Joined
·
705 Posts
The following photos are from the much discussed Larry Vickers' pistol that was featured in the July/August 2001 issue of American Handgunner magazine. The quality displayed here does not fully represent that which is avaialble in the magazine itself. All photos were scanned from the above cited issue and are posted here strictly for educational purposes. Please do not print or distribute copies of these scans -- buy a copy of the magazine. The photography credit goes to the inimatable Ichiro Nagata.
While I felt a certain degree of trepidation about posting less than completely flattering comments here, I think our members deserve to hear the unvarnished truth. The truth, IMHO, is that the pistol shown in American Handgunner is NOT a *best grade* pistol. In fact, I would submit it is not worth the $3,880 (on a customer-supplied base gun) price tag quoted by Cameron Hopkins. In some ways, all this talk of unsurpassed craftsmanship reminds me of the Hans Christian Andersen fable of The Emperor's New Clothes. I once posted a humorous take on this fable in another thread here. While I never intended to intimate that Larry Vickers was the subject of my parody, nevertheless, the comparison seems somewhat ironic now.
As consumers, I think we should all be aware of what sets prices in the market place. We have discussed this a number of times before and many have concluded the 1911 market is not completely free of manipulation. While the supply/demand equation does factor in here, the coverage a gunsmith receives in the gun press can be the real impetus for creating demand -- beyond what the markets natural forces would dicatate. I do find it interesting, that the pistol featured, was actually built for Cameron Hopkins. Seems to me, that it would be in Cameron's financial best interest to push the market value higher, for a pistol by a maker he was now giving flattering feature coverage to. Personally, I think he painted Larry into the corner. I am would wager, even Larry wouldn't have put that price tag on the pistol featured in American Handgunner. I wonder what Cameron really paid for his Vickers gun?
While I thought the pistol in Amercian Hangunner was very nice, it did have some visible flaws that (IMO) should keep it from commanding such a premium price. At the $4,000 mark, I think it is a reasonable expectation to require the cosmetics to be perfect. A $4,000 pistol should stand up to such close scrutiny. While bead blasting and parkerizing will hide more cosmetic imperfections than just about any other finish, the excellent lens work of Ichiro Nagata only served to illuminate that which might have gone unnoticed in images from a lesser skilled photographer. Let's take a look at some of these visible flaws.
Larger photo here.
The first thing that caught my eye, is the front cocking serrations. Look at the very first one. It is not running parralel to the rest. The last one is off too. The depth and angle of the front cocking serration does not match that of what is used on the rear. The stock BarSto barrel crown is disapointing. The slide stop has a visible tool marks and the serrations need touching up. Notice the front sight base. It is has sharp edges visible. The base should have been smoothed to match the contour of the round of the slide. The front sight blade has an akward radiusing done to it. There is a visible gap on the leading edge of the stocks, that should have been attended to when regulating the screws.
Notice the very visible tool mark inside the hammer? The sear pin just below the ambi safety is qualified, but it appears the pin is not flush -- it is slightly recessed.
...
The ejector is not flush with back of the slide. It is all the more noticeable with the serrations added. One has to wonder the merrit of serrating the back of the slide, but leaving the rear of the sight untouched. Novaks may have been speced by Cameron, but they look silly compared to a Heinie sight using the same mod. The poor slide to frame fit is quite noticeable in this photo. As is hole in the frame made visible by the extra metal taken off the thumb safety. The photo of the disengeaged thumb safety reveals more metal could have been left and the grip safety blending still acheived.
Larger photo here.
Larger photo here
For my taste, the makers mark used is way too big and far too prominent. When combined with the Springfield Armory logo and other markings, it is a bit too much IMO.
Larger photo here
The front strap checkering is NOT perfect. Notice the visible extra lines on the closest row. Note to the heavy cut on the top row. There is also no high gripping or re-radiusing of the front strap contour. The tool mark on the slide stop is more visible here. The bad cut on the first front cocking serration jumps out here. It creates a vector, not a parralel line to the rest.
Larger photo here
Notice the line on the first two vertical rows of checkering?
Notice that ledge where the mag funnel meets the frame in the back? A pinch preventing radius done on the front of the mag well would have been a nice functional touch here.
The point of all this, is not to say Larry Vickers can't make a nice pistol -- maybe even a *best grade* gun. But IMHO, what was represented in American Handgunner to be a $4,000 pistol -- is not even close in my book. For $4,000, I expect ALL the metal work to be perfect and the finish to be something better than bead blasted parkerizing. For $4,000 I should get a pistol that is a cut above what ALL the other makers are producing. No offense meant to Larry, but the Larry Vickers' pistol I saw in American Handgunner is NOT setting a new standard for pistolsmithing excellence. As was the case in the Hans Christian Andersen's fable, it appears the Emperor in our story is buck naked too.
