• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Sidearms & Scatterguns 1911 Quality vs. Price

D

dukelog

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 10, 2010
21
2
49
Gentlemen,

I am looking to purchase a nice 1911 in the next few months. I have to save up for it since my family comes first. I have been looking at various 1911s, and I want something nice. It's rare to see a product on the market with such a swing between top end and low end prices. Imported, stripped down 1911s can be had below $400 (citadel), and top end pistols can cost around $6k (Nighthawk).

I am not the kind of man that will pay $6000 for a pistol--I don't care how nice it is. Even if I was rich, the idea of paying so much is just a no-go at this station because I don't think there is $3000 in difference between the Nighthawk and other more realistically priced 1911s. Conversely, I am not the type to buy the cheapest pistol out there. I believe you ALWAYS get what you settle for. IF you buy the low end, you get the low end.

I want value. I want a pistol that always goes bang, and is accurate, but I am not an operator or a competitor. What truly separates a $1000 Sig 1911 from a $1400 Kimber from a $3000 Wison? Given the nature of modern manufacturing, the parts will likely all interchange--or very close. The steels used will be similar. The forging will be similar. I don't care about snake skin looking machining on the slide or bobtail mainspring housings, or other scary sounding name engraved on the slide (raptor, falcon, meanie, etc). What I care about is performance:cost ratio.

I have read quite a lot recently about how Kimber is resting on its laurels, and QA/QC is slipping. I have read where Sig is producing products priced below their actual quality. Wilson is always top notch. Springfields seem to be consistent. Colt has the name, but Union workers drive up the cost of manufacture.

Given similarly outfitted pistols, what justifies the huge difference in price of the various 1911s, and what is the best value?
 
Springfield Range officer is a great pistol for the money. TRP is also a great pistol for the money.
 
I went with a TRP recently and am very happy with it, my other choice would have been a Dan Wesson 1911 but I couldn't find anywhere local so I could check one out and compare. I can't see more than about $2k for a pistol because I can't shoot one well enough to justify it and I don't need all the bells and whistles that a lot of people want.
 
IMO i have two Para Expert 1911's. They shoot just as well as my Springfield TRP and Sig Sauer Scorpion 1911 . Para makes higher end pistols also in 1k range.
 
springfields are great buy for the money. dont forget STI. But biggest thing is that any of the top manufactures are good guns. Once a pistol starts getting past the 1500 mark i become wary and am fairly convinced you are paying for a name only. No custom i have ever seen (and yes theres been a few) shot 2k better to me. Better, sure. But the diff between them was nominal. YMMV. That Wilson roll stamp cost 1500 on top of the pistol. but you will always have a wilson. Kind of like having a Randall knife...
 
Very good handgun out of the box at a decent price if you shop with the best warranty in the business.

Take your leftover funds and buy a bunch of Tripp / Cobra mags and ammo.



 
You may want to look at Nighthawk again, they're much less than $6,000. Half that will get you a beautiful, hand-fitted pistol from them. I have one and love it. Their customer service is nice as well. I know they're still pricy, but when you get one in your hands, you'll see why.
 
It was not entirely clear what you are going to do with the pistol. What accuracy requirements you have. Specifically what group size at what range?
If the ultimate small groups are desired, go with the Baer. If ultimate in function is required, get a USGI gun.
If you need one that shoots exactly on the sights, you will almost certainly need adj sights. If shooting at an area is good enough, suggest fixed sights.
Not much wrong with an older used Colt either. Wilson guns are very nice to handle. Just seem to feel better, no idea why/how.
Good luck.
 
I went with the TRP and am happy I did, you may be getting a nice 1911 for 6k but the trp is a very nice 1911 by itself, not sure how much better it could get and be worth the extra cost.
 
There are lots of great pistols out there. In many cases, the name brand accounts for a fair amount of the price. As you stated you are not an operator, or a competitor, you will be in the envious position of balancing needs, and wants, with cost.

All steels are NOT the same. Many pistols use cast frames, but those frames will outlast the use patterns of most people like yourself. Other frames are forged. Some makers frames can last many tens of thousands of rounds, while cheaper ones can be expected to show wear within 10-20 thousand rounds. Sometimes less.

I would suggest looking at a pistols with the features you find desirable, then start comparing prices. Kimber, Springfield Armory, Taurus, Remington, and Rock Island are a few of the pistols that will have features you want at a reasonable price.

