# Need a 1911 -- Get the PT1911 (Review)



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

My bday came up and I was going to buy a s&w revolver but I decided to get something abit more impractical (i have many CCW pieces already) after shooting my buddies Rock Island Armory 1911 and loving the 1911 design and SA trigger. I saw a polished PT1911 pbl and I really liked it. So that is what I bought. Paid about $620 before taxes.

I have a TCP380 that has had no jams (my s&w BG380 has actually had around 3 jams) so all the hate coming from their brand I've kind of known to be bullshit. However when I did research many people were stating that anyone who wants a 1911 should either pay the extra $200 to get a kimber or springfield or get the Rock Island Armory. Lots of pt1911 hate hence why I am posting this.

I didn't listen to them (my buddy as I recall has had to send in his RIA twice and the Pt1911 looks are abit prettier lol). Im sure the RIA's are good too even tho they get a bad rep sometimes. I bought the Taurus Pt1911 this weekend and ran 200 rds through it. No jams. Very happy with my purchase. Had to write this to recommend to anyone who wants a 1911 that Taurus is 100% the way to go. At this point its hard for me to understand why someone would pay so much for a 1911 when the Taurus stacks up so well!

And about my statement wanting something "impractical" I bought an Uncle Mikes Paddle Holster for a full size 1911. I intend to finally be one of those guys who carries a full size 1911 lol. Didn't see that coming.


----------



## VAMarine (Dec 25, 2008)

I've never laid eyes or hands on a PT-1911 that I couldn't find a ton of stuff wrong with. I hope you don't have any issues with your gun but it's still the last 1911 that I would buy or reccomend.

http://www.handgunforum.net/showthread.php?t=30982

http://www.handgunforum.net/showthread.php?t=31147


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

jakeleinen1 said:


> . . . At this point its hard for me to understand why someone would pay so much for a 1911 when the Taurus stacks up so well! . . .


In my 31 year career using "some" of my mechanical engineering degree,
I did more than a few projects involving statistical analysis.

IMHO, I wouldn't be touting and recommending anything based on one data point.
Other than saying "I've got one successful example" and "YMMV" as a caveat. 
Anything else is not "statistically valid".

At least VAMarine cites a couple of sites with "some info" to back up his claim.

I'm very happy your Taurus Pt1911 data point of "one" has worked out well for you. :smt1099


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

One data point?

I've actually given two. I currently am in possession of my brothers TCP 380 by Taurus, and it has never malfunctioned.


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

jakeleinen1 said:


> One data point?
> 
> I've actually given two. I currently am in possession of my brothers TCP 380 by Taurus, and it has never malfunctioned.


I beg your pardon. I can't read your brain's intent, only what you write.

You were talking about YOUR Pt1911 being very good (Taurus Pt1911's are 100% perfect, you imply ?).


jakeleinen1 said:


> . . . Had to write this to recommend to anyone who wants a 1911 that Taurus is 100% the way to go. At this point its hard for me to understand why someone would pay so much for a 1911 when the Taurus stacks up so well! . . .


If you had characterized your point as applying to TWO different Taurus models
demonstrating the high quality of Taurus products I would have said two data
points don't provide a statistically valid sample any more than one data point.

So, which is it ?
The Taurus Pt1911 is a high quality product *because you have one *?
Or,
Taurus products are high quality products *because you have two *?

Your choice. :smt102


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

jakeleinen1 said:


> . . . I have a TCP380 that has had no jams . . .
> I bought the Taurus Pt1911 this weekend and ran 200 rds through it. . .


Hell, the St. L. Cardinals are getting whipped. I'm unhappy.

So, let's just keep beating a dead horse.

Based on your sample sizes, you might want to investigate things involved in quality control testing.
The objective is to improve the credibility of your claims.

For instance, "Mean Cycles to Failure", etc, etc.

I recommend
_Quality Control and Industrial Statistics
Acheson J. Duncan
Professor of Statistics,
Department of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering,
The Johns Hopkins University

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 65-12414_
975 pages plus index

After you have absorbed this, come on back and we'll talk "mean cycles to failure with 99% (three sigma) probablity.

