Springfield milspec 1911 vs WW 2 era 1911

A 1911 is a 1911. The early Colts have no magic built into them. History, yes. Magic, no.

The early Springfields were pretty much USGI spec, and good guns. I had a couple and wouldnt mind having them back. They are the only ones though.

Once Springfield got into the 90's, and decided they knew best what the specs should be, it became a totally different expereince, and for me, it wasnt a good one either.

I quit buying them back in the early 2000's and swore Id never buy another "anything" from them. Their rifles went to crap too.

I held out up until this past year, when I broke down and bought one of their Defender series mil-spec 1911's. Sort of started out OK (couldnt, and still cant, take the gun apart without some sort of tool), and after shooting it a bit, it just recently, decided it doesnt want to run right. At least intermittently (so far). Started with 200 grain SWC loads that it didnt seem to have a problem with at first, and now its choking on 230 grain ball.

Over the years, Ive owned right around 40 1911's. The only of those I ever trusted to carry, were either the Colts, or GI guns. They all seem to need some fiddling to get them where you want them, but the Colts were always the most reliable and least problematical for me.

Currently, if you want a WW2 clone at a reasonable price, the best way to go is with the Thompson / Kahr Arms version. The main drawback is that it has a Series 80 internal safety, but that can be removed.

A runner-up would be the RIA (Philippines) gun, but that would require the replacement of the slide to make a WW2 clone. Basically, all you're using from the RIA is the frame.

I have made WW2 clones out of both of these, but they required considerable parts replacement. The RIA more so than the Kahr.

I've got a Springfield Defender 1911 that I like OK. Scratched the GI itch and didnt cost much. Not my favorite 1911, but its OK for what it is.

I'd say a major point potentially against the average GI 1911 is that unless one is lucky - they are fundamentally, pretty used up.

I know..... I KNOW! Some of you have super-solid - extra-tight GI 1911's because they sat on some rack for 85 years but that is most certainly the exception.

FOR them? The highest quality parts available went into manufacturing and building them. Price will continue upwards and - who knows for certain where they've been. I dig holding mine and speculating on their various, potential pasts.


FOR the S.A.:
Everything they say about it if it is accurate and true regarding their interpretation of *mil spec*.
Against... Still gonna have penny pinching bean-counters underscoring EVERY manufacturing issue.

Generally, common sense says get the S.A. and save the *collector* premium on a GI gun. Too, paying a premium for the GI gun precludes the intelligent guy from any permanent modifications.... NOT a problem with the S.A.

Todd

I haven't looked, but are the sistema colts still around? The Modelo 1927!

TheProf said:

I know purists have their opinion of what a real 1911 is... But structurally speaking and in terms of reliability... Aesthetics aside.. how do they compare?

Click to expand...

ApacheCoTodd said:

I'd say a major point potentially against the average GI 1911 is that unless one is lucky - they are fundamentally, pretty used up.

Click to expand...

I agree.

If we're talking about a GI 1911A1 made in 1939, in 1939, vs a Springfield Mil-Spec made today, today, I'd probably put my money on the GI 1911A1. However, today, I'd put my money on the Springfield Mil-Spec, and if it didn't work, I could send it back to Springfield and have them fix it on their excellent warrantee.

Current steel is probably better than the WW II guns, but Springfield does do some odd things with their 1911's, from not generally pining their ejectors, proprietary firing pin size, and probably a few other oddities, but there is a lot to be said for a new gun that is still under warrantee.

The Springfield will be made of better steel and have better sights probably a better trigger. The WWII 1911 will be worn and at least 80 years old, but loaded with history the Springfield will never have.

I have a very early production Springfield Armory M1911A1 and feel it is every bit the equal to any WWII era M1911A1. I also have had any number of vintage Colts from "way back when" and while they were all structurally sound and reliable some needed work and a bit of effort to get them to be accurate as well, (keeping in mind most of these guns were already fairly well used before I got them).
.

Theres really only one way to find out.

kidneyboy said:

A 1911 is a 1911. The early Colts have no magic built into them. History, yes. Magic, no.

Click to expand...

I think I would take the history over magic.
I would love to have an early military issue 1911.

Newer 1911s with the magic built in are plentiful enough. I could get one of those anytime.

The GI guns, like the Colts, just always seemed to work for me. They still usually needed things like better sights, and a reliability package done, so they would run with bullets different than ball, and that just added to reliability as well.

The newer Colts in the 90's were better and some of those things were addressed, but then they started doing things like use plastic parts for the triggers and MSH's, and while they usually worked OK, it was annoying and I would replace those parts with steel.

