1911 milspecs?

[Brick]

Hello folks.â„¢

ok. there's the Springfield 1911 Milspec, then there's the SA GI .45, and then there's the Colt 1991...

which is like the original 1911a1?

if the 1991 has a one piece barrel, was that how it was originally? why do people call them 1991s rather than just 1911 milspecs?

thanks

 

[1911Tuner]

Questions

Howdy Brick,

Of all the pistols in your list, the Springfield GI Mil-Spec is the closest to the original 1911A1 design, and easy to return to that configuration. Colt 1991s are so designated because 1911A1 is a trademark that Colt no longer owns...Springfield does. Norinco scraped by the copyright issue by naming theirs "Model of the 1911A1."

The Colt 1991 is a Series 80 pistol, and because of the modifications to the frame and lside, can't be returned to original 1911A1 design spec. The Springfields can be for about 50 bucks unless you want the Full Monty
and search for a non-throated barrel. There's also the issue of MIM and cast
small parts that weren't in the old guns, but that's meat for a whole 'nother discussion.

Springfield's 2-piece barrels are really a non-issue. I haven't heard of many failures, and the few that do occur seem to be flukes rather than the norm.
In a match-tuned application, you won't be able to get quite the level of accuracy as with a good 1-piece barrel...but for an ordnance-spec gun, you won't likely see any practical difference except in the occasional extreme example.

Hope this helps.

 

[stans]

Dang it, he beat me to it again!

The Springfield GI does look the most like a late 1943 to 1945 produced military 1911-A1. It only departs from the original in the key lock mainspring housing (easily replaceable) and some pistols have wooden stocks with "GI" engraved into the panels (also easily replaceable). As for the two piece barrel, Browning Highpowers have used them for many decades and there have been no problems. The two piece barrel may not be the best choice for a match grade pistol, but it is more than adequate for a service grade sidearm.

 

[1911Tuner]

Beat it!

He screamed and cursed:

>Dang it, he beat me to it again!<
**************

I'm tellin' ya stans...ya gotta set your clock a little earlier!

 

[Old Fuff]

I have the same problem beating that #%$# Tuner 'cuz of the time zones. Being in the Wild West means he gets a 2 or 3 hour head start.

Life just isn't fair ...

 

[Brick]

Awesome.

Hello everyone,â„¢ thanks for the replies...

So, replace the key lock mainspring housing, the two piece barrel, and some nice wood panels, and it's pretty good?

The first pistol I've held other than our so-so BB pistols was a cheap Caspian airsoft 1911. Also tried a M92F, and a Glock 26. The 1911 was married to my hand...unbelievable...

^^^

Thanks everyone. BTW, what about the .38 Super 1911? Wasn't that the first 1911 patterned gun? I'm thinking that might be good as a subsitute for the 9mm in the 1911...

P.S. Wait what about finishes? It's Parkarized...or stainless...or OD Green...I just read from http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=120610 that carbon steel is the way to go right?

 

[BluesBear]

The first 1911 was chambered for .45ACP. The Super .38 didn't arrive until 1929.

9mm didn't show up in the Colt Government until the late 1960s even though it had been available in the Lightweight Commander since 1948.

 

[Old Fuff]

To avoid any confusion, Colt did make .38 automatic pistols before 1911, but they were not the “Super†kind and used a less powerful but similar cartridge. They were also not of the same design as the later 1911 .45 pistol. While the Super .38 is in many ways a fine handgun I’d recommend that Brick stick with the .45 for the time being.

Stainless vs. high carbon steel can start a major flame war between each kind's advocates. But keep in mind that no military 1911 style pistol was ever made from stainless. Prior to World War Two they were blued. During World War Two and thereafter they were Parkerized.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Don't see a reason to replace a perfectly functional barrel, but it's your $ to spend.

 

[Marshall]

Let me ask this, what's the difference between the Springer Millspec and GI version, beside stocks? Which one is more reliable and accurate? Once that's answered, is the Colt 1991 offering better?

Bricks, hope this isn't off topic in your thread?

Thanks.

 

[Baba Louie]

Let me ask this, what's the difference between the Springer Millspec and GI version, beside stocks? Which one is more reliable and accurate? Once that's answered, is the Colt 1991 offering better?

Marshall, GI has older (smaller) sights, original ejection port, lanyard loop. Mil Spec having larger sights w/ white dots and lowered (flared?) ejection port and no place to hook up your lanyard.
Not owning both Springfield types, I can tell you that my GI is more accurate than my eyes allow with the itty bitty sights, having shot several 1 1/2" groups at 10 yds when I take my sweet time and shoot slow. I would suppose that with larger, dotted sights I could shoot the Mil Spec a might faster but with the same accuracy. YMMV
As to the Colt 1991 being better? I like mine, it cost a little more and says COLT and is made in America not Brazil (nuthin' wrong with any of my Brazilian guns mind you. They go bang every time the trigger is pulled). I'd feel fine trusting my life to either.

 

[robertbank]

If you want a 1911 about as close to the original mil-spec Colt you have to look at the Norinco that you can still pick up in the States NIB if you look for a reasonable price. Some of the guys on the 1911 forum have both the Colt/Springfield and the Norinco and they all report the Norinco is better made and more reliable out of the box. Fram to slide fit is excellent and they make great guns if you want to customize. I have three, two of which have been done up to my liking. HAven't yet had a FTF or any other kind of issue with any of them. The only thing I didn't like is the mil-spec sights which for my eyes just aren't the best anymore. Not a MIM part in them, if that is a concern.

 

[Brick]

Hello everybody.â„¢

Old Fuff wrote:

While the Super .38 is in many ways a fine handgun I’d recommend that Brick stick with the .45 for the time being.

How so? Wouldn't the .38 have a milder recoil, 'specially for me, a b'ginner?

 

[Old Fuff]

Depending on what load you are using there may (or may not) be much difference in recoil, but the Government Model's recoil isn't all that bad anyway.

As a general rule .38 Super ammunition is harder to find - at least in some places - and more expensive. When you do find it it will probably be loaded with costly hollow point bullets rather then ball. You can special order whatever you want, but it likely won't be discounted. The same can be said about accessories such as magazines.

Last but not least, if you should deside to trade or sell the pistol with an upgrade in mind, you can usually get more for a .45 over a .38, all other things being equal - it's a matter of popularity.