Posted: 8/26/2011 8:53:42 PM EDT
|
OK. I have a RIA .45 gov model and thought I would like it. I don't as much as I thought I would. I don't want a fancy gun, hence the RIA, but I would like to have something a little better accuracy wise, and I would like to have low profile sights if possible rather than just the GI type. I don't want target sights though as this will be a carry gun. I have narrowed it down to Springfield and Ruger.
I like everything about the Ruger, even though I'm not a huge Stainless fan. What can I get in a Springfield in that price range? I know the GI is there and maybe the Mil Spec, but is it possible to get a loaded at that price? One other question. Do all Springfields have that annoying ILS system, and if so, can you replace the mainspring housing with one without it or otherwise render it inoperable, other than the obvious answer of not using it? I haven't heard of any horror stories on the Springefields but I do no that a lot of those type of locks went bad on Taurus pistols a while back, with several malfunctions happening while the gun was being fired. Again, as always, thanks ahead of time guys. |
|
they also have a nice Kimber custom for just over 700 Quoted:
OK. I have a RIA .45 gov model and thought I would like it. I don't as much as I thought I would. I don't want a fancy gun, hence the RIA, but I would like to have something a little better accuracy wise, and I would like to have low profile sights if possible rather than just the GI type. I don't want target sights though as this will be a carry gun. I have narrowed it down to Springfield and Ruger. I like everything about the Ruger, even though I'm not a huge Stainless fan. What can I get in a Springfield in that price range? I know the GI is there and maybe the Mil Spec, but is it possible to get a loaded at that price? One other question. Do all Springfields have that annoying ILS system, and if so, can you replace the mainspring housing with one without it or otherwise render it inoperable, other than the obvious answer of not using it? I haven't heard of any horror stories on the Springefields but I do no that a lot of those type of locks went bad on Taurus pistols a while back, with several malfunctions happening while the gun was being fired. Again, as always, thanks ahead of time guys. |
|
I have a Loaded and SR1911.
I replaced the Springfield MSH with a Wilson Combat MSH because I don't like having locks on my firearms and I like using standard MSH 1911 parts like springs,caps and pins. It probably won't activate by itself but the fact that it doesn't use standard parts is really annoying. The only thing I did to my SR1911 was put a solid trigger on it for looks only. The Loaded comes with an ambi safety and the SR1911 comes with a single sided safety. I prefer single sided but its not as much deal to me as it is to some. There is also front cocking serrations on the Loaded where there is none on the SR1911. Once again I like them either way but some have a preference. Both guns are great but if I had to choose one, the SR1911 would win since I wouldn't need to change the safety or MSH which just adds to the price. 
|
| Springfield hands down. Yes, they all have the ILS system. I've never had an issue with mine and I have not heard about anybody having a problem with it. However, it is as easy to remove as changing the MSH. Not that big a deal and certainly shouldn't be a deal breaker for you. |
|
Nice looking ruger... be tempted for one of those just because its a ruger ... Quoted:
I have a Loaded and SR1911. I replaced the Springfield MSH with a Wilson Combat MSH because I don't like having locks on my firearms and I like using standard MSH 1911 parts like springs,caps and pins. It probably won't activate by itself but the fact that it doesn't use standard parts is really annoying. The only thing I did to my SR1911 was put a solid trigger on it for looks only. The Loaded comes with an ambi safety and the SR1911 comes with a single sided safety. I prefer single sided but its not as much deal to me as it is to some. There is also front cocking serrations on the Loaded where there is none on the SR1911. Once again I like them either way but some have a preference. Both guns are great but if I had to choose one, the SR1911 would win since I wouldn't need to change the safety or MSH which just adds to the price. http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=dsc01410x.jpg&res=medium http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg585/scaled.php?server=585&filename=sr19113.jpg&res=medium |
|
Quoted:
Nice looking ruger... be tempted for one of those just because its a ruger ... Quoted:
