Good Mil-spec 1911

[Joshboyfutre]

Looking at buying a Springfield Mil-spec 1911 for $600. Opinion on this pistol? Other models that are better? Any input is appreciated.

 

[FL-NC]

God solid gun. Much like what we were issued prior to that junky italian pistol. I lucked out and got a used one for $500 in great shape with professionally installed Novak dovetail sights. I GOT to have sights like that on one I'm going to use. Otherwise I would have bought the one Remington makes.

 

[CNobbe]

I had two mil-spec Springers. I bought one new and it had to go back to Springfield for some repair, should have never left the factory apparently, but they were great about fixing it. I don't care for the Remington 1911s, the Springfield and Colt models will hold their value better.

 

[Ed Ames]

What are you after with this gun?

My only problem with the Springfield mil-spec is that it isn't particularly close to mil-spec and I don't know why they use that name. Springfield used to sell a model called the GI that was a lot closer but even there I think they opened up the election port and did other changes. The mil-spec is actually a modern civilian spec gun with fixed sights.

If your goal is something that looks like a gun the US military once issued, I think Cimarron has a more true military spec 1911, at about the same price.

If your goal is a modern 1911 I think it comes down to how you will use it. If you want a range gun the Springfield RO or Taurus may be worth looking at. RIA makes a number of sharp Tactical and tricked out models with ambi safeties, adjustable sights, rails for lights, and so on for about the same money. If you have a bit more money S&W, Ruger, SIG, and others make nice mid-grade guns. Then there are probably another 100+ choices if your goals are more unusual.

Disclaimer: I have a Springfield Stainless GI, and several RIAs, in my 1911 drawer.

 

[steveracer]

I found mine (many years ago now) to be accurate and reliable, but it bit the crap out of my hand. A Commander hammer and some work with a small stone fixed that, and it was excellent after that. The new owner LOVED it when I sold it.

 

[eastbank]

i just bought a early springfield armory 1911A-1 .45 auto, before buying it i fired 21 rounds with out a hicup and then stripped it to clean it and found very good finished internal parts and have since fired and other 79 rounds with out a problem. when the weather brakes i will see if it will run 200 straight, if so it will become a carry pistol. eastbank.

 

[Ibmikey]

If you want a modern pistol that replicates the GI pistols the Auto Ordnance of the past few years does it. I am not talking about the older Auto Ord. Pistols that were blued and carved out with a butter knife, but the Kahr made total GI pistols made since about 2010. I believe it has the FP safety but other than that is GI looking down to the tiny sights.

 

[bannockburn]

My very early production Springfield Armory M1911 A1 is probably very close to being Mil-Spec though I couldn't say that for sure. The slide, frame, and all of the parts can interchange with any other 1911 that I have in my collection.

 

[pblanc]

I have heard good things about the SA mil-spec model 1911. I actually have the SA model 1911 A1 "GI 45" that Ed Ames spoke of, which has been discontinued by Springfield Armory.

Unless you are looking for a replica of an original model 1911 A1 I think you are much better off with the mil-spec model. The GI 45 does not have a lowered and flared ejection port and mine has had ejection failures. The GI model has replicas of the original tiny sights that are all but useless for anyone over the age of 20, and probably useless even for them. The GI model has vertical cocking serrations on the back of the slide more true to the original Colt model. Both the GI and mil-spec models have the original style somewhat narrow grip safety, spurred hammer, and short trigger. The narrow grip safety with somewhat square edges hurts some shooter's hands (doesn't bother mine), and the trigger is going to be too short for optimal reach for many with medium size or larger hands. Both the GI and the mil-spec models have a single-sided safety, but the shelf on the safety lever is larger than that on the original Colt model.

I think that SA basically took a model 1911 that was largely similar to the original Colt model and made the minimum changes to provide adequate reliability and function (usable sights, lowered and flared ejection port) to come up with the mil-spec.

My GI model 1911 has had a match barrel bushing and a longer trigger installed, as well as usable sights and shims to widen the grips a bit. It shoots nicely and is quite accurate despite its reliability issues. Based on what I have heard about the SA mil-spec I would not hesitate to buy it, but if it were me I would still need to change the trigger.

 

[MIL-DOT]

In your price range, you're not going to do any better than the Springfield. A year+ back, I scored a LNIB stainless Mil-spec for $550, and even got an extra 8-rd mag and a 100-rds of Federal FMJ's tossed in. That pistol has been fantastic !! Dead-nuts accurate and 100% with numerous ammos, including hollow points.
Just yesterday, another Springfield 1911 popped up on my local Armslist for $550 (I couldn't place the model, one of the higher end ones with the beavertail, Novaks, and front slide serations), and it's KILLING me not to have the money to jump on it !! I'll bet it's gone already.
They have a great reputation, and the guys on the 1911 forum rave about Springfield's customer service, you just can't go wrong, IMO.

