mil-spec 1911's????

[Cosmose]

hi, my brother has his eye on a mil-spec 1911 either a colt or springfeild. and we was wondering how reliable they are? will it feed ball reliable? he don't want nothing he'll have to send to the gunsmith just to get it to work. he mainly want's it for plinking and home defense. i know a lot of gun writer's say that 45 ball will not over-penetrate what do ya'll think? we have no experience with the 45 acp, also how accurate are the mil-specs?

in other words
will a mil-spec feed ball reliable?

and does the 45 acp tend to over-penetrate?

thanks for any info

 

[Tim]

The Colt and Springfield "mil-spec" pistols are throated to feed JHP ammo, and will certainly feed ball ammo. As for the ball ammo question, I cannot answer that one since I haven't done any testing for penetration and such...all I know is what I read.

Here's a review of the Springfield WWII mil-spec by DSK: http://usgi1911.tripod.com/ww2milspec/

 

[Sean Smith]

He also has reviews of Colt's basic 01991-series Government Models:

http://usgi1911.tripod.com/series80/

The short answer is, yes, they are reliable with ball and most hollowpoints out of the box. The new Colts are generally very accurate, too. Ted Yost had a couple of stock 01991 guns that shot around 1.5" @ 25 yards.

As for over-penetrating, well the ball will penetrate quite a bit, hollowpoints less so.

 

[Feanaro]

will it feed ball reliable?

I hope so or you have got one busted arse pistol!

know a lot of gun writer's say that 45 ball will not over-penetrate what do ya'll think?

If you hit the target where you are supposed to (Center Of Mass) it probably won't over-penetrate, HPs or FMJs. And if you miss... for the sake of arguement, let us say you hit a sheetrock wall. If you are using ball, it will go through both. If you are using HPs, the sheetrock will jam it up and it will do the same thing as an FMJ.

also how accurate are the mil-specs?

Depends on the manufacturer and how good a day the people putting it together were having. In general though a defensive handgun doesn't have to be amazingly accurate, reliability is more of a concern.

 

[Swamprabbit]

The SA mil-specs are quality pieces. I have two. My first one I bought new several years ago and, unaltered, it is still my carry gun even though it has a few thousand rounds through it. The only ammo it won't feed well are the short blunt hollowpoints like the old Winchester 185g Silver Tips. My second one I just bought a couple of months ago. On that one, I did have to have the front sight milled down about halfway to get the point of impact on at 25yds. This pistol shoots very accurately for a "mil-spec" (about 2.5" -3" at 25yds).

As for the pentration issue, I'll leave that one up to others who probably know more than me.

 

[Rob96]

The new Colts are excellent values. Mine has been totally reliable and very accurate.

 

[Black Majik]

Both are great shooters and are reliable. There was a guy on the 1911 board that did a SA Milspec reliability test and that gun shot and shot and shot.

OTOH, My vote goes for the Colt. Better fit and finish and just plain more beautiful

Make sure its a NRM (New Rollmark) Colt.

 

[stans]

If a 1911 won't feed ball ammo it has a serious problem, frequently the problem is a cr@@py factory magazine! Most modern 1911's will feed JHP ammo as well.

As for penetration with ball ammo, unless the bullet hit bone, like the spine or hip, it is likely to zip through the soft tissues and exit.

 

[ruger357]

I have had great luck with my Springfield GI-milspec.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The only complaint I have about my Colt WWII Repro is that it has lots of sharp corners that should have been beveled. Does the Springfield G.I. .45 have beveling at sharp corners to round them out a bit so they will not tear up a leather holster?

 

[silent one]

Cosmose,
If I were you I would definately go with the Springfield Mil-Spec. I have three of them and they are an great buy. I also would opt for the hi-viz sight version as it has three dot sights, larger ejection port, and stainless barrel. The average cost around here is $450.00. The WW-2 version has small G.I. sights and smaller ejection port. It also has the lanyard loop. This was done to make this version look more like the original WW-2 era weapon. The cost of this version is around $400.00. As far as the Colts' are concerned, they are very nice weapons but I think the cost of their WW-1 and WW-2 reproduction guns will run you anywhere from $900.00 to $1000.00 for a new in box. If you want the weapon primarily for plinking, and home defense, as I stated earlier, I would get a Springfield. they are very accurate, and well made.
You also mentioned ball ammo. The 1911 was designed to fire 230 gr fmj ball ammo. You shouldn't have any problems using it. As far as penetration is concerned, the .45 has all the penetration power you'll ever need. It was designed to have stopping power, and believe me, it surely does the job.
good luck, and be safe.


SILENT ONE

 

[Sean Smith]

As far as the Colts' are concerned, they are very nice weapons but I think the cost of their WW-1 and WW-2 reproduction guns will run you anywhere from $900.00 to $1000.00 for a new in box.

That's a bit of a straw-man argument you've got there. Basic Colts cost about $570, and are nicer (IMHO) than the SA Milspecs.

 

[Russ]

Just based on pics on the Internet, the Colt does look nicer. I have been debating on getting a 1911 and I really don't want to spend $1,000's. I did a search and a basic Colt was in the $600 to $750 range. A bit more than the Springfield but the ones I saw had the wood grips and that adds $50 right there. I also saw some nice polished blue Colts in that range. I prefer that to the Matte finish personally. I have heard great things about the Springfield lately. I don't know. I look at a $200-$300 price difference over a period of 20 years. When you look at it that way, it doesn't seem so bad. Let us know what you decide.

As an aside:

The thing that really toasts me is that my uncle was a Lt Cmdr. in the Navy in WWII. He had a Colt and traded it for an M-1 Carbine. He wasn't much into guns and at the time maybe he thought it was better. I have the M-1 and it still has the UAW stamp on the wood stocks. It was made by GM in their Inland plant. Has the peep sites and all original. I don't even shoot it now. Sure wish he kept his Colt however.

Just noticed, 666 posts! I guess I am officially a Beast now! My wife tells me I am

 

[silent one]

Sean Smith,
I thought Cosmose was referring to a reproduction Colt, not a Colt in general. The WW-1 and WW-2 Colt repros' are going for between $900.00 and $1,000 around here. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
good luck, and be safe.


SILENT ONE

 

[Cosmose]

thanks for all the replies.

from what i read in the gun mag's the cheaper (mil-spec models) seem more reliable than the expensive one's

 

[Waxed Canvas]

That is because the mil specs closely follow the true intention of the gun ------------- a defensive pistol with reasonable accuracy designed to put a man on his ??? end. You cannot go wrong with a .45ACP in any well designed gun much less the 1911. So many elite tactical units have gone back to them. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Sean Smith]

from what i read in the gun mag's the cheaper (mil-spec models) seem more reliable than the expensive one's

That depends alot on who made it more expensive, and how.

 

[unitman]

My recently purchased Colt Combat Commander is very reliable, accurate, and has a beautiful finish. It is on par with my SIG P225 both inside and out. I like my Colt so well that I plan on buying a full size Government model next.