View Full Version : Can a 1911 beat HK and Sig?

September 8, 2005, 06:15 PM
I have been told by many that 1911s are not reliable or accurate, but HK and Sig are.

What is the most reliable and accurate 1911 under $850?

How does it compare to Sig P220 and HK USP 45, when it comes to reliability and accuracy?

September 8, 2005, 06:28 PM
Not for under 850 dollars, but at around the 1500-3000 mark.

September 8, 2005, 06:41 PM
The NRM Colt is both reliable and accurate. Prices start at $650-700.

September 8, 2005, 06:54 PM
My SW1911 has been 100% reliable and very accurate. Cost around $750.

September 8, 2005, 06:58 PM
Ok, thats not what he asked, he asked will they be AS reliable AND accurate. Not if those were reliable and accurate or not, its relative.

September 8, 2005, 07:04 PM
At $750 you should be able to find a reliable and accurate 1911 from several of the makers..........

September 8, 2005, 07:12 PM
What is the most reliable and accurate 1911 under $850?

I can't speak for many 1911s, but Springer Mil-Spec hasn't had a malfunction yet and is every bit as accuracte as any Sig I've owned. It's available in the $500 range.

How does it compare to Sig P220 and HK USP, when it comes to reliability and accuracy?

Don't own a USP, used to own a P220 which was a tempermental beast that wouldn't feed hollowpoints what-so-ever. So in that respect I'd put my Springer head and shoulders above the P220 though I like Sigs in general better than 1911s (the 1911 is in a case and my P228 is on my hip at this very moment).

September 8, 2005, 07:17 PM
OK CobrayCommando, my NRM Colt exhibits about the same reliability as my HK USPs (100%). It is more accurate than either of my USPs. By the same token, my 1927 S&W M&P shows the same reliability factor as my HK USPs, and is also more accurate. Does that make it a better handgun? Does that mean the HK gets "beat" by a gun almost 80 years old and a wheelgun at that? Or do we also have other criteria like tacticality?

I have not felt the need to own a Sig.

I have been told by many that 1911s are not reliable or accurate, but HK and Sig are. 1911s are not a brand of gun, but a type of gun. Saying 1911s are unreliable or inaccurate is like saying DA/SA semi-autos with plastic frames are unreliable and inaccurate. It just doesn't wash.

September 8, 2005, 07:25 PM
Well my criteria is weight, feel and size, in addition to reliability.

Number one criteria is reliability, second is feel.

Greg Bell
September 8, 2005, 08:20 PM
9 out of 10 times the HK will be more reliable. The second most accurate gun I ever had was a Kimber custom II. Freaky accurate. Made Lorcins look reliable by comparison.

September 8, 2005, 11:19 PM
1911s can be accurate and/or reliable. But not for $750. A good service gun, say the Sig 220 is going to be more reliable and accurate when compared to a stock 1911 for the same money. It seems to me that when we talk about accuracy and reliability of service weapons that we are talking about shooting minute of man under stress and that reliability is the most critical factor. A loose-fitting service gun is good for that. If you are talking about driving tacks, a hand-fitted 1911 is a better choice.

However, in my experience absolute reliability in the 1911 requires loose tolerances that degrade accuracy. While good, tight, hand-fitted competition components deliver much better accuracy at the cost of reliability. Pick your poison. But to get both in a 1911, I would expect to pay 500% more than the Sig costs.

I say go with a 220.


September 8, 2005, 11:31 PM
There is no god but Forty-Five, and SIG is his profit!

And I think the SIG is pretty reliable in sand, grit and grime, just like the 1911.

Damn I needs me a 1911...

September 9, 2005, 12:05 AM
in 45 yes 1911 nice but can 1911 be beat by sig yes
sig p210 hemeryli prob the most accurate semi auto pistol in the world
early 70 models in 38spl and later in 9mm the pistol shot 10 consecutive 5 shot groups at 25 yards from machine rest the most extreme group from center to center was .427 the smallest was .394 and all 50 shot together was .75 thats awesome .but they cost about $3700 +.

September 9, 2005, 12:24 AM
Its hard to take a SIG on in reliability.

