Remington 1911 R1 Pistol - Buy One?
The "Tactical Wire" had a story in it today about Remington's new 1911 pistol. A few comments from the author of that story:
"The R1 is a stove-stock M1911 with the A1 style short trigger and the M1911 flat mainspring housing. The frame is cast. The barrel and bushing are match grade. The fixed three-dot sights are high and easily seen. The rear sight looks robust enough to use to rack the slide one-handed. The stocks are wood, diamond checkered. The trigger pull was service grade, with a clean break. There were a few stoppages with UMC ball, but a number of shooters shot the Rogers qualification drill with no problems.
What do the writers think? A number of them had chatted with Remington media personnel about buying R1s while we were still on the range with them. I'm not a fan of the ejection port, think the sights need some altitude adjustment and I don't like add-on firing pin safeties. That said, I'm sorely tempted to get out the old credit card. I'd like to take this basic pistol, break it in and wear it for six months to a year to see how it holds up.
I'm betting it would do just fine.
Remington's back in the 1911 business."
Really? Remington's brand new pistol won't reliably feed Remington's own UMC full metal jacket (ball) ammunition and they are "back in the 1911 business"? I have never, ever seen a 1911 that would not feed ball ammo. (No, I take that back. I fixed a Commander for a guy who said it wouldn't feed ball ammo - somebody had cut about a third of the length off the recoil spring. A new Wolff standard recoil spring fixed it right up.) I can't even remember how many Colt 1911s I have. Every one of them, from stock 5" Government models to a 3" Defender will all feed ball ammo all day long, clean or dirty. I had a Springfield for a long time and an Ed Brown, too. They fed ball ammo (of course - I thought everything would feed ball ammo).
That's the good thing about gun writers: nothing. If Remington handed me their new pistol and it failed to feed one time with their own ball ammo, I'd call it a piece of shit.
"The R1 is a stove-stock M1911 with the A1 style short trigger and the M1911 flat mainspring housing. The frame is cast. The barrel and bushing are match grade. The fixed three-dot sights are high and easily seen. The rear sight looks robust enough to use to rack the slide one-handed. The stocks are wood, diamond checkered. The trigger pull was service grade, with a clean break. There were a few stoppages with UMC ball, but a number of shooters shot the Rogers qualification drill with no problems.
What do the writers think? A number of them had chatted with Remington media personnel about buying R1s while we were still on the range with them. I'm not a fan of the ejection port, think the sights need some altitude adjustment and I don't like add-on firing pin safeties. That said, I'm sorely tempted to get out the old credit card. I'd like to take this basic pistol, break it in and wear it for six months to a year to see how it holds up.
I'm betting it would do just fine.
Remington's back in the 1911 business."
Really? Remington's brand new pistol won't reliably feed Remington's own UMC full metal jacket (ball) ammunition and they are "back in the 1911 business"? I have never, ever seen a 1911 that would not feed ball ammo. (No, I take that back. I fixed a Commander for a guy who said it wouldn't feed ball ammo - somebody had cut about a third of the length off the recoil spring. A new Wolff standard recoil spring fixed it right up.) I can't even remember how many Colt 1911s I have. Every one of them, from stock 5" Government models to a 3" Defender will all feed ball ammo all day long, clean or dirty. I had a Springfield for a long time and an Ed Brown, too. They fed ball ammo (of course - I thought everything would feed ball ammo).
That's the good thing about gun writers: nothing. If Remington handed me their new pistol and it failed to feed one time with their own ball ammo, I'd call it a piece of shit.
Comments