The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site - Colt 70 Series Reproductions

Oberleutnant

15th August 2007, 02:16

Hi Maximus,

I can tell you from my first hand experience that the repro Series '70 Colt is probably the best shooter right out of the box I've ever owned. Not that I've had the biggest pistol collection of the folks on this forum, just 6 pistols in my life so far, but my new S70 is my favorite these days.

I looked at many different 1911s when the bug bit last, and I chose my Colt over those others including several Springfields with more bells and whistles. It had a better feel in my hand, the action felt better when I worked it, the blued finish looked so much nicer, and in the end, it was a Colt. Yes, it is a Custom Shop item, having been finished in the Custom Shop. That's where that beautiful polished blue came from.

The current Series '70 primarily differs from the original in that it does not use the original collet bushing and tapered barrel design and has better sights. The biggest difference between new S70 and the Series 80/1991 models is that the S70 lacks the firing pin safety. To folks like me, that is a good thing. There are others who would argue that the firing pin safety is something they would really want on a carry gun.

Yes, I've heard about some quality control issues myself. I started a thread a while back asking for other owners to talk about any of their problems so I'd know what I was getting into when I decided I might want a SECOND S70 to build a custom carry weapon with. Most of the issues are cosmetic. If you're looking at the pistol up close, look for uneven slide flats, uneven thickness to the sides of the recoil spring groove, poor bushing fit, loose plunger tube, fuzzy blend where the polish meets the matte, plum color to the mag release, slide stop, thumb safety. These problems seem to be the exception and not the rule, Maximus. My pistol, and the others I've seen in real life, lack these issues.

Would the new Series '70 make a good carry piece? Yes, absolutely. It is a basic tough and reliable 1911A1. If you love lots of bells and whistles, she may not be what you want. Should you get blued or stainless? I prefer the blue, but the stainless is also a good choice and won't show holster wear as quick I'd imagine.

Personally, I will tell you, there are a couple of things I would like in a carry gun that my S70 does not have out of the box and I may get built into another specifically for carry. Lowered ejection port and beveled magazine well mostly. My pistol has had no problems without these, but in a combat situation those 2 improvements just strike me as a good idea. Beyond that, there are things I might do if I'm building a custom, but not too much more. You should look for the features that suit you in a carry piece. I can't tell you what features are best for you personally.

The one you're looking at is unfired you say. Has the original box, manuals, etc? No scratches or dings? Have you done some comparison shopping? What is the seller looking for out of it if you don't mind my asking?

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 02:21

I am looking at buying a Colt 70 series reproduction. I know little about the Colt 70 series reproductions. My intention is to carry the gun. Not use it for a collection since its only a reproduction.

Fair enough

They come from the custom shop yes?

They are billed that way

Will it be a good carry 1911?

As is, they are mediocre for carry, but have potential to be great custom platforms. I carry a WC CQB Compact, but tried the 70 reissue for a few days on a lark. If you are used to smaller 1911s, it feels rather encumbersome. If you are used to them or a "blank slate" with respect to carry pistols, you will come to find it needs a dehorn job... BADLY.

I cant decide on blue or stainless. The blue is nice but I think the stainless would be better suited for carry. Anyone have any advice to offer?

My friend bought a blued and it looks terrific. I went with a stainless. Blued looks nicer overall, but it always looks like fingerprints are all over it. Stainless feels grittier when cycling, but it also clearly shows filth, so it is easier to clean throughly. If you want to carry, Stainless is more corrosion resistant, and will not have wear on the contact points like blued.

Or should I lookd for something like maybe a Springfield loaded for carry? I just want to own a real Colt. Just need some advice.

The S70 Repro has been my default recommendation for ALL enthusiasts who want to get into the 1911 market or add something new and nice to their collection from the line of production pistols...

...Then I bought one myself, and things have changed dramatically.

This pistol was so disgusting that I was shocked and outraged that there was even the possibility that this abomination could have made it past the quality control. Advice? I'll conclude below.

I was reading that there were some quality control issues with some of these. How does Colts warranty work? The one I am looking is unfired but I am buying it from the original owner.
Thanks!

The quality control issues from Colt "custom shop" pistols are dismal, particularly given the marketed higher expectation of quality. I have owned two "custom shop" pistols that require(d) complete replacement. Fit and finish ranges from collector-grade investment to worse than a RIA reject. Recoil spring channels being drilled in an asymmetrical manner and loose plunger tubes are commonplace on these pistols. Blemishes, slop, mismatched parts, and small parts failures are all possible, if not likely on these pistols as well. It seems you either get an real well made 1911, a decently executed one with a few minor bugs, or the shock of your life. You really MUST be able to lay hands and eyes on one of these, and inspect carefully if you want to avoid the headaches.

My advice is to assume ANY NIB "custom shop" pistol sale as one conducted by seller who has discovered a few defects and is pull a fast one on you instead of sending it for service (ask me how I came up with this piece of advice :mad: ). Inspect it carefully looking for slop in all fitted parts, the recoil spring channel, plunger tube and inspect all surfaces for blemishes. If you find such things but they aren't fatal, use them against the seller as a bargaining point.

Colt's return policy is generally one of the best for production pistols. Colt will repair this pistol for you, even if it is secondhand. HOWEVER, all aesthetic issues have a one year coverage period, so you should assume the weapon is NOT covered unless the original seller has paperwork to document the period. If the issues are Colt's fault, they will reimburse shipping.

