I know purists have their opinion of what a real 1911 is... But structurally speaking and in terms of reliability... Aesthetics aside.. how do they compare?
I agree.I'd say a major point potentially against the average GI 1911 is that unless one is lucky - they are fundamentally, pretty used up.
I think I would take the history over magic.A 1911 is a 1911. The early Colts have no magic built into them. History, yes. Magic, no.
They're really quite good guns.What about current production Springfields? How do they rate?
I'm not really concerned about the purity of looks to that of the original. I'm just wondering if the 1911 that I can afford (Springfield milspec) it's just as reliable as the old 1911's.
Hence, the poll. So keep the replies coming.
(Ok.. I'm lying to myself. I would really like an original 1911. But.. I'm hoping that all of you will say that the mil-spec I have is just as dependable that's the old 1911.
I bought a new Springfield Mil-Spec almost 5 years ago. I wanted the government issue look, but wasn't looking for an exact clone. The Springfield has bigger sights, lowered & flared ejection port and a throated stainless barrel. The theater barrel and lowered & flared ejection port are supposed to be upgraded to make the gun more reliable. Don't know if it works but mine has worked fine even with hollow points and it's more accurate than I amWhat about current production Springfields? How do they rate?
So your question is whether a new production 1911A1 is as reliable as used pistol that is at least 75 years old. (You would likely be hung from the nearest telephone if you shot a W.W.2 1911A1 that is still new-in-the-box). For the test to be compatible you should use the ammunition the original 1911’s were designed for...230 gr. FMJ. Since only 230 gr. Ball ammunition was all that was used by the military any other bullet style is meaningless.
That's what really irks me about Springfield, and some of the other 1911 makers. They just throw somethingI've had two Springfield Armory GI models (now discontinued) in the last 10 years. The first ran really well, but was stolen shortly after I got it. Of course.
The second one was more finicky at first, but a visit to my gunsmith cured that. It became my EDC for about the next 3 years. I can think of only two failures to feed since it got back from the smith.
It's probably a matter of perspective.In any case.. my motivation for my question was to know if I can depend on my current somewhat milspec (Springfield)the same way that the WW2 soldier depended on his 1911. From the stories you hear..they really admired their side arms.
What about current production Springfields? How do they rate?