Genuinely wondering- Why is a gun based on a 100+ year old design

cause people are willing to pay it.

>>35151779
this+ its steel and wood which needs to be hand fitted

Iver Johnson and RIA
/thread

>>35151769
ATI makes some cheap 1911's. But you get what you pay for.

>>35151769
Hi.
I'd write up a big post, but honestly Ian explains it pretty well in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSCk7dKSudU

There's this concept called "Design For Manufacturability". The biggest changes in firearm design and manufacturing since the days of John Browning are all things that the end consumer wouldn't be able to really tell. If the firearm wasn't originally designed with manufacturing techniques that are, in the modern day, more cost-effective, then you're going to pay a premium for it.

>>35151779
This. The modern 1911 market grew out of ones made for competition, which hand-fitting of parts is expected, and that adds labour cost. You can make 1911s are cheap that require minimal fitting, but then you might as well buy a Glock, because that will rattle less.

>>35151769
You can buy cheapo ones made in the Philippines for about $500. The high-end ones are so expensive because it has a lot of small parts that need to be hand-fitted. Why no one has made a 1911 without the stupid grip safety, I have no idea.

>>35151810
>>35151807
>>35151788
Please explain "hand fitting"
What is keeping us from mass production of 1911s at a reasonable quality?

>>35151838
Parts are produced oversized, and a gunsmith has to reduce the size of the interacting parts with files and stones to achieve a desired feel and function. This obviously takes time, and time is money.

There are 1911s that don't need this, because particular companies (e.g. Ruger, S&W, the Filipino companies) have drawn up specs and production techniques to create an acceptable amount of play, trigger feel, and tightness/looseness with minimal fitting. (Remember, there's no "mil spec" for the modern 1911.) But this creates a gun that really isn't much better (and probably worse) than, say, an HK45. And it doesn't have that on-roller-bearings, glass-rod breaking feeling that semi- and fully-custom 1911s have made famous for the platform.

File: 146985421472.jpg (100KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x640px

>>35151838
all guns are put together by hand, 1911 parts are all metal and come a bit oversized and have to be shaved down here and there and fit together like swiss clockwerk.

File: 1503021923492.jpg (200KB, 1642x814px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1642x814px

>>35151769
just wondering, why are 9/10 threads on /k/ bait?

>>35151838
Two concepts you need to know for it to make sense:
There's a thing called "Maximum Material Condition" (MMC)...
Let's say you need to make a 3x3x1" plate with a 1" hole in the middle and you have a ±.002" tolerance on each of those dimensions. The MMC for it would be a 3.002x3.002x1.002 plate with a .998" hole. The idea is that you can always REMOVE more material, but you can't ADD the material back on. You turned it into chips. If the piece is too large, you can just remove a tiny bit more (by grinding, for instance) and give it a nice, smooth, accurate surface. If we go REALLY far back, they would literally just deposit soot on one of the two mating parts with a candle, hammer it into the other mating part and the remove material in that second part wherever the soot shows up on it (Companies like Holland and Holland still do it this way, to an extent).

Second, there's geometric tolerance. Let's say you have the blank for the frame done as a casting or forging. That saves you a ton of money in terms of materials, machine time, cutting fluids, tool wear, etc. Unfortunately, the part of the frame where the rails are isn't QUITE straight because of deformations in that process. That could mean that you'll need to put a LOT of time into trying to fix them or potentially making the entire fucking batch worthless paperweights. So, do you instead just machine the whole thing from a giant block of steel? Once again, no longer cost-effective. Price goes up and newer designs made from the ground up with modern manufacturing in mind seriously undercut it.

We can manufacture anything that they could in the past along with things that would have been literally impossible back then, but how much are you willing to pay for it?

>>35151899
>>35151893
I see
So you can get a functional 1911 for less, but i understand why the 'luxury' models would be so much more expensive

>>35151769
Rock Island Armory makes a surprisingly decent 1911 for pretty cheap. They can be rough but they run.
Auto Ordnance makes a nicer one that's still affordable.

