Did you read what you posted lol?
All current STIs are made in America, ....Spartans were not. STI merely put out a cheaper run 1911 for a while.
BTW STI is a step above most listed here..... Colt, SIg, Ruger etc..... unless you get to a Dan Wesson.
Did you read what you posted lol?
All current STIs are made in America, ....Spartans were not. STI merely put out a cheaper run 1911 for a while.
BTW STI is a step above most listed here..... Colt, SIg, Ruger etc..... unless you get to a Dan Wesson.
Colt XSE.
Before I begin my explanation let me just get two things out of the way...
One, Now when I say to spec, I mean both in materials and dimensions. You will not find a 1911 to 100% armory spec being built anywhere in the United States just because the price would be way higher than people would pay. So in the context of this, when I say, "Spec", I am speaking on dimensions and geometry of the design as well as ensuring the gun is assembled as close to the original as possible.
Two, MIM parts are fine. MIM is a friggin' awesome process and produces great quality parts with some pretty outstanding durability. But when it comes to 1911, I prefer as few MIM parts as possible. NOt because they make the gun run bad, but because it's not DESIGNED to have any goddamned MIM parts. But that is entirely personal preference and there is nothing wrong with MIM, especially considering that the money saved using MIM parts goes directly to the consumer, which is why there's a hundred and fifty dollar difference between the Loaded and the XSE, on average.
People will may disagree, but an XSE is probably about the best you're going to get in that range. Kick it up to around 900 for a total and order from Buds.
When you're talking about 1911s, the important thing is to stay within spec. The problem is that most companies violate the hell out of spec anymore. For example, Kimbers. Everyone goes gaga over kimbers and people hold them up as an example of what a 1911 either should be or as an example of the problems inherit in 1911s and there tends to not be a lot of middle ground. The problem with Kimber is that they use a Schwarz safety system which can be a tad problematic and can wear out over time. Not to spec, I'm not interested.
Next is Remington. I COULD be wrong, but as far as I know, Remington frames are cast, which to me was a deal breaker. Great 1911s and people tend to love them but, meh.
Springfield is next. I love Springfields, but I hate their ******** glued-in ejector block. I don't care if the FB goddamned I thought it was a great idea to glue them in with blue loctite so HRT could do a field expedient fix with friggin' glue, that's not to spec, and it's friggin' stupid. I don't like that their goddamned glue, or their copious use of MIM parts, I hate the fact that the same inferior parts on their 600 dollar Mil-Spec are in their 1000 Loaded Operator and their 1500 TRPs. They're great guns, though, really.
Now the Colt, even, isn't truly to spec, and if I can help it I will always choose a Series 70 over an 80 just for the simple fact that is how the goddamned gun is supposed to be made and it's slightly easier to find parts that work with it. However, the Series 80 isn't a problem at all in my experience. Now the dimensions are generally fairly correct on the Colt, everything that's SUPPOSED to be pinned is pinned and it has the least amount of MIM parts in any production 1911. They cut corners in some places and you gotta watch out and do your research because I know for a fact early Rail Guns had a dovetail too far back which wouldn't allow you to properly install aftermarket sights. Not sure about the XSE but that's the kind of BS they like to pull.
XSE Pros
In your price range.
Dimensions on the Colt tend to be pretty close to spec, considering they're built on the tooling that made the very first ones.
Everything is done right. No BS corner cutting. No MIM parts. The differences where it deviates from spec are improvements, IE The trigger guard relief cut, firing pin/drop safety, ambi safeties, etc.
Cons
The sights are not night sights. Springfield knocks their panties off here.
Plastic mainspring housing. So there's one corner cut, but it's not something that effects function of the gun, like a retarded glued in ejector.
Price. You're not going to notice much of a difference with MIM parts. Really. You won't. I promise. and if something does break, it's cheap to replace. So that said, the extra money you could save on the Loaded could be a pro.
So there you go. That's my opinion, and that's formed from three GIs, two Milspecs, two Loaded, a Combat Commander and a Colt Rail Gun. The only two 1911s I still have in my safe are Colts.
