[Bulldog Six]

As the proud owner of two Colt products, a 1973-purchased Series 70 Government Model (since worked on by Jim Stroh of Alpha Precision) and a Ted Yost Signature Grade LW Commander, I have great affection and reverence for the guns of the rampant stallion. Come to think of it, I have an LE6920 carbine, too, but I digress....

While attending the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army in Washington, DC, this morning, I wandered into the Colt exhibit. Their booth was, as you might expect, heavy on long arms, but they also had a couple of displays of pistols, including a lovely nickel-plated SAA, and six or eight 1911s.

I was handling the CCO Gunsite pistol, a design I've always admired, and looked at the tag that had been printed, laminated, and attached to it, with key features, suggested retail price, etc.

To my dismay, it proclaimed the model I was holding to be the "Gunsight" model. The fact that the pistol was pretty roughly put together with a clunky trigger didn't do much for my morale, either.

OK, it's a small thing, but you know, to me it speaks volumes about Colt's lack of engagement in the marketplace. I wish like hell that Colt's would return the brand to what many of us would like to think of as its rightful place in the market, which it long ago ceded to Kimber, Springfield, et. al.

That would be something we could all be happy about.

 

[arbob]

I`ve heard distressing remarks about the gunsite CCO as well. Colt refers to it as the Gunsite Commander in their 2005 catalog. But he fact they even have it is a sign they`re trying to do better.

 

[BTS]

A typo in a display exhibit?!

 

[popa1911]

I had heard stories of the CCO having quality issues, I stressed over ordeering one for a few days but decided to give it a try. The gun came in as perfect as can be, I am VERY please with fit and finish. I have not made it to the range yet but I am sure the quality is there. Here are a couple of pics, one with new grips.

Also, the Colts my local dealer has(few) look very nice. I think COlt is getting back in the game.

 

[Bulldog Six]

Popa, those are great looking grips. Really glad to hear that your gun turned out to be everything you hoped it would.

Please post a range report when you get the chance!

 

[Kilroy6644]

Popa1911, congratulations. You have the first front serrations/angled serrations/beavertail 1911 that I ever thought looked good. I never would've believed it. :rock:

 

[Dillinger]

I've owned many, many, many Colt 1911's over the years.....still own a Python and serveral Colt reproduction black power revolvers.....I now prefer Kimber 1911's as believe they are best fit and finish from a factory....Anyway..I recently checked out a Colt Gunsight model and serveral others at my local dealers and I couldn't find one I would buy...all of them were sloppy and loose, several had long plastic triggers, and drop in beavertail safeties with gaps that would catch on the web of my hand. It's just very dissapointing to see this kind of quality coming from one of America most widely known and recognized brands.

Back in 1995 while employed with the National Rifle Association I got to tour Colts and S & W manufacturing facilities....Colt's manufacturing floor was dark and dirty....and it appeared that they made nothing in house....all 1911 parts seemed to be made by vendors and Colt employee finished the pieces and assembled them....they didn't even test fire the guns...they only tested fired the barrels in a special barrel tester....I think corporate greed and unionized labor distroyed Colt.

Now on the other hand....S & W was the bright and clean....lot's of computerized controlled machinery (CNC) making parts in house. I watched as whole team of workers carefully assembled revolvers to get them just right....and many would dissasembled them again and file a part and reassemable the gun back and test it again....it was impressive! On a wall in a hallway they samples of other manufacturs guns ( Taurus, Colt, Beretta, and others) with a sign above them saying something like "This is our competition....it is our job to produce a better product"). Unfortunately, I never liked S&W autos but attached to their older revolvers like the model 10,15,28,66...had a Model 659 in 9mm and at the range one day a guy let me shoot his Sig 226....I realized the 659 was a no comparison.

Anyway, I wish Colt would/could still produce a quality gun....

 

[popa1911]

Popa1911, congratulations. You have the first front serrations/angled serrations/beavertail 1911 that I ever thought looked good. I never would've believed it. :rock:

I'm not a big fan of front serrations either. I can live with them though. I did puposely put them on my Damascus gun thinking any cut would show off the Damascus.

