Creeker, SASS #43022

Hoping to hit the range tomorrow evening. Wishing I had some better quality 9mm than the bulk stuff I feed my PCC and carry gun for practice, but it's likely as good as I am even if the gun is likely better. I can give initial thoughts, the fit and finish are pretty first rate. I did not see a single chatter or tool mark on the slide or frame, even on interior surfaces. The slide to frame (aluminum frame, so it has inserted steel bosses) fit is snug - no slide rocking or longitudinal flexing. The trigger breaks crisply - I don't know that it's glass break level (but that may be me, I am spoiled by a custom Smith & Wesson revolver that has the best trigger I have ever pulled on a handgun); but it is as nice as any other 1911 (custom or otherwise) trigger that I am familiar with. And I am not one that thinks that just because something has a "light" trigger that means it is a "good" trigger. Being the Bull barrel, it comes with a two piece full length guide rod. Drift windage adjustable front sight (I chose a fiber optic), the rest sight is dovetailed and retained by a small Allen screw. Optics cut in the footprint of choice (I chose the RMR) - the plate fits well with minimal break line (not yet removed it - so there is the possibility of machine chatter on that surface). Ambi safety was optional - but being a lefty, kind of a mandatory choice for me. Function is smooth with a good feeling "thunk" at position. Things I don't like (but I knew about) - very little to no compatibility with existing 1911 or 2011 aftermarket. No Ambi slide lock is offered and no aftermarket support (I "may" have to do a little experimenting). Very few holster options - I have one that I custom ordered and is fine; but would have liked a greater variety of choices. And the 20 week wait. I questioned myself buying it - knowing all the other routes I could go. But I wanted a new toy, had the funds and a very supportive wife who insisted that I "deserved it" - if it shoots anywhere near as well as my initial impressions; I will be very pleased. And if this means anything - based on my feelings so far; I have already built and saved another version on the Stealth Arms website in a Commander model for a large frame carry gun. If range time goes well - I will probably be ordering another very soon.

Careful - the site may be hazardous to your credit card. I considered the red - but I kept seeing Deadpool.

Pretty sure the Platypus moniker is not related to it's deadliness. The Platypus name refers more to the oddity hybrid of an aluminum framed, fully customizable, USA made, double stack 9mm, 1911 that feeds from Glock magazines. Kind of like a venomous mammal that lays eggs and has a bill. Sounds like it shouldn't exist - but yet here it is. I guess they should have called it the Over Compensating Poisonous Grizzly Tiger?

Many an hour was spent playing with the myriad of possibilities and variations.

It's just a play toy; kind of B-Western bling - so style points were highly considered in the decision making process. The barrel and guide rod are polished steel - they didn't offer a true "shiny" silver for the frame or slide; so I went with the white. I would have preferred silver. And yes, the Glock mags were the kicker for me. My last "Modern Completion Pistol" was a CZ IPSC in 40 S&W - loved the gun but the cost/ availability of magazines was atrocious. It was always a little disturbing dropping them on gravel or having them stepped on during a run. I can pick up Glock 17 magazines for cheap - and even cheaper if it turns out to like the Magpul ones. If they get stepped on or damaged - who cares? Shooting it will, of course, be the thing that matters - but right now; I do not see anywhere that this gun fails to stack up against Staccato 2011's costing two grand more.

My next big purchase ... So I have an affinity for the color combination. Besides, I figured if it was flashy enough,no one would be looking at the targets.

I broke my wrists a couple years back and they did not heal perfectly. Since then, I have realized that I no longer enjoy "thumpy" recoil. So I decided to sell off my .45 autos that I no longer shoot. A couple 1911's, a Springfield XD - stuck them into the gun shop display cases at fair prices and "proof" they were gone - and I was standing there with a tiny bit more than a couple grand in my hands. Hmmm. I could pay some bills; but that seems like a waste - after all, I pay them and they are still going to send me a bill next month - so that ain't gonna happen. I should buy myself a new toy. Kinda decided that a 9mm 1911 was the direction I wanted to go - love the 1911 platform and 9mm won't beat me up. So down the rabbit hole I go. Single stack? Naw. So a double stack - do it as cheaply as possible or spend all our newfound funds? Spend it all. I researched and I studied; watched YouTube videos and pistol comparisons - read internet articles and spoke with a couple custom 1911 builders. Kept coming back to the same answer. For the money I wanted to spend (mid two grand) - the best option was the Stealth Arms Platypus. And then I began asking those in the know about the Platypus; Phantom had one transferred thru his shop and he was kind enough to contact his customer and get his opinion for me. @Phantom, SASS #54973 Thanks. Again, everything that I was told or read was overwhelmingly positive. So onto the Stealth Arms website to start shopping - for those who don't know - the Stealth Arms Platypus is double stack 1911 that uses a one piece Aluminum frame without removable grip panels; it is semi full custom (you "build" your gun by picking each component from a drop down menus of options) - slide length, slide design, grip design, all internal parts finishes and exterior customizations in color (nitride coating and cerakotes) and design. Trigger pull (mine is set at 2.5 lbs), Bull or bushing barrel, threaded muzzle, etc and so on - down to even custom serial numbers. And the biggest party trick is, unlike many of the burgeoning double stack 1911, 2011 platform guns that use propietary magazines that can range from $50 - $80 or more - the Platypus uses cheap and plentiful Glock mdl. 17 mags ($10 - $20 all day long) while retaining the 1911 grip angle. Also, a neat little touch that I appreciated; it comes with a "build sheet" that details every option you picked - so if was ever a need to replace a part; you can refer to the build sheet and say I need XYZ part in this finish. So I ordered one about four months ago and it arrived this weekend. Filled out my paperwork - yes, even I have to complete a 4473 to take a gun from the shop. I have stripped it down; examined everything; cleaned and lubed it to my personal standard (came with a blackish oil - replaced with my preferred hi temp red grease). Have not shot it yet; that's on the agenda for tomorrow at a local indoor range; but if it shoots as well as it feels playing with it at my bench - I am already in love.

