Colt or Springfield

[turrican]

I have decided that my next purchase will be a 1911. I am not into competiton. I just like shooting. I want somehting to add to my collection and shoot too. I wan't a mil spec. Can anybody explain the pros/cons between Colt and Springfield. I am taliking 600.00 range mil spec types or series 80 Colts.

[bgcc11]

The springfield milspec has a lowered ejection port and better sights than a basic Colt. And it is near $400 used.
Check out-
http://www.sportingarms.com/

SPGFLD 1911-A1 STANDARD MIL-SPEC PARKERIZED .45
Pistol

$479.00

COLT O1991 M1991A1 5" MATTE BLACK NEW ROLLMARK .45
Pistol

$549.00

[WalterGA]

I'm trying to sell a 1991A1 for a friend. The "rollmark" question came up. What's the differences in the rollmarks, and how are the pistols different?

[bgcc11]

Originally posted by WalterGA
I'm trying to sell a 1991A1 for a friend. The "rollmark" question came up. What's the differences in the rollmarks, and how are the pistols different?

Colt has never ceased making the 1911 since its debut back in the year 1912. The basic design has remained the same throughout all these years, although a number of minor internal changes have been made from time to time. In 1983 the Series 80 models were introduced with the new firing pin safety system, which guarded against an accidental discharge should a loaded pistol be dropped onto a hard surface. In 1991 Colt revamped their 1911 line by turning the basic Government Model into a value-priced item. They did this by dropping the practice of polishing the flats and using walnut grips, and instead adopting a less expensive all-matte finish with rubber grips. This new variation was named the M1991A1, but it was really just a marketing ploy to catch up to competitors who were making less expensive clones of the 1911. Only a year later the rest of Colt's 1911 line was updated with many of the custom features buyers had been asking for, thus creating the "Enhanced" line of pistols. So while Colt began chasing after the "factory custom" market with those, the M1991A1 soldiered along as one of the few "mil-spec" options available to consumers who wanted a basic 1911-type pistol. However it appears the market is once again changing, as many buyers tired of the saturated "custom" 1911 market are now demanding the polished flats and classic lines of older 1911s once again.

While Colt continues to offer "factory custom" 1911s in the form of their new XSE models, it was recently decided that the all-matte M1991A1 model had about run its course and no longer offered the buyer much. Probably the reason for this assessment was the fact that Colt had to increase prices to curb riding costs, and as a result the "value priced" M1991A1 wasn't that much of a value anymore. Colt's decision then was to improve the appearance of the product, which hopefully would justify the price increases and make it more appealing to the buying public. First to go was the old "COLT M1991A1" rollmark on the slide, which many people had complained looked ugly since it was nothing more than a billboard-sized marking in big letters. The new pistols are rollmarked in a new, much more pleasing manner that says "Colt's Government Model 45 Automatic Caliber" in a much more eye-pleasing font. The flat surfaces of the slide and frame are given a semi-gloss brushed finish, which while not as finely-polished as older Colts still looks better than the dull all-matte finish of the M1991A1-marked pistols. The blued models are given double-diamond checkered rosewood grips, while the stainless ones retain the black checkered rubber grips of the older models. The long plastic trigger was changed to a new black anodized aluminum one with a serrated face. It is worth mentioning at this point that Colt didn't simply turn off the lights one evening, and then the next morning begin making pistols with the new changes. The changes were incremental over the course of several months. As a result, pistols can be found that still say "M1991A1" yet have polished slide flats, and others exist with the new slide rollmark and polished slide but with all-matte frames.

http://usgi1911.tripod.com/series80/
NRM
http://usgi1911.tripod.com/series80/left.jpg

[WalterGA]

Great post! Now I know. Thanks much.

[J.P.]

Locally,I've seen NIB Springfield Mil-specs for $439.
Colt series 80s for $699

[turrican]

So do you think the Springfield is the better choice?

[Bill G Gonzales]

Springfield actually markets two mil-specs. One is the WWII mil-spec and the other is the original mil-spec. Our shop sells the WWII for $389 and the original mil-spec for $453. I think the original is the better buy. It has better sights, a lowered ejection port, and a beveled mag well. If you can pick up the NM version, it has a one piece stainless barrel and bushing for the same price.

[J.P.]

If I were going to select a 'plain-jane' base model,I'd get the Colt.

[Mortarman]

Nice post bgcc11! The SA 1911s are quite outstanding for the price, but I've had no experience with the Colts. You'll probably be quite satisfied with either model. If I were to choose, I'd pick the SA due to my positive experiences with them.

[NetNinja]

Nice job bgcc11!!

;Y ^c

[prezzz]

Originally posted by bgcc11
The springfield milspec has a lowered ejection port and better sights than a basic Colt. And it is near $400 used.
Check out-
http://www.sportingarms.com/

SPGFLD 1911-A1 STANDARD MIL-SPEC PARKERIZED .45
Pistol

$479.00

COLT O1991 M1991A1 5" MATTE BLACK NEW ROLLMARK .45
Pistol

$549.00

Colt 1991 vs. Springfield Mil-Spec? Both are base models.

They both have identical lowered ejection ports and the sights are identical as well. When comparing to the Spring GI, the Colt sights are much better. I'm trying to figure out what 2 guns you are comparing here.