I'll bet Taurus (or ANY gun manufacturer) does NOT want that data known to ANY customers. 
The only thing more sacred to any manufacturer of any product is the difference between production cost and actual selling price. :mrgreen:


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

It's nice you got a good one,but I wouldn't really praise Taurus too much.I consider Taurus right below Kimber,you can get a good one but there are a lot of bad ones out there too.I don't know about Taurus's labor force,but Kimber needs their assemblers to learn something about specs and fitting,along with pistolsmiths that actually know how to fix a problem.If they could correct that they may be able to get back their reputation.


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

rex said:


> It's nice you got a good one,but I wouldn't really praise Taurus too much.


Taurus sells ALOT of guns, its no wonder you hear more about the bad then the good. Typically its rare for people to praise, humans are more inclined to complain about something, but happiness seems to shut them up.


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

While that is true,the fact remains that they have always produced cheap knockoffs and their quality was commensurate with the price compared to the original.I had a 605 that was a nice piece,but I can tell you it was nowhere close to a Smith.The old adage you get what you pay for is very true.

Everyone that produces something has some bad examples,it's just going to happen,but if you cut corners in any aspect of quality you will have a higher percentage of those bad examples.Anyone that has known Taurus for the last few decades and is a firearm enthusiast will tell you what everyone here has-enjoy it because you got a good one.

As an example,another forum did a poll of what handguns you owned,the amount and how many had true mechanical failures-not ammo related.This was a few years ago and hasn't been updated but it still pops up occasionally.Kimber,who sells a crapload of 1911s with hardcore followers,was one of the top failures running around 50%-wow.Of the people I know that have had Kimbers that jumps much higher.Basically the only one that ran was one of the original designs,pretty much every other one wouldn't work reliably for well known and unacknowledged problems.Some work,some don't,just like Taurus.I prefer those companies that make guns that a lot work and only few have issues.


----------



## asm (Sep 5, 2013)

I personally own a PT1911. After thousands of rounds through it I have never had a malfunction or any other issue.


----------



## hemmigremmie (Jan 23, 2008)

ive never had an issue with mine...love it!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

jakeleinen1:
Congratulations on your new purchase! Have fun with it and enjoy it.


----------



## OGCJason (Nov 4, 2013)

If memory serves from my grad school days, statistical significance begins when your sample size exceeds 100, or N+1...

All the anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, the most valid test would be to take 101 1911s from different vendors and put 500 rounds down range on each from a table mount. (So, 101 from Taurus, 101 from Sig, 101 from Colt, etc). You'd need to do the following:

*Use the same ammo type across all guns
*Set each gun up on the same style mount (but not the same one b/c tensile strength would deteriorate after that many rounds...
*Keep a constant temperature to within 5 degrees Farenheight
*Keep a constant humidity level to within 5%
*Count all misfires

After 500*101 guns for each model tested (50,500 rounds for those not mathematically inclined), whichever model has the most misfires is the least reliable. Conversely, the one with the fewest would be the most reliable. 

Anyone wanna fund me n that endeavor?


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

OGCJason said:


> If memory serves from my grad school days, statistical significance begins when your sample size exceeds 100, or N+1...


Well, your post is on the right track about "trying" to control variables.

If any of all you'all want to look at what it REALLY takes, Google the Army trials searching
for a replacement for John Browning's good 'ol 1911. (circa pre1984 M9 adoption ?).
_"This exercise" is left to "the student"._

While they eventually settled on the Beretta "92 FS" to become the M9, the process
was quite interesting (and controversial). Of course, all the ammo burned, and all the
manpower and facilities involved in the testing were paid for by us taxpayers.

And that makes sense. "We" want the users (soldiers' lives on the line) to have good stuff.
And "we" are going to buy thousands (hundreds of thousands ?) of "the winner".

Always helps to have a BIG budget when you've defined a BIG test program :smt1099
Even so, the Beretta M9 has been replaced by the Beretta M9A1. Experience works.

Clearly (?), a lot of major gun manufacturers are NOT conducting "true" life-cycle reliability test programs.
They make WAY too many models which are worth WAY too many $'s to run expensive testing (both time and money).

I think they do a good job of "developing" good stuff. And, they do have "quality checks" for each individual item
they manufacture. But, we customers are the beta testers after they think the product seems "good to go".

Because, it's far more feasible and much cheaper to "take care" of customer problems that crop up after use. 
Some companies do a LOT better at this than others. Even the good ones have occasional recalls.

I'm not knocking them. They need to make a couple mrgreen of dollars on each fairly low volume product model.


----------