Before I begin my explanation let me just get two things out of the way...
One, Now when I say to spec, I mean both in materials and dimensions. You will not find a 1911 to 100% armory spec being built anywhere in the United States just because the price would be way higher than people would pay. So in the context of this, when I say, "Spec", I am speaking on dimensions and geometry of the design as well as ensuring the gun is assembled as close to the original as possible.
Two, MIM parts are fine. MIM is a friggin' awesome process and produces great quality parts with some pretty outstanding durability. But when it comes to 1911, I prefer as few MIM parts as possible. NOt because they make the gun run bad, but because it's not DESIGNED to have any goddamned MIM parts. But that is entirely personal preference and there is nothing wrong with MIM, especially considering that the money saved using MIM parts goes directly to the consumer, which is why there's a hundred and fifty dollar difference between the Loaded and the XSE, on average.
People will may disagree, but an XSE is probably about the best you're going to get in that range. Kick it up to around 900 for a total and order from Buds.
When you're talking about 1911s, the important thing is to stay within spec. The problem is that most companies violate the hell out of spec anymore. For example, Kimbers. Everyone goes gaga over kimbers and people hold them up as an example of what a 1911 either should be or as an example of the problems inherit in 1911s and there tends to not be a lot of middle ground. The problem with Kimber is that they use a Schwarz safety system which can be a tad problematic and can wear out over time. Not to spec, I'm not interested.
Next is Remington. I COULD be wrong, but as far as I know, Remington frames are cast, which to me was a deal breaker. Great 1911s and people tend to love them but, meh.
Springfield is next. I love Springfields, but I hate their ******** glued-in ejector block. I don't care if the FB goddamned I thought it was a great idea to glue them in with blue loctite so HRT could do a field expedient fix with friggin' glue, that's not to spec, and it's friggin' stupid. I don't like that their goddamned glue, or their copious use of MIM parts, I hate the fact that the same inferior parts on their 600 dollar Mil-Spec are in their 1000 Loaded Operator and their 1500 TRPs. They're great guns, though, really.
Now the Colt, even, isn't truly to spec, and if I can help it I will always choose a Series 70 over an 80 just for the simple fact that is how the goddamned gun is supposed to be made and it's slightly easier to find parts that work with it. However, the Series 80 isn't a problem at all in my experience. Now the dimensions are generally fairly correct on the Colt, everything that's SUPPOSED to be pinned is pinned and it has the least amount of MIM parts in any production 1911. They cut corners in some places and you gotta watch out and do your research because I know for a fact early Rail Guns had a dovetail too far back which wouldn't allow you to properly install aftermarket sights. Not sure about the XSE but that's the kind of BS they like to pull.
XSE Pros
In your price range.
Dimensions on the Colt tend to be pretty close to spec, considering they're built on the tooling that made the very first ones.
Everything is done right. No BS corner cutting. No MIM parts. The differences where it deviates from spec are improvements, IE The trigger guard relief cut, firing pin/drop safety, ambi safeties, etc.
Cons
The sights are not night sights. Springfield knocks their panties off here.
Plastic mainspring housing. So there's one corner cut, but it's not something that effects function of the gun, like a retarded glued in ejector.
Price. You're not going to notice much of a difference with MIM parts. Really. You won't. I promise. and if something does break, it's cheap to replace. So that said, the extra money you could save on the Loaded could be a pro.
So there you go. That's my opinion, and that's formed from three GIs, two Milspecs, two Loaded, a Combat Commander and a Colt Rail Gun. The only two 1911s I still have in my safe are Colts.
Colts are finally coming down and, as far as myself, are great.
Colt XSE.
Before I begin my explanation let me just get two things out of the way...
One, Now when I say to spec, I mean both in materials and dimensions. You will not find a 1911 to 100% armory spec being built anywhere in the United States just because the price would be way higher than people would pay. So in the context of this, when I say, "Spec", I am speaking on dimensions and geometry of the design as well as ensuring the gun is assembled as close to the original as possible.
