G & A SR-1911 Review

[Sal1950]

Just got my June issue of Guns & Ammo in the mail today. In it is a review of the new SR-1911. Not a bad review overall, they had zero malfuctions with 1500 rounds down range.
But,

Trigger pull on testing sample was 4lb 8oz, easily correctable I know, I've done plenty myself, but Ruger could & should do better.

Except for the slide and barrel almost every other part in the gun is either cast or MIM.

Lastly and most important to me, the overall average of 3.65" at 25 yards from a rest, was politely and magazine politically correctly stated as being "decent". They then go on to make the excuse that most custom 1911's will shoot groups half that size but cost 3x more. I'm not so sure about that statement.

Bottom line is that I guess I'll wait to see what tests on some other samples reveal as to accuracy. But all in all for now I'm leaning back to the gun I was originally thinking about, the new Springfield Range Officer.
It has a forged frame, adjustable sights, and the tests I've seen on it showed excellent accuracy.

Too bad as I'm a long time Ruger guy and really wanted this gun to be "the one" if I decided I needed another 1911. Triggers are super easy to correct, sights can be changed. BUT trying to tighten up the actlion, or lockup, or replace the barrel to get desired accuracy is just to expensive.
Sal

 

[Al James]

3.65 at 25 is P series accuracy so it sounds like they have some work to do or the G&A author tied one on the night before the review. Matter of fact I think my P90's will shoot better than that. As far as the 4.5 lbs trigger that does not seem to heavy for me as long as its crisp with little take up. You would think that with all of the hoopla about the barrel and bushing from Ruger that the gun would shoot better than 3.65 average. I no longer subscribe to the mag but look forward to reading the write up. Thanks for the heads up Sal!

 

[BlackEye]

I had to look up MIM, thought it may have been referring to Made in Mexico

MIM or Metal Injection Moulding looks to be a super quality way to mfg. the smaller parts.
www.gknsintermetals.com/technology/mim.htm
All USA made.

 

[Leucoandro]

Sal1950,

I stopped paying attention to what gun writers had to say about accuracy in pistols a while back unless I knew how well they shot, or the shooting was done from a ransom rest. I was reading over some magazines a while back and it turns out that not all gun writers are good shots.

One article really got my attention on this. A few gun writers got together to measure the difference in accuracy and follow-up shots between a series of revolvers and semi-automatics. The results really told more about how good the individual shooter was rather than if a semi-auto or revolver was capable of higher accuracy and faster follow-up shots. If I remember correctly, results showed that one shooter was a really good shot with both revolvers and semi-auto's. One was a decent shot with semi-auto's, but a crappy shot with revolvers, and the last shooter pretty much sucked with everything they shot.


Charlie

 

[Boge]

Just got my June issue of Guns & Ammo in the mail today. In it is a review of the new SR-1911. Not a bad review overall, they had zero malfuctions with 1500 rounds down range.
But,

Trigger pull on testing sample was 4lb 8oz, easily correctable I know, I've done plenty myself, but Ruger could & should do better.

Except for the slide and barrel almost every other part in the gun is either cast or MIM.

Lastly and most important to me, the overall average of 3.65" at 25 yards from a rest, was politely and magazine politically correctly stated as being "decent". They then go on to make the excuse that most custom 1911's will shoot groups half that size but cost 3x more. I'm not so sure about that statement.

Bottom line is that I guess I'll wait to see what tests on some other samples reveal as to accuracy. But all in all for now I'm leaning back to the gun I was originally thinking about, the new Springfield Range Officer.
It has a forged frame, adjustable sights, and the tests I've seen on it showed excellent accuracy.

Too bad as I'm a long time Ruger guy and really wanted this gun to be "the one" if I decided I needed another 1911. Triggers are super easy to correct, sights can be changed. BUT trying to tighten up the actlion, or lockup, or replace the barrel to get desired accuracy is just to expensive.
Sal

So why even post this crap if all you want to do is poison the well? If you don't like then don't buy it. Get a clue, you ain't gonna get a Wilson with tool steel parts for this price. :roll:

 

[revhigh]

MIM or Metal Injection Moulding looks to be a super quality way to mfg. the smaller parts.