[MAGNUMMAN]

I had the Springfield original Mil-Spec NM and traded it in on a Colt 1991 NRM. I could not believe how much better the Colt was than the Springer.The Colt is assemnbled to ordinance spec.(John Brownings and the U.S. Armies original specs), the Springer is not. Definitely get the Colt 1991 NRM if you are only going to have one 1991.

[turrican]

I was leaning toward the colt for name only but now I have a reason, thanks Magnumman. BTW does the Colt have the lowered ejection port like the SPringfield. Some people here have said it does and others say it doesnt.

[MAGNUMMAN]

It does have a lowered ejection port. It also has a dimpled barrel, making Colts the best feeding 1911s on the planet. The Colt also comes with Chip Mc Cormick roewood grips. The Colt comes with 2 excellent Colt mags instead of the Springer's 1 excellent metalform mag. The Colt also has fewer MIM parts than the Mil-Spec NM. These things easily make the Colt worth a few extra bucks. Also, the Colt is blued and not parkerized like the Springer.

[Shane Pratt]

Colt or the new Mil-spec Springfield bi-tone.

[turrican]

OK, on tuesday I am putting some money on my first Colt.

[gwalchmai]

Sounds like a "Ginger v. MaryAnn" question to me. I have a Springfield GI that I've put about 1500 rounds through since December without a hitch, but from what I hear the Colts are certainly worth the money. You'll probably be happy with whichever you choose. In fact, I'm seriously thinking about a Colt when I find a nice used one at the right price.

[Rob96]

I was in this position this past June, I went with the Colt for all of the reasons mentioned above.

[Sig Fever]

I have a Springfield 1911 for sale check the "Fireams" section...


http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=252126

[prezzz]

COLT

I own both. Go with Colt.

[WalterGA]

Neither Ginger nor MaryAnn was made in Brazil.

[prezzz]

;z ;*

[gwalchmai]

Originally posted by WalterGA
Neither Ginger nor MaryAnn was made in Brazil. Good point, Walter, but if they were the fit and function would still be just fine. ;)

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by WalterGA
Neither Ginger nor MaryAnn was made in Brazil.

Were they made on the island?

[turrican]

So which is built in Brasil?

[WalterGA]

Brazil; Springfield. U.S.A.; Colt.

[Mortarman]

Are some SA parts still made in Brazil? I remember seeing some of the older SA frames stamped "Made in Brazil", but mine says "Made in USA".

[gwalchmai]

It's my understanding that some parts are made in Brazil and final assy is done in the US.

[Cameron Lamont]

The new Colts are awesome!
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/CameronLamont/Colt_Govt_Right.jpg

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/CameronLamont/Colt_Govt_Left.jpg

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/CameronLamont/Target_15yrd_7shot.jpg

You will love it!
Cameron

[turrican]

I am getting a colt. BTW Cameron, what kind of camera do you have? Those pictures came out realy nice.

[skfullen]

I have an SA MilSpec, a Colt, Series 80 Stainless, and a Colt, Series 70.

All perform flawlessly. The Series 70 is far superior in fit, finish, and pointability.

[Cameron Lamont]

The camera is a Sony Cyber Shot DSC-P92 up to 5 mega pix, my brother-in-law gave it to me as a gift. :)

I hope you get the Colt after seeing those pics. Make sure you clearfully check the pistol over, every inch. Make sure that you are taking home a good one.

My Colt in the pic, was and is still flawless, and has not had a failure yet.


Plus it has the Horsey.


Cameron

[Gary42141]

I'd go for the Springfield GI model, under $400. Slightly higher if you prefer stainless.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by gwalchmai
It's my understanding that some parts are made in Brazil and final assy is done in the US.

The frames on some models are made in Brazil. Don't know about the rest of the parts.

Since mine works well, I don't care either. ;f

[gwalchmai]

Originally posted by Gary42141
The frames on some models are made in Brazil. Don't know about the rest of the parts.

Since mine works well, I don't care either. ;f Me, either, My GI works just fine. ;)

[one good cop]

go colt

[turrican]

I did go with the Colt and she is a beuty. 500 rounds and not a single hiccup.

[adamsbomb]

Me 2, looked at all of em, posted all over the internet for days, all said and done bought an stainless xse just like the one above, for what its worth, the nrm base colt in stainless was 640 or so out the door, picked up the xse for 776.00 out the door.

[turrican]

Thats about what I paid for mine too.

[wildehond]

Colt

[Rob96]

Who can say no to these?

[tackdriver]

Originally posted by WalterGA
Neither Ginger nor MaryAnn was made in Brazil.

Sorry Walter, but I might be swayed by one of the Brazilian women frequenting the beach in those oh-so-small bikinis!

Oh, and I hear their steel is quite fine too.

[SeanK]

You are comparing a Honda Accord to a BMW. The difference between colt and Springfield is that the Colt has more icing on the cake. I've had a GI the fit was tight, it functioned flawless after a good cleaning, it cost me only $400, it’s nearly identical to the first 1911A1's that rolled off in 1926.

You will here people say that the Colt is put together better, well my Springfield came very tight, all the springs were a b**tch to push or pull, and frame to slide fit made it hard to field strip the first time. After a couple of boxes of ammo and some dry firing it broke in perfectally, its smooth as butter now, anytime a gun breaks in at about 200 rounds you know the company has quality control down tight, that’s exactly the number of rounds a gun should need to function flawlessly like it has.

