New 1911: Colt series 70 vs. Springfield armory Mil-spec


PDA






sprice
February 10, 2010, 08:34 PM
What 1911 is better and why (or at least wich one do you think I should get and why?) Is colt worth the extra $400?! I just realized that was the price difference. What does MIM stand for? What will be the most reliable?

They both come in stainless- wich is what I want for those of you who are concerned :)

If you enjoyed reading about "New 1911: Colt series 70 vs. Springfield armory Mil-spec" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DeepSouth
February 10, 2010, 08:44 PM
That is a tough choice but I would have to go with the Springer mainly because I have one that has run 100% perfect from day one. The Springer also has a lifetime warranty in the event something does go wrong. You will be happy with either.

One more thing the Mil-Spec comes in stainless and I don't think the Colt does, but I could be wrong.

Balrog
February 10, 2010, 08:51 PM
Colt is better.

Fewer MIM parts.

Better resale value.

sprice
February 10, 2010, 08:57 PM
Is it $400 better?

Balrog
February 10, 2010, 09:07 PM
It is to me.

skipsan
February 10, 2010, 09:10 PM
MIM stands for Metal Injection Molded, a fabrication technique similar in some respects, to casting which is used by a lot of gun manufacturers to reduce manufacturing cost. Whether MIM parts are signifcantly inferior, or inferior at all, to machined barstock parts is the subject of continuing and often heated debate. Personally, well made MIM parts are just fine with me, and I feel that SA does a good job with MIM.

I personally feel that the SA Mil-Spec is a better "value" than a Colt at $400 less in price. SA's customer service is fantastic--have never had to use Colt's. That being said, every 1911 shooter should own and shoot at least one Colt. You really can't go wrong with either choice, but $400 will buy a thousand rounds of ammo.

JTQ
February 10, 2010, 09:37 PM
MIM = Metal Injection Molding.
One more thing the Mil-Spec comes in stainless and I don't think the Colt does, but I could be wrong.
Colt Series 70 Reproduction is available in stainless.

I think a $400 difference would be high. It may be the retail Colt price vs the "street price" on the Springfield. I think $300 is more realistic and looking at Impact Guns it is more like $200 (Springfield says you get a holster too though. I'm sure since they don't identify the holster manufacturer it must be a good one.)

I think the Springfield is probably fairly priced and is a good deal, but if I were buying, I would pay the extra money for the Colt.

It is generally conceded the Colt has better internal parts, in addition to the cool dimple on the bottom lip of the chamber to aid in feeding odd shaped bullets (hollow points, semi-wadcutters, etc) and it's made in the USA. I'm not even considering resale value which would make the Colt an even better deal.

Everybody who is into 1911's wants to have at least one Colt in their collection, since they are the original. While Springfield makes a fine pistol, most would not consider their 1911 collection lacking if they didn't have a Springfield.

AirplaneDoc
February 10, 2010, 09:44 PM
Normally I would say colt hands down.
Better resale value
better internals

but I am not much of a 70 series fan myself

weisse52
February 11, 2010, 01:05 AM
Colt is better.

Fewer MIM parts.

Better resale value.

I have owned both, I still own Colts, and yes they are worth it....

9mmepiphany
February 11, 2010, 01:18 AM
Colt if you like the history of the pony and plan to keep it stock

Springer if you just need a shooter and might have custom work done on it

if they were both the same price, i'd get the Colt...or i'd use the extra money to make the Springer really outstanding

hector
February 11, 2010, 02:00 AM
SA's site mentions the mil spec has a throated barrel and lowered/flared ejection port... Are these features on the colt 70 or would they need to be added later?

MICHAEL T
February 11, 2010, 02:21 AM
has a throated barrel and lowered/flared ejection port... Are these features on the colt 70 or would they need to be added later?

I don't think theirs many 1911's today that don't have those 2 items . I will buy Colt over springer any day I have and will do again. Just a better made over all gun Besides its made in USA

hector
February 11, 2010, 02:28 AM
SA's site says the mil spec is basically the GI with a bunch of modernized improvements (throated barrel, ejection port,sites etc)... so i was wondering since the 70 is a reproduction gun they might be keeping it to the original 1911 specs.

cyclopsshooter
February 11, 2010, 02:46 AM
if you are going to spend the money get an original 70 series-

all steel- collectible- reliable (just make sure no one monkeyed the feed ramp)

Oro
February 11, 2010, 06:17 AM
SA's site mentions the mil spec has a throated barrel and lowered/flared ejection port... Are these features on the colt 70 or would they need to be added later?

The Colt uses the new "grooved" barrel throat that Colt developed and deployed about 2000. It is a great aid to ammo tolerance as JTQ discussed above. Post-2000 year Colt's all have this (except the WWI repro) and do not need those "tweaks."

I personally feel that the SA Mil-Spec is a better "value" than a Colt at $400 less in price.

A more realistic price difference I think is about $200 - the difference between the street price of a SA Mil-Spec vs. a Colt O1991 (The basic Government Model - the closest comparable to a Mil-Spec). The $200 would buy you a better barrel, better internal components, much nice grips, and better finish. The extra $200 does buy you quite a bit. The SA is a good value and gun and highly respected. The Colt offers a bit more and you do pay for it, though a very reasonable amount. Both are really good values based on your budget and demands.

Patrick R
February 12, 2010, 12:21 AM
I think comparing the Colt to the Springer Loaded might be a closer match price wise.

almostfree
February 12, 2010, 02:58 PM
I know it isn't one of your choices, but I really like my new production O1991. I never cared for the older 1991s, but I think the new ones look and function great. I walked away with a blued model for $700.

NMGonzo
February 12, 2010, 05:02 PM
I rather have a colt.

texas bulldog
February 12, 2010, 05:09 PM
i own neither, but have been looking at both (among others) recently. a colt series 70 will be my next 1911.

SideArmed
February 12, 2010, 07:07 PM
Someone above already said. Get the Colt if you plan on collecting I guess....Get the springer to shoot.

I own a Colt Special Gov't Stainless and think the gun is a rip personally. Fit and finish is crap. Not saying a mil spec springer is a whole lot better but I feel more comfortable with it and you are not paying such a premium for the name.

Saw the new "Colt Rail Gun" too at the shotshow and I think that thing is overpriced as well. Not front strapping, plastic MSH, ****ty slide/frame fit...well fit in general...Give me a TRP anyday

Colt makes a fantastic AR, their 1911's went down hill a long time ago
/end rant

If you enjoyed reading about "New 1911: Colt series 70 vs. Springfield armory Mil-spec" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!