Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/16/2020 9:48:49 PM
Posted: 9/30/2007 2:42:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/10/2008 9:21:24 PM EST by 68mopar]
remove
Link Posted: 9/30/2007 3:29:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By 68mopar:
ok had a series 80 gold cup,sold it, it was nice but I want a carry-shooter that will hold it's value,however i tend to also like (FOR collectable) the old U.S.colts BUT very expensive,what to do???


Buy a new Colt 1911 Government S70 repro in stainless.
Link Posted: 9/30/2007 4:03:05 PM EST
Of the three, the only one i would recommend based on taste or experience is Springfield.


Colt cons: Series 80 safety on all standard models, QC on aesthetics is so unreliable that the gun cannot be purchased unless carefully inspected (which rules out custom shop pistols for many due to the fact that few dealers stock them)

Kimbers cons: Swartz safety, built too tightly for their level of QC

SA cons: Frames not made in the US, has the ILS system (but can be completely removed w ease, unlike the others).

Link Posted: 9/30/2007 4:09:03 PM EST
I would buy my Kimber Eclipse Target II again.

So there you go, three choices, three different answers
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 5:00:37 AM EST
As a general rule, Colts hold their value better than the other brands.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 5:44:17 AM EST
Springfield Armory.
For what youget, a Colt is Waaaayy too expensive. Hold their value? Value is defined as what someone else is willing to pay for something. Colts just haven't been at the top of the list in decades.
Kimber, too many plastic parts in production line guns. Nice cosmetics though.
Dude, do the SA. You won't be sorry.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 5:49:04 AM EST
Gets teh Springfield.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 5:50:28 AM EST
Springfield.

Customer Service is bar none the best, I've dealt with.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 5:55:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By jeepdriver98:
For what youget, a Colt is Waaaayy too expensive. Hold their value? Value is defined as what someone else is willing to pay for something. Colts just haven't been at the top of the list in decades.


It's rare to see even a mid-80's Colt going for under $500. The only ones that get down into the $400s are the plain-jane M1991 ORMs. You won't lose money on a Colt.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 5:58:38 AM EST
I just ran a Kimber Custom II through a pretty intense pistol class with no bobbles. Kimbers are well made guns and they are shooters. But pick your own koolaid, I'm probably in the minority when I say who cares that there are plastic and MIM parts in the guns. I threw it on the ground and had it full of moon dust and it kept running. That's all I want my pistols to do.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 8:08:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By ken_mays:

Originally Posted By jeepdriver98:
For what youget, a Colt is Waaaayy too expensive. Hold their value? Value is defined as what someone else is willing to pay for something. Colts just haven't been at the top of the list in decades.


It's rare to see even a mid-80's Colt going for under $500. The only ones that get down into the $400s are the plain-jane M1991 ORMs. You won't lose money on a Colt.


Yes you will, you lose money on almost every gun you buy. Very few increase in value - ie very rare Colts,RR's etc. Colts are good if you want a plain jane model. If you want all the bells and whistles the SA is the way to go.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 12:19:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2007 12:22:16 PM EST by ken_mays]

Originally Posted By bullitt5172:

Originally Posted By ken_mays:

Originally Posted By jeepdriver98:
For what youget, a Colt is Waaaayy too expensive. Hold their value? Value is defined as what someone else is willing to pay for something. Colts just haven't been at the top of the list in decades.


It's rare to see even a mid-80's Colt going for under $500. The only ones that get down into the $400s are the plain-jane M1991 ORMs. You won't lose money on a Colt.


Yes you will, you lose money on almost every gun you buy. Very few increase in value - ie very rare Colts,RR's etc. Colts are good if you want a plain jane model. If you want all the bells and whistles the SA is the way to go.


Comparatively speaking, the Colts will hold more of their value. Usually they won't actually appreciate, although I'd like to see what some of these jokers paid for their Series 80 guns when they were new. Then there are the Series 70 Colts, which despite some shaky QC during several periods, still command a premium.

When it comes time to sell, there is an undeniable market bias towards Colts versus other marques.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 12:48:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By ken_mays:

Originally Posted By bullitt5172:

Originally Posted By ken_mays:
Originally Posted By jeepdriver98:
For what youget, a Colt is Waaaayy too expensive. Hold their value? Value is defined as what someone else is willing to pay for something. Colts just haven't been at the top of the list in decades.