I usually try to compare the features with price. If Pistol "A" has a price twice that of pistol "B", I would expect pistol "A" to have twice the features, last twice as long, be twice as accurate, twice as reliable, or other similar considerations. If both pistols have the same features, longevity, reliability and accuracy, I would have a difficult time paying twice as much for one than the other.

Another thought is to buy a good base pistol, and spend what you want having it turned into exactly what you want, with all the features you ever desired.

Keep in mind that just like with custom cars, you never get out of modified pistols what you put into them. You would be lucky to get back 50% of what you spend on the modifications .... unless you have very famous makers do all the work for you, keep all the receipts for proof, and never use it. But then what would be the point of building something you never intend to use? Some people are rich enough to build neat tools and never use them, but unfortunately, I'm not one of 'em.
 
rth1800 said:
It was not entirely clear what you are going to do with the pistol. What accuracy requirements you have. Specifically what group size at what range?
If the ultimate small groups are desired, go with the Baer. If ultimate in function is required, get a USGI gun..
Click to expand...

I should have specified, but I am really looking for a reliable piece for carry and general purpose use. I want to be able to plink, but also depend on the gun for defensive use. I will likely find a good load, and shoot that exclusively, or find an alternate load that shoots to the same POA. For example a defensive load with 200 gr XTP bullets and a FMJ load with the same weight bullet at same velocity should print close enough to POA to allow for fixed sights.

Essentially, I want a quality, dependable 1911 made with quality parts, but I don't care to pay extra for ball milled grooves on the top of the slide or some proprietary texture on the frame. I want solid performance, but I am not a professional shooter. So for me value is important. While I don't want to pay extra for a brand name, I am not a guy who pays $600 for a Rock Island when a Sig is $850; I go with the Sig because I know they build quality pistols.
 
Difference between a $1000 Sig and a $1400 Kimber? The Sig will probably run out of the box.

My opinion is:

Under $1000 - Colt (springfield a close second though)

Under $2000 - Dan Wesson

$2000+ - Wilson

I have owned all of these and personally I'm done with "low end" (which i consider springer, colt, sig, kimber etc). The only 1911s I will spend my money on in the future will say Wilson on the side. That said I'm not going to get rid of my others.
 
I have a Dan Wesson Valor that is just flat-out awesome. Looking at CZ's Dan Wesson site, I see that the Valor doesn't appear to be currently offered... but the Specialist may have replaced it. When the Specialist first came out, a reviewer essentially said that it was a Valor with a rail, flared mag well, and some other goodies for less than the price of a Valor. Having given one a halfway decent examination at a gun show, I'd have to agree* (as far as I could tell without actually, ya know, shooting the gun).

The Specialist and the Springfield TRP seem to be pretty competitively priced, and offer similar features, quality, and accuracy. Add in any number of models from a place like STI, and there are plenty of options.

If the price point for those guns (street price around $1500-$1600) is a little steep, I have to say that the Sig 1911s offer a lot of gun for the money.
 
Dan Wesson is superior to anything in the $1500-2000 price range (save for used custom guns). I'm basing that comment on the amount of hand fitment they receive compared to others in that price range as well as zero mim parts...which to my knowledge they're the only offering in that price range which can say that.

Not too mention this little tidbit...
2011 Severns Custom "THUNDER IN THE WEST" shoot-out! - 1911Forum
 
I have a Springfield A1 loaded, TRP and a citadel. Now I love Springfield's (yea I'm brand loyal) but for being an inexpensive 1911 that citadel has a great trigger out the box and is accurate for being a 4". The citadels are made I think in the Philippians but are a U.S gov blue print which means you can upgrade your gun using all of the big name parts out there.
 
Colt shits all over a kimber. Runs like a top out of the box and will be solid to 25 yds. Get factory Colt magazines with the correct feed lips and you'll be happy as can be. No matter the cost of other guns, there is only one Colt. The rest are just copies and will always be nothing else but copies.
 
It's been a few years since I played with my 1911's or followed them. There is a lot of good info on 10-8Performance on 1911's and choosing one.
I started shooting them in 1988+/- and was taught by the original armorer to Delta, and have his personal gun in the safe.
I've taken 1911 specific classes from Vickers, Yam and Hackathorn.

