|06-19-2002, 04:07 PM||#1|
Join Date: Apr 2001
You guys are sort of like the E.F. Hutton of pistolsmiths - when you speak, people listen. With this in mind, would you mind telling us the features of the Colt 1991A1 you find least desirable on a carry gun? Thanks!-TR
|06-19-2002, 04:33 PM||#2|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Issaquah, WA
Nice, but it aint true
1991s are good guns. I prefer no Series 80 parts.
Past that The Colt would make a decent carry gun with some edges melted. But the same basic gun has been used for years as IS, as a carry gun.
Here is my list of priorities.
Reliability #1, good sights, decent trigger @ 4.5 to 3.5 #s and a beavertail (or a bobbed hammer that won't bite me). I like the standard Colt .24" to .25" grips, no concern on a mag well although a Kimber style bevel is just fine as is nothing.
Lots of ways to get that package. A couple of files, some emery paper and a day's labor or so and I'd be happy with a 1991 even with the Series 80 parts.
| || |
|06-26-2002, 05:47 AM||#4|
Join Date: Jun 2001
TR, I'd agree that a 1991 can be a decent carry gun on a very small budget, as long as the user can live without, well, without all the stuff that would blow the budget. Checking and if necessary tuning the extractor and breechface, barrel throating, probably a little trigger work, and just a general inspection and test firing, let's say throw in a couple good mags if there's any question, and good to go. I never cared for the grips on the things but we're talking minimum fuss here.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Comments by Teddy Jacobson||Ken Sham||Pistolsmiths||12||10-26-2004 05:26 PM|
|Question for Teddy (and others)||Dave Berryhill||Firearm Finishes||5||06-14-2002 12:08 PM|
|Thanks Teddy||45Colt||Pistolsmiths||5||06-23-2001 09:33 PM|