ltwguns.com

Gentlemen,

I know this issue has been brought up, driven into the ground, ressurected, and killed again, but I wanted to put this at LTW for a hopefully well-thought out and professional discussion, and I thought this would be a good section to put it in.

This is a post I wrote in response to a very popular thread at 1911 Forum entitled "Why Colt 1911A1 over Springfield 1911A1?" This is a link to the whole post: http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=72142 I know it is very long-winded, and maybe a bit overboard, but I wrote it after being aggrivated by a lot of the responses. I agree with a lot of what is said about both makers, but I think people are a bit too hard either way sometimes. Please give me some feedback on the issue ingeneral and my post, as I really like knowing whether or not I made sense.

My response to the thread:

"Obviously many people are passionate about this issue and it is certainly not going to go away any time soon. I try hard to take an objective approach, but with experiences often follow bias, so it doesn’t always work out that way. There have been quite a few issues raised in this thread and in many of the past, and I feel it necessary to respond because I don’t favor one or the other at all. I have owned a few Colts and Springfields, and have both good and terrible experiences with both. Because of the costs involved, I have often been more vocal about my Colt disappointments than those I had with the Springfield guns. But, unless the cost difference is simply outrageous, I really think it is a non-factor in a comparison of product QUALITY. FWIW, I currently own two Colts, two Springfields, a Dan Wesson, a Para Ordnance/Caspian, and 5 Caspians, all of which are fully custom jobs. That being said, I will finish this post with pictures of my FAVORITES of the different makers.

The argument of American made versus any other country is a really bad one. Before I get anyone mad and feeling like I’m some kind of anti-American jerk, I will let you know a few things: One, there is no other place in the world I would rather live than America and I will do anything in my power to defend her until the day I die. Two, “Made in the USA” does not always mean “Crafted with Pride,” “Made with quality,” “Made by a professional,” “Made to high and specific tolerances,” “Made using the best possible materials and processing procedures,” or “Made to last a lifetime.” The fact of the matter is, no matter what you buy or where it was made, the quality comes from three things: Materials used, processes used, and pride/ability of the maker. Some of the best and highest quality goods I have ever seen, used, owned, or heard about were made in the USA, and so were some of the worst. I know a lot of American workers who do a helluva job at their trade, and I know quite a few who don’t deserve minimum wage. How do we know that every employee at Colt takes pride in their work or even knows what they’re doing with a gun, and how can we assume that Brazil doesn’t have some damn good metallurgists and craftsmen working at the IMBEL plant? We can’t.

Colt uses good steel for their barrels, slides and frames, and I don’t know enough to speak of the smaller parts. Springfield’s Brazilian forged frames and slides are of good quality steel, too. Their two-piece barrels leave a lot to be desired, but that being said, I don’t keep factory barrels in ANY of my 1911s anyway, for I have been spoiled rotten by my gunsmith. As for quality of fit/finish, both companies have run the gamut from piss poor to outstanding. Some people are enchanted the Colt name or the Rampant Colt on the slide, and that’s fine by me. Colt does have a long and storied history and a certain ‘thing” about them. Springfield puts out a quality gun for a very good price, and when compared to other guns of similar cost, the Springer WWII 1911 can’t be touched for the value. From the MANY samples I have examined, the slide/frame fit on those specific guns are far and away the best available from the factory aside from the semi-custom makers. On the WWII model I used for a recent full-house custom, the only parts I kept were the Slide, frame, recoil spring guide and plug, firing pin and stop, strut, and sear spring. All else was replaced by quality oversized aftermarket components. For a full-house Delta Elite I had built, I kept the frame, slide, hammer, sear, strut, firing pin, and pins. One of my reasons for replacing the small parts in those guns was quality, and the other was specs. The Colt slide stop is durable and hard, but a .196” pin in a .201” hole just doesn’t cut it for me on a full-house gun. I was solid, consistent lockup that lasts, and no matter the quality of material, the specs just don’t do for it. Colt’s hammer and sear are of great quality (at least the older forged ones), but how well they serve a build is determined by who put the gun together at the factory. I’ve seen some that were way out of whack and completely uncorrectable, and some that looked like new and took a trigger job like the highest of high-end aftermarket parts. The slide/frame fit on my Springfield was good as it came from the factory, and the contact surfaces were even and smooth. The slide and frame alone with no parts installed felt like a peened and squeezed set as they came. My Colts all rattled like crazy and took a lot of work to get them right… some so bad they couldn’t be fixed without accu-rails. No, a tight slide/frame fit aren’t needed for a defensive gun, but again it goes back to preference.