They all recommended a 5", single stack .45 as the best way to go in a 1911.

A point Ron made to me was, a properly tightend 1911 can be, and probably will be, more reliable then a loose USGI gun.

One point Vickers made, was that many of the low end cheaper guns will be "reliable" but they will not be durable. When students took apart their guns, he showed where flaws in material, skipped manufacturing steps,etc. would cause the gun to fail prematurely.
Thats something to keep in mind when choosing guns with similiar features.(some of those guns were not "cheap")

Features alone do not determine price point.

Cast frames were used in a lot of hard use guns, with no issues. Cast, MIM, forged, can all be good or bad. It's not the process it's the how well it's done.

Reports of Kimbers and SIG's quality declining have been around for awhile.

Colt still makes a solid gun, in both a modern and traditional style. Vickers still recommended them a few years ago, with the caveot, that you would still need to do some final tuning, as with most sub $1500 1911's
(and for those thinking it, he though the NightHawk with his name on it got to be too expensive)

1911's require much more hand fitting then a modern gun like a Glock, I would not count on any parts "interchanging" even amongst the same brand and model. They might, but hand fitting is what really brings out the true attributes of the 1911.

I think Vickers recommended the Wilson CQB as one of the better values in 1911's out there, and it was what he carried a few years ago. He thought the Colt and Springfield would make good starting points.

He also recommended starting with a base complete gun, then costomizing it, rather then a frame up build.

Some things to look for, besides "features"
-Proper barrel relief in the barrel bed
-Properly staked plunger tube
-Properly staked grip screw bushings
-Proper relief in the hammer strut
-Proper lock up of barrel(not just tight)

If I were looking for a new 1911 for carry, I'd go with a new Colt rail gun, and plan on a few tweaks( I've no issue with Series 80's), one of the SA with a rail, or just go for the Wilson.

Bob
 
The 1911 was designed with parts interchangeability in mind. People start monkey fucking with it and that's when it goes tits up and becomes unreliable. Tight chamber this, super springs that, ninja branded magazine with shuriken feed lips, etc.

Hand fitting of parts and overspringing are not necessary. Quality parts with quality magazines with correct feed lips are necessary.

Now if you are building a bullseye gun or target gun then go ape crazy with all kinds of hand fitting and tight chambers.
 
Quality, fit, finish customer service, options, warranty..WC CQB without upgrades I feel is the best value out there..Under $2800
 
Asperly Aimless said:
Hand fitting of parts and overspringing are not necessary. Quality parts with quality magazines with correct feed lips are necessary.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is wrong. At bare minimum, the internal extractor must be hand fit. S&W gets away with it by having an external extractor which is [gasp] probably a good idea.

It is a mistake to believe that the GI guns issued in World War II ran like tops. They didn't, and they weren't highly accurate, either. Over the years, people have figured out how to make them function well and make them super accurate. And this mostly involves hand fitting parts.

It is a common misconception that tighter tolerances in a 1911 reduces reliability. You can have some guns that are very tight and super reliable. You can also have some loose jam-o-matics. It is all about where those tolerances are loose and tight. Barrel links can be too long and too short. Neither of those is desirable. Extractors can be too tight and too loose. Both cause issues.

And yes, having the correct recoil spring for the load will help function, but really, there is a pretty wide tolerance for that. Guys wanting to reduce recoil tend more towards underspringing, which can wreak havoc on the frame and even lead to failure to return to battery.

Magazines also matter a lot. I used to run CMC's, but went to Tripp Cobra's and I have definitely seen fewer failures, especially in 10-round mags (which tend to be more prone to fail because of what you are asking the spring to do).
 
No matter the cost of other guns, there is only one Colt. The rest are just copies and will always be nothing else but copies.
Click to expand...

Too bad they can't claim the design.
 
Asperly Aimless said:
No matter the cost of other guns, there is only one Colt. The rest are just copies and will always be nothing else but copies.
Click to expand...


True dat and lots of other "copies" are far better guns be it 1911's or AR's than many produced by Colt.
Actually my three Colt 1911's were the worst running 1911's I have owned and long gone.

YMMV
 
While I've never owned a 1911, but hope to one day. My choice would be a STI 2011 style, extra mag capacity of modern polymer framed .45 acp. While this might not be needed. Just my preference. Plus I think they just look sexy.


