Ruger 1911?

[Bailey Guns]

it looks like every other 1911 out there, and if Ruger made it I'm sure it'll be recalled before too long, just like everything else they make. I just don't see the need for ANOTHER 1911

Well...what is a 1911 supposed to look like? Of course it looks like all other 1911 pistols.

And competition is a good thing. The Ruger MSRP is $799...that means the street price will be substantially less. If it's a good, solid gun I don't see the problem.

[DeusExMachina]

The STI Spartan is in that same price range, and you can get it in 9mm.

[blacklabel]

I'll hold onto my SA Loaded 1911. I would like to see the over/under on when this will be recalled.

[Hannu]

Doc, even if you do not care about accuracy I guess you could care about reliability and durability

First drawback in ¤%¤#£@ built 1911 is not accuracy, but function and if it will break after some use or not.
If 1911 is built properly, it will eject all brass in a small bucket if you stand still and shoot + it will feed anything including empty brass.

I am not gonna talk about rounded lugs, broken barrel legs, cracked barrels, frames etc. but for example simple malfunctions like stovepipe (+all ejection related) and many feeding issues are very often caused because of poor timing.

Accuracy is another thing, if you wanna shoot USPSA matches you have to put some attention to accuracy. If a pistol shoots constantly less than 2" 5 shost @25 it is ok for match use.
If timing and/or fitting is not done properly, gun can shoot one 3" group but the next one can be 6".

I can take any gun to a match and shoot it - if the gun fails, it is just a failed match - not the first and probably not the last match I have failed

But, when I carry, I wanna at least check the gun if it is made right. Not because I wanna shoot 1" 5 shot group to some douchebags forehead, I just want the gun go "bang" when I order it to do so

I just hate when big company makes sh!t on purpose just because they have to "fit certain market" and market their "tactical 1911" perfect for home defense or carry.

But really, I just do not care as long as I can make my own guns by myself and nobody is forcing me to use crap

Btw; I just changed barrel to my friends 1911 .45 pistol. It was "allright" otherwise, but barrel was fitted by hand but by a blind potsmoker...
Gun was real pain in the ass: worked only with powerful hardballs and nothing else. Groups with my match ammo was 4"-6" 5 shots @25 no matter how hard you tried. That ammo groups about 2" 5 shot 50yd from my match 1911 gun.
I installed a new barrel, had to do some tweaking to frame and slide - at the factory someone had "timed" the barrel by milling material off from back of barrel legs

After fitting a new barrel, gun ate all different handloads I tested it with, from 185gr 800fps bullseye load to 230gr +P++ bowling pin ammo. And worst group I shot was 3.2" @25, average with 5 different handloads being 2.2" - with same point of aim.

So, why did it work almost perfectly out-of-the-box only with powerful hardball (230gr 900fps) loads, but worked with light bullseye loads with new barrel ? Please keep in mind, no other parts were changed: just barrel, bushing, link and link pin.

Pistol was originally timed so, that upper lugs were still slightly engaged when barrel legs hitted frame impact surface. With light loads, slide did not had anough velocity after crashing to eject bullseye brass - resulting 7-8 FTE´s with 10 rounds ("allright, it is just designed for heavy loads...").
More powerful ammo created more slide velocity and it even it was affected (1-2 FTE´s / 500rds) there was enough slide velocity to eject empty brass.
Worst thing is, this kind of setup means very short gun life. I have seen upper lugs wear out with 1500 rounds. One gun got to ~5000 and then barrel leg broke, cracking the frame at the same time
My friends gun had maybe 1000 rounds through it, but crashing marks were clearly visible and had to be filed down before fitting a new barrel.

If there is a good solid gun, I do not see any problems. However, I have never seen less than $1000 1911 that would have been even close to "good and solid". I do not say it is impossible, that is one reason why I find new Ruger very interesting. So far, I have only got heavily or very heavily disappointed with cheap "good looking" 1911 pistols.

My point ? If it looks too good for the price, it probably is

[gcrookston]

So what does Ruger bring to the table that is new and unique to this 100 year old design? Or sets it apart from any of the two dozen manufacturers out there?

More importantly, who is not making a 1911 these days? Probably the same companies that are not making AR15s....

[Guylee]

I'm not a fan of stainless guns, but this one looks pretty good. Maybe I would consider it when I'm in the market for another 1911.

[Not_A_Llama]

Sure looks better than the one Remington producted (R1) that has that disgusting writing all over their slide.

Strange times, that a Ruger should prevail in the "paragraph on the side" comparison.

[Irving]

Yep, looks like a 1911 alright...

[dl1911]

http://www.ruger.com/products/sr1911/models.html

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/the-rug...11-video/9290/

[Zundfolge]

So what does Ruger bring to the table that is new and unique to this 100 year old design? Or sets it apart from any of the two dozen manufacturers out there?

There's a birdie on the slide.

In all honesty if they make a CCO (especially in 10mm) at that price point they may have something there.


Thankfully there's not a safety warning billboard on the slide.

EDIT Ah ... looks like its on the dust cover