Sprinfield Mil-Spec versus Taurus

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would vote neither.

Me too. I've owned both, been disappointed in both. Save up a bit longer and get a better gun. I know $200-$300 seems like a lot of money now, but in a few years you will have long ago forgotten the extra money.

Buy either of these and one day in the future you will realize that you settled for a much lower quality gun for less than the cost of a couple of weeks worth of gasoline or about enough ammo for 2-3 range trips.
 
See what your options are in your price range. I picked up my Kimber Custom II for $650, brand new, this past year. Deals are out there. You just gotta look for 'em. :) Out of the options listed, though, I would take the SA.
 
Larry's Pistol and Pawn has been selling the PT1911AL for $450 plus $20 shipping or so...off and on since about January 2011 (perhaps longer than that...)...GREAT value on a perfectly serviceable 1911 pattern pistol...

Bill
 
If I were to own a 1911 from South America, I'd get a Sistema Colt Modelo 1927 if I could find one. I plan on getting the Springfield GI, even got the OK from the wife to buy HER SA first. ;) That may leave me with either a RIA or a Citadel. lol
 
I really like my PT1911SS. About 2,000 rounds through it. Good value and good shooter.

Can't speak of S.A. good or bad, as I neither owned nor shot one.

Bill.
 
I own 3 Taurus handguns and am happy with them. BUT they don't necessarily hold their value very well. I have since moved on to higher priced handguns and kind of wish that I had started out with higher priced handguns in the beginning. I have nothing against Taurus. My Taurus guns work very well. They just lost half of their value when I walked out of the store with them. Other than that, I recommend a Taurus, afterall if you get one of their bad guns they will fix it...eventually.
 
Phillipines = RIA not springfield.

My vote goes with the Ruger.

Oops sorry, not one of the options :) Springfield.

Taurus's 1911 is one of the handful of their products I've handled, it just did not function well. Others have had fantastic results from them. If you do go with them, at least you'll have a lifetime warranty if it ends up non-functional.
 
I actually just got one of the stainless mil spec's today. didn't get to shoot yet. But I'm already going to take it over the Taurus if for no other reason than this one issue. Taurus doesn't offer a 1911 without an ambi-safety, which I could live with if the SOB would stop wandering out of place and causing the hammer to lock up. As far as I'm concerned, the Taurus is only trustworthy as a bludgeoning device in time of need. Rather unfortunate, because their revolvers have always served me well.

Something about the way the Springfield feels in my hand just says "Friend". So far, I'm thoroughly pleased with the fit and finish. The Taurus already had rust starting under the grip panels when I got it.
 
I know this wasn't an option, but I second the guy on the Ruger SR-1911. If it has to be Springfield or Taurus, Springfield all the way. I wouldn't trust my life with a Taurus any day, IMO.
 
A lot of people are happy with it on the Taurus forum. Complaints are minimal if anything.

Brand specific forums don't usually tolerate detractors very well.
 
I have owned both

in fact, I owned a GI and the predecessor to the Loaded. I also own two Taurus Pt1911's in the duo-tone finish. All four guns functioned very well. That is to say that they shot when they should shoot. The Taurus are by far the most accurate of all the 1911's that I own, and I own 12, including 5 Kimbers. I highly recomend the Taurus over the basic Sprinfield because I like the toys and because they are also the most reliable guns I own other than my Glocks.
 
Just because both are born in Brazil doesn't mean a thing. IMBEL produces world-class steel and firearms. Taurus? Well, the only Taurus I would own would be made by Ford.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top