Who is John Galt?
 
I really like the Colt 1911's, but they do have very sharp edges, something they've always been guilty of. Also, the trigger will be nowhere as nice as one of the big names. Although I'm not a big fan of Nighthawk, they have the best triggers I've ever felt.

Kimber-no experience with.

Springfield-a shooting buddy has one, not sure which model, but it has sharp edges and only an OK trigger, but is more accurate than I am.


Les Baer-both were fit way too tight. But he needed something to set him apart from other builders. Had a full size Thunder Ranch that was very accurate but lost confidence in it after taking it through a shooting class. Despite it being in "perfect" condition, i.e. proper springs (new also), clean, and properly lubed, I had 3 malfunctions over two days and 500 rounds. THIS WAS JUST MY EXPERIENCE WITH ONE GUN.

Ed Brown special forces. I love this gun. My favorite 1911. Love the trigger, has no sharp edges to cut me or snag clothing, extremely accurate and have zero malfunctions so far.

Ted Yost- way overpriced! Even had to take it to a not so local gunsmith to have the extractor adjusted as it kept bouncing brass off my forehead. In my opinion, one shouldn't have to have something like that done to a gun that expensive. Aside from that one issue, the gun is so beautiful with a perfect finish unlike any other 1911 I've seen and is also very accurate.

Colt-have a new officers model that was tuned and dehorned and is a blast to shoot. Can't believe how accurate it is.

Just my thoughts based on what I own. The Les Baer is the only one I don't own anymore.
 
Disagrrement amonst 1911 shooters?...that never happens.

However the 1911 was designed is moot, as I'm unaware of any worthwhile drop in parts. Any 1911 with clearances so loose to make drop in parts viable, IMO, negates the best thing about a 1911.

Hilton Yam & other SME have stated the 1911 was designed when hand labor was cheap and technology was expensive, today the opposite is true. If a 1911 could be made that had interchangeable parts, and cost as little as a Glock and be as reliable and DURABLE as a Glock, they'd be out there,.... they're not.
This is why I got out of 1911's in the first place, and comments like "ninja" are the reason these discussions never go well.

Colt may not have designed the gun, but they are the ones that brought it to market, and got it adopted. They've been making them since, well 1911, they probably got it down.
While in years past, their quality suffered, guys like Hilton Yam report the guns coming out of Colt nowadays, are some of the best to ever leave the factory. Been that way for awhile.
Most of the 1911's I've owned were Colt's, and I never had an issue with any of them. Mods were done out of want and not "need".
I did have an early SA, that went south quick.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Rock Island Armory, Armscor etc...

Armscor makes frames for STI, Para USA etc...

I am running a CAI COmmodore and it runs like a top
 
I have a Kimber that I have used on duty for the last few years, and for several training classes. It has never failed me, and is very accurate and reliable weapon. That said, it is one of the older models with external extractor, and I have had a smith do some polishing, etc.

I also have a Springfield Loaded series that is all stainless and just as accurate as the Kimber. My Kimber is a custom job, so the two don't compare. But I will say that there is so little difference between that and the Springfield, for someone new to the platform, Springfield is hard to beat for my money. You can always build and improve as you gain experience and confidence.
 
Thanks guys for all the input. Something this discussion has done for me is bring my attention to Colt. I had in my mind that quality was lacking and labor was unusually expensive thereby driving the cost up. Some research has brought me to the conclusion that their rail gun is about ideal for me. I will make some upgrades, but the gun is solid from the box. The USMC recently purchased a modified version of this pistol after grueling testing. As an Army guy, I only give so much credence to what the Marines do, but the test itself is no joke. Pistols that pass the bar must be pretty good. And the price point is lower than I expected.
 
I can't really speak to reliability and durability of Glocks. I have shot a few but haven't put as many rounds downrange as my 1911 or plastic pistols. I know a lot has been said about the reliability of tactical tupperware, but I have found my 1911 to be just as reliable as my tactical tupperware (I own/owned 2 M&P 45's and a HK 45CT) and can digest ammo that my tactical tupperware could not (mainly LSWC seated a tad long). Maybe I won the lottery with my Baer and lost with my plastic guns, but I don't think so.