I have a Loaded and SR1911. I replaced the Springfield MSH with a Wilson Combat MSH because I don't like having locks on my firearms and I like using standard MSH 1911 parts like springs,caps and pins. It probably won't activate by itself but the fact that it doesn't use standard parts is really annoying. The only thing I did to my SR1911 was put a solid trigger on it for looks only. The Loaded comes with an ambi safety and the SR1911 comes with a single sided safety. I prefer single sided but its not as much deal to me as it is to some. There is also front cocking serrations on the Loaded where there is none on the SR1911. Once again I like them either way but some have a preference. Both guns are great but if I had to choose one, the SR1911 would win since I wouldn't need to change the safety or MSH which just adds to the price. http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg42/scaled.php?server=42&filename=dsc01410x.jpg&res=medium http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg585/scaled.php?server=585&filename=sr19113.jpg&res=medium A lot of loaded 1911's have somewhat recently come out that later turn out to be not so hot. I won't name names... I have a hunch that the Ruger will turn out to be great. It's got good stuff, it's stainless, and it's CNC'd. I understand that the frame is cast, but I don't think that means anything negative. Maybe all stainless is cast, I don't know. Ruger is on a roll since Bill departed. With their LCP, LC9, and LCR they got a lot of popular guns right now.. I do not need another 1911, and I just don't find the time to shoot the ones I have anymore, but if I came across a Ruger at the normal price, I would probably have no will power. My Norinco is reliable, but is ordinary in the accuracy department, and my Gold Cup is super accurate, but older Gold Cup's are known for the curved sight pin breaking when you least expect it and tossing the sight who knows where. I'm afraid to use it for SHTF for that reason. The Ruger SR1911 has got a good mix of competition accessory parts included for the price, it's purported to be very accurate and if quality holds true, it's got to be one of the best buy's out there. ...and it's stainless, so you don't have to worry so much about keeping it immaculate This gun may turn out to be like the early first year's Kimbers were. A great value for the price. I'm so not going to the gun show today. |
|
I am never against buying more pistols, but have you thought about getting a new barrel bushing and changing out the sights on your RIA?
You can have a new bushing made from EGW if you send them inside diameter of your slide and the outside diameter of your barrel. You can also use a taller rear sight like the 10-8 or Harrison retro and add a taller front sight by staking a new one or dovetailing. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_49/113891_Rear_Sight_Comparison__Harrison_Retro_vs__10_8_NM.html It would be cheaper than buying a new pistol and better sights are always a good thing. |
|
I am really wanting an SR1911, only local place that had some had 2 and had tags that said demo only.... 2 weeks later when I bought a bodyguard .380, they only had 1... I was pissed.
In springfields line at LGS I think you are going to find loaded's a bit more than the SR1911, you may see the range officer more in line. my last 1911 was a springfield (EMP) and I just think the ruger is such a great value and has some of the most popular features of a classic 1911 and looks great. Springfields service is top notch, I did have to send back my EMP for sight adjustment (wrong height sights were installed) and they were very quick with everything and all on their dime. I have a few rugers but have not had to contact them to deal with their customer service yet. I really think you will be happy with either choice |
|
I've already fitted an EGW bushing on my RIA. I have it tight enough that you really need a bushing wrench to turn it easily, though it can be turned my hand. The original bushing was very, very sloppy. I have the measurements written down in a log book, but don't have it handy. It did tighten the groups up, but they are still unacceptable to me by a long shot. I'm don't expect perfection from a gun in that class, but I don't feel comfortable with it as a carry piece. I am lucky to get 4 inch groups at 15 yards freehand. It was much worse than that. My Para got less than 2 inches at that distance freehand and what I normally shot for fun was empty shotgun shells at 25 yards, more often than not hitting them. I have several other friends that are 1911 shooters that have the same issue with the my RIA. We switch to theirs and it's a different story. The pistol is still shooting to the left about 3 or 4 inches at that distance, with the rear sight starting to hand off of the slide. It isn't me. I have had around 7 other shooters, the same ones mentioned above, shoot it, and all are shooting to the left consistently by that wide a margin. If I shoot any of their 1911s, it's pretty much dead center. These are Colts, Paras, Springfields, and one other RIA.
