Which 1911 is closest to the Original?

N

Nightcrawler

New member
Which new production 1911 would you say is closest in form, design, and function (as well as parts compatibility) with the genuine military M1911A1? I know the Mil-Spec gun had mediocre sights and lacked a saftey that I can handily use (lefty), but they were very well made and very reliable. I'm just curious as to which modern gun comes the closest (not counting the Sistemas because they're like 70 years old.)

Did the military 1911A1 have the lanyard loop mainspring housing?

What was the difference between the World War I M1911 and the World War II M1911A1?
 
Probably like you said the Springfield Milspec is closest. Except for that whole 2 piece barrel deal.

Most Had a lanyard loop, not all. I keep mine for the retro cool styles ;) but try slamming a flush fit mag in and hitting the loop on that one nerve in your hand, you know, the one that makes your whole arm go numb.

Here. http://www.m1911.org/full_history.htm mostly cosmetic changes, think the sights got a little (damn little) better too.
 
I acutally wan't talking about the Springfield Mil-Spec. That model actually has 3-dot sights.

Colt has a reproduction of the GI gun, complete with pre-series 70 firing system. It retails for almost $1000. :rolleyes:

Then there's the Rock Island Armory basic model, which they claim is 100% interchangable with GI parts, but quality is unknown, same with the Auto-Ordnance guns.

Why can't somebody make a basic, quality, GI style 1911 that retails for less than $500? The Springfield Mil-Spec is closest in that regard. The Rock Island Armory is cheaper, but it's made in the Philippines and quality is unknown. I mean, they produced these things by the MILLIONS in the 40s, yet these mass-produced GI guns are reputed to be of much superior quality than many commerical guns available today!

What I'm saying is, if they could mass produce GI 1911s without cutting quality corners in WWII, why do you seemingly have to pay at least $600 for a decent 1911 today? What's the story? If CZ can produce a 9mm (the CZ-75) that's easily on par with its competition, like the Glock 17, the Beretta 92, ad nauseum, and yet have it retail for less than $400 (when the going rate for a Beretta or Glock seems to be $500+) why can't somebody make a low cost, quality 1911?
 
Last edited:
All military 1911s had a lanyard loop on the mainspring housing. The only ones made for the military that didn't have one were the 100 pistols made by North American Arms of Quebec, Canada during World War One. However they were never accepted by the military, so officially they don't count.

Currently the only pistol that comes relatively close to the WW2 pistols is the Colt WW2 repro. There are no other makers of pistols that even come close to the WW1 gun (especially for $500), although the rumor mill about Colt making a WW1 repro has persisted for months now. As far as all the other brands go, they all depart in one way or another from the genuaine article. Probably the closest one is Auto Ordinance's parkerized model, but it is made from investment castings (unlike the forged steel of the original) and has forward-slanted slide serrations. The only GI pistols to have slanted serrations were ones fitted with replacement slides of more recent manufacture. The Norincos also came very close (maybe closer), but unfortunately they are no longer being imported into the USA (thanks a lot, Slick Willie!).

Regarding the differences between the 1911 and 1911A1, there were many changes great and small. The most visible was the addition of finger clearance notches on the sides of the frame on the 'A1, which every 1911-type pistol has worn since. The other changes were primarily to parts that could easily be swapped back and forth between the 1911 and the 1911A1. The WW1 guns had the long smooth trigger, flat smooth MS housing, small grip safety, long wide-spur hammer, teeny-weeny sights, and wood double-diamond grips. The WW2 pistols mostly had short triggers, arched checkered (or serrated) MS housings, a longer safety spur, shorter hammer, slightly wider sights, and full-checkered grips. The early grips were walnut, later ones were various types of "plastic". Also, early 'A1s were blued as were all WW1 guns originally from the factory. By the start of WW2 parkerizing replaced bluing as the standard finish. All guns that went in for rebuilding after the war were also parkerized, whether they were WW1 or WW2-era guns.

