Colt or Springfield, last 20 years?

[JJ45]

As far as 1911 quality, dependability, durability, etc. Which is best in your opinion? Springfield Armory or Colt?

Of course there are different models. 1911a1, Commander, Compact, etc. But overall quality in the general production of 1911 pistols?

[mikejonestkd]

I own 3 colt 1911s, one is older but two are 2010 or newer. The new ones are excellent in my opinion. IMO they are one of the best bang for the buck 1911s.

I have a newer Springfield range officer and it has also been reliable and accurate. I have shot dozens of springfields and they all tend to be nicely made.

[jmr40]

Springfield has made pistols in several different levels of quality. They are not all the same. At one time the higher end SA's were pretty good. In the last 20 years it seems to me that Colt has been more consistent. I'd give the nod to Colt in that time frame. But its not like SA is a bad gun. There are lots of good 1911's today.

[Kreyzhorse]

Overall quality, I'd say Colt.... Springfield is no slouch mind you, but they make some lower end guns.

Best value.... Springfield. Their high end guns are fantastic and you don't pay the prancing Pony tax.

[agtman]

Colt's the original model 1911/1911A1.

Everything else, including a Springer, is just a clone.

[44 AMP]

As far as 1911 quality, dependability, durability, etc. Which is best in your opinion? Springfield Armory or Colt?

Can't speak to the life of a Springfield, I've never owned one. I have my Father's Colt Govt Model, which he bought (used) in the late 1960s and I inherited in 2003. So, call that 60 years and still going.

Finish has suffered a bit but its in mechanically excellent condition and last time out, it would still put 5 shots in one ragged 2.5" rip at 25 yds (rested) from my now aging hands and eyes.

SO, for me, the only answer to the question would be, Colt.

[stinkeypete]

Times have changed for 1911s.

Big changes:
The great decline in the number of master gun smiths and specialty pistol smiths, or

Since shipping a frame to a smith and back now costs $100 makes sense to have the factory do it or

Machining methods have gotten so an “acceptable“ firearm can be “assembled” by anyone rather than hand fit

The popular pistol competitions now don’t require cutting edge accuracy, so now “combat accuracy” is “very accurate”

My old pistol smith said “get any old Colt, Springfield or Norinco frame. Those all have good steel that machines well and I can build in to anything you want.” He wasn’t making a go of it as a smith and left the business. It was a real treasure to have a top smith living 40 miles from my house.

One question is “how is customer support” and the other is “how good is the custom shop”. The other is “is it worth spending more money up front and not having frustrations out of the box?”

The simple answer is: you pay the pony tax. Any Springfield at the same price as the Colt will be a better shooter. The Colt will always have a higher resale value later because of the pony.

Basically, aside from Colt always being $300 more... the more you pay the more you get in performance and prestige.

The only thing keeping me from a Colt I have my eye on is for just a bit more I can get a Rock River (the guys in Illinois that make ar stuff just down the road from Springfield in that 1911 corner of America)

Dan Wesson enjoys a stellar reputation, too. A couple other small custom shops and Wilson Combat at the top of the heap.

For me, I have my eyes open for a used Springfield because a used Colt doesn’t really come down in price. Maybe there is a lesson there.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JJ45

Colt or Springfield, last 20 years?

As far as 1911 quality, dependability, durability, etc. Which is best in your opinion? Springfield Armory or Colt?

The last 20 years means since 2000. Within that time frame, I would rate Colt and Springfield basically even with respect to quality, dependability, and durability. Buy whichever one rings your chimes.

Personally, I have more than one Colt, but only one Springfield. The only reason I bought the Springfield was that it's an old, very early Champion with a 4-inch barrel that uses a barrel bushing rather than a bull barrel that locks up directly to the slide at the muzzle. I wasn't looking to own a Springfield, but this one is a bit unusual and it came at a decent price.

FWIW, I haven't yet encountered a Springfield (other than an EMP) that didn't shoot to significantly below point of aim. I've never had that problem with a Colt.

[darkgael]

As it turns out, I have both a Colt Gold Cup and a SA “loaded”. Both are reliable and accurate. The Colt has significantly more rounds through it (well north of 60K). It’s trigger is slightly better than the SA.The Colt is my Bullseye gun; the SA is my backup. The Colt wears a Nelson .22 conversion. The SA has a Marvel.
I like them both.
Pete

[44 AMP]

The last 20 years means since 2000.

OK, there seems to be a word or two missing in the OP, so I took the question one way, and others take it the other way.

SO, which is the question being asked, which one do I choose, Colt or Springfield, TO last 20 years?

Or, which one do I choose MADE IN THE last 20 years??


