COLT or SPRINGFIELD ??
Jp
I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New! Win a FULTON ARMORY dedicated .22 AR-15 or a HENRY GOLDEN BOY .22
while protecting your Second Amendment rights in MPFO's latest raffle.
For details see us on the web at http://www.myguns.net/mpfo.php
Buzz Chandler
"Jp" <jpsa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d1h4h3$3nq$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# If you had to choose one, which one would you go for? I want a 1911A1, and
# I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
# compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
# because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments....
#
I don't believe Springfield has "cheap prices". When I bought my
Springfield, I believe it was about the same price as a Colt.
max
wrote:
#If you had to choose one, which one would you go for? I want a 1911A1, and
#I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
#compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
#because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments....
If you're looking for inexpensive, the bottom-end Springfields are
definitely the best bet. The quality's just fine, the finish is good
but not great, and reliability and accuracy are fine. You can't get a
better under-$500 1911 than the Springfield Milspec or GI, IMO.
Once you get up in the $600 and up range, it becomes a matter of
personal preference, features, finish, etc.
max
George B
Springfield will shoot every bit as well and will accept a wider range
of bullet shapes and weights.
Mike Kelly
sort of along the lines of a GI .45. Springfield offers the Mil-Spec in a
couple of versions, and from what I hear it is an OK gun. Colt offer's a
WWI replica that is sort of interesting, and their newer Series 70 pistols
and 1991 pistols seem to be well regarded by Hilton Yam, at least as base
guns for his work. This article may interest you.
http://www.signaturegrade.com/sg/baseguns.html
Colt's popularity is largely nostalgic. Springfield and Kimber also make
good guns. All have had their share of bad quality periods--Kimber, being
"younger" in the 1911A1 market, has perhaps had fewer, but give them time.
Personally, I want to "buy American" for my 1911A1 purchase. My current
1911A1 is a Kimber Custom II Stainless. I like it a lot, it works very
well, but I just want a more "old style" .45 for a "fun gun" (although a
quality working fun gun, since my guns aren't intended for display only). I
am also interested in a pistol without a firing pin safety--in other words,
a Springfield, or a Colt Series 70 (or, coming soon to a distributor near
you--maybe) the Kimber Warrior.
Without knowing what you would want, I can only offer my observations
through research (much of which is on rec.guns). Hilton Yam frequently
offers his advice on www.tacticalformums.com. I am after a functional but
nostalgic piece of machinery. If you want a good carry pistol, it is hard
to go wrong with some of the Kimbers and Springfields--all have gotten
decent reviews. However, out of the box, 1911A1s tend to need more breaking
in and possibly other tweaks to work reliably. I don't believe this is
because they are low quality (barring serious trouble); they were just
designed in an era when hands did more than machines. The modern
Sig-Sauers, HKs (I love my USP .45 as a carry/outdoor sidearm) are designed
under modern manufacturing assumptions, and tend to provide more instant
gratification. Don't let that discourage you from getting a 1911A1 style.
They have served this nation well, and are now doing so, and they are (to
paraphrase a well-know Jedi) "an elegant weapon, from a more civilized
time." My Kimber has fired more than a hundred rounds at a time, without
extra lubrication or cleaning, which may not be a "torture test," but proves
that it functions, in winter, summer, and in between, dependably.
Besides, properly made and assembled, there is so much less plastic on
1911A1s (we will ignore, for the time being, the offensive mainspring
housing on my Kimber, which will, for purely aesthetic reasons, be done away
with).
Good luck in your quest for a quality 1911A1. If you are looking for one
gun that will satisfy all your wants, the I really wish you luck. I don't
know if such a gun exists. Fortunately, they made more than one gun.
Choosing from among the many decent choices is the problem, not finding a
good gun. Case in point: for whatever reason, I have recently developed a
yen for an M1 Garand.
Mike Kelly
Oh (P.S.)--Mr. Yam and some other smiths have noted that stainless is not as
good as carbon steel for later custom work. Apparently it also has more
friction. Food for thought.
M.
"Jp" <jpsa...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d1h4h3$3nq$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# If you had to choose one, which one would you go for? I want a 1911A1, and
# I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
# compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
# because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments...
Christopher Morton
wrote:
#If you had to choose one, which one would you go for? I want a 1911A1, and
#I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
#compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
#because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments....
