Who stocks Auto-Ordnance M1911A1 government models? (REVIEW ADDED)
- Thread starter Claven2
- Start date
Well it arrived today - whew that was fast! I love business transfers - I'm used to the habitual 6+ week transfers of Ontario, lol.
Took a few pics, so we'll go through this methodically.
For starters, I believe this gun has been sitting on the shelf at P&D for quite a while, like since 2009. Some of the features on this gun have been changed on the newer models from what I have read on the internet and the gun looks to actually be 2009 vintage, despite being new. Alternately, they might have been shipped it in 2011 but that it was new-old-stock. I'm not that worried, the pre-Kahr Arms guns that used to be problematic are 2001 and earlier.
The gun actually ships in a reasonably good plastic hard case. Notice the inventory stickers on the box from 2009 and 2010 over-pasted with a 2011 sticker. I blurred out the serial number on all pics, buy the way.
Un-boxing. Comes with a Kahr Arms catalogue, a A-O catalogue, TWO types of trigger lock (paranoid fellas?) and the pistol. Everything is wrapped in plastic and there are a couple silica gel packs in the box.
After a quick light wipe with paper towel and the trigger lock removed along with the red plastic tie-zip that was down the bore and jammed into the breech face to prove it safe in shipping.
The milled slide made from bar stock is actually the best part of the pistol. The lower is cast and machined. It's pretty well executed, but in some areas the casting was left un-machined By far the most obvious areas are the two trigger finger dish cuts. These are slightly larger than a GI 1911A1 and a little rougher owing to the surface being as-cast. Not that bad though considering the parkerized finish. You'll also notice the yused a more modern target length trigger instead of the short WW2 era GI trigger. I'm actually disappointed in this as newer AO's (2011 and later from what I can tell) now ship with a WW2 pattern trigger. If I locate a GI trigger, I will change this part out.
The gun shipped with a Killeen Machine & Tool 1911 mag with a rounded follower, much like a Metalform 1911 follower. It's also drilled and tapped for a base pad. Although I'm sure this mag is functional, I'm not a fan of the base pad holes, nor the non-GI type follower. I have some real Colt 7 rounders on backorder at Brownells so when they come in, this mag will get pitched into a drawer and forgotten - good riddance. No matter how functional, there is nothing GI pattern about this mag.
Next post, I'll compare to a real WW2 Rand in original condition.
Took a few pics, so we'll go through this methodically.
For starters, I believe this gun has been sitting on the shelf at P&D for quite a while, like since 2009. Some of the features on this gun have been changed on the newer models from what I have read on the internet and the gun looks to actually be 2009 vintage, despite being new. Alternately, they might have been shipped it in 2011 but that it was new-old-stock. I'm not that worried, the pre-Kahr Arms guns that used to be problematic are 2001 and earlier.
The gun actually ships in a reasonably good plastic hard case. Notice the inventory stickers on the box from 2009 and 2010 over-pasted with a 2011 sticker. I blurred out the serial number on all pics, buy the way.
Un-boxing. Comes with a Kahr Arms catalogue, a A-O catalogue, TWO types of trigger lock (paranoid fellas?) and the pistol. Everything is wrapped in plastic and there are a couple silica gel packs in the box.
After a quick light wipe with paper towel and the trigger lock removed along with the red plastic tie-zip that was down the bore and jammed into the breech face to prove it safe in shipping.
The milled slide made from bar stock is actually the best part of the pistol. The lower is cast and machined. It's pretty well executed, but in some areas the casting was left un-machined By far the most obvious areas are the two trigger finger dish cuts. These are slightly larger than a GI 1911A1 and a little rougher owing to the surface being as-cast. Not that bad though considering the parkerized finish. You'll also notice the yused a more modern target length trigger instead of the short WW2 era GI trigger. I'm actually disappointed in this as newer AO's (2011 and later from what I can tell) now ship with a WW2 pattern trigger. If I locate a GI trigger, I will change this part out.
