|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 26, 2016, 01:11 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
The linked BCM is a trifle high at $3,200, ahem, but I am certain someone wants it.
There are more affordable M1911's in 9mm but while M1911's are more expensive than other types, I really don't know why the quantum jump in prices for the things. We do know that the M1911 was made in an era when manufacturing costs were basically ignored by designers. So were logistic considerations. Now days, total lifecycle cost is something Militaries ask for estimates with the bids. The Program Manager for the 9mm Project gave my Gun Club a lecture. He was in charge from the creation of the source selection criteria to award. He stated that SIG's lifecycle cost is why the contract was awarded to Berretta. Both were considered equally acceptable, but SIG's repair part costs were so high that in terms of total lifecycle cost, they were too high. As an owner of a SIG P220, I can attest that SIG parts are very expensive. With today's design teams, manufacturing and logistic representatives are on the team, providing input as to the tooling, materials, etc, for modern designs. You take a look at older military designs, many parts required special tooling, fixtures, to make. This is very expensive to have to make a special machine or machine tool. It is even more expensive to have a decided human operating a machine. I have no doubt that early M1911 factories had a lot of single operation machines run by a person, and that most parts required a lot of special machines and special machine tooling. However, with the CNC revolution, we have seen prices on M1911's come down. The cheaper versions are quite affordable, especially compared to the bad old days when only Colt made M1911's. Adjust Colt prices for inflation and see. Plus, back then, just getting a M1911 was an accomplishment, they were hard to find. I really don't know why in today's machining and manufacturing world why M1911's still command a premium. Older guns were file and fit at the end, but with today's Computer manufacturing, machining and tolerancing, I don't see why anyone has to file a part to fit. Maybe the design is time consuming to make compared to others. Or maybe, it is that American's will pay the price, heck if I know.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
May 26, 2016, 01:19 PM | #52 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
They were limited in those days in terms of what could be manufactured. That led to higher parts count. An the methods of making those parts was more costly. |
|
May 26, 2016, 01:28 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
May 26, 2016, 03:56 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
I believe th a supply/demand is trust the wrong thought. If thev1911 went into wartime production of hundreds of thousands of mil spec units and every maker, even Microsoft had their companies turned to wartime production, the 1911 design would never, ever be able to reach a scale of economy that the nylon guns could reach under identical conditions.
How is a glock mag made? Two lips are placed in a mold and some machine splorks in a glob of polymer. How is a colt magazine made? Sheet steel is punched into shape, hooked into a banding jig, welded into a tube, milled, etc. How about the hammer? E other it's milled or forged from ordinary stock, or molded an finished. Wait, glock doesn't have one! We can't compare any steel framed gun with polymer, and imo, it's pointless. The things aren't apples and oranges, they are cranberries and turnips. They are not both the same thing. Any steel frame is going to be very different. The difference begins with the fact that a steel frame gun starts out with a slide, barrel, and frame made of steel, with many other steel parts, and a nylon gun completely bypasses the steel frame and the cost. I'd rather have a steel frame.
__________________
None. |
May 26, 2016, 07:09 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 6,348
|
Quote:
Nobody else made the S&W all-steel autos. You'll notice, too, that S&W isn't making THOSE guns any more... |
|
May 27, 2016, 06:18 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 23, 2016
Posts: 170
|
I only have them because I like them. And have A Colt and a RIA, the quality difference to price is clearly to Colt. But RIA also makes higher priced to their Mil Spec. While I'm comparing to Colts milspec. Many things to get cought up in when choosing, shooting a 1911. It's fun, easy, comfortable are big reasons it's the best handgun in my opinion. I'm talking easy to shoot and maintain, not big recoil. And a natural feel in point of aim.
|
May 27, 2016, 07:49 AM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 26, 2005
Location: Osborn, Missouri
Posts: 2,697
|
As I said there's a lot of hype that goes into making a 1911 cost so much.
The gun in this picture was built with quality top shelf parts, hand fit, some such as the thumb safety hand fabricated. It's a 9mm, the barrel is hard fit and I can guarantee that it would shoot holes in holes, many a X shooter would have loved this one. The gun sold new for less then half of the list price of the Bravo gun. Best Regards Bob Hunter |
May 27, 2016, 10:26 AM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 8,517
|
Quote:
Is that from one of those alternate history video games, where WWII lasts until 1985?
__________________
Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong. |
|
May 27, 2016, 10:33 AM | #59 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|