 

[Jaytothekizzay]

I looked for one for a long time couldn't get one a few years ago...I settled for a colt....I say definitely go for it

 

[Zerodefect]

Colt 1991

CZ 1911

Turnbull

 

[Joshboyfutre]

Went ahead and put some money down to secure it (only one for sale) gonna pay galf on wed. Other half first of march. I think it's a good deal on a good gun for me. Fairly happy

 

[johnmcl]

Josh,

I think you are going to do just fine with your Springfield. That platform is well thought of and an frequent starting point for serious custom upgrades.

Keep us posted.

 

[Valkman]

I bought a Mil-Spec in the late 90's and what a great gun! When I got the chance to make knives for a gunsmith in exchange for custom work I jumped at it and sent him the Mil-Spec. Many delays resulted in a lot more custom work and now it is a full custom and a wonderful shooter. Get the SA Mil-Spec.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I can't speak to all the military type 1911s, I con only tell you what I have. I bought a used Springfield 1911-A1 and will probably never sell it.

 

[PabloJ]

Looking at buying a Springfield Mil-spec 1911 for $600. Opinion on this pistol? Other models that are better? Any input is appreciated.

I picked up second-hand M45A1 Mil-spec 1911 for $1300+tax. That is the only current production Mil-spec out there that I'm aware of.

 

[atblis]

The Colt WW1 reproductions were kinda neat.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=541213568

 

[Sergei Mosin]

A Springfield Mil-Spec was my first 1911. It's been carried a fair bit and is presently one of my ready service weapons.

 

[Slamfire]

I hated the tiny sights found on the first Mil Spec 1911 SA's. I always hated the original military sights, too small.

The pistol itself is a good solid firearm, well built and made out of better materials than the original military M1911's. Well, I assume. The originals were all plain carbon steel with a surface hardening. I assume late model pistols are alloy steels. Modern pistols are also made on computer controlled production lines that make WW2 era and earlier production lines look positively stone age. The mil spec SA's I handled were tighter than any original military M1911 that I handled. I only handled a few, but I do know the ones left in military inventory were rebuilt so many times that they were totally worn out. One bud, who qualified with one in the 70's, said it would not group on a chalk board.

If SA has improved the sights, I might go buy one if they kept the prices low.

 

[Hangingrock]

Mil-Spec as applied to currently produced 1911-A1 clones is manufacturing jargon. In order to be Mil-Spec all parts would have to be to Mil-Spec drawings with tolerances and materials specified per those documents.

 

[Slamfire]

Mil-Spec as applied to currently produced 1911-A1 clones is manufacturing jargon. In order to be Mil-Spec all parts would have to be to Mil-Spec drawings with tolerances and materials specified per those documents.

For a M1911 I would agree, the pistol would have to be built according to the military technical data package and meet whatever product specifications there are on the M1911. A bud of mine was able to get M1911 drawings, he said, through the freedom of information act!. Anyway, according to bud, the drawings had dimensional errors! I don't doubt it, back in the day when draftsman inked drawings, dimensions in part drawings often were off, and if you added all the lengths of sub tier parts, often the total length was longer or shorter than the OAL of the end item! Modern CAD software shows dimensional intolerances today, but back then, you had to manually add them up.

Mil spec is a highly mis used advertising term. Since Clinton administration Version 1.0, the Department of Defense made a deliberate decision to go with "Performance Specs" instead of "Product Specs". Product specifications were basically, build to print. Performance specs are "I want something that does this", "weighs no more than this", "shoots this well", etc. The Government is supposed to test the item to see that it performs as required, and if so, and the item is put into inventory, assigned a NSN, it is now "mil spec". It is possible for an item to meet the requirements of a performance spec, but unless the maker shows test data that it did, whatever claims about "mil-spec ness" are all advertising hype.

Advertisers are able to get away with their claims because of the ignorance the American public has about Department of Defense Acquisition. Just as Hillary Clinton is getting away from criminal prosecution by claiming that her classified emails are being "retro actively" classified. The American public has no clue about the classification process, and does not know that her emails are only classified if the State Department Classification guide says they were classified. They were classified if the content met the classification levels listed in her Classification Guide and have been classified ever since she wrote her emails. Apparently she was too stupid to know she was sending out state secrets over an open network. Since the vast number of Americans are as ignorant of the classification process as Hillary, they believe that going back and determining that the lady was putting out classified material in an unclassified format, is unfair and "retroactively" classifying her emails. This of course, is stupid, and if a little person did the same, they would be in jail, depending on the severity of the security leak.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

I hated the tiny sights found on the first Mil Spec 1911 SA's. I always hated the original military sights, too small. <snip>
If SA has improved the sights, I might go buy one if they kept the prices low.

Three-dot sights now, no more tiny GI sights. That was one of the reasons I chose the Mil-Spec over the GI model they were selling at the time. Grabagun had the parkerized model for $600.18 when I checked just now, which is less than I paid for mine five years ago.