1911Forum banner

Has the Colt Gunsite Improved Lately?

1584 10
(I poseted this in response to another thread, but thought I would start a new thread...)

Has the Colt Gunsite model IMPROVED any, lately? I remember reading earlier posts about it that were not very complementary (one, in particular by Ted Yost).

I was a bit interested in one, until I read these reports.

Have they improved the fit of the components?

Thanks,
Steve
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
The first 150 had the wrong front sight installed. Colt will fix anything at no charge. I have three: two consecutive #d blued pistols, and one stainless. Chuck Rogers, who put an ambi. safety on the s/s pistol, opined that it was pretty nicely done. For an off-the-shelf Colt 1911, it's a winner.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,435 Posts
......not very complementary (one, in particular by Ted Yost).
Ted builds custom 1911's and I think he used to run Gunsite's custom pistol shop. Any gun other then a base gun gets compared to his very high standards, how could he like the CGS pistol?
Examples:
The CGS pistol has a MIM hammer which is awful in the custom 1911 world but in reality works just fine.
Barrel fit is drop-in on the Colt pistol again in the custom world that is not tolerated, but for a defense gun you will hit anything you aim at within combat range.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
Bluetooth said:
Barrel fit is drop-in on the Colt pistol again in the custom world that is not tolerated, but for a defense gun you will hit anything you aim at within combat range.
Actually, Ted has had good things to say about the accuracy of stock Colt barrels, and IIRC the only part he really said was a "must throw out" on the Colt I sent him was the MIM sear. His critique of the Colt Gunsite was very specific, and the stuff he found was fair game for the price those things cost. If your "production" product is well over $1,000, you can expect scrutiny that a $570 gun you make doesn't deserve.

You can read Ted's specific critiques here:

http://www.1911forum.com/forums/sho...erpage=25&highlight=colt gunsite&pagenumber=2

http://www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.php?t=17350&highlight=colt
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,138 Posts
Steve, your question implies there is something wrong with the Colt Gunsite Pistol, "as issued" that really needs alteration. I disagree. The comparison I am seeing in this thread, and the opinions I am reading seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the Gunsite's purpose - and how a fighting 1911 should be built for serious hard use. ( As opposed to the more common Range Gun use.)

The Colt Gunsite Pistol (CGP) was a collaboration between Colt and the new ownership of Gunsite training academy. Gunsite specified what mix of parts they wanted on "their" gun and Colt built it as requested. Thus the "slim grips" and McCormick hammer and sear were not Colt's doing, but Gunsite's.

Gunsite wanted a ready to go gun that would be for sale at Gunsite with the features they felt were important. It had to be accurate and reliable. The reports in the gun press indicate that the gun is both, with around 2" groups and complete reliability.

What I am hearing here is that the gun is not "fitted up" like a hand built gun, built lovingly by a Master smith. It is not a hand built custom. And, the thinking goes, at this price point it should be. I disagree. Colt "fitted" the gun up as a for real Combat pistol, not a Rangebag Queen that is unnecessarily (and incorrectly) too tight in the wrong places, like a majority of custom and semi-custom 1911s. If the necessary accuracy is there - and it is - and the gun runs 100%, what we are left to argue over is mere cosmetics. A tight dovetail is nice - but .06 doesn't bother me much. Something that is very important to some - and less important to serious, hard use shooters. That is who the gun is aimed at.

It is understandable that many ignorantly mistake the deliberately chosen Colt slide/frame tolerances for mere sloppyness. Again, wrong thinking. Functionally, Colt builds the most correctly toleranced 1911 in the industry. Good barrel fit with slight slide play is the correct way. But they are misunderstood because the "mine is tighter than yours" fad that runs the wrong way - and most people don't know enough to know any better.

The five Gunsites we have sold had no cosmetic issues worth mentioning, although they may have not met Ted Yost's idea of what a custom handbuilt 1911 should be. Ted is, by the way, one of the finest custom Smiths you could ever have do work.

I didn't notice any daylight under the sights, but I was looking at the overall gun as a carry gun and fighting tool, not a piece of artwork. And the price is set by what Colt and Gunsite feel it should sell for in the current market. Current actual selling price seems around $1299, with two Wilson magazines and a $100 Gunsite Couse Certificate. It's certainly worth that.

