Why does the Ruger 1911 get more oohs and aahs than the Remington 1911 does?

Does the Ruger's lack of availability in large numbers play into it some?

Just curious. I'm a Remington owner, and when I first saw the 1911R1, I had the oohs and aahs for a while myself. I had to buy one. Now I realize that hey, everyone is cashing in on the 100th anniversary opportunity. S&W did a revamp of their 1911 design. Sig, Remington, Ruger, & Taurus are in the game. Springfield, and of course "Colt" have been making them forever. All the big names want a piece of the 1911 action.

It's a good time to be making 1911's. John Moses Browning was "the man". People are still going ga-ga over the 1911, and the U.S. military is still using his .50 caliber machine gun design in 2012.

Personally, I just liked the stainless look over the Remington's painted black look. I think the 1911R1 would have done better if it were blued.

Lack of availability and stainless.....desire is often stronger for that which you can't have......I intend to hold out til prices drop.....JJ

The 1911R1 is also available in Stainless. And it looks sharp too!!!

Even though some folks hated Bill Ruger for his stand on "hi-cap" magazines, Ruger products have a reputation of being "overbuilt", of being very reliable. Perhaps not always the most elegant, but among the strongest.

Add to that the good reviews from the folks who own one, the lack of supply, and you have something that folks will lust after.

In addition, the Ruger seems to offer a heck of a lot for the money, given the way it's equipped.

So, you have a well equipped, stainless steel pistol -- a classic design -- from a manufacturer with a reputation for building very strong, reliable guns. What's not to like?

I think in the handgun world it's more that Ruger has built some stout and good pieces for 1/2 a century,by memory Rem has been out for about a century so their a little off the game.I posted a thread in the 1911 area that brings up a major problem with their first run that a simple frame cut that deviates from spec seriously hampers barrel longevity.Someone there obviously loves Rem and tried playing some BS but it is a known and documented flaw Rem blew off as being OK-bad move on them for anyone that knows how 1911s operate.As far as I can tell the situation has been remedied,but the first run still seems to be "oh well,sorry".Haven't heard otherwise and until I hear different I don't really care.Won't care then honestly because anyone shy of semi custom (Wilson,Brown,Baer,etc) that deviates from spec on their own always seem to have alot more reliability problems.Para and Kimber are good examples,while Auto Ordnance and Springfield Armory (at least early ones) are a good example of slack specs causing alot of puking.

Quote:

---

I posted a thread in the 1911 area that brings up a major problem with their first run that a simple frame cut that deviates from spec seriously hampers barrel longevity.

---

I disassembled my 1911R1, and it has the frame cut which you refer to. I'm going to keep mine. If it ever does break down, I'll send it to Remington for Repair / Replacement. I'd have Revolvers to keep me busy while I waited for it's return.

I haven't heard of anyone shooting one enough to start shearing the lower lugs,so it's a guessing game at the moment to speculate when one may go depending on the load.I suspect an average shooter blowing off target loads occasionally could get a lifetime out of it,but I see full power loads in a match gun going south well before 10K.Back when I was shooting alot I could see this setup lasting under a year.

Just keep an eye out for stress cracking at the chamber/lug corner when you clean it,I'm sure Rem will replace the barrel forever in the few that do get shot enough to require it.I'm sure they see it as being cheaper than the hassle of replacing a frame on however many made it out like this.If it does let go,I'd appreciate any info you have as to the round count and load used if you don't mind.Mainly to see how close my predictions are,but it could be usefull to others that are in the same boat.What a shame really,I can't find a reason they decided to remove that area.

I don't use +P in my .45, mainly because I don't think it's necessary. A 230 Grain JHP is bad news as it is. Might as well save the wear and tear on all of the components.

Getting off topic but I like the way you think.The +P was born from making lighter bullets perform to 'the standard desired effect'.I don't have any,but if I had some hi-test rounds they'd go through the HK before the Colt.I always wonder if the 9 is like the original 45acp design with the 200gr.The 45 went to 230 pretty fast but 115 is still standard for the 9 when the 120s are a better option without cranking up the pressure.

I never defined hot to me so I should.I consider the 230 at the original 835-865fps (or at that) standard,the good defensive HPs are pretty warm.Without knowing who makes the barrel or how Rem fits it,I'm guessing around 8K for average ball ammo is it,on the high side.Hope you prove me wrong though.

"I'm guessing around 8K"

In all honesty, in that one gun that's probably a lifetime of use for me, being that I'm 41 at the moment and I have other guns to occupy my interest. I will be well satisfied if I can get 8K-10K rounds out of it without any breakdowns. I don't expect it to run forever.

Not a problem as long as you're happy.In the long run that's all that really counts.

I have to say I like your name,man they are slick and take a beating.The only thing I've handled smoother and quicker was an old S&W 3000.Unreal fast.I used to run my 16ga 870 (does have a 26" barrel though) in steel matches,and the only thing that could beat it was a Benelli M1 Super90.Those cycle faster than you can step back with a full tube rocknroll.Rambling again,sorry.

Later,and enjoy it.