MilSpec vs. Taurus 1911

[falnovice]

I could use an educated opinion here. MY nest purchase will either be a Springfield MilSpec .45 or one of the new Taurus 1911s. They are fairly comparable in price but I am concerned with the quality. I know the Taurus comes with a lot of extras already added but I really don't need most of it. What I so need/want is a quality, well made 1911. Opinions from those that own one or both would be great.

Thanks.

 

[AZ_Rebel]

Interestingly, I ended up with both a Springfield and a Taurus PT1911 a while ago. While the Springfield seemed well made and shot ok, I liked the Taurus better and ended up selling the Springfield. I now have over 12,000 rounds through the Taurus without any problems and it is working fine. I have it as my carry gun and do shoot it a lot.
You do get a lot of "extra" features on a PT1911 - not all of which I find desireable. I did the following to make it more compatible with the way I use it:

• Replaced the Full Length Recoil Guide with a standard Colt Guide and Plug.
• Blacked out the white dots on the Heinie Pattern Sights.
• Replaced the Stocks with a pair of Smooth Walnut.
• Locked out the Hammer Lock.
• Adjusted the Trigger Backlash Screw and the LocTited it.
• Replaced the Magazines with Colt Plain Bottom ones - I don't like bumper pads on my mags.

 

[jonboynumba1]

The first couple Taurus 1911 clones I saw ranked just horrible. The last couple I've seen actually seemed pretty well fitted and felt pretty nice for a dressed up entry level 1911. If a guy just wanted on to have a nice 1911 to enjoy at the range at a very attractive price I'd say Taurus deffinately has that now. I don't think I'd reccomend it for more jusrt because I haven't put a few thousand rounds through one personally and you really can't tell much about one until it reaches that point IMHO. So I'd say for now I rank them in the charles daley/rock island class at the top of the heap of the cheap cheaps...much better feel (head and shoulders above the rest) and if the quality control and availablilty stays up it will almost certainly beat out springfield in the moderate price range 1911's...but I feel it's a bit early to bump it up there just yet. (springfields spoty quality control & supply of varsious models over the last few years and increasing prices are not helping them here. It almost seems like they don't care about their entry level 1911's anymore...they aren't shipping enough and after the last few we got I'm not ordering anymore unless sombody requests one) Where as the last few Taurus 1911's I got made me wonder why I haven't started stocking it already in place of the cheapy (rock Island/ LLAMA) class and the lower end springfields...it seemed a lot better buy.

My springfield GI is at well over 4K now but it was hand picked and is really just a frame and slide with a lot of handfit parts at this point. I traded for it new cashless as I really like the frame to slide fit on this one. The last several I got from them ranked horrible to downright embarrassing (for them) That said my frame and slide have held up great and while well broken in has gone from the tight side of "loose enough" to tight enough to not be loose and loose enough to not be tight. Which is about where I want a carry gun anyway. Kimbers frames and slides are still far better on average (I've owned and put a lot of round on a pre-FP safety Kimber as well) Plus you get a very decent bbl. and a good trigger without ordering $150 worth of hammer, sear, sear spring, reduced mainspring, rear grip safety and jig and longer trigger to get intop a comfortable happy place. If you go to clarke custom guns and look at which brands they OK for their .460 kit you see Kimber Colt (commercial series 70/80 not the older GI guns) and springfield at the top of the list. Which would also be the only 3 I'd tweak/build on for the same reason. Quallity fully heat treated steel that holds up.

The short answer is for the money you can't beat a Kimber for most people. There seems to be a trend to pretend they are "the rich mans foo-foo .45" I never really understood that. You end up spending far more on a springfield buildup even if you do it a piece at a time yourself. Which I did simply because I wanted to do it and traded into it cheap. I can swap about 3 parts on the average kimber and be very happy. They are all a bargain compared to a wilson or les baer. It all come down to buy what you like and for what you want it to do. But buy something decent of known and established quallity up front (and prefferable somewhere you can hand pick from several if possible...especially with springfields)

Paying for quallity only hurts once.

 

[Vito_Corleone]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3922002&postcount=16

 

[possum]

if there is any question in your mind about the taurus then go with the sa, they are a great company and they stand behind thier products you won't have to worry about a sa gun being reliable.

 

[Ala Dan]

I've heard of parts breakage's on the new Tauri 1911's; while the Springer
runs like the enezier bunny, with NO problems~! So, take your pick~?
My personal choice would be the Springfield MIL SPEC 1911; but I know
that is very subjective~!

 

[Texastbird]

I have a PT1911 and it gets better the more I shoot it. I haven't shot the Springfield, so I won't comment on it except that the Taurus comes with several important features for less (around here, anyway) money. Kimbers I have looked at don't have the ambi safety, and for a lefty like me, that's an important feature. And they are about double the money for the models I have seen around. I find the Heinie sights to be easy to work with, but I did see a couple at a gun show last week that had night sights and one with the laser grips. So have fun picking out what pleases you.

 

[GRIZ22]

I like both. Both have proven durable. Your choice seems to be with bells and whistles (Taurus) or without (Springfield).

 

[Pilot]

I would buy the Springfield on customer service alone.

 

[fastattack]

If you live in California, you can't even buy the Taurus!

 

[quickcanary]

I would buy the Springfield on customer service alone.

+1. I've read about Springfield guns having problems, and I've read about Taurus guns having problems, so obviously neither is perfect. But if I encountered a problem I'd much rather deal with SA than Taurus. Taurus can advertise that lifetime warranty all they want, but they seem to take their sweet time sending parts and returning guns sent in under warranty.

Of course, you might very well buy a 1911 from either company and never encounter a problem. Taurus certainly has a good feature/price ratio. It's really a gamble either way but I think I'd rather have SA backing my gun. Just my personal opinion.

 

[MPanova]

I read a lot more negative reviews on the mil spec then the PT1911. I have shot the SA and they seen lose cheap and do jam offen. My Pt1911 has been very reliable for well over 5000 rounds now. I bought my Dad a Pt1911 and his has been perfect for over 3000 rounds. You get more for your money witht he Taurus for sure. It is a true 1911 and not a clone as someone mentioned. The Taurus parts will interchange with other 1911's and you can do custom work to it just as you could on any other 1911. It is one of Taurus best guns IMO because of Colts ex president now working for Taurus.

 

[hexidismal]

Personally I'd save up just a little longer for a Springer Loaded, or an S&W 1911. I'm not a big fan of the Mil-Spec's, and the Taurus guns seem to be hit or miss. I haven't seen many PT1911s first hand, but the few I have seen didn't seem well fitted at all. You want go wrong with a Loaded or an S&W gun, and the customer service at Taurus can't hold a candle to either of the other companies.