Ive had my sigs pouring mud and still firing hot accurate loads into targets where a Kimber jammed as well as a SW craptastic auto. Ill be testing the springfield 1911s soon.

September 9, 2005, 01:09 AM
Can a 1911 beat HK and Sig? :barf:
Hmmm, I guess it should be - can a HK and SIG beat a 1911? :D

September 9, 2005, 01:43 AM
No roger...I think he had it right the first time. :D
Anyway, like cobray said...some of the high end (expensive) 1911's can match a sig for accuracy and reliability. However, equivalently priced, sig all the way.

r.w. schrack
September 9, 2005, 05:32 AM
I own 4 Sigs, just sold an H&K .40 which was accuarate but had a few things I didn't care for such as the decocker, size, and had a wrist effect when fired like a russian mak in 9x18, and didn't care for the sights. Carried a .45 for 4 years and it was loose rattled but did function well. My opinion is Sigs are one of the best going and if you are hung up on this .45 thing thay also make several models in that cal. Also keep in mind some Sigs you can change barrels like the 229 from .40 to 357 and mags interchange, have seen offers that give you both barrels with the weapon. If I had a choice of any weapon I would take the Sig. Schrack

September 9, 2005, 06:23 AM
I still don't understand how so many people have problems with 1911A1 autos. If the Mil-Spec 1911A1 is "so" unreliable then why does it have a proven 70+ year service record? I have shot just about every 1911A1 under the sun and never had any problems. I'm confident enough to put a quality 1911A1 up against any other autoloader out there.

September 9, 2005, 07:44 AM
Even if you did have a "problem" with a proper 1911, you could have it "fixed" for far less than people quote.

Meaning, a Loaded Springfield for $700, add a "fluff and buff" and a match bushing for $150 and your done.

If you want to shoot 2-3" at 50 yards with a "perfect" trigger, then bring money. But the Sig and h&K can't do anywhere near that either.

Bring "money" means @$ 600 to your Springer, for example. When you get above $1500 for a 45 1911, IMHO, you entering the zone of cosmetics, workmanship, name, etc... well beyond function.

I think it was shooting times that did a 10,000 round test on the Sig 220.
It malfunctioned 5 times and 1 broken part...I'm not overly impressed but not bad. Accuracy was very good from a ransom rest @ 2" at 25 yards.

September 9, 2005, 08:06 AM
For $850 you will have no problem locating a 1911 that can meet or beat a Sig 220 or Sig in reliability or accuracy.

larry starling
September 9, 2005, 09:12 AM
My stainless Delta gold cup will out shoot any sig or hk I have owned. :eek:

September 9, 2005, 09:40 AM
Has anyone else thought "my Dad can beat up your Dad?"
Hey, this is my 3rd response. :o

September 9, 2005, 10:15 AM
My Springfield Mil Spec, at $489, was a Relentless Tackdriver right out of the box. So was my Springfield GI Champion. HK and Sig have nothing on MY 1911's, except superfluous gadgetry. BTW, my dad could beat up your dad. :p

September 9, 2005, 10:28 AM
There are a lot of 1911 style Kimbers out there that will outshoot a Sig, but the difference isn't much. The barrels in the base Kimbers are the same as many of the higher end models. You can have that for $850. You might also find a STI Trojan for that.

Accuracy is pretty much owned by top end 1911 style guns...go to a Bullseye match.

Reliability? Depends on the actual gun for all models.

September 9, 2005, 11:19 AM
Oh my, I can't see the difference. :eek: My basic 1911s (Colt NRM and Springfield GI) are as reliable as my Sigs and all of them are more accurate than I am.

September 9, 2005, 11:43 AM
Oh please just cuz it says HK or SIG on it ..IT HAS to be superior cuz some Euro socialist put it together? :barf:
HK pistols are just too gay

I chose the 1911 AFTER I tested a few Sigs at the range. My Springer Milspec is MORE accurate that the Sigs I tested. And when it does "jam" on me I'll let you know.
And mine was made in good ol' Brazil where the beaches are topless :D

September 9, 2005, 12:00 PM
You know if I listened to everything that was said in this forum I would be using a 1911 that I bought for 800 bucks that is more accurate and reliable than a SIG, in .380 using Magsafes (as powerful as a .45, with less recoil too!), with no sights because I would pointshoot it.

