Warren
Member
So what is the difference here? Is it that the G.I. is built as mil-spec was then and the Mil-Spec is built as mil-spec is now?
SA G.I. .45 vs. SA Mil-Spec .45
- Thread starter Warren
- Start date
- Status
horge
Member
I think your "SA Mil-Spec .45" refers to the recent pistols out of Illinois, while "SA GI .45" refers to true Government Issue pistols dating back to several decades ago, made by the original Springfield Armory.
Mr. Robert Reese merely bought the name-rights to "Springfield Armory" some time in 1974, for the current, private-commercial enterprise in Geneseo, Illinois.
The original, legendary Springfield Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts, had closed in 1968, after serving your country for nearly 200 years.
The present-day Springfield Armory 1911 Mil-Specs, like the Rock Island Armory 1911 pistols (--now there's another name-jack for ya
, from my country no less, and off the historical Rock Island Arsenal--), look "mil-spec". Personally, I feel a 1911 can only really be called "mil-spec" if it meets military specifications for the 1911 or 1911A1 ---with none of this MIM or investment-cast pig's-knucklery, or 'slightly off' dimensions, ad nauseam. But that's just me. I'm just an 'Absolute Beginner', so what do I know?
The original Springfield Armory's GI 1911's wouldn't even have to be qualified as "mil-spec", since all they made was automatically mil-spec. Here is a really nice website, with excellent image galleries and historical background to US GI M1911 and M1911A1 pistols, including those manufactured by THE original Springfield Armory:
US GI Springfield M1911
Real-deal GI's can be quite valuable as collector's items, as mementos, and (still) as practical-use firearms.
hth,
horge
PS: I'm definitely not bashing either the modern-day Springers or the RIA/Armscor pistols. They certainly have their very satisfied customers, and God willing, I myself will be one of them come this July.
PPS: If my opening presumption is wrong, please let me know, so I can take my sorry self out back and put myself out of your misery.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Mr. Robert Reese merely bought the name-rights to "Springfield Armory" some time in 1974, for the current, private-commercial enterprise in Geneseo, Illinois.
The original, legendary Springfield Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts, had closed in 1968, after serving your country for nearly 200 years.
The present-day Springfield Armory 1911 Mil-Specs, like the Rock Island Armory 1911 pistols (--now there's another name-jack for ya
, from my country no less, and off the historical Rock Island Arsenal--), look "mil-spec". Personally, I feel a 1911 can only really be called "mil-spec" if it meets military specifications for the 1911 or 1911A1 ---with none of this MIM or investment-cast pig's-knucklery, or 'slightly off' dimensions, ad nauseam. But that's just me. I'm just an 'Absolute Beginner', so what do I know?The original Springfield Armory's GI 1911's wouldn't even have to be qualified as "mil-spec", since all they made was automatically mil-spec. Here is a really nice website, with excellent image galleries and historical background to US GI M1911 and M1911A1 pistols, including those manufactured by THE original Springfield Armory:
US GI Springfield M1911
Real-deal GI's can be quite valuable as collector's items, as mementos, and (still) as practical-use firearms.
hth,
horge
PS: I'm definitely not bashing either the modern-day Springers or the RIA/Armscor pistols. They certainly have their very satisfied customers, and God willing, I myself will be one of them come this July.
PPS: If my opening presumption is wrong, please let me know, so I can take my sorry self out back and put myself out of your misery.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Gi Springfield
Excellent commentary horge! Bravo!
Excellent commentary horge! Bravo!
Tamara
Senior Member
I think he's referring to the "GI" or "WWII" Mil-Spec (once termed by Skunkabilly "The even mil-speccer Mil-Spec" ) versus the regular ol' SA Mil-Spec.
The difference, Mr. _To_Learn, (Can I call you I_Am_? ) is that the GI Mil-Spec has the teeny-tiny sights like the old military 1911's did, as well as the smaller original ejection port. The "Mil-Spec" has both larger three-dot sights and a lowered & flared ejection port.
I usually tell folks that if they're buying it as the basis for a project/carry gun, that the Mil-Spec might make a better platform than the GI/WWII Mil-Spec, since it has those two small upgrades.
(Hey, Tuner, I haven't checked: Does the Even Mil-Speccer have a wide or narrow tenon under that teeny front sight? I'd guess it's wide as I can't see em making the slides that different from the regular production runs...
)
) versus the regular ol' SA Mil-Spec.The difference, Mr. _To_Learn, (Can I call you I_Am_?
) is that the GI Mil-Spec has the teeny-tiny sights like the old military 1911's did, as well as the smaller original ejection port. The "Mil-Spec" has both larger three-dot sights and a lowered & flared ejection port.I usually tell folks that if they're buying it as the basis for a project/carry gun, that the Mil-Spec might make a better platform than the GI/WWII Mil-Spec, since it has those two small upgrades.
