# Which came first?



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

So there I was, browsing the interwebs, when I came across a picture of Colt's latest entry for the USMC:










This picture got me thinking, again. Which came first: Colt's gun or Sig's gun?










Am I the only one that thinks somebody's idea was ripped off?


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

And the answer is.....

The....

* Kimber Desert Warrior*.

But of the two, I would wager that the Colt was first as they were submitted to the *Marine Corps in the fall of 2011* for testing. Colt started dabbling in the Cerakote in 2011 with the Rail Gun being offered in "Armoers Black" or something like that, I think Sig didn't start with it until this year.

If I were to choose from the two, I'd take the Colt. I like the Cocking serrations better and the tradidtional rail system will be easier to find a holster for (with no light attached) not to mention that the Colt Rail Guns have Natioanl match barrels. I also like the grips of the Colt better and don't care for the blued accents of the Sig. I also like Colts' thumb safety and grip safety a little better...And I like that it's magwell free. I think the only thing the Sig really has going for it is the flat trigger.


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

touche on the Kimber. I forgot about that one. Kimber's finish is a bit prettier than the ceracoat and I think that is why I didn't include it. the Sig came out sometime in 2011 I know because I got it in 2011.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

ponzer04 said:


> touche on the Kimber. I forgot about that one. Kimber's finish is a bit prettier than the ceracoat and I think that is why I didn't include it. the Sig came out sometime in 2011 I know because I got it in 2011.


Yep, but I just remembered that I posted *THIS* when I first saw the Colt Rail Gun...in 2010. :mrgreen:


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

I need to know which of the two has no MIM parts or the least before I vote?


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

denner said:


> I need to know which of the two has no MIM parts or the least before I vote?


So I googled for you and found a guy on youtube and another guy that tag-team into saying that Sig 1911's have 2 MIM parts: the slide stop and the thumb safety. however an old article from handgunsmags.com says that there are no MIM parts on the Scorpion. another forum guru says his scorpion has 3 MIM parts the sear, slide stop and thumb safety.

As for the Colt I have found a forum post that says It has far fewer MIM's than a Kimber, this was on the regular colt rail gun so the one for the USMC may differ and this guy may be wrong. this guy says he took is rail gun apart and found the only MIM parts are the sear, disconnector and mag release

so the final forum commando tally for MIM parts is: Sig= 0, 2 or 3 Colt= 3- less than Kimber


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

:smt117 The chicken.


----------



## Jammersix (Mar 10, 2012)

Don't believe I'd want either. If I were given one, I'd sell it and use the money to buy a pit bull, and shoot the pit bull.

Never did like or trust Kimbers, and those two "weapons" have everything that's wrong with boutique guns on them.

I don't go for hardware solutions to training problems.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

Jammersix said:


> Don't believe I'd want either. If I were given one, I'd sell it and use the money to buy a pit bull, and shoot the pit bull.
> 
> Never did like or trust Kimbers, and those two "weapons" have everything that's wrong with boutique guns on them.
> 
> I don't go for hardware solutions to training problems.


Aww man, Kimber does alright with their guns. I just would not pay as much for one as they want.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Jammersix said:


> Don't believe I'd want either. If I were given one, I'd sell it and use the money to buy a pit bull, and shoot the pit bull.
> 
> Never did like or trust Kimbers, and those two "weapons" have everything that's wrong with boutique guns on them.
> 
> *I don't go for hardware solutions to training problems*.


Such as?


----------



## ponzer04 (Oct 23, 2011)

Jammersix said:


> Don't believe I'd want either. If I were given one, I'd sell it and use the money to buy a pit bull, and shoot the pit bull.
> 
> Never did like or trust Kimbers, and those two "weapons" have everything that's wrong with boutique guns on them.
> 
> I don't go for hardware solutions to training problems.


This wasn't supposed to get this heated :evil:

Could you please elaborate on your opinions? the "everything that's wrong with boutique guns" and "hardware solutions to training problems". Please don't elaborate on the "buy a pit bull, and shoot the pit bull" part that was just mean.


----------



## Holly (Oct 15, 2011)

:smt018


Jammersix said:


> ... buy a pit bull, and shoot the pit bull.


:smt075


----------



## Jammersix (Mar 10, 2012)

ponzer04 said:


> Could you please elaborate on your opinions? the "everything that's wrong with boutique guns" and "hardware solutions to training problems."