Actually, it's the about the lowest quality (and cheapest) way to make small gun parts. The use of poorly made MIM parts is what gave Kimber the nickname MIMber. There is no way to tell when a MIM part will fail, and since it's basically glued/melted together metal filings, that are then bead blasted or tumbled to a specific finish, when it fails, it fails catastrophically ... in other words .... it just flat out breaks in two. Push the safety down on a 1911 and it just breaks and falls off. Not very confidence inspriring. Kimber and Taurus's have been notorious for failed slide stops and safeties, although in fairness, I think Kimber stopped using MIM for those two parts. As far as I know, Taurus still does ... they just hope buyers don't care (or don't know), or that they want all the bells and whistles so much that they just dismiss the issue.

MIM parts are definitely NOT what you want in any gun if you have the choice. Of course forged and machined parts cost far more than MIM parts, and that's why many gun makers are going to them for their small parts. Basically ... gun manufacturers use more and more MIM parts ... as many as they can get away with ... and just hope that you don't shoot it or use it enough for it to fail.

REV

 

[resident]

There are reasons mil-spec parts/tools/gizmos are more expensive than many "commercial-market" items. I love Ruger's affordability, which is commensureate with the level of dependability I need from commercial firearms.
For my "boogie-bag".... I've got it packed with genuine Colt 1911 Gov't Issue, mil-spec ammo (not commercial off-the-shelf...but the real deal with lacquered/shellac'd primers/projectiles in proper containers) ....no after-market magazines... a real battle-capable rifle which can use standardized military parts....(not some star-wars toy or highly-customized whammo-gun).... and a decent field-kit with charts and maps of the area to which I expect to retreat/ensconce.

Ruger didn't make this "1911" for serious military use. They've made it for the "enthusiast". And that's OK with me.

 

[Bucks Owin]

Seems Gunblast.com got a little better accuracy than G&A with their's...:wink: http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR1911.htm

 

[Cheesewhiz]

The G&A writers need to find a range that allows their seeing eye dogs on it.

 

[revhigh]

Those groups at 25 yards (supposedly) are pretty damn good. I sure hope that gunblast didn't get a ringer gun, because if they did, and the run-of-the-mill guns don't shoot like that ... it's gonna be a problem for Ruger.

Serious 1911 guys KNOW how 1911's shoot, and if Ruger is putting that out as 'standard' or 'typical', and it's NOT, it won't take long for the 1911 buying public to find out.

That's sure as hell good enough for me, but I'll wait for a year or so (maybe not) and find out what the REAL (average gun) scoop is before I buy one. I'll tell you one thing for sure ... I'd buy the gun that shot THOSE groups RIGHT NOW, no questions asked, used as it is ... for top dollar.

You've all seen the groups below, and they were shot at 50 feet or about 17 yards, but freehand. If the Ruger shoots groups like the above rested, it should EASILY shoot groups like below at 17 yards. If it turns in 3-6 inch groups (like the other publication showed) when people finally get hold of them .... then the gun that gunblast had was a 'special' one.

I hope they ALL shoot like gunblast's, because if they do, at the pricepoint that they're at ... they'll sell one to every single 1911 afficionado on the planet, and probably more than one. I know for absolute certain that I'll buy one if gunblast's is a representative sample.

For reference, the orange dots below (what's left of them) are 3/4 of an inch in diameter.

I'm sure it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but if you had asked me I would have said the holes in the targets above were probably 9MM ..... or .40 at the most, although I have no doubt that they ARE 45's shot from the Ruger pictured. They just look small to me for some reason. Most must have been ball ammo I'm guessing, or the texture of the target was such that it printed what looks to me like smaller holes than a 45 mormally does. Mine were wadcutters, so that probably explains it. Also ... what were they shooters aiming at ? No dot ... no bullseye ... no cross ?? Surprising to me that there's no 'aim' point, unless these targets were 'under' another target WITH an aiming point.