The Springfield TRP pistol has been choosen as the pistol for the FBI's Hostage Rescue Teams, over ALL other contenders.

One of the biggest items to consider is the colt worth an extra $200-300 if you’re on a tight budget no in my opinion. Remember two things Springfield has had an excellent reputation for Customer service, and all the products they carry have a lifetime warranty. You can’t go wrong with Springfield

As for it made in Brazil, with all do respect would you take an American car over a foreign car. What an American company pays a Brazil working is probably 3 times as much what a Brazil company would. Judging from the fit finish of my gun, Brazilian workers have a good work ethic, they would have to, theirs probably a line out the spingfield factory their of people waiting to take their job if they don't perform.

Before you buy a colt, go to this link:

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-why.shtml

[MAGNUMMAN]

SeanK:
You are mistaken. The Colt's prior to WW11 were assembled according to ordinance specs. Ordinance specs. were determined through testing by John Browning and the U.S. Army as the assembly specs. which will result in ultimate reliability under combat conditions. A few years ago, Colt once again started assembling their 1911s according to odrinance specs. Springfields have never been assembled to ordinance specs, thus, they are NOT identical to 1926 Colts. Colts have dimpled barrels and feed ramps with less of an angle than Springfields.These 2 factors and assembly according to ordinance specs. make Colts more reliable than Springfields. Also, Colts have fewer MIM parts than Springfields. Colts are blued while the Springfield G.I. is parkerized. I have a Colt NRM 1991 and I just purchased a Springfield G.I. Both are great guns. Is the Colt worth a couple hundred more? That is a no brainer. YES!!! ;a

[quinch]

My first and only Colt 1911 was a WWII repro. I ordered it, and it was the scariest looking piece of junk I'd ever seen.
I sent it back unfired, since I would hate to lose a hand, and many months and lies from Colt later I was sent an acceptable one.

The Springfields I've shot all seem fine, and their WWII mil-spec looks like a smoking deal.

[SeanK]

Originally posted by MAGNUMMAN
SeanK:
You are mistaken. The Colt's prior to WW11 were assembled according to ordinance specs. Ordinance specs. were determined through testing by John Browning and the U.S. Army as the assembly specs. which will result in ultimate reliability under combat conditions. A few years ago, Colt once again started assembling their 1911s according to odrinance specs. Springfields have never been assembled to ordinance specs, thus, they are NOT identical to 1926 Colts. Colts have dimpled barrels and feed ramps with less of an angle than Springfields.These 2 factors and assembly according to ordinance specs. make Colts more reliable than Springfields. Also, Colts have fewer MIM parts than Springfields. Colts are blued while the Springfield G.I. is parkerized. I have a Colt NRM 1991 and I just purchased a Springfield G.I. Both are great guns. Is the Colt worth a couple hundred more? That is a no brainer. YES!!! ;a

For you it does, for others it isn’t it, it all depends on how much money you have. People on this forum make the Springfield out to be a piece of junk because some of the parts are made in Brazil; the pistols are still assembled in this country. The quality is still top notch why, because I looked at the pistol before I bought it, I’ve bought many guns, afterwards I’m keeping it because it works so good and it cost so little.

The company still has a rep to protect, which they have. Colt has just STARTED making pistols to ordnance spec, does that make the modern colts before this change junk, I would say not. Also my pistol is 100% reliable, the fit was tight, the finish is flawless, its backed by a life time warranty, the company has great customer service, one of its pistols in its line has been chosen for the sidearm for one of the most elite and highly trained swat teams in the world. End of story in my book.

Its amazing how some will thumb their nose at another pistol just because it cost less then theirs, so it must be lower quality, bullsh**t. It’s because Springfield GI’s are flying out the door of my local gun shop so fast the owner has to hunt for them. Its classic economics, make up in price lost on each pistol with shear number sold. Another way of saying it is that Springfield offers the most, not the best but the most, bang for your buck.


So if the colt are a better a pistol then a Springfield, then a Las Bear or Wilson combat which cost 1500-5000 must be better then your colt right? I doubt you would agree. I’m amazed at how many les bear and Wilson combats that I’ve seen in action on the line that I wouldn’t trust weighing down my papers on my desk much less my life.

It’s the company not, the price, that makes a pistol, colts quality is legendary; Springfield’s are a close second.

[Nalapombu]

I have 2 brand new Colt 1911 pistols, the NRM EXACTLY like the one pictured above and the XSE Combat Commander. I love both of them and they both look great. I have not had the chance to get out to the range with them, but if they shoot as good as they look, I am in for a good time.
As for the Springfields, I almost bought a Mil-Spec at the time I bought the NRM. The only thing that stopped me was that I liked the Roll Mark on the new Colt's, they looked better than the Springers. That said I would not hesitate for a second to buy a Springer. I am wanting one of those WW2 models real bad right now too. I handled one in my dealers the other day and it was really nice and for the price you just can't hardly beat it. The Springer WW2 is only slightly more than the Rock Island Armory and to me that isn't even a fair comparison. I would go with the Springer every time in that matchup.

Nala

[FB3]

SeanK, you are mistaken about the FBI pistol. It is the Springfield Professional. The SA TRP is a cheaper copy of the Pro and not close to it as far as fit, or quality of parts go. I have a Pro and had a TRP. There is a lot of difference between the pistols, and the price is one of them. The Pro is a great pistol. The TRP is a good pistol.