Another reason I liked the Springfield WWII over the other Springfield was the simple but elegant rollmarks. I hate a billboard slide, which is one of the reasons I will never build a gun on a big letter series 70 Colt. Some people would disagree, and to each their own. One of the reasons I was first out off by Colt is the inconsistency of their rollmarks. I really really like many of them, especially the Delta Elite and the pre-70s guns of all types, but finding one that has good, even, and refinishable rollmarks is a frustrating task. I almost cancelled the build on my Delta because of the shallow rollmarks, as they weren’t deep enough to allow for a polished slide without removing half of them. Newer Colts I’ve seen are a little better and more consistent in this aspect than the older ones I’ve seen, but they’re far from great and it vexes me that Colt, after almost a century of producing 1911s, still has not perfected marking the slides on their guns. I turned down an AMAZING deal on a 1940’s commercial gun because you couldn’t read half of the rollmarks. Why is this? Still, given a Springfield WWII and a Colt commercial, both of identical cost, materials, quality parts, fit, and finish, I would choose the Colt in a heartbeat over the Springfield JUST because of the rollmarks and history. From what I have seen and experienced, the name history is all the Colts have going for them over any other brand, and that’s what makes their resale value so much better.

I hear people saying all the time that “If it not a Colt it’s just a Copy,” or “Colt is the only 1911.” To a very small degree I will agree, but it’s far from true, and if that is the case, then the SIG 220 series guns are just copies of the Browning BDA. I can’t quite go with that. Remember this: Colt did put a redundant safety on them (series 80), and they did have a few spotty moments in their manufacturing/quality control history. The 1911 is a military designation of a specific type of sidearm, hence the 1911 markings on many other manufacturers guns during the wars. This is just like the M-16 designation given to Colt, FN, and many other manufacturers making rifles for the military. 1911 and AR-15/M-16 are nomenclature and nothing more. I hereby vote to change the saying to, “If John Browning didn’t build it in his shop with his own hands, it isn’t an automatic .45 caliber pistol.” The reason this argument of which 1911 is “best” will never die is the same as why people will never quit arguing which truck (Ford/Chevy/Dodge) is best: THERE IS NO ANSWER! I’ve seen Mercedes Benz’s broken down on the side of the road and have seen some with 500,00+ miles running strong. I’ve seen Snap-On tools from GOD knows when that have been used and abused by countless people and not break, and I’ve seen some fail at the first use. Stories that tell of destruction witnessed and parts breaking and guns exploding are common. I wonder how many of those bad things happened because people didn’t really know how to maintain their guns? How many cracked frames came as a result of recoil springs that had seen a gazillion rounds? Why is an $8 spring such a burden to buy for a $500 – 3000 gun? Poor lube or cleaning leads to a lot of failures. Too many times I see people at my range who “clean” their guns at the range by running a bronze brush through the bore and putting more CLP on the OUTSIDE and calling it good to go. A 1911 isn’t hard at all to detail strip and clean quickly, and so very few people who own them know how to do it or take the time. Enough ranting.

Simply put, I like 1911’s. The design is a GREAT one, and when someone who knows what they’re doing makes them with high-quality parts, and they’re well maintained by the owner, they basically all run like hell. Whether you have crossed cannons, a horse, or nothing at all on the slide, you probably like it just because it’s a 1911 and it’s YOURS. I very seriously doubt that John Browning ever gave a damn which company made them, as long as they were made and used with confidence. So, can we all please just get along as shooters and gun owners and quit getting offended when someone likes something different? There is a reason for numerous manufacturers. The 1911 sells, and one company just can’t keep up."

GOD Bless you all, and happy shooting.

~Jim Keeney

_________________
"I'd rather die on my feet than keep living on my knees." - Emiliano Zapata, Mexican Revolutionary

Well said, Jim.

My usual response to the question "Should I go with Colt or Springfield?" is "Yes - you should." JDP will back me up on that one, I'm sure.

It's been said that I have a preference for Colts, and I guess to some degree that's true, but I think it's more sentiment than science that makes me that way. When I see the guns that Colton's doing on the SA WWII's, I'm pretty impressed with Springfield as a base gun. I get to handle a lot of Rob Leatham's guns - limited, open, plinking, you name it. They're absolutely fabulous in their own way, and Dave and Jason should be incredibly proud of them. In that arena, I don't know that I could get a Colt to compete on the level of a Springfield that was purpose built from the ground up from NM oversize frame/slide combos. Possible, but not practical.