I have had good news and nightmares with Colt's warranty service.

Good news: returned a horrifying WWI repro and they reimbursed shipping and replaced completely

Good news: returned a 20+ year old pistol for repairs which they did for free and reimbursed shipping

Bad news: I asked them to refinish old pistol (on my dime) and they held it for months without doing the work misplacing my payment info.

Bad news: Old pistol was NOT fixed, and the refinish was unacceptable so I had to re-send and wait all over again

Bad news: They almost dropped the ball again and forgot to fix the problem a second time until by chance I checked up on them and discovered they forgot (again) to put the repair order into the records. I have a handful of "Colt forgot" stories. Communication is terrible btw Cust service & repair, and such mistakes are commonplace in my experience.

OD*

15th August 2007, 02:30

As is, they are mediocre for carry,
Why?

................

Hunter

15th August 2007, 02:37

I am feeling unwarranted bashing coming on.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 02:48

Mediocre certainly seems terse, but I wish to frame that impartially (if possible). Mediocre means acceptable with a fair amount of room for improvement (think somewhere between "C" and "B-").

Colt's reputation for reliability makes this an asset where it counts, and the newly-adopted feed ramp on the barrel adds an additional element of smooth feeding.

The bead-blasted top and contrasting colored sites on the SS model show that Colt is thinking more practically than they had in the 1970s. The sights are also a nice improvement over the 1911A1s.

However, these sights are inferior to what is offered for modern carry such as Novaks and others which feature snag-free design and quicker sight aquisition. The matted sights are also significantly harder to pick up in low-light situations

The other issue is the edges on the gun. They poke, snag, and truly threaten to lacerate as you sit down and discover a new edge driving into your ribs or stomach.

The hammer and grip tang all capture the nostalgic feel of a true classic, but they certainly aren't built with comfort and snag-free design (by today's standards) in mind.

As such, I rate the stock version "mediocre" since there are so many 1911 incarnations that run circles around this in the CCW department.

As a range blaster or a home defender however, most of the "charming retro amenities" don't appear to hinder the platform like they do in an IWB. Now send this weapon to Yost for a 1* package (or one of their contemporaries) and you really have a contender for amazing CCW.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 02:54

I am feeling unwarranted bashing coming on.

I couldn't agree more... if the thread was titled "look at the new Colt that followed me home this afternoon" and such commentary developed.

When a poster asks for a "no bull" assessment from people with personal experience of the weapon and solicits purchase advice, I would think that any "bashing" (I prefer the term "honest assesment") would be very relevent, at least IMO.

Hunter

15th August 2007, 02:57

I disagree that the Series 70 cannot be a great CCW. I carry a GCT OWB with no discomfort.
Run circles? That is a strong statement.

OD*

15th August 2007, 03:05

The bead-blasted top and contrasting colored sites on the SS model show that Colt is thinking more practically than they had in the 1970s.
Huh? The tops of the slides have been matted since the '40s.

However, these sights are inferior to what is offered for modern carry such as Novaks and others which feature snag-free design and quicker sight aquisition.
That's your opinion, many prefer the hardballer style sights ability to be "snagged" on something for one handed cycling. I don't see how sight acquisition would be any "faster" when the sight openings are the same size.

The hammer and grip tang all capture the nostalgic feel of a true classic, but they certainly aren't built with comfort and snag-free design (by today's standards) in mind.
Again, that is your opinion, I've carried a "nostalgic" Gov't. Model for 28 years and haven't had a problem yet.

the "charming retro amenities" don't appear to hinder the platform like they do in an IWB.
Your opinion, my Colts with the charming retro amenities, don't hinder IWB in the least.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 03:10

I agree with you wholeheartedly that it can be a great CCW, But in its stock form, it is not a great CCW by comparison. And yes, as bold as the statement is, it is one I have no trouble making.

A series 70 Retro (when done right) is a beautiful representation of the '68' Camaro RS with the 350. It's a head-turner with some definite ability. But you put a '69' Camaro Yenko SS with the 427 on the line against it and somebody is about to get embarrassed.

Sharp factory edges, standard matte sights, short factory trigger, snagworthy "biting" hammer spur, and standard magwell in a 5" package on one side...

Dehorned for carry, snag-free hi-viz sights, crisp, tuned trigger, skeletonized hammer, beveled magwell with/without mag chute, hand-friendly beavertail, bushingless bbl in a 4"-4.25" package on the other...

I would say circles, indeed.

Oberleutnant

15th August 2007, 03:12

Looks like we're getting some views from both ends of the spectrum on the quality of the new Series '70 and that's okay since that's what maximus wanted. I'm sorry that pulpsmack ran into the low end of the quality scale. It would take a lot to get me to part with mine. Looks beautiful, fit, finish, and function are excellent.

I will say that a little light dehorning of frame tang/ grip safety spur will probably find its way into my custom project. As well as melonizing for finish protection and a commander style hammer for fun and function. As for the sights, I've been back and forth on that. They're a maybe. The low light point is a valid one, though.

Overall, I would still trust my life to the '70 I own right now as is.

Hunter

15th August 2007, 03:21

Sharp factory edges, standard matte sights, short factory trigger, snagworthy "biting" hammer spur, and standard magwell in a 5" package on one side...

