Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Rock Island Arsenal 1911's.

Didn't buy one as currently I am spending all my "foolish money" on canoing anfishing stuff.

But there's some basic, plain jane Officer's models at the gun show that spoke to me today, for well less than $400.

Might sell off some other guns to get one next time around.

Whats the take on these? I'm recalling they are a good deal for the money.

Birdwatcher

STI sells a Spartan model that is essentially a tuned R.I. with trigger group and adjustable sights.

The sights on the G.I. model are sparse. For another $50 you can get the tactical model with faux Novaks, and beaver tail.

I probably won't own another .45acp, but would look long and hard at a R.I. or Taurus 1911 in 9mm.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=239300682

Really nothing wrong with the RI 1911's. They seem to be rather popular, reliable and accurate. For general use, they're a good buy. Just don't let "bricktop" read this![grins]

Yeah, Bricktop says they're "turds". I guess it's hard to admit you could have done well spending less.

Mine has been trouble-free since tuning the extractor early on. It does what it's supposed to. I've seen at least one that had over 30,000 rounds through it (claimed by owner, who is a bullseye shooter), and it was only recently showing signs of stress. Guess that makes it a turd, compared to better guns - but if you have no expectation of putting that many rounds through, it makes some sense for the price.

Well, if the owner made that claim and you posted it on the internet, then it must be true.

Give me a friggin' break.

My turd Rock island has been an excellent pistol for about a thousand rounds now. There is one brand of factory fodder it does not like. Every report I've read on factory service/support has been good. I haven't needed it.

They're made from soft steel. I don't have the Rockwell hardness, but they're soft compared to a Colt, Kimber, Springfield Inc., etc. Doesn't it make more sense to save your money and shop around for a better quality item? (That's a rhetorical question for the dense people.)

You posted it on the internet, therefore it just became true.

Bricktop - I'm with you on the gospel according to the Internet. It's all subjective so we operate on the law of averages and screen with a BS filter.

That makes sense, I once bought an Egyptian made Helwan, a license-built copy of a single-stack 1940's vintage Beretta once favored by the Israelis in their early years. Locked up completely before too many rounds; soft steel.



Not if the cheaper item was/is also of accepatable quality, them old Norinco 1911's f'rinstance, before Clinton shut off the pipeline.

Birdwatcher

It was understood right off the bat that the Norinco 1911s were rough, but made use of good materials. The Filipino 1911s, not so. That's the difference.

You would do well to invest in a lower-end Springfield INC. gun than flush your money down the crapper on an Armscor paperweight.

Springfield deals:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=238699527
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=239451619
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=238664615
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=237854293


Yeah, the little Rock Island trolls sure did "prove" me wrong. You just can't buy a decent 1911 without dropping around a $1K. Dunces.

Don't know about the Rock Islands but you might want to consider the Springfields. I've always thought they were a good value. Mine have been anyway. I've owned a couple of the parkerized models that I bought in 1992, still have one of them. I didn't put much over a 1,000 rounds through either one, if that much but they've handled everything from 230 gr. ball to jacketed and lead hollow points, reloads and factory ammo without a problem. The guy I sold one to has shot it a lot more than I did and hasn't reported any trouble with it.

I don't recall if all of them come with the same sights but mine came with three dot fixed sights that I like a lot better than the old GI sights. I can still get a clean sight picture with them at 67 wearing bifocals.

Armscor is no different in that regard to pre-'46 (or so) Colt 1911's. The steel isn't significantly different with modern pistols, but the heat treating is. I've seen plenty of evidence of spot heat treating, and no heat treating at all, on Armscor pistols. However, so many of their pistols are parkerized now it's tough to get a read on them.

Calling Armscor pistols "junk" on the basis of metal quality is the same as calling older Colts junk, and depending on the round count, both can be true - or not.

I disagree.

Nope, they're junk. They're made from less-than-acceptable materials and they're poorly finished. For very close to the same price as an Armscor 1911, a very lightly used -- even occasionally new -- Springfield can be had. That being the case, the question begs, why on Earth would you WASTE money on something like that?

If these Armscor/Rock Island 1911s are such kick-ass pieces of machinery, then why aren't the bigger custom shops snapping them up as they did with the Norincos of 20 years ago?

No doubt the Springfield is a better pistol, but that alone doesn't make the Armscor junk. "Serviceable" is the word I would use. The vast majority of shooters won't have to worry about wearing one out.

No, the sum of Armscor's effort makes it junk.

As soon as Les Baer, Wilson Combat, Nighthawk, Clark Custom, and Ted Yost start building customs around Armscor products I will freely admit their 1911s have some merit. But that ain't gonna happen.

Well, since I can't be present for every round fired by anyone who claims anything about any pistol, all I can do is admit it was "claimed by the owner". Pretty much the same applies to anything I ever read on the internet or any gun rag. They are all claims by someone else that I have little, if any, chance to verify.

Your hyperbole included, Bricktop.

Since I am not and never likely to be a high-volume 1911 shooter, it makes little sense to spend the money on a 1911 that will likely outlast me and three generations. the RIA will likely outlast me already and do so reliably - and that's enough. Anything more than that is overkill that I am not presently willing to bother with. My money has other interests besides having the best 1911.

I never tell anyone that the RIA is better or even as good as a Springfield or Colt. I never suggest one as a platform for a "custom gun". It is what it is - a good pistol for someone wanting to learn the 1911 design without spending more than necessary, and a functional pistol - nothing more...nothing less.

If your friend is a top bulls-eye competitor he has at least that amount through his 1911 maybe more. When I was in the service competing in bulls-eye all the top military competitors got a new match bulls-eye 1911 every year because the 1911's were worn out. Back in the day a competitor had a softball and a hardball gun and both would be wore out in a year if one were a top competitor.

Not a "top" competitor, but an avid local one. Does that matter? Probably doesn't make any difference to BT - 'cause he needs some kind of documentation. I guess when you live in a world where everyone lies to you, it's hard to accept when someone does not, without documentation.