The gun shipped with a Killeen Machine & Tool 1911 mag with a rounded follower, much like a Metalform 1911 follower. It's also drilled and tapped for a base pad. Although I'm sure this mag is functional, I'm not a fan of the base pad holes, nor the non-GI type follower. I have some real Colt 7 rounders on backorder at Brownells so when they come in, this mag will get pitched into a drawer and forgotten - good riddance. No matter how functional, there is nothing GI pattern about this mag.
Next post, I'll compare to a real WW2 Rand in original condition.
OK, now we will compare to the GI 1911 and illustrate where they are identical and where they differ.
For starters, I hate the grips on this auto-ordnance. They seem to be made out of a modern soft plastic, and not bakelite like a WW2 era gun. Luckily authentic grips are like $15 all over the net, so I'm going to order a set and replace these grips. The repros are too thick and don't feel the sale as real grips in-hand. They casually look the part and to someone without the real thing to compare to would look and work just fine, but I bought this gun to shoot and feel like a real one, so they have to go!
Another thing you will notice is the frame area forward on the grips has a much wider flat on the repro vs an original. Yes, the grip is actually a bit longer. I read online some of the newer guns are closer to GI dimensions now, but this 2009 production gun is a bit off. Two things are at play. Firstly, the radius on the front grip strap is a tighter radius on the GI gun, and secondly Auto-Ordnance left too thick a web throughout the entire radius. I don't know why - perhaps it's just a fault in their CNC code.
This picture shows what I am talking about really well. It won;t affect function and you don't feel a big difference in-hand, but it's there and worth mentioning:
Next we look at the frame. The hammer is obviously a casting, but seems well enough made. The gun is a series-80 type mechanism as well, which is odd, since the trigger breaks beautifully at 5# right out of the box with zero creep. It almost feels like it's had a trigger job (?!?). I was VERY suprised. Trigger is a copy of a late-war Colt wide spur 1911A1 hammer vs my Rand which has a mid-war narrow-spur hammer.
The feed ramp is also nicely polished after parkerizing reminiscent of a 1940's era Colt. They did this part right.
The barrel link is a nice machined part, not a cheap stamping like on most budget 1911s. The barrel itself seems to be a copy a copy of a post-war USGI Colt 1911A1 replacement barrel with a polished chamber area and a nice calibre rollstamp.
Finally, we get to the sights. The sights are actually indistinguishable from real circa 1944-1945 GI sights IMHO. They did an amazing job copying these parts. Take a look for yourselves.
I read of some issues with front tenon staking on some AO guns, this one seems well staked though.
Not sure when I'll get to the range, but will let you know how she shoots when I do. I will say this: I cleaned and oiled the gun and cycled the slide about 100 times without a mag inserted to smooth out hte parkerized surfaces. Out of the box, this gun has the tightest and smoothest frame to slide fit I have ever experienced. It's like a $3000 Les Baer - seriously. I am floored at how well fit the slide, frame and barrel are to each other - it doesn't even ride the link. I just don't know if I am lucky or if this is typical of these AO 1911A1 GI replicas? My sample size is only one, which is not statistically significant, but... wow. I literally cannot feel even a thou of wiggle to the slide, but there is no hint at all of binding either - just smoothness. As mentioned before, the trigger also breaks clean at 5# with virtually no creep and minimal over-travel.
I expect this AO will be a great shooter despite its few shortcomings. Mostly I just don't like the grips and the front strap profile. One is fixable, the other is not bad enough to cause any concern. Verdict? Worth the $625 plus tax and ship I paid and I'm glad I went with this over a Regent or SAM.
For starters, I hate the grips on this auto-ordnance. They seem to be made out of a modern soft plastic, and not bakelite like a WW2 era gun. Luckily authentic grips are like $15 all over the net, so I'm going to order a set and replace these grips. The repros are too thick and don't feel the sale as real grips in-hand. They casually look the part and to someone without the real thing to compare to would look and work just fine, but I bought this gun to shoot and feel like a real one, so they have to go!
Another thing you will notice is the frame area forward on the grips has a much wider flat on the repro vs an original. Yes, the grip is actually a bit longer. I read online some of the newer guns are closer to GI dimensions now, but this 2009 production gun is a bit off. Two things are at play. Firstly, the radius on the front grip strap is a tighter radius on the GI gun, and secondly Auto-Ordnance left too thick a web throughout the entire radius. I don't know why - perhaps it's just a fault in their CNC code.
