Posted: 9/12/2005 3:17:45 PM EDT
| i'm trying to decide between a mil-spec or GI model for a base gun to start with. The sights would likely get changed on either model. I wanted to know how important the lowered ejection port is, other than saving brass. Is it worth it since i don't reload. |
| No Army issued 1911's ever had lowered ejecton ports because they aren't necessary in a combat pistol. They are necessary in a target pistol because the extractor and ejector get tuned to shuck the brass sideways, instead of straight up and back. IMHO, the sights on the GI model are a joke and need to be replaced immediatly. The sights on the mil-spec are not adequate, they're good. I have them on a Para 14-45 and have no problems hitting what I aim at. I'm going through the same decision process right now. Trying to decise on what to buy and what to upgrade later. Personally I'm leaning tward the full size loaded because while it's about $300 more than the GI, it comes with Novak sights that would cost about $250 to have added later. I think I would go with the mil-spec in your case because it dosen't need anything done to it to be a good carry gun. |
| While not a huge Springfield fan due to some issues experienced some years ago, I would definitely prefer a Mil Spec model to any GI model if it were me paying the tab. (unless, of course, the GI was dirt cheap...as in less than $350 new) The Mil Spec is really not a bad gun at all, IMO. (I could not take the pounding of the standard grip safety for long, but that is a different problem) |