REV

 

[Iron Mike Golf]

Rev, all those groups from the article were RN or JHP that have most of an ogive. Go out to the edge of the powder residue and they look like the right size.

I am betting they put a sheet of labeled cardstock behind a target so they get a nice clean background for the group.

 

[Lateck]

hickok45 seams to like the new SR1911 :shock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAZ5EYxpl2o

I'll find out for my self later when I get mine!
(Have one on order :lol: )


Lateck,

 

[revhigh]

Rev, all those groups from the article were RN or JHP that have most of an ogive. Go out to the edge of the powder residue and they look like the right size.

I am betting they put a sheet of labeled cardstock behind a target so they get a nice clean background for the group.

Yup, that's about what I figgered too.


REV

 

[Meeko]

Lastly and most important to me, the overall average of 3.65" at 25 yards from a rest, was politely and magazine politically correctly stated as being "decent". They then go on to make the excuse that most custom 1911's will shoot groups half that size but cost 3x more. I'm not so sure about that statement Sal

Did the artical mention just a rest or a ransome rest? I beleive Mr. james uses a sandbag type rest free hand for the most part. If that is so than a 3.6 group isn't really that bad. After all it isn't a PPC gun it's a 1911. JMHO

 

[revhigh]

I beleive Mr. james uses a sandbag type rest free hand for the most part. If that is so than a 3.6 group isn't really that bad. After all it isn't a PPC gun it's a 1911. JMHO

3.6 inches may not be 'that bad' but it's a far cry from the groups that were posted above. The groups posted above make me want an SR1911 NOW, 3.6 inch or much bigger groups ... yawn .... no rush at all ... almost any 1911 will do that, down to the lowliest $400 RIA base model.

Even if it's 'only a 1911', if people post groups like the ones above, then that's what I expect. I can't imagine a gun company relying on the 'luck of the draw' when they give a gun reviewer a 'sample gun'. We've already heard of fairly large differences in trigger weights between first release 'sample guns', and other reviews. If the same is true of accuracy, we (at least me ) could be in for a disappointment if we're looking at 3-6 inch groups instead of the groups above.

REV

 

[Meeko]

I beleive Mr. james uses a sandbag type rest free hand for the most part. If that is so than a 3.6 group isn't really that bad. After all it isn't a PPC gun it's a 1911. JMHO

3.6 inches may not be 'that bad' but it's a far cry from the groups that were posted above. The groups posted above make me want an SR1911 NOW, 3.6 inch or much bigger groups ... yawn .... no rush at all ... almost any 1911 will do that, down to the lowliest $400 RIA base model.

Even if it's 'only a 1911', if people post groups like the ones above, then that's what I expect. I can't imagine a gun company relying on the 'luck of the draw' when they give a gun reviewer a 'sample gun'. We've already heard of fairly large differences in trigger weights between first release 'sample guns', and other reviews. If the same is true of accuracy, we (at least me ) could be in for a disappointment if we're looking at 3-6 inch groups instead of the groups above.

REV

I haven't read G&A but will buy it when I see that issue but the thing that was not mentioned that is relevant, Was it a 3 shot group or 5? If the 3.6 was from a Ransom Rest then I would say it needs tweaking. If it was a 5 shot by freehand off a bag I believe that would be an average group by average shooters. If there is an accuracy issue with the 1911 Ruger (at least more than 1 or 2 samples) ruger will fix it. While no one wants to wait if there is an issue, Look at the first batch of of P85's came out. It was rectified with the P89's which are much accurate.

 

[Cheesewhiz]

The "trickbag" that every factory 1911 maker always gets into is there is another 1911 that is maybe, probably, better. This could even just be a perception thing and perception is the truth with some.
If a major manufacturer makes a 1911 with good accuracy and a decent trigger, made from quality parts, for around $700, what's not to like?

Matt, I'm a big CZ fan, they make great guns for a fair price, if someone can't appreciate a finely made but mass produced gun and the genius involved, they are "gun stupid".

 

[revhigh]

If 3.6 is the greatest group size, it is on the borderline of being acceptable. At that average groupsize I would not buy one.

