Two guns or one?

9mm · June 6, 2011, 05:38 PM

The new SR1911 has tempted me. Price is around $700 on them.

I wanted two guns before this one, they where going to be BUG's, Ruger LCP 380 auto, and a S&W revolver 38 sp. Which is a total of around $660 without tax.
$260ish lcp $400 38 sp

The only downside of the SR1911 is it's full size and carrying is not easy as a "pocket revolver/lcp"

And the upside to it, would be great for a woods/hiking gun, being 45 acp.

Billy Shears · June 6, 2011, 06:07 PM

I'll chime in first.

In my opinion, worth only what you paid for it, the Ruger 1911 is a great new addition to the 1911 family. I will probably buy one later this year. But I don't see myself ever hiking with a 1911 on my hip again. I did it for years, decades even, foolishly. It's just too darn heavy. I hike a lot and after several miles of carrying myself and my pack and my water up a mountain that big slab of steel really gets my attention. I switched to a polymer .45 for a hiking gun, not only for the weight reduction, but for increased capacity and sweat-induced rust resistance.

I know this doesn't really answer your original question, but just another something to think about as you make your decision.

I'm sure you'll enjoy any of the choices you mentioned. All great pistols.

9mm · June 6, 2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

not only for the weight reduction, but for increased capacity and sweat-induced rust resistance.

Thats what I was thinking but for my first 45acp I like a 1911, I just do not see a Glock fitting the bill on this one. USP looks good, but the 1911 has something about it lol. The rust fear factor is a down fall also.

I was thinking I would get more use out of 2 guns than one. They both would not get shot much though, being pocket guns. LCP would be a EDC backup, the revolver when ever. The 1911 is built strong, and can be shot alot.

Just trying to spend $650 wise.

BarryLee · June 6, 2011, 06:17 PM

I guess I would consider which fills an immediate need in my collection. For instance do you need a carry gun like the LCP? Do you have a 1911?

9mm · June 6, 2011, 06:35 PM

I dont have a 1911, I want one.

I already have the two (best IMO) guns I want to CCW in a pair, G19/G26. The LCP would be for another gun like the 92fs.

Nice thing about the LCP is it can fit in a pocket.
And its not just the LCP its theres also a revolver, which would be my first.

Mr.Blue · June 6, 2011, 06:45 PM

I would get the Ruger 1911. It has really good value. I've handled it a few times. The fit and finish is very nice. I haven't shot it, but it's accuracy has been lauded in it's reviews. I had an LCP when it first came out, but IMHO it was junk. I have a S&W 637 airweight and love it. The LCR is also very nice, but I traded it in for the 637, as I like a hammer for optional SA first shot.

Bottom line is that guns are meant to be shot. Why get guns that you won't shoot? Unless you plan to conceal carry the pocket guns, they are pretty useless. They aren't much fun to shoot.

9mm · June 6, 2011, 07:19 PM

My Budget is $1600(+$200 more if I deside to sell a rifle which I have been qouted on)

I would not like to spend all that, I have been saving for a while.

If I did buy the SR1911, I would have enough to buy a revolver. Could get two Rugers, SP101/SR1911. I wish S&W do another rebate lol.

Sgt Pepper · June 6, 2011, 11:22 PM

Don't buy pocket guns if you want to really do some shooting. They just are not satisfying shooters.

When you say "woods/hiking", what kind of intensity do you really mean? If you are hiking miles, climbing over obstacles, and changing elevations, then you probably would not prefer to have a 1911 (or any remotely heavy gun) on your side. If you are talking about recreational "running around" and "hiking" back and forth across the proverbial back forty, then get the 1911.

Also, what are you expecting to shoot whilst in the woods/hiking?

9mm · June 6, 2011, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Also, what are you expecting to shoot whilst in the woods/hiking?

I dont plan on shooting anything unless a bear charges me. I rarely go to the woods/hiking though, maybe once a year we take a trip outta state to family, we go while we are there.

Smaug · June 7, 2011, 07:48 AM

Looking at it from the outside, it is obvious to me.

