it as I shot it better than any other pistol I have ever owned without question. But in the end I shoot my Glocks well, they are light and I can shoot far more rounds, very accurately and faster than any other pistol I have spent time with. Oh and after 100 rounds my hands aren't burning like they do with the P7 guns. If you plan to carry the gun, be aware and beware that the grip on the P30 is very aggressive and will tend to bite into your skin and drive you nuts when carried IWB next to the body,

No big advantage of any over the other. The biggest differences are between the grips of the Sigs compared to the Glock and the Glock cocking and shooting trigger compared to the Sig DA/SA config. I prefer every shot to have the same trigger personally and I like the Glock grip better for having a high hold on the pistol. the bore sight radius on the Glock is as low as it gets and is IMO easier to fire rapidly accurately with less muzzle rise. Thus making the pistol easier to master. But that is my personal preference. Some like to have the Sig decocker and a longer first pull. I am assuming her they are standard config DA/SA I will also note that I carried a Sig 228 for many years and next to the HK P7M8 I carried it longer than any other pistol. I switched to Glock because I shoot it better and quicker than I ever did my Sig. As far as dependability I have never had a problem with any of my Glocks and I never had any problem with my Sig. And both brands were taken through the ringer by me. As far as the difference in the Sigs, I seem to recall the 226 to be lighter because the difference in the slides being of different materials. It really would depend on condition of each respective pistol you are looking at and if it were me and the other things were equal, if the 226 was an old German made one I would probably buy that one, or vice versa. f there is any way you can do so, shoot a similar Glock and a Sig 226 or 229.

I have found there are people who 'collect' and will pay more for just about every kind of firearm made. They will find something about them and as a fan group and claim it makes them more valuable. Heck this is even true of Gen 1 Glocks and such. I have shot a couple of the Clackamas Kimbers, and found nothing special about them. The truth is they were all made in Yonkers. They didn't have extraordinary hand fitting or hand lapping. They didn't rack as smooth as glass like custom guns. Heck from the beginning they used MIM parts, even the bushing in the beginning. They were well made pistols, which looked nice and had lots of doo dads usually only seen on custom guns, but for a fraction of the price. They changed the industry, I say that with no small amount of emphasis, and capitalized on a nationwide magazine capacity law that saw the resurgence of the 1911 which was mainly shot by the devoted at the time. They took advantage of new methods of producing pistols much cheaper and made a gun previously only available to the well off or the truly devoted to the mass public. At the time Colt expressed no interest in offering such things, though they could have more easily done so than any one else and would today have been much stronger for it. Gotta give it up for the entrepreneurs. But in the end those guns were no better made than the first Yonkers rollmarked guns and were decent, but not extraordinary custom guns or anything of the sort. They were never a custom gun and never had the refinement out of the box of a truly worked over custom gun. But, they did almost always work and they did look like a custom gun. Kimber quality really didn't suffer until they simply could not keep up with demand and I think some things probably slipped through the cracks. They have had some QC issues, but are these numbers aberrant or more a reflection of the number of guns sold? I don't know. 1911's are even today a more finicky gun to produce and do so w/o problems than the Glocks and M&P's of the world. They didn't exist, as a handgun company, until the 90's and now make more 1911's than any company in the world, including Colt. But in the end the Clackamas guns are worth more, by at least a bit, to those who fancy themselves Kimber collectors.

I recommend Glock probably more often than anything else. I do make a few suggestions to try as well that have proven reliable and dependable for most everyone, including those who do not obsess about taking care of a firearm. I might suggest trying the M&P for instance. Next to the Glock it has now proven itself worthy and is available in nearly every decent sized gun shop. If someone asks me which Glock to buy, but has no idea what it they really are and just knows the name from movies and such I might ask they want a Glock and what it is they like about them. Many recommend revolver, but I have found autos to be easy to learn to shoot and easy to reload. The Glock is very easy on both of these points. I do prefer the 9mm myself even today and I usually suggest others try it as an excellent round to learn with. This is general in nature, they may want a larger or smaller gun. Again if they have told me it is for self defense. Usually they ask with a specific purpose in mind already and so I am going on that. I have shot just about everything out there, owed a tons of makes, and have had a great appreciation for many guns, but many I have liked are expensive to buy, 1911, or are hard to find like the HK P7 which is expensive as well. Some have suggested the Glock doesn't fit a lot of hands, but here again I have found with practice and training it isn't difficult. After many years of shooting 1911 I found the Glock odd to handle as most double stacks are, with the exception of the CZ75 which I very easy to handle. But, after watching a friend of mine teach a bunch of 10-15 year old boys and girls shoot Glock 19's extremely well, despite their smaller hands than mine, I proceeded to really make an effort to become proficient. Some say the Glock is only so so for accuracy. However, unless you are shooting bullseye, it is more than accurate enough for self defense. In fact I will say this with certain fact; I can shoot my Glock 19 more accurate fast than any other gun I have ever owned, including my 1911's. These are no slouch 1911's either. Out past 25 yards and slow shooting I still give the edge to the 1911. I have also outshot many a 1911 owner who claimed I couldn't outshoot them with their 1911, with my lowly Glock, as well. In the end if you put in the effort and practice the results will follow. A bad shooter will not become a good shooter with an expensive gun and vice versa. Even thoug you are a big fanboy of the 1911 MAV I admire your resistance to recommend them. The 1991 is a gun for a true shooter, who lkes guns, likes being proficient with guns and realizes they need to know something about that gun to properly care for it and keep it running. For many years there were few options to the 1911 or Highpower and most were less reliable and all required a lot of maintenance. Now however, there are several good choices for pistols that last for years and years with minimal maintenance or issues. The Glock with some good training is a very easy firearm to become an acceptable self defense shooter with. If you treat your firearm like you treat your lawnmower, buy a Glock.

The move towards earlier entry and longer campaigns of the previous few elections (going back to around 2000) has shifted back somewhat toward the traditional time frames. Thought now is that several of the front runners in the last couple of elections entered too early and ran too long and peaked too early. There will be plenty of people in the race and a few decent candidates in the mix.

I have often hunted for them with 556 and AK 7.62.

It's a shooter, not a collector's piece. As was said, there are millions of them. Refinish if you want. I will warn you from experience though, the wood on the Mosin is nearly as hard as steel. I refinished one once and had a horrible time getting the stain to soak into the wood. It was that hard. The mosin is worth picking up if one can be found for a good deal. I guess to each his own. I bought a bunch of them when they had pallets full of them at Rose's for $39.95. Personally I can't stand the things. I haven't shot mine in years and essentially have no use for them at all. To each his own.