This picture shows what I am talking about really well. It won;t affect function and you don't feel a big difference in-hand, but it's there and worth mentioning:
Next we look at the frame. The hammer is obviously a casting, but seems well enough made. The gun is a series-80 type mechanism as well, which is odd, since the trigger breaks beautifully at 5# right out of the box with zero creep. It almost feels like it's had a trigger job (?!?). I was VERY suprised. Trigger is a copy of a late-war Colt wide spur 1911A1 hammer vs my Rand which has a mid-war narrow-spur hammer.
The feed ramp is also nicely polished after parkerizing reminiscent of a 1940's era Colt. They did this part right.
The barrel link is a nice machined part, not a cheap stamping like on most budget 1911s. The barrel itself seems to be a copy a copy of a post-war USGI Colt 1911A1 replacement barrel with a polished chamber area and a nice calibre rollstamp.
Finally, we get to the sights. The sights are actually indistinguishable from real circa 1944-1945 GI sights IMHO. They did an amazing job copying these parts. Take a look for yourselves.
I read of some issues with front tenon staking on some AO guns, this one seems well staked though.
Not sure when I'll get to the range, but will let you know how she shoots when I do. I will say this: I cleaned and oiled the gun and cycled the slide about 100 times without a mag inserted to smooth out hte parkerized surfaces. Out of the box, this gun has the tightest and smoothest frame to slide fit I have ever experienced. It's like a $3000 Les Baer - seriously. I am floored at how well fit the slide, frame and barrel are to each other - it doesn't even ride the link. I just don't know if I am lucky or if this is typical of these AO 1911A1 GI replicas? My sample size is only one, which is not statistically significant, but... wow. I literally cannot feel even a thou of wiggle to the slide, but there is no hint at all of binding either - just smoothness. As mentioned before, the trigger also breaks clean at 5# with virtually no creep and minimal over-travel.
I expect this AO will be a great shooter despite its few shortcomings. Mostly I just don't like the grips and the front strap profile. One is fixable, the other is not bad enough to cause any concern. Verdict? Worth the $625 plus tax and ship I paid and I'm glad I went with this over a Regent or SAM.
Last edited:
OK, with special thanks to NAA for helping me source a WW2 era 1911A1 trigger, here is the AO with original WW2 era Keyes Mfgr grips (bought used from Simpson Ltd) and a WW2 GI trigger to replace the modern style trigger these come with (stupidly).
The AO is the one in the middle. For reference, the top gun is a '44 Remington Rand and the bottom is a '43 Colt.
This setup feels WAY better in-hand. The GI grips are thinner and of a real bakelite, not a fibre-reinforced plastic like vietnam era or modern repro grips. The shorter trigger really makes it grip like a GI gun. MUCH better.
The AO is the one in the middle. For reference, the top gun is a '44 Remington Rand and the bottom is a '43 Colt.
This setup feels WAY better in-hand. The GI grips are thinner and of a real bakelite, not a fibre-reinforced plastic like vietnam era or modern repro grips. The shorter trigger really makes it grip like a GI gun. MUCH better.
ginseng503
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- N. Ontario
Mr. Claven - Why do you prefer the AO over a SAM ? I can't remember all the specs but a SAM is all machined ? (I think). I am trying to choose something in this price range myself, but it's not easy.
SAM guns are all cast and then machined. The AO has a cast and machined frame, but the slide is machined from billet. It is also made entirely in the USA and not in Asia. The two guns are not really at the same price point though, so if you want inexpensive, the SAM is your best bet.
Both the SAM and the AO suffer from the front of the grip frame having not enough contour, resulting in a slightly different look than a GI grip frame. Length-wise they are about right, but the radius is wrong. You can see that in my photo. The Regent and SAM guns are typically like the AO.
The fit and finish on my AO is tighter than on either of my GI examples. The last Regent and SAM guns I fondled were about the same looseness as a GI gun, the AO was much tighter.
Hope that helps.
