I carried a Govt. issue 1911A1 all the way until late 1992. As long as the barrel to slide fit was good on the old war horses, they were accurate no matter how loose the slide was to the frame. I never had a problem qualifying with them. And the things just worked even in the sands of the middle east.
Reliability of a mil-spec 1911 Gov't
- Thread starter Mr. Mosin
- Start date
- Status
I carried a Govt. issue 1911A1 all the way until late 1992. As long as the barrel to slide fit was good on the old war horses, they were accurate no matter how loose the slide was to the frame. I never had a problem qualifying with them. And the things just worked even in the sands of the middle east.
Fit better than Kimber isn't necessarily praise. There's more to fit than just tight and tight doesn't necessarily guarantee accuracy.
1942bull
Member
The new Sig pistols adopted by the Army were built to mil-spec. In spite of that they had serious flaws. It took almost year to correct those problems before going into mass production. Sig just settled a class action suit for defect in the civilian counterparts of those guns which were built to the same mil-spec. So here is what mil-spec means. It is a written specification that has nor reliability of actual performance. Eventually manufacturers will likely meet the spec. Ignore the term.
Tallball
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,797
"I have handled a few of the Tisa pistols. They are a solid build."
I bought a Tisas GI NiB, owned it for five years or so, and had zero malfunctions after I don't know how many hundreds of rounds.
I "had to" trade it towards something else. The sights were tiny because it was a GI model and the finish didn't hold up as well as some, but it was a well-built reliable pistol.
I bought a Tisas GI NiB, owned it for five years or so, and had zero malfunctions after I don't know how many hundreds of rounds.
I "had to" trade it towards something else. The sights were tiny because it was a GI model and the finish didn't hold up as well as some, but it was a well-built reliable pistol.
Old Dog
Member
Not to get further down in the weeds, but no, no it's not a "minimum standard" nor is it made by the "cheapest bidder for military use."
Within the "mil-std" (not mil-spec anymore) there are very strict performance standards. And equipment contracts do not always go to the "cheapest bidder." It's all about interoperability, interchangeability, standardization of equipment and processes, being consistent for cataloging (important for supply and logistics) and then there's the communication piece (standard nomenclature) and the need for standardization of parts and operation for training purposes.
Last edited:
nofendertom
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Messages
- 1,014
To me "mil-spec" just means the gun looks like the military model. The quality depends on the manufacturer.
Not to argue but yes you are correct on using the term mil-standard. I still stand by the rest of my statement. I was a combat engineer and a machinist while in the Army. I got to tear it all up and fix it. I also dealt with contractors and parts suppliers. I worked at every level of maintenance to include Depot level.
And now that we have gotten side-tracked, let's get back to the original question which has been answered.
lysanderxiii
Member
There are still "military specifications", thousands of them.... They are defined as a specification of technical requirements for purchase of material or products.
Military Standards are a different type of thing.
Military specifications fall into two categories: a) performance specifications, and b) detailed specifications.
Performance specifications are specifications that describe an item through what it is supposed to accomplish, i.e., its performance, without dictating the methods to achieve them. An example of a performance specifications is MIL-PRF-23699 - Lubricating Oil, Aircraft Turbine Engine. If you read this specification, it does not give you a formula, nor does it tell you how to make it, it tells you what its viscosity will be, it tells you how it will react with rubber, it tells you how it will perform when tested in accordance with ASTM-D1748, etc. Any formula you choose that accomplishes all of the tests as required is eligible to be qualified under this specification.
Other performance specifications are: MIL-PRF- 63460 - Cleaner. Lubricant, Preservative (CLP) for Weapons and Weapon Systems, MIL-PRF-32535 - Multilayer Ceramic Capacitors, and MIL-PRF-3420 - Volatile Corrosion Inhibiting Treated Wrapping Paper.
Detail Specifications are specifications that detail from what and how the item will be constructed. An example of a detail specification is MIL-DTL-28950 - Coat, Man's; Blue Officer's, this details how a USMC Officer's Dress Blue Coat will be made, the materials, the quality of the stitching, and provides sources to obtain patterns of the approved style. These specifications are very specific and describe what materials will be used, what construction technique will be employed (for example in the above spec, you are not allowed to hand stitch the entire garment, the major seams must be machined stitched), what shape it will have when complete. They will also always provide some form of testing required to assure the final product conforms to design.
Other examples of detail specifications are: MIL-C-71186, Carbine, 5.56mm, M4A1, MIL-DTL-45403 - Link, Cartridge, Metallic Belt, 7.62mm, M13, MIL-R-2583 - Rivets, Solid, Belt and Washers, Flat (Burrs), and MIL-DTL-44436 - Cloth, Camouflage Pattern, Wind Resistant Poplin, Nylon/Cotton Blend.
Military Standards are processes and procedures for accomplishing various tasks. Examples of Military Standard are MIL-STD-1464 - Army Nomenclature System, MIL-STD-171 - Finishing of Metal and Wood Surfaces, and MIL-STD-810 - Environmental Test Methods and Engineering Guidelines.
A third type of document used is the Military Handbook, these are books that provide guidance and information on design, materials, and what various processes accomplish.
