Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '1911 Forums' started by drider, Jun 18, 2010.
you'll prob be happier with the mil spec. the GI's a fine gun, but the extra features on the mil spec are worth the extra money.
Buy yourself an american classic/firestorm,they are good to go right out of the box.They aready come with a lot of refinements.I love mine.sj
I agree. I am not sure where the OP gets the idea that a base model 1911 is going to be unreliable. The guns that seem to sputter are the highly "tuned" 1911s. The more you mess w/ them, the less likely they are to run 100% IME. All mine are basically stock guns but for cosmetic things like sights, FS stippling, etc. they all run 100%; Springfield, Colt & S&W.
I prefer the Mil Spec but either way, one thing to consider is that Springer's CS is top notch. Should anything go wrong, they WILL take care of you.
That's good to hear that Springfield has good customer support, I am highly considering getting a Mil Spec. If/when I get it I would like to put the flat trigger on there I just love how it looks, whats the deal with that?
I worked with a new Colt 1918 repro & a new Springfield GI model last year briefly, both with handloaded lead.
The Colt had a feeding failure, the Springfield had no malfunctions. Both were brand new.
There are several things on the GI I would have changed eventually if I'd kept it. I have to have a beavertail grip safety & an extended thumb safety for much shooting at all in the 1911 platform.
I prefer more visible sights than the GI offers, I would replace any MIM sear or disconnector, and I don't entirely trust the two-piece Springfield barrel.
Those are personal preferences in a pistol I'd be betting my life on. As a rec toy, changes are less critical.
Re the barrel, I'm aware that there are a bunch of those two-piecers out there working just fine. On the other hand, I've seen a photo of one that started to separate, and I figure I don't want to take the chance.
That's just me.
Otherwise, I would not equate the two Springfields mentioned anywhere near a Hi-Point.
I actually considered buying the GI as a backup kickaround, but when I added up the costs of what it'd take to bring it up to the basic form I'd need, I decided the same money would be better utilized in bringing up a Colt Series 70 repro to snuff that's already sitting in the vault.
Function & accuracy, aside from an extractor that needed tuning (kept bouncing brass off my head), were both fine with the GI.
As an entry level 1911, the GI would not be a bad choice. The Mil Spec might give you a couple better features.
With either, you can learn how it feels to shoot a basic configuration, and then later decide what upgrades might be beneficial.
You would understand how much difference a higher-end pistol can make if you learn on the basic platform with its warts & then modify as needed.
The following is my opinion. YMMV. There are only four reasons to buy a Springfield GI or Mil-Spec.
1) You want a gun that sorta looks like a US Property gun for many reasons, including nostalgia, filling a hole in the collection, getting a solid gun at a good price point, informal shooting, etc.
2) You want a gun that is a good base for a custom.
3) It is your first 1911 and you do not want to drop lots of money on something you may not like.
4) You get such a screaming good deal that you buy it even though you do not need it or even want it.
The persons in the first group know what they want, and the persons in the second group do as well. The OP is a member of the third group. Those of us(like me) in the fourth group are beyond help.
That being said, there are many paths to take with a first 1911. Since the OP mentioned a carry gun, I am going to assume concealed carry. That being said, I think the OP will find that a stock GI or Mil-Spec will not be friendly to someone who is used to carrying a Glock. Why? Because the GI and, to a lesser extent, the Mil-Spec are not carry friendly to someone used to a more modern design. The GI, for instance, has little sights that will surprise someone used to larger Glock sights. Both the GI and Mil-Spec are full of sharp edges that chew up skin and cover garments unlike the newer guns that are smooth out of the box. I cannot tell you how many polo shirts I destroyed by getting the tail caught between the grip safety and spur hammer on a stock Colt Series '70. A stock gun without a carry bevel is hard on leather holsters. A base 1911 has nothing for grip traction compared to someone used to a SA XD(M), Glock, or S&W M&P.
So my suggestion: Get a mid-range 1911 set up with some modern updates for carry. The SA "Loaded", the Colt XSE, the STI Trojan 5.0, the STI Spartan, and the Kimber Classic all qualify. You will spend more, but you will have a gun better suited for concealed carry. You also get a gun that is easier to shoot due to better ergonomics and better sights.
Of all of those, my preference would be the Colt XSE with the SA "Loaded" in second. I love the Trojan 5.0 and Spartan, but each needs some work to be truly ready to carry as the magazine release button is not checkered or serrated (Trojan) or the sights are not the best (Spartan). The STI frames are also cast, something which bothers many people. For me, it would only matter on an expensive custom. Kimbers are especially nice in the carry bevel department, but I am not a Kimber fan for personal reasons. The SA "Loaded" is probably the best deal as it is less expensive than the Colt and is backed with SA's customer service. That being said, Colt makes a fine entry-level carry gun, and Colts hold their value better than any other gun in the category should you decide the 1911 is not for you.
The GI and Mil-Spec are quality guns made with IMBEL steel in Brazil.
A guy shot a 7 week USPSA pistol league just to piss-off the league director (a $5k Limited gun snob). That high point went bang every week on every trigger pull.
I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread.
All I know is that my mil-spec is 100 percent reliable and is accurate as hell. I still prefer my TRP, but there is nothing wrong with a GI or a Mil-spec. WAY out of the HI-point league.
Thanks all, the hi point part was just a analogy glad no one took it the wrong way. So the mil spec does sound like a likely candidate.
I just bought a milspec and my first trip to the range was a joyful one. No malfunctions, no fuss, just straight shooting. Very fun gun to shoot.
I did just send my slide back into SA today though to have the front sight post restaked.
Sadly, the stake on front sights on the Springer is a pretty common issue. I had one come loose pretty shortly after I got my first Mil-Spec. In the end I just had a local guy cut a dovetail for me to be done with it.
Thanks guys for the replies.
A Hi-Point vs. Mil-Spec torture test would be cool.
I have a GI Champion, if I were buying now I would have bought a Mil Spec or full size GI because of the ramped barrel on the Champion.
The trigger on mine was unacceptable and I changed the fire control group, but I am a tinkerer and half did it so I could justify having bought the Kuhnhausen books. I plan on upgrading sights one of these days. Mine will not feed Gold Dots but has been 100% with WWB and my handloads. I plan to try some Remington 185 Express HPs this summer and see how they work. They are the best feeding HPs I have found in other guns and calibers.
I also replaced my extractor because it was a little loose and rough and when I tried to file the radius on the bottom edge it seemed much too soft. A hardware store needle file barely bites on the new one.
And the grips are ugly IMHO so I got a set of Colt 1918 grips from Midway.
I guess I have done a little more to it than I was thinking. Like I said, I like to tinker.
I'd like to see a drop test followed by an oven test.