1911Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
[START INSANE RANT
]

This quesiton has been gnawing at me ever since I saw my first 1991A1. They are SO incredibly ugly that it defies description. The rollmarks on a freakin' Charles Daly are classier than those on a COLT! I mean, LOOK AT IT FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!



As I said on a different thread, I wonder if anyone has done a CAT scan of the brain of the Colt executive that approved THAT...


I'm NOT going to pretend that they are functionally important by any stretch, but come on, how much more effort does it take to make something that looks decent? 99% of the Colt 1911-pattern pistols ever made have cool (or at least decent) markings; why not this one? I wonder how many people haven't bought a new 1991A1 because they are SO extravagantly ugly? For the $650 I've seen charged for them you ought to be able to look at it without getting stomach cramps. Even Glocks have better slide markings than a 1991A1, and Glocks are rightfully a benchmark of ugliness.

[END INSANE RANT]

...But those XS roll marks sure are pretty, aren't they?


------------------
CastleBravo
The Pit: http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/index.html

[This message has been edited by CastleBravo (edited 07-25-2001).]
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,005 Posts
I think the 1991 was intended to be cheap and utilitarian. If that "ugly" roll mark somehow saved me $10 then it was worth it to me.

What does a rollmark matter on a matte black gun with tacky rubber grips?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
James P - It only matters because it makes me wonder what else they fouled up. I mean, if they couldn't get the easy stuff right...

John
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,005 Posts
I guess that's a good point John but it is obvious when you handle the gun that there is more to it than a rollmark. There are several guns that aren't worth crap but they have some fancy logos etched in the side.

A lot of this comes down to opinion as well.

I prefer the 1991 roll mark to the one with all of the patent dates and such, (I know - blasphemy) but I don't think a gun is the poster board for lots of irrelevant info.

I prefer the 1991 roll mark when comparing to Beretta's whole paragraph on safety manuals and whatever other consumer info they are putting on there these days. I have read more than my share of manuals and I don't need to be reminded every time I pick up a pistol.

I guess you could say that S&W and Taurus put a lot of effort into their fancy rollmarks and logos these days but to me, they are just plain tacky and lack taste. It isn't my plan to advertise the brand name when I pull the gun out to shoot.

Comparing to Glock and Ruger, when you start out with a gun that ugly, who cares about the rollmark. They could put the rollmark on the 1991 crooked and it would still look better than either of these guns.

I admit that I am partial to the 70 series rollmark and to me, that is what a Colt should look like as the first picture I ever had of the Gov't model was in a 70 something issue of Guns and Ammo that I acquired when I was 5. I held on to that picture until I was able to get a series 80 ten or more years later. The gun was correct but it didn't match my picture...didn't bother me too much.

I guess if the 1991 had a nice rollmark then I would be tempted to put it up and look at it instead of using it. Glad I have a couple "ugly" guns cause I wouldn't be able to go shooting if I didn't.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,005 Posts
So you got it back from Dane? How does it run?

EDIT: Besides, it is hard to go wrong with a Colt, ugly rollmarks or not.

[This message has been edited by James P (edited 07-25-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
817 Posts
At least it is not as ugly as the barrel on my new Ruger Bisley! Damned Lawyers making them put the warnings on the barrel!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
CastleBravo, I agree they are UGLY, and my bet is that little bit of cost cutting has hurt sales badly! I'm one of those guys that make a purchase for a "shooter", but a DECENT looking shooter doesn't hurt my feelings at all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I put a link to my review of it in the range reports section of this site. Got to say Dane Did a great job, it runs like a champ.

As for cost cutting, I bet it would have been just as cheap or even cheaper to make the letters half as big and have it say:

Colt 1991-A1
--.45 ACP--

I'm not asking for the horsey here, just something inoffensive.


------------------
CastleBravo
The Pit: http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/index.html
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
74,721 Posts
Well, Colt had to put in a few $$$ to make new rollmark dies to replicate the patent date markings on the new repro M1911A1. Maybe with any luck they'll put them to use on the 1991 guns? Just a thought.