I also prefer Colts to Springfields. That is just a personal preference, and has nothing to do with the price of the pistols. The Colt 1991A1 and the Springfield Mil Spec are somewhat equivalent, but the Colt has a better finish and internal parts. Now, there is nothing really wrong with the SA Mil Spec. They are offered at a really good price, and I feel that there is value at that price point.

The average shooter will probably not notice the difference between the two brands. The Colts do hold their value more than the Springfields, but it all boils down to what the individual likes and wants.

[rubijeep]

i have both. i bought the colt for the name and tradition of it all, but there is NOTHING

[rubijeep]

i have both. i bought the colt for the name and tradition of it all, but there is NOTHING wrong with a springer. my loaded and my mil spec feed everything from swc to ball to hollow points. but the colt holds its value better, because everyone knows the colt name. i have seen some new colts with a lot of trigger creep, thumb safety rough and notchy to engage, but then again my colt is as good as a factory gun gets. if you want something to wear out and not worry so much about, get the springer, if you want something to leave bone stock and pass on to your kids, get the colt

[auto45]

This is one of those choices where I don't really think you can go that wrong.

I would go by looks if you can't decide. IMHO, they are both good guns.

If you want the flat/parkerized look, buy the Springfield.
Polished blue, buy the Colt.

If you feel "better" with a firing pin safety, buy the Colt.

Good luck

[turrican]

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SPRINGFIELDS!!!!!!!
They are just fine and very well made. End of story.

.........But I bought a Colt:)

gwalchmai - GINGER, GINGER GINGER!

[G26man]

Originally posted by Vinkman
gwalchmai - GINGER, GINGER GINGER! Naaa....Mary Ann!

[quantico]

I own two colts and one springfield... I am impressed that all three are excellent in fit and finish and all three are reliable. I like the feel of the colts better in my hand... but like the features on the springfield loaded models a lot.... who knows which one will be next... I would be well served with either one .

[M2HB]

I have several Colts and one SA. I carry the SA and sometimes leave it in the car. I have well over $1000 in it after custom work and Bomar tritium night sights. It is a nice pistol, but it is not a Colt. If I had to do it over again, I would trick out a Colt. For the money I have in the SA I could put a couple hundred dollars more and get another Colt Special Combat Government. Live and Learn!

[Jeeps]

Originally posted by Gary42141
The frames on some models are made in Brazil. Don't know about the rest of the parts.

Since mine works well, I don't care either. ;f

Frames and slides are forged in Brazil.

Not sure were the rest of the "little" pieces come from. Springy's are then shipped to the US and fully assembled, built, roadtested and whatever else right here.

[BillK@tcmhmrs.o]

Thanks for the great posts. I have a 1991 Commander that I paid $450 for in 98. I saw a full size one this past weekend for $600 at a gun show. Now I know what happened. I sent mine off and it has a Black T finish now with stag grips. It really is a nice looking gun that is utterly reliable. I have changed the recoil spring out when the old one went bad at about 5,000 rounds. It just keeps going and going and going... Would I buy another - you bet!

[Drjones]

My $0.02 to this old thread:

Colt, no ifs ands or buts.

I just picked up and shot my NRM Colt 1991A1 yesterday, and it is amazing.

Fit and finish are excellent, shot 75 rounds without a hitch. (I know that's not a lot, but I was teaching a couple newbies on some other guns too.... :) )

I also shot it better than I've shot any gun in quite some time. :cool:

Heck, one of the newbie girls I took with me yesterday absolutely fell in love with my Pony.

That and my Desert Eagle. :)

If it isn't a Colt, its just a copy.

Springers are fine pistols and I might like to have one someday, but for now I'm happy with my two Horseys. :)

[SVTNate]

Is this XSE worth the extra cash over the standard 1991A1? I'm leaning towards the XSE, but another option is getting the standard and giving the money I saved to a good local 'smith for trigger work and whatever else I might fancy after shooting it stock for awhile :)

[Drjones]

Originally posted by SVTNate
Is this XSE worth the extra cash over the standard 1991A1? I'm leaning towards the XSE, but another option is getting the standard and giving the money I saved to a good local 'smith for trigger work and whatever else I might fancy after shooting it stock for awhile :)


I'm sorry, I don't know what the XSE is exactly.

Check 1911forums.com they would know.

What 1911 you should buy really depends on you: if you know you are going to want to customize it, it would be easier to buy a gun that already has the stuff you want, unless you really want to do it yourself.

If you aren't sure or want to keep it stock, get a stock gun.

I figure if the 1911 in its basic configuration has been good enough to win two World Wars and protect the lives of our men in Korea and Vietnam as well as countless other battles, then its probably good enough for me. ;) :)


That said, I have also grown to appreciate the looks of some modern, customized 1911's and purchased a Kimber Custom II. Something about that all-black finish that is so appealing.... :) :cool:


Kimbers are great guns too, if you want a 1911 with features like that. Mine has a particularly good trigger from the factory, too. :)

[auto45]

The XSE could be worth the extra money if you want front serrations, extended thumb safety and a commander hammer. Cheaper to convert this model into "Kimber" like features,i.e. just add the beavertail and better sights.

If you want a "mil-spec" type 1911, i.e. don't want extended safeties, etc, then the goverment model would be the better buy.

