snowman
Member
So Caj got us with an obscure quote, huh ?Always sumpin' to learn . . . .
A pro basketball player -no wonder I didn't know about it.
Andy
1911's... All the Bells and Whistles, or Mil Spec ?
- Thread starter gizamo
- Start date
A pro basketball player -no wonder I didn't know about it.
Andy
I started shooting certerfire pistols with my Granddad's surplus Remington Rand, and over more than a few years have handled and shot lots of 1911s belonging to other folks, in lots of different configurations. I don't care for the gun all that much in the stock configuration and would just as soon have a good Combat Magnum. But basic improvements do change the gun a lot, for me.
If I have to go bare-bones on a 1911, I want a reliable gun with decent barrel, modified GM-grip safety to accommodate a Commander hammer, and a good trigger. Bigger sights, a beavertail grip safety, and a checkered front strap are really nice, but beyond that, my wish list hits diminishing returns and I quit spending the money.
I have not shot one of the new, so-called mil-spec guns but I would think one wouldn't need to do a lot to have a pretty serviceable gun - maybe just a trigger job? I am not really interested in 1911s with long slides, compensators, optics, 20+ round extended magazines, etc., etc.
If I have to go bare-bones on a 1911, I want a reliable gun with decent barrel, modified GM-grip safety to accommodate a Commander hammer, and a good trigger. Bigger sights, a beavertail grip safety, and a checkered front strap are really nice, but beyond that, my wish list hits diminishing returns and I quit spending the money.
I have not shot one of the new, so-called mil-spec guns but I would think one wouldn't need to do a lot to have a pretty serviceable gun - maybe just a trigger job? I am not really interested in 1911s with long slides, compensators, optics, 20+ round extended magazines, etc., etc.
So Caj got us with an obscure quote, huh ?
You guys are making that too hard. It's not about basketball or quotations. Old Cajunlawyer just wants a gun he can shoot in or out of the water, in case he loses his footing and slides in. Probably lots of 'gators down there needin' a lawyer-lunch.
bwsmith2850
Member
All I need added on a 1911 are good night sights and a hammer that doesn't bite. Other than that leave it as 'St John of Ogden' made it.
66TAS
Member
There was no "Ed Brown" choice.....
Broker50
Member
Well, I'm really surprised at the results here. I don't think sales numbers on milspec guns as compared to more "modern" 1911's agree either, although I have no idea how to prove that. Personally, a Milspec 1911 is virtually useless to me, mainly because of the sights, or rather the lack of sights, & a short trigger. Beavertail, rounded hammer, extended safety, better barrel, tighter slide to frame fit are all nice to have too. All of these things contribute to ease of use & better accuracy. Like I said, i'm really surprised.............
For close up, serious work who needs anything more than milspec? Once the bad guy see the muzzle he's not going to care about bells and whistles.
brown10
Member
I see the majority vote for the Milspec. I wouldn't have one. All my 1911's have a beavertail, Commander style hammer, decent sights, lowered ejection port. Will not own one without these features. Don't need a lot of the other popular mods, however.
Stevie
Member
The definition of 'milspec' needs to be ascertained...
At least to me..'Milspec' means like the old goverment issue 1911A1...
But then my 1990's Springer 'Milspec1911A1'...has a different barrel..reshaped ejection port..chamfered magwell..bigger sights..some other minor stuff like missing lanyard loop etc.
My brandnew Remington 1911R1 now..it's pretty much identical to the Springfield Armory 'Milspec' standard..
Then you have GI spec..Milspec...all sorts of 'spec'..would appear to me the 1911 has evolved somewhat to where the old GI 1911A1(which itself evolved from the 1911) has evolved into something that by military standards should be called 1911A2. But then it gets just crazy from there!
Some won't accept a 1911 type gun without the beavertail/round hammer..longer trigger..extended safety/slide stop...1911A3/A4?
Extended slide/barrels..ported..double-stack mags..railed dust-covers..front and rear slide grooves..etc..starts getting crazy..that system of standards would get you up to like '1911A40'
Picking a 1911 is sort of like choosing icecream flavors nowdays...you can get about anything...but they all got vanilla in there somewhere!
