Marketing Hype

Whilst this problem is even more pervasive in other aspects of modern society, on this forum I keep seeing references to "National Match, Gold Cup, Performance Center, etc., etc".

AFAIK, and I am ready and willing to be proven wrong, in almost 99% of cases, these names are simply total marketing BS.

AFAIK, no Colt ever won a National Championship, or a Gold Cup, without a serious amount of fettling by a (usually military Marksmanship Unit or similar) very experienced armorer.

The current, and, again, AFAIK, recent years products bearing these prestigious names are mostly just garbage and do a disservice to the great past achievements.

Sad.

Luckily, for those who prefer facts rather than fiction, there are several (usually also ex-military) gunsmiths who are able to upgrade those "pieces of garbage" or even produce absolute "works of art" that are the modern renditions of the famous 1911.

So, I guess that I can now call myself an "art connoisseur".

I’ve owned or shot all the so called grail guns with NM lineage. I would have never used one competitively without it being built by a bullseye gunsmith. I routinely shoot older custom guns in excellent shape by Clark, Giles, Shockey, etc…..I would not use any of them today to compete without rebuilding them.
There is that much difference!
A modern built BE pistol handles superior to the guns of yesteryear.
I concur.
Jon

Case point. Held Colt Competition in the local shop. What a total piece of cr@p. Extreme rattlebox, subpar on every level with 1000+ price tag. I guess they won "Competition"  for a total sh!t job.  Then 2 local shooters bough them, paid about 1500. When asked why they said because it is a Colt. I felt so sorry for these guys. Colt is riding their name legacy only.  
A shooter with modern SW Performance Center 1911 gave up on it. Have not seen him shoot it in years. Accuracy is about 2 FEET at 25 yards. We guessed needs a re-crown, but he just gave up and doesn't even want to think about it. Also $1500. Been to S&W 3 times with "no trouble.found".

It's a very sad day when Rock Island handles and shoots better tban both Colt and S&W.

Tripscape wrote:...

It's a very sad day when Rock Island handles and shoots better than both Colt and S&W.

To their credit Rock Island not only hired Fred Craig as a consultant, they also listened to what he had to say.

While I would agree with you for most of them I can think of one company that does deliver and that is Rock River Arms.  I have three of their NM AR's and now the Hardballer and all have lived up to the reputation in my opinion.  Fairly new back to Bullseye after a 40 year hiatus but I think the pistol is more than capable and who ever did the trigger did an exceptional job in my opinion and in high power rifle I would say they are the dominant brand on the line.  Springfield Armory might be another, do not own one but they seem to get high marks here.

So there is hope I think

Randy (see you all at the Western Games)

Although not up to bullseye pistol standards, some of pistols have the reliability and out-of-the-box accuracy that is sufficient for most consumers and probably many action pistol sport competitors. Marketing is all hype to get people to buy products. It has nothing to do with product quality or anything that truly benefits consumers.

It took me a few years, but I believe that most people like their guns the way they like their cars, pretty and cheap. BMW or HYUNDAI, which is the most prevalent?
Quality in our throw-away “culture” means nothing, and manufacturers figured that out many moons ago.

Yes, RandyD, I agree that RRA are an exception. I have a pair of Wad + Ball from RRA and they both shot well "out of the box". Had them mildly fettled and they are both now excellent.

I also have a SARO, solid product, but they need work to make ready for Bullseye. Mine recently underwent a serious total rebuild and is now an "ugly work of art!".

My comments were aimed at recent production Colt, S&W, etc.

Amen to the SA Range Officer for being exactly what it was sold as.  An OK pistol with adjustable sights.

Damn the SA Trophy Match for being nothing but an RO with turd polish and marketing applied to it.

I am glad I bought the TM very lightly used from a shooting buddy and not new, or I would have been a bit pissed.

Although, when both of them get the full bullseye smithing treatment, they managed to come out equal.  I sold the TM back to the original owner because I was not a huge fan of the frame mount I installed and had just scratch built myself a new custom pistol on a Nighthawk frame to replace it.  

He was pretty tickled to get his improved pistol back and loved it!

I think the worst violator of just marketing hype is the Colt Gold Cup National Match. I had a series 70 when I first started shooting centerfire in the mid 70's. It was never up to the job of being even remotely accurate enough to be competitive in outdoor 2700's. Ken Buster of the All National Guard Pistol Team convinced me of this at a match where my Gold Cup had a minor break down. He loaned me his back-up accurized 1911 to finish the match at Ft. Sam Houston. Wow, what a difference! The All Guard pistolsmith repaired my Gold Cup. I soon sold the Gold Cup and a few other guns and ordered an accurized "Heavy Slide" from Jim Clark. I never regretted that.

willnewton wrote:Amen to the SA Range Officer for being exactly what it was sold as.  An OK pistol with adjustable sights.