[p01ic3m4n]

so i take it springfields aren't that great?

i was considering a springfield GI model. i like the hell out of that gun because it's just plain business.

the problem with that is i've owned 2 colts and never had a single problem ever so i'm pretty biased. i just really like the looks of that springfield GI model.

does anyone think the springfield GI model would be acceptable as a duty gun or am i taking a gamble? if colt would make a GI model that looked just like it, i'd be all over it, but i don't like their WWI model nor do i like the ridiculous price.

[prezzz]

Springfields are fine. They're just not a Colt.

[p01ic3m4n]

my question concerns the reliability of the GI model. the sights i can live with.

[G26man]

I've read several posts from those who have bought the Springfield GI model and so far all have been very happy with them. They shoot well and I haven't seen anyone complain of feeding or extraction problems. They don't have lowered ejection ports so they may ding up the brass a little, something to consider if you plan on reloading.

I want some of those "US" branded wooden grips for my Micro Compact!

[prezzz]

Originally posted by p01ic3m4n
i carried a colt 1911 for 7 years on duty. i'm not worried about that, but that wasn't my question.

my question concerns the reliability of the GI model. the sights i can live with.

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/confused/2/confused05.gif Sure would have been helpful if you had phrased it that way. Asking if it's an acceptable duty gun ain't the same as asking if it's reliable.^8

[p01ic3m4n]

Originally posted by prezzz
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/confused/2/confused05.gif Sure would have been helpful if you had phrased it that way. Asking if it's an acceptable duty gun ain't the same as asking if it's reliable.^8

apologies.

i'm referring to the reliability. i've used two SA colts and one DA colt. i couldn't jam them if i wanted to. i have 0 experience with springfield. never shot one, owned one, or even held one.

i just really like the look of the WWII gun. all of my duty guns are box stock so i have no intention of adding anything to it. i just would like to know if i'd be wasting money on a springfield if i bought it as a duty gun. it's going to have to feed reliably, that's all i ask. i have no reservations about buying another colt, but if the GI is a good gun, i want one.

[prezzz]

No problem bud.

There are a couple of factors that would keep me from choosing it as a Duty gun though. One of these is the fact that it does not have a lowered ejection port which is not a problem most of the time, but we are talking "duty weapon" which changes my way of thinking a bit. This gun would be used to defend your life on a daily basis and the non-lowered ejection port is a disadvantage compared to the lowered ejection port.

It's also, designed to feed 230 gr. ball ammo which is another disadvantage. Some hollow points may feed, some may not.

The Springer GI I had was very reliable, but I only used hardball ammo in it. It's a good pistol, but just not my first choice for a duty weapon. That's not what Springfield had in mind when they came out with the WWII. It's more of a niche/retro/fad kind of weapon in my opinion.

My choice would be 1991A1 Colt or a Springfield GI (non WWII).

[G26man]

Originally posted by prezzz
This gun would be used to defend your life on a daily basis and the non-lowered ejection port is a disadvantage compared to the lowered ejection port. ^8 How is a non-lowered ejection port a disadvantage in a defensive scenario?

Originally posted by prezzz
It's also, designed to feed 230 gr. ball ammo which is another disadvantage. Some hollow points may feed, some may not..Admittedly I haven't owned one like you have but I have read reviews on them and they seemed to feed hollowpoints well, in case you didn't try any. Of course I don't remember which ones and don't know what traits your gun exhibited. Certainly there could be some HPs that some examples won't feed reliably. I'm just stating what I've read for the benefit of those who didn't. Not trying to refute you or anything, I just figure the more information the better with which to make an informed decision.


Originally posted by prezzz
My choice would be 1991A1 Colt or a Springfield GI (non WWII).. Maybe I'm missing something, but according to everything I've read including the SA web site the GI model IS the "WWII" model with the WWII type sights and non-lowered ejection port. Maybe you meant the Mil-Spec?

[prezzz]

How is a non-lowered ejection port a disadvantage in a defensive scenario?

It's not really a disadvantage in the scenario. It's a disadvantage over the same 1911 with a lowered port.

I don't have any real world knowledge on the hollow points because I didn't try any. But it did look like the feed ramps and barrels on my other 1911's were better suited to feed hollow points than my WWII GI.

Maybe you meant the Mil-Spec?

Yeah....sorry about that. On some other 1911 forums, they have been refering to them as the "GI" (regular Mil-Spec) and the WWII.

Is it a nice pistol? Heck yeah, it's a great pistol with what Springfield built it to be which is a WWII replica. However, there have been changes to the 1911 since WWII that make the 1911 a more reliable pistol.

Is it a "good duty gun"? My opinion is no for the reasons mentioned earlier. I don't think a duty gun should be used because one likes the way it looks. I think a duty gun is tool that is used to defend life and property and one should use the best tool for this purpose. There are better choices in the 1911 platform that is designed for more for the purpose that he is going to use it. Of course, when he says "duty gun", I assume that he will be responsible for life and property in some way or another.

[Drjones]

Originally posted by prezzz
No problem bud.

There are a couple of factors that would keep me from choosing it as a Duty gun though. One of these is the fact that it does not have a lowered ejection port which is not a problem most of the time, but we are talking "duty weapon" which changes my way of thinking a bit. This gun would be used to defend your life on a daily basis and the non-lowered ejection port is a disadvantage compared to the lowered ejection port.

The 1911, without a lowered ejection port, has been carried and used by millions of men throughout two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and countless other battles and non-combat situations.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the gun as designed, and the gun has close to 100 years of real world experience that agrees with me.