It depends upon the Colt. I loathe Series 80 guns. My first handgun,
and my current wadcutter .45 is a Series 70 Colt.
I'd choose a Springfield over any Series 80 gun ever made.
--
More blood for oil... in my name!
TJ
the others I had.
TJ
EmailF...@yahoo.com
They do make fine 1911's, but I don't think they're any better than the
rest in the market. IMHO, Springfield is the best bang for the buck
(pun intended). I have a mil-spec that shoots great, I have a "loaded"
model that shoots just a smidge better. I have had no problems with
either.
R.M.R.
to Colt as far as history goes.Not being an expert on 1911's but knowing
a few firearm gurus the skinny today is for one,Colt is living on its
old reputation and for two your paying for its name.
Like Colt I'm sure Springfield had its QC problems in the past and some
shooters may even despise them due to individual problems but from what
I hear,pound for pound Springfield is the way to go today.
I know someone who recently bought a Springfield GI A1 and said it's
very reliable and even digested several brands of hollow points without
dumping a ton of money into it like some Colts demanded.
Hope to let you know first hand once we catch up to each other and I can
get my mitts on it at a range.Personally if it was my choice (and
hopefully soon to be) to buy one or the other I'd go with a stock box
1911 Springfield,Good quality at an affordable price,you could always
put the bells and whistles on at a latter date if that's your choice...
Ray,
(Si vis pacem,
para bellum) U.S.A.
John Oliver
# If you had to choose one, which one would you go for? I want a 1911A1, and
# I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
# compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
# because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments....
I'm thrilled with my SA Loaded 1911 I have the Ultra-Compact, too, but
haven't fired it yet.
--
* John Oliver http://www.john-oliver.net/ *
* California gun owners - protect your rights and join the CRPA today! *
* http://www.crpa.org/ Free 3 month trial membership available *
* San Diego shooters come to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdshooting/ *
Larry L. Taylor
the four Springfields were new. The Colt is Mk IV Series 70 (mid-1980's
production). Don't know the history of the other Springfield. Haven't seen a
recent Colt to know what today's production looks like.
But I wouldn't have any hesitation recommending a Springfield.
"Jp" <> wrote in message news:d1h4h3$3nq$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
chang
#
# IMHO, the Colt is more precision built and has a better finish, but the
# Springfield will shoot every bit as well and will accept a wider range
# of bullet shapes and weights.
Really? Why would the Springfield accept a wider range of bullet shapes
and weights, given that they're both 1911 pattern guns?
Harold Robbins
Mike Kelly wrote:
well, but I just want a more "old style" .45 for a "fun gun" (although a
# quality working fun gun, since my guns aren't intended for display only). I
# am also interested in a pistol without a firing pin safety--in other words,
# a Springfield, or a Colt Series 70 (or, coming soon to a distributor near
# you--maybe) the Kimber Warrior.
#
Can you explain the differences between the Series 70 and the Series 80
Colts? I just bought a Series 80 but havn't received it yet. Would
appreciate your views.
Harold
Harold Robbins
Jp wrote:
# If you had to choose one, which one would you go for? I want a 1911A1, and
# I'm wondering if springlfield's cheap prices has to do with their quality
# compared to Colt's. As to "you get what u paid for" saying... Or is it
# because of Colt's Popularity? Thanks for your comments....
There are quality questions that can be debated forever. But one thing
is certain, no one beats Springfield's customer service. As for Colt,
the quality is there but there's mechanically little difference between
the two guns. But Colt has chosen to disregard the non-military
customers. Kinda like MacIntosh!
Harold
Harold Robbins
Christopher Morton wrote:
# It depends upon the Colt. I loathe Series 80 guns. My first handgun,
# and my current wadcutter .45 is a Series 70 Colt.
#
# I'd choose a Springfield over any Series 80 gun ever made.
What is the difference about a Series 80 Colt? I just ordered one and
I'm curious after reading your remarks.
Harold
Doug McKay
issue appearance. I paid $420 including tax, at a gun show last year.