A boutique gun is a gun manufactured by a company that doesn't have a standard milspec in their line. They're going for a particular market segment, that being that segment that wants to "buy" their training. You don't buy training. You train your training. The military loves to try to buy training, because they want to take untrained seventeen and eighteen year old children, and 16 weeks later claim that they're ready for combat. They love anything that helps them make that claim appear truer than it is. What I think they need is good hardware, and billions for training ammunition and man-years spent training, training and then more training. The compromise must be made, but over-engineered hardware is not the way to do it. (In this, I've been surprised at the Marine Corps lately. Historically, the Marines have held to higher training standards than the other services.)

The hardware solutions are things like nightsights, bumps in beavertails, magwell funnels, or rails.

Minimalist is definitely the way to go with a defensive handgun-- to quote from another sport, "naked with the magic stone" is best, and everything the committee adds that gets away from that had better be well and truly justified. Best if it serves two purposes, like iron sights. If it only serves one, it better be the simplest, easiest, most elegant solution for that purpose possible. An "improvement" that eliminates an option (any option) is the very worst change that can be made.

I think that dumbing the hardware down is not the way to go, I think that training the recruit up is the answer.

Novaks eliminate an option. (That said, however, a military sidearm is the one place I can see nightsights being justified. Low light shooting is a training issue for civilians and police, far less so for the military.) What the military needs is a nightsight with an iron sight profile. Don't even talk about mag funnels.

And for the record, the original saying was "if you gave me one, I'd sell it, buy a yellow dog, and shoot the dog." Problem with that is that I love all dogs better than most humans, and can't imagine a reason to shoot a dog because it's yellow. Pit bulls are just about the only type of dog I can imagine shooting. I don't trust pit bulls. They're the only breed of dog I've ever seen turn on their owner with no reason.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Jammersix said:


> A boutique gun is a gun manufactured by a company that doesn't have a standard milspec in their line. They're going for a particular market segment, that being that segment that wants to "buy" their training. You don't buy training. You train your training. The military loves to try to buy training, because they want to take untrained seventeen and eighteen year old children, and 16 weeks later claim that they're ready for combat. They love anything that helps them make that claim "truer" than it is. What I think they need is good hardware, and billions for training ammunition and man-years spent training, training and then more training. The compromise must be made, but over-engineered hardware is not the way to do it.
> 
> The hardware solutions are things like nightsights, bumps in beavertails, magwell funnels, or rails.
> 
> ...


A couple of things to keep in mind regarding these features for Mil and Civ...

I don't see how we can call a Colt Series 70 a "boutique" gun just because Colt Doesn't have a "true" MIL-Spec model in their line up. If you really want to get all technical about it, there really aren't any true to spec Mil-Specs out there other than USGI 1911s and 1911A1s etc. I think Cylinder and Slide has a model that comes closest, but it runs about $6000.

As far as "buying training" re: night sights, speed bumps, magwells., and rails, I think all but the mag well are decent options.

The issue with "years and years of training" is that people don't spend years and years in the same unit or even IN the Military to begin with.

As far as minimal is better...I agree to a point, but it's very hard to get minimal that suits everyone and everything.

Other than the mag well, there isn't anything on those that can't be legitimately justified for Military or Civilian use.

Night sights make sense for low light situations, in no light situations a light source is a better option, more on that later. The speed bump is a result of the beaver tail in the first place, the beaver tail allows the gun to sit deeper in the hand and helps to prevent slide/hammer bite. I'm pretty handy with a 1911 but too much shooting with a stock M1911-A1 will ruin my hand, that makes all the training you want people to have less beneficial as eventually the damage to the hand is going to result in negatives associated with shooting...any way, with the gun sitting deeper in the hand, a little more mass is needed to ensure the grip safety is off and the gun able to fire, this is even more important when wearing gloves, which most of the Military guys using 1911s will be. These 1911s aren't being purchased for "raw" infantry men, these go to the Marine Expeditionary Units Recon elements which are pretty well trained in the use of guns. The rail can be used for IR pointers which are pretty much a necessity when night vision is being used. For civilian use, the rail is a good choice for a dedicated house gun where a weapon mounted light is a great option as it allows the support hand to remain empty to open doors, dial 9-1-1, work switches etc.