Two, MIM parts are fine. MIM is a friggin' awesome process and produces great quality parts with some pretty outstanding durability. But when it comes to 1911, I prefer as few MIM parts as possible. NOt because they make the gun run bad, but because it's not DESIGNED to have any goddamned MIM parts. But that is entirely personal preference and there is nothing wrong with MIM, especially considering that the money saved using MIM parts goes directly to the consumer, which is why there's a hundred and fifty dollar difference between the Loaded and the XSE, on average.
People will may disagree, but an XSE is probably about the best you're going to get in that range. Kick it up to around 900 for a total and order from Buds.
When you're talking about 1911s, the important thing is to stay within spec. The problem is that most companies violate the hell out of spec anymore. For example, Kimbers. Everyone goes gaga over kimbers and people hold them up as an example of what a 1911 either should be or as an example of the problems inherit in 1911s and there tends to not be a lot of middle ground. The problem with Kimber is that they use a Schwarz safety system which can be a tad problematic and can wear out over time. Not to spec, I'm not interested.
Next is Remington. I COULD be wrong, but as far as I know, Remington frames are cast, which to me was a deal breaker. Great 1911s and people tend to love them but, meh.
Springfield is next. I love Springfields, but I hate their ******** glued-in ejector block. I don't care if the FB goddamned I thought it was a great idea to glue them in with blue loctite so HRT could do a field expedient fix with friggin' glue, that's not to spec, and it's friggin' stupid. I don't like that their goddamned glue, or their copious use of MIM parts, I hate the fact that the same inferior parts on their 600 dollar Mil-Spec are in their 1000 Loaded Operator and their 1500 TRPs. They're great guns, though, really.
Now the Colt, even, isn't truly to spec, and if I can help it I will always choose a Series 70 over an 80 just for the simple fact that is how the goddamned gun is supposed to be made and it's slightly easier to find parts that work with it. However, the Series 80 isn't a problem at all in my experience. Now the dimensions are generally fairly correct on the Colt, everything that's SUPPOSED to be pinned is pinned and it has the least amount of MIM parts in any production 1911. They cut corners in some places and you gotta watch out and do your research because I know for a fact early Rail Guns had a dovetail too far back which wouldn't allow you to properly install aftermarket sights. Not sure about the XSE but that's the kind of BS they like to pull.
XSE Pros
In your price range.
Dimensions on the Colt tend to be pretty close to spec, considering they're built on the tooling that made the very first ones.
Everything is done right. No BS corner cutting. No MIM parts. The differences where it deviates from spec are improvements, IE The trigger guard relief cut, firing pin/drop safety, ambi safeties, etc.
Cons
The sights are not night sights. Springfield knocks their panties off here.
Plastic mainspring housing. So there's one corner cut, but it's not something that effects function of the gun, like a retarded glued in ejector.
Price. You're not going to notice much of a difference with MIM parts. Really. You won't. I promise. and if something does break, it's cheap to replace. So that said, the extra money you could save on the Loaded could be a pro.
So there you go. That's my opinion, and that's formed from three GIs, two Milspecs, two Loaded, a Combat Commander and a Colt Rail Gun. The only two 1911s I still have in my safe are Colts.
Funny thing is.... I've seen several MIM parts fail.... I've never seen a quality cast frame fail. See Caspian.
I remember somewhere a dude took a bunch of close-ups comparing a Kimber and a Springfield with really good detail. It kind of became one of those viral, meme images actually. I wish I still had it.
Basically, it highlighted the differences in machining quality. The fit of slide to frame, deburring of internal parts, and a few other things I can't remember to mention were obviously superior on the Springfield. Couple this with the fact that Kimbers tend to run anywhere from a few hundred to double the price of a Springer, slipping quality in later model Kimbers, and all of the other problems mentioned by others in this thread, I can safely say I'll be choosing a Colt or Springfield for my first 1911.
I'll definitely consider the Ruger now, though. The price is pretty tempting, and I've never owned a 1911 before.
