Guns & Outdoors Forum

Absolutely NOT looking to knock them down. They serve a purpose and certainly look appealing and God only knows I’ll end up with one eventually because I’m easily influenced by the bad people in this forum.

But I’ve always been leery of them because I keep thinking that there has to be be something besides the cost of labor under the hood of the super low cost. Again nothing definitive but just the hair on the back of my neck thing.

I know one of them had a recall because of sears wearing out IIRC? I know folks here that have the higher end RIAs and have shot them enough to have a good experience them, so those are not the guns I question. But I don’t know that the “seconds” parts pile is not what they send to the GI budget gun assembly bench.

Has anyone here truly tested one to the point of being satisfied with longevity, wear, reliability?

I mean I have 1911s that I’ve fired a LOT over the years and externally and internally they are still like new with zero parts failure.

So outside of a novelty or sheer curiosity I’m not into buying a gun and then finding out 100-1,000 rounds later that I’m replacing breaking parts or having issues with metal etc. and end up with an investment well over the value of the gun. So I’d like someone I trust to tell me hey, have fired 1,000 rounds through mine with no issues or something similar to abate this “feeling” for lack of a better word.

In the 1911 forum they have a lot of fans but I get the impression that many of the folks are more hoarders than shooters. Again nothing wrong with that, but it’s not the information I’m looking for.

Most people who buy that gun don't run it enough for durability to be an issue. I don't mean that in a condescending way, it's just a fact.

Anecdotally from internet reviews, the base RIA has varying degrees of reliability, even when sticking to 230gr hard ball ammo. They require the proverbial break in period, which probably tells you something about the quality of fitment.

I mentioned it on the other thread, but I was very close to buying one for giggles. I decided I would rather put the money towards another case of 9mm for the guns I actually shoot. Plus, I'm fortunate enough to have a 1943 Remington Rand 1911 and a TRP stashed away to scratch my .45 ACP 1911 itch when it arises.

I haven't done enough internet research to form an opinion on the guns yet but my sense is similar to yours. Most of the folks I've seen buy them are like, yeah I have 10 1911s and I bought this one as a cute thing to throw in the pile. So far I can't find anyone stating that it is their main HD, SD or comp gun, and having put it through the paces that I would run it through for those purposes. So I'm curious...

Again, if I do buy one it'd also be more of "why not" thing than anything else but I also know because I have stacks of .45 ace ammo cans I'd be taking it out and shooting it A LOT for at least a few months until the novelty wore off and I hate broken things so if anything fails I'll just be annoyed at myself for buying it in the first place.

Do any of the gun magazines do torture/longevity tests anymore? I remember that **** Metcalf would occasionally do a 10k rd test on some handguns

I think most of you will know who I’m referring to who’s name the filter won’t post

I have to apply a cost / performance ratio to just about everything from cars to guns to even groceries.
The question is will a $3000 1911 do EVERYTHING a 1911 is supposed to do 10X better than the $300 model?
Will it run 10X longer without failure? Doubtful as a tight tolerance parts wear in places that create problems elsewhere.
Is it 10X more accurate?
Maybe the $300model will at best hold 3 in at 25yds?
Will the $3000 1911 hold 1/3 in at 25yds? Nada!
Can I hold 3in @ 25yds? No!
Will MIM parts fail 10X sooner than machined parts? Doubtful again.
A $3000 1911 may be fun to show friends at the range but my status symbol really is I don’t need status symbol. Same goes for just about everything. I choose durability and functionality above all else. If there are a few cosmetic and even functional features I choose to change the 1911 platform is easy to work on and reasonable to have modified if I really gotta have it and cant do it myself.

Rugerfan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 1:47 am Do any of the gun magazines do torture/longevity tests anymore? I remember that **** Metcalf would occasionally do a 10k rd test on some handguns

I think most of you will know who I’m referring to who’s name the filter won’t post

D ick
Dic k
Dyk dyk dyk

That’s him

Have I been party to a thousand round torture test for either a RIA or Tisas? No. I have done detail strips and function checks on them and been satisfied that they're going to run in the immediate future. While I can't speak to the ultimate longevity traits of the Tisas WWII clone I inspected, I can say that I was STUNNED by how well that $300 gun was put together - never mind the price; it was just a NICE GUN - - cleanly machined, didn't rattle when I shook it, everything that should be staked was, correctly tensioned extractor, trigger pull right where a GI .45 should be, shot to the sights, etc...