 

[RandyColt]

"I wish like hell that Colt's would return the brand to what many of us would like to think of as its rightful place in the market, which it long ago ceded to Kimber, Springfield, et. al." qoute from Bulldog Six

I have looked at many Kimber's, Springfield's and Colt's and I can not see any superiority in the K's and S's, none at all. Granted the others out do Colt in advertising and marketing, but I do not see it in their products.

 

[Dillinger]

look again my friend

RandyColt,

Here's a few areas where Colt is lacking compared to Kimber and in some cases SA:

1. beavertail on Colt is drop w/ hugh gap between it and frame that catches web of hand when activating thumb safety

2. hammer on Colts generally drag on side of slide when falling...Kimbers hammers are slimmed down can can't drag on slide

3. pick any Colt and with hammer down depress with your thumb on top of barrel hood...it will move downwards indicating barrel lugs are not resting firmly on slide release pin running thru frame and barrel link...this directly affects accuracy even more then slide to frame fit.

4. Kimbers come from the factory with good slide to frame fit....SA does also in some cases....new Colt's I've seen aren't even close....although this is not critical to accuracy you would still expect atleast a good fit from Colt.

I still love Colt's but the quality in lacking....

Now, to be fair....Kimber made a drastic mistake switching to external extractors...lot's of complaints... and unhappy owners....furtunately mine have internal extractors and function fine.

 

[k217sc]

"Here's a few areas where Colt is lacking compared to Kimber and in some cases SA:"

Maybe I'm just lucky, but none of my Colts have the issues attributed to all Colts.

Greg

 

[DHart]

Dillinger... you are wrong in suggesting that your criticisms apply to all Colts. Simply not true in my experience with Colts, which is probably more than most 1911 buyers have.

Among my thirty or so 1911 purchases in the last three years are over twenty new Colt 1911's and dang close to every one of them have been near perfect... solid barrel hoods, good fit of grip safeties, good slide to frame fit. And best of all... they've been the most reliable running right out of the box!

Of course as with all of the gun companies, some buyers do obtain samples that are sub-standard and need to be corrrected, but the most important quality of all that I demand of my firearms (or they get gone) is reliability, something Colt excels in.

I've bought four new Kimbers and Kimber does offer a nice slide & frame, usually well fitted, however when it comes to reliability, a significant portion of them are sadly lacking in that arena (particularly Kimber Series II models... those made in the last three years)... and parts breakages with Kimbers has been rampant for some time. I wouldn't have a new Kimber if you gave it to me, despite their glitzy advertising and all the bling-glam-flash-whiz-bang cosmetic doo-dads they use to try to win over buyers who are susceptible to that sort of thing.

I'll be the first to admit dismay when I hear of or find obvious flaws on new Colts, because I hold Colts in such high regard. The buyer of any firearm should be especially picky these days, particularly with 1911's... because so many manufacturers are shipping guns which should not have been shipped. Colt is no exception in this regard and I'm sorry to have to say that. But that said, a great many new Colt 1911's are magnificent, stellar examples of their type and do make their owners exceptionally pleased with and proud of them.

 

[popa1911]

RandyColt,

Here's a few areas where Colt is lacking compared to Kimber and in some cases SA:

1. beavertail on Colt is drop w/ hugh gap between it and frame that catches web of hand when activating thumb safety

2. hammer on Colts generally drag on side of slide when falling...Kimbers hammers are slimmed down can can't drag on slide

3. pick any Colt and with hammer down depress with your thumb on top of barrel hood...it will move downwards indicating barrel lugs are not resting firmly on slide release pin running thru frame and barrel link...this directly affects accuracy even more then slide to frame fit.

4. Kimbers come from the factory with good slide to frame fit....SA does also in some cases....new Colt's I've seen aren't even close....although this is not critical to accuracy you would still expect atleast a good fit from Colt.

I still love Colt's but the quality in lacking....

