Taurus 1911 accuracy

[Wambo]

I'm looking at a 1911 .45acp and wondered how the accuracy of the Taurus 1911 compares with more expensive 1911's up to $900.  It offers a lot of features for the money. Is it a good move, or should I consider the Kimber or Smith & Wesson I was looking at for $200 more?

[Questor]

The NRA target shooting magazine reviewed it shortly after it came out and the result was that they thought it was an OK plinking gun, but did not make a good platform for accurizing and competition shooting. So if your standards are that high for accuracy, you're better off with a Springfield or Colt. Normal gun magazines have reviewed it and groups have been ordinary, around 3.5" at 25 yards. Some slightly better, some worse. I was pretty excited about the gun when it first came out. When I actually got to handle one I was surprised at how cheap it looked cosmetically. I wouldn't buy one.

[myronman3]

dad has one and it's accuracy surprised me.   that said, IN NO WAY DO I SUGGEST BUYING A TAURUS!!!  yes, there are a few features on the taurus,  but they are more cosmetic than anything.  the frontstrap checkering is ineffective, and dad had to have his sights replaced.   the biggest reason is.... TAURUS CUSTOMER SERVICE SUCKS!!!!  pretty much it is none existant.   sure, they will TELL you what you want to hear,  but that is easy.  they fail to back it up. 

 i would spend a few bucks extra and get either a kimber or springfield.   i WOULD suggest getting a kimber.   you will never regret that.

[dcewolf]

Early last month I was trying to decide between 3 different .45's ...a used Sig, a new Springfield Mil-Spec (not the bottom of the line GI but one step up), and a new Taurus 1911.  I loved the Sig but decided I wanted a gun that I could "trick-out" a little more if I wanted to -- plus I love the 1911 platform and didn't have one yet -- wish I would've had the money for 2 guns.  Anyway between the Taurus and the Springer the Springer just seemed alot more solid and the slide to frame fit was much tighter than the Taurus.  The Taurus that I looked at  -- I would have to say was sloppy in the slide to frame fit and as noted earlier seemed cheap cosmetically.  So I went with the Springfield...  As far as accuracy I honestly don't feel good speaking to that yet since I've only put 200 rounds through he Mil-Spec and it had been months since I had been to the range.  I was a good 1.5" off from my normal groupings with my XD 9mm that day so my groupings were off in general -- it was a bad day....need a few more outings before I start talking about my 1911's accuracy. However that day it was still plenty accurate for self defense and I had no failures of any type. 

If you are looking at a gun for competition your best bet would be to spend the extra cash for a Colt, Springfield or Kimber.  If you wanted a good platform that you could build on and only needed combat accuracy for self defense I would consider paying $100 or more LESS than the Taurus and picking up something along the lines of a Springfield Mil-Spec.  At least that was the type of cost difference that I was looking at and my "cheaper" Springer without all the bells and whistles had a better fit and finish than the Taurus I was looking at.

[Wambo]

Thanks guys!

I will save the money for the Kimber Custom TLE II I was looking at.   

[superdown]

Good choice i have a Kimber eclipse custom II lets just say you get what you pay for regarding the Taurus . Superdown

[Lloyd Smale]

for about the same money check out an sti spartan

[Wambo]

Hi Lloyd,

I read some of the remarks about the STI's on this website and unfortunately, there are aren't any dealers listed in Oregon. Otherwise, I would be strongly leaning towards the STI Spartan as a great choice of "bang for the buck."