But here's how I look at these budget options:

#1. Midway's pricing on a thousand rounds of hardball is probably going to run you $500-$600. The buyer of a $300 1911 is probably not going to drop double the price of his gun on ammo across multiple years.

#2. While they get collectors all misty-eyed, the WWII era guns were NOT necessarily the best thing the Arsenal of Democracy could cook up. They were going for quantity, assuming that a certain percentage would be U-boated to the bottom of the Atlantic before they'd every see service. The frames were decent, and many got re-built many times; the slides were machined of softer stuff to speed production and spot-heat-treated where they needed extra strength. . .and the service marksmanship team armorers in later years would usually swap in commercial slides. I figure even the cheap modern options are using steel at least as good and likely better for the slide, frame, and probably barrel. At worst, you might need an eventual upgrade to hammer and sear, or replace some pins. You'll still be money ahead for a beater compared to something more "boutique".

#3. It's an all-steel gun shooting a big, low pressure cartridge. Even the above "press of war" guns will put up with a lot of that.

#4. This is where "Mil-Spec" really comes into its own. You don't have to worry about Generation This or 2.0 That. The specs were set in stone a LONG time ago, and you buy the parts that you need as you need them.

#5. For fifty to a hundred bucks less, instead of a 1911 and all the logistical happiness that brings to the table, you could have the best Hi Point money can buy.

^ #5 ^
ROFLMAO

The Hi point does come with adjustable sights and is RDS ready.
To the point about ammo vs gun cost I’ll have to think about my Ruger MK II I can account for very close to 100K rounds of 22LR that over the years probably averages .04 to .05 per I paid about $250 new for the Ruger. Ive run $4k - $5K through it
A half dozen yeet cannons may not be a bad hd option. The latest carry style in AZ is 2 compact 9mm carried side by side semi concealed at 4 o’clock hi point might fit that bill as well

Thanks Big, I forgot you’ve taken apart a few of these. This was not meant to be a $300 Vs. a $3,000 1911 comparison or even a justification for going either way. Just want to hear from someone that has shot more that a few mags through one and can say it goes bang reliably and stays together.

IMO it's probably darn good for what it is: a budget gun for someone who wants a 1911, a base gun to tinker with at home, etc.

As Bigslug hinted at, for a few dollars more than a High Point, I would much rather have the 1911.

shotgunshooter3 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:46 pm IMO it's probably darn good for what it is: a budget gun for someone who wants a 1911, a base gun to tinker with at home, etc.

As Bigslug hinted at, for a few dollars more than a High Point, I would much rather have the 1911.

I’m sure it is. But it’s neither for me. I don’t need a budget gun and I don’t want to tinker. This would be most probably a fun gun to take out in the dessert to bust rocks when the mood strikes me and I don’t want to run a more expensive option ragged. As I mentioned I have a LOT of .45acp to burn off.

Interesting fact. Just went to a gun show and there was not ONE High Point handgun anywhere to be found.

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:37 pm

shotgunshooter3 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:46 pm IMO it's probably darn good for what it is: a budget gun for someone who wants a 1911, a base gun to tinker with at home, etc.

As Bigslug hinted at, for a few dollars more than a High Point, I would much rather have the 1911.

I’m sure it is. But it’s neither for me. I don’t need a budget gun and I don’t want to tinker. This would be most probably a fun gun to take out in the dessert to bust rocks when the mood strikes me and I don’t want to run a more expensive option ragged. As I mentioned I have a LOT of .45acp to burn off.

Interesting fact. Just went to a gun show and there was not ONE High Point handgun anywhere to be found.

Aliens!

FJB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:58 pm

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 8:37 pm

shotgunshooter3 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 12:46 pm IMO it's probably darn good for what it is: a budget gun for someone who wants a 1911, a base gun to tinker with at home, etc.

As Bigslug hinted at, for a few dollars more than a High Point, I would much rather have the 1911.

I’m sure it is. But it’s neither for me. I don’t need a budget gun and I don’t want to tinker. This would be most probably a fun gun to take out in the dessert to bust rocks when the mood strikes me and I don’t want to run a more expensive option ragged. As I mentioned I have a LOT of .45acp to burn off.

Interesting fact. Just went to a gun show and there was not ONE High Point handgun anywhere to be found.

