To my mind the answer to your question is not a very simple one. First, Rocks tend to be very elemental 1911's; no alloy frames or snazzy finishes, just steel and Parkerizing. That very simplicity may be the allure of the GI-series Rocks that despite modified ejection ports still evoke the original "Government-Issue" basic character down to the "thumbnail" sights. Second, while Rocks are inexpensive compared to a Kimber, SA or Ruger 1911, they are not cheaply made; the materials and workmanship are well above the cheese-level of many currently made automatics and light years beyond the "Saturday-night Specials" of 40-years ago. That inexpensive investment requirement means that when one succumbs to the inevitable urge to personalize or "improve" the gun, the thought of many, MANY dollars being compromised isn't there as much. It is analogous to hot-rodding; the cars chosen to be souped-up most often weren't Cadillacs or Lincolns, but Fords and Chevys; inexpensive but reliable cars that could benefit most from the time, money and ingenuity lavished on them. A Rock doesn't cost the moon for the average man so that leaves more money for aftermarket triggers, sights, grip scales and let us not forget; way-more money for ammo!
Most of us Rockheads wouldn't mind owning a Les Baer or (please, God!) an Ed Brown Signature Model; but we're pretty happy with our Filipino ironmongery and tickled to death with the warranty and customer service. Most of us just shoot what we can afford and don't feel cheated with our choice at all. So it's not that we don't respect the Kimbers out there; we just see no reason to feel inferior because of our Rock Islands.
|