Dehorned for carry, snag-free hi-viz sights, crisp, tuned trigger, skeletonized hammer, beveled magwell with/without mag chute, hand-friendly beavertail, bushingless bbl in a 4"-4.25" package on the other...

I would say circles, indeed.
Here I will offer my opinion on your points.
The factory edges have not been a problem for me.
Sights on a carry pistol are best at small and unobtrusive. High visibility sights have are not as beneficial on a CCW as one may think.
I strongly prefer the short factory trigger and have never been bit by the spur hammer or standard grip safety.
Also I see no need for a magazine well and I prefer the standard bushing.
It is all about perception. I see your point and admit the Colt New Agent is a great little pistol that is perfect for CCW but I also see a place for a full size in that same role.
My idea is to have both and use accordingly.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 03:31

That's your opinion, many prefer the hardballer style sights ability to be "snagged" on something for one handed cycling. I don't see how sight acquisition would be any "faster" when the sight openings are the same size.

<snip> (your opinion... X3)

Many may prefer that for one-handed cycling, but it is redundant on a 5" model, which permits one handed cycling chunking the recoil spring plug against a hard surface, and that method is less-likely to cripple the gun as the alternative puts the sight at risk of breaking.

Sight acquisition is much faster in low light situations with a contrasting dot or night sight on the front sight post than a plain matted one, particulary when the target has dark clothing on. Maybe your technique or vision is different than mine, but placing the matte front sight against a black silhouette makes acquisition time longer than placing one with a contrasting dot or tritium (depending on light and style).

As for my opinion... I don't exactly know how one is supposed to respond to that. Almost all comparatives are opinion. The difference is between an arbitrary and a reasoned belief. I am sure there is somebody out there who thinks a sharp slide and a snagging hammer is the bee's knees and is a better carry weapon. I would wager many, many more would disagree. Does calling a statement out as opinion, really discount it?

Just because the platform works as is does not mean there are not a few tweaks that make it better. Colt recoginizes this with their gunsite "carry" line. Would I trust my life to a known 1911A1? Without hesitation. I have a few of them. But I have been fortunate enough to have some different 1911 platforms and after firsthand comparison of platforms and features, I have come to find what works best for me. It may not work best for everybody, but I do tend to find a great deal of overlap with respect to certain personal preferences and those of others, as well as those of the "hot rod" carry guns marketed by the cutting edge outfits.

Maybe that's not enough to change a man's mind who has remained faithful to the same platform for a few decades, but that might be just what a more receptive shooter is looking for. I suppose, educated shopping and some range time will dictate what works for member X.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 03:36

My idea is to have both and use accordingly.

I think your opinion carries the day. ;)

maximus2161

15th August 2007, 03:40

I appreciate all the input. I really do. I value any objective opinions offered. I guess I wont know until I buy it. The gun is priced at $800. Its in the box, has 2 mags, all paperwork, etc. I know its not going to be tricked out like a Baer, Ed Brown, etc. I know enough to know what look for upon the initial inspection I hope.

It seem I have read more positive comments than negative one so that says something I hope. This is a great site and I am getting a lot of info.

paul45

15th August 2007, 06:40

It seem I have read more positive comments than negative one so that says something I hope.Absolutely.....do not let shrill naysayers stop you!!

wetidlerjr

15th August 2007, 07:04

...Or should I lookd for something like maybe a Springfield loaded for carry?

:scared:

ETA: I carry a Defender for CCW although I will occasionally carry my S70 re-pro or a SS Combat Commander. I have not found the full size of the S70 or it's lack of custom features to be a detriment. I have a King-Tappan rear sight on my S70, don't find that a problem and I have no desire for night sights. YMMV :D

Oberleutnant

15th August 2007, 07:50

Maximus,

I've tried to be objective, and I hope at least a little bit helpful, but you've probably guessed by now that I'm a pretty big fan of the repro '70. I can't help it.

That $800 price tag may be negotiable. It seems a little high to me even unfired. It is used at this point regardless. Definitely look for all of the cosmetic flaws mentioned and the ever popular idiot scratch as bargaining points. Work the action, make sure everything works properly. If you get that gut feeling that it's not the right one, then don't be afraid to walk away. Brand new blued Series '70 repros are going in the $825-$925 price range depending on the seller. There are a few higher priced shops out there as well of course. I paid $875 for mine new at a place here in town a little while back.

One of the best things about the pistol is that it's the simple old rugged and reliable Colt Government Model. Chances are very good that it will go bang if you need it to under many different conditions. Some of the customs out there have waaay too many features and doodads that I don't want or need personally. You may have found the same to be true. The Series '70 is a great starting point for customization if you choose to go that route one of these days. But try her out as she is for a while. Decide for yourself what features you like and don't like. Borrow or rent a 1911 with the beavertail grip safety one day if you think it's for you and try it out. Or different sights. Or a flat mainspring housing. Or longer trigger. Etc. It took some trigger time with the 1911s for me to know exactly what I wanted in a custom carry version. And I learned that some of the things I thought I would want to tweak didn't need tweaking after all.

Just another 2 cents worth for you.

Hawkmoon

15th August 2007, 08:33

I'm afraid I have to disagree on multiple points.

Mediocre certainly seems terse, but I wish to frame that impartially (if possible). Mediocre means acceptable with a fair amount of room for improvement (think somewhere between "C" and "B-").
"Mediocre" is more like between a "D-" and a "D+". A "B-" would hardly be mediocre.

