Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:58:26 PM EDT
Any input will be greatly appreciated before I drop 1500 for one NIB. Thanks.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:06:32 PM EDT
i checked one out at the gun store a while back it sure was nice.the action was really smooth and the trigger was great. i like the geen finish also . i never have shot one though.
i would buy one if i won the lottery or was a
leo. i have a colt and a kimber.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:11:17 PM EDT
You're talking their CQB AR15, right?

Since "CQB" has "battle" as part of its title, I'd be looking for a chrome-lined barrel, which it apparently doesn't have. For $1500 and "CQB", this lack is amazing; this is not supposed to be a finicky 'match' rifle.

Want the same performance? Get a Bushy or Armalite for $650-$850 (whatever the price du jour is), and drop in a nice trigger. Add an Aimpoint. *That's* a CQB carbine/rifle, for a helluva lot less.

Bill Wiese
San Mateo, CA







Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:27:01 PM EDT
The idea of spending $1500 on a postban rifle is a bit ridiculous to me to begin with.

And as mentioned, a non chrome lined barrel in a "combat" AR is silly (IMHO).

Really, just get a Bushmaster.

Or, if you want to spend $1500 get a preban Bushmaster carbine and then you'll have a real CQB AR15 with all the goodies!
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 6:30:09 PM EDT
I believe that the .45 is the CQB, the carbine is the UT-15 tactical carbine.

As far as the merits of the CQB, I don't own one (I own Kimber and Springfield), but from what I know you pay increasing large amounts of money for smaller and smaller technical refinements for pistols, bicycles, shotguns, rifles, sports cars, etc. So it comes down to your priorities whether the CQB is worth the price.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 8:24:55 PM EDT
Wilson makes nice pistols. However, for a few hundred more you could get a Kobra from Ed Brown, which is a noticeably better handgun. If it were me, I'd spend a little more cash and get the Brown.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:04:12 PM EDT
I've shot the CQB .45acp & there is definitely a difference in that it shoots much smoother & racking the slide is effortless...but its not a $1000.00 difference to me. I can get the same grouping with a Kimber, or truth be told, a Charles Daly. The workmanship is nowhere near the same but I've seen a WC NIB that had problems with it also.

IMHO, I would not be interested in forking over $1500.00 but to each his own. Its a hell of a gun but I can get two Kimbers for the price of one WC...& Kimber makes the frames for the WC line.

Link Posted: 5/13/2002 9:54:14 PM EDT
Slightly off topic . . .

I'm not convinced that the chrome lined bore is necessary for a tactical AR. Specifically, I don't think it is going to make a difference in reliability. And I can see why Wilson would ditch it: they want top flight accuracy for marketing (1 moa or 2 moa may not make much diff in a tactical carbine, but people who spend big bucks on firearms want them to shoot). Personally, I kinda like chrome lining, since they last so damn long, and I like to shoot a lot . . . but from a tactical point of view I don't think it matters . . .
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 10:10:53 PM EDT
If a chrome lined bore is not worth it, why did they spend the extra dough to add it to m-16? I think it is absolutely critical to a SHTF weapon...
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 10:15:35 PM EDT
I have been told by people who have had them that the Les Baer models are the best made, right now. I have only shot Wilson 45s & they are smoooooooooth. But if I had the $$$, I'd probably buy a Baer.
Link Posted: 5/13/2002 10:29:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick:
If a chrome lined bore is not worth it, why did they spend the extra dough to add it to m-16? I think it is absolutely critical to a SHTF weapon...



It was part of an effort to improve the reliability of the '16 in 'nam. However, it was just one of a bunch of 'fixes' thrown at the problem, and I think the real fix involved the gas tube (due to powder issues).

Link Posted: 5/14/2002 6:24:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 6:25:31 AM EDT by DeMarcus]
Back to the CQB topic: I got one a couple months ago. I've had a couple of Colts & a couple of Kimbers in the past. None of these worked for me. I switched to Glock & haven't had any problems with them.
However, I love the way the M1911 handles. I read on the www.1911forum.com/forums/ for a while to learn more about the different companies. One name kept coming up with the most satified customers: Wilson. CQB's seem to have few problems. If they do, Wilson will take care of you. The only negative comments are about the ArmorTuff finish.

I sold my last Kimber to help fund the CQB. I've got 1000 rds through it so far without a problem . Is it worth 3 times the cost of a Glock? No. However, I can afford it now (single) & am very happy with it. It's the 1st M1911 that I would bet my life on.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 7:51:32 AM EDT
http://www.shooterstore.com/acb/showprod.cfm?&DID=68&CATID=208&ObjectGroup_ID=396
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:34:59 AM EDT
One of my friends has a CQB. It is a beautiful handgun, nicely finished, and silky smooth in operation. As noted, the Armour Tuff isn't so "tuff." He already has some holster wear-and it isn't his carry gun. Also, while we were doing some running and gunning on multiple targets (our own low key IPSC!), he did experience a single jam with ball ammo. The gun is quite new, and very tightly fitted. But still...

Anyhow, I own a few Colts and a couple Kimbers. The finish on the WC is superior to them. If I were in the market for a higher end 1911, I would definitely consider the CQB. I've also read that the tightly fitted Baer 1911s can also be quirky until they have been broken in.

My favorite shooter is a 1991 Colt Gov't, lightly modified with a better trigger and a steel arched mainspring housing. This sucker is showing a little finish wear (no surprise, as it has covered quite a few miles and about 9 years with me) and has a few thousand rounds down the pipe. But it is dead reliable and quite accurate. Not as accurate as the CQB perhaps, but it goes bang every time I pull the trigger.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:45:34 AM EDT
I have been very impressed with my CQB. I have fired 2k rounds through it now. It will shoot 1" groups at 35 and 2" at almost 50 yards with no special ammo.(YES in vice) It will eat any ammo and like said above the fit and finish are perfect.

I am not a 1911 fan but I have to say if every 1911 were like this I would be.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:50:09 AM EDT
Fireball,
The CQB (and I prefer the compact) is a very nice pistol. Wether or not it's worth the additional $700-$1000 over a standard 1911 is really a matter of finances. There are custom .45s out there selling for a lot more, and there are basic models you can get for little more than $500. If I could afford the CQB over my standard Springfield, then I would definitely get it. But, if you want a .45, and you can't really justify $1500, look somewhere else.

In a word, it's probably the best $1500 .45 pistol out there. But there are a lot of great $800-$1000 .45s out there, too.
Top Top