I am planning on getting a .45 semi-auto.
I saw a video about a Tisas, which retails for about 400 bucks. (The gun, not the video.) At any rate, going through the online reviews it seems to be a perfectly good gun. But…I read one purportedly by a gunsmith with good credentials that said “Perfectly good gun…comparable to a Rock Island (about 450 bucks)…but, if I had the money, I’d get a [Springfield/Ruger/ladeedah], and I can use this as a throwaway.”
WTF-a perfectly good gun is, by definition, PERFECTLY GOOD!
I have had some experience with handling .45s, and am tolerably knowledgeable at the user level; a good number of my friends own them, and they let me shoot and look at theirs. I also have a few guns, so, I’m not a *total *idiot. I also have a Hi-Point 9mm. I have compared it to a few friends’ Glocks, etc…, and i think that my HP is equal to theirs. It is bulkier, and doesn’t have the hi capacity that theirs have, but, I can’t see any other real advantage to owning theirs over mine. (I say this just to highlight that I’m not an out and out retard in re: guns.)
So, I am almost definitely going to get the Tisas, but, I’m wondering what makes the difference from a “perfectly good” inexpensive .45 and the higher ended ones? Or, is it just the snob appeal?
The expensive .45 is the weapon that the hero carries as a backup, once the assault rifle jams. He can bring down a helicopter with it if he uses the entire clip. The inexpensive one is the one that the mook carries. The hero will take that away from the mook if he gets the chance, but he’d probably rather beat him unconscious than have to use it on him. He’ll then hand the cheap gun to the damsel in distress and tell her to shoot anybody who isn’t him and proceed along, using a crowbar instead.
note: I am probably a bit less-versed in the ways of guns than you are, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten from my gun-using friends who have let me try it out. Expensive = more accurate, reliable, easier to use, lighter (easier to carry). Inexpensive = bulky, balky, non-sexy weapon that will still kill people in a pinch, but you’d really rather be using your X rather than Y.
It is not just snob appeal. 1911 pattern pistols are a definite case of you get what you pay for. If you are just a casual shooter making a trip to the range periodically, you will likely be happy with your choice.
The difference between entry level and the more expensive models are easy to see if you handle the firearms side by side. The trade offs less expensive models make to keep the costs down usually make the lesser expensive models less accurate and reliable.
Fit & finish ( much can be done ) barrel fit, etc… smoothing moving surfaces
Quality of sights
Trigger adjustments
Grip adjustments
Side note: experienced LEO shooter had a ‘Clark .45’ back in the day. He had been working on my S&S M66 all stainless ( I said ‘back in the day.’)
We were at an indoor range, been shooting different guns we had. He was OK with his .45. Been out shooting me consistently. Offered it to me.
I X’ed the first 6 shots and he was about to come unglued. 7th shot I pulled right.
He let me live.
That .45 was noticeably better IMO.
Was not worth the added cost for me to want it. I’m not a competition shooter. If I was, I would want it and the cost would be justified.
Very easy to get a weapon that is much better than you are, just takes $$$ but like him & I, does not mean you will overcome a lack of inborn talent.
Inborn talent will not consistently beat mega practice and effort.
So, … what do you want & what $$$$ can you justify?
Years ago, I had a friend who wanted to get into shooting. I had a Springfield mil-spec 1911 .45 so out we went to the range. He liked it, and then went off to find out more about guns for himself.
Now, the Springfield mil-spec 1911 .45 is a serviceable gun, but nothing fancy. If you shake it, it rattles. But it’s a 1911. Reliable. You pull the trigger, it goes boom.
Friend eventually finds himself doing IPSC competitions had has some nice guns, one of which was a Kimber 1911 that has been worked on much like GusNSpot describes. But it’s a 1911. Reliable. You pull the trigger, it goes boom. But it doesn’t rattle when you shake it, it is more accurate, and you can tell by the way it feels when firing it that it’s a much better gun than my mil-spec. Hard to describe, but if you get a chance to fire a basic .45 and a nice .45 side by side you’ll immediately know what I mean.
And after my friend bought his first Kimber, he goes to a gun show and wins another Kimber as the door prize. To show his appreciation, he gave that gun to me. OK, that last part didn’t happen. He was happy to own two Kimbers. Bastard.