I answered the first question, and If what is being asked is the second one, I can't answer because I haven't bought one made in the last 20 years, and don't plan to.

I'd have to examine examples of both, and see which one was built closest to the original GI spec/commercial design. I can tell you that, being an old curmudgeon who was trained on the GI gun and the commercial version, I'm not interested in a Colt Series 70 with a collet bushing and I'm NOT buying a Series 80 with CA lawyer compliant extra parts.

does that mean I'd choose Springfield over Colt? It would depend on the specific guns and since I'm not personally in the market, I think its a rather moot point that I don't have an answer for at this time.

I have a Colt that's been in service in my family since the late 60s, and its in good working order. I've owned a couple dozen other 1911A1 pattern guns over the years, each has come and gone, that one Colt stayed, and will continue to do so, until it moves to one of my kids or grandkids.

[RickB]

I bought a new Springfield Mil-Spec .38 Super in 2003, then a Colt 1991 .38 Super, Colt's equivalent model, a year later.
Very basic features, no bells and whistles.
The (stainless) Colt cost $100+ more than the (parkerized) Springfield, so someone who didn't have any brand loyalty would consider the Springer a better value.
That said, I sold the Springfield and kept the Colt.

I think the value advantage will always go to Springfield. I had a Range Officer .45, and it was very similar to a friend's new Colt Competition, and other than the stainless/parkerized finishes, essentially equivalent, and the Springfield again enjoys about $100 lower price.

I have owned a total of four Springfield 1911s, and sold them all. Not a thing wrong with any of them, great guns, but they ultimately became expendable.
There are still Colts in the safe.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by RickB

The (stainless) Colt cost $100+ more than the (parkerized) Springfield, so someone who didn't have any brand loyalty would consider the Springer a better value.

Disregarding brands or brand loyalty, you don't consider a stainless steel pistol to be worth more than the exact same pistol in a parkerized finish? I certainly do, and I don't view $100 as an unreasonable dollar value for the difference.

In fact, it appears that Colt agrees. The current Colt web site has the blued 1911 Classic in .45 ACP listed at $799. The same pistol in stainless is listed at $899.

[RickB]

I don't, but if someone else does, then that tips it back toward Colt.

[Scorch]

Kind of a different tack on my answer. First of all, Springfield does not make a 1911. Or any other gun, for that matter. They are made by Imbel in South America. OK guns, kinda rough, lots of cast and MIM parts, but overall not bad. The goofy mainspring housings with the lock on them drive me crazy.

Colts, on the other hand, are made in USA. And yes, they have lots of cast and MIM parts as well. Their plastic mainpsring housings just drive me nuts, but overall not a bad gun. I was always a Colt guy from way back (my first handgun is a Combat Commander I bought on my 21st birthday in 1978). Like a lot of others, I got tired of Colt's attitude and high prices, but a few years ago they brought their prices back in line with the industry. I see a lot of them in my shop, so I get to see the evolution of the manufacturing as it breaks.

Having said that, I would still buy a Colt over a Springfield Armory 1911. They both shoot about the same, but the Colts are a little better finished IMO. And you get a cool blue box with them.

[Fishbed77]

Colt.

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

OK, there seems to be a word or two missing in the OP, so I took the question one way, and others take it the other way.

SO, which is the question being asked, which one do I choose, Colt or Springfield, TO last 20 years?

Or, which one do I choose MADE IN THE last 20 years??


I answered the first question, and If what is being asked is the second one, I can't answer because I haven't bought one made in the last 20 years, and don't plan to.

I'd have to examine examples of both, and see which one was built closest to the original GI spec/commercial design. I can tell you that, being an old curmudgeon who was trained on the GI gun and the commercial version, I'm not interested in a Colt Series 70 with a collet bushing and I'm NOT buying a Series 80 with CA lawyer compliant extra parts.

does that mean I'd choose Springfield over Colt? It would depend on the specific guns and since I'm not personally in the market, I think its a rather moot point that I don't have an answer for at this time.

I have a Colt that's been in service in my family since the late 60s, and its in good working order. I've owned a couple dozen other 1911A1 pattern guns over the years, each has come and gone, that one Colt stayed, and will continue to do so, until it moves to one of my kids or grandkids.

Then which 1911 currently made comes closest to GI Spec/ commercial and I assume pre Series 70? IOW the original 1911

[ms6852]

Used a 1911 though out my military career and it was a colt and they were very very reliable. Personally I would not buy a colt 1911 something about the aesthetics that does not turn me on. I won't turn one down if it is offered but won't go strictly buy a 1911 because it is colt.
There wheel guns totally different matter. Oh by the way I own 5 Springfields so hopefully it answers your question. From the lowly GI model to the TRP and loaded models. When it comes to personal preferences there is no wrong answer unless your prefer vegetables to bacon.