BTW I have left out a LOT of info, but by now I think you get the idea. ;)
 
Why? You are talking about a pistol that groups 5-8" at 25 yards, has tiny sights, "iffy" magazines, rough trigger pull, and production tolerances that no consumer - in fact, no Army - would accept today. Civilian M1911A1 clones fans talk about the "advantage" of being able to carry cocled and locked, but I never knew ANY Army officer or NCO that carried that way - because they were worried about accidental discharges. Our few remaining WWII vets are now too few and too old to tell all the stories of people shooting themselves and each other, or of emptying an entire magazine at an enemy - and missing. The theory at the time was that you would at least scare him to death.

The USGI guns are in virtually every way inferior to modern guns - except they're authentic. Serious collectors heap scorn on the Colt and others, because of the price, and the fact that they've made some changes - such as polishing the feed ramp.

As you can get a USGI "shooter" for around $600, a nice WWII USGI psitol for around $1,000, a Sistema for $350, and as you can get brand-news USGI surplus parts for just about everything except the frame, you could build up a "new" M1911A1 of authentic parts. One of the appeals of the M1911A1 is that just about anyone can completely strip one - and the instructions are in the FM. I carried several, and I collect them now. BTW, I'm a lefty but shoot handguns righty because when I started shooting them in the Army there was no way you would ever be able to change magazines lefty, and live.

If you're not going to shoot much, buy an authentic M1911A1. If you are going to shoot, buy a modern version that has a nice trigger pull, good sights, good slide fit, much more robust toggle, larger, polished feed ramp, flared magazine well, no lanyard loop, nice grips, ambidextrous safety, nice magazines, and probably better resale value.

Don't listen to some of the M1911A1 clone fanatics, who have romanticized the design and capabilities, largely based on the hundreds of improvements made to the design since it left Army service. Buy a new one, or buy an old one - but don't get caught between the boat and the dock.
Have fun with whatever you get!
 
The Argentinian 1927's are the only low-medium priced .45's close to the original. The recent Auto-Ordinance models have had good reports and are fairly priced - but those angled slide serrations mar their appearance.

I love the Sistema pistols. However, it would be great if there were new, affordable GI-type .45's on the market. Those preferring extended safeties, high profile sights, and beavertails on their 1911 pistols must not understand the appeal of original features. The authentic U.S. issue pistols are marvelous to admire, and occasionally shoot, but I want something I can utilize without having to worry about degrading its finish and value.
 
I recently compared the Colt 1911A1 repo to my U.S. Army Prop. 1911A1(1943). Visually the gun was a disappointment, Colt didn't even get the color right. My mainspring housing is checkered-the new Colt is grooved, my trigger is checkered- the new Colt was not. If you want a real piece of history buy a real Colt 1911A1 and not this over-priced copy.
 
My mainspring housing is checkered-the new Colt is grooved, my trigger is checkered- the new Colt was not..
Click to expand...

Hrmm... my mixmaster M1911A1 (Remington-Rand lower, c. 1943) has a smooth trigger face and grooved MSH, just as you describe.. I reckon those were all part of the production variations way back when?

colors4_.jpg

(minus the rainbow grips, of course)

-K
 
It's not possible to make a mil-spec 1911 at a low price - not in the Western World, anyway. The gun is supposed to be made completely from machined forgings, and guns made that way today would probably cost $3000 (the pistolsmithing editor of Handgunner magazine figures a machined ambi safety would cost $150). The way to make a "1911" cheaper is to introduce cast parts and/or have them built overseas.
The original question was which new production gun is closest to G.I. guns, and there is no question that it is the Colt M1911A1 knock-off.
If you are looking for a price-to-authenticity ratio, then I'd say the Colt M1991A1 is best. They can still be found for less than $600 (I got one a year-and-a-half ago for $450). The latest production Springfields look better than they used to, since recontouring the dust cover and front strap, but the ILS mainspring lock makes them about par with the Colt Series 80 in terms of holding to the original specs.
While it is possible to make a "1911" for $500, it is not possible to reproduce the G.I. gun for that. All of today's mass-produced service pistols are made from castings, sheet-metal stampings, and plastic; that's why they're cheap.
 
So, basically, the tooling is no longer in place to make the forged guns of old? Makes sense.

It's not that I think a GI-spec 1911 is the best gun ever, BUT...I was just curious, that if something could be produced in the millions 60 years ago why a lower quality descendent of it today costs more.

And if you think contemporary target pistol accuracy is required on a combat sidearm, you don't understand the appropriate use of said sidearm on the battlefield.
 