However, these sights are inferior to what is offered for modern carry such as Novaks and others which feature snag-free design and quicker sight aquisition. The matted sights are also significantly harder to pick up in low-light situations
If the pistol were intended as a carry pistol this might be a valid comment. However, it is NOT intended as a carry pistol. It is a Custom Shop pistol intended to offer a true-to-original 1911 for those who wish such a critter. Those who want a "modern" carry pistol should buy an XSE. Aside from that, having a sloped rear sight such as a Novak doesn't make much difference for carry, since the rear sight isn't covered by most holsters. The Colts and Paras I carry all have the same sights as the Series 70 and I have never encountered any snagging on anything.

The other issue is the edges on the gun. They poke, snag, and truly threaten to lacerate as you sit down and discover a new edge driving into your ribs or stomach.
Sharp corners such as can be relieved by dehorning are not what poke you in the ribs or drive into your stomach. That's a function of the shape of the gun, and even a dehorned 1911 will do the same thing. Again, your comment seems to be based on the misconception that the Series 70 is intended and/or marketed as a carry weapon. I submit that is not the pistol's intended purpose or market. It's really unfair to fault a product for not being ideal for a function other than what it was intended for.

The hammer and grip tang all capture the nostalgic feel of a true classic, but they certainly aren't built with comfort and snag-free design (by today's standards) in mind.
This is 100 percent correct. I see no point in belaboring the obvious. The Series 70 wasn't built with "comfort" and snag-free design in mind. It was built to replicate 1911s of a past era. Criticizing it for not being what it wasn't intended to be seems a bit irrelevent.

As such, I rate the stock version "mediocre" since there are so many 1911 incarnations that run circles around this in the CCW department.
???

As a range blaster or a home defender however, most of the "charming retro amenities" don't appear to hinder the platform like they do in an IWB. Now send this weapon to Yost for a 1* package (or one of their contemporaries) and you really have a contender for amazing CCW.
Why don't you just say you don't like the pistol? Your entire argument is based on evaluating the Series 70 based on your own criteria for a purpose the Series 70 was not designed to carry out. Colt's "modern" pistol with carry "amenities" is the XSE. Having seen the XSE, I much prefer the 1991, precisely because it doesn't have most of the "amenities" you seem to consider necessary and that I consider unnecessary frills. I would not consider an XSE for carry. I would choose a 1991 over a Series 70 simply because (a) it's less expensive, and (b) the Series 70 is such a nice pistol that if I could afford one I wouldn't wish to subject it to holster wear and daily carry wear and tear.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 10:05

I'm afraid I have to disagree on multiple points.

"Mediocre" is more like between a "D-" and a "D+". A "B-" would hardly be mediocre.

me·di·o·cre (mē'dē-ō'kər) Pronunciation Key
adj. Moderate to inferior in quality; ordinary.

I believes it satisfies the equation. At any rate, all that accomplishes is splitting hairs over a term that was clearly defined by my standards in a subsequent post. Use whatever term you want to call it a "C" to "B-" for carry.

If the pistol were intended as a carry pistol this might be a valid comment. However, it is NOT intended as a carry pistol. It is a Custom Shop pistol intended to offer a true-to-original 1911 for those who wish such a critter. Those who want a "modern" carry pistol should buy an XSE. Aside from that, having a sloped rear sight such as a Novak doesn't make much difference for carry, since the rear sight isn't covered by most holsters. The Colts and Paras I carry all have the same sights as the Series 70 and I have never encountered any snagging on anything.

The comment is perfectly valid because it is a direct answer to the OP's question: How is this for carry?

Sharp corners such as can be relieved by dehorning are not what poke you in the ribs or drive into your stomach. That's a function of the shape of the gun, and even a dehorned 1911 will do the same thing. Again, your comment seems to be based on the misconception that the Series 70 is intended and/or marketed as a carry weapon. I submit that is not the pistol's intended purpose or market. It's really unfair to fault a product for not being ideal for a function other than what it was intended for.

Nobody faulted a product for fulfilling an other than intended application. It is clear the OP wants a S70 for reasons of his own and is trying to stretch its usefulness into other territories, such as carry. So long as a person has an intention for using a pistol in a manner in which it was not intended to be used, and asks how it would perform in that area, it will remain "perfectly fair" to criticize the platform with respect to that area. That doesn't make it a bad weapon. It simply makes it a less than ideal choice.

This is 100 percent correct. I see no point in belaboring the obvious. The Series 70 wasn't built with "comfort" and snag-free design in mind. It was built to replicate 1911s of a past era. Criticizing it for not being what it wasn't intended to be seems a bit irrelevent.

Take the relevance up with the OP then. He asked and I answered.

Why don't you just say you don't like the pistol?

Because that is completely untrue. Why would I have recommended it to everybody who was looking for a 1911 if I disliked it so much? Why would I have bought one in the first place, if I dislike it? Why would I have (prior to receiving my piece of garbage) ambitions to own 2-3 of these? It seems like you picked up on a negative evaluation of a product that you like, and you resorted to a knee-jerk rebuttal without reading the post very carefully. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making the half-cocked assumptions that I dislike the pistol and that I had no idea that it was intended for other than carry (the latter was explicitly stated in a post of mine). Moreover, you wouldn't be spouting "relevance" issues given the fact that the OP specifically made the parameters, and such commentary is precisely what was sought.

