Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/14/2003 1:37:46 PM EDT
im interested in the future of buying a 1911 my question is i have 2 manufactures im thinking of,SPRINGFIELD and COLT which do yall think is a better built,and is simply better. ?
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 1:46:07 PM EDT
I have the Springfield Milspec. Outstanding gun. The only thing that needed some tweaking was the extractor.

Recently bought two Colt 38supers. They are Mark IV, series 80. The fit on the Colts, as well as the quality of the parts themselves, were not in the same league as the Springfield.
The mirror-like blued finish on the Colts was pretty dazzling though, compared to the parkerized Springfield.

My vote would go to Springfield.

Link Posted: 10/14/2003 2:19:03 PM EDT
I have both makers. The Colts have never had to go to the gunsmith or maker to be fixed, the Springfields have. The Colts frames are more on spec where the Springfields are not and are usually larger in the grip and dust cover. My bitch about the Colts, the new ones anyway, is their use of plastic parts. The trigger and mainspring housing are plastic for who knows why, like its going to break them to use steel. I replace them with steel as I like short triggers and mainspring housings with lanyard loops on them anyway, and put them on all my 1911's. Every Colt I've owned has had good triggers right out of the box. I shoot my Springfields, I carry my Colts.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 3:07:57 PM EDT
If it's any indication, my latest Colt, SS 1991A1 is excellent.
Other than the plastic trigger & mainspring housing, it is about as perfect as possible.
My parkerized Springfield was getting a new Cmc drop in sear but it wouldn't drop in and work.
It did drop in the Colt and works flawlessly.
Of course that's just one example.
If you opt for the Springfield, look for one with a "completed" frame, with the proper contour/thickness on the trigger guard, dust cover and grip area, they do make 'em.
Functionally the same on either, but look more realistic "finished", IMO.
But a lot depends on which models you were thinking about, to even begin comparisons.
(Like saying Ford...the Escort or the Crown Vic?)
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 5:22:26 PM EDT
thanks for the help, this is nice being able to ask the questions on here and get good responce ,and ive learned so much since ive been coming on this web site thanks again,,,JOE
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 5:54:14 PM EDT
Generally speaking, Colts have a "hit or miss" rep for quality. They cost more on the front end & sell for more on the back end.

It's already been mentioned that Colt uses plastic parts. Kinda chintzy, IMO.

I own 2 SA 1911s, bought them both used so as to save $$$$$.

Some custom makers won't use Colts as a base gun anymore. Wilson is one of those.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 6:27:39 PM EDT
I own both, my Colt is WW1 production, and is a great gun, my Springfield is an .inc and is also a great gun, for the price, I prefer Springfield, I cringe less when it gets scratched from use and whatnot

Both work flawlessly with Ball ammo, mine anyways
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 10:50:12 PM EDT
Colt



YMMV..............but mine don't, it stays Colt
Top Top