It's rare to see even a mid-80's Colt going for under $500. The only ones that get down into the $400s are the plain-jane M1991 ORMs. You won't lose money on a Colt.


Yes you will, you lose money on almost every gun you buy. Very few increase in value - ie very rare Colts,RR's etc. Colts are good if you want a plain jane model. If you want all the bells and whistles the SA is the way to go.


Comparatively speaking, the Colts will hold more of their value. Usually they won't actually appreciate, although I'd like to see what some of these jokers paid for their Series 80 guns when they were new. Then there are the Series 70 Colts, which despite some shaky QC during several periods, still command a premium.

When it comes time to sell, there is an undeniable market bias towards Colts versus other marques.[/quote]

Personal experience confirms this for me also. I picked up an old Colt Gold Cup (70 series) for $400 at an estate sale. I don't know who did the work on it but it has Bomar sights, Briley barrel, a trigger job and I think someone worked the tolerances because the thing is tight as it can be. I wear it openly at work all the time (gun store). Get offers regularly for varying amounts of cash, but nothing less than $800 so far. I am happy with my purchase.
Link Posted: 10/1/2007 2:59:23 PM EST
if cash is not a consideration, of the 3, i'd do Colt, SA, and Kimber...h/w, overall, i'd say that they are all great 1911s

Link Posted: 10/2/2007 4:30:27 AM EST
SA
Link Posted: 10/2/2007 5:00:25 AM EST
I have both. The kimber feels tighter. I have the Desert Warrior without the schwartz safety. The springfield is a GI that I upgraded with a new trigger, mainspring housing, etc. I will probably never get rid of either. I enjoy shooting them that much.

Both shoot remarkably well. No problems at all. I use them both every week. I've used a lot of different ammo with a lot of different magazines. The kimber took about 500 rounds to function perfectly, but since then it has run wothout the slightest hiccup. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase either brand again.

I would say you would be safe picking the one that fits you best out of either company.


Link Posted: 10/3/2007 4:09:19 PM EST
Colt may have the name. But I've owned all three over the past 25 years. Get the Springfield
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 4:32:12 PM EST
Springfield Armory. BTW, I speak from experience because I already own two of them myself.
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 4:51:05 PM EST
Have a Springer GI that is so reliable that I wouldnt hesitate putting it against a Glock or HK in a death match. I once shot so many rounds out of it in one day, it was too hot to hold and rack the slide, well over 10 boxes of ammo went thu it in that day. It didnt jam once, no FTF, no FTE, it ran like a clock. I will probably try the Colt next, They have upgraded the frame and barrel to work better with hollow points.
Link Posted: 10/4/2007 5:14:37 PM EST
I just emailed SA to demand a 4" Mil-Spec be produced.
I would not hesitate to use one for CCW.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:43:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 9:02:50 AM EST by SGB]
Have had three 1911s. That is why I now own a Glock.



IM Sent
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:50:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By jeepdriver98:

Kimber, too many plastic parts in production line guns. Nice cosmetics though.


Kimbers have one plastic part- the MSH.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:51:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By army_eod:
Have had three 1911s. That is why I now own a Glock.


Good for you, although he didn't ask for a Glock vs. 1911 debate. Go start a pissing match in the handgun forum not the 1911 forum if you're so inclined.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:10:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:17:10 AM EST
I just went through a CCW class, and watched a ton of brand new Glock, XD, Keltec and M&P pistols hiccup, but my less than 500 rounds Springfield ran flawlessly. The fact that Imbel forges the frames and slides and assembles them there isn't exactly a con. I've never seen anyone complain about their shitty Imbel receiver on their FAL.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:22:16 AM EST
I imagine the rub comes from the 1911 being such the quintisential American pistol...

Would I prefer a US frame? sure. Am I going to worry about my Brazillian one? nope.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 10:58:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleARon:
I've never seen anyone complain about their shitty Imbel receiver on their FAL.


I have. Imbel has never produced the very best of anything, especially FAL receivers. I have seen plenty of QC issues surrounding Imbel FAL receivers over the last few years and the 1911 parts produced by them are certainly no exception.

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 11:01:36 AM EST
They're all great.

My Springfield is my favorite followed by my Kimber.
Top Top