You already have two compact guns that are ideal for carry, due to their size and weight.
You don't have any full size guns yet, at least not that you've mentioned.
Full size guns are easier to get more use out of, because we practice and target shoot more than we defend ourselves
This is the 100th anniversary of the 1911. The perfect time to get one.
Compared to an LCP, I think you will get a LOT of use out of the SR1911.
If you decide to get an LCP, get a used one. Lots of folks drool over them and get one, only to find out that they're not much fun to shoot.

gunsrtools · June 7, 2011, 07:59 AM

+1 on everything Smaug said!

Billy Shears · June 7, 2011, 10:46 AM

From Smaug:

Quote:

If you decide to get an LCP, get a used one. Lots of folks drool over them and get one, only to find out that they're not much fun to shoot.

And from Sgt Pepper [who also gets my vote for best user name on the forum]:

Quote:

Don't buy pocket guns if you want to really do some shooting. They just are not satisfying shooters.

Absolutely true. Very good points to keep in mind.

Keep your G26 for concealed carry and get the Ruger 1911 for fun/hiking/everything else.

cwok · June 7, 2011, 03:36 PM

... but the Ruger 1911 is a brand new product.

IMHO, it's worth waiting till we get some significant feedback on reliability (as I said I like Ruger but this is a new direction for them).

Or - go ahead - and let us know how it work out for you.
.

9mm · June 7, 2011, 04:02 PM

I bumped the SP 101 off my list now, I found a S&W 438(same as 638 but black) what I was looking for all along. I really have no need for a another snubby / 357 for now. Rather have a different caliber.

I am still open to the 1911.

Quote:

You don't have any full size guns yet, at least not that you've mentioned.

92fs on the day I turn 21. Already planned that lol. Been saving money for a while now, havn't a bought rifle in a long time, waiting for 21. Handguns only for now on.

MLeake · June 7, 2011, 04:05 PM

438 isn't the same as 638 but black. 638 has stainless cylinder and barrel. 438 has blue steel cylinder and barrel. Both have aluminum frames.

IE, the difference is not only cosmetic, the metals in the high-stress parts are different.

9mm · June 7, 2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

438 isn't the same as 638 but black. 638 has stainless cylinder and barrel. 438 has blue steel cylinder and barrel. Both have aluminum frames.

Really? I thought it was SS, on S&W website it says the cylinder is SS but black finish.

Oh wait you now got me confused

you said blued steel cylinder, whats the difference from a stainless steel? is it stronger or just the finish?

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

Material:
Aluminum Alloy Frame
Stainless Steel Cylinder
S&W 438

MLeake · June 7, 2011, 04:07 PM

Pocket guns aren't satisfying shooters?

You guys are buying the wrong guns...

My PM9 keeps up pretty well with the big boys. So does my 442. (Granted, I won't shoot more than 100 rounds per session through the 442... but many people on here don't seem to shoot that much, anyway... I put 400 rounds through my PM9 once, as an experiment.)

MLeake · June 7, 2011, 04:12 PM

9mm, I could be wrong, as I chose between a 642 and a 442, but the 442 very specifically has a carbon steel cylinder on the S&W website. "6" in S&W parlance has always meant "stainless."

5609, 629, 66, etc are all stainless versions of a gun.

Internet connection over here is very slow, you can probably verify for the 638/438 before I can.

Edit: I was able to check the link, and it does say "stainless," but I have to wonder if that's a misprint on the website. If it is stainless, it breaks the pattern used for all the other models.

9mm · June 7, 2011, 04:17 PM

I am going call S&W and ask to check.

9mm · June 7, 2011, 04:22 PM

I called, the guy he said it is stainless steel for the S&W 438. He said like 80% of the guns it means "6" SS. I guess that was the old labeling system. S&W 638/438 no difference other than color.

BTT, the only thing that would make me want the new SR1911 totally 100% is if it was in commander.

C0untZer0 · June 7, 2011, 04:24 PM

How can you call yourself 9mm and not carry a Kahr CM9/PM9, or Rohrbaugh R9 or somesuch 9mm micro-compact?

9mm · June 7, 2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

How can you call yourself 9mm and not carry a Kahr CM9/PM9, or Rohrbaugh R9 or somesuch 9mm micro-compact?