There are a lot of "net ninjas" who'll weigh in ad nauseum about which is better, which net guru says so, etc... I guess you have to take it all with a grain of salt, but one theme seems constant. These guys are not talking about custom guns. They're referring to their experiences with bone stock guns, and calling in a healthy dose of opinion, hearsay, and ego just to keep the discussion "fair and balanced".

I get a kick out of the "70's Colts were sloppy and poorly made" comments that are so prevalent. If they were, so what? Ask Jason what he'd take for his pair of large-letter guns More work? Sure - lots more. Two days in just straightening all the lines and fitting frames and slides. Worth every minute of effort for me, and every penny to Jason, I'm sure. Fact is, there are very few if any issues that can't be addressed by a smith competent and willing to correct manufacting faults. It's called custom gunsmithing, and it borders on art. It's hard work, it's expensive, and 95% of gun buyers will never understand it. I guess that's OK

_________________
Heirloom Precision, LLC.
480-804-1911

Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.

TR

And just so you know: I'm one of those 95% of gun buyers who can't understand it and why some spend so much on a custom gun.


But I can't seem to make myself stop!

I guess for alot of the same reasons as Ted, the Colts hold up as a more pleasing finished product.. However, the SA guns we are getting into the shop are very good guns. I actually like the simple roll marks of the WWII guns. For an "heirloom" or engraved gun I think for me it would be a Colt. Full house, or very nice carry gun could be built on a SA anytime.

For that matter whoever thought that 1911's would come out of New York? Kimber was doing a fair job years ago with the Series I guns. If they would have removed the front cocking serrations and left them as Series I guns they would have had a nice 5" base gun on their hands.

I think the guns we build on Caspian slides, with no roll marks look great. So it really comes down to what you want and what you are willing to spend.

That was a good write up Jim.

_________________
Heirloom Precision, LLC.
480-804-1911

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr

Jim, I think you nailed it. It's one of the endless arguements that will forever haunt gun boards. Ford v. Chevy. Revolvers v. Autos. Blondes v. Brunettes (I like red heads). Everyone else v Colt. With each batch of new forum subcribers, the arguement starts again.

The one thing I believe is that:

a) there is a wide selection of potential base pistols.
b) the Brownells catalog gets thicker every month with great aftermarket options.
c) there is a solid selection of quality talent able to turn your production pistol into what ever you want it to be.

Put a+b+c together and the sky really is the limit (or at least your wallet). Technology and talent come together into some of the awesome photo spreads we get here.

If we could get legal issues sorted, things would be perfect because this is otherwise a great time to enjoying firearms.

In regards to the allure of Colt, for me the only allure is if the pistol had significance. A war baby, an ex LEO pistol, something from the family, etc. Otherwise, a S70 or a S80 is just another one of thousands replicated daily at a factory in Connecticut. Mine is just like everyone elses. Similiar pistols are being put together at other shops from various places. Just watch out for Monday and Friday production.

_________________
Jeff

So much of it comes down to preference, i like colts therefore that's what i buy now, i'm not totally opposed to a springfield but i just like colts better:)
and i blaim most of that on steve and ted and john del pinto:)
Trevor

_________________
Any questions email me at trevor@trevorzantos.com

If you get a chance and want to be entertained by a lot of ignorance and emotion based arguments, you really shoulkd take a look at the thread on 1911 Forum. Here's a quick bite of what was written yesterday after I put in my $0.02.

"You certainly can't go wrong with either brand, however, you've asked a question that would be comparable to why should I pay more for a Harley Davidson than a Suzuki, or Why should I pay more for a Rolex than a Timex. I own a XSE because I wanted a Colt.... PERIOD !!! It's a great pistol, and Colts quality is better than it's ever been."

To which I replied:

I am going to have to chime in on the Rolex and Harley comparison, too. As a former soldier, I stopped buying expensive watches (not Rolexes) after I realized that an extra $50 or $250 investment in a watch did nothing at all to prevent them from being destroyed by rocks, troop hatches on vehicles, or eaten alive by the fine sand of the desert. Agreeing with FortyFiveCal, a Rolex is a hand crafted, well-detailed work of art, that is made from the finest of materials with the greatest possible attention to detail. It is also neither the first manufacturer to make a watch, nor are the costs even close enough to begin to consider comparisons to affordable watches like Timex. A low-end Rolex will run, on average, around $2000.00, with high-end watched running well into 5 figures. Timex, on the other hand (should you need two watches – HAHA!), will run from about $10 for a low-end watch to maybe $300 - $400 for one of their “high-end” watches. Given this comparison, a Springfield will be a $350 - $1500 1911 while a Colt should run about $10,500 – any digit followed by lots of zeros. Just doesn’t work.

