First 1911 question

B

Brando1992

New member
I know there have been a lot of 1911 questions on here lately so I figured I would add another...

I've pretty much decided on buying a Springfield 5" 1911. I had pretty much settled on a 5 in range officer this one.

But I got to thinking, since its my first one, should I start with this mil spec 1911, and upgrade as I learn more about how I shoot it and what would work best for me?

Any advantage either way?

Thanks for any advise!
 
I would go with the RO.
I like Adjustable sights to allow easy setting of POA=POI.
FO front sight.
I think it is built tighter than the mil-spec (but I have not held a mil-spec springfield in a long while).
 
Get the one you want with the features you want from the get go.
Upgrading later is expensive and fraught with hassles, all advertising to the contrary not withstanding.
And one of the reasons 1911s have an unearned reputation for being troublesome.
 
Like g. willikers says, buy the one you want and can afford. Adjustable sights are way better than fixed though. And you should shop around. Remember that "milspec" is a marketing term.
 
I've owned both, and if you are more into shooting than into history, get the RO.
The RO has room for mods and upgrades, too. I put an ambidextrous thumb safety on mine before the first range trip, and replaced the front sight shortly afterwards, but a lot of people will like it as-is.
 
I purchased a GI style gun a few years ago with the intentions of upgrading. Yes, it can be done and it would probably be an interesting process. However, it would also most likely be an expensive process. I recently purchased another Colt with all the various features you expect on a modern 1911 for much less than I could ever have upgrade the GI.
 
Depending on features you are more certain than not which you find attractive, go with the "nicer" firearm you can afford. Even if that requires saving money for a longer period of time in order to make the purchase.
 
I also agree with g.willikers. If you want a project and want to add features or trying your hand at semi-building a specialty, then buy a used one to have fun with.

Otherwise, reload your own ammo and practice/enjoy the one which meets your needs and desires.
 
I actually just purchased a SA Mil spec 1911 .45acp. I wanted one that shot well, was comfortable, looked like an old GI model, and I am not looking at customization. I rented a few other 1911s, including a colt and also the Range Officer model. After handling a lot of the models they had in stalk I chose the Mil spec. It just fits my criteria perfectly.

Good luck with your first 1911! I love mine.

Lee
 
I think the Range Officer with the adjustable sights is just about perfect for a range or home defense or just plain fun gun.

I would NOT go the 'upgrade later' route. Get the gun you'll have fun with right away.
 
My response is very simple. Get the one you want, you will not be happy otherwise. If you want the Range Officer get it. There is no need to spend good money for something that you will simply get rid of to get what you really want. Go for what you really want the first time.
 
RO is great pistol .But I wouldn't try to carry with that rear sight. Be hanging on every thing

Might look at Colts also
 
The Springfield Mil-Spec is not in any way mil-spec. The slide serrations are slanted, the ejection port is lowered, and the pistol has Springfield's locking mainspring housing and 28-pound mainspring. So if you're looking at the Mil-Spec to be a replica of a military M1911A1 -- it isn't.

The adjustable sights on the Range Officer are worth the price of admission. Springfields with fixed sights usually shoot quite a bit below point of aim, so being able to compensate is priceless.
 
For a long time Springfield used to make a more authentic 1911 than the Milspec, even called the G.I.
Wonder why they dropped it.
There must be plenty of used ones around.
 
Also look at the loaded model. It has ambi safety and noval style tritium night sights. Love mine. Although I plan on swapping the safety out for a standard GI style and the two piece guide rod for a tool-less example
 
You asked about advantages of one over the other. The Range Officer will come out fit better, have a better trigger, and be more accurate. Now, as to other features that are largely a matter of personal preference:

Fixed vs adjustable sights -- fixed sights are usually better for carry but I can remember when a whole lot of folks carried revolvers with adjustable sights. I don't think it's a huge negative. On the other hand, I had a Mil-Spec that shot so low I could hardly keep it on paper at ten yards!

Grip safety and main spring housing -- Most like the one on the RO better. The "beaver tail" grip safety and flat main spring housing allow for a higher hold which aids in controlability. However, some like the "duck bill" and like the arched mainspring housing. It's personal choice. People with big hands sometimes suffer from "hammer bite" because of the combination of the grip safety and spur hammer on the MilSpec. Hammer bite is where the hammer spur just hits the web of your hand between thumb and finger.

Safety --The Mil-Spec has a smaller safety which is consistent with the military style safety "back in the day." The RO has a somewhat extended size safety which makes it easier/faster to flip on and off.

Trigger -- The trigger on the RO is longer. This is a personal choice. Most with average or larger hands probably prefer the longer trigger. As I mentioned before, the trigger should be lighter and crisper on the RO (a good thing).

Bottom line, I would recommend the RO over the Mil-Spec. I have a couple of 1911s similar to the Mil-Spec just for variety. I mostly have 1911s more similar to the RO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top