Are Armscor 1911s the REAL 1911 over others available?

[88E30M50]

It's been something like 20 minutes since there has been any controversy over RIA vs other 1911s, so I thought things had calmed down enough to post this thought for discussion: Are the Armscor built 1911s such as the GI spec version they offer closer to the M1911 spec than other 1911s that have strayed from the original? If you look at some WWII era 1911s, they are not the perfectly fit guns with impeccable machine work that most 1911s of today are. Could the RIA GI Spec in .45 with a set of plastic double diamond grips be more 1911 than something like, let's say, my Sig Scorpion?

The RIA, in particular, takes a beating from folks that have little respect for the entry level guns but if you compare an RIA to a war time production Remington Rand, how does it stack up to the true icon we hold in high regard? Sure, the internal parts are MIM but so are those of Colt and Kimber. Both Colt and Kimber ship with plastic MSH which is totally wrong for a WWII 1911.

So, is it the RIA owners that should be looking down at our modern production Colts, Sigs, Kimbers and Ed Browns? Are we, with our fancy mag wells, night sights and extended everythings, the ones that are moving away from what a 1911 is? If a GI from WWII had to grab a 1911 and there were two on the table, one a Sig Scorpion and the other an RIA GI Spec, which would he instinctively grab?

What does the INGO brain trust think?

 

[warriorbob]

Well the ww2 m1911a1, introduced in I believe 1929, was several steps away from a true m1911 used by gi's in ww1

 

[Ruffnek]

This was my question when I began looking for a 1911 as I tend to be either a 'purist' who wants a carbon copy of the original or a 'wannabe operator' who wants to totally deck my gun out (functionally,of course).There never was a middle ground for me until I bought my Springer A1 Loaded.I realized that this would be a carry gun and knew that I could use all the help I can get in a bad situation,so I went with the middle ground.I still want a clone of the original though.

 

[philbert001]

You know where I stand! Not necessarily from a, "Closer to the original", standpoint, but from a, "Decent firearm, at a respectable price", standpoint! I think they are looked down upon for the same reason a Kia car is looked down upon. Not because you know anything about it or it's quality, but because it's not a Chevy, kinda deal! (In all fairness, Kias suck!) Not because of what it's not, but because it's a crappy car! I don't think the entry level 1911s fit the same mold! I think if the "1911 Snobs" of the world, and internet decided they were the gun to have, they'd cost a grand overnight, and that would be that!

 

[philbert001]

Well written quandary, by the way!

 

[red_zr24x4]

RIA's more traditional than Sig and Kimber? I'd say yes in style and function.
Do they have more MIM parts? probably not
Do I like RIA's? Yep, own 2 Tactical's one in 9mm one in 45

 

[mando-gunner-89]

I love my RIA tactical .45, it shoots every time I pull the trigger and I can hit anything that I am aiming at out to about 50 yds. which is all I really need one for anyway. Not the best looking 1911 but for the price and the accuracy I am happy enough with it that I am looking for another one to buy. Not saying that I wouldn't buy a springer, remington, or something else for that matter. I really want to get my hands on one in 10mm but not sure if they are worth the price of ammo or not

mando-gunner-89

 

[88E30M50]

I'm not asking if the RIAs are a good gun, but asking if they are closer to the WWII era 1911 that we know and respect than other higher quality guns. As much as I love the perfect machine work on my Remington, I don't think it's representative of the build quality of wartime production 1911s. I'm asking if the Philippine built 1911s are a closer reproduction of the classics, warts and all.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm not asking if the RIAs are a good gun, but asking if they are closer to the WWII era 1911 that we know and respect than other higher quality guns. As much as I love the perfect machine work on my Remington, I don't think it's representative of the build quality of wartime production 1911s. I'm asking if the Philippine built 1911s are a closer reproduction of the classics, warts and all.

Seriously, you knew the faithful would jump at this opportunity.

 

[SERparacord]

Seriously, you knew the faithful would jump at this opportunity.

*snicker*

 

[red_zr24x4]

Seriously, you knew the faithful would jump at this opportunity.

And we new the haters were gonna hate. Your point is?
I said yes they are a truer representation of WWII guns than the Sig, Wilson, etc

 

[churchmouse]

And we new the haters were gonna hate. Your point is?
I said yes they are a truer representation of WWII guns than the Sig, Wilson, etc

And you think I directed that at you...........
Little sensitive today arent we.

My point is this. When ever we put this out on the table the fanboy's jump on. That is most likely why we do it.

Just because you own and enjoy the RIA does not make you a target for me. I have in the past railed against these guns but not anymore. I will not recommend one. I have had to repair a few for friends etc and I know what they are made of.
My son was contemplating buying one. It was a budget thing for him as this was his 1st purchase for a personal firearm. He has always shot mine. Now he has one of his own but did not buy the RIA. He did get a stainless Thompson OA. I will be the 1st to say it is a well made pistol.

Now back to the originally scheduled post.

 

[SERparacord]

I agree with the OP. RIA is ever bit as good as the original 1911's. They sucked too.

 

[Double T]

The guns are modeled and spec'd the same as the old colts. They are g2g, and if I buy another 1911 (gasp), I am probably just buying a beater RIA.

 

[churchmouse]

I have a 1942 Remington 1911 but it was worked at camp Perry armory in 1960 to NM specs for the military matches. It is a shooter.
I have the Colt my uncle carried while stationed in Korea and all his tours in the Nam. It has battle rattle. I have no issues pulling it out and running it to this day. Still has all the parts that were in it when I got it.
Hard to compare. The RIA is a basic as they come 1911

 

[IndyLongColt]

Neither, he would pick up his PT1911, lol.

I almost bought a RIA 1911, but I really, really, really wanted the Sig Scorpion before I settled on the PT1911.

I know, not much help but would guess the Armscor are closer to resembling the original.

 

[Ruffnek]

Keep it simple baby.

 

[aaron580]

I agree with the OP. RIA is ever bit as good as the original 1911's. They sucked too.

As soon as I saw this thread I knew you would be here somewhere…

 

[church]

I agree with the OP. RIA is ever bit as good as the original 1911's. They sucked too.

 

[SERparacord]

As soon as I saw this thread I knew you would be here somewhere…