Springfield milspec 1911 vs WW 2 era 1911

[ApacheCoTodd]

Fellas are touching on something that I forgot to mention in my above post.

My S.A., as with most all of them written up, will feed and eject almost anything mass produced in .45 ACP.

I say *almost* only because - even though I have had ZERO issues - some one will note some ammo from some maker that might not operate flawlessly.

Never had a magazine issue either - which is significant with some *1911* manufacturers.

Todd.

 

[rodinal220]

More has been forgotten about the 1911/a1 than has been learned over the decades. JMB designed the 1911/a1 a certain way, there are lots of little things that are important. Many have tried to make their 1911 "better" by doing things like polishing(incorrectly) the feed ramp or breach face and then the gun doesn't work correctly and they declare the 1911 "troublesome" or "unreliable". Simple things like using a magazine that doesn't adhere to JMBs specs and then the gun doesn't run correctly, again they declare the 1911 "finicky". That little bump on the follower has a job to do.
Many manufactures have made 1911 type guns over the years and it was THEIR INTERPRETATION of JMB's design, some worked, some didn't and some worked better than others.

I laugh at todays commenters when they say things like "its an experts gun" or "it has too many parts", "its no longer relevant" .

 

[AK103K]

The best mags Ive used, were either 7 round Colt mags that came with guns, or a batch of USGI 7 round contract mags I got back in the late 80s that were blued and have the larger witness holes. Those are the only mags Ive used, that worked without any mag related issues in all my 1911's. Most of what I still have, are those contract mags.

I have a number of the 7 round Springfield "two hole base" mags as well, and they seem to work well too.

I used to use the Wilson 47D's for my carry mags, but quit after always finding the mags in my reload carriers full of lint and dirt. Those big open slots seemed to let all sorts of crap into the mags, and you needed to constantly clean them.

The Wilson mags were usually OK function wise, but not 100% with everything Ive used them in. Funny thing was with the first batch I got, it said right on the package, "for use with ball ammo", which I found kind of odd. The guns I used them in had been throated and all fed HP's and SWC's without issue, but I wouldnt have thought that their mags would be FMJ only.

One thing Wilson has that really did help with though, was its plastic followers in my Kimber Ultra carry mags. The metal followers in the factory mags, were wearing a groove in the aluminum feed ramp in the frame. Stopped that right away. Didnt do anything to make that gun reliable though. Pretty gun, but aggravating and frustrating as hell.

Mags are something with the 1911's that you really do need to watch and verify they work as they should.


As far as ammo and feeding, up until well into the 80's, most guns needed a T&P to feed anything beyond ball reliably. Some might feed this or that, but you had to vet any ammo you were going to trust.You basically still do.

Even once they started to do what was needed with the "updated" factory guns, it wasnt always a guarantee. I bought one of the Springfield "Loaded" models when they first came out, and that POS wouldnt feed ball reliably out of the box.

The first thing you did if you wanted to feed anything but ball with any of the Series 70 Colts and GI guns, was to send them out for a "reliability package", which was a throat and polish, and a few other things that helped the guns run with anything you put in them, even feeding empty cases. Being able to do that is a pretty good indicator you wont have any trouble with ammo, but, you still really wont know until you shoot the gun.

 

[94045]

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.

Some guys just have bad luck. I've got 3 Kimbers that have never given me a lick of trouble.

Kimber Target..45 ACP
Kimber CDP II Compact .45 ACP (LW CCO Type)
Kimber Custom II GFO SHOT Show Special ($600 new last year)

My Colts have batted .500.
S70 LW Commander .38 Super - 100% with ball and Win STHP.
S70 Combat Commander .45 ACP - Needed an Extractor Tune and Throating before it was 100% with ball and Speer Flying Ashtrays.

I suspect as built the current pistols are better but then I wasn't there to see how many pistols needed tuning in 1943.

 

[Mosin77]

The problem as I see it is that nowadays a US military 1911 is a collector’s item. Which means you can shoot it sparingly but any mishap and you’re altering a collector’s item. And it may be pretty worn out after decades of GI use, anyway. Very cool piece to admire, but not fundamentally a shooting gun. So for the range and the authentic experience (which includes being able to shoot your gun without undue concern for its value) a modern Springfield fits the bill fine.

 

[Old Dog]

As one who actually shot U.S. military 1911s on a regular basis for the first half of my military career (1979-1992, after that, it was the M9), I can tell you that every specimen I was issued (my last issue pistol was a Remington-Rand, but I saw my share of Colts and others) or had occasion to fire shot just fine. The only malfunctions we experienced were typically magazine-related. They were all, fundamentally, shooting guns. Yes, many were quite worn, finish-wise, but I was never issued or shot one that caused me concern.

 

[RON in PA]

I've had experience with .45ACP 1911s made by Springfield(Brazilian made GI), Ruger SR1911, Remington R1, RIA, Smith and Wesson and Colt. All have been reliable with 230 grain ball and 200 grains wadcutter reloads. The Springfield did require some tweaking of the extractor. 1911s made to true GI specks have not been made since 1945, but the current commercial guns that I've had experience with are very reliable with the ammo that the 1911 was meant to shoot, the 230 grain ball.

 

[Garandimal]

The current SA 1911-A1 Mil-Spec is forged steel frame and slide.

They are close tolerance CNC machined and then assembled by chimpanzees.

The MIM parts are arguably as durable as the machined parts they replaced.

The Sights/Bbl./bushing/port are of better material and design.

It is the "center-fold" of 1911-A1's.

​

GR