Posted: 2/5/2010 7:43:57 AM EDT
I'm sure it's been covered a million times, but, even using the site's awesome search feature  , I couldn't find an answer......
Why do 1911's cost so much? Admittedly, I'm more of a long gun person, but I've recently decided that I would like to get a 1911. I currently have a Sig P220 & a P230 for EDC. I also have an old Davis P380 in case I need to throw something heavy when I run out of bullets. 
It's been a little over ten years since I bought a handgun so I had a bit of sticker shock when I first started looking, but that doesn't explain the high cost of most 1911 models. IIRC, 1911's use to be fairly cheap less expensive compared to most other handguns. What happened? 
ETA: corrected terms. |
|
Quoted: Many good American brand 1911s can be had for well under $1000 and some off-shore models are half (sometimes less) than that. Metal just costs more than polymer but "You get what you pay for". I don't recall 1911s ever be "cheap" (I assume you mean less expensive) in relation to other pistols, though unless it was many years ago when the Govt. was still dumping USGIs. I'm sure it's been covered a million times, but, even using the site's awesome search feature , I couldn't find an answer......Why do 1911's cost so much? Admittedly, I'm more of a long gun person, but I've recently decided that I would like to get a 1911. I currently have a Sig P220 & a P230 for EDC. I also have an old Davis P380 in case I need to throw something heavy when I run out of bullets. It's been a little over ten years since I bought a handgun so I had a bit of sticker shock when I first started looking, but that doesn't explain the high cost of most 1911 models. IIRC, 1911's use to be fairly cheap compared to most other handguns. What happened?  |
| 1911's have never been "cheap". Like many of Browning's designs it is an expensive piece to manufacture. All steel, lots of machining and fitting. Browning designed his guns in a era where labor was cheap, lots of hand fitting and the like was not really an issue. Times are different today. That's not intended as a critizism of Browning's efforts. He was a genius of the first magnitude. But a lot of his firearms don't translate well into modern production techniques. That's one of the reasons the many reproductions that Browning and Winchester bring out are so damned expensive. |
| 1911's are more because they are not throw together pistols like Glocks HK Sig XD etc that you can take a Glock 17 and a Glock 22 and swap frames. 1911's are steel frame (some alloy) that are fitted to the slide so more hand work to get them to fit together they are made to more exacting specs. On top of that 1911's are more accurate then your mass produced polymer pistols. You get what you pay for. Nothing like having a nice piece of Cold Steel in your hands. |
|
Quoted:
1911's have never been "cheap". Like many of Browning's designs it is an expensive piece to manufacture. All steel, lots of machining and fitting. Browning designed his guns in a era where labor was cheap, lots of hand fitting and the like was not really an issue. Times are different today. That's not intended as a critizism of Browning's efforts. He was a genius of the first magnitude. But a lot of his firearms don't translate well into modern production techniques. That's one of the reasons the many reproductions that Browning and Winchester bring out are so damned expensive. This. Labor was far less expensive than today. The actual inflation adjusted cost is not that far out of line though in terms of purchasing power in hours of labor worked to earn the $$ to purchase now. When you earn $0.50 per hour, a hundred dollar gun required you to work 200 hours. Now you earn $10 an hour, so if you worked the same 200 hours the gun would be $2,000. Many are less. |
|
My CZ 75B has better fit and finish than the BLK SS Springfield Loaded Target I recently bought. The CZ is probably more accurate and has never failed me. This at 1/2 the price of the SA. I realize the two are different design, but a SA at 2X the cost should at least exceed the quality of the $500 CZ. I'm pretty sure there is a healthy markup for SA and any other brand. A Brazilian factory worker makes how much a day assembling SA pistols?
I've got a custom 1911 build in the works, and my SA is getting waranty work done to address manufacturing and QC issues. In the meantime I'm considering a CZ 97B! |
|
Quoted:
My CZ 75B has better fit and finish than the BLK SS Springfield Loaded Target I recently bought. The CZ is probably more accurate and has never failed me. This at 1/2 the price of the SA. I realize the two are different design, but a SA at 2X the cost should at least exceed the quality of the $500 CZ. I'm pretty sure there is a healthy markup for SA and any other brand. A Brazilian factory worker makes how much a day assembling SA pistols? I've got a custom 1911 build in the works, and my SA is getting waranty work done to address manufacturing and QC issues. In the meantime I'm considering a CZ 97B! I think an American made CZ might be a bit more expensive. I paid $300 for my 75B in 97ish. I miss that gun. 
|
|
I think 1911s used to cheaper. I bought my Llama for under $250 back in the day, brand new. OK, before they quit making Llamas guys were asking $450 at gun shows. Now the new "metro arms" 1911s, wich IMO are basicly the same as a Llama, are about $500 at gun shows. Same for the new Turkish 1911s. IMO, a POS made in a third world country should cost about $250. I think prices will have to come down again on everything as people are out of work and not spending AT ALL.
Anyways, you can still get a parts kit from Sarco for $210 (GI style) $215 (better sites and serations) and a frame for $110.So for $325 + shipping and tranfer fees you can still build a 1911. |
|
I went to a couple of shops in town today and looked at a few different models.
The first was a used Kimber CDP(?) and the asking price was around $950, but I think I might be able to do a lot ($550?) better than that when the owner comes back Monday. The next shop had several RIA starting around $500.... Pass. The third shop really pushed the Taurus at around $649 to $699. They also has a used Colt Commander in nickel with a 4" barrel(?) for about the same price. There was another full size Colt for around $889 that I didn't really look at and a stainless/alloy S&W for $899. I liked the small Colt, but it didn't have the extended beaver tail. I also liked the S&W because I've always been partial to stainless/alloy and it was quite a bit lighter than the Taurus. Price will be a large determining factor in my purchase so I'm leaning towards the sub $800 guns. I haven't put my hands on a Rock Island yet, but based on the price and reviews I've read, will probably be the one I go with. Still open to opinions though......... |
| Let's not collectively kid ourselves about the actual cost of manufacturing modern guns. For example, an Armscorp produced 1911 (RIA, CITADEL and other brand .45's) that is made in the Phillipines will generally retail for something in the $400 -$500 ramge give or take. I think we can all agree that even a cast frame and slide .45 1911 takes a lot of machining to produce. What about a SA XD-45? Plastic injection molded frame, machined slide, made in Eastern Europe, labor costs might be a little higher, if at all, but less machining, right? Retails for the high side of 400 to the low side of $600. IMO, the difference in pricing doesn't reflect labor costs, since more labor (even if at lower price) went into the 1911, the difference is gross profit margin - SA has positioned what they sell higher in the market, so they make more profit. Others have done even better - Colt for example. Sure there costs for labor are higher, and they've dragged their feet on adapting the most efficient manufacturing techniques, but they charge basically 2x what Armscorp charges. Some may say - forgings are more expensive. That's true if you have to buy a new forging press vs. a new casting line, but if you are using the same forging press your company has run since the early part of the century, forgings are actually cheaper than castings. New companines tend to choose castings because of lower start-up costs, if the use of castings represented a real savings per gun produced, all modern guns would be produced with castings. So, while I've rambled during the above, the bottom line IMO is that gun manufacturers have successfully gotten us used to paying higher prices for products that have seen some real efficiencies in manufacturing, and the higher prices we pay are either supporting a fatter bottom line or labor and management costs that are higher than what the market would normally bare. |