More Thoughts on the Rem 1911

22-Nov-09 – 12:45 by ToddG

Yet another 1911 on the market. There are two ways to look at it.

First, “1911” is supposed to be the model name, not the number of companies building versions of it. Building a 1911 is just a lazy way to enter the handgun market. There is little design and testing needed compared to making something new from scratch. Pick a design, build some prototypes, do a little testing to make sure the CNC machines are set right, and start pumping out guns. Sure, you can make it more complicated — SIG, for example, spent a million dollars developing the GSR — but the code has sort of been cracked when it comes to 1911s, folks.

top_greenremOn the other hand, what company currently produces a high-quality, durable, dependable 1911 at a price that can compete with more modern handguns? Nobody. The market is full of low-cost guns that I wouldn’t trust my life to, and high-cost guns (most of which I still wouldn’t trust my life to). So now the makers of such ubiquitous and indestructible low-cost guns as the Rem870 and 700 want to build a 1911. That could be a good thing.

A 1911 with the quality of a Rem870 that sold for around $750 would take the market by storm. Following the 870 plan would make sense, too. Don’t put all the bells and whistles on the gun that most 1911 companies do today. You either get a jacked up price or you have to sacrifice fundamental quality. Let the aftermarket deal with extended-these and tuned-thats. Put out a gun that goes bang every time, over and over again, with FMJ and JHP, for a decent price.

And then send me two along with 50,000 rounds of ammo. 😎

Train hard & stay safe! ToddG

  1. 6 Responses to “More Thoughts on the Rem 1911”

  2. The thing is, adding more usable parts (beavertail grip safety, extended thumb safety, decent sights) doesn’t add that much to the cost of making the gun. They certainly don’t have to add to installation costs if the CNC is programmed for them in the first place. Kimber used to make a really good gun for $500-$600, and now makes that same gun with cheaper parts for $725.

    Being a dyed in the wool 1911 guy, I’m not sure I can adequately express my apathy towards another 1911, especially one with no current track record of making pistols.

    By Haji on Nov 22, 2009

  3. Haji — Agreed. The “early Kimber” approach was great. Good solid gun for a great price, customize to suit if you choose to. Now they’re substantially more expensive and require work right out of the box in many cases.

    I’m not sure if Rem’s lack of track record for such pistols (at least in the past few decades) is a bad thing. Looking at the companies who’ve been doing it for years, what have you got? A ton of compromises. A company that comes along and actually does it right would be a big deal.

    By ToddG on Nov 24, 2009

  4. They’re part of the same family of companies as are Bushamster and DPMS. I hold no particular expectation of them doing it right. My cynical side says they’ll do is also.

    By Haji on Nov 24, 2009

  5. I have a 1911 from WWII that sports the name REMINGTON.

    Wouldn’t mind a new one.

    By Ogre on Nov 27, 2009

  6. Five gets you ten that Remington will be buying all or most of the parts from outside vendors.

    By Tam on Dec 2, 2009

  7. I wouldn’t exactly hold up the 870 as a model of inexpensive excellence anymore. It used to be really good, but at this point, I’ll take a 10 year old 870 that looks like it went through a few wars to a brand new one straight out of the box. When I was looking at shotguns, something that really stood out was the poor quality of the 870. Racking it, I could bind up the rails because they were thin enough to twist up. Remington seems to have sacrificed their quality for some reason, and it is catching up to them quickly.


    By Justin James on Nov 21, 2011

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.