So I'm going to close my ears and stop listening to you blaspheme, until you come up with tests done under controlled conditions, rather than: "Well I shot a Milspec better than I did a SIG, therefore it is more accurate. It also didn't jam at the range, so its as reliable too."

And be forewarned, if I see that a 1911 in the same price range was more reliable and accurate, I will cry "but the SIG is lighter and more compact!"



September 9, 2005, 12:40 PM
Hey, 1911 fans, check this out http://www.sightm1911.com/

I hope you enjoy


September 9, 2005, 12:43 PM
And be forewarned, if I see that a 1911 in the same price range was more reliable and accurate, I will cry "but the SIG is lighter and more compact!"
... And then I will point out that I, like some others, prefer the heft of a steel framed 1911 (not forgetting that there are aluminum framed 1911's for those like you, who prefer a lighter gun ;) ), and that the 1911 has a far superior trigger, and that, even with the 5" version, which has a better sight radius than the Sig, the 1911's slim profile makes it as concealable as the "more compact" Sig, if not more so. :D

September 9, 2005, 01:10 PM
As I said before, the 1911A1 has 70+ years of proven service and has stood the test of time :p

September 9, 2005, 01:13 PM
Anyway, like cobray said...some of the high end (expensive) 1911's can match a sig for accuracy and reliability. However, equivalently priced, sig all the way.

Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

September 9, 2005, 01:36 PM
Hmmm - my SW1911 has been 100% reliable - so I do not think any Sig or HK can be more so - unless they are 101%???. Same SW1911 is VERY accurate - did not do a head to head test but I do not think any standard SIG/HK will be any more accurate.

So YES, there are plenty of normal production 1911s which will be atleast as reliable and as (or more) accurate then a Sig or HK. Add in all the other benefits a 1911 offers (SA, size, grip, low bore axis, etc) and they are a fine choice. Want lighter/more compact - there are commander-size choices too that feel just right.

SIGs are a great weapon - but so is a well-done 1911.

September 9, 2005, 01:42 PM
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

What was the point of asking if you already knew the answer you looking for?

September 9, 2005, 01:51 PM
LOL: Far superior trigger; had to laugh when I heard that one. How much wider is a SIG?

September 9, 2005, 01:55 PM
Peoples posts pertaining to pistol particulars presume pleasantry but personal preferences put predominance prior to objectivity.

I could make a case for either. Go with what you like.

September 9, 2005, 01:59 PM
Sally sold sea shells on the sea shore at the store :D

September 9, 2005, 02:03 PM
Sometime I just can't help it. :D

September 9, 2005, 02:08 PM
Very eloquent LOL ;)

September 9, 2005, 04:10 PM
For accuracy it’s hard to beat a full size 1911 (S&W1911 is pretty accurate for the price), but for reliability 1911 isn’t my first choice. 1911 is more sensitive to hold (limp wristing) than some other guns. Not a big HK fan but Sig is a good gun.

September 9, 2005, 04:21 PM
Ummm... I'm pretty sure 9mm users are forbidden to comment on the 1911 :D

September 9, 2005, 05:07 PM
Never heard of 1911s in 9mm :rolleyes:

September 9, 2005, 07:41 PM
My 1911 is probably the most reliable gun I own, and that's comparing it to a Vang Comp 870 and an HK91.

September 9, 2005, 09:25 PM
Who ever your talking to, better ignore.
HKs and Sigs are very good guns, but are they more reliable.
I have owned all of the above, and the only one that I have a large number of is 1911's.
2 Colt gold cups, one Ace, Two Kimbers. The one Gold cup has over 5000 runds and only several failures and they were all hand loads and bad primers.
The HK p7 I only had for several months. And the Sig just diddnt fit my hand.
Were any of them any more reliable?

Thomas Nowicki
September 9, 2005, 09:34 PM
I've owned 1911s and SIGs and Glocks and HKs and blah blah... I don't think I can say that any were unreliable. I carry a SIG P229 at the moment, but that's because I like the way it fits my hand and I shoot well with it. A good 1911 style pistol will generally be very reliable.

