New Springfield 1911's...


PDA






JoeK
November 16, 2006, 11:26 PM
Is it me or do the new SA 1911's seem to be shipping to stores with a significantly tighter fit lately? I just picked up another Loaded model and it is MUCH tighter than the previous Loaded model I owned. Also, every SA I've checked out in the last 2 months had significantly tighter frame to slide fit. Needless to say, I'm extremely pleased with the new Loaded Target that I just purchased. It's the best shooting Springer I've owned or shot to date! :D

Joe

If you enjoyed reading about "New Springfield 1911's..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Stephen A. Camp
November 16, 2006, 11:37 PM
Hello. The last several Springfield Mil-Specs, both GI version and standard, have had almost no vertical or horizontal play in the slide-to-frame fit and the bbls showed zero movement as well.

Best.

steveracer
November 16, 2006, 11:38 PM
My oldest Springfield is VERY sloppy. They now have approximately the same round count, but the newer one is MUCH better fitted. Loooks better, too. My old one (1994) is matte blue, but looks like spraypaint, and the frame rails were slightly curved when I got it new in 1995. My 2006 Mil-Spec is fitted wonderfully, and feeds everything I can cram in a magazine, any magazine.
I have held a few of the newer "lodaed" models, and they are better fitted than my 2002 Champion Loaded.

boldkharma
November 17, 2006, 01:58 AM
Hmmm, I have a few 1911's with "sloppy" frame to slide fits, if thats what you want to call it. The barrel to frame fits are very tight though, and I thought that is all that matters for accuracy?

Stephen A. Camp
November 17, 2006, 02:03 AM
Hello. Yes, it is my understanding that of the two, the barrel-to-slide fit is more important.

Best.

Helstrm
November 17, 2006, 10:26 AM
The New SA's are shipping much tighter than the older ones. I have been very impressed with the Mil Spec and GI models for the $$$

+1 on the barrel fit needing to be tight. If it locks up tight that is good.. But keep in mind that if your frame to slide has a lot of play you will lose accuracy. Since the barrel locks into the slide. But as long as you have a tight barrel bushing and the barrel locks up good and tight you should be shooting nice groups... Also keep in mind that a match grade tight gun is normally a little less dependable than one that has a little play in it. Or so I have seen anyway.

brownie0486
November 17, 2006, 11:07 AM
My 1982 SA milspec green parkerized 1911 is "sloppy" on the slide to frame fit. I shot it for 5 years on competition from 91-96 with a red dot on it. It would hold one hole at 33 feet or further at that time [ did it often enough with the dot on it ].

I want a loose fitting slide to frame, makes for a very reliable 45 on the streets.:D Rattle, Rattle, Rattle as I grip the 1911 and shake it works for me. In fact, if I don't hear that sound, I'll physically check to make sure it's not real tight. If it is, I pass it up as a street gun.

Brownie

Correia
November 17, 2006, 02:13 PM
Good to hear, since I'm ordering a pile of them. (see my sig line if you want one cheap)

obm
November 17, 2006, 02:34 PM
i fondled a 9mm Springfield 1911 that just came into one of the local shops. i commented to the guy how tight it was and was pretty impressed with the slide/frame fit. all it needed was a little lapping...it felt gritty but tight.

JoeK
November 17, 2006, 07:26 PM
I don't subscribe to the idea that a pistol with a tighter frame to slide fit is inherently more accurate, but I do think it might indicate that SA's quality and attention to detail may have been taken to another level.

Speaking of reliability....my new Loaded Target has been malfunction free thus far. My old Loaded malfunctioned quite a bit in the first 500 rounds and I don't think the overall fitment was on par with my latest SA installment. Needless to say, I'm as happy as a clam with the new Loaded!

All in all, I think the new SA's may be an even better deal than before.

Adios,
Joe

velojym
November 17, 2006, 11:47 PM
I gotta say, my new Micro Compact is tighter than my 1991A1 was, but I still have to break it in. I'm comparing them new, though, as I remember a little play on the Colt when I bought it, and the only thing rattling at all on the SA is the grip safety.
Once again, though... I gotta put a few boxes through it.

45auto
November 18, 2006, 08:30 AM
Tighter frame/slide fit will stay accurate for a longer period of time(rounds) than a loose fit.

IMHO, better to start with a tight fit. If for some reason you want a rattle, it's pretty easy to loosen up the fit compared to making them snug ;) .

If I recall, Tuner stated the "loose fit" 1911 came about during WWII when they needed a lot of guns quickly from multiple manufacturers. Not because "loose" meant "more reliable".

If you enjoyed reading about "New Springfield 1911's..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!