>100+ year old design
There's actually more expensive and less efficient pistols from that epoch of short-recoil automatics, the Mauser C96 would be pretty expensive by nature, the Borchardt C93 especially so due to it's funky springs and action.
The Luger was the first short-recoil pistol that was really good and practical, being a monumental improvement from the C93, but springs still had some complexity and the toggle lock action still inherently requires a lot of handfitting, so it's still not the cheapest, there's no easy way to make a Luger more affordable without getting a poor result.

The 1911 was a pretty significant leap in itself, showing that short-recoil autos can be much cheaper and simpler by the arrangement of a slide and tilting barrel (and could actually be made cheaper and simpler still).
You can make a 1911 really pretty low cost with the right effort and production choices, but I think a lot of people look at the 1911 and see something iconic, something historic, something perhaps a little bit grander than might be realistic at times, so often they want it to be a little bit nicer. Some want it to be extra specially nice.
A lot of 1911s today are made sort of as collectibles, status symbols and showpieces, hence they are usually made to a higher standard than what would otherwise technically be necessary.
None of this is to say that a fancy 1911 can't perform, can't be enjoyable and can't do what a pistol needs to do, of course.

>>35151769

PSA sells them for like 3-400 dude.

File: image016.jpg (38KB, 518x339px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 518x339px

>>35151807
The 1911 has a steel frame and a thin grip, which has a particular appeal to people, they might be looking at it because it isn't a Glock.
Of course, some people get both.

>>35151810
The Spaniards and Argies made 1911 pistols without the grip safeties, the Star Modelo B comes to mind, in 9mm Luger.
Spare magazines can be a bit tricky to find these days, but they're very sweet and soft shooters given the smaller caliber.
If you can find one in 9mm Luger (make sure it's not 9mm Largo), with a spare magazine, they'd be a real treat to take to the range.

The Ballester Molina is in .45ACP and I think shares some actual parts with a typical 1911, but lacks the grip safety, featuring a smooth, closed backstrap.

I agree with you on grip safeties by the way, never saw the appeal on them outside of old open-bolt subguns.

>>35151810
The cheapo Philippines 1911s can be had for a lot less than $500. Cheapest I've seen was an ATI for $330, and could be lower if you buy used or get it on sale.

>>35151807
Untrue, original low round count 1911s do not rattle like a silverware drawer.

>>35151838
your lack of understanding.

>>35151838
>What is keeping us from mass production of 1911s at a reasonable quality?
There are tons of companies that do that already.

>>35151799
>own ati
>0 failures after 1000 rounds
>take care of it, don't treat it like a hipoint
Yeah I got what I paid for and then some. Colt is an overpriced name and kimber is a safe queen meme

>>35151769
It isn't. You're just poor.

>>35151769
Because your father had a weak pullout game.

>>35151769
>$400 is so expensive
And people wonder why I hate the poor.

>>35154496
They're not tight as raceguns though.

>>35151800
this is also why tomahawk was so fucking expensive until the recent variants. 1970s tech made with 1970s plant. not that it is cheap in absolute terms these days, but it's relative.

>>35157100

>buying a $400 1911
>buying the absolute cheapest example of a budget version of anything

No thanks, I don't make a ton of money so I don't buy throwaway stuff.

>>35157246
The absolute cheapest would be the $300 Tisas. But OP specifically mentioned that brand or quality was irrelevant.

>>35157246
They're surprisingly solid and their warranty is good.

>>35151769
What value do you place on your life? If a 1911 is worth more than your life....I...I don't know what to say.

>>35151769
$450 for a USA made, quality 1911 isn't expensive.

>>35151769
It still holds up and is better than some top of the line modern sidearms such as the SIG P320 and various Glocks.

>>35160510
The Sig P320 is not top of the line.
I would not say that any standard 1911 is better than any Glock.

>>35151920
fit and finish always costs more, its more manual labor.

