Springfield Purchased Yesterday

[Whiteymin]

I picked up a Springfield GI Mil spec parkerized pistol today. I wanted a 45acp and wanted it in the 1911 style gun. It looks great and Im looking forward to shooting it. I broke it down and cleaned it well, lubed and put back together tonight. I went looking for a Rock Island Armory and couldn't find one. I was about to leave and thought to myself I will try for the Springfield, the most that he can say is no. So I thought I would try. Outcome was he obliged me at my price point and I was a happy camper. I know some make a difference out of the GI and Mil spec being 2 different models, but on my case it clearly states GI Milspec . Can someone clarify this for me and what do you think of this model Springfield? Thank you

Whiteymin

 

[james_bond]

better include pictures of your new 1911

 

[PirateRadio]

I love my SA Mil-Spec. However I am having some jamming issues. I'm not to worried about it though. If I do have to send it back, SA will take care of me.

It's a great gun. Very accurate too. Good choice!

 

[Walkalong]

There is a GI 45 and a Mil Spec, but not a GI Mil Spec, as far as I can tell.

No where on Springfields site do I see a GI Mil Spec. Did you say that your Springfield literature read GI Mil Spec?

"A step up from the GI, the Mil Specs includes many improvements...." This quote is off their website.

Might want to call them and ask. It is confusing.

 

[Whiteymin]

Hey there fellas. I took a pic of the Springfield case my GI Mil Spec came in. It has the description with the gun labeled, " GI Milspec. Take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. You will probably have to open the attachments to see the pics and use your browser to enlarge to see it well. Thanks and let me know what you think.

Whiteymin

 

[Walkalong]

Hmm.. Now we need a pic of the pistol.

 

[J Lambs]

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_24/products_id/30732

 

[Walkalong]

His pistol.

 

[Whiteymin]

Springfield Pistol

Here is some pics of the Pistol. Thanks fellas.

 

[Walkalong]

That's a GI .45, not a Mil Spec. Great starter 1911, by the way. Enjoy.

 

[mmay1]

I have one in my safe (belongs to one of my sons) and have taken it to the range a couple of times. I think it is a fine pistol, very solid. I prefer more prominent sights, since my eyesight is not what it once was.

 

[Whiteymin]

If it is so a GI and not Milspec, then why does the label on the factory case list it as a GI milspec park pistol ? You can see it is obviously stated in the pictures above of the case? Thank you

Whiteymin

 

[greenjeans]

The picture posted shows the GI .45. The Mil-Spec has 3 dot sights, lowered and flared ejection port, beveled magazine well, and maybe a couple of other differences. To me, the biggest difference is the sights. They are really small on the GI Series. I have the GI Series in both 4" and 5" and they both function well. Labels on my boxes don't say anything,

 

[trbon8r]

Whew, my heart skipped a beat when I saw the title of this thread "Springfield purchased yesterday." I was afraid I was going to read how Cerebrus Capital had bought out yet another gun maker.

My tin foil hat can go back in the closet now.

Anyhow, congrats on your new gun! I bet you will love it.

 

[bluto]

Springfield offers the GI , sometimes labeled a GI Milspec but otherwise known as the GI model and a Mil Spec model. Differences are as stated above plus raked (Mil Spec) vs. vertical serrations (GI) on the slide. The GI also has a lanyard loop.

The GI is an excellent pistol, reliable and accurate. You made a good choice.

 

[MAKster]

The Springfield exec who thought it was a good idea to sell seperate models named the "GI" and the "Mil-spec" should be fired. These words mean the same thing. I see these guns mislabled at shops all the time. To make things even worse, the "Mil-spec" model actually isn't mil-spec.

 

[curmudgeon and anarchist]

You'll want to install a beavertail. Otherwise, your going to have a sore and abraded web on your shooting hand.

 

[Walkalong]

The standard grip safety on Colts does not bother a lot of people. I am one. I have, and don't mind, the beavertails, but would not change out an old style Colt one either.

 

[jr_roosa]

This might sort out the confusion.

Here's a review of a 2003 Springfield GI Mil-spec. I think I remember that maybe only a couple years ago they started having 2 GI pistols in the line-up. Maybe this one is from before the GI and Mil-Spec were separate models and it's just been on the dealers shelf for a year or two.

http://www.m1911.org/prodte30.htm

See? It says right on the box. Nobody is losing their marbles, except maybe Springfield for having such unhelpful model names for their guns.

Oh, and I'll put in a vote for leaving the grip safety as-is, provided it doesn't cause a problem with your hands. I have a pre-WWI Colt and I've never had a problem with hammer bite, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how you'd go about hurting your hand with a 1911. I ended up doing a google image search and found out it's an anatomy issue. My tiny paws (they're really not quite hands) have no way of riding that high on a 1911 grip and still reach the trigger. Big meaty man-hands on the other hand (as it were) have no trouble getting in the way of the hammer and therefore would benefit from a beavertail, especially if you like the thumb-on-the-safety style grip.

-J.

 

[hanno]

The standard grip safety on Colts does not bother a lot of people. I am one. I have, and don't mind, the beavertails, but would not change out an old style Colt one either.

Agreed.

I learned to shoot the 1911 with a Colt that has the standard grip safety. It never caused me any problems. I now own other 1911s that have the beavertail safety and they are nice but not that big of a deal. Nice if you have them, not critical if you don't.

Whiteymin, congrats on the new pistol.