September 9, 2005, 10:11 PM
1911 is more sensitive to hold (limp wristing) than some other guns. :confused:

not true. i have a norc commander (NEVER BEEN TUNED) with over 2,000 rounds mostly done with one hand and a weak left hand shooting but has yet to malf. My chinese 1911 can outshoot a HK or SIG. Last November NORINCO 1911 govt. model, a USD 200.00 gun in RP, passed a 5,000 round field test with zero failures. Bidders were, DAEWOO, ARMSCOR, BERETTA and TAURUS presented by different suppliers.

Test included a drop in the barrel with a round in the chamber, mud-dipping and GOD knows what other tests.

September 9, 2005, 11:15 PM
I have held my 1911 as “limp wristed” as I possibly could with out dropping the gun and fired several magazines of that cheap aluminum cased ammo, and was NOT able to make my gun malfunction.

Greg Bell
September 9, 2005, 11:19 PM
I was at my local range about two weeks ago. A really nice guy with a Ted Yost tuned Kimber allowed me to shoot his new baby. Was it reliable: yes. Did it have an awesome trigger: yes. Was it amazing looking: yes. Was it more accurate than my H&K P2000 LEM: No. I'll take my $679 H&K over a nearly 2000 dollar 1911 any day. Frankly, I feel like most folks would be much better served with a SIG, HK, Walther, Glock, Steyr, etc and $1500 worth of practice ammo than these outrageously overpriced white elephants. Just my opinion, mind you.

September 9, 2005, 11:50 PM
Its pretty hard to limp wrist any .45.

Texas Pete
September 9, 2005, 11:54 PM
I would say they are similar unless you buy a kimber, then your screwed for reliability.

September 9, 2005, 11:54 PM
I'm no expert, but I think the short answer to your original question is:
Yes, but not in the same price range.

September 10, 2005, 12:41 AM
Lord Nikon, I think your response makes the most sense. I really like 1911s , have owned more than a few and have shot many more than that. Carried one (a Remington Rand) as an Air Policeman for the USAF in the early sixties and shot several Colt Gold Cups / National Matches during long stints at Bullseye matches. I currently own two 1911s, both Colt Gold Cups. I like carrying a defensive pistol in a " cocked and locked" mode; like the trigger of a well set-up 1911 and feel that the handling qualities and general ergonomics of a 1911 are hard to beat for a large caliber pistol.

All that being said, it is my experience that to get a 1911 to perform as reliably as HKs, SIGs and Glocks do out of the box,with no "break-in" issues, you'll have to spend a LOT more money for it. But, in the long run, that extra money might be money well-spent.

September 10, 2005, 09:06 AM
my experience that to get a 1911 to perform as reliably as HKs, SIGs and Glocks do out of the box,with no "break-in" issues, you'll have to spend a LOT more money for it. But, in the long run, that extra money might be money well-spent.


September 10, 2005, 09:12 AM
You guys are deprived. :(

Drunk Fat Man
September 10, 2005, 01:45 PM
If i had to pick i would take SIG over 1911a1. My SIG was maufactured in 1980's and has pently of rounds through it. the slide rattles and parts move freely so reiability is unmatched. I broght an new Auto-ordnance WWII 1911a1 (replica) for $425. Everytime I go to the range it starts to jam after 80-100 rounds. This is only because it is brand new and the tolerance is still very high. I just run a bore snake through it and its good for another 100 rounds.

September 10, 2005, 02:03 PM
my experience that to get a 1911 to perform as reliably as HKs, SIGs and Glocks do out of the box,with no "break-in" issues, you'll have to spend a LOT more money for it. But, in the long run, that extra money might be money well-spent.

My Colt is bone stock, and is as reliable as any HK, Sig or Glock. :D

September 10, 2005, 02:55 PM

September 10, 2005, 03:29 PM
My dad can beat-up your dad.

September 10, 2005, 03:33 PM
Hey - here's an idea - get a SIG GSR!!
Its a 1911 - AND its a SIG! Maybe it will be 2x as reliable as other 1911s that ARE 100% reliable.