At one point in the carefree days of my youth I went through a .45acp kick. I had everything from a Llama to an Ithica/Interarms Silver Cup, to a terrific 1911a1, to a Colt Commander - probably 8 in all from dirt cheap to top end. The only real difference I found was mixing ammo in the clips. The cheaper ones seemed to want a more specific range of shells and if you started doing funky mixes of bullet types and brands within a clip the jam rate skyrocketed. The Llama would shoot Hornady hollow-points just fine if that was the only thing in the clip. It loved basic ball-style Remingtons. Mix both in a clip and jam after jam. A professional shooter and gunsmith explained it to me once but after 30 minutes the explanation gave me a headache and made me sleepy. So I just took it on its face ------- and went back to revolvers.
Heh. My Llama is the same way - everything the same, shoots like a dream. Mix it up and jam city. My AMT Hardballer Longslide, OTOH, will eat anything, in any mix.
If you think the 9mm Hi-Point straight blowback pistol is the equal to a modern service-grade pistol such as the Glock 17 or 19, you’ve done the opposite of your intention to demonstrate expertise with firearms. That pistol is literally better used as a paperweight and kept far away from any live ammunition.
The most important considerations with a duty or competition pistol are safety, reliability, and practical accuracy (not just accuracy at bench rest but the ergonomic accuracy when fired from a standing or offhand position). The Hi Point fails on all accounts. The pot metal slide is a fracture failure waiting to happen, reliability is about on par with a Tec-9, and the accuracy of this pistol can be spoken of only in terms of the width of an elevator car.
In 1911-style pistols there is definitely some correlation to cost and reliability; the cheapest pistols have poor fit and finish and often components that can’t live up to the stress of tens of thousands of rounds. The better fit pistols are much more reliable and robust. The high end of these pistols (in the $1500+ range) are generally built to racegun tolerances and finishes, and actually aren’t that suited to general service use as they require regular cleaning and may be finicky with feeding some types of ammo.
But the truth about the 1911 design is that it is over a century old, was never designed to be constructed to tight tolerances or fire anything but lower pressure roundnose ammunition, and doesn’t even represent John Moses Browning’s ultimate short action design, that being the Browning Hi-Power pistol which has been made in large numbers all over the world by many licensed and unlicensed manufacturers and the basic unlocking cam/tilting barrel action of which is used (with functional improvements) in the vast majority of large caliber pistols manufactured today. While modern high grade production and custom 1911s can be solid and reliable pistols, from a price to value standpoint (and raw durability and toughness) they don’t really compare favorably to many more rugged service grade pistols from Glock, Heckler & Koch, Sig Sauer, Springfield Armory, et cetera.
To a certain degree though, guns follow the same hype, “coolness” and marketing trends that everything else does.
So some guns are junk, some are decent, if unspectacular, some are spectacular, and some are decent, unspectacular, but priced like they’re spectacular.
And usually the 80/20 rule applies. For example, a Glock 17 or 19 is an utterly reliable and accurate gun. The Ruger SR9 is also utterly reliable, although maybe not quite as accurate. But it’s almost certainly more than 70% as accurate, which is the percentage more or less, that the Ruger is of the Glock’s price ($380 vs. $550).
So in that case, you’re likely paying for the Glock “cool” factor more than anything else. Even within Ruger’s models, you’ll pay about 50% more for a Ruger 1911 vs. the SR45, and I suspect it’s more fit and finish rather than purely practical considerations like reliability and accuracy.
I’ve handled one at a range and dry-fired it. I declined to fire it with live ammunition because I like having the use of all of my fingers. I did witness the owner shooting it in isosoles stance with a spread larger than the size of a basketball at approximately twelve feet. He also experienced multiple feed jams that weren’t cleared by a simple tap/rack/bang drill. I can’t speak to the degree of skill of the shooter but the trigger pull was heavy (I estimated 14-15 lbf) and the break rough enough that I doubt I could have gotten good shot placement freehand even if if the pistol were inherently accurate.
I’m not opposed to recommending decent quality service grade firearms at a lower cost point like Bersa or Ruger, but that Hi-Point was a genuine piece of shit that I would have zero confidence in using even as a plinker.
A 1911 style .45 has long been on my list of guns to acquire at some point. I want one that is more or less conforming to the GI guns of WW I and II but with improved sights.
I have fired a few 1911s over the years but not lately.
I got to talking with a salesman at Gander Mountain and he showed me a few that met my goals and the one that really stuck out was the Remington R1. The fit and finish seemed much better than the others in that price range and working the slide was really smooth. The trigger pull was nice as well. Granted, I didn’t actually shoot one but based on handling a few in the gun store, that’s the one I would go with. You can also get more upscale/modern versions from Remington.
Sorry, my intention *was *to demonstrate the opposite of my expertise with firearms.
Pointing out, as it were, that I couldn’t tell s–t from shinola in the different low number of guns that I have fired. Also, that a Glock has no apparent advantage, that I could recognize.