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by Scorch

Kind of a different tack on my answer. First of all, Springfield does not make a 1911. Or any other gun, for that matter. They are made by Imbel in South America. OK guns, kinda rough, lots of cast and MIM parts, but overall not bad. The goofy mainspring housings with the lock on them drive me crazy.

Colts, on the other hand, are made in USA. And yes, they have lots of cast and MIM parts as well. Their plastic mainpsring housings just drive me nuts, but overall not a bad gun. I was always a Colt guy from way back (my first handgun is a Combat Commander I bought on my 21st birthday in 1978). Like a lot of others, I got tired of Colt's attitude and high prices, but a few years ago they brought their prices back in line with the industry. I see a lot of them in my shop, so I get to see the evolution of the manufacturing as it breaks.

Having said that, I would still buy a Colt over a Springfield Armory 1911. They both shoot about the same, but the Colts are a little better finished IMO. And you get a cool blue box with them.

Good answer. I am no 1911 expert and I always buy American made if there is a choice and the items are of equal or similar quality.

That said, Imbel in Brazil is a pretty well respected arms manufacturer. Also, though made longer than 20 years ago, Norinco (China) and Ballester Molina Argentina?(who knows who makes it?) are supposed to be very well constructed , close to original, 1911 .45s I don't think there are any mim parts in those pistols but I could be wrong about it all

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Scorch

Kind of a different tack on my answer. First of all, Springfield does not make a 1911. Or any other gun, for that matter. They are made by Imbel in South America. OK guns, kinda rough, lots of cast and MIM parts, but overall not bad. The goofy mainspring housings with the lock on them drive me crazy.

From what I've read, this is no longer true. SA does make pistols in the US. This has been discussed on the 1911 forums. I am not sure if this is true for all of their 1911s, but US made pistols have been a thing for SA for a number of years now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Scorch.

Kind of a different tack on my answer. First of all, Springfield does not make a 1911. Or any other gun, for that matter. They are made by Imbel in South America.

Not any more. Springfield Armory cut their ties to Imbel about four or five years ago. I don't know where they get their frames and slides now (Remsport, perhaps???), but it's not from Imbel.

Originally Posted by Scorch

Colts, on the other hand, are made in USA. And yes, they have lots of cast and MIM parts as well.

Colt uses fewer cast and MIM parts than just about any mass producer of 1911s, other than the semi-custom shops like Wilson Combat.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JJ45

Then which 1911 currently made comes closest to GI Spec/ commercial and I assume pre Series 70? IOW the original 1911

Colt's Classic Series pistols, of course.

https://www.colt.com/series/TRADITIONAL_SERIES

Originally Posted by JJ45

Also, though made longer than 20 years ago, Norinco (China) and Ballester Molina Argentina?(who knows who makes it?) are supposed to be very well constructed , close to original, 1911 .45s

The Ballester Molinas are not 1911s. They accept 1911 magazines, and possibly 1911 slides and barrels (I don't remember about that), but the internals are different. Your are thinking of the Sistema 1927s.

http://sightm1911.com/lib/review/sistema.htm

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Colt's Classic Series pistols, of course.

https://www.colt.com/series/TRADITIONAL_SERIES



The Ballester Molinas are not 1911s. They accept 1911 magazines, and possibly 1911 slides and barrels (I don't remember about that), but the internals are different. Your are thinking of the Sistema 1927s.

http://sightm1911.com/lib/review/sistema.htm

I looked at that....That Classic Colt is a sweet one if looking for an original, except for the sights.

I think the original war pistols were expected to be shot one handed or just instinctively. The new Colt Classic does have what most would call usable sights but IMO, would be closer to the original with the appropriate tiny sights.

[smee78]

If it were me I would go with the Springfield. Colt's filled for bankruptcy before (will they be around to service their own products) and their on again off again love for the civilian market (if they can cancel AR's for civilian market they can do it with 1911's also) shows poor decisions on their behalf. I have owned both Colt and Springfield among others and have had new and used guns and to be honest they both shot well. It seems to me that I can get more bang for my buck from Springfield VS paying the pony tax. YMMV

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JJ45

I looked at that....That Classic Colt is a sweet one if looking for an original, except for the sights.

I think the original war pistols were expected to be shot one handed or just instinctively. The new Colt Classic does have what most would call usable sights but IMO, would be closer to the original with the appropriate tiny sights.

I don't think anyone currently makes a 1911 with tiny, original, useless sights. If you want a pistol that doesn't have usable sights, you'll have to buy a used one.