I wouldn't call my Colt 1991 NRM Government a clone. Let's see: New Roll Mark looks classical Colt, slide and frame are classic, barrel feedramp is new but unique to Colt's (and it works!), hammer is the same old spur type, standard grip safety, double diamond grips of old, plain long trigger without adjustment screw, standard recoil spring plug without guide rod, series 80 firing pin safety, and those basic Colt 3-dot sights with a stacked on front sight.
Did I mention any items that were copied from Kimber, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, or the likes?
If my assumptions are correct, the clone manufacturers gained their ground by adding traditionally gunsmith modifications to their 1911 copies. Nice, but necessary? I laugh at many of these forum entries. You'd think that the 1911 wouldn't function without a set of Novak sights and 3.5# trigger. Without a full length guide rod, your recoil spring won't function.
A hypothesis on what happened:
USPSA/IPSC, Bullseye Shooting, IDPA, and the likes created a huge gunsmithing and parts business for the 1911. Over time, we became blinded to the functionality and simplicity of the original 1911 design. Not only was it important to shoot well, your pistol needed to have the hottest new trends in parts and modifications. Enter Kimber, Springfield Armory, Smith & Wesson, etc. Granted they are catering well to the "novice" 1911 market, but are the extras they offer necessary? When was the last time you saw someone stop in the middle of a pistol competition to adjust their adjustable rear sight? Is that huge beavertail monstrosity really as concealable as a standard spur grip safety? Is anyone really gripping that high on the frame, and if so, how do they keep the safety depressed?
Granted, Colt's made some poor business decisions in recent times, but they still make a fine firearm. If you need the frills, you may need to look at the "others". If you want a gun to shoot, try a Colt.
Make mine a Colt!