Looking on Springfield's site, I now see that they've got some new GI
models: a 4" 7+1 Lightweight Champion, and a 5" 13+1 High Capacity,
both in the parkerized GI style. The trigger on the High Capacity is a
long trigger, not the short one as on the standard GI. I presume the
magazine is double-stack, so the grip would be thicker than standard.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-GI.shtml
If you don't like the sights on the GI, one place to get them replaced
is at Yost-Bonitz Custom.
http://www.yost-bonitz.com/products/
Doug McKay
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby
can't chew it." -- Mark Twain
colone...@yahoo.com
widely held to be fine guns, some of the best that Colt has ever put
out. The prices are reasonable, they usually go for around $550 in
most areas. In my opinion this is a fair price for an American made
gun with the Colt name behind it. The Springfields are cheaper because
they are mostly made in Brazil. There have been isolated problems with
them but Springfield is usually pretty good about taking care of them.
The Colts will also hold their value better than the Springfields.
Mike Kelly
understanding is that the Series 80 included a firing pin safety that, in
addition to affecting trigger pull (and the ease with which such triggers
could be worked on by gunsmiths), also provided yet another place for crud
to build up where a field strip could not clean it properly. "Purists"
dislike this in a 1911A1 gun. I have a Kimber II with a similar safety
addition (mechanically different, but the principle is the same), and that
has enough potential buyers dissatisfied that the new Warrior is being made
(soon, if not yet) without the additional safety. There may be other
differences as well, but that is what I am familiar with.
For most people (like me), the issue is probably mostly theoretical. I have
fired a couple of hundred rounds out of my Kimber without stoppage, and have
fired nearly five hundred with only basic cleaning. The trigger safety has
not burped once. For a serious shooter of many hundreds of rounds, or
someone who operates in a more hostile (say, desert...) environment, the
issue may be real. Philosophically, I consider the extra safety silly on a
firearm that has two safeties (and a half-cock notch), and would cheerfully
own one without such liability averse padding, but it is not going to make
me run out and sell my Kimber.
I hope I was helpful.
Regard,
MK
"Harold Robbins" <hero...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:d1q893$g55$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
only). I
> ...
words,
> ...
near
> ...
Mike Kelly
If I understand the current appraisal of Colts, they are better than when I
bought my Series 80 (which I sold to my brother-in-law, and still get to
fire from time to time). The only problem I ever had with it was the silly
front sight came off at first (that was a problem for many owners), and it
did not like some ammo I got at Wal-Mart (too tight in the chamber and would
not feed). Other than that, it ran most other ammunition for a few hundred
rounds at a time without a burp. If the guns are better now, you should be
happy with what you ordered--unless the safety thing causes loss of sleep.
MK
"Harold Robbins" <hero...@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:d1q895$g58$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
John
customers."
Good for them, there's a war on.
I don't know much about Springfield, but my Colt WWI replica is
reliable and accurate.
John
chang
#
# You'll probably get several replies more detailed than mine, but my basic
# understanding is that the Series 80 included a firing pin safety that, in
# addition to affecting trigger pull (and the ease with which such triggers
# could be worked on by gunsmiths), also provided yet another place for crud
# to build up where a field strip could not clean it properly. "Purists"
# dislike this in a 1911A1 gun. I have a Kimber II with a similar safety
# addition (mechanically different, but the principle is the same), and that
# has enough potential buyers dissatisfied that the new Warrior is being made
# (soon, if not yet) without the additional safety. There may be other
# differences as well, but that is what I am familiar with.
#
# For most people (like me), the issue is probably mostly theoretical. I have
# fired a couple of hundred rounds out of my Kimber without stoppage, and have
# fired nearly five hundred with only basic cleaning. The trigger safety has
# not burped once. For a serious shooter of many hundreds of rounds, or
# someone who operates in a more hostile (say, desert...) environment, the
# issue may be real. Philosophically, I consider the extra safety silly on a
# firearm that has two safeties (and a half-cock notch), and would cheerfully
# own one without such liability averse padding, but it is not going to make
# me run out and sell my Kimber.
IMO the Series 80 safety is much more robust than the Kimber safety.
I've never heard of anything going wrong with the Series 80, while
Kimber's has been the subject of much controversy over in 1911forum.com.
The principle might be the same, but the manner of operation is much
different. One is operated by the trigger (Series 80), while the other
by the grip safety. If you can pull the trigger, the gun will fire with
a Series 80. The opposite is not necessarily true with the Kimber. WRT
crud, I had a Series 80 that wasn't detailed until I had 50,000 rounds
through it, shooting mostly lead. Never had a problem with it.
The FP block does serve a useful purpose. It absolutely (well, as much
as possible) will block the FP from moving unless the trigger is pulled
or the grip depressed. How much you value that is up to you. Personally,
I have 1911's with and without the FP block.
