Yes a 1911

File: 1911TC-L.jpg (2MB, 2607x1983px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2607x1983px

>>32829871

>>32829871
Colt's an American classic and you can't go wrong with them. But if the Ruger suits you better, get it. I'm certain if you're just looking for a range toy, it'll fit that role.

>>32829948

I respectfully disagree.

I want to like Colt, but I just can't. They completely neglect their consumer base because they are content with their fat government contracts. The products they do make for consumers are good, but overpriced since you pay the "Pony Tax" on them.

In my opinion you can get a 1911 that is as good or better than a Colt for much cheaper. I have a Springfield Mil-Spec myself and am very pleased with it.

File: IMG_1486.jpg (708KB, 2446x3013px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 2446x3013px

>>32829977
I respectively disagree, I owned a Sprigfield Mil-Spec (which I sold to cousin) and own a Colt Gov't model. While the Springfield is a great gun, the Colt looks and feels better when shooting.

Fuck Colt, buy a copy. If you demand American at that budget I'd go Ruger all the way.

>>32829977
Not gonna argue with you on the first bit as Colt's biggest mistake was getting too involved in government contracts and totally neglected their civilian customers for decades. Given the re-introduction of many discontinued products, perhaps they'll reclaim a bit more of the civilian market once again. But good 1911's cost a lot of money and you'd be hard-pressed to find a really nice one for less than the cost of an entry-model Colt.

have you considered the SA Ro or loaded model? both models get decent praise across the board for a 1911 in this price range

I have the Ruger and it's fantastic, can't recommend it more highly.

>>32830081
Having shot both I completely agree with you. Might have just been the raised mainspring but I did not enjoy the springfield but my colts are a pleasure to shoot.