Mag funnels, I'm starting to not like mag funnels and have taken them off the guns that came with them as they interfere with stripping a stuck magazine.

Opinions and mileage may vary.


----------



## Jammersix (Mar 10, 2012)

My main objection to night sights is specifically Novaks, in police or civilian work.

The Novak night sight, in particular, is sold as a "non-snag" nightsight.

Uhm, okay, but if a sight snags, that's a training issue. Furthermore, an iron sight profile can be used to clear a jam or rack a slide, unless it's a Novak.

Night sights are meant for zero light shooting, not low light. (That's opinion.) I can see how they'd be useful when you put a grunt out in a hole, and say "anything that moves in front of you is hostile, blow it away." You never do that in civilian life. I teach never to fire on an unidentified target, because that's a really good way to shoot your wife, a cop or the next door neighbor. Not to mention the legal repercussions. So you don't shoot at unidentified movement in the dark, and if there's enough light to positively identify your target, plain, black iron sights will show up as a crisp, black silhouette and give a good sight picture.

I object to rails for civilians for the same reason-- you do *not* want to point a weapon at a cop just to put a light on them. That's one of the best ways to die that I can think of. I want to see the blue uniform and the badge when they show up and there's bad guys about. But pointing a house gun at them to do so is suicide. The objection I have to rails for military is less strong-- I can see that it has more value for infantry.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

Jammersix said:


> I object to rails for civilians for the same reason-- you do *not* want to point a weapon at a cop just to put a light on them. That's one of the best ways to die that I can think of. I want to see the blue uniform and the badge when they show up and there's bad guys about. But pointing a house gun at them to do so is suicide. The objection I have to rails for military is less strong-- I can see that it has more value for infantry.


You don't point the light at anything unless you need to cover/shoot it, you use indirect lighting to see. A 100 Lumen light will light a whole room (
dependig on size) without the light being directed at a possible person, but that's a training issue and I can see why some would use the direct beam of the light to ID rather than the "throw" of the light.

I get you on the Novaks, when you look at the mechanics of the draw, it's just as prone to snag as any other sight, if they wanted it to be no snag, they'd have put the ramp going the other way. Novak actually does offer a ledged sight, but obviously that's not what's on the guns. That beng said, I dont thinks its that big of an issue not beeing able to work the slide with the sight.

Now regarding the night sights, I would say that's up to debate as for their initial intent, I would wage that the "no light" aspect of it was more marketing than intended use, like a lot of things it's kind of gotten kind of murky as to what they were thinking...


----------



## Jammersix (Mar 10, 2012)

To talk about an earlier point, you're right, there isn't a straight-up milspec on the market anymore.

I think I'd consider the Springfield milspec (either one) or the Rock Island about as close as there is.

I go back and forth between the A1's round mainspring housing and the 1911's flat housing. It depends on mood, believe it or not. I never invested the hundreds (or thousands) of hours it would take to be good at point shooting, so the mainspring housing only makes a difference to me for "feel". I *do* like Springfield's sights, about the only thing that I'd really whine about on a 1944 vintage genuine, surplus milspec would be the sights. I don't care for Springfield's slanted serrations, I think the original's straight serrations are far more attractive, but that's getting into cosmetics, and if the weapon is right, I don't care about cosmetics. I happen to like the looks of parkerized finishes, I don't think a weapon (as opposed to a game gun) should reflect light. Won't have front serrations, keep your hands away from the muzzle.

I could live with night sights on a carry weapon if they were in an iron sight profile, it's the lose-an-option for nothing that I object to. There are some such options on the market.

I evolved into this position. I watched Kimbers, Wilsons, Les Baers and other vault-tight weapons malfunction in classes and as a safety officer in leagues, and I went down the modification road. I started with a Springfield milspec (not the GI) and modified everything on it until only the frame, slide and barrel were original. Then I modified it some more, and then I slowly started changing it *back* as I taught, trained and most of all learned more.

Today, my carry weapon is another, unaltered Springfield milspec, along with a Surefire 6P. At the place I am now, training wise, the more I learn, the fewer bells and whistles I find I want or need. I'll have to try the indirect lighting, but frankly, I chose the 6P, then I chose my methods based on it, and then I invested hundreds (thousands? Could be. It's been more than ten years. I dunno.) of hours training to use and teach it, and I'm not sure I want to add a new method. Options are always good, but I have some pretty firm habits established.


----------