DD
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Desert Dog on 2001-06-03 23:07 ]</font>
While I felt a certain degree of trepidation about posting less than completely flattering comments here, I think our members deserve to hear the unvarnished truth. The truth, IMHO, is that the pistol shown in American Handgunner is NOT a *best grade* pistol. In fact, I would submit it is not worth the $3,880 (on a customer-supplied base gun) price tag quoted by Cameron Hopkins. In some ways, all this talk of unsurpassed craftsmanship reminds me of the Hans Christian Andersen fable of The Emperor's New Clothes. I once posted a humorous take on this fable in another thread here. While I never intended to intimate that Larry Vickers was the subject of my parody, nevertheless, the comparison seems somewhat ironic now.
As consumers, I think we should all be aware of what sets prices in the market place. We have discussed this a number of times before and many have concluded the 1911 market is not completely free of manipulation. While the supply/demand equation does factor in here, the coverage a gunsmith receives in the gun press can be the real impetus for creating demand -- beyond what the markets natural forces would dicatate. I do find it interesting, that the pistol featured, was actually built for Cameron Hopkins. Seems to me, that it would be in Cameron's financial best interest to push the market value higher, for a pistol by a maker he was now giving flattering feature coverage to. Personally, I think he painted Larry into the corner. I am would wager, even Larry wouldn't have put that price tag on the pistol featured in American Handgunner. I wonder what Cameron really paid for his Vickers gun?
While I thought the pistol in Amercian Hangunner was very nice, it did have some visible flaws that (IMO) should keep it from commanding such a premium price. At the $4,000 mark, I think it is a reasonable expectation to require the cosmetics to be perfect. A $4,000 pistol should stand up to such close scrutiny. While bead blasting and parkerizing will hide more cosmetic imperfections than just about any other finish, the excellent lens work of Ichiro Nagata only served to illuminate that which might have gone unnoticed in images from a lesser skilled photographer. Let's take a look at some of these visible flaws.
Larger photo here.
The first thing that caught my eye, is the front cocking serrations. Look at the very first one. It is not running parralel to the rest. The last one is off too. The depth and angle of the front cocking serration does not match that of what is used on the rear. The stock BarSto barrel crown is disapointing. The slide stop has a visible tool marks and the serrations need touching up. Notice the front sight base. It is has sharp edges visible. The base should have been smoothed to match the contour of the round of the slide. The front sight blade has an akward radiusing done to it. There is a visible gap on the leading edge of the stocks, that should have been attended to when regulating the screws.
Notice the very visible tool mark inside the hammer? The sear pin just below the ambi safety is qualified, but it appears the pin is not flush -- it is slightly recessed.
The ejector is not flush with back of the slide. It is all the more noticeable with the serrations added. One has to wonder the merrit of serrating the back of the slide, but leaving the rear of the sight untouched. Novaks may have been speced by Cameron, but they look silly compared to a Heinie sight using the same mod. The poor slide to frame fit is quite noticeable in this photo. As is hole in the frame made visible by the extra metal taken off the thumb safety. The photo of the disengeaged thumb safety reveals more metal could have been left and the grip safety blending still acheived.
Larger photo here.
Larger photo here
For my taste, the makers mark used is way too big and far too prominent. When combined with the Springfield Armory logo and other markings, it is a bit too much IMO.
Larger photo here
The front strap checkering is NOT perfect. Notice the visible extra lines on the closest row. Note to the heavy cut on the top row. There is also no high gripping or re-radiusing of the front strap contour. The tool mark on the slide stop is more visible here. The bad cut on the first front cocking serration jumps out here. It creates a vector, not a parralel line to the rest.
Larger photo here
Notice the line on the first two vertical rows of checkering?
Notice that ledge where the mag funnel meets the frame in the back? A pinch preventing radius done on the front of the mag well would have been a nice functional touch here.
The point of all this, is not to say Larry Vickers can't make a nice pistol -- maybe even a *best grade* gun. But IMHO, what was represented in American Handgunner to be a $4,000 pistol -- is not even close in my book. For $4,000, I expect ALL the metal work to be perfect and the finish to be something better than bead blasted parkerizing. For $4,000 I should get a pistol that is a cut above what ALL the other makers are producing. No offense meant to Larry, but the Larry Vickers' pistol I saw in American Handgunner is NOT setting a new standard for pistolsmithing excellence. As was the case in the Hans Christian Andersen's fable, it appears the Emperor in our story is buck naked too.
DD
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Desert Dog on 2001-06-03 23:07 ]</font>