Friday Morning 1911 Musings: A 1911A1 Like Grandpa’s?

An interesting question posed on this thread at THR:

Okay, so I won’t bore everyone with my 1911 story. Lets just say that I am a Glock/CZ shooter who bought a Kimber some time ago and got rid of it after it continued to malfunction.

Here’s my question: Why doesn’t anybody make a REAL 1911-A1 pistol?

I’m talking about a real pre-series 70 1911-A1 like those that were produced in the THOUSANDS by non-firearms companies WITHOUT COMPUTERS and were generally excellent, reliable, COMBAT firearms.

I would buy a REAL 1911-A1 pistol in a heartbeat. No 1970s Colt “toilet” bushing, no 1980s firing pin block safety, no stupid front slide serrations, no dumb backstrap lawyer-lock, no “schwartz” system (I don’t even know what that is, but i’ve heard it’s no good)!

I think that’s a fair question, but something that irked me on a few subsequent responses was negative commentary on things like front slide serrations and skeletonized hammers and triggers. I can understand gripes about deviations from the original designs like firing pin safeties and such, and I can take or leave front slide serrations. I never use them anyway but don’t think they add or detract from the look of the pistol. But I do think that the skeletonized hammer & trigger add a lot to the aesthetics of the 1911. Personally, I think the 1911 is a thing of beauty whether it’s a bare-bones military-spec pistol or a Springfield Loaded-type gun. I have both types and like them both just the way they are, and as I said at THR, I don’t shoot the Loaded wondering if John Moses Browning would turn his nose up at that particular iteration of his design. He might not like the internal locking safety on it or the deviations from the original tolerances, but I’ve shot that gun enough to know it’s a reliable weapon just as he intended it to be, as is the Springfield GI. But I loved Xavier’s response to the original poster:

That’s what you wanted,…….and you bought a Kimber? Well golly gee darn. If you want a ’57 Chevy like Grandpa used to drive, you don’t go buy a 2007 Lexus and then complain about it.

I must say, I thought that was pretty funny. But what I really don’t understand is the animosity toward modern manufacturing technology. I’d say that as opposed to taking away from the quality of a modern 1911, they add to it, because I would think such technology would allow those guns to be turned out more rapidly than they used to be, thus keeping the prices lower than they’d otherwise be. As for the Kimbers, I guess I’ve just been lucky — either that or the complaints about them on the Internet gun boards are blown way out of proportion. Between the two I have, the only issue I’ve had is a weak magazine spring with the Tactical Ultra II.
I wouldn’t mind having an old gun like they used to make. I’d buy one in a heartbeat. And I know there’s a world of difference between that Kimber and an old WWII-era Colt. But I just can’t believe the modern-day 1911 is as much of a “big-boy toy” as so many claim it is. More than it used to be, no doubt, but I don’t know why my Springfield Loaded would not be deserving of the legacy of the 1911 despite the differences between it and a World War II-era Colt.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: