1911's...Plane Jane? Or all the add-ons

[InnerVision]

I've been looking at the springfield Mil-Spec

And the Decked out more expensive version:

Do the extras make a big difference(skeletonized trigger, Hammer, etc,)? Or is the plain model just as effective?

 

[10-Ring]

Get the one that works best for you. Me, I suffered some serious hammer bite and the stock trigger was a bit mushy so I made it more comfortable and smoother.

 

[Adam Selene]

I am old fashioned give me a plain jane GI model, carbon steel and blue or parked.

 

[gbelleh]

I'll take a stock GI or blued Colt series 70 with wood grips. I've never been bitten by a plain 1911, so I prefer the classic look.

 

[BenjaminR]

I have a beautiful "plain GI jane" 1911 with the parkerized finish. I just wish it operated as well as it looks.

 

[InnerVision]

Is it a springfield? Does it jam up a lot?

 

[Abby]

I gotta go with...
"D - all of the above"


Seriously - I'd try to shoot both. I have a mil-spec and the grip safety seems a little...sharp? If it were one of my primary shooters I'd drop the cash on having the beavertail installed. The husband agrees, but I've got a couple friends who love to shoot it.

Some "add-ons" are cosmetic and some might really make a pistol more comfortable for you.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[the pistolero]

One of each, of course! Parkerized finish for me. The features on the Springer Loaded make for a beautiful gun, one I've lusted after for a while, but that GI 1911 in my collection is going to stay with me, most likely with nothing more than the Hogues I put on it. Even in its austerity, it's a reminder of the greatness of JMB's design...simple, yet oh-so-elegant, and beautiful in its own special way.

P.S. Abby, great minds think alike, eh?

 

[swampgator]

Plain

Personally I think that the loaded pistols look like crap. The cocking serrations are horrible and everything else looks blocky. The pictured gun ruins all the classic lines of a 1911. Plus I've never been a fan of the Novak style rear sight.

I like the WW2 retro GI Springfield makes. Just dump the factory sights for something bigger and clean up the trigger.

 

[hockeybum]

yeah, the bottom one looks like something a thug might have

 

[XavierBreath]

is the plain model just as effective?

Yes.

 

[Dienekes]

Shot my first 1911 (a DCM gun) in 1959. Have had that and a Gold Cup and a few others in between. Recently got a stainless Mil-Spec and once I got it zeroed for me it has shot like a champ. For some reason it likes me and I doubt anything else would outshoot it in my hands. Let's face it, we're not doing 1000 yard shooting at Camp Perry with these things.

Some years back at Gunsite there were a couple of Force Recon Marines in my 250 class with classic old rattler 1911s. Those young troops wrung a hell of a lot of on-target performance out of those things. Very heartwarming to watch.

It's not the gun. It's the man.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Get the plain Jane, and then get whatever add ons you find you need. My prediction is you'll be bitten by your gun, and will need to deal with this by either shaving off some of the hammer spur or replacing it and the grip safety with a beavertail set up. The thumb safety should be replaced for a more modern style. It has been pretty much proven to be superior to the original thumb safety. That's about all you'll need to be good to go. Of course you might find you don't need any of that. People differ on such things.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Every modification on your pistol should be made with a specific performance benefit in mind. For me, that means highly visible fixed sights, extended beavertail, consistant 4# trigger, and skateboard tape on the frontstrap. Oh, and perfect reliability, that should go without saying.

Decide what you need, and why you need it. Then get the gun that fits your needs.

- Chris

 

[Black Majik]

Honestly, either one is great.

You can get a Colt Government, a Springfield Mil-spec or a semi-custom pistol such as a Ed Brown, Les Baer NH, or Wilson and still be very accurate. All will guarantee 1 hole at 7 yards, a ragged hole at 10 yrds and a nice group at 25 yards. It depends on whether or not how far you're willing to shoot, as the Semi-customs will have a slight edge. But the edge you gain in accuracy might be noticed, or it might.

Now it comes down to what you want in a 1911. Do the beavertails, skeleton hammer and triggerm, magwell, target/nightsights, FLGR all matter to you? Or would you be perfectly content with a bone stock 1911?

I'll tell ya my perspective. I started with a Colt Government as my first 1911. Now it sits in the safe, and my doo-dad gun gets much, much more range time. For me, it matters. But now I can notice the differences in all options available and appreciate it more because I started with a plain jane 1911.

But there are great production guns out there with all the bells and whistles too that are affordable. Easily, the Kimber Custom II and Springfield Armory Loaded are made for the general shooters that want the cool options. And, these guns are VERY capable shooters.

To some, the mods/options don't make a difference for them. For others, they want a PJ gun. Others require the latest thing. Find out what you really want, go shoot a couple differnet 1911s. It should be apparent in short time whether it really matters to you.

Good luck!

 

[GRIZ22]

You are the only one who can decide what bells and whistles you "need". I have a 1911 made in 1918. It's been refinshed and overpolished (removing some of the original markings so there is no collector value. It has the tiny original 1911 sights but I find that as a defensive pistol I can shoot it well enough to max a qualification course. I'd take the plain jane.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I like beavertail grip safeties, high visibility sights, arched mainspring housings, and no guide rods. The rest is just window dressing, in my opinion.

If it were me, I'd probably start with the less expensive model and have a smith add the features I wanted and nothing more.

 

[Autolycus]

I like my 1911s to be fancyier. The main thing I want is an ambi safety. I am a southpaw so it makes me smile when I find one on it.

 

[StrikeEagle]

BenjaminR

I have a beautiful "plain GI jane" 1911 with the parkerized finish. I just wish it operated as well as it looks.

What's wrong with it, and what's it doing? (or NOT doing?)

 

[vanfunk]

I vote for "plain jane". Personal preferences are everything when it comes to 1911s. Which one appeals to you more?

vanfunk

 

[civilian]

my personal thought would be to get the milspec and then once you've "figured" the gun out, send it off to your favorite smith for some custom work. if you never intend to modify the gun and want something that you'll eventually use as a carry or home defense weapon, then i'd spend a little more and get a gun with better sights. don't think you can go wrong with the milspec though.

 

[VA27]

I have the GI Springer. I like it. I have no problem with the small sights and I really like the "classic" look of the gun. Mine has been totally reliable with any ammo I cared to put through it.

If you have problems with the small sights, go with the MilSpec. Then take all the money that would normally be spent on "upgrades" , spend it on ammo and shoot the darn thing 'til you feel comfortable with it.

If your eyes are ok with the small sights and you just want to have a high-class gun for shooting and carry, get one of the Colt WWI reproductions. Plain Jane and high class all in the same package.

 

[Coronach]

Plain jane, non-pimped milspec.

The only thing I would change would be:

Trigger, if you don't like stock.
Hammer, if it bites you.
Sights, if you want better ones.

Mike

PS edited to add, different mainspring housing, if you prefer a different feel.