I remember a similar circumstance with the S&W m&P 15-22. The test guns fired absolutely unbelievably tight groups. Then no one could even come close with their production guns. It really hurt S&W. I know ... I have one, and it was quite disappointing to get nowhere near the groups that were posted from the 'gun reviewers'. I quickly became obvious that there were some trick guns given to the gun reviewers and a lot of people including myself were NOT amused.

REV

 

[Cheesewhiz]

If 3.6 is the greatest group size, it is on the borderline of being acceptable. At that average groupsize I would not buy one.

I remember a similar circumstance with the S&W m&P 15-22. The test guns fired absolutely unbelievably tight groups. Then no one could even come close with their production guns. It really hurt S&W. I know ... I have one, and it was quite disappointing to get nowhere near the groups that were posted from the 'gun reviewers'. I quickly became obvious that there were some trick guns given to the gun reviewers and a lot of people including myself were NOT amused.

REV

Rev, my guess is that this gun will be fine as far as accuracy is concerned but that is a guess. The 4.5# trigger pull is something you and I can agree is good maybe even great, for this type of pistol. If all holds up to these things, it's a good gun for the price.

 

[Elfego El Gato]

MIM parts have had issues, but some more are reputed to be worse than others. While Taurus and Kimber have had problems with them, STI MIM thumb safeties, for example, are generally considered to be high-quality parts.

 

[Sal1950]

I beleive Mr. james uses a sandbag type rest free hand for the most part. If that is so than a 3.6 group isn't really that bad. After all it isn't a PPC gun it's a 1911. JMHO

3.6 inches may not be 'that bad' but it's a far cry from the groups that were posted above. The groups posted above make me want an SR1911 NOW, 3.6 inch or much bigger groups ... yawn .... no rush at all ... almost any 1911 will do that, down to the lowliest $400 RIA base model.

Even if it's 'only a 1911', if people post groups like the ones above, then that's what I expect. I can't imagine a gun company relying on the 'luck of the draw' when they give a gun reviewer a 'sample gun'. We've already heard of fairly large differences in trigger weights between first release 'sample guns', and other reviews. If the same is true of accuracy, we (at least me ) could be in for a disappointment if we're looking at 3-6 inch groups instead of the groups above.

REV

I haven't read G&A but will buy it when I see that issue but the thing that was not mentioned that is relevant, Was it a 3 shot group or 5? If the 3.6 was from a Ransom Rest then I would say it needs tweaking. If it was a 5 shot by freehand off a bag I believe that would be an average group by average shooters. If there is an accuracy issue with the 1911 Ruger (at least more than 1 or 2 samples) ruger will fix it. While no one wants to wait if there is an issue, Look at the first batch of of P85's came out. It was rectified with the P89's which are much accurate.

"Five shot groups fired at 25 yards from a rest" is the exact quote from the article. I take that to mean something like a sandbag rest, not a Ramson rest.

I guess my point was that IF I decide to get another 1911,

I can't afford one of the boutique high priced guns, under 1K will be my limit.

I want an accurate gun OTB, so it needs to have the qualities that will make that so. IE, tight fitment of the barrel to bushing, tight lockup, a "match" quality barrel, and tight slide to frame fit. These are things that I can't do much to improve myself and are out of my budget to send out for.
To me a good budget 1911 needs to START out accurate, I can add a fancy aluminum trigger or a skeletonized hammer, etc, etc. Don't need the fancy looking parts to make a GREAT gun.

I do hope that the gun G & A got is just just a bad example or that the tester needs some practice and that the one Gunblast has is more representive. But I'm doubtful. Things just don't add up at this point. We'll see over the next couple months cause you know everyone is going to be doing writeups on these. Well see what American Handgunner and Combat Handguns has to say.
Sal

 

[Mike J]

This is one of the reasons I don't buy gun magazines. Most of the time I read write ups on new guns they don't do good accuracy testing. I like to know what a gun is capable of from a ransom rest. The only gun mag I read now is American Rifleman & that is because it comes with my NRA membership. They actually do still do shoot guns from a ransom rest & write up the results though.