I seem to be one of the few who actually liked the Series 80 safety additions, and preferred to carry them. A lot of people bitch about that.

And whoever came up with the "the customer has to break the gun in thing" deserves a beating too.

Things should work 100% right out of the box. Something most of the other 1911's Ive had, havent done.

TheProf said:

What about current production Springfields? How do they rate?

Click to expand...

They're really quite good guns.

For a highly rated endorsement; I asked the then, MEUSOC Armorer to build a MEUSOC pistol for me and asked what he wanted me to buy new to start with. He named S.A. without skipping a beat.

High praise indeed.

Todd.

TheProf said:

I'm not really concerned about the purity of looks to that of the original. I'm just wondering if the 1911 that I can afford (Springfield milspec) it's just as reliable as the old 1911's.

Hence, the poll. So keep the replies coming.

(Ok.. I'm lying to myself. I would really like an original 1911. But.. I'm hoping that all of you will say that the mil-spec I have is just as dependable that's the old 1911.

Click to expand...

So your question is whether a new production 1911A1 is as reliable as used pistol that is at least 75 years old. (You would likely be hung from the nearest telephone if you shot a W.W.2 1911A1 that is still new-in-the-box). For the test to be compatible you should use the ammunition the original 1911’s were designed for...230 gr. FMJ. Since only 230 gr. Ball ammunition was all that was used by the military any other bullet style is meaningless.

TheProf said:

What about current production Springfields? How do they rate?

Click to expand...

I bought a new Springfield Mil-Spec almost 5 years ago. I wanted the government issue look, but wasn't looking for an exact clone. The Springfield has bigger sights, lowered & flared ejection port and a throated stainless barrel. The theater barrel and lowered & flared ejection port are supposed to be upgraded to make the gun more reliable. Don't know if it works but mine has worked fine even with hollow points and it's more accurate than I am

Spats McGee said:

I've had two Springfield Armory GI models (now discontinued) in the last 10 years. The first ran really well, but was stolen shortly after I got it. Of course.


The second one was more finicky at first, but a visit to my gunsmith cured that. It became my EDC for about the next 3 years. I can think of only two failures to feed since it got back from the smith.

Click to expand...

That's what really irks me about Springfield, and some of the other 1911 makers. They just throw something
that looks like a 1911 together, and then you have to deal with the aftermath.

TheProf said:

In any case.. my motivation for my question was to know if I can depend on my current somewhat milspec (Springfield)the same way that the WW2 soldier depended on his 1911. From the stories you hear..they really admired their side arms.

Click to expand...

It's probably a matter of perspective.

In 1944 a gun that worked pretty well may have been better than one that didn't work pretty well. What was the 1911 compared to at the time? Are any of those other guns from WW II that competed with the 1911 still in production?

Today, you can probably find a thread on this forum from some guy that has had his gun fail a 2,000 round challenge of no lube and no cleaning, and say his gun is just not reliable enough to carry. Or somebody say they had three failures to feed (with no account for ammo or magazines) in his last 300 rounds and that is not reliable enough to carry.

Is your Springfield Mil-Spec going to be perfect? Probably not, no machine is. The question is how far from perfect is up to your standards?

If you take a GI 1911, and try and feed it a lot of todays ammo, youre probably going to have problems. The 1911's of that era, were still being made as designed, and using ammo they were meant to shoot.

The 1911's of today, are a bit of a different critter.

As far as the guns that were its contemporaries? Not everyone got stuck on one thing, and designs and developments moved on.

I quit using 1911's because it got so bad, that I couldnt get one of the supposedly "improved" guns that I would/could trust, to work right out of the box.

My SIG's and Glocks? Except for my P238 (yet another 1911 "clone" that had its problems), I would be willing to load the mag and put the gun in a holster, right out of the box. I cant think of one that didnt work like that, and hasnt continued to.

Right now, between the SIG and Glocks, that count would be around 40 some odd guns. About the same number of 1911's Ive had over the years. And, about 75% of those wouldnt fill that bill.

And actually, 100% likely wouldnt, if you include original GI and Colt guns, that hadnt been worked on to deal with more current ammo.

TheProf said:

What about current production Springfields? How do they rate?

Click to expand...

Really (and this comes from 30+ years in manufacturing) it depends if Bob or Steve assembled it and what day it was built.
You know Wednesday's guns are best.

As to the original question the gun handed to a GI in 1944 was probably as reliable of weapon as any ever built, that same gun today who knows.

I don't have anything against SA but I just shoot my 1963 GI 1911 better. Yes I have owned one of each, shot both side by side, but the Colt won on accuracy. And accuracy is what matters most to me.