I don't want to put any work into this gun at this point. I don't want to add better sights etc. My dealer is going to give me what I paid for it towards a new pistol. I've had it for for a while now. I have this thing running perfect and reliable, but the accuracy is killing me. I would rather just trade for something new. Someone started a Ruger thread and got me really wanting one. The reviews have all been great on them that I've read. Reliable and accurate. I have read the same about the Springfields, and the one's I fired and owned were really good as well. |
|
I really like my 'NM' Springer Mil-Spec I got last March. I was looking for a parkerized 1911 with forged frame and slide that had better sights than the GI model (aging eyes) but still looked like my old service 1911 I carried in RVN way back in 1968. Wasn't interested in a beaver tail, or ambi safety, etc. Besides the higher white dot sights, the 'NM' Mil-Spec's improvements over the GI model are that it has a high-hand grip, beveled magazine well, stainless steel barrel and bushing, polished feed ramp, throated barrel, lowered and flared ejection port, and angled slide serrations. The ILS system is cheap and easy to replace and you get the benefit of reducing the high mainspring weight (28# on Springers) with a more standard 23# or even 19# unit at the same time. I got a S&A arched MSH ( p/n 849-005-011) and spring kit (p/n 080-000-549) from Brownell's so that I could 'lose' the stupid lock on my Springer Mil-Spec. It looks great, dropped right in, and fits to a T. It's more accurate than I am and after 800+ rds of all different types and styles of ammo, it's yet to have a feeding issue. Brand new out of the box it even fed some of my old huge 'flying ashtray' HPs without any problems. I couldn't be more happy with it. (Note: I painted the front of the stainless steel bushing black when I first got it for this picture but have since stripped it off.)  |
| You sir, are a genius. Your desires in a handgun are the same as mine, and your choice is perfection. Beautiful handgun. I am leaning more in the direction of the Springer at this point. I called my dealer after lunch today and told him more what I am after, and he is going to locate me a few models that fit my specs Monday. He has Colts and Kimbers and a few Paras as well as a TRP.. If I had the funds I'd go the TRP route, but alas, I don't. I also like that black stainless finish on some of the Springfields , but don't known if I can find anything in my price range in that finish.Thanks for your post COSteve. |
|
Are you talking about the Black Stainless ?
I want a finish that holds up though. I guess the blued/black or the regular stainless would be the better options. I was never really into the stainless due to the flashiness of it, but I have had two 1911s in stainless. I had a Colt Lightweight Commander, had several issues and sold it for a Dan Wesson. Wanted a double stack so I sold it for a Para Stainless a year later, but really didn't like the stainless look at the time, and dealer gave me back what I paid and I bought a black P14-45. Had it for quite a while. Over 12,000 rounds with one single hand full of malfunctions. Three were magazine related, two were mainspring issues. I have small hands and being the 100th year of the 1911, I decided I wanted a single stack GI type, and now I want more. At this point , I am really starting to appreciate the pros of the stainless models more than the cons. So I am leaning that way. |
|
If I remember correctly, my Stainless loaded had 3 features that my Mil Specs do not. Front cocking serrations, full length guide rod, and ambidextrous safety. OK, also the rear sight aperture was ramped instead of vertical. I do not care for front cocking serrations or full length guide rods. I am ambivalent about the ambi safety and the rear sights is a purely cosmetic preference. If you are asking for opinions, then I suggest getting the Mil Spec in Stainless and rockin' on. If you get a stainless pistol, you can take care of scratches with 1500 grit wet or dry paper, some Rem Oil, and a few minutes of your time polishing the blemish away. |
|
That is something to consider. I looked at a couple of online sites and found some mil specs with the stainless finish. I would like to have sights other than the GI type. I have a hard time with that front sight. I don't need, and really don't want the ambidextrous safety, or the full length guide rod although I'm not against it, and I don't care either way for the extra cocking serrations.