(Hey, Tuner, I haven't checked: Does the Even Mil-Speccer have a wide or narrow tenon under that teeny front sight? I'd guess it's wide as I can't see em making the slides that different from the regular production runs...
)1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Tenon?
Tamara asked:
(Hey, Tuner, I haven't checked: Does the Even Mil-Speccer have a wide or narrow tenon under that teeny front sight?
Ain't gotta clue Tam...My step-son won't give his up long enough to turn it over to me for close inspection. It'll probably be tough to say, since the
sight is likely correctly staked and the area ground/lapped to smooth it
up. I'm gonna take a WAG and say that since the sight is narrow, so is the
tenon. Easier (cheaper) to broach a different size hole in the slide than
to make a stepped sight.
So far, he reports no problems in over a thousand rounds of mixed ammo types, except for the extractor tension goin' south. After the second time, he went ahead and replaced it with a Hardcore. Smooth as silk ever since.
Factory magazines and a few of my Metalforms that he filched off me have
been reliable, and no issues to report. I'll wring it out good and proper
when and IF I get it any time soon.
Cheers!
Tuner
Tamara asked:
(Hey, Tuner, I haven't checked: Does the Even Mil-Speccer have a wide or narrow tenon under that teeny front sight?
Ain't gotta clue Tam...My step-son won't give his up long enough to turn it over to me for close inspection. It'll probably be tough to say, since the
sight is likely correctly staked and the area ground/lapped to smooth it
up. I'm gonna take a WAG and say that since the sight is narrow, so is the
tenon. Easier (cheaper) to broach a different size hole in the slide than
to make a stepped sight.
So far, he reports no problems in over a thousand rounds of mixed ammo types, except for the extractor tension goin' south. After the second time, he went ahead and replaced it with a Hardcore. Smooth as silk ever since.
Factory magazines and a few of my Metalforms that he filched off me have
been reliable, and no issues to report. I'll wring it out good and proper
when and IF I get it any time soon.
Cheers!
Tuner
horge
Member
Crap.
Time to take myself out back and cap myself in the head.
'Course, I've just demonstrated how dense I am up there
and I only have this Thunder .380 handy.
I can't shoot worth poop either.
Last edited:
Warren
Member
to Horge
Dude,
Your post was very informative and appreciated. Thank you.
Had I been more clear and even posted links like Middy I would have not caused the problem in the first place.
I went to bed after that post thinking "should I post the links?" Hah! My bad next time I'll do it right.
Dude,
Your post was very informative and appreciated. Thank you.
Had I been more clear and even posted links like Middy I would have not caused the problem in the first place.
I went to bed after that post thinking "should I post the links?" Hah! My bad next time I'll do it right.
Warren
Member
to Tamara
My friends call me I'm.
Tenon? Is this something a beginner should be worrying about?
My friends call me I'm.
Tenon? Is this something a beginner should be worrying about?
Warren
Member
Cool, thanks.
Tamara
Senior Member
Re: Tenon
Since I brought it up, I figure I may as well report the results of my research. I was informed by my 'smith at work yesterday that the GI Mil-Spec uses the same proprietary tenon size (although he didn't quite pronounce it that way ) as all the other Springfield 1911's. It's a bit larger than a Colt narrow tenon, but a fair amount smaller than a Colt wide tenon.
Since I brought it up, I figure I may as well report the results of my research. I was informed by my 'smith at work yesterday that the GI Mil-Spec uses the same proprietary tenon size (although he didn't quite pronounce it that way
) as all the other Springfield 1911's. It's a bit larger than a Colt narrow tenon, but a fair amount smaller than a Colt wide tenon.Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Besides the sight and ejection port, the most obvious difference between the Mil Spec and Even Miller Spec is the finish. The finish seems like it might be more prone to rust on the Even Miller Spec.
The Mil Spec goes for about $80 more than the Even Miller Spec around here. I've examined both and to me the $80 seems money well spent.
The Mil Spec goes for about $80 more than the Even Miller Spec around here. I've examined both and to me the $80 seems money well spent.
Chuck Jennings
Member
My understanding has been that the tenons are the same between the two models. I know of some folks (Non gunsmith types) that have replaced the GI sights with the SA Mil Spec 3dot sights and put them on their GI with no difficulty.
I personally like shooting with the tiny sights. Then, when I pick up my Kimber, the Novak 3 dot sights seem HUGE.
I personally like shooting with the tiny sights. Then, when I pick up my Kimber, the Novak 3 dot sights seem HUGE.
dogngun
Member
I'm ( if I may call you that)
I used to own a GI .45. I now own a "mil spec".45
Many years ago I bought a Remington-Rand WWII .45 pistol in extremely used condition, a rattler. It had really tiny sights, lousy finish, loose fitting everything, and came with someone's idea of an upgrade, toilet seat pearl grips, and ammo for under $130. All it would do is shoot. It would shoot any ammo I put in it, with enough accuracy to hit inside the 8 at 25 yards.
I was dumb enough to sell it.
I now own a RIA "mil spec" .45. It's not really a precise copy of anything, but it has a great trigger, slightly larger sights, and it handles and points very well. It came NIB with smooth rosewood grips and some kind of dull "mil" finish that is OK with me. It fits very tight and is not a rattler, and seems to have a slightly larger port. It was under $400. It shoots any ammo I put in it with enough accuracy to hit inside the 8 at 25 yards. It's a great carry gun, IMO.
I hope to be smart enough to keep it.
This is called progress, I guess.
I wish I still had the Remington Rand, but I'm very happy with the RIA.
Mark
I used to own a GI .45. I now own a "mil spec".45
Many years ago I bought a Remington-Rand WWII .45 pistol in extremely used condition, a rattler. It had really tiny sights, lousy finish, loose fitting everything, and came with someone's idea of an upgrade, toilet seat pearl grips, and ammo for under $130. All it would do is shoot. It would shoot any ammo I put in it, with enough accuracy to hit inside the 8 at 25 yards.
I was dumb enough to sell it.
I now own a RIA "mil spec" .45. It's not really a precise copy of anything, but it has a great trigger, slightly larger sights, and it handles and points very well. It came NIB with smooth rosewood grips and some kind of dull "mil" finish that is OK with me. It fits very tight and is not a rattler, and seems to have a slightly larger port. It was under $400. It shoots any ammo I put in it with enough accuracy to hit inside the 8 at 25 yards. It's a great carry gun, IMO.
I hope to be smart enough to keep it.
This is called progress, I guess.
I wish I still had the Remington Rand, but I'm very happy with the RIA.
Mark
TENON SIZES
Prior to 1988 Colt used front sights with an .058" tenon. It proved too small to retain the increasingly larger front sights without the sight blade flying off the slide, so when Springfield Armory began making pistols they increased the tenon size on their guns to .088". By 1988 Colt also realized they needed to increase the tenon size, so they went all the way and made them the full .125" width (same as the front sight thickness). Since then Colt and Para Ordinance pistols have used the "wide tenon" (.125") sights, while many clone makers like Auto Ordinance continued to use the older "narrow tenon" (.058"). Springfield on the other hand has retained using their own proprietary "medium tenon" (.088") size for their guns. Both the standard Mil-Spec and the new WW2 Mil-Spec use this tenon size. Most aftermarket sight manufacturers only offer the narrow or wide Colt tenons, but a gunsmith can shave down the wide Colt sight easily to fit a Springfield slide (or else he may elect to open up the slide cut instead). To my knowledge only King's Gun Works offers medium-tenon sights as direct replacements.
BTW on the subject of true GI guns, the early M1911 pistols used a really teeny-weeny round post for a tenon. The standard square-shaped tenon wasn't introduced until 1924, and we didn't even get to see square-notch rear sights until the end of 1942!
L-R: early M1911 front sight, 1924-1942 sight, 1943- sight.
Picture courtesy John Holbrook
Prior to 1988 Colt used front sights with an .058" tenon. It proved too small to retain the increasingly larger front sights without the sight blade flying off the slide, so when Springfield Armory began making pistols they increased the tenon size on their guns to .088". By 1988 Colt also realized they needed to increase the tenon size, so they went all the way and made them the full .125" width (same as the front sight thickness). Since then Colt and Para Ordinance pistols have used the "wide tenon" (.125") sights, while many clone makers like Auto Ordinance continued to use the older "narrow tenon" (.058"). Springfield on the other hand has retained using their own proprietary "medium tenon" (.088") size for their guns. Both the standard Mil-Spec and the new WW2 Mil-Spec use this tenon size. Most aftermarket sight manufacturers only offer the narrow or wide Colt tenons, but a gunsmith can shave down the wide Colt sight easily to fit a Springfield slide (or else he may elect to open up the slide cut instead). To my knowledge only King's Gun Works offers medium-tenon sights as direct replacements.
BTW on the subject of true GI guns, the early M1911 pistols used a really teeny-weeny round post for a tenon. The standard square-shaped tenon wasn't introduced until 1924, and we didn't even get to see square-notch rear sights until the end of 1942!
L-R: early M1911 front sight, 1924-1942 sight, 1943- sight.
Picture courtesy John Holbrook
horge
Member
Woah...
Mr. Kamm's in the house!
Mr. Moore out there? ...Seeker? Other GI 1911/A1 heavyweights?
Mr. Kamm's in the house!
Mr. Moore out there? ...Seeker? Other GI 1911/A1 heavyweights?
- Status