I also wouldn't say that my 1911 is more reliable that my plastic guns, just not less reliable. They are all about the same. Sooner or later, they all choke. If you have a pistol that has never malfunctioned, you just haven't shot it enough. Run 5,000 rounds through it and it will choke sooner or later. The goal is to have that be later than sooner.

I will say that I haven't met a plastic gun with the accuracy of my Baer.
 
Just like custom rifles. You want a custom then get one and it will be awesome but some can't afford or want to spend the money so they get a factory and sometimes you have to tweak them but for the most part they run just fine. If you need constant 1" groups at 25 yards then get the custom. If 2-3" will do the job for you and you want to save money then most of the factory 1911s will work just fine. Just like custom rifles shooting under 1/2 MOA consistently where some are happy with just sub MOA.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Not a long time 1911 aficionado but know about the gun industry some.
 
True dat and lots of other "copies" are far better guns be it 1911's or AR's than many produced by Colt.
Click to expand...

Another design they can't claim.

IMO, Colt builds one of the best (mass produced) 1911s out there. But, no different from there competitors, they've had their ups and downs (series 80). Never been overly impressed with their ARs. Solid, but no better than many other production grades available for less money.

Having done something longer doesn't make you the best...just older.
 
Accuracy should not be the only yard stick you measure a 1911 by. And, is not the only thing that seperates the competitors.

When we start talking "accurate as" and "reliable as"...how do you quantify that? Have the guns been tested in ransom rests under ideal conditions with match ammo? What round counts, under what conditions makes a gun reliable? Usually it all becomes anecdotal..

I never said a 1911 can't be as reliable as a Glock...you're not likely to find it at the same $450 price point though.

Reliable and durable are two differnt things. As I said, many cheap 1911's will run fine for a few thousand rounds, maybe even 10K, but eventually their poor manufacturing will catch up with them. Parts will peen, wear prematurely, crack,etc etc.
For some, 5K maybe a lifetime of shooting. For others, it's a blip on the radar.
Larry Vickers has probably seen more rounds down range thru 1911's under extreme hard use, then most. These are the kinds of things he points out in lower quality guns.
It's not soley about "features" you have to look deeper then that.
Not unlike the multiple threads about optics around here. Most people do not recommend a Barska because it has more or the same features as a Steiner...because theres more to it then that.

Just because some one shoots both guns as accurately or inaccurately with generic ball ammo, and neither gun chokes in a few hundred rounds, does not make them equal.

"1911" is a vast generic term these days, Glock is much more narrowly defined. I would expect a Les Bear to be both accurate and reliable...they cost significantly more the a Glock.

If we are going to use marginalizing terms like "ninja" and "tupperware", it will be difficult to have an honest, objective discussion.

Series 80
I spoke to Ron Wannanan(his name is in Col Beckwiths book), Ken Elmore, Ed Vandenberg(my 1911 smith) two DOE gunsmiths that have built a lot of hard use duty 1911, and a DOE armorer, who was around when my former employment issued bone stock Colt SS series 80's 1911 .45's to the SRT...all of them said the same thing...there is nothing wrong with series 80's.
Hilton Yam, who prefers a "series 70" style, has said if you have to have a firing pin safety, the series 80..in a Colt is the best. The Kimber shwartz style, and copied series 80's all have had timing issues.

I don't know why it matters that Colt didn't design either the 1911 or AR. They are the ones that brought those designs to fruition and the civillian market.
For a long time people debated the Colt AR vs, whatever cheaper brand, such as BM. Most people argued "features" w/o looking deeper. If they had, they would see the manufacturing steps skipped by the "just as good brands", the lower quality steel & parts, lack of QC, etc.
Same with 1911's. If all you're going to do, is look at Novak style sights and beavertail safeties..well then yea, they're all the same.

And Barska is the same as a Steiner.

Bob
 
shane45 said:
I heavily agree with R. Moran and heavily disagree with Asperely Aimless.
Click to expand...

In what way do you "Heavily agree" with R. Moran? What have I posted that you "Heavily disagree" with? Is hand fitting necessary? Are mega springs necessary? Is minimal tolerance slide to frame fit necessary? Is a tight chamber necessary? Do magazine feed lips make a difference?

What have I posted that is provably false? None of the above are necessary for a reliable and accurate 1911.
 
Of course not.