Damn the SA Trophy Match for being nothing but an RO with turd polish and marketing applied to it.

I am glad I bought the TM very lightly used from a shooting buddy and not new, or I would have been a bit pissed.

Although, when both of them get the full bullseye smithing treatment, they managed to come out equal.  I sold the TM back to the original owner because I was not a huge fan of the frame mount I installed and had just scratch built myself a new custom pistol on a Nighthawk frame to replace it.  

He was pretty tickled to get his improved pistol back and loved it!

My husband recently bought a lightly used SA Range Officer and the slide rattles more than my 1942 Ithaca - total garbage.  Of course, it doesn't even hold the 9 ring at 25 yds.
My SA TM has been accurized (KKM barrel, trigger at 3.75 lbs with new internals) and is a decent bullseye gun now, but out of the box NO.

This phenomenon has been around a long time and not just in bullseye pistol, or limited to the shooting sports.  Way back in the 1960s a true “Bullseye pistol” was a custom fitted 1911 from a handful of gunsmiths catering to the market.  In rifle there were similar issue for Highpower rifle, motor racing and other activities.  The problem was there were a bunch of people who wanted to play but they didn’t have the money to risk on buying a all-up gun, race car, or other toy.  And they didn’t want to wait on a gunsmith to build one either.  For these Winchester and Remington made “Target Rifles” and Colt made the “National Match” & “Gold Cup” .  By purchasing one of these a person could play without breaking the bank or waiting for a couple of years.  Today, the SA Range Officer fills that niche.  How many “just starting out” folks on this board were advised to buy a stock RO and work with it until they got to Expert or some such.  25 or 30 years ago, a starting person would buy a Gold Cup and 500 Speer 200 LSWC bullets and was in the game.  If they dropped out, and they often did, they could sell the Colt or keep it.

Wobbley,

Yes indeed, your comments are valid. I was just such a "newbie", bought several Kimber's and other brands, all turned out to be garbage, but I did not realise that till I got involved in Bullseye, was lucky to have a good mentor right from the start, then began to read this Forum and gradually learned to differentiate fact from fiction.

I will not deny that there is a place for big name brands to market guns (or anything you care to thing of) and hype them up way beyond their real performance - that has been going on since the dawn of human civilization. I guess that the reason why I started this thread at this particular time is that I've recently read numerous posts from (presumably) newbie's asking how to improve their XYZ "Gold Cup" so that they can at least get 10 shots on the repair center!

This Forum offers an amazing storehouse of information and knowledge - however, it does require an enquiring mind to navigate. Sadly, in the modern world of instant gratification, folks have become accustomed to "Wikipedia" instant comprehensive answers (I'm addicted to that platform myself).

RRA at one price level. Upgraded SARO at (arguably) entry level. Although I have recently bought some Turkish TISAS lowers at basement level (and yet they appear to be well made).

I am a massive fan of Ruger 22/45 as an entry level 22 (no doubt there are others, but I've got personal experience with them). I now love 1911 conversions, but I would never recommend them to a complete newbie, and they cost a lot more than a Ruger. Model 41? Hmmmm, but there are so many folks who swear by them - for a newbie? Please. No, no, no!

Of course, like so many of us, I'm opinionated. But, since the sport of Bullseye is, no doubt, generally in decline. It is in everyone's best interest to try to steer newbie's into competition and give them the best possible, simple, straightforward advice.

Just sayin!

Back in the late 70s I graduated college while shooting a High Standard on the pistol team for 4+ years. I bought a new Mk IV Series 70 Gold Cup and loved it. I made Expert with it but gave up on Bullseye due to work. Recently bought a new  Mk IV Series 70 Cold Cup for nostalgia. After installing a new bushing its probably comparable to my first one. I enjoy shooting it. I’m a Marksman now and know its not a bullseye gun. I know the difference now.

The requirement for a full rebuild of rifles or pistols was a deterrent to me as someone mildly interested in those sports so many years ago. Never got an M1A and now they’re history. There is a critical need for decent entry level equipment in any sport. Ed Masaki and others like Dave Salyer filled that void for the knowledgeable but there’s no reason modern manufacturing equipment couldn’t produce good stuff. In contrast, look at the Smith 41 “performance center” total crap jammed together by unskilled labor.

I handled one of those Turkish made TISSAS and they have a forged frame and slide. I would think they are a decent platform to build around.

