New Colt 1991s v. new Springfield Mil-Specs

H

HKguy9

New member
I want to get a comparison between the products, not start a flame war...we can get to personal preferences later, but I want to know what's the difference between these two products?

Also, how are the new Colts different from the old ones other than the rollmarks, and what is new about the SAs that everyone likes so much?
 
This is actually something I've been wondering myself. The guys at the local store said that Colt's quality is in the crapper. Is that opinion or is there some support behind that?
 
I bought a Colt 1991a1 about a year ago. My smith told me that he preferred the frames over the Springfields if I was to have work done on my gun in the future. I've had no problems w/ it and I'm glad I went w/ the Colt.
 
The new Springfields are coming out with contoured front straps like the Colts. About time! From many handlings at gun show and stores, the Springfields IMO have tighter slide to frame fit.
Many people also state that the metal on the SA is harder.
 
colt's 1991 has the series 80 firing pis safety (I'm not a fan of it), Springfields have the ILS mainspring housing (I'm a fan only of the steel housing, NOT the integral lock), but if not engaged, it affects nothing about the pistol, and if disliked it's easily replaced with a standard MSH assembly.

In my area, Springfield's price is much better ($100 less) too... if that's important to you.
 
I owned a Colt 1991. I now own a Springfield Mil-Spec. (the newer ones w/ the smooth contour front strap.

I think the Springfield is superior.

Cons of Colt
1. Colt 1991 has that dumb plastic trigger.
2. Colt has a real "loosy goosy" slide to fram fit.
3. non-three dot sights. (Which is actually "mil-spec" but I like the three dots of springfield better.)
4. That horrible looking 1991A1 rollmark on the slide

Pros of Colt
1. reliable. Mine never had a hiccup. But I think the reliability comes from John Browning's design rather than manufacturer.
2. I actually liked the Series 80 hammer safety. I thought it is a safer design than original.
3. It's a Colt. If that matters.


Pros Springfield
1. Better fit and finish
2. Cooler Springfield Canons rollmarks.
3. It says 1911-A1 on slide.
4. Better sights
5. Lifetime no BS warranty
6. Trigger that is mil-spec and non plastic.
7. Angled slide serrations (non "mil-spec" but I like the look.)
8. No "loosy goosy" slide
9. Less expensive everywhere, BUT not cheaper quality.

Cons of Springfield
1. The ILS mainspring housing w/ that ridiculous PC safety device that is one more thing to break in your hour of need. (easily replaceable w/ non ILS MH)
2. The sights are "non mil-spec" but look mil spec. If that matters.

Overall my vote goes to SA. Sorry Colonel Colt, but I see a product that is every bit if not superior in quality at a better price. Plus Colt has been catering to the socialist liberals way too much lately. My opinion. Hope it helps you decide.

Orso out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top