It's also, designed to feed 230 gr. ball ammo which is another disadvantage. Some hollow points may feed, some may not.

Most current production 1911's are throated and ramped to feed JHPs.

Of course, as with any gun, you should test your defensive ammo in it before trusting your life to it.



The Springer GI I had was very reliable, but I only used hardball ammo in it. It's a good pistol, but just not my first choice for a duty weapon. That's not what Springfield had in mind when they came out with the WWII. It's more of a niche/retro/fad kind of weapon in my opinion.

My choice would be 1991A1 Colt or a Springfield GI (non WWII).

Again, I defer to the 1911's long and distinguished track record to back up my assertion that the gun is fine as designed.

And although the Springfield WWII repro might not have been designed specifically for sale as a duty/carry gun, I see absolutely no reason why that gun should not be perfectly fine for carry after a few hundred rounds for a reliability check.

Again, the gun in that basic configuration has a 100 year history of excellent performance.

It's not as if we're talking about a "real" vs. wallhanger/replica sword.

[prezzz]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the gun as designed, and the gun has close to 100 years of real world experience that agrees with me.

Then why does every current maker of 1911's that I know of, including Colt, lower the ejection port? It must be better.

I will take a mulligan and start over and answer the original question.

"would it be acceptable as a duty weapon"?

Yes.

It is the best 1911 option as a duty weapon?

No. If you think it would be, I'd like to hear why.

[gwalchmai]

Originally posted by prezzz
Then does every current maker of 1911's that I know of, including Colt, lower the ejection port. It must be better. Careful with your logic. How much better do front slide serrations make 1911s?

Lowering the port can give the ejector tuning a bit more margin for error, I guess, but if it's tuned right it won't matter, will it?

[prezzz]

Careful with your logic. How much better do front slide serrations make 1911s?

Probably a great deal better for the people that like them and use them.

Not sure what your point was since front cocking serrations have absolutley nothing to do with the reliablity of function.

Lowering the port can give the ejector tuning a bit more margin for error, I guess, but if it's tuned right it won't matter, will it?

So tell me, what do you think is a better design for 1911's? Lowered or not lowered?

[gwalchmai]

Originally posted by prezzz
Not sure what your point was since front cocking serrations have absolutley nothing to do with the reliablity of function.My point is that manufacturers don't always add things just because they make the pistol "better". Sometimes they add things to make it sell better.

So tell me, what do you think is a better design for 1911's? Lowered or not lowered? Neither. Both can be made to work equally well. I have both, and they both work. If lowered ports were a necessity they would have been part of the original design, or at least incorporated into A1. They're certainly not a detriment, though.

[G26man]

It's my understanding that the ejection port is lowered simply to prevent the brass from getting beat up, not for reliability. In a military application (as was originally designed) it's a moot point, but for private shooters who reload it's very desireable.

[prezzz]

The lowered and flared ejection port does indeed help reloaders, as it drastically reduces dented brass. However, that's not the original reason for it's existance.

When your slide moves rearward, the spent case is dragged rearward as well, until it hits the ejector. The case is held (by the extractor) on the right side, the ejector strikes it on the left, and so it is sent spinning to the right, out the ejection port. If the case strikes part of the slide on it's way out, it may not be ejected cleanly, causing a jam. So it follows that if you make the ejection port bigger, it's less likely the empty case will hit anything on the way out.

JM Browning originally designed the 1911 with a lowered port but the Army, when proving it, decided that the more horizontal trajectory might put a hot case down the neck of a buddy in the trenches or foxholes...not good! So they changed the design to eject more upward by raising that ejection port. So, a lowered and flared port does in fact make for better ejection and less dents on the case. It's simple, the larger the hole for something to exit, the better the chance that it will go out.

[gwalchmai]

Originally posted by prezzz
The lowered and flared ejection port does indeed help reloaders, as it drastically reduces dented brass. However, that's not the original reason for it's existance.Dented brass has no effect on reloading. The dent goes away when the case is resized.
When your slide moves rearward, the spent case is dragged rearward as well, until it hits the ejector. The case is held (by the extractor) on the right side, the ejector strikes it on the left, and so it is sent spinning to the right, out the ejection port. If the case strikes part of the slide on it's way out, it may not be ejected cleanly, causing a jam. So it follows that if you make the ejection port bigger, it's less likely the empty case will hit anything on the way out. As I said before, in a properly tuned pistol the brass will not hang up on the port. And the ejector kicks the brass up as well as right. The larger port makes the adjustment less critical, that's all.
JM Browning originally designed the 1911 with a lowered port but the Army, when proving it, decided that the more horizontal trajectory might put a hot case down the neck of a buddy in the trenches or foxholes...not good! So they changed the design to eject more upward by raising that ejection port. Er, the 1911 was designed as a cavalry pistol. Besides, my GI model throws brass higher and farther than my Kimber (with the lowered and flared port). Throwing brass up means it has to come down, many times in your shirt. I just can't see how your logic makes any sense.

