1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Which of these two 1911's would you guys buy and why? I am looking for a plane jane G.I. style type 1911 and it seems either of these will fill the role nicely. I know springfield armory has a great reputation but i've never owned any of thair guns but I have read nothing but good things here about the WWII M.S.

I've owned colt 1911's in the past and have always been pleased with them I guess all the colt VS S.A. is just brand preferance maybe? I am interested to hear from those who own both and give me some pointers on which will be better for me being the colts I've owned were older models how do the new colts stack up? This gun will be used for self defense so reliability is key for me also are S.A. factory mags anygood or should zI buy differant ones if I opt for S.A.? Thanks for any help guys
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Both guns have a good reputation for reliability. If it was my decision I'd pay the little extra money and get the Colt. First, it's a Colt, and second, I find the finish to be much more attractive than the Springfield.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
Although I consider the SA WWII to be a nifty deal for the dough, I prefer the regular mil-spec's angled cocking serrations. So, seeing as how I'd be getting straight-up-and-down serrations anyway, I'd go ahead and pony up for the pony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,352 Posts
To add to the above, in the Colt's favor:

- Forged in USA vs. Forged in Brazil
- Better metallurgy. Forged Slide Stop, etc.
- Standard contours on frame, "feels like a
Colt".
- Heritage, pride of ownership.
- Resale Value

In the Springfield's favor:

- Cheaper, (a little).


Warmly, Col. Colt

"Beware of Counterfeits & Patent Infringements" Samuel Colt, 1850's Colt Newspaper Ad. Just as true 150 years later. cc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
Yeah but with the Springfield you have less inferior American union labor.

All the bad guns get made when some jagoff is about to go on or coming off break. The less breaks the better. I like the third or ex second world quality of Springfield products. Imbel 1911s and HS Produkt Karlovac Croatian Sensation XDs.

;)

Personally I wouldnt get a WWII gun. I like the larger sights and flared/lowered ejection port.

PS. SA 1911s have the standard frame contour now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Colt!!!. When you hold other 1911's, they just don't feel the same. And also for all of the other reasons mentioned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
Buy the Colt, particularly if you dont plan on shooting it. Colt and their dealers need the business.;)

I am a shooter, I went with the Springfield. Extremely happy with the quality, fit and finish. I have only shot mine with 230 gr. ball, but very happy with the performance. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
Mus said:
All the bad guns get made when some jagoff is about to go on or coming off break. The less breaks the better.
Thats what they call a Monday or Friday gun!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,740 Posts
I'm in the minority, but for self defense I think Colt's series 80 with the firing pin safety is perfect.

Slight degradation of trigger quality for target shooting, but it will not fire unless you pull the trigger... just like all the modern guns.

Buy higher quality mags regardless of which one you buy- IMO.

Springfield makes a good gun also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,105 Posts
lkblair said:
Thats what they call a Monday or Friday gun!
Yep, happens after and before lunches and breaks too. My last job was industrial and nature. ALL our major mistakes on things and all our major accidents/injuries were shortly before or after getting to work/getting off work, going to break or lunch/getting off break or lunch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
I don't know how you could even compare the 2.I think they're two different breeds of guns. There's about a $150-$200 difference in price between them, different type of finish, one's made in America, one isn't.One has an internal safety, one doesnt, one has less MIM parts and just feels "better made" in your hands.One has the standard older GI style sites and one has taller combat sites. For a carry gun, I'd probably choose the SA mil-spec over the WW2 model just because of the taller sites and lower ejection port. I chose a NRM 1991 but wouldn't hesitate to buy a SA mil-spec. I held both in my hand and the Colt just "felt better made".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
SA. More cost effective, lifetime warranty, and an all around shooter. Bottom line is get what you like, and what feels the best. Try to shoot both of them, and then decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
Oh, don't worry yourself silly.

Just buy them both! I quit trying to figure it out awhile back, so I bought one of each, well ... maybe that was two of each. No,... I bought 2 SA's ...then bought 3 Colts.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
Reddevil said:
I don't know how you could even compare the 2.I think they're two different breeds of guns. There's about a $150-$200 difference in price between them, different type of finish, one's made in America, one isn't.One has an internal safety, one doesnt, one has less MIM parts and just feels "better made" in your hands.
And when I had to make that choice, the Springfield was the clear winner.

I didn't understand how a gun that cost 2/3 of what the Colt did was at least twice as good.

I didn't think about it very long about it and bought the Springfield.

The lower sights were an added bonus, as that's what I learned to shoot on and prefer them for carry because they don't stick out as far and I'm 50% faster with target aquisition with them.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top