Colt 1991 or Springfield Mil-Spec


February 20, 2009, 07:54 PM
Which is better? What are their warranties like? Both are brand new. The Colt 1991 is $720 and the Springfield Mil-Spec is $620. Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt 1991 or Springfield Mil-Spec" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 20, 2009, 08:12 PM
1911 = colt

February 20, 2009, 08:17 PM
Having shot both, I'd go Colt, especially at the prices listed.

February 20, 2009, 08:22 PM
Neither is ‘better.’ Unlike SA Colt’s are made in the US and are the original. I own a Colt model 1091 that’s been flawless and I can recommend it.

February 20, 2009, 08:26 PM
I'd go with the Colt, but you won't go wrong either way.

February 21, 2009, 12:57 AM
COLT at those prices Colt wins every time

February 21, 2009, 01:50 AM
I'd go with the Colt, but you won't go wrong either way.
Many prefer the Colt name on their 1911 and I've no problem with that (after all my favorite is an Officer's ACP), but check the individual pistols out closely. I have a 1991A1 and an older SA 1911A-1 90's Edition (pretty much a Mil-Spec). The Colt's slide sits slightly forward of the frame. It's not very noticeable and the pistol seems to function fine (the thumb safety does move up a little if you push the slide even with the frame), otherwise, the Colt is well made and finished.
The SA had some waviness in the slide flats and a couple of other rough spots; the newer ones seem better finished. It functions fine. I like the sights on it better on it than the Colt's. It also has a better trigger than the Colt (the Colt is series 80 with the firing pin block). I also shoot it much better than the Colt.;) I bought the Colt with thought to sell the SA, but it will be the Colt moving on (though I do love the look of it).

February 21, 2009, 01:53 AM
Which is better? The Colt. Not that the Springfields aren't fine pistols or that the Mil-Spec is sub-standard, mind you.

February 21, 2009, 02:29 AM
and why is the colt the better of the two? Because of the name recognition?

Les Baers, Ed Browns and Wilson are far and away better than anything Colt has ever produced.

Steve C
February 21, 2009, 02:49 AM
Les Baers, Ed Browns and Wilson are far and away better than anything Colt has ever produced.

Get me one for $720 or for that matter, under $1K.

You can always one-up a product with one that costs twice as much produced by a custom shop.

I would argue that guns coming out of the Colt Custom Shop where every bit as good or even better than any produced by Baer and Wilson.

February 21, 2009, 06:14 AM
If your shop has a gold cup in stock, look into that. I picked mine up for about $950 new. It may seem pricey but for an extra $200 you get a national match grade barrel, match grade adjustable trigger, wraparound grips, and a beautiful colt bluing job. You can't do that to a gun for $200. If you ask me there isn't any other gun on the market that can compete with a gold cup for the price.

February 21, 2009, 07:58 AM
Major differences are the FP safety of the Colt and $100 less for the Springfield.

Make sure the Springfield is the "Mil-Spec", and not the GI model. I "see" those models on the "auctions" sometimes mixed up.

For me, it would come down to the individual "look/fit" of the two guns you are looking at...the ones you would buy.

February 21, 2009, 11:26 AM
I just bought a new Series 80 COLT Commander. $730.00 out the door with taxes. The build quality is very good on it. The barrel locks up tight as a drum in the slide. There is a little slide to frame movement. The slide to frame fitting on the back around the ejector is darn near perfect and the slide doesn't over hang the frame on the back at the bottom. The bluing is very nice. Here is a pic of it on my work bench after I got it home and cleaned/lubed it in preperation for it's first range outing (which was flawless thru 200rounds mixed 230gr FMJ and JHP).

Now, no one else has said it - so I will.

The COLT is better because it will always be a COLT. There is only one orginal and it will always be worth more than the Springer. I have nothing against Springfield Armory. They do make a decent pistol however it is imported from Brazil and it only cost $100.00 less than a COLT which is made here in the USA.

February 21, 2009, 12:02 PM
Colt 1991

February 21, 2009, 02:52 PM
Is the Colt in eastern PA? If so what gun shop? If not, go ahead and buy it.

February 21, 2009, 03:08 PM
I'll be the oddball here and say Springer. I will never have a 1911 with a FPB. I know, everyone that has one has no problems, but I would just prefer to not have it.

Ask me this question of the Colt and SAI, but change the Colt to one with Series-70 lockwork, and I might change my answer.


February 21, 2009, 06:51 PM
I like them both. BIL has the Colt I have the Springer. Cannot say there is much difference or say a bad thing about either. I don't like a straight backstrap, I like the curved, but that is personal preference. The Springfield has just enough improvements over a box stock Government model, like beveled mag well, polished ramp and lowered ejection port to make it completely usable and reliable. The sights are nice also. Other than that it looks and feels just like a GI .45. It's a toss up really. Bill

February 22, 2009, 09:10 AM
IMHO if you can personally check out the Colt with field strip and it has no problems then I'd go with the Colt. American fine quality in most cases. But read lifetime warranty. I've had bad luck with them lately, but most I believe do not. No experience with Springfield, but it might be my next purchase.

February 22, 2009, 10:31 AM
After having a brand new 1991A1 frame crack at the dust cover after firing less than 2 boxes of Remington ball I have issues with Colt. I returned it and got an Auto Ordnance, of all things. It ran like a top.

I now have the AO and an SA milspec. Go with the SA milspec.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt 1991 or Springfield Mil-Spec" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!