Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mtngunr" data-source="post: 4374413" data-attributes="member: 46104"><p>All I hear is generalities backed up by nothing. Being into Colts, and no fanboy, for the last 40yrs, I know their pluses and minuses, and what time frames they've had their problems and generally what those problems were. And generally, they are very good weapons meeting original specifications in accuracy and reliability, most any of them able to hold 5" at 50yds with a competent shooter, and be exceptionally reliable with the ball ammo for which designed, and even work well with JHPs. I never had a single failure to feed and fire with any Colt owned that was still as delivered from the factory, only those altered with "improvements" by a prior owner. Colt's worst moment was back around 2000 when the bean counters decided to go MIM small parts such as the plunger tube with legs not long enough to be properly staked and shooting loose, and even more inexcusable, them copying other brands and using cast and MIM for critical parts such as extractors, but they learned and corrected. Most gripes with folk are strictly cosmetic and still within wartime spec as for slide overhang of frame, slide dustcover assymmetry, slide grind lines not straight, etc etc...nothing effecting function, while many of the "superior" new guns often mentioned are using cast and MIM parts where they will not hold up. But few modern critics shoot the guns that much to know that, them all about visuals and a very tight fit that would prove unreliable in adverse conditions.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification