Hey all,
I decided I'm getting yet another 1911.  This time I want it for a "ECONOMICAL, working, retro" build.  You know, spur hammer, trigger/relibility job, YoBo retro rear sight (or maybe the King's target), tritium front, Kings non-ambi and recontoured safety, if the barrel's good maybe a match bushing. That's it.  Now I'm looking at the SA WWII, the SA Milspec, the Colt NRM 1991, and MAYBE (ONLY if I can find a killer price on one) Colt 70.

Now, I've heard the SA WWII has an excellent slide to frame fit (for a factory gun that is).  Does the milspec have an equally good fit, or does it just seem to be the WWII?

Also, how good are the Colt 80 series as compared to the 70's?  I have a 70 I got a year or so ago and it's fantastic.  

What do y'all recommend?


R

Colt Series 70. Period.

[email protected]

There ia a good looking Colt 70 on the EE for 600.00. I think thats the way to go.

SA GI or WW2 models do not have a tight frame/slide fit. Series 70 or bust! Or pre-Series 70. Series 80=crappy looks and crappy firing pin safety.

Series 70 Colt

Quoted: SA GI or WW2 models do not have a tight frame/slide fit. Series 70 or bust! Or pre-Series 70. Series 80=crappy looks and crappy firing pin safety.

Dude, you're nuts.   My GI model has the slickest and tightest slide to frame fit of any big mfr gun I've seen.   Maybe a Baer could be tighter but I dont know how much tighter than NO PLAY you can get.  

My GI is Waaaayyyy tighter than my Colt.

The new Colt 1991's are outstanding base versions of the 1911.  I have 5 Colt 1911's, 1 is pre 70 and all the others are 80 series.  The best trigger of the bunch is an Old Roll Mark 1991 wiht all the series 80 stuff still in it.  All of my series 80 guns I take the 80's parts and slick up.  Unless you have some 80's parts that are just crap or you are going to a tirgger pull less then 3.5 to 4 lb, you will never know the parts are there.  

Colt also has announced on 1911forum.com that they are further reducing the MIM content of all their pistols. And if you want something a little diff.... get one in 38 Super.

Keep in mind too that slide to frame fit really does not do squat for accuracy.  It is 99% in barrel fit.

Good luck and show us what you end up with.

Free American
"Keep in mind too that slide to frame fit really does not do squat for accuracy. It is 99% in barrel fit. "

Glad someone made that point.  It is important on a high dollar pistol to make a complete package but adds relatively little to accuracy.  Bbl fit is it.  JD

NORINCO.

Quoted:  My GI model has the slickest and tightest slide to frame fit of any big mfr gun I've seen.   Maybe a Baer could be tighter but I dont know how much tighter than NO PLAY you can get.

Same with my GI model.  Unfortunately, the thing broke after fewer than a thousand rounds -- incomplete machining of the frame caused the bits on either side of the barrel link to stress and break.  If you buy the SA, inspect it closely!!

For an inexpensive 1911, I am very happy with my GI. It has proven to be more reliable than the Kimber I spent more than 2x the money on. Cant say anything about a Colt, never owned one.

Quoted: For an inexpensive 1911, I am very happy with my GI. It has proven to be more reliable than the Kimber I spent more than 2x the money on. Cant say anything about a Colt, never owned one.

I have seen some very good GI's and even better Mil Specs.  I have seen some GI's where the slide did not fit the frame like it should as well as extractors that were not fush.  But there are so many of them out on the dealers counters, you can look'em over and pick and choose.

Quoted: Colt Series 70. Period. [email protected]

I agree.  

Quoted: NORINCO.

You friggin commie pinko.




Colt Series 70 for the purist, M1991A1 NRM if you dont mind the firing pin safety.

Quoted: Quoted: NORINCO. You friggin commie pinko. Colt Series 70 for the purist, M1991A1 NRM if you dont mind the firing pin safety.

I have a Colt series 80 (nrm with a near full house make-over by YO-Bo) and a Colt series 70, an SA GI (with 1* enhanced + upgrades from Yo-Bo), an SA loaded, and have had a Kimber type I.  

The series 80 (Colt 1991A1) is not THAT bad and is significantly better in the long run than any of the above (except the 70, which cost an arm and a leg these days and are hard to find), so I recommend it if you can't find/afford the series 70.  There's no noticable difference in trigger compared to the 70.  And I only curse it mildly when removing the firing pin and extractor.  I haven't even lost that little piston or spring yet, but I got plenty of spares for when I do.  

and who knows.  Maybe that series 80 firing pin safety might come in handy someday.  Like if a series 80 happens to fall from the sky and land on the sidewalk next to you.

The series 70 is not worth the uplift in cost, IMO.  I don't mind having the Colt firing pin safety, and it can always be removed it if ever exhibits problems.

Quoted: Quoted: SA GI or WW2 models do not have a tight frame/slide fit. Series 70 or bust! Or pre-Series 70. Series 80=crappy looks and crappy firing pin safety. Dude, you're nuts.   My GI model has the slickest and tightest slide to frame fit of any big mfr gun I've seen.   Maybe a Baer could be tighter but I dont know how much tighter than NO PLAY you can get.   My GI is Waaaayyyy tighter than my Colt.

Hmm. Thats interesting. My brothers GI was loose enough that Colton Bagnoli at YoBo tightened it for free rather than send it back that loose.

Quoted: I have a Colt series 80 (nrm with a near full house make-over by YO-Bo) and a Colt series 70, an SA GI (with 1* enhanced + upgrades from Yo-Bo), an SA loaded, and have had a Kimber type I.   The series 80 (Colt 1991A1) is not THAT bad and is significantly better in the long run than any of the above (except the 70, which cost an arm and a leg these days and are hard to find), so I recommend it if you can't find/afford the series 70.  There's no noticable difference in trigger compared to the 70.  And I only curse it mildly when removing the firing pin and extractor.  I haven't even lost that little piston or spring yet, but I got plenty of spares for when I do.   and who knows.  Maybe that series 80 firing pin safety might come in handy someday.  Like if a series 80 happens to fall from the sky and land on the sidewalk next to you.

I personally don't think that $700 or $800 for a base gun is a big deal if you are doing $1000-$2000 worth of modifications. Thats what I paid for a vintage S70 and an new manufacture SS S70 wtih the old roll marks, respectively.

I personally don't think that $700 or $800 for a base gun is a big deal if you are doing $1000-$2000 worth of modifications. Thats what I paid for a vintage S70 and an new manufacture SS S70 wtih the old roll marks, respectively.

+1

I've gone the milspec route for a buildup.  It's OK, but my next build will be on a new series 70 Colt.  The end product will be much nicer.

Rock Island Armory makes some good M1911s for a good price.  If you're prepared to work out any reliability bugs (especially in the shorter versions, the full size seems to be great), it's a pistol that will serve you well, and cost about half of a Series 70 Colt.

Not knocking the Colt, of course...if you have the cash it's a fantastic gun, and I've owned several.

A tight frame to slide fit had never been a factor in overall accuracy. If this is a self defence firearm you want the gun loose enough to function while dirty. I used to shoot service pistol with a rack grade 1911A1 that rattled like a pair of those chatering teeth you wind up. I could shoot 270 out of 300 with issue ball ammo. Two out of three of my 1911's have a firing pin safety abd they both have very good triggers.

Quoted: SA GI or WW2 models do not have a tight frame/slide fit. Series 70 or bust! Or pre-Series 70. Series 80=crappy looks and crappy firing pin safety.

I do not know about all of them but my SA G.I. has been a fantastic pistol it has been both accurate and reliable.

Colt series 70. New production, damn good 1911s and the BEST "retro" finish out there on the blued model. Mine was well worth the coin. My 1991 ORM cost 400 bucks, looked new and had a great trigger as bought with all the series 80 stuff. But parked of course.

Quoted: A tight frame to slide fit had never been a factor in overall accuracy. If this is a self defence firearm you want the gun loose enough to function while dirty. I used to shoot service pistol with a rack grade 1911A1 that rattled like a pair of those chatering teeth you wind up. I could shoot 270 out of 300 with issue ball ammo. Two out of three of my 1911's have a firing pin safety abd they both have very good triggers. Quoted: SA GI or WW2 models do not have a tight frame/slide fit. Series 70 or bust! Or pre-Series 70. Series 80=crappy looks and crappy firing pin safety.

I know that frame to slide fit isn't important for accuracy, but I prefer it anyway. It feels smoother under recoil, for one thing.

The slide to frame fit on the Remington Rand 1911A1 I carried in the Army was loose as a goose but it went bang every shot and I qualified expert with it.  On my Springfield it's pretty darn tight.  It goes bang every time, too.  The Colt, a little looser, but that one goes bang every time, too.

Issue/combat guns tended to be loose.  When they were tweaking them out for National Match use, they tightened them up a bit.  I used to have the armorer manual for doing that from the MTU, but I don't think I have it anymore.

I traded a Kimber for a Kimber the other day.  I'm going to try it out tonight a little.  It's about as smooth as glass and very tight.  I guess I'll find out tonight if it works!  

Either way, they're all good.  Maybe I'm just not that picky.  But I think that tight fit is more important on a range/competition gun than on one you're going to drag in the dirt and then shoot some.  

I've never understood the argument that tight tolerances make pistols fail. What can get in between two tightly fitted pieces of metal that isn't cleared when you fire it? If there is one pistol design that has that issue, its the Glock. Get the wrong kind of lube or grease in the striker tunnel and it will pack with crud, and not have enough leverage to fire the weapon anyway, since it lacks a hammer to really put some mass to it.

I've never understood the argument that tight tolerances make pistols fail. What can get in between two tightly fitted pieces of metal that isn't cleared when you fire it?

+1

My personal opinion is that back in the day before CNC machines and the QC that is now in place, making a gun tight involved doing things to it that caused problems (peening frame rails, squeezing slides in a vise, etc).

No problems with any of my well-fitted 1911s.  My SVI .40 has well over 20k rounds through it, and there is still no play in the barrel or slide to frame, and it runs and runs and runs even when dirty.  

I once tested it by putting over 1500 rounds of LEAD SWC .40 ammo through it w/o cleaning.  Ran fine.  

Well, I used to do things like crawl in the mud and drive around in the sand in a 62 ton tank and sometimes I would follow all that up by walking around in the rain.  I can just about guarantee under those circumstances, I got more dirt and crap in the action of my weapons in about 15 minutes than the average user would in a week of use.

Under those conditions, we had lots of things that wouldn't run when they got full of crap.  M2s became straight-pull bolt actions, etc.  The M240s ran pretty good pretty much all the time.  Some guys I knew in Iraq had some issues with them under certain conditions, but I never experienced an issue with the M240.  The M68 gun always worked, no matter what.

I remember one time thinking I was getting a pretty good tan until it rained and my tan washed off.

Cheers,

kk7sm

+100 on this. The 1911 got a bad reputation when the DCM released the first very, very, worn out pistols that couldn't hit crap at 10'. The gun industry spent the next 30+ years over compensating for it by making guns way to tight inth ename of 'quality'.

Originally Posted By a38337 My personal opinion is that back in the day before CNC machines and the QC that is now in place, making a gun tight involved doing things to it that caused problems (peening frame rails, squeezing slides in a vise, etc).

If you look at the inside of your 1911 slide, at the end near the front the slide opens up the rail grooves. The idea is any dirt will get worked up and out of these openings.  All the reliable guns I have had in my life had a little slop.  My Glock has a little slop, all my 1911s, my Sig had just a bit of play.  None of them rattle, but have some slop.

Part of the design of the 1911 is the barrle locks up nice and tight, but when the slide is in motion, there is enough room for everything to do its job.  On top of that, when you tighten up the tollerance on one part, such as the slide, you have to also tighten up the tollerance of all the other parts that are in motion as well.... or when you get some dirt running around in the action, you get trouble... and for what, an extra 1% accuracy at the most.

Everyone talks about what a great pistol John Browning invented but then try and change the specs.  

Esp with the New Roll Mark pistols, Colt is using the origional 1911 blueprints and are making some very nice 1911s.  I have a 1918 vintage 1911 that a family member carried in 3 wars.  When my eyes can put the mil spec sights where they need to be, it is an accurate pistol.  With no fancy throat jobs or ramped barrels, it feeds everything I throw at it.  It has a slightly loose frame to slide fit and the barrel fit is darn near perfect.  The last 4 Colts I have bought have all been shooters right out the box with no mods and were all fitted just  like that 1918 vintage gun.

These issues, and the fact that the current Colt 1991's have the least amount of MIM of the mass produced 1911s, make them the best 1911 for what you pay.  Look at the lines of a Colt frame and slide and compair it to a SA or Kimber.   If you want the traditional looking 1911, the Colt 1991, a 1911 WWI redo, or a ser 70 redo are the way to go.  All the other brands are a little thicker here, thinner there and you can tell they are not a colt.

If you really want a nice plain jane 1911 look at a Colt 1911 WWI redo.  They are exactly cheap.  But most of the extra cost goes in the the origional process charcoal blue finish. I am thinking about a WWI redo with a better set of sights and some ivory as a winter carry gun myself.  

In the end it is all about what you want and what you hold important.  

 I had a stainless steel M1991A1 that rattled like a fifty year old Jeep and it shot like gang busters.

 This thread makes me miss Ol' Floppy....... .

Flopppppppyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try My Solution!

Colt WW-1 Repro, Hogue Grips

Springfield WW-2 GI-45 Modified with Keyes WW-II Grips, Wide Spur Hammer, S&A MSH, ILS System Replaced along with upgrades to replace some critical MIM.

The "Looker" is the Colt

The "Shooter" is the Springfield GI .45

I really like the 70's, but the thing is, I'm thinking of having this project park'ed, and I just don't know if I can do that to a 70  then again....maybe I can.

colts suck
just kidding


if you want a accurate shooter out of the box, a Dan Weson PMA-B can be had in the 500 range. but everyone going to say colt.

I say step it up and buy EB new Special Force

Eh.  The Brown SF doesn't do it for me.  Now if they had named it the "extreme tacticool", then maybe...

Seriously though the EB doesn't trip my trigger.  I'm looking for pure functionality here.  I don't need a beavertail, so I don't want one.  I don't care for their front and backstrap treatments, I prefer Heinie sights to Novaks, I like spur hammers, and "unvented" triggers.

Otherwise I like the EB


I'm just trying fighting with the notion that if I get the Colt, it will probably get park'd.


R

The only Colt I would feel OK with parking is an ORM 1991.   I couldn't do it to a high polish blue like the NRM guns, but then again I prefer blue over everything else.

I don't have any pics here of my blued NRM 1991 Commander, but she has some wear on the high spots, esp around the muzzle.  The simple looks of the plain jane Commander and the honest holster wear.... just damn sexy!

I thought I would join on the fun. I love the old Army competition guns you find on the net. I have purchased 3 in the last 3 years. I kept 2 and gave  one to a friend. I found one the other day with an 1950's Colt national match slide, barrel and bushing on an aftermarlet frame I paid 450.00. It shoots like a champ. All the Army guns shoot. All the work is already done for you all you have to do is pull the trigger.  How do you find one? Look for an old ugly 45 with stippled front strap with a Micro sight . My best shooting gun cost me 400.00. (army gun) better than my Clark, Les Baer and worked on Colt Gold Cup.  
Just a thought

TJ

Quoted: NORINCO.

+1

Springfield Mil-spec.

After reading all this I still like my Les Baer its a nice looking gun
and it's capable of accuracy beyond most shooters

Quoted: Quoted: NORINCO. +1

A 'rinco was my first 1911.  It was a nickel plated one I bought in '95.  Too bad I didn't know much about 'em.  I "upgraded" and traded it for a Colt 1991 commander a couple years later.  Regretted that one ever since.



rich

Quoted: www.qtm.net/~rickinmi/baer.jpg After reading all this I still like my Les Baer its a nice looking gun and it's capable of accuracy beyond most shooters

Don't get me wrong, I still love my Nighthawk!

Quoted: My GI model has the slickest and tightest slide to frame fit of any big mfr gun I've seen. My GI is Waaaayyyy tighter than my Colt.

+2

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: NORINCO. +1 A 'rinco was my first 1911.  It was a nickel plated one I bought in '95.  Too bad I didn't know much about 'em.  I "upgraded" and traded it for a Colt 1991 commander a couple years later.  Regretted that one ever since. rich

I cut my teeth on the 1911A1 service pistol and after I got out I carried a Remington Rand I aquired fresh in the wrap.  We would joke about field stripping our pistols by shaking them, but with GI ball ammo you could drag these pistols through hell and they would never fail to go bang when ya pulled the trigger.  Most of the tales of inaccuracy came from the fucked up, one handed aiming position we were trained to shoot from.  

I traded my Remington Rand for a Commander in the early 80's, hell RR's were a dime a dozen then .  When I ran into my current Norinco it was a time trip back to that old Remington Rand.  Just got it back from the plater this week.  




And it fits the hand like the old lady's...

i know a retired warrant officer who built and rebuilt and rebuilt MEUSOC .45s for years, even built 1911's for army go-fast types. he has always said that there is a sweet spot when it comes to frame "slop". he insists on it and trained an entire generation of USMC pistolsmiths that play is good and i believe him. if the sole purpose for my 1911 is post whoring on the internet while prentending to be an authority then sure, i would want a tightened up show piece so i could brag about who built it and how much it cost. BUT, if im going to wear it on my thigh for weeks on end, far from home while mother nature is pissing on me, or sand is blowing and i know if i need it it absolutely must go bang....then i'd prefer a little slop.

duped myself, sorry

Quoted: i know a retired warrant officer who built and rebuilt and rebuilt MEUSOC .45s for years, even built 1911's for army go-fast types. he has always said that there is a sweet spot when it comes to frame "slop". he insists on it and trained an entire generation of USMC pistolsmiths that play is good and i believe him. if the sole purpose for my 1911 is post whoring on the internet while prentending to be an authority then sure, i would want a tightened up show piece so i could brag about who built it and how much it cost. BUT, if im going to wear it on my thigh for weeks on end, far from home while mother nature is pissing on me, or sand is blowing and i know if i need it it absolutely must go bang....then i'd prefer a little slop.

Whats your problem?

Hmmmm, not sure if you're referring to me, but I carry a custom 1911 in my duty holster every day in and day out, in the rain too, wrestling with bad guys in the mud and the blood on their lawn and in the street on occasion.  I'm sure that being a Colt 1911 armorer, maintaining my own weapon and that of my guys, has nothing to do with my qualifications as to having an opinion about what works and doesn't.      


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
i know a retired warrant officer who built and rebuilt and rebuilt MEUSOC .45s for years, even built 1911's for army go-fast types. he has always said that there is a sweet spot when it comes to frame "slop". he insists on it and trained an entire generation of USMC pistolsmiths that play is good and i believe him. if the sole purpose for my 1911 is post whoring on the internet while prentending to be an authority then sure, i would want a tightened up show piece so i could brag about who built it and how much it cost. BUT, if im going to wear it on my thigh for weeks on end, far from home while mother nature is pissing on me, or sand is blowing and i know if i need it it absolutely must go bang....then i'd prefer a little slop.

+150 on this. A little slop, it's a good thing....

Quoted: if the sole purpose for my 1911 is post whoring on the internet while prentending to be an authority then sure, i would want a tightened up show piece so i could brag about who built it and how much it cost. BUT, if im going to wear it on my thigh for weeks on end, far from home while mother nature is pissing on me, or sand is blowing and i know if i need it it absolutely must go bang....then i'd prefer a little slop.