/k/ - Weapons

I've heard Dan Wessons are excellent for the money.

t. Know two fifths of sweet fuck all about pistols

You should avoid Colt on principle. They don't (usually) make shit-tier guns, but they're going to be highly overpriced. Their guns are like the Air Jordans of firearms, fudds will pay top dollar just because a gun has the Colt rollmark on it.

sage for QTDDTOT

Springfield makes excellent 1911's, much less than overpriced Colt's.

Delta replaced their 1911s with Glocks. Just sayin'

Remington R1 has 100$ mail in rebate. The R1 enhanced is a good 1911 for around 8-900

SA makes outstanding 1911,

- Would recommend Springfield Loaded operator approx $1100

What are your intended uses for it?

Also would highly recommend wilson combat mags regardless of which model you decide to go with. 1911's can be really finicky with mags

>>567710

>before they're all banned

Don't get cucked into buying overpriced handmade pistol. They won't be banned at least for a long time. For that money you can buy a quality rifle instead, either AR or AK. Those are the ones that are first in line to be banned.

>>567710

Buy an AR-18, goddammit. They're cheap as shit, compared to the regular stuff. If full autos get banned, then that's what you want off the shelves, before it's too late. You can only shoot someone in the face if it's self-defense.

>>567547

why want 357 mag when we have 357 sig?

>>567718

.357 sig can't compete against .357 Magnum. Besides that, .357 1911's are a physical shitpost.

>>567579

Wilson Combat mags are good. I've also had good luck with Check Mate Industries and Chip McCormick mags in my WWII edition SA. I've only had trouble with SWC reloads when I've seated the bullet too deep or too shallow. FMJs, LRN and JHPs no issues at all.

>>568749

They're built on slightly refurbished Para tooling by drunken hunstville monkeys. I wouldn't touch one with a hundred foot pole made from glawk brand glawks.

>>568771

The Desert Eagle 1911 is what they're usually branded in the US. Surprisingly nice fit and finish, but fuck IMI.

>>567515

Whatever you buy put a commander hammer on it, spur hammers bite and yes it draws quite a bit of blood. Doesn't happen to everyone but it's avoidable. Try to get a double stack 22TCM, expensive but it's worth every penny. Outperforms the FN 5.7

Picked up a Springfield 1911 RO Compact today used on the cheap. Looks like it was a safe queen with virtually no wear, but there IS a three digit electropencling on the inside of the slide and seems to be greased up rather than normal lube that I'm used to.

Anyone able to clear up the whats and whys with this?

>>573937

Might have been sent back as a warranty claim at some point or it was put in there sometime during its build. Does the three digits match up with the frame serial number?

>>573939

Yeah, actually it does match up with the last 3 digits now that I'm looking. Should I be concerned?

>>573943

I wouldn't be. More than likely it was stenciled in there to keep everything together in the factory. Matching parts are happy parts.

>>573947

Whoever had her last ran perhaps a box or two of ammo and just left her filthy. I'm pretty sure what I thought was grease is just burnt powder and factory lube. What kind of monster does not care for their girls?

Is Wilson Combat Hunter .460 Rowland decent?

>>567520

All australian IP's should be rangebanned from weapons discussion, friendly reminder.

I recently bought a RIA 1911 and it has functioned flawlessly for the 300 rounds I have shot through it.

>>576000

I heard they had some accuracy issues.

I'm not looking for some match shooter, I mean more along the lines of too high or too low and such. Also, how's the fit 'n' finish?

>>576000

>300 rounds

that's nothing tbh

>>576013

>fit finish

it's a budget gun. you get what you pay for.

>>576015

Let me rephrase that.

Along side a basic bitch GI model, history and such aside, can it compete?

>>576017

What do you mean by compete? Against the GI Springfields, R1's, etc, it will probably function just as well. The main thing you have to worry about is accuracy. Cheapo guns looking to run the gamut on an industry will shoot fine, unless it's horrible garbage like Taurus, it's the accuracy that is the problem because they're off spec because they're simply not made with the same level of care because they want the price to be as low as possible.

The only difference in cheapo guns these days is AR-15's. Certain cheap AR-15 parts can still be really good because that market has been so insanely competitive.

>>576038

I would just get a GI Remington R1 then. They were going for $400 this past black Friday, may still be that low. They're good. Very accurate for a budget gun, I've shot one a good deal. Only downside is that the finish runs off a bit easily, but that's how it is with budget guns.

>>576063

> GI Remington R1

Looking about $500 right now, which isn't bad. I'll look into getting one, thanks strelok.

>>576038

Just to give you some info on the 1911. Its a good gun, just finicky. You will need to care for it a bit more than a Glock or some other wonder 9. Lubing it is very important as are quality mags. You're going to want to test every hollow point round you plan on shooting through it (HP ammo can have issues with the feed angle).

Other than that have fun bro, home you end up liking that Remington.

Magazine recommendations.

>Chip MicCormick

>Wilson combat