Aliens!

Well my last two gun shows were basically taken over by non-english speaking folks buying everything that didn't require a "form" with wads of cash. This time that wave seems to have receded and it was the normal crowd from a few years back. The table selling their $400 Glock slides was a very lonely place... Didn't;t see one 80% lower anywhere.

Ammo is still selling well but the cheap bulk stuff is everywhere and no 3 deep at the tables. Lots of rifle and hunting ammo in particular.

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 6:11 am Thanks Big, I forgot you’ve taken apart a few of these. This was not meant to be a $300 Vs. a $3,000 1911 comparison or even a justification for going either way. Just want to hear from someone that has shot more that a few mags through one and can say it goes bang reliably and stays together.

As I've railed about repeatedly, one of my ongoing frustrations with the 1911 industry is the perpetuated myth that it needs to be some mystical light saber hand-crafted by ascetic monks in some remote hilltop temple that only a fully zenned-out master can wield.

It was intended to be made en masse, at cost, to tolerances that would reliably blow the other guy out of his socks at 50 yards when covered with the Filth of the World, and as an added bonus, the battalion blacksmith could probably take a break from shoeing the cavalry horses and make most of your spare parts in a pinch.

In that regard, I have a lot of respect for the RIA's and Tisas in that they are much closer to that "true faith" than the four-digit price tag options. In kind of an odd way, so is a Glock 17, when you get right down to it. Which is why I like both platforms so much.

Bigslug wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:48 am

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2024 6:11 am Thanks Big, I forgot you’ve taken apart a few of these. This was not meant to be a $300 Vs. a $3,000 1911 comparison or even a justification for going either way. Just want to hear from someone that has shot more that a few mags through one and can say it goes bang reliably and stays together.

As I've railed about repeatedly, one of my ongoing frustrations with the 1911 industry is the perpetuated myth that it needs to be some mystical light saber hand-crafted by ascetic monks in some remote hilltop temple that only a fully zenned-out master can wield.

It was intended to be made en masse, at cost, to tolerances that would reliably blow the other guy out of his socks at 50 yards when covered with the Filth of the World, and as an added bonus, the battalion blacksmith could probably take a break from shoeing the cavalry horses and make most of your spare parts in a pinch.

In that regard, I have a lot of respect for the RIA's and Tisas in that they are much closer to that "true faith" than the four-digit price tag options. In kind of an odd way, so is a Glock 17, when you get right down to it. Which is why I like both platforms so much.

I think it’s quite Ok that we can have both bare bones GI types guns as you described and ALSO the mystical light sabers made by monks. Gives the world options to satisfy different needs.

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 7:34 am I think it’s quite Ok that we can have both bare bones GI types guns as you described and ALSO the mystical light sabers made by monks. Gives the world options to satisfy different needs.

Totally agree - it's the gaslighting I can do without. You launched this thread with the question of "Can a $300 1911 possibly be worth a damn?", likely because we've all spent decades with our heads being forcibly shoved underwater in the Pool Of Marketing by an interrogator who keeps telling us we need a Ferrari to commute at 20 mph on the 405 every day. Eventually, we started believing that it's not a 1911 unless it's built like a Ferrari . . . or at least a Porsche.

The tool has to work. The tool has to hold up. For defensive use, the tool has to deliver an accuracy standard that even a Hi Point can easily meet. Go ahead and build up some works of art - I'll gladly adopt one now and then. Just stop telling us that the tool as originally designed is crap just because it helps your sales pitch in a market of lots of people making essentially the same tool. Especially when that tool was a legend a long time before the birth of Bill Wilson.

The cheaper 1911's "keep it real", but they have a lot of that glossy ad brainwashing fluff to overcome.

I mean, a Les Baer is nice, but Tom Hanks didn't need one to blow up a tank. Just sayin'.

I'm glad there's a $300 option for anyone who is "1911 curious".

My first 1911 was a used 1911 with an Essex Arms frame and Argentine slide. Who knows where the guts came from. $250.

I guess I'm the exception since after paying for a couple of boxes of factory loads, I knew the only way to shoot as much as I wanted to was to reload. I bought a Dillon RL550 shortly thereafter and have fired very few centerfire factory loads since.

I've since upgraded but it was the best I could afford 45 years ago.