About 10 years ago the (big aviation company) was looking for a vendor to build the components for the KC-46 tanker Tailboom fairing.   We had one company offer that, if the Japanese supplier of the Body section could transmit to them the exact locations of the mating holes, they’d manufacture the attaching hardware to suit so that the structure would be EXACTLY on centerline and exact longitudinal station.  And they’d have it serialized to the airframe and at the workstation waiting for the aircraft.  And they were not joking! 

What this story tells me is that the technology exists to literally custom manufacture mating parts so that fitting is minimal yet clearances are nearly “custom fit” level.  Maybe that’s what RR Arms does?  Dunno, but certainly it will make an “entry-level”  pistol that will nearly hold the 10 ring at 50 possible.

RRA gunsmith builds their 1911's, one at a time or multiple pistols at a time. 
Frame to slide fit and barrel fit are the time-consuming parts of a build. No mass manufacturer of 1911's have tight frame to slide fit tolerances. Barrel fit is 100x more important than frame to slide fit. Loose frame to slide not a deal breaker, barrel fit can compensate by proper fit of bottom barrel lugs. Obviously tighter frame to slide tolerances are desired.

If I were to build a pistol to old school Clark, Giles, etc. using their tolerances and methods, I could build a pistol every one to two days. Not my idea of a good pistol build in today's world of what can really be built. I recently shot two older Clarks (60's) extremely excellent condition with very little mileage on them. I shot my own build much better, much better. There is a difference. You won't see ant high level shooters shooting an older built pistol. There is a huge fallacy that owning and shooting a Clark or Giles is good enough. In this day and age it's an entry level gun.

I'm pretty opinionated, but I base it on 30+ years of experience shooting and building guns. Only a couple HM gunsmiths out there, we bring something different to the game.

So old guns are great...............when rebuilt!

Jon

I really value your opinion and read most of your posts. I didn’t realize new builds were so superior to old builds. 
What is the difference?  I had read new improvements would be coming from internal barrel design, which the 13 twist seems to be proving.  
Rush

Old school guns in many cases used a shim on the upper barrel lug to center the firing pin strike (Clark used a bushing in breech face sometimes), or a weld in the slide. Bomar tuner also lowers the barrel in the slide. This minimizes the upper lug lockup. 
Barrel will come out of slide faster (drops out of locking lugs sooner) and you get more felt recoil. Old school also had only 0.010" (varies slightly) of bottom lug contact with the slide stop pin. Barrel drops out of battery almost immediately when slide travels.
I get 0.060+ bearing for lock up on slide stop pin; means that barrel is still locked into the slide lugs for 0.060" of slide travel.
From a Ransom Rest all these old guns can shoot good groups. Put it in your hands and you have to really be on your game consistently to get good results. They are not very forgiving from hand. 
A modern oversized barrel has tolerances to compensate for the individual pistol tolerances. SA RO for example has extreme upper end tolerances that can be compensated for with oversized barrel.
Just because a barrel shoots well from a barrel tester doesn't mean it will shoot good from the pistol. 

In Fred Karts "New Math For Shooters" Booklet, he states that 0.001" of play equates to 1/2" at 50 yds. So even on many newer guns I see minimal to no contact with the bottom lugs on the slide stop pin. Let's assume a barrel has 0.003" gap between the bottom lugs and the slide stop pion. That is 0.003" x 1/2" = 1-1/2" of potential shot dispersion just from the 0.003" tolerance. There are other pistol factors that contribute as well as the quality of your ammunition. Why give up points before you even pulled the trigger?

So you get what you pay for when you go custom. To me custom means fitting the barrels hood, upper lugs, and bottom lugs to all make proper contact. It's minimizing or giving away points due to loose fit. I see many new custom guns that the upper barrel lugs are not fit. Might as well be a drop in barrel.

Barrel fit is more important than the rifling or twist. Old Colt barrels will hold sub 1.5" with good ammunition.

Hope this makes sense.

Jon

Last week I was at the Local Gun Store looking for a bargain. On the 1911 shelf, there was a new Colt Gold Cup for $1,349 . Also on sale were "GI" Tisas 1911's for $339.

I compared the display Tisas with the Colt Gold Cup. The Gold Cup had more rear slide movement, and pressing on the barrel hood there was perceptible give.  The slide front was tight on the frame for both, and the barrel was tight in the barrel bushing for both. The Colt was very pretty, highly polished and great wood. For a pistol at its price point I expect a tight fit. I did not shoot the Gold Cup, so I don't know how it groups.

I did leave with the Tisas.









I have purchased other Tisas Service Specials, in my hands, they will hold the ten ring at 25 yards.

About as good as I can do with irons




the more rounds downrange the larger the group. But, for making holes in paper plates, this is good enough