[G26man]

Originally posted by gwalchmai
Besides, my GI model throws brass higher and farther than my Kimber (with the lowered and flared port). Throwing brass up means it has to come down, many times in your shirt. I just can't see how your logic makes any sense. Prezz was saying that John B. redesigned the port by making it higher at the military's request so that it would throw the brass higher and not horizontally at the next guy. Your experience with your GI model confirms that design. Makes sense to me! ;Y

[prezzz]

Originally posted by G26man
Prezz was saying that John B. redesigned the port by making it higher at the military's request so that it would throw the brass higher and not horizontally at the next guy. Your experience with your GI model confirms that design. Makes sense to me! ;Y

http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/happy/3/happy15.gif

Thanks G26man. This guy is so determined to prove something, he's not paying attention.

[p01ic3m4n]

having been through two 1991 colts, i was going to get another, but i like the simplicity and looks of the springfield GI. i just don't have any experience with springfield. the two colt 1991A1s i've carried had somewhat of a lowered ejection port, but it wasn't near as low as the current springfield mil-specs. the colts i carried were bought close to 10 years ago.

i always try out my gun before i carry it. the only time i traded one in before putting it in a holster was a glock 19 that just wouldn't feed anything reliably (and i traded my first colt for it :( ). i do that with every gun i have ever carried.

i don't care about reloading or dented brass. i'm just in it for cosmetics, or lack thereof, more than anything. sights are no big deal. the sights on my colts were plain black, no white dots of any kind. i still managed to gain several perfect scores at qualification time with them.

my big curiosity is whether i can expect the same reliability with the springfield that i've had with the colts. money isn't the issue; although $350 for a 1911 is always nice to see. i'm just one of those no-frills type people. troopers carried an almost identical piece all over the globe so i suspect the smith tweaks as of late are nothing more than cosmetic.

i would love to have a GI looking gun sticking out of my holster.

[quinch]

Dented brass has no effect on reloading. The dent goes away when the case is resized.

Ummm.... No....

[prezzz]

my GI model throws brass higher and farther than my Kimber (with the lowered and flared port.

Whos cares? The non-lowered ejection port is inferior to a lowered ejection port. If it wasn't, they would still be making it that way today as the standard design and not only as a "retro". Your statement about they do it just because it's what sells better is ridiculous.

Dented brass has no effect on reloading. The dent goes away when the case is resized.

Wrong...Once again.

As I said before, in a properly tuned pistol the brass will not hang up on the port. And the ejector kicks the brass up as well as right

You present a perfect world scenario which doen't work for the average "Joe" and his 1911. Everyone isn't a gunsmith to keep their 1911 in perfect tuned condition. So why not have a little advantage if your 1911 isn't perfectly tuned?

Er, the 1911 was designed as a cavalry pistol.
I can't believe you wasted your time to type that.

[gwalchmai]

OK, lords of the 1911, let me recap so I can benefit from your wisdom.

1) Brass which has been dented by striking a non-lowered ejection port cannot be reloaded because resizing does not return it to spec.

2) The 1911 was originally designed with a lowered and flared ejection port but the Army changed JMB's design because they were concerned about ejected brass hitting neighboring soldiers to the right of the shooter, in adjacent foxholes no less. So they preferred an "inferior" design which dents the brass and leads to jamming.

3) Cavalry tactics had no influence on the design of the 1911.

4) Lowered and flared ejection ports are necessary to ensure proper functioning of a 1911.

5) Gun manufacturers don't add design elements based on marketing concerns, but only for functional reasons.

I hope I got it all right. ;Q

[Jeeps]

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/usa/weapons/coltmodel1911/fig1.jpg
John Moses Browning.

The name demands respect from all who know him. Creator of some of the greatest firearms to ever be built he is a master gunsmith.

It was 1896. John and his brother approach a firearms company by the name of Colt. It was located in Hartford Connecticut and signed John and his brother on as private developers and designers for the company. For 15 years they developed the greatest, most enduring pistol of their time and a long time to come. The pistol, The Colt Model 1911 Caliber .45 ACP. The greatest of the great.

Colt M1911. That name will bring back nostalgic memories of all who have wielded it and others who hear great things. Two Medals of Honor were awarded that solely included the use of the M1911. The pistol that has lasted 8 decades since development had humble beginnings.

The idea for the 1911 was brewed in the Philippines. While fighting the Moro tribe in the Philippines the Army ascertained that its trusty .38 Long Pistols was incapable of putting down an attacker. The Moro tribe before engaging in battle spent many hours meditating and taking very potent drugs. This left them impervious to pain and would commonly be able to take 3-4 .38 bullets before going down. Therefore the Army needed a new plan and a new pistol.

They turned to the professional gunsmiths of the civilian world. After setting the parameters of the weapon they were looking for the Army accepted designs from Colt, Luger, Savage, Knoble, Bergmann, White-Merrill and Smith & Wesson. All these designs were subjected to thorough tests by the Army Ordnance dept. and Browning’s design and the Savage design were both selected in 1907.

After the initial selection more tests were performed and neither design met the Army’s specifications for perfection. To keep the task on target the Army appointed a selection committee in 1911 to determine the new firearm of the Army. The committee sent both companies back to the drawing boards.

To prove his handgun and its superiority Browning personally left his home to spend all his time in the factory, which was located in Hartford Connecticut. While there he made absolutely sure that all the parts of the handgun were perfect in every way.

Then on March 3, 1911 Browning resubmitted his Handgun to the committee for more torture tests. The test consisted of having each gun fire 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and then the pistol would be allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and some more tests would then be conducted for performance.