Your entire argument is based on evaluating the Series 70 based on your own criteria for a purpose the Series 70 was not designed to carry out.

You are the second person who has made a point of raising such issue, and it still makes little difference. If/when the OP posts "blueprints" of HIS criteria for what makes a good carry gun, then I will do what I can to address HIS needs. When a general question is raised, I have little else to comment on authoritatively except my own preferences and experience. Just as you can spout your own "opinion" about how something is good (for you), and let the OP and other viewers take what applies individually and discard the rest.

OD*

15th August 2007, 10:07

Many may prefer that for one-handed cycling, but it is redundant on a 5" model, which permits one handed cycling chunking the recoil spring plug against a hard surface, and that method is less-likely to cripple the gun as the alternative puts the sight at risk of breaking.
Maybe, if you have a hard surface with which to push the recoil spring plug against. Frequently when carrying a 5" model, many will have on a stiff belt with which to carry that 5" model, unfortunately, many don't carry a 5" model.

Sight acquisition is much faster in low light situations with a contrasting dot or night sight on the front sight post than a plain matted one, particulary when the target has dark clothing on. Maybe your technique or vision is different than mine, but placing the matte front sight against a black silhouette makes acquisition time longer than placing one with a contrasting dot or tritium (depending on light and style).
Maybe, if you would have mentioned contrasting dots or night sights in your post I wouldn't have commented, but you didn't mention them. So, to keep the discussion honest, lets discuss the sights you did make mention of, which were "matted" sights. There is no advantage in sight acquisition time when the sights differ in shape only.

Does calling a statement out as opinion, really discount it?
Not at all, but you didn't state that your responses were opinion, you tried to pass it off as fact, readers are lead to believe all Series 70 are dismal.
Example;
The quality control issues from Colt "custom shop" pistols are dismal, particularly given the marketed higher expectation of quality.
This claim is that all Custom Shop pistols are dismal, which is absolutely disingenuous .

I have come to find what works best for me. It may not work best for everybody,
Then you should have stated it that way to begin with, instead of implying your way was the best way.

It may not work best for everybody, but I do tend to find a great deal of overlap with respect to certain personal preferences and those of others, as well as those of the "hot rod" carry guns marketed by the cutting edge outfits.
And you will find many, (excluding the "hot rodders") who feel the same as I do, right here at M1911, if you bother looking. Both ways are personal preference's and opinions and prove nothing actually, except that there is more than one "right" pistol.

Maybe that's not enough to change a man's mind who has remained faithful to the same platform for a few decades, but that might be just what a more receptive shooter is looking for. I suppose, educated shopping and some range time will dictate what works for member X.
Maybe not, I have owned customs and own a Colt Gunsite currently, I don't see myself as a Luddite, as you appearantly do.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 10:57

Overall I think some good points were made here...

Maybe, if you have a hard surface with which to push the recoil spring plug against. Frequently when carrying a 5" model, many will have on a stiff belt with which to carry that 5" model, unfortunately, many don't carry a 5" model.

Very true, but the weapon in discussion was a 5" model, and the likelihood of being in a place where a curb, building corner, vehicle, etc is not available to "cycle" the 1911 against is extremely remote.

Maybe, if you would have mentioned contrasting dots or night sights in your post I wouldn't have commented, but you didn't mention them. So, to keep the discussion honest, lets discuss the sights you did make mention of, which were "matted" sights. There is no advantage in sight acquisition time when the sights differ in shape only.

Fair enough.

Not at all, but you didn't state that your responses were opinion, you tried to pass it off as fact, readers are lead to believe all Series 70 are dismal.
Example;

This claim is that all Custom Shop pistols are dismal, which is absolutely disingenuous .

Maybe it's my way of doing things, but I find it patronizing and insulting as a reader that someone has to treat me as an idiot by telling me "I'm stating opinion now... OK, fact now... Ok, back to opinion." I think we all were endowed with critical thinking skills and the ability to grasp a fact, a qualified opinion, and an arbitrary one. Maybe I give the average reader here too much credit regarding intellingence, but I don't think so. Just as you were able to point out what was fact and opinion in my statements without me providing a road map, so to do the rest of the readers.

Moreover, the idea that a blanket statement/generalization applies to its logical extreme "ALL Colts" is absurd. There are ample accounts of issues with Colt "custom shop" pistols online. I have direct experience with 3 "custom shop" pistols. All of them required return to Colt for some reason. Two out of three required replacement.

If the subject was 1991s, the argument could be raised that it is a value line that doesn't command Colt's QC attention, and so many are made that a few lemons get by. This, however is billed as a "custom shop" pistol. That means a significantly higher standard of QC, and a limited run of pistols. These two factors mean that a lemon should be rare and a clearly visible abomination should be nonexistent.

I have trouble believing I am a lightning rod. When my experience yields two in need of replacement and one in need of repair it stands to reason that they are plagued with QC issues. When there are enough complaints online, and I am swapping horror stories with my FFL and Bud's guns over them, I think it is safe to make it official: the QC is dismal. It hardly requires every pistol being garbage to make that statement.

And you will find many, (excluding the "hot rodders") who feel the same as I do, right here at M1911, if you bother looking. Both ways are personal preference's and opinions and prove nothing actually, except that there is more than one "right" pistol.

Maybe not, I have owned customs and own a Colt Gunsite currently, I don't see myself as a Luddite, as you appearantly do.

