ltwguns.com

Hey all,
Well, I've decided that for Christmas I'll be getting another Colt 70 and a less expensive 1911 as well. Here's the question. If you were building a "mild" build, would you prefer a Colt 1991 NRM or a SA GI?

thanks
R

In my neck of the woods, a new 1991 NRM sells for $720 on a good day. GI's are $399.

I've had two SA's built on and have been very pleased with the results.

_________________
Jeff

For a 'mild' build, where money is probably an important consideration, the Springfield. IME, the SA is a very solid gun. The Colt is probably cosmetically superior, but the Springfields I've seen make very good working guns for significantly less money.

I'd go with the Colt. Less parts that really have to be replaced. Also it's never really going to lose much of it's market value if you ever decide to sell it.

That being said, I guess it realy comes down to what you want to spend.

_________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

- Sigmund Freud

I'd give the nod to the SA mil spec. I have a springfield that was built up and I am completely happy with it. You could get two SA for the price of one 1991...almost. Most of the SA's that I've seen in the gunshops have been cosmetically better that the Colts and better fit. I think Colt has been struggling a little with QC where as SA is pretty consistent with decent quality. I would avoid buying a Colt unseen. Not to mention, I am a fan of series 70 actions over series 80's even though this is of great debate.

If your going to have it customized all those junk parts are going to be tossed anyway.

If keeping costs as low as possible is a top priority, then the SA mil-spec is a good choice.

I agree that resale value will be much stronger with the Colt, but then again, more will be paid for the Colt to begin with. That said, the Colt will command a significantly better overall "marketability" in a resale environment, as well. Of course, when we plan a worked-up gun, none of us are really planning to ever sell the gun anyway. But you never know, you might wish to at some point.

As mentioned earlier, I think if the extra couple a bills for the Colt isn't a problem, I'd go that way. I prefer the look of the Colt, the heritage of the marque, and as mentioned already, most of the small parts are quite good and can be retained in a build up unless you are compelled to replace everything under the sun (which isn't necessary with a Colt). I have and like SA's, but prefer Colts.

I went with the SA. As much as it would've been nice to get the 70 and the 1991 at the same time, it was just a wee bit too much money. However, after getting the SA and handling it, I'm glad I did. This is my second SA, and the fit and finish etc faaaaaaaar exceeds that of my other SA (a "loaded" from '99).

Here they are...




Rich