Something that's come up in comments here and here is this persistent internet myth that the M1911 pistol is some elegant weapon from a more civilized age, that the design required "careful tuning" or "hand-fitting" to manufacture. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The M1911A1 was a service pistol, built with interchangeable parts. Over the course of a couple of years during WWII over a million of the things were produced by a typewriter company, a sewing machine manufacturer, and a railroad signal maker. In 1943, the Ordnance Department relaxed dimensional standards even further to ensure that there would be no problem mixing parts from several primary manufacturers and bunches of subcontractors. Manufacturing the M1911A1 is not rocket surgery; the gun is a stone axe, designed to be maintained in the field by draftee armorers using drop-in parts.
However, the result of all that is a reliable, heavy gun with an eight-pound trigger pull, mediocre accuracy, and half the magazine capacity of modern duty pistols, yet one that would still cost over a thousand dollars in today’s economy, because machining steel isn’t cheap.
So various commercial manufacturers started tightening tolerances to improve accuracy, and hand-fitting lockwork to improve trigger pull, and substituting cheaper manufacturing techniques and materials for smaller parts in order to keep the costs out of the stratosphere, and that's how we wind up where we are today, with "1911" being a term as generic as "Kleenex" and applied to almost anything even vaguely shaped like an M1911.
My ’66 Colt is, in essence, a GI gun with improved sights, ergonomics, and trigger; all the crucial parts are dimensioned properly and made from the correct materials. The extractor is still the old Colt part, and nothing's been done to the gun to "make it reliable" because it’s outstandingly reliable as it sits, stubby GI ejector and all. It’s not particularly accurate, however; certainly no more so than any modern polymer service gun and probably far less so than the better examples of the breed, and has barely over half the magazine capacity while weighing two-and-a-half pounds. A manufacturer could build and sell a roughly equivalent gun today for probably not too much over $1,000, but why would they?
Personally, I mostly stay with the 1911 because of sunk costs, and because it's a pistol that is stupid easy to shoot fast and accurately. That, and I like having a sidearm that I know from the ground up, for which I specified every single part. But that's because guns are my hobby. To quote Larry Vickers: "[i]f ... you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock."