Springfield 1911 milspec mistake

[TheProf]

I just bought Springfield mil-spec 1911. It is a beautiful gun and for the price range a fantastic value. The quality is there ..for an entry level gun. I am almost convinced that the 1911 issuperior to any Glocks I own. And I am saying this as Glock fan for many many years.

However buying this particular model was a mistake on my part I had not research it enough so it was my fault. The beavertail grip safety is so skinny that he digs into the web of my hands it just feels horrible.

I am planning to sell this gun. What I did not realize was there was a big difference between various types of grip safeties out there and I happen to have pick the one that feels absolutely horrible. my Glocks feels so much nicer in comparison. Yes, my blocky g30s actually felt ergonomically superior after 50 rounds fired with the Springfield.

I saw a review that mentioned this but did not take it to heart. The gun felt fine at the store...but after 50 rounds fired I regret my purchase.


So learn from my mistake.... If you are new to 1911s. Yes, I am still planning to buy another 1911.

 

[Slamfire]

This is my "mil spec" RIA.





The configuration of the grip safety reflects the pre WW1 standard operating procedure for the carry of the pistol. The pistol was to be carried, round in the chamber, hammer down, pistol in the flap holster. The primary user of the pistol was the Horse Cavalry. Upon drawing the pistol the user cocked the hammer. Since one hand was to be holding the reins, the hammer was expected to be thumb cocked. If the Horse Calvary user needed, he could make the pistol safe with one hand. The A1 configuration, which is the configuration of most "mil spec" 1911's, were still designed for hammer cocking. The pre WW1 versions, that is the 1911 version, the grip safety was even smaller and hammer bite was common. The grip safety in the A1 version, the tang was made longer, to protect from hammer bite, but not enough long enough to prevent the user from thumb cocking the pistol.

So, if you want a 1926 vintage A1 configuration 1911, you are going to have to live with tactical reasoning of the times. It reflects the carry and combat philosophy of the period.

This is an early mil spec Springfield Armory that has been extensively modified.



The mil spec grip safety has been removed and a beavertail grip safety installed This is much more comfortable to shoot, does not dig a hole in the web of the shooting hand. However, it makes thumb cocking virtually impossible. This pistol was designed around the carry concept of cocked and locked. To shoot this, you must ride the elongated thumb safety, with your thumb, or you run the very real risk of knocking the safety into the "safe" position, when you want the safety to be "off". This configuration, in my opinion, was designed to meet the needs of competitors in quick draw games. I am of the opinion that carrying a 1911 cocked and locked is risky as the safety is easily bumped off. You can find lots of threads where this has happened. And then, with these extended safeties, easily bumped on, when the shooter wants the safety off.

I have expressed my opinion on later configuration 1911's in this thread:

1911 Reliability for Self Defense?
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/1911-reliability-for-self-defense.845516/page-5

 

[drband]

If you like 1911's, there are plenty of aftermarket parts to "customize" a basic GI model to your liking and comfort at little expense.

 

[ess45]

My Milspec, I modified myself.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Yes, you should be able to have the RIA modified more cheaply than the penalty for selling it and buying another.

 

[JTQ]

I just bought Springfield mil-spec 1911.

However buying this particular model was a mistake on my part I had not research it enough so it was my fault. The beavertail grip safety is so skinny that he digs into the web of my hands it just feels horrible.

I am planning to sell this gun. What I did not realize was there was a big difference between various types of grip safeties out there and I happen to have pick the one that feels absolutely horrible.

So learn from my mistake.... If you are new to 1911s. Yes, I am still planning to buy another 1911.

Key point, the Springfield Mil-Spec does not come with a beavertail grip safety. Like all (OK, some obscure version may not) 1911's, it has a grip safety, but not a beavertail grip safety. It has a GI grip safety.

In all the "I'm new to the platform, what 1911 should I get?" threads, the only two things I tell people to decide on is ...

1) Do you want/need a beavertail grip safety (hopefully folks understand the difference between a GI and a beavertail grip safety)

2) Do you want/need adjustable sights.

Not all 1911 grip tangs are the same, especially those cut for a GI grip safety vs those cut for a beavertail grip safety, and not all 1911 sight dovetails are the same especially the fixed vs adjustable dovetails. Since the 1911 is not a plug and play gun like the Glock or AR, if you choose wrong on either of those choices, chances are you're going to pay a gunsmith to either grind or weld (or both) to fix your choice.

 

[thomas15]

1911s are like Glocks in that there is an endless supply of aftermarket thingies to buy that allow the user to customize to perfection.

 

[JTQ]

1911s are like Glocks in that there is an endless supply of aftermarket thingies to buy that allow the user to customize to perfection.

The difference is, the old saying "there are no drop in parts for a 1911", is pretty accurate. Conversely, nearly every aftermarket part for Glock's snaps right in.

In addition, nearly all Glock's (1. Only one company makes Glock's. 2. Gen 5 may be an exception) have the same sight dovetails. There are dozens of 1911 makers and there are different sight dovetails all over the place. Even if you just limited your choices to Colt's only, there are at least three different sight dovetails you'll need to contend with.

 

[AlexanderA]

The difference is, the old saying "there are no drop in parts for a 1911", is pretty accurate.

It's easy to overstate this. (Provided you stick to a milspec gun.) Yes, some parts may require minor fitting.

 

[AlexanderA]

I am planning to sell this gun. What I did not realize was there was a big difference between various types of grip safeties out there and I happen to have pick the one that feels absolutely horrible.

Why don't you simply replace the grip safety rather than selling the gun?

 

[JR24]

It would be much cheaper to get an extended beavertail installed (either by yourself or a gunsmith) than to sell the SA and buy another one.

Assuming you like the rest of the gun's features.

Me, I love 1911s, but mine gotta have an extended beavertail, safety lever, medium or long trigger, flat mainspring housing and decent sights.

I've cycled through more 1911s than I'd like to admit and found my sweet spot is all these things. My other two preferences, for a carry piece, are a commander length slide/barrel (4.25") and a bobtail grip.

Be careful OP. Once you get the 1911 bug, they multiply and fast!

 

[JTQ]

Usually, installing a beavertail grip safety on a gun with GI grip tangs, requires grinding on those tangs to get the grip safety to fit.

 

[AlexanderA]

This is my "mil spec" RIA.

The "mil spec" RIA has at least 3 glaring differences from the WW2 gun: the beveled ejection port, the configuration of the grip safety, and the length of the trigger (it's midway between the GI "long" and "short" triggers). Nevertheless, the receiver (if you ignore the beveled magazine well) makes a fine basis for building a WW2 clone. I had a bunch of GI parts (including slides, barrels, etc.) which I used to "correct" two RIA guns -- one of which started out as a 9 mm.

Nevertheless, the Thompson/Kahr GI model is closer, out of the box, to the WW2 standard than the RIA is. The big drawback to the Thompson/Kahr is the Series 80 firing pin safety. That can be removed and replaced with GI parts, as long as you use a special spacer in the frame. At least the firing pin safety is not externally visible.

If you are trying to replicate a WW2 gun, the Thompson/Kahr will end up being more affordable.

 

[JTQ]

It's easy to overstate this. (Provided you stick to a milspec gun.)

I guess one could argue just how "mil spec" a Springfield Mil-Spec is.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...p-in-beavertail-for-springer-mil-spec.125355/

 

[earplug]

With my hand and grip I have found the GI grip safety is more reliable then a beaver tail type safety. My high grip will push the beaver tail up instead of in. Just some information to share.

 

[Otto]

Usually, installing a beavertail grip safety on a gun with GI grip tangs, requires grinding on those tangs to get the grip safety to fit.

Yep....and even after fitting you'll still end up with an unsightly gap. The only true drop-in was a Kings #204 grip safety but the company is no longer in business. And the Springfield Custom shop stopped fitting beaver tails as well. So selling a gun that you don't like is probably the best option.
I have a Mil Spec too but I reload and only shoot soft target loads....thus no hammer bite.

 

[thomas15]

I guess one could argue just how "mil spec" a Springfield Mil-Spec is.

In my work we are in the military/aerospace electronics industry. I would venture to guess, based on experience, that there are numerous mil-specs covering most if not all of the materials, workmanship standards, environmental requirements, manufacturer quality systems and so forth that any supplier supplying 1911s (or whatever) to the actual military would need to meet.

There probably is a 1911 system print complete with NSN that a supplier must meet, that print would have flow downs of both a general, workmanship standards and some of a specific nature such as metal grade and finishes. A good question to ponder or ask Springfield would be which mil-spec or mil-specs does the mil-spec 1911 meet and do they use approved suppliers? I doubt they meet all of them, the top print probably calls out qualification (some type of environmental life test and such) that would make the firearm in the civilian market much more expensive than necessary and not do anything at all for ease of use or accuracy. Plus approved suppliers (if used) also have the extra overhead required if military suppliers in general that would also add to the cost of the gun.

 

[Mizar]

May I offer my 2 cents (because I will offer you a cheap solution)? Remove the grip safety and add a slight bevel to the problem areas with a small oval file then cold blue to blend it in. Don't overdo it - a small bevel, just to break the sharp edges is all it needs. Then change your grip. You don't have to grip it like there is no tomorrow and you want to bury that gun in the palm of your hand - leave that to the competition crowd and the low drag tactical operators who even go to the restroom with their pimped-up ARs and tactical vests on. Just grip it firmly and accept the simple fact that a 1911 won't feel like a Glock. Because it's not a Glock... Just get used to it.