At least to me..'Milspec' means like the old goverment issue 1911A1...
But then my 1990's Springer 'Milspec1911A1'...has a different barrel..reshaped ejection port..chamfered magwell..bigger sights..some other minor stuff like missing lanyard loop etc.
My brandnew Remington 1911R1 now..it's pretty much identical to the Springfield Armory 'Milspec' standard..
Then you have GI spec..Milspec...all sorts of 'spec'..would appear to me the 1911 has evolved somewhat to where the old GI 1911A1(which itself evolved from the 1911) has evolved into something that by military standards should be called 1911A2. But then it gets just crazy from there!
Some won't accept a 1911 type gun without the beavertail/round hammer..longer trigger..extended safety/slide stop...1911A3/A4?
Extended slide/barrels..ported..double-stack mags..railed dust-covers..front and rear slide grooves..etc..starts getting crazy..that system of standards would get you up to like '1911A40'
Picking a 1911 is sort of like choosing icecream flavors nowdays...you can get about anything...but they all got vanilla in there somewhere!
My second handgun, and my first Centerefire handgun was an Accurized Colt 1911, in 45 ACP. This was in 1966 when I was in the 9th grade.
So I was "spoiled" early on with a 1911 with adjustable Bomar sights that would shoot well under 3" at FIFTY YARDS...
So ever since have I prefered my 1911's in the following way...
This was before any of the current Custom 1911 makers.
Government Models are my first pick.
In the early days there were no Match barrels, so Pistolsmiths welded up the "feet", locking lugs and the barrel hood and hand fittd them to the slide.
The bushing was fitted to the slide and barrel.
The slide and frame were tightened and lapped to remove all "play".
Triggers were set at 4 to 4.5lbs [I am talking "duty" guns here, target guns were set at 3.5lbs].
Bomar sights were fitted, years later they were "Melted" as well.
Such a 1911 will shoot under 3" at 50 yards, one ragged hole at 25 yards.
Magazine well slightly beveled. I would NEVER have any type of add on, flared magazine well on a duty gun.
I have never encountered any reduction in reliability with such a gun, after it was properly broken in. I have used these guns for years in competition, hunting, and duty use.
Now a days it is a little easier as you can just buy a Wilson or a Les Baer.
I shot a buddies Wilson [2 of them] and another buddies Les Baer, one with the 1.5" guarentee, the other day.
Both were excellent guns. well worth the money, if you want a 1911 that is 100% reliable and VERY ACCURATE.
So I was "spoiled" early on with a 1911 with adjustable Bomar sights that would shoot well under 3" at FIFTY YARDS...
So ever since have I prefered my 1911's in the following way...
This was before any of the current Custom 1911 makers.
Government Models are my first pick.
In the early days there were no Match barrels, so Pistolsmiths welded up the "feet", locking lugs and the barrel hood and hand fittd them to the slide.
The bushing was fitted to the slide and barrel.
The slide and frame were tightened and lapped to remove all "play".
Triggers were set at 4 to 4.5lbs [I am talking "duty" guns here, target guns were set at 3.5lbs].
Bomar sights were fitted, years later they were "Melted" as well.
Such a 1911 will shoot under 3" at 50 yards, one ragged hole at 25 yards.
Magazine well slightly beveled. I would NEVER have any type of add on, flared magazine well on a duty gun.
I have never encountered any reduction in reliability with such a gun, after it was properly broken in. I have used these guns for years in competition, hunting, and duty use.
Now a days it is a little easier as you can just buy a Wilson or a Les Baer.
I shot a buddies Wilson [2 of them] and another buddies Les Baer, one with the 1.5" guarentee, the other day.
Both were excellent guns. well worth the money, if you want a 1911 that is 100% reliable and VERY ACCURATE.
Got to admit that the poll results were not what I expected. Currently, 69 % prefer a mil spec 1911.
Frankly, it wouldn't have been surprising if the results were the opposite. With all the branding and marketing....advertising dollars spent - .....
Guess most folks just prefer JMB's original design.
Frankly, it wouldn't have been surprising if the results were the opposite. With all the branding and marketing....advertising dollars spent - .....
Guess most folks just prefer JMB's original design.
Last edited:
Well, they're selling 'em. All these new entries (remington, S&W, Sig, etc.) in the last few years haven't been in vain. Even tho the design is 100 years old, the last 40 years have seen an evolution and each of the features mentioned above has been developed from 'racing' the gun. Polishing and throating were in response to reliabilty, slide fitting to accurize the gun, bigger sights to shoot faster, Commander hammer for faster locktime and less bite, and so on. Even most of so-called mil-spec ones have bigger sights now. Bottom line is it has go bang when you pull the trigger, for street carry it has to feed HPs reliably and fit into a concealment holster (I agree some magwells are ridiculous), and lastly it you have to be able to effectively manipulate the gun and be able to acquire the sights quickly and accurately shoot it. It's already the most effective combat pistol the world has ever known - nothing wrong with making sure it works correctly and you can use it to maximum advantage.
For me, most of the enhancements are a positive - I vote the latter.
For me, most of the enhancements are a positive - I vote the latter.
My competition 45 was missing most of the blueing on the rear part of the frame; did you realize that blood, being warm, salty and wet, will remove most blueing instantly? I need the beavertail grip safety to avoid having my hand chewed up. When I built my 'go-to' 45 on a Series 70, the beavertail grip safety was the first requirement. I wanted to hang onto the gun better, so I had Jim Clark put his stippling on the front gripstrap. Those needle-sharp spikes of steel would draw blood if they were about 0.5mm longer. As it is, you almost have to shake your hand to make them let go. I wish he'd offer them on the mainspring housing too. I also had adjustable night sights fitted. I did nothing to improve accuracy, as that decreases reliability. Now this pistol is the one I have the most confidence in if I ever had to use it for serious social purposes.
garander
Member
Mil spec as in little hump front sight, almost absent rear, unenlarged
ejection port, non throated barrel. Even the nostalgic Remington R1
takes advantage of the modern improvements.
A true original 1911-1911a1 should be left alone as is for posterity.
If buying a modern shooter 1911, look at the Smith"s 1911, alot of gun
for the money.
ejection port, non throated barrel. Even the nostalgic Remington R1
takes advantage of the modern improvements.
A true original 1911-1911a1 should be left alone as is for posterity.
If buying a modern shooter 1911, look at the Smith"s 1911, alot of gun
for the money.
rock n roll kid
Member
gotta add my 02....
the basic gun from springfield is ok . i would want to step up to more usable sights and maybe a stainless model.
just for defense , any one of a number of companies produce a basic model that will do the job. just take all the feed back from here and any other reliable sources and maybe go to a big enough gun show and handle your first 4 or 5 choices and pick what feels good to you with a $ amount you can live with .
the true custom guns , nighthawk , wilson's , ect are super but the price tag of WAY over$2000 is absurd for most folks. if i was going to go that way i would get a springfield trp.....super nice gun with nearly all factory options and a clone to the gun the fbi was and is using for about $1500 i believe.
for the record i remember gun writers being polled and admitting that after testing and owning many nice , expensive guns the one they kept loaded for protection was a STOCK , BASIC model !
that should say something about a expensive race gun with a lot of add ons that are simply not needed and even for the reliability of the same pricey models .
rock
the basic gun from springfield is ok . i would want to step up to more usable sights and maybe a stainless model.
just for defense , any one of a number of companies produce a basic model that will do the job. just take all the feed back from here and any other reliable sources and maybe go to a big enough gun show and handle your first 4 or 5 choices and pick what feels good to you with a $ amount you can live with .
the true custom guns , nighthawk , wilson's , ect are super but the price tag of WAY over$2000 is absurd for most folks. if i was going to go that way i would get a springfield trp.....super nice gun with nearly all factory options and a clone to the gun the fbi was and is using for about $1500 i believe.
for the record i remember gun writers being polled and admitting that after testing and owning many nice , expensive guns the one they kept loaded for protection was a STOCK , BASIC model !
that should say something about a expensive race gun with a lot of add ons that are simply not needed and even for the reliability of the same pricey models .
rock