My only real complaint with the gun is that the stock Colt hammer is Barstock and actually superior to the McCormick piece that replaced it! I don't like MIM anywhere, but we have had no trouble doing successful trigger jobs on Colt's standard hammers and MIM sears that hold and are smooth. Colt's limited use of MIM - except for their shortlived trial of MIM extractors seems to work pretty well for them.

And I don't care for the "SlimGrips" but that is easily changed and simply a matter of taste.

I'd much rather have a Gunsite than a Baer, a Kimber, or even a Wilson. It will run, dirty or dry - and "take care of business" just fine, thank you. And much more accurately than most of us can hold.

Warmly, (if a little tactically influenced) Col. Colt
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,000 Posts
Good points by Col. Colt, however they are not really relevant to Ted's criticisms which prompted this whole topic in the first place.

Col. Colt said:
What I am hearing here is that the gun is not "fitted up" like a hand built gun, built lovingly by a Master smith.
Actually, what Ted said was that the Colt Gunsite he saw was not "fitted up" like an 01991.

Quoting Ted:

The CGP I just finished had an unacceptable level of frame/slide fit (worse than any I've seen from Colt in their base guns)
Col. Colt said:
Colt "fitted" the gun up as a for real Combat pistol, not a Rangebag Queen that is unnecessarily (and incorrectly) too tight in the wrong places, like a majority of custom and semi-custom 1911s.
See above... Ted said the one he saw was looser than an 01991, a gun he's had very positive comments about overall (at least on the phone to me). Now, my 01991 was pretty far from tight, so I dunno how much looser the Gunsite would need to be to not be a "Rangebag Queen." ;)

The five Gunsites we have sold had no cosmetic issues worth mentioning, although they may have not met Ted Yost's idea of what a custom handbuilt 1911 should be.
Actually, he wasn't comparing it to a handbuilt custom, but as he himself stated to a basic Kimber, or Colt's own 01991 and Special Combat Government Models. Against those criteria, it fell short in his opinion.

Quoting Ted:

Even at $1200, I expect better. An $800 Kimber with this kind of workmanship would be a disappointment.
The special Combat Gov't is a better deal.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but it seemed like this topic was getting off track from what the critiques of the Colt Gunsite made by Ted actually were.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,526 Posts
I agree wholeheartedly with CB. I did have an early Colt Gunsite and was very unhappy with overall fit of the pistol. The barrel lock up was not the best and the barrel/slide/ bushing fit was awful. Add that to the MIM McMormick parts, and I do not feel that the gun is worth the price.

A previous poster stated that he would rather have a Colt Gunsite to a Wilson and several other brands. I can't compare the others, but I wouldn't trade one of my Wilsons for three of the Gunsite pistols.

I am a Colt fan and love their base and Series 70 guns, but in my opinion based on my experience with one of the Gunsite pistols, I would look elsewhere for a pistol in this price range.

Also, Ted Yost knows of what he speaks, and he does like to use base Colts for his custom guns. I have one and it is just tremendous.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,944 Posts
Seems that everybody has stories to tell about the "production 1911s." Luckily, I was able to sort through a pile of Colt Gunsite Pistols at Gunsite. The two I bought were consecutive numbered with my son's and my birthdays. Not as well-fitted as my Wilson Protector and CQBs, but nice, nevertheless.

The stainless pistol I placed on "hold" was Really Nice (s/n 94, IIRC. I had just bought TWO.) Buz (Gunsite's owner) walked in one day and grabbed it for a friend of his before I could come up w/the money for the third, "working gun". I later bought one from Bachmann's for a couple hundred less and lucked out: It was just as nice.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
My biggest complaint with the gunsite pistol may sound trivial, but I really HATE the rollmarks.
I'm so glad to see Colt using the old school rollmarks again instead of the ugly "billboard" stuff. When I read about the gunsite pistol being made from a series 70, I thought I would have to get one. When I saw it I liked it...then....I saw the rollmark "COLT GUNSITE PISTOL" that turned my stomach and back in the case it went.
I'll buy a new series 70 and have Ted do some tweaking if needed, but I just love the simple look of the old style rollmarks.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top