I own the gun shop - so no transfer fees.

Ok, I misunderstood the task. I thought we were putting together the best three firearm(s) for a purpose. But if you're just handing me $1200.00 and saying go buy a gun... And assuming, I don't need to buy duplicates of things I currently own; so I'm just buying something I would like to own. At $1200.00... Likely a CZ Shadow 2.

I'm assuming we are talking "prep" for survival on an event that hasn't happened yet? So we can still purchase guns, ammo, etc. at today's prices and availability? I do a lot of business with Palmetto State Armory; so I didn't bother to check any other sources. $1200.00 (And I just verified all these prices as accurate and the firearms available). PSA Dagger Compact 9mm $299.00 Glock 19 "clone" that, in many ways, is superior to the Glock and I would not hesitate to trust my life to one (just bought one for Desert Scorpion for a new carry gun). PSA AR-15 clone flat top 5.56 $399.00 We all know what AR clones are - (at the price) I have been very impressed with what I have seen from PSA. Maverick 88 12ga. Pump Shotgun. $250.00 For those who don't know - Maverick is Mossbergs "budget" brand, comparable to a mdl. 500. $950 for 3 NEW firearms. A concealed carry pistol, long range defensive rifle and a close range shotgun. Leaving $250 for ammo, holster, slings. It can certainly be done and with decent quality firearms with respectable capability.

Only Fans? I didn't think anyone knew about that.

Don't be sorry. Its, it's, it is all in fun.

On a thread specifically referencing apostrophes and their proper use and placement; reading a post by someone exclaiming their reaction to said topic as "FREAKIN NUTS" - establishing gravitas with their English background and then referencing the "Dumbing down" of America. I found it ironic, that person would then omit the required apostrophe.

Ok - rethink on this. I would apply some clearance paint to the mainspring and see if there is hammer/ mainspring interference any where other than that single point at the spring and rear shape on the hammer. If there is not - I now (after my rethink) would radius the rear of the hammer. Reason being - there is basically nothing of any importance at this back portion of the hammer. This gives you a huge margin of error to grind and reshape without consequence. You do not have the same margins reshaping or divoting the mainspring and we KNOW doing so will lend itself to issues down the road. So now - I'm in camp "grind the hammer".

Back to the cheapest part recommendation - mainsprings are cheap. If we are talking thousandths - why not relieve or thin the mainspring vertically? Or being Creeker - simply put a radius dip or divot in the mainspring at the interference point. Yes, it may weaken the spring and prematurely break, but again mainsprings are cheap. The hammer would work as well - just requires a bit more patience and radius reworking for appearance sake (assuming we are grinding directly at the corner contacting the spring) which will have "some" visibility when the hammer is down.

Shouldn't that be FREAKIN' NUTS? 🤪

And just for fun... With a hint of punctuation. In the first sentence, the author is giving us greater details and the stores proper name is "Too Slowly". I went to the store, Too Slowly, and it had already closed. In the second sentence, the author is accompanied by his friends while journeying from the store to the city of slowly - and the city is perhaps closed? I went too; the store to Slowly and it had already closed. Ain't English fun?

I just did a quick Google image search and I am not seeing any Winchester 94's with a similar level of bolt deflection. Not to doubt question Eyesa - but is there ANY chance something was assembled incorrectly? I would do a complete re teardown and look for damage, burrs or any tolerance altering items before removing any mating surface metals. Also did Winchester ever change the hammer dimensions? Pre 64/ post 64? Any possibility of an incorrect part? Lastly, we all know Commemorative rifles from Winchester (same as pistols from Colt) were not intended or expected to be fired - I have found the QC and fitting is almost always worse on these firearms vs. standard production models. Might just be an example of this.

I would think (but I honestly don't know) they would be similarly hardened or the bolt would become, over time, a sacrificial wear item; running the risk of wearing and no longer pressing the hammer rearward enough. I also wonder what is considered acceptable bolt deflection on the 94? My 94 Winchesters are in a safe 60 miles from where I am currently - I'll take a look tomorrow to see if the bolt deflects similarly.