September 10, 2005, 04:07 PM
Maybe it will be 2x as reliable as other 1911s that ARE 100% reliable.

There ya go, it would be 200% reliable, you can’t lose.

September 10, 2005, 04:59 PM
Hey - here's an idea - get a SIG GSR!!
Its a 1911 - AND its a SIG! Maybe it will be 2x as reliable as other 1911s that ARE 100% reliable.

yeah, for over $1,000. :rolleyes:

September 11, 2005, 08:54 PM
Not from what I've seen unless you buy a big $$ 1911.

September 11, 2005, 09:05 PM
Only $1000, that's downright cheap!

September 12, 2005, 07:00 AM
My Colt 1991A1 commander is very reliable and combat accurate. 3" group at 25 yards and has never jammed with factory ammo either jhp or fmj. It jammed on me while experimenting with SWC hardcast handloads at mouse load level. It's about the same accuracy as my Glock21, but I love shooting it more than my Glock. I do own some custom 1911s with the best accuracy at 1.5" @ 50 yards. Will a HK or Sig do that? Look at the competition field where reliability and accuracy counts, the 1911 is still king of the hill. Oh yeah... Your dad may be able to beat my dad, but your dad is stupid in doing so because my dad can clear leather and shoot straight faster than your dad. :D josh

September 12, 2005, 07:18 AM
"Can a 1911 beat HK and Sig?"

The simple answer is....it depends

I shoot bone stock 1911's better than Sigs or HK's

I firmly believe that the 1911 platform is inherently more accurate than any SA/DA handgun...FOR ME

While your mileage may vary...and probably will, the inherent accuracy of most all handguns exceeds the users ability.

In a ransom rest most good quality handguns will group better than they will fired from your two hands. If they do not then there is something mechanically wrong with that particular weapon.

Most all good quality modern handguns will be reliable (IN GENERAL) although there are exceptions produced by every manufacturer.

This thread is chock full of the standard urban myths that plague the "errornet". Mostly based on one persons experience or what he read or gasp!.....heard somewhere.


Only expensive 1911's or those that are highly modified are accurate or reliable

Any pistol except (insert mfg here) will work fine

Handguns have to be "loose" to be reliable

I could go on for hours...but why bother ;)

Most everything that is required for accuracy is dependent on the shooter...not the weapon

The operator can drastically affect the reliability of the weapon...but you seldom see anyone aknowledge it.

Once your mechanics are sound, the relative ergonomics and "fit" of a handgun will affect your personal results

Just keep an open mind...and don't believe everything(anything?) you read

Not even my opinion!

September 13, 2005, 02:49 AM
You don't need to spend big bucks on a custom 1911 for utter reliability... the typical new Colt 1911 is stone reliable. Reliable with a wide variety of ammo types. Reliable with a wide variety of magazine brands. Reliable right out-of-the-box. No "break-in" required. Period.

"Reliable" is "reliable", there are no degrees here. It either is or it ain't. There's no "fairly reliable" or "extremely reliable". It runs or it doesn't. Typical Colt 1911 is reliable and remarkably accurate. With a little tweaking it can be made extremely accurate (and still reliable). No wonder most who are truly firearms savvy adore the 1911 and that the design will endure for many, many years to come. Savvy and not-so-savvy warriors have been relying on the 1911 for defense for nearly 100 years! The legendary status of the 1911 was earned, not fabricated on the internet, and certainly doesn't need me or anyone like me to defend it.

But once you have reliability, you can start to think about:

• feel in the hand
• pointability
• sublime-ness and consistency of trigger pull
• freaky-scary accuracy

John Browning's 1911 has been there serving warriors reliably in the form of the Colt 1911 for more than nine decades (and still does)...long before any of the current crop of plastic fantastic pistols were created. Reliability, accuracy, and superb trigger were already "pinned-down" years ago with the 1911 design. And when it comes to defensive effectiveness, you will find that the most sophisticated of our top-grade fighting forces (if they're allowed to) choose the 1911 in .45 acp as their choice in defensive pistols.