I can't say I know you well enough to make any such statement about you, but when my ideas are attacked on the basis that you carried X-configuration for 28 years, it is only fair to draw that issue out.

I can't agree more with you in general about there being more than one right pistol. For what it's worth, most of my pistols are over a quarter of a century old, and nearly all of them sport A1 sights with unadulterated ejection ports.

That said, people do have tastes, and there is no accounting for this, but this "proof standard" has gone way too far, IMO. Without these opinions (qualified and otherwise) this place amounts nothing more than a 1911 FAQ and a scrapbook of member's 1911 pictures. Sometimes the "better-than" argument SHOULD be made, to spark some debate in order to hash out what really is best (or extrapolating 2 points from member X and 1 from member Y, what really is best for the reader).

OD*

15th August 2007, 12:21

Moreover, the idea that a blanket statement/generalization applies to its logical extreme "ALL Colts" is absurd.
Indeed it is, and that is exactly what you did. I noticed you convienetly omitted this from my quote.
The quality control issues from Colt "custom shop" pistols are dismal, particularly given the marketed higher expectation of quality.
You made the statement.

Very true, but the weapon in discussion was a 5" model, and the likelihood of being in a place where a curb, building corner, vehicle, etc is not available to "cycle" the 1911 against is extremely remote.
You brought up the 4".

I find it patronizing and insulting as a reader that someone has to treat me as an idiot by telling me "I'm stating opinion now
I find it patronizing and insulting as a reader that someone tries to give the impression that his opinion is indeed fact.

but when my ideas are attacked
If dissenting opinions are are "attacks," then you need to reread your posts.

If you continue with the subtle insults, as you did with Hawkmoon and myself, well to paraphrase you, "it won't go well."
If you feel the need to continue this aspect of the discussion, take it to PM.

cliff731

15th August 2007, 13:32

Precisely, a preponderance of owners of Colt's Series 70 "reissue", including myself, are very satisfied with our customer experiences regarding this specific model and others from Hartford... and we would quickly state our expectations have been generously exceeded.

That's not to say that Colt's people doing their work can't have a bad day every now and then... and a gun can slip thru the cracks that shouldn't have... but I'll allow them that and be most generous about it. Such is due... Colt stands behind their products exceedingly well to maintain their exemplary reputation.

The point is that real live humans finish and assemble Colt's firearms... not machines.

How's that? Good enuf?

OD*

15th August 2007, 14:10

I don't know Cliff, only owning 6 Colt Custom Shop pistols and revolvers myself, I've apparently overlooked the Custom Shop's abysmal quality control?

cliff731

15th August 2007, 14:49

I don't know Cliff, only owning 6 Colt Custom Shop pistols and revolvers myself, I've apparently overlooked the Custom Shop's abysmal quality control?

Yes... blinded by passion... :p (just kidding..)

Honestly, these Series 70 "reissues", as they are a Colt Custom Shop creation... I would naturally surmise there is an exessive amount of highly skilled "human" labor involved. That understanding brings an acceptance of the fact that some of the Custom Shop products might be "less than perfect"... simply because we as humans aren't the same precise and methodical workers every single day of the week, every week of the month and every month of the year.

However, it is just absolutely an uncommon event when someone has a major issue with any Colt pistols coming from their Custom Shop's skilled artisans... at least that's been my impression from reading posts on these forums.

Mine isn't "perfect"... and to Colt's credit they offered to take a look and correct a very minute spot in the bluing (truly I'm the only OCD nut who has seen it). I chose to leave it just as it came from the Custom Shop. To me, it's an essential part of the character of this Colt.

I spent hours and hours examining this pistol... it's one I'm extremely proud of as it wasn't easy to come by. You tend to place great pride in that for which you labored long and hard.

We are soon approaching a day when such "hands on labor" will be impossible in any form of manufacturing (well, we've been there for quite awhile)... except for products of such enclaves as Colt's Custom Shop. To own one of their pistols is like obtaining a piece of past history... an opportunity to have and hold something created by skilled machine operators and finished by precise craftsmen and artisans.

Just as two pieces of pottery are never the same coming off the potter's wheel, and the glazes are individually unique, I will dare say that one Series 70 "reissue" is not going to be exactly identical to another even made the same day. This is a most rare quality in today's world of automated machine finishing and assembly... and well worth the price of admission.

I've got one of them, OD*... and it's not absolutely perfect, but I couldn't be any prouder!!!

If Colt or their Custom Shop had abysmal quality control, the market would have long ago run them out of the gun making business... gone the same way as many others who ignored quality and their customers at their own peril.

Ogie

15th August 2007, 15:39

I have a Series 70 Repro in stainless on lay-a-way that I will be picking up in a couple of weeks. I am really looking forward to it

As a side note, I carried an original Series 70 for about five years on a part-time job I had many years ago. It was a job that required both manual labor and interaction with other employees as well as customers. I never got made in five years of concealed carry. The Series 70 was never uncomfortable to carry. I have no idea how someone could say the the Series 70 would not be appropriate for concealed carry. It was an excellent concealed carry pistol!

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 16:11

Yes... blinded by passion... :p (just kidding..)