Mike Kelly
than I. I was vaguely aware that the Kimber had a grip-safety actuated FP
safety (that was a bragging point of theirs at one point--because it did not
affect trigger pull), but I cannot comment on whether this is more robust
than Colt's Series 80 design. I think it is true that an extra safety is
not necessarily a bad thing, unless it prevents the gun from going bang when
one wants it to...
MK
"chang" <pxch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d20vu9$1pu$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# IMO the Series 80 safety is much more robust than the Kimber safety.
# I've never heard of anything going wrong with the Series 80, while
# Kimber's has been the subject of much controversy over in 1911forum.com.
# The principle might be the same, but the manner of operation is much
# different. One is operated by the trigger (Series 80), while the other
# by the grip safety. If you can pull the trigger, the gun will fire with
# a Series 80. The opposite is not necessarily true with the Kimber. WRT
# crud, I had a Series 80 that wasn't detailed until I had 50,000 rounds
# through it, shooting mostly lead. Never had a problem with it.
#
# The FP block does serve a useful purpose. It absolutely (well, as much
# as possible) will block the FP from moving unless the trigger is pulled
# or the grip depressed. How much you value that is up to you. Personally,
# I have 1911's with and without the FP block.
Roger A. Krupski
The new Colt O1911 is a pretty pistol. It's "carbonia" blued the
same way that the original 1920's era 1911's were. Note that it's
a 1911, NOT a 1911A1. That is, the Colt has the longer trigger, the
wide spur hammer, the flat mainspring housing and no trigger finger
clearance cuts in the frame.
Pros:
* It's a Colt.
* It looks as close to an old 1911 as possible.
* It's beautiful with the charcoal fire blue and original
style "double diamond" wood grips.
* No B.S. firing pin safeties, magazine safeties or any of
the other worthless modern "politically correct" features.
Cons:
* Expensive and hard to find.
* Many parts are cast or MIM (metal injection molded).
* Finish and rollmark quality varies from good to poor.
Now, the Springfield Armory "GI .45":
This pistol is a 1911A1 pattern... short trigger, finger cutouts
in the frame, narrow "combat" hammer, arched mainspring housing.
Pros:
* Frame and slide are FORGED by Imbel (forged is better than cast).
* Barrel is hammer forged (again, good).
* Extremely reliable - mine feeds both round nose and hollow points
flawlessly.
* Has no goofy sites or full length guide rods... built just like
an old 1940's 1911A1.
* Finish is dull flat black Parkerize (good, but not as pretty as
the Colt). Finish is durable.
* Completely parts interchangeable with any other 1911 (except for
the factory mainspring - see below).
Cons:
* Has a ridiculous "Integral Locking Mechanism" (ILS) which uses a
small key to lock or unlock the mainspring mechanism. When locked,
the hammer cannot be cocked and the slide cannot be racked. NOTE
that the ILS can be removed simply by replacing the mainspring
housing with a standard one ALONG WITH a standard mainspring (the
Springfield spring is shorter due to the ILS mechanism and won't
work in a standard housing).
* Has nice double-diamond wood grip panels which would be fine IF
they didn't have a huge "US" carved in the center (GI pistols
never had that!).
My vote goes to the Springfield pistol. I have both an original
1920 Colt 1911 and a new Springfield "GI .45" and they are identical
in handling, feel and function.
Roger
--
#############################################
# Roger A. Krupski <kru...@adelphia.net> #
#############################################
colone...@yahoo.com
"more MIM and cast parts than the Colt"
"non-standard firing pin size"
"forged, machined and assembled in Brazil"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Win a FULTON ARMORY dedicated .22 AR-15 or a HENRY GOLDEN BOY .22 rifle
protecting your Second Amendment rights in MPFO's latest raffle. There
is still time to donate! See us on the web at http://www.myguns.net
85...@dallasdrivers.org
"colone...@yahoo.com" <colone...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# To the "cons" side of the Springfield I would add:
#
# "more MIM and cast parts than the Colt"
Colt: Uses plastic parts. Cast parts are stronger than some of the trash
I've seen from Colt of late.