I will admit to being a Harley fan, but I'd really be stretching it to think a Harley and a Suzuki can compare at all. They are made for different types of riding and generally different age/socioeconomic groups. A 1911 is a 1911 is a 1911... and they're all almost totally interchangeable as far as parts are concerned.

Flaman - “I own a XSE because I wanted a Colt.... PERIOD!!!”

… And that’s most definitely a good enough reason to buy one. I have done the same for both the Colt and Springfield brands, as well as a Para Ordnance and Dan Wesson.

Flaman - “It's a great pistol, and Colts quality is better than it's ever been.”

… A great pistol is a very good thing, and I’m glad you are happy with it. But, saying Colt’s quality is better than EVER might be a bit of a stretch. I’ve been lucky enough to handle a few of the old Colts like pre-war guns and some post war commercial models that were still hand fitted and finished, used machined, forged small parts, and made by skilled craftsmen. While current production Colts may be “better” in ways than some from the 70s through the 90s, the old hand built guns are incomparable to the mass produced guns of today. If you need a good example, look away from Colt and check out an old 50s or 60s Smith & Wesson N-Frame revolver and compare it to the N-Frames of today. To some, a Smith is THE revolver by which all others are judged, but they just aren’t the same as they once were. The same can be said for Colts and generally every other maker lucky enough to have been around that long.

So, going back to the original questions of JLStorm, which we have strayed so very far from:

1)“Why the Colt 1911A1 over the Springfield 1911A1?”

Answer: It is all up to you, as the differences in quality are negligible

2)“Besides price, what does the Colt have over the Springfield?”

Answer: The Colt has a lot of history, both good AND bad, and it has two little things people go nuts over… a name and a horse on the slide.

~Jim Keeney

_________________
"I'd rather die on my feet than keep living on my knees." - Emiliano Zapata, Mexican Revolutionary

I've had a tendency to favor Colts. I just find them subjectively nicer, generally. And I'm a sucker for nice markings on a gun, silly as that may seem. My next gun is a Caspian custom job from Ted, though, and from a practical point of view there are alot of good alternatives to Colt.

_________________
Sean Smith
"Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that?" -Jack Burton, Big Trouble in Little China

I too find the arguement of Colt vs Springfield/any other maker tiresome. I don't own a Colt but that doesn't mean I don't want to it just means I haven't gotten around to it.

I think for some they invest way too much of themselves in their favorite particular brand. Any one who questions their favorite brand is accused of insulting them.

You see it more when you read the 1911 v Glock threads that never seem to go away. I like my 1911 a lot more than my Glock 35 but the Glock is a great gun that I would trust my life to and I have a blast shooting it. Both have their obvious strengths and weakness's but they are both excellent tools, so to speak.

Guys that wrapped up in these needless arguements (obviously not you Jim as you were the voice of reason over there) really need to get a life IMHO.

In the future I will get a Colt but I am happy to have Ted and the motley crue of his do up a S.A. for me. I plan to use it as an extreme hard use carry gun for outdoors purposes, fishing, canoing etc. The Colt when the time comes will be for a 10mm build up or series 70 heirloom type pistol.
Its all in what you want and what you want to pay for. Besides I don't drive a Ford,Chevy, or Dodge truck.......Toyota baby!!!

_________________
''ya can't argue logic with ignorance.''

FWIW, my only real objections to the Springfield guns have been mainly cosmetic. Since a full house gun will be rid of most of the stock parts, they're not really an issue. What I didn't like on the SA guns was the sometimes real blocky frontstraps and dustcovers. The rollmarks do leave something to be desired, but since they've had those for so long, I guess they're not going to change. One last thing, is that since Springfield has changed the shape of the frame several times, why in the world don't they change the tangs on the frame to accomodate a .250 radius beavertail, as the majority of the customers seem to want one of the high grip types?

_________________
Don Williams
http://www.theactionworks.com
http://www.ltwguns.com

I must confess, I rather like the SA roll marks. Infact, I prefer it over all but the military Colt roll marks. The military, and current WW1 especially, roll marks are THE best. Not too hot on the kimber ones, though. Or the Para, which are the worst. The 1991A1 doesnt make it either. Now, the initial FBI SA roll marks were cool, when they said "Bureau Model". Has a nice sound.

Im also not to keen on the more square-ish frames SA used a while ago. I havent seen a new one like that for a while though.