I am not a fan of Kahr's, over price IMO.

towncarblue · June 7, 2011, 04:40 PM

i wasnt a fan of kahr either intil i got myself a CM9. thin , small , very concealable with 9mm bullets

and a nice shooter.

Sgt Pepper · June 7, 2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Pocket guns aren't satisfying shooters?

You guys are buying the wrong guns...

Don't think so, but you tell me. Here is a sample: S&W 642, Kahr P45, Colt New Agent (1911 .45), Ruger LCP, Bernardelli VP .25, Sig P239, Browning 1910, E.G. Mak, Walther PPK, Beretta Tomcat, and so forth. Not all are true "pocket pistols", but they all feature major size, weight, and/or caliber reductions.

Look, I am not saying the above guns are not fun, not useful, not effective, or not accurate. They absolutely are. I love each and every one of them, however that being said, if you are talking about range or field use and/or infrequent non-concealed carry, then what is the point of packing my 642 rather than my 66? Or my New Agent or Officer's Model rather than my Government? Or my 239 rather than my 229? Or the G22 rather than the G26 (I know diff cal)?

Small pistols and lighter calibers are all about compromises in the name of concealability and easy carry. Why make those sacrifices (capacity, weight, sight radius, full grip, power) if you do not have to? Honestly, if I am going to the range or the ranch, I generally do not tote along my non-full-size guns. They just end up not used.

C0untZer0 · June 7, 2011, 11:45 PM

From what I've heard the Rohrbaugh R9 is not a "satisfying" gun to shoot. It's a firearm that's meant to be shot seldom, carried often or something like that...

By all accounts it is a true pocket pistol.

June 6, 2011, 05:38 PM	#1
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	Two guns or one? The new SR1911 has tempted me. Price is around $700 on them. I wanted two guns before this one, they where going to be BUG's, Ruger LCP 380 auto, and a S&W revolver 38 sp. Which is a total of around $660 without tax. $260ish lcp $400 38 sp The only downside of the SR1911 is it's full size and carrying is not easy as a "pocket revolver/lcp" And the upside to it, would be great for a woods/hiking gun, being 45 acp.

June 6, 2011, 06:17 PM	#4
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	I guess I would consider which fills an immediate need in my collection. For instance do you need a carry gun like the LCP? Do you have a 1911? __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

June 6, 2011, 06:45 PM	#6
Mr.Blue Junior member Join Date: May 30, 2011 Location: SE Wisconsin & Long Island, NY Posts: 418	I would get the Ruger 1911. It has really good value. I've handled it a few times. The fit and finish is very nice. I haven't shot it, but it's accuracy has been lauded in it's reviews. I had an LCP when it first came out, but IMHO it was junk. I have a S&W 637 airweight and love it. The LCR is also very nice, but I traded it in for the 637, as I like a hammer for optional SA first shot. Bottom line is that guns are meant to be shot. Why get guns that you won't shoot? Unless you plan to conceal carry the pocket guns, they are pretty useless. They aren't much fun to shoot. Last edited by Mr.Blue; June 6, 2011 at 06:50 PM.

June 7, 2011, 07:48 AM	#10
Smaug Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2004 Location: SE Wisconsin Posts: 3,210	Get the 1911 Looking at it from the outside, it is obvious to me. You already have two compact guns that are ideal for carry, due to their size and weight. You don't have any full size guns yet, at least not that you've mentioned. Full size guns are easier to get more use out of, because we practice and target shoot more than we defend ourselves This is the 100th anniversary of the 1911. The perfect time to get one. Compared to an LCP, I think you will get a LOT of use out of the SR1911. If you decide to get an LCP, get a used one. Lots of folks drool over them and get one, only to find out that they're not much fun to shoot. __________________ -Jeremy "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

June 7, 2011, 07:59 AM	#11
gunsrtools Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2008 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 116	+1 on everything Smaug said! __________________ Bob ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

June 6, 2011, 06:07 PM	#2
Billy Shears Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2011 Posts: 606	I'll chime in first. In my opinion, worth only what you paid for it, the Ruger 1911 is a great new addition to the 1911 family. I will probably buy one later this year. But I don't see myself ever hiking with a 1911 on my hip again. I did it for years, decades even, foolishly. It's just too darn heavy. I hike a lot and after several miles of carrying myself and my pack and my water up a mountain that big slab of steel really gets my attention. I switched to a polymer .45 for a hiking gun, not only for the weight reduction, but for increased capacity and sweat-induced rust resistance. I know this doesn't really answer your original question, but just another something to think about as you make your decision. I'm sure you'll enjoy any of the choices you mentioned. All great pistols.

