Actually, you've got it reversed. Today's Cots are MUCH better than the stuff they were putting out during the labor strike period of the 80's and early 90's. In fact, Colts are probably the best out of the box "reasonably priced" 1911's being made right now.USP said:
Norinco 1911 Round Count
- Thread starter sixty9santa
- Start date
well I am comparing it to the bulk of thier 1911s in last 20-25 years. Perhaps they have changed more recently. But they are over priced for what you get. How is it that you justify them being 3-4 times the cost of a Nork? For a product that other than perhaps arriving in a nice blue little plastic box doesnt outperform the Nork?
How are they overpriced when they sell for the same money as Kimber, Springfield, S&W, etc? A basic 1991A1 sells for less than $1000 and a "fully loaded" XSE with Novak sights, extended ambi safety and all the other "tactical" shabang goes for $1150-$1300?USP said:
I already explained what makes guns like Colt better than Norinco. Now tell me how do YOU justify your USP being 3-4 times the cost of Norinco?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever seen the WWI repro? It's a beautiful, hand made pistol that is an exact replica of the 1918 vintage military issue Colt. Even the Carbonia finish is applied exactly the same way it was done back in the early 20th century. It's a collector piece and if you ever decide to sell it in the future, you are pretty much guaranteed to get more than what you paid for it. Try that with a Norinco.Canuck44 said:
Weren't you the one who broke the barrel link after 300 rounds? Did your gun feed fine with the broken link?Canuck44 said:
My USP? Well I think its great...
Its 50% great name/50% great gun. When I bought it I wanted a polymer duty/military pistol. My choices were Glock, Sig, Walther, and HK.
I picked the HK alot on looks, as its comparable in quality to Sig and Glock. For longevity perhaps Sig might last abit longer, Im not sure yet.
BTW, I have several thousand rounds through my Nork 1911 and its been fine. If I can get a pic of it, ill post it. You would be surprised by the fit and finish on it. Other than adding a shock buff and changing the grips...its all stock.
Its 50% great name/50% great gun. When I bought it I wanted a polymer duty/military pistol. My choices were Glock, Sig, Walther, and HK.
I picked the HK alot on looks, as its comparable in quality to Sig and Glock. For longevity perhaps Sig might last abit longer, Im not sure yet.
BTW, I have several thousand rounds through my Nork 1911 and its been fine. If I can get a pic of it, ill post it. You would be surprised by the fit and finish on it. Other than adding a shock buff and changing the grips...its all stock.
So wait a second, it's okay to buy a USP over a Norinco that costs 3-4 times less because it has a great name, looks great and is of high quality but it's not okay to pick Cot over Norinco for those very same reasons? Sorry, I don't see any logic here.
capp325
"Have you ever seen the WWI repro? It's a beautiful, hand made pistol that is an exact replica of the 1918 vintage military issue Colt."
Yes I have seen it and no it isn't an exact replica unless the originals came with the crescent shaped disconector along with some other Series 80 parts.
Nice gun, no question but not an exact replica. For the differences go here:
http://www.m1911.org/prodte29.htm
As far as I know all pistols mentioned so far are hand assembled. To my knowledge the NOrinco A1 is the only 1911 made right now aside from very high end limited production guns that come with all forged parts including spring steel extractors.
You started out by claiming the Norincos were made of soft steel and were poor buys. Assume you have dispensed with that line of logic. Your problem is you can't see where a $325 gun is significantly better than a Colt sold for 3 - 4 times the price and aimed at the entry level market.
Take Care
"Have you ever seen the WWI repro? It's a beautiful, hand made pistol that is an exact replica of the 1918 vintage military issue Colt."
Yes I have seen it and no it isn't an exact replica unless the originals came with the crescent shaped disconector along with some other Series 80 parts.
Nice gun, no question but not an exact replica. For the differences go here:
http://www.m1911.org/prodte29.htm
As far as I know all pistols mentioned so far are hand assembled. To my knowledge the NOrinco A1 is the only 1911 made right now aside from very high end limited production guns that come with all forged parts including spring steel extractors.
You started out by claiming the Norincos were made of soft steel and were poor buys. Assume you have dispensed with that line of logic. Your problem is you can't see where a $325 gun is significantly better than a Colt sold for 3 - 4 times the price and aimed at the entry level market.
Take Care
Last edited:
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. If you think that Norinco is significantly better than Colt, I'm not gonna try to achieve the impossible and change your mind. However, I am also entitled to my opinion. Having shot a Norinco 1911, I can tell you that it was, in my opinion, a poorly made firearm that I wouldn't want even if offered for free (okay, if it was free I'd take it and sell it). I've also shot a new production Colt and was quite impressed. Again, I'm just relaying my experience. If your is different, we might just have to agree to disagree.Canuck44 said:
I should also mention, a big part of the cost of the Colt is to pay for adding the little pony to the slide...
Much like the AR15 debate. Why doesn the Colt cost so much more than, say, an Armalite or Bushmaster? Because it's a Colt you dunderhead!
Last edited:
Claven2 said:I don;t think anyone's saying the Nork is outright a better gun, just a better value for dollar for someone wanting a basic 1911 bangstick
Exactly. And how this gets turned around so that we "Norinco cheerleaders" are supposedly saying that a Norc is better than a Kimber is baffling, if not downright argumentative.