#
# "non-standard firing pin size"
#
# "forged, machined and assembled in Brazil"
BZZZT. Thanks for playing. Rough forgings made in Brazil, ALL steps other
than that, including machining (which includes the slide rails) are done in
their Geneseo factory. The steel is forged in Itajuba Brazil to SA's
specifications. And last I checked, the Springfield uses the standard
pre-series-70 firing pin.
colone...@yahoo.com
trash
# I've seen from Colt of late.
Colt uses one plastic part - a mainspring housing. I'm speaking of
current production. And Colt uses more barstock parts than Springfield
-- hammer and slide stop for instance.
# BZZZT. Thanks for playing. Rough forgings made in Brazil, ALL steps
other
# than that, including machining (which includes the slide rails) are
done in
# their Geneseo factory.
Some of the higher-end guns are made in the US from Brazilian forgings.
The GI models, at least, are completely made in Brazil. These will be
stamped with an "IMBEL" rollmark.
# And last I checked, the Springfield uses the standard
# pre-series-70 firing pin.
They use a Ti firing pin that has a .075" diameter. This isn't a
common size by anyone's standards. The 9mm/38 firing pin has a nominal
size of .065".
Roger A. Krupski
# # "non-standard firing pin size"
# #
# # "forged, machined and assembled in Brazil"
# BZZZT. Thanks for playing. Rough forgings made in Brazil, ALL steps other
# than that, including machining (which includes the slide rails) are done in
# their Geneseo factory. The steel is forged in Itajuba Brazil to SA's
# specifications. And last I checked, the Springfield uses the standard
# pre-series-70 firing pin.
You are correct. The Springfield "GI .45" uses a standard size firing
pin. I've got an original GI firing pin in mine and it fits fine.
The Springfield part has a different PROFILE and it's made of
titanium instead of steel, but size-wise, old and new are
completely interchangeable.
I modified my Springfield "GI .45" (as much as possible) to make
it into a 1911 (NOT 1911A1) pattern:
* Replaced the trigger with a long 1911 trigger.
* Replaced the hammer with a wide spur 1911 hammer.
* Also installed the sear that the old hammer "lived with"
in it's former life.
* Replaced the slide stop and safety with original
GI parts to match the checker pattern on the hammer.
* Replaced the firing pin with the original GI part.
* Replaced the arched mainspring housing with a lanyard
loop flat housing (and got rid of that stupid "ILS" in
the process!).
* Replaced the grip safety with the smaller 1911 safety
(and yes, now it gives me hammer bite if I don't hold
it properly!)
* Replaced the "US" grips with Hogue double diamond, checkered
Pau Ferro wood (dark, minimal grain - looks like old GI).
* Replaced the factory 16# recoil spring with a Wolff 20#.
* Added a blue fiber Wilson Combat recoil buffer.
* Replaced the recoil spring GUIDE with an original GI part
(strangely, the Springfield guide is smaller in diameter
and doesn't properly grab and hold a standard spring).
Luckily, most of these parts didn't cost me a cent since I
already had an old 1911 that a guy gave me (all parts less
the frame itself) because he tried machining something on
the frame, ruined it, got disgusted and got rid of the pistol.
He only got rid of the serial numbered part (the frame) and
gave me all the rest of the parts (little pins too - everything).
I would have even used the old 1911 slide on my Springfield,
but it's finish does not match the frame (the Colt is blued
and the Springfield is Parkerized).
I also wanted to use the original 1911 barrel, but it's a
little pitted inside and it locks up too tightly. I know
this could be fixed with a different link, but I think it's
better to stick with the new, mirror shiny, non-pitted,
properly fitting barrel that the Springfield came with.
The only things I couldn't "fix" are the -A1 finger reliefs
on the frame and the "1911-A1" rollmark on the slide. Also,
the frame doesn't say "US Government Property" on it... but
otherwise the pistol looks virtually identical to an old GI
M1911.
Roger
--
-------------------------------------------------
Roger A. Krupski <kru...@acsu.buffalo.edu>
State University of New York at Buffalo
-------------------------------------------------
Roger A. Krupski
# # pre-series-70 firing pin.
#
# They use a Ti firing pin that has a .075" diameter. This isn't a
# common size by anyone's standards. The 9mm/38 firing pin has a nominal
# size of .065".
Huh? We're talking about a .45 ACP, not a 9mm or .38
Roger
--
-------------------------------------------------
Roger A. Krupski <kru...@acsu.buffalo.edu>
State University of New York at Buffalo
-------------------------------------------------