Honestly, these Series 70 "reissues", as they are a Colt Custom Shop creation... I would naturally surmise there is an exessive amount of highly skilled "human" labor involved. That understanding brings an acceptance of the fact that some of the Custom Shop products might be "less than perfect"... simply because we as humans aren't the same precise and methodical workers every single day of the week, every week of the month and every month of the year.

However, it is just absolutely an uncommon event when someone has a major issue with any Colt pistols coming from their Custom Shop's skilled artisans... at least that's been my impression from reading posts on these forums.

This is a classic statement from one with an idealistic point of view of the "custom shop" process over there. I truly understand why one might believe that having no negative experience there, but the evidence mounts that just doesn't bear that out.

I have complete accounts of a WWI repro and a Colt S70 repro (with detailed pictures) that show pistols that have so many issues on them that they should not have passed though QC, even if they were assembly line pistols. This is personal experience with direct evidence, not internet folklore. Neither pistol had one fatal flaw. Rather each was bristling with glaring defects that any competant smith would have detected. It's one thing to have an otherwise wonderful pistol with an errant grind mark on it. It is another issue all together when each one had no fewer than four issues per pistol. It is a third issue when ONE customer has the same absurd experience with TWO such pistols in less than a year's time.

That leaves but two possibilities: Colt "custom shop" pistols are a nebulous term that mean something different than what the consumer is led to believe, or these pistols are in fact turned by the hands of the custom shop smiths. If these smiths do in fact put their hands on them, then there remain two possibilities: either the smiths are completely incompetant and turn out slop work on their inability to do better, or the smiths (with or without orders from management) see the issues and plainly ignore the defects. I am aware of custom shop pistols that are beautifully worked, and that can't be by accident, so I have trouble believing the smiths are incompetant. That leaves either the possibilty that Colt "custom shop" pistols are a marketing ploy for a production pistol that sees little to no smith attention, or the smiths for personal or management reasons refuse to address glaring details when they do crop up from time to time.

Three Colt custom shop pistols that I have personal experience with. All of them had to go back for work, two needed to be replaced completely. I played the lotto twice this week with no newfound winnings... it isn't me and my "one in a billion odds" luck. It doesn't matter if 15 people post about all 30 of their combined custom shop weapons, which are works of art. It does not explain away how two that I know of wouldn't have passed muster if they were 1991s. This goes way beyond an occasional lemon. The occasional lemon was my friend's S70 that had to be returned for a plunger tube re-stake and an in-spec firing pin stop plate. It has some trigger slop, but it's a beautiful weapon that functions great. THAT is the kind of hiccup you can forgive and understand might happen from time to time. That is not what what was being talked about.

If Colt or their Custom Shop had abysmal quality control, the market would have long ago run them out of the gun making business... gone the same way as many others who ignored quality and their customers at their own peril.

You have no idea what a hornet's nest/potential hijack you are stirring up with this point, but there is ample evidence that suggests you could not be more wrong with Colt's attitude towards their civilian customers. I am sure a ridiculous argument could be stirred up with heated points on both sides, but it's probably a good thing to just let this point drop.

azreloader

15th August 2007, 17:35

:scared: Wow. Just thought i'd check in on this thread and boy did it go South!

feathers73

15th August 2007, 17:42

Mine had a couple of minor cosmetic issues but it shoots so well. Really tight groups. I have one group that was just one ragged hole. I figured after using the gun for awhile it would have some minor cosmetic issues anyway so it really didn't bother me.

paul45

15th August 2007, 17:51

You have no idea what a hornet's nest/potential hijack you are stirring up with this point,No....perhaps it is you who has no idea. I saw your "account" about your series 70 before it was removed. It is your pistol and your money so you think what you want.....but since you posted on the public internet....here is my opinion of your account.......Mostly rubbish.....the only issue you had was the corrosion on the frame.....Where did that come from? You do not know.... yet blame Colt. That could have happened in Bud's warehouse. Your other issues, while your opinion, made me think how pitifully over the top you are in pointing out "issues". You were ranting/bashing about the color of your stocks? .....about the MSH cutouts on the stocks? But yet, you take delivery of the piece? ....Please, your bashing of Colt in your threads is unwarranted.......that is my opinion. Apparently you enjoy arguing, so I will wait for you to attempt to pick apart my post........ :dead_hors :butthead: :sleep:

wichaka

15th August 2007, 18:31

Appears that someone hasn't really checked out the total array of 1911's on the market, and compared QC..............

It's like picking apart a Ford Pinto because it doesn't have the ammenities a Cadillac does...........and the price of tea in China is what?

I've had a ton of 1911's come across the bench over the years, and the fewest are Colts. Now there's an influx of other names that have come on the market in the last few years, and they're starting to show up on the bench.

Colt sells all the 1911's they make, yet I still don't see them for work........hmmmmmm that's what we in the L.E. world call a clue!

Oberleutnant

15th August 2007, 19:46

Yeah, what azreloader said.

Come on folks. Let's agree to disagree and get back to providing Maximus with some new info for his inquiry about the pistol. Do you have one, do you use it for carry, how does it function, any problems, etc.

Pulpsmack has had some poor personal experiences with Colt. That is really unfortunate, and I feel for him. As such, he is entitled to his opinion just as each of us is entitled to our own. And nobody is going to change his mind, nor will he change anyone else's who has had only positive dealings with Colt. That's just the way of things. Now, let's shake hands and remember that we brothers and sisters of the 1911 have more in common than not.

pulpsmack

15th August 2007, 19:54

I think I will modify this in the spirit of Oberleutnant's post. Sounds good to me.