I went thru the same type of BS arguments over at a 1911 centric forum. If your gun didn't look like it left Hartford in 1943, is was
tacticool" and full of geegaws, and other deragatory terms.
Every professional shooter that put a Novak sight and Beavertail on their 1911 was a victim of slick marketing.

Got it...

Bob
 
That is not what was said at all. I never mentioned sights, ambi-safeties, or anything like that. I never mentioned that your gun HAD to be bone stock. I only mentioned things that were not necessary for an accurate and reliable 1911.

I did mention incorrect magazine feed lips though. Actually I said ninja branded magazine with shuriken feed lips.

I don't know what the 1911 centric forum is, but apologize for the members there if they gave you abuse. Please do not bring that here to this thread.
 
Asperly,
I may have read to much into your posts..apologies. It came off to me as some of those I conteneded with on the otehr site, especially with the "ninja" term.

Heres what I've "heard"
Ron, believed the gun should have as heavy a spring as will function
Vickers and most others say 18.5# for duty type ammo
Colts used to use, and may still do, 16#..I think USMC speced 18.5#
Recoil spring needs to be balanced against ammo types, hammer spring, & firing pin stop(flat or beveled).

Bill Wilson in his book on the 1911, stated a properly tightend gun, will be more reliable then a loose gun, because it's more consistent, and cycles the same every time. Ron agreed.

An improperly tightend gun, that binds, beats itself up, is another matter.
I've heard that slide to frame fit counts for very little in the accuracy dept, maybe 15% lower lug and hood fit being more important, then comes fit of the barrel to the bushing and bushing to the slide. But, after all that, you might as well tighten the slide.

If you were to go to David Sams and have him build you a bullseye gun, I bet it would be tight...but right. If you are a BE shooter or a SWAT officer or SOF Soldier, you may require or want a gun that can hold the 10 or X ring of a B6 at 50yds...

Joe average citizen, may think holding an E type at 10yds is accurate.

If you shoot your 1911 every few months, after stopping at Academy to buy 2 boxes of ammo, the cheaper brands may be as reliable & DURABLE as you'll ever need.
If you are that SWAT or SOF guy, you may go thru a significantly larger amount of ammo. A freind of mine recently reported about 1500rds in a week...thats not some random class..
A gun that has a glued in plunger tube & grip screw bushings, and a poorly fit barrel, w/o a barrel relief cut, may not stand up to that kind of training tempo.

All depends on what you want out of your 1911.

Bob
 
When JMB envisioned the 1911 the need was for a pistol that would handle the conditions of the jungle, held more rounds then a revolver and be chambered in a round that was more powerful the under powered 38 (Seems like those Muslims hopped up on some kind of jungle weed in the Philippines were not going down when shot by the .38). Knowing that the pistol being a close range weapon it did not need match grade accuracy so tolerances were kept loose to increase reliability. As the platform evolved the tolerances were tightened up and reliability issues started to arise. Modern 1911's will all have a ratio of accuracy to reliability so it is going to be up to the buyer to decide on which aspects they want to have in their sidearm. Range toy or duty sidearm these are personal choices that the OP is going to have to decide on .
 
No worries. Much is lost in translation across the internet. I'm sure the inability to see facial expressions, body language, and hear tones has caused much unnecessary internet bickering over the years.
 
dukelog said:
The USMC recently purchased a modified version of this pistol after grueling testing. As an Army guy, I only give so much credence to what the Marines do, but the test itself is no joke. Pistols that pass the bar must be pretty good.
Click to expand...

.
The trials rail guns had frame cracks ( 4 samples I think) yet still adopted......shit happens.

MARSOC - Soldier Systems Daily
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Soft vs hard case question
Replies
37
Views
1K
brianf
B
M
Suppressors Help Me Choose My Next Can.
Replies
86
Views
2K
mebgardner
M
7
Sidearms & Scatterguns Auto vs OU? Where to compromise on field shotgun?
Replies
36
Views
905
748rpilot
7
C
Somebody please explain the Nightforce SHV vs NXS to me
Replies
45
Views
2K
chevy_man
C
T
Optics SPF - Trades Added - Price cut - Lightly used Tangent Theta 3-15 Marksman Gen 3 XR Reticle - $2600 (SN 02477)
Replies
20
Views
1K
HoneyBakedBadger
HoneyBakedBadger
Top Bottom
Back