Most of the new-fangled semi-auto gun creations from SIG, HK, Glock, Beretta, Ruger, etc. were implemented to make their guns:

• more "fool-proof" for non-gun people to use,
• cheaper to manufacture, and/or
• appear "safer" in the eyes of the public

Many were made with John-Q Lawman in mind... the guy who isn't really into guns, but has to carry one in public all day, every day. All of the DAO, SA/DA, De-cocker, whamo-blamo gizmo designs do nothing to improve the "shootability" of the pistols... they just detract from it, by making for terrible trigger pulls, variable trigger feel, heavy trigger pulls, etc. None of this makes for a better shooting gun... they just appease law enforcement agency buyers and cater to public perception in some way. This is all in the interest of making the guns appear "safer" for Tom, Dick, & Harry to use. (And a LOT cheaper to build!)

Even though the SIGs, HK's, Glocks, Berettas, Rugers, S&W's, etc. are most often very "reliable"... a good many of them feel like crap in the hand and have trigger pulls that are laughable. But in spite of that, they're good guns as defense tools, especially for people who aren't necessarily "gun savvy", but they do suffer from feeling like "mass-produced, space-age, plasticy, springy-thingy gizmos" when compared to the solid feel and response of a basic, all-steel 1911... and for me, the new Colts come to mind in particular. Some folks "get" that and some haven't discovered it yet. If you've owned a wide variety of semi auto pistols including SIGs, HK's, and especially 1911's, you know exactly what I'm talking about. (Gotta say, Kimber excepted... I wouldn't care to rely on a current production Kimber 1911 for my own defense, though a great many of them do run reliably.)

Not that the new pistol designs from Glock, SIG, HK, etc. aren't reliable or, in some cases, quite accurate as well... most of them are! But they typically feel "soul-less", like stamped-out, mass production, economy-oriented tools... which they are, and that's not a fault, just a shortcoming in many people's opinions.

All in all, most of the current production semi-auto guns will cover your butt reliably and kill effectively. Glocks, Berettas, SIGs, HK's, Rugers, S&W, etc. can all get the job done just fine... no worries about that whatsoever. And in that regard, the 1911 isn't a "necessary" gun design anymore. Funny, though, that gun lovers won't let the 1911 go away... in fact the 1911 is even more popular than EVER before. And beyond "getting the job done" are the sweet details of which the stuff of dreams are made... the 1911. ;)

September 13, 2005, 07:22 AM
You don't need to spend big bucks on a custom 1911 for utter reliability..........................And beyond "getting the job done" are the sweet details of which the stuff of dreams are made... the 1911. http://www.foxtick.com/foxboard/images/smiles/Phil-Thumbs-Up-Small.gif What DHart said!

September 13, 2005, 07:25 AM
We are certainly NOT comparing apples to apples here. :eek:

SIG's & HK's are DA/SA handguns and the true design of a 1911 is SA only.

I have seen a shooter that can cloverleaf with a SIG or HK but could not hit the side of a barn with a high end 1911 and vice versa.

In a ransom rest, my Wilson, Colt, Kimber Springfield Armory 1911's and Sig P220ST and a friends HK, all shot equally well, when the right ammunition was shot in each gun. They all functioned equally well with their favorite ammunition as well.

The gun has to match the shooter and ammunition. Grip and trigger control are very important as is the ammunition shot in that gun.

This is not a fair question that can be answered by "my favorite gun" is the best scenario!!!

Wyo Cowboy
September 13, 2005, 12:47 PM
Issued weapon - HK USP compact. 3,000+ rounds 100% reliable
Personal Weapon - Kimber Ultra Carry II 3,000+ rounds 100% reliable
Additional Weapon - Colt Gvmt 1911 20,000+ rounds 100% reliable

Good guns and good factory or personally loaded ammo and no failure to feed or fire.

HK USP Compact - very accurate double action for "tactical" shooting"
Kimber and Colt - extreamly accurate single actions for "tactical shooting"

My LE department likes the DA for liabliity reasons. The 1911 is more accurate for me because of the much better trigger. If I had my way I'd carry the Kimber instead, but, the HK is an excellent second.