In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Ruger's new 1911...
wpage
Member Posts: 10,201 ✭✭✭
The new Ruger 1911 looks really neat.
Just read a report in June 11 Shooting times. Features a 8 round Mag & a 7. Good review!
Anyone try one?
Just read a report in June 11 Shooting times. Features a 8 round Mag & a 7. Good review!
Anyone try one?
Comments
Mine is on order already.
Best, Craig
It will be just like every other 1911 on the market, except it will say Ruger on the side instead of Colt, S&W, Springfield, Kimber, Sig etc etc etc.[;)]
That is not really true...most other 1911's have a forged reciever. This is cast. Yes, there is a difference.
Best
EDIT 1
quote:Is it going to funtion or feel different? Nope.
Not untill after the first 10-20k rounds. Then we will see what wear patterns we have. Yes that is no where near what the average shooter would put thru it in a lifetime, and I do agree, it would be perfect for the AVERAGE shooter.
Best
EDIT 2
Beany,
I guess, in practical, and real life terms, Who am I to question the casting of frames by Ruger. I own several of their firearms and love them, although the early ones I like better.
Also, with all the Polymer, and ALLOY frames out there, the Ruger should be a standout, and one that screams "TRICK ME OUT"...even though it does appear to be nicely done.
However, don't expect me to trade my Stainles Redhawk 41 Mag for one![:D][:D][:D]
quote:Originally posted by CS8161
It will be just like every other 1911 on the market, except it will say Ruger on the side instead of Colt, S&W, Springfield, Kimber, Sig etc etc etc.[;)]
That is not really true...most other 1911's have a forged reciever. This is cast. Yes, there is a difference.
Best
Is it going to funtion or feel different? Nope.
At $799.00 seems worth a try...
.45ACP looking good!
quote:Originally posted by CS8161
It will be just like every other 1911 on the market, except it will say Ruger on the side instead of Colt, S&W, Springfield, Kimber, Sig etc etc etc.[;)]
That is not really true...most other 1911's have a forged reciever. This is cast. Yes, there is a difference.
Well, as a first approximation, all of these are highly similar, in the sense that they all do more or less the same thing and most parts will interchange between them. But there are small differences between the different manufacturers in terms of how they work the internal/firing pin safeties, in terms of which features the gun has (sights, grips, etc) and other things.
Its those differences that "make" the gun.
On cast receivers, just to be clear, those are not something new to the market. Caspian has been casting 1911 receivers for years, and those are generally well-regarded for building up custom guns. IIRC, Caspian has also provided cast receivers for a number of other manufacturers over the years, including Essex and Detonics, and in fact, IIRC, Caspian actually builds its receivers at one of Ruger's facilities!
In terms of the merits of forged vs cast, that's a long discussion, but I'd point out the following:
Ruger has been casting steel gun receivers for a LONG time, and is probably the leader in the industry in doing so. As an example it casts its centerfire rifle receivers. It also casts all its magnum revolver frames and cylinders, and those are generally considered to be the strongest mass production revolvers on the market.
So I'm personally inclined to think Ruger won't have any issues casting good 1911 receivers.
While on paper forged parts should be better than cast, the reality is more complicated than that. The quality of the individual casting and forging still matters, and so does what happens to the receiver AFTER its been cast or forged (eg machining, heat treating, etc). EG, a GOOD casting is still better than a BAD forging.
Cost matters too. Stipulating that the best forged receivers are better than the best cast ones in terms of absolute strength or durability, is a forged receiver still "better" if it costs $250 more and you can't afford to buy it?
I'd argue that probably 99% of buyers will never notice ANY difference between a good quality cast receiver gun and a forged one. Not saying there isn't a difference. . .just that its probably not going to be a functionally significant one.
The fact is, the receiver isn't the "strength-limiting" part of the gun. Remember, Glock and others get away with .45ACP guns with polymer (not steel) receivers and those hold up to tends of thousands of rounds. The vast majority of shooters aren't pounding their guns with tens of thousands of rounds, nor overloading them with high pressure rounds, nor using them as hammers to drive nails, etc.
To me, again, I don't have any reason to think that Ruger can't put out a good 1911, just like I didn't think that Sig or Smith and Wesson couldn't do the same. The question is where is Ruger's product going to fall along the cost/quality, curve, that's all.
Edit: Responding to TSR above. My main points are just that "cast frame" is NOT synonymous with "bad gun", and if anybody can build a good cast frame, its going to be Ruger, that's all.
I see this as like the Smith pinned revolver barrel thing. On paper, pinned barrels are "better", but in reality, paying less money for a gun without a pinned barrel is probably better for the probably 99%+ of shooters who well never need to repair/replace/ or alter their guns barrel.
Likewise on paper, a top quality forged part may be stronger than the best of the cast ones, but in the real world, the cast frames are plenty strong.
For example, in addition to Caspian, STI, and Para-Ordnance also use cast frames. Lots of people build up top quality "race" type IPSC and competition guns on Caspian frames, and I know they will hold up to tens of thousands of rounds just fine. Ditto for STI, and to a lesser extent Para Ordnance.
Auto-Ordnance uses cast frames too, though I'm really not so sure *those* guns will hold up quite as well (though they may).
I think the SIG 1911s also use cast frames, or they did at one point, and it seems unlikely that SIG would do this if cast frames "sucked".
As another example, the current Browning Hi-Powers are made with cast frames and are +P rated, while the old ones made with forged parts are actually made from softer steel and are not. Again, quality of steel, manufacture, and heat treat do still matter.
www.shootingtimes.com