I would like to know if the quality of the barrel is different between the loaded and the mil-spec, and between the mil spec and the GI. If anyone knows I'd appreciate it. |
|
Quoted: That is something to consider. I looked at a couple of online sites and found some mil specs with the stainless finish. I would like to have sights other than the GI type. I have a hard time with that front sight. I don't need, and really don't want the ambidextrous safety, or the full length guide rod although I'm not against it, and I don't care either way for the extra cocking serrations. I would like to know if the quality of the barrel is different between the loaded and the mil-spec, and between the mil spec and the GI. If anyone knows I'd appreciate it. The Mil Spec doesn't have those tiny G.I. type sights. They are bold and distinctive. |
|
Quoted:
If I remember correctly, my Stainless loaded had 3 features that my Mil Specs do not. Front cocking serrations, full length guide rod, and ambidextrous safety. OK, also the rear sight aperture was ramped instead of vertical. I do not care for front cocking serrations or full length guide rods. I am ambivalent about the ambi safety and the rear sights is a purely cosmetic preference. If you are asking for opinions, then I suggest getting the Mil Spec in Stainless and rockin' on. If you get a stainless pistol, you can take care of scratches with 1500 grit wet or dry paper, some Rem Oil, and a few minutes of your time polishing the blemish away. Beavertail grip safety. Mil spec has GI grip safety. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If I remember correctly, my Stainless loaded had 3 features that my Mil Specs do not. Front cocking serrations, full length guide rod, and ambidextrous safety. OK, also the rear sight aperture was ramped instead of vertical. I do not care for front cocking serrations or full length guide rods. I am ambivalent about the ambi safety and the rear sights is a purely cosmetic preference. If you are asking for opinions, then I suggest getting the Mil Spec in Stainless and rockin' on. If you get a stainless pistol, you can take care of scratches with 1500 grit wet or dry paper, some Rem Oil, and a few minutes of your time polishing the blemish away. Beavertail grip safety. Mil spec has GI grip safety. Ah, ha. I had feeling that I was missing something. Thank you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I remember correctly, my Stainless loaded had 3 features that my Mil Specs do not. Front cocking serrations, full length guide rod, and ambidextrous safety. OK, also the rear sight aperture was ramped instead of vertical. I do not care for front cocking serrations or full length guide rods. I am ambivalent about the ambi safety and the rear sights is a purely cosmetic preference. If you are asking for opinions, then I suggest getting the Mil Spec in Stainless and rockin' on. If you get a stainless pistol, you can take care of scratches with 1500 grit wet or dry paper, some Rem Oil, and a few minutes of your time polishing the blemish away. Beavertail grip safety. Mil spec has GI grip safety. Ah, ha. I had feeling that I was missing something. Thank you. Looking at their wesite the GI does not have a lowered and flared ejection port either. 6 years ago I bought one of the GIs with the OD Green "Armory Kote" (I'm sure it was really duracoat) finish when they first came out and still cost less than $500 and though I only ever used ball ammo in it for obvious reasons it was an extremely reliable pistol. After 2 years of owning it I gave it to a friend as a gift and according to him it is much the same several years later. Neither one of us ever tried JHPs in it though. |
|
Quoted: Does the Mil-Spec have the dreaded Springfield 2 pc brl that is known for problems or is that the GI? They aren't "known" for any such thing. That is internet nonsense. Both of my Mil Specs have 2 pc barrels and are fine shooters. One is 24 years old and has been used heavily. it is still rockin' along smartly. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If I remember correctly, my Stainless loaded had 3 features that my Mil Specs do not. Front cocking serrations, full length guide rod, and ambidextrous safety. OK, also the rear sight aperture was ramped instead of vertical. I do not care for front cocking serrations or full length guide rods. I am ambivalent about the ambi safety and the rear sights is a purely cosmetic preference. If you are asking for opinions, then I suggest getting the Mil Spec in Stainless and rockin' on. If you get a stainless pistol, you can take care of scratches with 1500 grit wet or dry paper, some Rem Oil, and a few minutes of your time polishing the blemish away. Beavertail grip safety. Mil spec has GI grip safety. Ah, ha. I had feeling that I was missing something. Thank you. Looking at their wesite the GI does not have a lowered and flared ejection port either. We were comparing features on Mil Spec and Loaded models, not the G.I. model. |