You are forgetting two things: the abundance of cheap, yet skilled labor back then as well as the fact that the military ordered them by the hundreds of thousands (read: price break!). It costs a LOT more to make a 1911 these days, as it is a relatively complicated weapon to build vs. something cheaper like a Glock or Ruger. The whole reason why Colt now uses cast, stamped, and plastic parts inside their 1911s is to help fend off the constantly rising production costs. Despite the supposedly "inferior" materials now used Colt still has a hard time making them for less than they have to sell them for. Springfield saves money by having their guns made in Brazil (ahh, the cheap labor thing again), and Kimber of course uses MIM (metal injection molded) small parts to keep their costs down. Auto Ordinance of course uses investment cast parts throughout to keep their costs down.

By the way, regarding military 1911s being inferior to modern guns. In terms of metallurgy, certainly. In terms of fit ad function, no. While many of them were roughly-finished on the outside they were all built to go bang, and I know absolutely nobody who's ever had an unmolested GI 1911 that failed to function reliably with ammo for which it was designed. Some of them even came from the factory with excellent accuracy and decent trigger pulls, although admittedly that wasn't always the case. Also, contrary to popular belief GI guns were NOT built more loosely than commercial guns of the same time period. We often forget when playing with a nice tight Kimber or Wilson that factory Colt pistols used to always rattle just like a GI gun.
 
Speaking of lowest serial number, I actually got to fire S/N #160. Yes, I said fire. The owner decided to shoot it at the range and let me run a few rounds through it. About the only thing that made it feel different than any other was the bright polished fire-blue finish, coupled with the round buckhorn-style rear sight with a U-notch made it nearly impossible to align the sights with the target!
 
In the 20th Century we passed from the Industrial Revolution, thru the Space Age, the Information Age, and now, I suggest the name should be Age of the Beancounter.

Today, once a product is developed and rolled out the savvy manufacturers employ engineers to cheapen the product until it will maximize profit balanced against acceptable warranty costs. :barf:

BTW, just as an aside. A lot of posters bash Colt for not making their own designs instead buying them or building under contract. Colt would take one of John Browning's pretty crude hand built prototypes, perfect it, and get it developed so it could be mass produced and market it (taking the risk that it would sell at all).

Browning was not interested too much in that end of the business, only coming up with something new at the workbench level. Springfield Armory (the gumt facility) could not build their quota of 1911s until Colt supplied them with tooling, gauges, and drawings. I suggest it's pretty easy to copy something that already exists while it's another thing to bring it into being a standardized product from a crude model.

Colt did this with Browning's pistols, including the .45 Automatic, the Browning Machine Rifle (BAR), the Thompson Submachine Gun (Auto Ordnance was just a holding company), and the Armalite AR15, as well as various other military and commercial weapons. in other words, none of these famous products would exist without the efforts of the Colt PF Co. I give them a lot of credit despite all the detractors bashing.
 
Nightcrawler, Sistema Colts were manufactured between 1945 and 1966, so its possible to get one a lot younger than 70 yrs....Mine was made in 1953.....
 
The Norincos also came very close (maybe closer), but unfortunately they are no longer being imported into the USA (thanks a lot, Slick Willie!).
Click to expand...
Reckon they are even still being made? I mean, what other market could there be for them except US? Anyone know if Norinco has an English-language website?
 
They're still being imported into Canada, for the benefit of those willing to deal with their bureaucratic gun licensing BS.
 
They are still being made, in not only Govt. configuration, but Commander, Hi Cap and "modernized" configuration (beavertail, ambi, hi vis sights, etc). They just aren't importable to the US.

My Norinco is very close to 1911A1 specs. All forged, chrome lined bbl, short trigger, arched mainspring housing. The only differences that stand out are the slightly larger dotted sights and the slide rollmark. The only thing that rattles on mine is the less than perfectly fitted trigger. It is, however, crisp, and the slide and barrel hood barely move.

People who claim that they suffer from soft steel are ignoring all the Norinco based race and carry guns made up by custom gunsmiths like Clark. For $275-350 they are better starting point than the RIA, closer to "mil spec" than a Springfield MS, and are younger in years than any Sistema (not that it makes a great difference).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top