------------------
D. Kamm
USGI M1911/M1911A1 Pistols Website
http://www.geocities.com/M1911_M1911A1

[This message has been edited by dsk (edited 07-25-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,684 Posts
The 1991 rollmarks are okay if you're never gonna do any major custom work, but it's pretty ugly if you plan on dropping more money into it.
The S&W ti symbol looks neat, but otherwise they're overly intricate.
I don't mind the crossed cannon's of SA, but the rest of the roll marks are kind of ugly. Can't stand Kimber's girly writing.

I wouldn't even mind a simple three line
"Colt"
"1991a1"
".45 acp"
or something like that. Even just a bare slide would be good.
BUT, I need the rampant horsey :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
953 Posts
I don't care if they let a 3 year old engrave them, as long as my 1991 is made by Colt and stays as reliable as it has bone-stock, then I'm not going to complain. Yeah the plastic parts suck too, but the gun is still batting 1.00 when I pull the trigger. That is all that really matters when you need it the most. Anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to me plain is pretty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
Lots of people ALL over the map on this one... My personal take... The STUPID appearance of the 1991A1 and Springfield Armory markings on the slides have kept me from purchasing either in the last few years.

I'd figure the 1991A1 is probably a decent base gun for a project, but just can't get past what it will look like with that HUGE lettering, so I will opt to use something else instead.

I absolutely fell in love with the XS roll marks, it took me back to the early guns, and small lettered S70's with Pony's, a REAL COlt should have a Pony


Many had their Wishlists on the other thread, I will add that the XS rollmark is on mine, by with the XSE slide (no forward serrations) and Novak's (since many alternative sights fit the Novak cut). Forward serrations can always be added, but are hard to remove for those who do not prefer them.

If the makers could keep the "Model name" small, and classy, or classic, and have the Manufactures name emblazoned in the Typical Corporate style that everyone recognizes, that should suffice, much like Kimber or Caspian have done...

Even an Option for "Logo (Rollmark) Delete" would be a plus! Angled or Straight serrations, round top, flat top.... Hmmmmm What am I thinking, Caspian already does that
Maybe Colt can take a page from Caspian and start offering various Options... Better Yet, how about complete Shortblocks in Carbon, Stainless, and Alloy's!!! NOW THAT is something EVERYONE would jump on!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
Originally posted by jaydee:
Many had their Wishlists on the other thread, I will add that the XS rollmark is on mine, by with the XSE slide (no forward serrations)
AFAIK, the XSE's DO have forward serrations. Mine does anyway.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
The fact that the 1991A1 has "1991A1" written in huge letters is the only thing that has kept me from choosing it over the Springfield. I want a 1911, darn it!
I know they're basically the same, but still...

[This message has been edited by GI-45 (edited 07-25-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
Originally posted by RikWriter:
AFAIK, the XSE's DO have forward serrations. Mine does anyway.
Yup, you're right,I was just saying that I would take the slide with the angled serrations, but don't want the front ones, vs the 1991 slide with verticle serrations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
Ah, okay, I understand now. I agree, the angled serrations look nicer.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
855 Posts
I agree, the 1991A1 roll marks are ugly. If they were about a third to half the size they are now, it might be acceptable. As bad as the 1991A1 markings on the carbon steel models are, they really made them ugly on the stainless models.



[This message has been edited by Paten (edited 07-26-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
My wife is with you guys on this one... We bought her a 1991 compact stainless and she's bummed cause it's the only Colt in the house that has no pony on it. She even called the custom shop and asked about having it added. They said they could do it. She didn't get a quote tho.

I do think the 1991 roll marks look cheesy BUT I'm very impressed with this gun. The fit and finish gods must have been with the Colt workers the day this one came along. The fit of the grip safety to the frame is so perfect I've decided I'm going to fit all my other 1911s to match this one.

Tony G.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top