Question of the Day: Remington Returns With a 1911 R1. How Great is That?

TTAG’s contacted Remington, who’ve promised to put us in touch with an R1 product manager type next week. My main question: does the world really need another 1911? As commentator GS remarked on The FIrearm Blog, “1911 really does stand for the number of companies that make them.” From a business POV, I wonder if Remington’s about to get a little “skew intensive” (as the PR guy for another gun maker puts it). Lest we forget, Cerberus acquired Remington Arms back in 1987 for a paltry $370 million. This is the same mob who screwed the pooch by buying Chrysler—another MOR manufacturer—and running it into the ground (before they made it the U.S. taxpayer’s problem). It’s no secret that Cerberus wants Remington wants it some mo’ better military biz. Is the 1911 R1 part of that process? “Small Arms and Innovation Act” anyone?  Meanwhile, here it is. Anyone buying it?


  1. avatar Frank says:

    Problem is this as far as the military goes. The will not field a .45 ACP pistol for the average soldier. The 9 MM is a lot easier round to get your hands on over seas. This comes directly from my brother. USA Captain infantry.

  2. avatar Patrick says:

    Since the quality of firearms coming out of Remington lately is mediocre at best, I will certainly stay away from the R1. Even the venerable 870 pump has developed a “Hecho en Mexico” feel to it. Having personally seen quality issues on 2 brand-new M700 rifles, something drastic would have to change before I spent hard-earned money on anything coming out of Ilion. Sure, Remington stands behind their product, but I do not want to mail a gun out 2 or 3 times before I know it to be ‘reliable’. For 1911’s, I’ll stick with what I know – Wilson, Springfield, Kimber, and Colt (in that order)!

  3. avatar Dan says:

    Having just picked one of these pistols up and taken it to the range this morning I can tell you the fit and finish are excellent and the reliability and accuracy potential seem very good as well. I shot 2″ – 3″ groups at 21 feet (one-handed unsupported slow-fire). The pistol fed 3 boxes of FMJ without any issues. For me, and this is just me, what set this pistol apart is what it has and maybe, more importantly, doesn’t have feature-wise. I intend to use it for service pistol match shooting and thus (as I understand the rules) cannot have night sights, a speed hammer, extended slide catch, ambi-safety, or beaver tail grip safety. Most manufacturers add these as a matter of habit because most people want them nowadays. Personally, I think most of that stuff is unnecessary, like a wing on the back of a Toyota Corolla, but again, that’s just my opinion. This pistol skips all of those things. However, the gun does comes with a match barrel and bushing and is very tight. Also, I have small hands and appreciate the short trigger. The R1 splits the difference between a Springfield GI or Mil-Spec and something like a Range Officer. Seems to me the R1 is a really good stepping off point for building a service pistol match gun. Plus it’s USA made and cost me $579.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email