 

[revhigh]

If 3.6 is the greatest group size, it is on the borderline of being acceptable. At that average groupsize I would not buy one.

I remember a similar circumstance with the S&W m&P 15-22. The test guns fired absolutely unbelievably tight groups. Then no one could even come close with their production guns. It really hurt S&W. I know ... I have one, and it was quite disappointing to get nowhere near the groups that were posted from the 'gun reviewers'. I quickly became obvious that there were some trick guns given to the gun reviewers and a lot of people including myself were NOT amused.

REV

Rev, my guess is that this gun will be fine as far as accuracy is concerned but that is a guess. The 4.5# trigger pull is something you and I can agree is good maybe even great, for this type of pistol. If all holds up to these things, it's a good gun for the price.

Agreed Cheese !!! I'm hoping for excellent accuracy just like the ones that gunblast tested.


REV

 

[revhigh]

To me a good budget 1911 needs to START out accurate, I can add a fancy aluminum trigger or a skeletonized hammer, etc, etc. Don't need the fancy looking parts to make a GREAT gun.l

This is exactly why I was hoping for a BASIC gun like the MilSpec, but accurized with a good trigger. I can add (or NOT add) the cosmetic crap later. I'd rather see that hundred bucks go into FUNTIONAL and ACCURACY ingredients than cosmetic doo dads. Now if it turns out that it has BOTH, so much the better. I can live with a gun that shoots great and has cosmetic crap that I don't really want, but I can't live with a 'pretty gun' that won't shoot great.

REV

 

[Cholo]

Shooting Times Dick Metcalf did a write up and said he got 3.65" average of a combined total of six 5 shot groups fired off sandbags at 25 yds. There were 6 different loads averaged. I added them up and got 3.25"s. Hmmm... :wink:

 

[Sal1950]

This is one of the reasons I don't buy gun magazines. Most of the time I read write ups on new guns they don't do good accuracy testing. I like to know what a gun is capable of from a ransom rest. The only gun mag I read now is American Rifleman & that is because it comes with my NRA membership. They actually do still do shoot guns from a ransom rest & write up the results though.

AMEN to that Mike!
I'll bet your an older shooter though. The Ramson rest testing has sort of fallen by the way side in recent times, it's expensive and time consuming and a large percentage of the readership doesn't care
In these modern "tactical" times I've read letter after letter to the editor bemoaning why the authors waste their time on accuracy testing, as long as the weapon can put it's rounds into the x ring at 15 feet that's good enough. "A handgun is for self defense" anything beyond that doesn't matter.
I've also read editorials by magazine writers alluding to the same thing. Don't know as they really believe what they're saying, but as long as a majority of the readership agrees it saves them time and money.

Doesn't sit well with my 60 year old butt, but it's a "good enough" type of world today. I was also an Audiophile for over 30 years, and it's gone the same direction even worse. HiFi is dead, no one cares about quality sound reproduction any more. You can't sell things like CD's any more, they're way to big. Consumers just want to download crappy sounding highly compressed MP3's so they can put a million of them on their even crappier sounding ipod or phone and listen to them through fifty cent headphones. Thats "good enough" for the world today.

Sorry I could rant on this subject forever, just glad I grew up in a time when quality still meant something to people, along with the MADE IN USA tag. I'm done.
Sal

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Finally received the latest GUNS & AMMO with its review of the SR1911.

Like its sister review in SHOOTING TIMES, the G&A review basically said it's a nice rendition of the Browning design in stainless steel, with a few of the most popular bells & whistles included.

The G&A review did say in passing that " . . . nearly every part in the pistol is is a casting, or metal injection molded, except the slide . . ."

MIM has been alluded to in other commentaries of the gun, but I've seen nothing to definitely point out which pieces, if any, are actually made by the MIM process. I'm not a great fan of MIM, but I'll withhold judgement til we find out to what extent it has actually been used in the SR1911.

Still waiting, anxiously, to actually handle one.