June 6, 2011, 06:35 PM	#5
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	I dont have a 1911, I want one. I already have the two (best IMO) guns I want to CCW in a pair, G19/G26. The LCP would be for another gun like the 92fs. Nice thing about the LCP is it can fit in a pocket. And its not just the LCP its theres also a revolver, which would be my first.

June 6, 2011, 07:19 PM	#7
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	My Budget is $1600(+$200 more if I deside to sell a rifle which I have been qouted on) I would not like to spend all that, I have been saving for a while. If I did buy the SR1911, I would have enough to buy a revolver. Could get two Rugers, SP101/SR1911. I wish S&W do another rebate lol.

June 6, 2011, 11:22 PM	#8
Sgt Pepper Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 811	Don't buy pocket guns if you want to really do some shooting. They just are not satisfying shooters. When you say "woods/hiking", what kind of intensity do you really mean? If you are hiking miles, climbing over obstacles, and changing elevations, then you probably would not prefer to have a 1911 (or any remotely heavy gun) on your side. If you are talking about recreational "running around" and "hiking" back and forth across the proverbial back forty, then get the 1911. Also, what are you expecting to shoot whilst in the woods/hiking?

June 7, 2011, 03:36 PM	#13
cwok Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2010 Posts: 316	I like Ruger - have two ... ... but the Ruger 1911 is a brand new product. IMHO, it's worth waiting till we get some significant feedback on reliability (as I said I like Ruger but this is a new direction for them). Or - go ahead - and let us know how it work out for you. .

June 7, 2011, 04:05 PM	#15
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	438 isn't the same as 638 but black. 638 has stainless cylinder and barrel. 438 has blue steel cylinder and barrel. Both have aluminum frames. IE, the difference is not only cosmetic, the metals in the high-stress parts are different.

June 7, 2011, 04:07 PM	#17
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Pocket guns aren't satisfying shooters? You guys are buying the wrong guns... My PM9 keeps up pretty well with the big boys. So does my 442. (Granted, I won't shoot more than 100 rounds per session through the 442... but many people on here don't seem to shoot that much, anyway... I put 400 rounds through my PM9 once, as an experiment.)

June 7, 2011, 04:12 PM	#18
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	9mm, I could be wrong, as I chose between a 642 and a 442, but the 442 very specifically has a carbon steel cylinder on the S&W website. "6" in S&W parlance has always meant "stainless." 5609, 629, 66, etc are all stainless versions of a gun. Internet connection over here is very slow, you can probably verify for the 638/438 before I can. Edit: I was able to check the link, and it does say "stainless," but I have to wonder if that's a misprint on the website. If it is stainless, it breaks the pattern used for all the other models.

June 7, 2011, 04:17 PM	#19
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	I am going call S&W and ask to check.

June 7, 2011, 04:22 PM	#20
9mm Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2011 Location: Land of the Free Posts: 2,834	I called, the guy he said it is stainless steel for the S&W 438. He said like 80% of the guns it means "6" SS. I guess that was the old labeling system. S&W 638/438 no difference other than color. BTT, the only thing that would make me want the new SR1911 totally 100% is if it was in commander.

June 7, 2011, 04:24 PM	#21
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	How can you call yourself 9mm and not carry a Kahr CM9/PM9, or Rohrbaugh R9 or somesuch 9mm micro-compact?

June 7, 2011, 04:40 PM	#23
towncarblue Member Join Date: July 1, 2009 Posts: 71	i wasnt a fan of kahr either intil i got myself a CM9. thin , small , very concealable with 9mm bullets and a nice shooter.

June 7, 2011, 11:45 PM	#25
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	From what I've heard the Rohrbaugh R9 is not a "satisfying" gun to shoot. It's a firearm that's meant to be shot seldom, carried often or something like that... By all accounts it is a true pocket pistol.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search