Low and behold Browning’s handgun surpassed all expectations and passed the tests with flying colors. At the conclusion of the tests the pistol has set a new record for testing by firing the 6000 rounds. Later on Browning would break his own record with a recoil-operated machine gun that would fire 40000 rounds in testing.

The pistol was determined to be the best the market had to offer. The weapon was accurate even under battle conditions, it was reliable, easy to disassemble and replace broken parts and it endured the harshest of conditions.



Thus on March 29 1911, the Colt pistol was selected as the official sidearm of the US Military. It was named Colt, Model 1911, Caliber .45 ACP. The ACP stood for Automatic Colt Pistol.

Thus when the Great War (WWI) started there were about 60,000 1911’s to go around. So great was the pistol that it hit production lines like a firestorm. By May 1918 American economic might was pumping out 1,000 1911’s per day. Adding to that astounding figure by the summer of 1918 it had increased to 2,200 pistols per day. More pistols needed to be produced however so other companies were licensed to build them.

The government then approached such companies like Remington-UMC and Winchester Repeating Arms co. The UMC plant at Bridgeport Connecticut was the largest firearms production line in the US at that time. They were already pumping out various Browning firearms such as the Browning Automatic Rifle and the M2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun.

Another production plant, The Springfield Armory in Massachucetts began production of 1911’s. Their primary production was the M1903 Springfield’s so they only produced a certain number of pistols a day.

Other such smaller companies were also enlisted but they never produced 1911’s due to the wars end in 1918.

The pistol was also licensed to some foreign countries for production. Norway acquired a license to produce 1911’s in 1915. Ironically when Nazi Germany invaded Norway in WWII they had the company start producing the weapons to be used by their military. Only 1,000 were produced however.

Thus the pistol endured with few changes until the 1920’s. The mainspring housing that was flat was replaced with an arched one. The hammer was shortened and so was the trigger. The safety handle was lengthened to avoid slipping. This new model was dubbed the 1911 A1. Thus the A1 was produced throughout WWII and the design was picked up by several companies to complete orders.

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/usa/weapons/coltmodel1911/fig3.jpg

The Army also tried another production experiment in the early 1940’s. They had the Singer Sewing Company tool up to produce 1911’s. The experiment entailed the production of the pistols without prior gunsmithing knowledge. Only about 500 pistols were produced however due to the start of WWII all the machinery was transferred to the Ithaca Gun Company.

During the war companies such as Colt, Ithaca, Remington-Rand Company, and the Union Switch and Signal Company were building 1911’s. The only change, from the walnut checkered grip to a brown plastic grip. By the wars end there were 2.7 million pistols in the Army’s belt.

After the war came more splendors for the sidearm. Several foreign countries adopted it because it was just that good. Countries like Greece and Argentina were on the list.

After the war Colt introduced a new and improved 1911 based on the A1. The barrel was shortened from 5” to 4.25”. And the housing and barrel were made of Aluminum, a revolutionary turn for pistols. The M1911 was the first to be made of this material. Due to the new changes the pistol became known as the “Commander” or later on the “Light Commander”. The public received it with great joy.

The next development targeted the concealed weapons user. Colt shortened the barrel on the 1911 to a smaller 3.25”. This new pistol could only carry 6 rounds per clip and was easy to conceal. Thus it was dubbed the “Officer”.

The next development to roll off the colt’s line was the MKIV Series 80. These pistols had some new developments that included a safety firing pin. This would stop the pistol from being fired unless the trigger was pulled at the end of its intended path. This was a bad institution because the shooters of the time wanted better trigger pull. This new safety mechanism affected trigger pull.

The last upgrade of the still very much alive pistol was in the nineties. Colt announced the new “Enhanced Series”. This new series was not really new at all just a modified series 80 gun. It included most modifications done by most professional shooters. The new features mainly included modifications to improve ergonomics, and the way the gun would be seated in your hand.

Thus the saga of a pistol is still continuing even after 8 decades the design originally made by John Moses Browning is still alive and well and largely unchanged since conception. The weapon is popular among shooters of this day and age and will continue its popularity until the end, which hopefully will never come.

[prezzz]

gwalchmai,

Our discussion is becoming counter productive at this point and I don't think that either one of us will be successful in convincing the other one.

I vote we agree to disagree, part with a friendly hand shake, and let the thread resume the original topic.:)

[fxntime]

3 springers 15 colts, springers are fine 1911s especially like my ww2 which is fitted better then my milspec. But...they are not colts. From my usgi colts to my nrm commander, and in between I have personally found that my colts are still my favorites. And when and if you sell....a colt, will be worth more and sell faster as long as it has not been monkied with. I especially like my 38 special 1911. dirt cheap to shoot and accurate too.

[Nalapombu]

Turrican, there are several choices you can make here. My pick would be the stock Colt NRM. The Springers are good too and very nice for the money. The XSE series have front serrations, a Colt Beavertail which most people don't like because it is DOWN swept, a commander hammer and thats about it. The safety is the same as that on a NRM Govt. model.
You first need to decide how much money you want to spend, that's the key. If it's $1000 then much of the advice you aregetting now would be quite different than what it would be if your limit was $500.
Go with the Colt NRM and if you can swing the extra buck get one of the Colt re-issue 70 series, they are about $750 or so. If you want to go up to about $900 or so you can get one of the most beautiful pistols out there right now and be the envy of every 1911 owner, you could get the Colt WWI Repro. It'll take your breath away and I understand that they shoot VERY well too.

Nala