OD*

15th August 2007, 20:05

Wise decision.

Rio Vista Slim

15th August 2007, 21:22

Maximus,
OD* and Hunter are groaning right now, because they both know what's coming next.................

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a294/RioVistaSlim/IMG_0898.jpg

Those are my final two statements on the subject! :D :D :D

JustinTime

15th August 2007, 21:36

As such, I rate the stock version "mediocre" since there are so many 1911 incarnations that run circles around this in the CCW department.

Dag-nabbit, I wish someone had told me that before I replaced my Kimber ultra carry with a factory 1979 Colt commander. And before I removed the rowel (round hole commander) hammer and installed a WWII USGI spur hammer and a USGI grip safety.

The other issue is the edges on the gun. They poke, snag, and truly threaten to lacerate as you sit down and discover a new edge driving into your ribs or stomach.

Sharp factory edges, standard matte sights, short factory trigger, snagworthy "biting" hammer spur, and standard magwell in a 5" package on one side...

Hmmm, I carry a LTW commander (Not dehorned) IWB I've never had a hint of discomfort for the sharp edges. The truth is my holster like other quality IWB holsters has a leather flap thap runs the length of the slide and grip safety with protect my body from such uncomfort as you speak of and I have never experienced a problem with snagging while unholstering. So you can waste you $$$ on a wilson that does nothing more than my 1979 LTW Commander if you want.

However, these sights are inferior to what is offered for modern carry such as Novaks and others which feature snag-free design and quicker sight aquisition. The matted sights are also significantly harder to pick up in low-light situations

I have to ask a question. Have you ever heard about point shooting. What the heck to I need some smancy-fancy sloped rear sight for if I'm looking at that when I pull the trigger I'll miss.

Joni Lynn

15th August 2007, 21:51

I like my stainless series 70 but I didn't buy it to carry as much as just to have that particular model. Mine is accurate and reliable. It does everything in the manner I expect it to.

OD*

15th August 2007, 23:12

cliff731

16th August 2007, 00:29

Oh no Slim, I always enjoy pictures of your Colt's. http://forum.m1911.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

Well, that photo is pure torture to me... :bed:

Hunter

16th August 2007, 00:34

That is a great picture of 2 beautiful Colts Slim! I do dread them somewhat though as it makes me want more Colts, thanks Slim. If I spend all my money on Colts and loose my house I am coming to stay with you.

pulpsmack

16th August 2007, 01:31

Dag-nabbit, I wish someone had told me that before I replaced my Kimber ultra carry with a factory 1979 Colt commander. And before I removed the rowel (round hole commander) hammer and installed a WWII USGI spur hammer and a USGI grip safety.

I prefer Colt over Kimber any day of the week, but I have to ask... what possessed you to make the hammer/grip tang transfer? Was it an aesthetic/style choice, or was the shortenend tang of the Commander biting your hand?

Hmmm, I carry a LTW commander (Not dehorned) IWB I've never had a hint of discomfort for the sharp edges. The truth is my holster like other quality IWB holsters has a leather flap thap runs the length of the slide and grip safety with protect my body from such uncomfort as you speak of and I have never experienced a problem with snagging while unholstering. So you can waste you $$$ on a wilson that does nothing more than my 1979 LTW Commander if you want.

I am sure that gunleather makes a difference for any application, with respect to comfort and concealability. I don't know about your '79' LW, but I have a '77' Combat Commander that I really like, but I can tell you without hesitation that the money is definitely invested, not wasted on a WC based on what you are getting over the other one.

I carry my Combat Commander semi-frequently and don't experience snags and pokes with that either, but it is 3/4" shorter, has a non-spur hammer, and a minimized tang. It's also not nearly as sharp as the S70 is. Perhaps that sharpness is an anomaly particular to the lemon I owned, but it was extremely edgy and sharp, unlike anything I recall owning or shooting.

I have to ask a question. Have you ever heard about point shooting. What the heck to I need some smancy-fancy sloped rear sight for if I'm looking at that when I pull the trigger I'll miss.

I am familiar with point shooting, but I only consider it for when the threat is so close that acquisition with the sights is not possible (or prudent) based on the BG's proximity. I have been taught that both are valuable, but using one to the exclusion of the other is foolhardy. Also, there seem to be fewer and fewer professional training facilities (that I know of) that teach point shooting outside of that point-blank range.

pulpsmack

16th August 2007, 01:39

Very nice grips, Slim. Do you have them made or do you buy them aftermarket. I was looking for a set of double diamonds with the silver medallions

JustinTime

16th August 2007, 04:51

but I can tell you without hesitation that the money is definitely invested, not wasted on a WC based on what you are getting over the other one.

I'll agree that wasted wasn't quite the correct word. However I disagree that you gain even one thing with a WC over a colt in terms of self defense. Colts are 100% reliable and are just as accurate as any wilson in a self defense situations with two and three round quick follow up shots. I also realize that no amount of deliberating my points will change you mind and vise versa on this point. I'd like to own a wilson combat and could if I would just stop spending money on Colts but the way I see it...I can get 2-3 colts for one
Wilson Combat.

what possessed you to make the hammer/grip tang transfer? Was it an aesthetic/style choice, or was the shortenend tang of the Commander biting your hand?

Aesthetic/style choice. I makes it look like a mini government model.