The RIA will probably fill the needs of 75% of shooters. A lot of the other 25% are competition shooters. Is it as polished, refined, or as accurate as a Les Baer? Of course not. Is the extra accuracy wasted on a LOT of Les Baer owners, because they don't have the skill to utilize it? I believe so.

There's a point where you pass from "needed" work, to, for no better way to say it, "showing off".
MY hierarchy of needs for a 1911 include:

• better sights

• A1 MSH

• "decent" trigger

YMMV


I had an Auto Ordinance 1911 back in the 90s that needed work to cycle some BALL ammo reliably. Winchester and Remington BALL ammo had slightly different bullet profiles and one ran 100% and the other 50-75%

Edited to add: I'm willing to bet that there are some professional shooters that, after a few mags worth of familiarization, could take that RIA and embarrass A LOT of high end 1911 owners

Bigslug wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:55 pm

Wambli Ska wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 7:34 am I think it’s quite Ok that we can have both bare bones GI types guns as you described and ALSO the mystical light sabers made by monks. Gives the world options to satisfy different needs.

Totally agree - it's the gaslighting I can do without. You launched this thread with the question of "Can a $300 1911 possibly be worth a damn?", likely because we've all spent decades with our heads being forcibly shoved underwater in the Pool Of Marketing by an interrogator who keeps telling us we need a Ferrari to commute at 20 mph on the 405 every day. Eventually, we started believing that it's not a 1911 unless it's built like a Ferrari . . . or at least a Porsche.

The tool has to work. The tool has to hold up. For defensive use, the tool has to deliver an accuracy standard that even a Hi Point can easily meet. Go ahead and build up some works of art - I'll gladly adopt one now and then. Just stop telling us that the tool as originally designed is crap just because it helps your sales pitch in a market of lots of people making essentially the same tool. Especially when that tool was a legend a long time before the birth of Bill Wilson.

The cheaper 1911's "keep it real", but they have a lot of that glossy ad brainwashing fluff to overcome.

I mean, a Les Baer is nice, but Tom Hanks didn't need one to blow up a tank. Just sayin'.

No, I did NOT launch this thread with the question you quoted me as stating, "Can a $300 1911 possibly be worth a damn?". I'm sure it is worth the money they ask for it and probably more. AND I asked no such thing! Don't even know how you got there because I think I have been VERY clear of my ask.

I only have enough experience trying to do serious work with Walmart cheapest screwdrivers to know that they will fail me usually at the worst time so there is an ABSOLUTE trade-off in cost vs. quality SOMEWHERE, and I'm trying to figure out where it is on this ONE GUN so I can make an informed decision.

When it comes to firearms I'm NOT the occasional "home user" that gets by with homeowner grade tools. For quite a while now I've been shooting A LOT!!! both for personal training, other folks training, and just for entertainment. And now that I'm semi-retired range time is ever increasing. As we speak there are abut 1,000 rounds of 9m and .45acp sitting on the rear floorboards of my Jeep waiting for my next outing and that's not an exception, I can't remember a recent time when there was not a 50 cal ammo can full of rounds on that floorboard.

My ONLY expectation is what you addressed correctly in your post: "The tool has to work. The tool has to hold up."AND my ONLY question was has anyone shot the $300 1911 ENOUGH to give me their experience with durability/quality of parts that would answer what you stated. Will it work AND will it hold up.

I KNOW their higher level guns are good and several folks I know that have them already confirmed that opinion. But IF I decide to buy this gun it will not be a shot 1/2 box of WWB just to see if it cycles and put it away, it will probably run a few thousand rounds in the first month of it's life, and the LAST thing I want to do is start ordering parts from Brownells that first month totally negating the inexpensive entry point. I can get a used SA for not a lot more than that and SAs are a proven gun. I don't like to lose money on my gun investments.

ALSO, high end 1911 makers are HARDLY "gaslighting" anyone. The companies that sell those make it abundantly clear as to why their guns cost what they do and they are NOT forcing anyone to buy them, or hurting for business. So I think your understanding of the term "gaslighting" is somewhat flawed. And the "tool" has to do whatever the buyer/owner expects it to do, be it survive a war while crawling through muddy trenches (which neither you or hardly anyone I know with a just a few exceptions will ever do), OR shoot tight clusters reliably, OR just look pretty enough to make your friends go WOW when you pull it out of the safe. Your standards on what a 1911 should be reflect YOUR opinion and are not any kind of "law" that specifies what ALL models of a particular pistol needs to be. They only specify what in YOUR mind it needs to be for YOU.