I don't disagree on the metal removal direction. But just an observation - one that has served me well. When two surfaces meet and material must be removed to clearance... Grind on the surface that is cheapest and easier to replace. I would consider removing metal from the hammer.

Do not misunderstand me - I fully understand the "fingernails on a chalkboard" cringe - when words or phrasing are tossed through the proverbial wood chipper. And I enjoy the mental image of the verbal speed bump, with our brains suspension and undercarriage being needlessly assaulted by an inappropriate speed limiter. But spoken language evolves and divests itself of outdated, outgrown words, phrasings and customs. These change of meaning verbal components occur quickly, even within single generations. The written word is much slower to react and adapt to new realities - and future generations will find our adherence to certain sentence structures and word phrasings/ meanings as odd as some find reading Olde English or Shakespeare today. Filled with "speed bumps" and word translation. Though, admittedly clip being used as a synonym for magazine still offends me.

I don't know - I wasn't around then. It varied between Hoover Dam and Boulder Dam during the Roosevelt administration - but after Roosevelt; it was named "Hoover Dam" by Congress. There have been numerous attempts to revert to the Boulder name since then - but the official name is the "Hoover" Dam

The sole purpose of a discourse; whether written or verbal is the communication and transfer of ideas/ their intent and their meanings. While I dislike errors, I do not get overly uncomfortable when verbalized speech is conveyed by misspelled but phonetically correct written speech. I tend to translate written word to speech within my head as I read; so whether vs weather or your vs. you're vs. even yore has little affect on my understanding of the writers intent. In a verbalized format, an interrogative, for example, is conveyed by the cadence of the speaker or the change in lilt at the completion of the question. To translate this same verbal cue to written form requires punctuation and sentence dressing, i.e. a question mark. Another example, the comma informs the reader of a pause, a break, a reflection or when being verbalized, a thought being considered or an inhalation between movements or words. The period informs of the completion of a thought; separation of past and future. It has a verbal equivalent of a long pause and potential change of subject. But a punctuation without associated verbal cue is unnecessary. And our friend, the apostrophe has zero correlation to any verbalized cue - its very minor purpose within written form is almost always satisfied contextually by the surrounding phrasing. I can be as pedantic as anyone; but if intent and information is conveyed then communication has been achieved. Judgement of a person's intelligence, on this matter, only serves to demonstrate misplaced ideas of superiority built upon a foundation of unimportant and swiftly sinking fluff.

Hoover Dam since 1947.

Pistols. Rugers are excellent pistols and the most commonly used ones within our game. They are durable and accessible. But ... "I" do not like the feel of a coil spring mainspring AND "I" (as a Gunfighter and Duelist before that) do not like the Rugers penchant for "Ring around the Ruger" if you happen to slip off the hammer during cocking - I prefer a Colt style action with half cock for that eventuality. I shoot Pietta Great Western II revolvers - which are Colt 2nd generation inspired (I say inspired because they have incorporated some improvements over the Colt, i.e. coil spring hand). But there are many pistols that, if tuned properly, will serve you well. Rifles - the most commonly used rifle within our game are the Italian 73 Winchester (clones); these have the greatest amount of aftermarket tuning and support available. (I am lumping 66 rifles in with the 73) There are numerous levels of tune and smithing available to make the gun exactly what you wish it to be. The Miroku Winchester 73 is a fine rifle but does not share the aftermarket parts of the Italian 73's The Marlin 94 used to be an extremely attractive option to the 73 and was the premier rifle in our game before the tuned short stoked 73's appeared. Over the last 15-20 years, quality declines and price increases have made the Marlins less common for new shooters. The 92 rifles, Winchester, Rossi, etc. can be tuned and can run fairly well - but they are a step down from the top tier of 73 and Marlin 94. G Force Arms has recently introduced a new line of 92 rifles at attractive pricing; but while I have handled a couple - I've not shot one or seen one in a competition environment. So caveat emptor. Henry Big Boy, Winchester 94 - just say no and trust us on this. Henry 1860 (Italian, American repro or original) - not common and not cheap. Some are very good with them; but is primarily a "style points" choice as there are better tools for our game. Shotguns. I do not shoot a SxS so I can simply parrot others and convey what I observe. We shoot the fewest rounds thru our shotguns of any gun in our game and yet - the trainwrecks and match destroying events are very commonly shotgun related. Do not skimp on your shotgun. I would ALWAYS recommend contacting a quality shotgun Smith and see if they have shotguns in stock that they have gone thru and can vouch for. I shoot a 1897 Winchester. I happen to shoot originals, but there are SOME reproduction versions that can be made to work well. I like a pump shotgun - it fits me and I'm fairly decent with one. But it is more complex than a SxS and you have to learn what fails and how to repair. 1887 shotguns - some run, some do not - the quantity of folks that can make them run in competition and can make them work on a bench are few. Keep that in mind if you choose to row against the tide.