 

[JTQ]

In my work we are in the military/aerospace ...

Don't get too deep into it.

The Springfield Mil-Spec is just a name. It doesn't indicate the gun is "mil spec". It's just a marketing name for a particular pistol in the Springfield line-up that has "GI-ish" sights, grip safety, mainspring housing, and trigger. None of which, themselves (OK maybe a non-ILS version of their mainspring housing may be "mil spec") are in fact mil spec.

 

[Slamfire]

Don't get too deep into it.

The Springfield Mil-Spec is just a name. It doesn't indicate the gun is "mil spec". It's just a marketing name for a particular pistol in the Springfield line-up that has "GI-ish" sights, grip safety, mainspring housing, and trigger. None of which, themselves (OK maybe a non-ILS version of their mainspring housing may be "mil spec") are in fact mil spec.

+1

Mil Spec is basically a marketing term. There was a time when the Government owned the technical data packages and maintained configuration management. Now, the contractors own the TDP's, and at best, the Government can get drawings to buy spare parts.

Personally, I prefer the beveled ejection port on my RIA as the original GI ejection port will dent brass. And, I like a shorter trigger. And, the original WW2 and early GI guns were made from plain carbon steels, which are inferior to the alloy steels used in the RIA. The machining on the RIA is really good, no slop between slide and frame.

And, in terms of claiming mil spec, just how many 1911's is the US Government buying for its Armed Forces? In the most current pistol purchase, just how many pistols were purchased, and how many of those were 1911?

Might as well be arguing that the Luger is mil spec, even though, the Germans stopped issuing those in WW2.

 

[BSA1]

There is no need to sell your gun. You can easily install a beavertail grip safety that does not require any modification to your gun. I put one on one of my S.A.'s years ago and it works fine. I mean to install one that requires grinding the tang for a cleaner look but have never got around to it. The gun has a lot of other modifications done to it but I just have never got around to changing the safety since it works fine.

Wilson Combat offers a drop-in beavertail grip safety for only $36.00. Mine was a true drop-in with no adjustment needed but if you are not familiar with the operation of the 1911 you should have a gunsmith double check it.

https://shopwilsoncombat.com/Beavertail-Grip-Safety-Drop-In-Government-Blue/productinfo/429BG/

 

[paulsj]

I just bought Springfield mil-spec 1911. It is a beautiful gun and for the price range a fantastic value. The quality is there ..for an entry level gun. I am almost convinced that the 1911 issuperior to any Glocks I own. And I am saying this as Glock fan for many many years.

However buying this particular model was a mistake on my part I had not research it enough so it was my fault. The beavertail grip safety is so skinny that he digs into the web of my hands it just feels horrible.

I am planning to sell this gun. What I did not realize was there was a big difference between various types of grip safeties out there and I happen to have pick the one that feels absolutely horrible. my Glocks feels so much nicer in comparison. Yes, my blocky g30s actually felt ergonomically superior after 50 rounds fired with the Springfield.

I saw a review that mentioned this but did not take it to heart. The gun felt fine at the store...but after 50 rounds fired I regret my purchase.


So learn from my mistake.... If you are new to 1911s. Yes, I am still planning to buy another 1911.

Accumulated recoil fatigue is less for G21 than for GI type 1911.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Accumulated recoil fatigue is less for G21 than for GI type 1911.

Was there an experiment that developed such data? I would like to see that. Or are we talking either personal experience or anecdote? Perhaps “in my opinion” would have been in order in your post.

 

[paulsj]

I found G20 with 180gr @1200+fps easier to shoot than my 1911 with 230gr GI ball. It must be just me because when I told that to couple of range guys they just laughed saying I was the first person that told them that. The 10mm auto has fearome reputation. One must have big ........to shot one.
If one wants to make an impression PMC ammo is the way to go. While not full power it generates huge amount of flash.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I found G20 with 180gr @1200+fps easier to shoot than my 1911 with 230gr GI ball. It must be just me because when I told that to couple of range guys they just laughed saying I was the first person that told them that. The 10mm auto has fearome reputation. One must have big ........to shot one.

Sure. That I believe. Momentum, which translates to recoil depends more on bullet and powder mass than energy does. In your comparison, the 230 gr .45 ACP would only have to be moving 939 fps (assuming equal weights of powder in the two bullets) for the recoil to feel about like the 10 mm. Assuming comparable system weights of course.