Viewing or use of this blog or any contents or links contained herein by any person or entity within the confines of the states of Arizona and/or Tennessee is prohibited .
Violators of this policy agree to hold the owner of this blog, its contents and all links contained herein, harmless to any harm or offense taken or perceived.
Permission to use any content on this site is explicitly denied to Robert Farago, his family, his friends, his associates, his pets, and his employees and/or employer and/or their employees either in part or whole.
This blog is not Strunk and White compliant; read with all due caution, diligence and pity.
Due to ITAR regulations, Godless Foreigners™ are required to avert their eyes.
21 December 2012
Compare these two.
For literally decades I have been a staunch advocate of the M1911A1. All of the changes made in 1924 were for the good and there was no reason to go backwards.
I was wrong.
I find I prefer the longer trigger and flat mainspring housing. The reliefs behind the trigger may not matter, but so far all the 1911's I've fired have had them.
The smooth grips on the Springfield are much narrower than the checkered diamond style on the Colt, and that makes it easier to get at the magazine release. Other than that, I am OK with the Colt's grips and the checkering certainly will improve my grip.
The sights on the Colt are far better than the Army standard ones on the Springfield. I bought the GI model specifically because it was such a good clone of the gun I carried while a tank crewman.
This leaves me in a quandary. I want a 1911 in .45 that isn't like the gun I carried in the Army. That means I'm going to be spending more money, don't it?
Anyone got a less than $1,500 plan for such?
It is also amusing to note that every .38 Super 1911 that Colt made from 1929 until the Model 1991 was in the 1911A1 form; only the more recent guns have reverted to the older pattern.