I respect your opinion but you've also made in incredibly clear that you believe that everything in the world can be fixed with a rattly WW II 1911 and a 30-06, and I get that, BUT you also sound a whole lot like Zorba with his anti-tech nonsense and not well veiled (Hey I made a funny ) statements that imply or actually state that anyone that is not completely happy with a 1980s flip phone is some sort of cult gullible zombie. I think you're smarter than that.

PFD45 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 4:01 pm I'm glad there's a $300 option for anyone who is "1911 curious".

My first 1911 was a used 1911 with an Essex Arms frame and Argentine slide. Who knows where the guts came from. $250.

I guess I'm the exception since after paying for a couple of boxes of factory loads, I knew the only way to shoot as much as I wanted to was to reload. I bought a Dillon RL550 shortly thereafter and have fired very few centerfire factory loads since.

I've since upgraded but it was the best I could afford 45 years ago.

I'm glad there is a $300 1911 out there too. I'm sure a whole lot of new shooters will cut their teeth with this gun and hopefully get the bug and end up with a whole safe of handguns someday. I was lucky that my first full-sized 1911 was a Colt Stainless Series 80, only because my gunstore manager friend took pity on my broke-ass new dad self and sold it to me for what he had paid someone as a trade-in for a "wonder-nine" at a time when 1911s where falling out of favor.

GrapeApe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 4:42 pm The RIA will probably fill the needs of 75% of shooters. A lot of the other 25% are competition shooters. Is it as polished, refined, or as accurate as a Les Baer? Of course not. Is the extra accuracy wasted on a LOT of Les Baer owners, because they don't have the skill to utilize it? I believe so.

There's a point where you pass from "needed" work, to, for no better way to say it, "showing off".
MY hierarchy of needs for a 1911 include:

• better sights

• A1 MSH

• "decent" trigger

YMMV


I had an Auto Ordinance 1911 back in the 90s that needed work to cycle some BALL ammo reliably. Winchester and Remington BALL ammo had slightly different bullet profiles and one ran 100% and the other 50-75%

Edited to add: I'm willing to bet that there are some professional shooters that, after a few mags worth of familiarization, could take that RIA and embarrass A LOT of high end 1911 owners

I'm sure there are, most guns shoot well above the capabilities of the shooter, average or professional. Again, not everyone wants or needs the stuff past the "showing off" mark you elude to, but then again that mark is different for everyone no? If I spent the money on a 5 figure AI rifle it would be for personal enjoyment AND showing off. That's no where Zee's watermark is.

So I find that generic statements about what is "needed" usually only apply to the person who makes the statement as you well specified when you addressed your needs. But even looking at your list of "needs" I can tell you that for me the first thing I would toss is the A1 MSH and a beavertail safety is a MUST for me to carry a 1911 for SD use because I hate bleeding. So there you go, that's why Baskin Robbins became rich selling 31 flavors of Ice Cream.

So my question still stands as a very specific ask, has anyone here shot more that a box or two of ammo through one of the sub $300 1911s out there?

Sounds like the only way you’ll be able to answer your question is to buy one yourself and try it yourself.

Or search the internet to see if there has been any “torture “ tests done on a Tisas or Filipino made gun.

I have a Tisas. I’ve only shot a box or 2 through it. I wanted to try a 1911 based on what I had read on here. I’m cheap. I ain’t paying $600-800 for a Ruger(or similar). And I definitely ain’t paying thousands for one: Not even if I won a multi-billion dollar lottery

It's comparable to time pieces IMO.
Part of me has always wanted a Rolex. There's a jeweler in Birmingham that sells them.
If the itch was severe enough that I HAD to scratch it, I could drive straight there, hand them cash and have a Rolex on my wrist before I go to bed tomorrow. No bank or credit required

Why don't I? I keep looking at the $50 Timex solar, that's been on my wrist for over 10 years, and it still tells me time.
Is a Rolex going to tell me the time any better? NOPE
Is it going to look MUCH better doing it? HELL YES!!

So far, the practical/cheapskate side of me keeps reminding me that a watch's purpose is to let me know what time it is, and I'm an "every day wear" sort of person. With the stuff I do, even something as overbuilt as my preferred Submariner is going to be looking ROUGH in a few years