>>35151913
The gun design being discussed is 106 years old. Every possible thread about it, including what to do if OP put one up his ass and got it stuck has been made, posted in, and copypasta'd routinely. We've seen and said it all so there's not a huge amount left to do but shitpost for entertainment.

>>35151788
Why wood when you can use rubber or carbon fibre polymer for the grip?

File: swiss quality engineering.jpg (1MB, 900x3327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x3327px

>>35160510
>P320
Taurus level of engineering lmao

>>35151769

Complexity of design increases man hours required for manufacturing, which in turn increases cost of production and retail price. The weapon was designed when firearms were built by gunsmiths, not machinists. They're just hard to make.

>>35164490
I really, really like this image

>>35151769
because more modern pistols, for example, the polymer frames which have gotten so popular since the eighties, are cheaper to manufacture. They're molded, have much less steel in them, and are made significantly cheaper since they're easier to manufacture and are made of cheaper materials. Metal is expensive. A 1911 is all metal safe for the grips on a typical example, which means each part has to be cast, forged, machined and yes, in some of the higher end cases, hand fit. now, if you're grinding or honing those surfaces with a stone, I expect that shit better be smooth or I'm gonna get rowdy.

>>35164569
The 1911 isn't that complex, though. All the working parts are relatively simple in working grade guns and you could probably get by with a casting and a quick grind on some of the parts like the safety, sear, the leaf spring isn't really too much of a challenge, if you ask me, I say it's the materials. Like I said previously, metal is expensive, and even though I'm fairly certain not all the parts are machined, there is a fair amount of metal to remove from a fair amout of stock to make a functional 1911, and there still has to be a profit margin. Of course then you start to see variance from fit to finish to bragging rights for having the most complex to machine 1911 from whatever ultra gucci company. but on a 1911 you buy because you like to actually shoot 1911s instead of taking it out only once or twice a year, I think the hand fitting thing is probably a lie, and anything more than $1,500 is ripping you off for brand recognition.

Same reason good revolvers are still pricey.
>>35151789
Iver Johnson is one of the shittiest Chinese manufacturers, they just bought a good name like they did with H&R. Might as well find a Norinco.

>>35164724
It's complex enough to require more man hours for machining and fitting, especially if we're talking about hand fit 1911's, or custom shop models. The cost in man hours is what drives up the price, not just arbitrary bullshit. Do you have any idea how many man hours go into building a nighthawk? I actually work in firearms manufacturing, so I'm not just talking out if my ass

>>35160510
Neither of those are top-of-the-line. If you compare the same price points as your examples, though, the modern ones win out in capacity, reliability, and quality.

>>35151769
Because it's designed to be manufactured with 100+ year old manufacturing techniques which are more expensive than modern manufacturing.

File: Nice Post.gif (1MB, 200x254px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x254px

>>35165221
No, I don't know how many man hours go into a nighthawk, if you could tell me, I'd appreciate walking away better informed, but, as a machinist, nothing there really strikes me as something that couldn't be hit with the good ol' CNC. After all, how good a finish do you think someone could get with hand polishing methods? I've polished parts into tolerance because cutting it with the lathe would have either made a bad finish or cut too small, so from my own experience I can tell you I haven't encountered a time when hand polishing might make a bad finish into a good finish. It seems to me that material might be what dictates, but on the other hand, if you'll indulge me in an anecdote, I have a springfield operator and a Sig XO. I payed ~$1,000 for the sig, and ~$1,500 for the springfield. The Sig routinely shoots better groups, has a lighter and better trigger, and though the slide has a very small amount of play, and the springfield has none, I always put my rounds just about where I aim with the Sig. The Springfield on the other hand, basically shoots to the left by a foot at fifteen yards. The thing is, everyone I let shoot the Springfield has the same problem, so I know it's the gun. Further more, the springfield has multiple factory defects, like the plunger that pushes against the slide release sticks out so much that I need a punch or something to get it into the frame, where I don't have this issue with the Sig. So, I think at a point, probably $1,500 or more likely somewhere below that, you're throwing away money on nothing substantial.