In the case of Pistol, Automatic, Caliber .45, M1911A1, it is covered under Federal Specification D-P-355, which superseded MIL-P-1297 in 1964, a detail specification describing the materials and methods of manufacture (through reference to the TDP), required performance and the testing methods used to verify performance. Oh, and BTW, detail specifications describe the manufacture process from beginning to delivery, and therefore also tell you how the item(s) will be packaged.
Last edited:
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
When threads start with questions like these they usually come to no good end.
"Hello Sir! I hear you're a bad man. That you smell of urine and haven't showered in 3 months. That you steal money from Boy Scouts and sell used medical face masks to nurses on EBay at $70. a pop. Is that the norm for men from your town?" It's a way to start a conversation.
Mil Spec means that the guns were built to Military Specifications. That's it and all it means.
A couple of things about that: one is that which specifications are we talking about? The specs for the original 1911 or the 1911A1? Or the guns which emerged from the tail end of WWII? Or the Marsoc guns, or the railed Colt's sent to the Marines a couple years back? Which specs in other words? Which leads to the second part which is that "Mil Spec" is more a commercial term these days than one with real meaning, other than that the gun should look like a WWII GI pistol.
OP
OP
Mr. Mosin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Messages
- 2,103
Fine then. For all who don't get it, my definition of "mil-spec", in regards to the 1911 Gov't platform is the 1911a1 Colt MFG blueprint/schematic.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
OK. We know, from your original post, that you believe they are not at all useful items in the world. There isn't much to say after that.
lysanderxiii
Member
Technically, a MIL-Spec M1911 has the small ejection port, narrow grip safety, and small sights, none of which are improvements over the large scarf cut ejection port, beaver tail grip safety, and any number of modern combat sights.
Also, some people don't see the humped main-spring housing as "better".
Also, some people don't see the humped main-spring housing as "better".
351 WINCHESTER
Member
Back in the early days of hollow point ammo and Colt being the only game in town it was pretty common to get that 1911 to a pistol smith to throat the barrel, fix the trigger, fit a new barrel bushing, lower the ejection port, put some decent sights on, maybe tighten the slide to frame fit and fit the barrel to the slide and tune the extractor. Given a decent gunsmith job made them as reliable as you would ever need.
bangswitch
Member
I think Springfield's 1911 Mil-spec Model is about as close as you'll get. It does have the enlarged and beveled ejection port, but most everything else you mention is as the original. Arched mainspring housing, small sights, black parkerized finish, correct hammer (and no firing pin safety), short trigger, and unilateral, non-enlarged thumb safety. They're selling it today for $549, per their website. I have an older version, bought it used 6-7 years ago for $450, and it's been perfect. I don't know how many rounds I've put through it, couple of thousand at least, mostly reloads. Everything from 180 grain to 230 grain, eats them all without a hiccup.
Personally, I don't like an arched mainspring housing, I prefer the flat one, which mine has.
rskent
Member
Ok, that’s interesting, never seen one of those before. Do they hold up?
Better question / If you had an extractor that for whatever reason couldn’t be adjusted of was otherwise broke, would you buy one of these or a Wilson Combat bulletproof?
rskent
Member
Oops!
Side note: I think its interesting that they chose to use a stainless barrel bushing on a gun they call Mil-Spec.
Question: Does Springfield still make their GI line? I think they were pretty close to Mil-Spec.
Last edited:
rskent
Member
Yea, what was I thinking? 1911 and 1911A1.
Never used one of the aftecs. Generally they’re pitched at ultra-high volume shooters who have problems with conventional internal extractors.
My personal view is that the internal extractor is one of the 2 worst aspects of the 1911 design. Except for easier tear down, they’re worse in every way than a pivoting claw extractor. The other not-great design element of the 1911 IMO is the triple-leg sear spring - a leaf spring where thin steel is bent to adjust.
I’ve got a Wilson bullet proof in my carry 1911 currently, FWIW. I think it’s a good product.
JTQ
Member
You are crossing terms.
Springfield used to offer a "GI" Model, and a "Mil-Spec" Model.
Springfield no longer offers the "GI" model.
The "Mil-Spec" model is still in the line-up. https://www.springfield-armory.com/products/1911-mil-spec-45-acp/
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
It was mentioned that the gun pictured here is pretty far from a GI piece.
The sights are much improved and resemble Colt commercial sights from recent decades which are actually quite good, but not GI. These sights also have a gold bead. Also not GI.
The lowered and flared ejection port...not GI.
The bushing not GI. Not just that it's stainless but also it's design, not GI.
Other than that it's GI looking that comes mostly from the parkerized finish. The differences are enhancements that improve the function of the piece.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,574
I have a Springfield GI. Nice gun. Has been very reliable since I replaced the original Springfield Inc. mag (which inexplicably has a little dimple in one of the feed lips) with a Wilson mag.
Only thing I don’t like is the sights. Yeah they’re pretty much what the boys used in WWII, but it’d sure be nice to be able to see them in a dim room.
Only thing I don’t like is the sights. Yeah they’re pretty much what the boys used in WWII, but it’d sure be nice to be able to see them in a dim room.
- Status