Both the SAM and the AO suffer from the front of the grip frame having not enough contour, resulting in a slightly different look than a GI grip frame. Length-wise they are about right, but the radius is wrong. You can see that in my photo. The Regent and SAM guns are typically like the AO.
The fit and finish on my AO is tighter than on either of my GI examples. The last Regent and SAM guns I fondled were about the same looseness as a GI gun, the AO was much tighter.
Hope that helps.
SAM slides are machined from barstock. Nobody in the world has figured out how to cast a 1911 slide yet, don't think its even possible due to the geometry.
Haven't seen a loose SAM yet, but anything is possible. They are ISO certified and make everything on CNC.
Haven't seen a loose SAM yet, but anything is possible. They are ISO certified and make everything on CNC.
Last edited:
You sure of that Hitzy wrt SAM?
I have similarly been told, for example, that RIA and SA (brazil) slides are cast. Looking at examples backs this up - some internal surfaces clearly look "as cast". Ruger brags that investment casting their slides allows them to lower the price for what they claim is the same quality.
It's a 100% fact that many 1911 slides out there are machined from castings.
I have similarly been told, for example, that RIA and SA (brazil) slides are cast. Looking at examples backs this up - some internal surfaces clearly look "as cast". Ruger brags that investment casting their slides allows them to lower the price for what they claim is the same quality.
It's a 100% fact that many 1911 slides out there are machined from castings.
Edit:
Quick google shows SAM is a machined billet slide on a cast frame, RIA is cast on cast, as is Ruger.
SAM's government 1911 does have a dovetailed round front sight, not a WW2 era pattern staked ramped sight though - so if similarity to GI is important, this is a drawback.
I REALLY hate the triggers all these makers ship guns with too... why not a short GI trigger in a GI 1911?!?!?!?!?
Quick google shows SAM is a machined billet slide on a cast frame, RIA is cast on cast, as is Ruger.
SAM's government 1911 does have a dovetailed round front sight, not a WW2 era pattern staked ramped sight though - so if similarity to GI is important, this is a drawback.
I REALLY hate the triggers all these makers ship guns with too... why not a short GI trigger in a GI 1911?!?!?!?!?
Ruger slides are not cast. Not unless they figured out how to do it in the last year.
"The SR1911 is built primarily of stainless steel. The slide is CNC machined from bar stock, and the frame is made using Ruger’s proven investment casting process"
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR1911.htm
RIA is armscor and they use billet for their slides. The STI line made by armscor use bar stock for slides. Again, I have yet to hear anyone successfully use casting for a slide. If anyone could do it, it would be Ruger who have been casting frames and receivers for 50 years now (pine tree castings).
"The SR1911 is built primarily of stainless steel. The slide is CNC machined from bar stock, and the frame is made using Ruger’s proven investment casting process"
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR1911.htm
RIA is armscor and they use billet for their slides. The STI line made by armscor use bar stock for slides. Again, I have yet to hear anyone successfully use casting for a slide. If anyone could do it, it would be Ruger who have been casting frames and receivers for 50 years now (pine tree castings).
Last edited:
OK, with special thanks to NAA for helping me source a WW2 era 1911A1 trigger, here is the AO with original WW2 era Keyes Mfgr grips (bought used from Simpson Ltd) and a WW2 GI trigger to replace the modern style trigger these come with (stupidly).
The AO is the one in the middle. For reference, the top gun is a '44 Remington Rand and the bottom is a '43 Colt.
This setup feels WAY better in-hand. The GI grips are thinner and of a real bakelite, not a fibre-reinforced plastic like vietnam era or modern repro grips. The shorter trigger really makes it grip like a GI gun. MUCH better.
Looks awesome!
Just like it belongs with it's older siblings, now.
------------
NAA.
Hi Hitzy:
I'm happy to be corrected, but google "1911 cast slides" and you'll see that there are literally thousands of hits detailing that a lot of makers re offering cast slides. Pine Tree Casting also seems to be the source for SIG 1911 slides according to internet wisdom. (That's Ruger's casting company).
At the end of the day, I beleive it doesn't matter. I don;t think a well cast slide is in any way inferior - just less expensive to make.
