I agree with you, however if it won't run with cheaper factory ammo I don't want it regardless. The most this can be for me at this point is a fun gun. I do not feed my fun guns expensive ammo.
Yeah, this is a bit of grey area, though.
I can think of some folks who thought they could run just about anything through their .45's and get good functioning, until they ran a particular "low-cost" product line through their guns. (I'm thinking of another brand in this particular instance.)
I've run many ten's of thousands of rounds of Winchester USA .45's (both FMJ & JHP) through more .45's than I can remember, including all of mine (an assortment of 1911's, TDA 3rd gen's, a Ruger P90 and a M&P) without so much as a bobble. Ditto a few thousand rounds of Rem Express and many thousands of rounds of Rem's BJHP. No particular problems with Speer, either.
Considering the potential QC variations that might occur with the huge number of "factory" rounds being churned out nowadays, I've accepted that there may indeed be some of the "budget lines" ... or at least some production lots ... which may not run well, consistently, in an occasional .45 I might be using.
I've spoken with different customer service reps, armorer instructors, repair techs, plant managers or engineers for some of the major gun companies over the years. Some have run mostly one brand of ammo through their guns for T&E purpose, and some vary their purchase of different loads that they feel represent the 'norm' of what's used by either their commercial or LE/Gov customers. Just depends, it seems.
As an armorer, I've had a couple of the companies make subtle recommendations for and against different brands and loads when the subject was guns that were being used as dedicated service/defensive weapons. QC can have its ups & downs, it seems.
Then again, I'm no longer surprised if I occasionally find some bargain gasoline that doesn't really make my vehicles run as well as I'd like, too.
It's kind of difficult to draw a consistent line in the sand about not owning guns that won't consistently function with the cheapest ammo available. There's a lot of "cheap" ammo I wouldn't even think about running through my guns. Stuff that makes 50's & 60's vintage American surplus.45 ball loads look outstanding in quality & consistency.
If you want to check the baseline functioning of a 1911, it's a good idea to use baseline ammo that doesn't potentially contribute to the "functioning issue", but rather helps eliminate the potential for an ammo problem to mask itself as a gun problem.
In a small way, it's sort of like saying that you'll only use a 1911 that will feed any
ammo from any
1911 magazine, without giving some thought to using the better quality magazines.
It's not all that perfect of a world.
If you were to chrono the load you're using, and happened to see that the velocity was significantly below the recommended velocity window that the 1911 was originally designed to feed and use under normal conditions, would you still think it's a good idea to use it? Just a thought?
I've learned of contract 9mm & .40 S&W loads that were linked to functioning issues throughout the years, and when some production lots were checked it was found that some of them were producing velocities down in the mid & low 700 fps range (instead of 980-990 fps). Some of the .40 loads were also found to have case rim dimensions that varied toward being much thicker than anything the gun company had tried among other brands of duty loads on the market, too, and it suddenly wasn't surprising that the particular "budget contract" load was linked to feeding & functioning issues.
A major state agency started testing random loads from every shipment received ... and rejected some upon occasion.
Why would it be surprising if it were to happen more often among the lower cost product lines, right?