Now, to be fair....Kimber made a drastic mistake switching to external extractors...lot's of complaints... and unhappy owners....furtunately mine have internal extractors and function fine.

I don't think any of the current Colt's I have seen have the problems you suggest, I have seen slide to frame fit a bit "looser" than KImbers, ,and I do mean a tiny bit. I also hear the stories that Kimbers need to be "broken in" which to me means it is too tight. I have yet to see a SA any tighter or better fit/finish that a COLT. I am not a Colt only guy, I still have a Kimber series 1 that is great and a SA linkless 40, I have had a couple of other Kimbers and just couldn't get to work well (both series II, one internal extractor)

I am no expert but I can't see any one brand THAT much better than the other across the board, something about the horsey just makes it a little bit better.

 

[Beemerguy53]

Seven of my eight 1911s are Colts (the other is a Baer). Among them are an early Series 80 Commander, an XSE Commander, two 1991s (5" and Commander) and an XSE Government Model, all of which I shoot.

I have never had any problems of any kind with any of these Colts. Each of them is accurate, reliable, and well-made.

Some years ago, I bought one of the first Kimber 1911s, and after repeated reliability problems, coupled with Kimber's poor excuse for "customer service", I returned it to the dealer. You could not give me another Kimber after that experience.

I've examined Springfields and some of the other 1911s being made, and while they seem to be well put together, I honestly cannot see any real advantage they offer over my Colts.

There definitely is a huge difference between a semi-custom pistol such as a Baer and a Colt (or any stock pistol, for that matter), but for out-of-the-box value, I think Colt is at least as good anything else.

And I do love that prancing horse...

 

[dsk]

Also note the fact that Kimbers use MIM small parts almost exclusively, while Colt uses mostly barstock and cast, with only about four MIM components. If only Colt would get its exterior fit and finish under control they'd be just about right. It's so annoying to finally find one for sale locally, and have to pass it up anyway because of some glaring "whatinellizzat?" cosmetic defect on the outside.

 

[2005xse]

???

So what are the chances that Colt might actually listen to its civilian customers and change for the better??? ............because I wouldn't mind buying a couple more new 1911's over the next few years!!!

 

[fxntime]

I have bought a lot of Colt 1911s over the past few years. ALL of them put together have not had as many problems with feeding, ejecting, stovepiping etc. as the "other" big name in 1911s today. Yes, the "other" brand is a hell of a lot tighter fit and that fit sucks worse then "too" loose as far as dependability. I will never bother with that brand again, EVER, because I do not consider it in the least bit reliable. I'm also not impressed with chrome plating over crappy parts, junk is junk, no matter if it has a nice shiny surface. I wish to the good Lord above that people would realize that 1911s were DELIBERATELY made with somewhat loose tolerences between certain parts to promote dependability. That was by JMB, not some marketing "genius".

And I will be the first to admit that Colt has had their dark years, but they are making some very nice stuff right now. too bad the idiot who should inspect them before they go out cannot do his/her job.

 

[pyunker45]

"A Sign of the [Sad] Times at Colt's ". That statement puzzles me. I have been excited for several years now how well Colt has been doing! I have purchased several new Colts of late, my shootin partner many more than me, and we are very happy with the fit and finish of all of them. What puzzles me more is how much a typo can upset someone to the point of starting this thread.

 

[gpo1956]

Just curious. Is it actually documented anywhere that JMB designed the 1911 with loose tolerances? Its kind of strange that it usually Colt afficianados who seem to quote this.

 

[MARINEUS]

I have a few Colts, I like the 70 Series; perhaps the 80 Series and later guns are as good but I really doubt it and to be honest I can't put my finger ( no pun) on it BUT there is a difference. I have the same feeling that I have when I handle my 1918 1911's. I can just feel the quality, look at the hammer, the slide stop the fitting; feel the quality you know its there. I had a commercial model made in 31 ( later stolen) What a pistol! Check out the Old Pre-64 Winchesters against the modern ones you know there is a difference, afraid the same with the modern Colts.