Can you describe for me what the difference is between Springfield Armory's Parkerized GI-45 1911-A1 (SA Model #PW9108L) and their Parkerized Mil-Spec 1911-A1 (SA Model #PB9108L)? Are the two guns absolutely identical internally? No differences whatsoever?
I am purchasing a pistol for conversion to a Bullseye competition wad gun and my smith advised me to “get a Mil-Spec gun, as I can use many of the existing parts.”
My dealer told me that the GI-45 is a Mil-Spec gun, and that the only difference is grips, finish color and a few other external cosmetics. But I have to assume that, if this was the case, the GI would be a sub-model of the Mil-Spec 1911-A1 and not a separate model. On the other hand, if the GI is a Mil-Spec, I may as well get it, as it is the least expensive, this is going to all get worked over anyhow, and I don't care whether it is green parkerized or black parkerized as long as the finished, smithed gun will group within 2.5" at 50 yards..
Can anyone clear this up for me?
Tom Morrisey
NRA Life Member
www.tommorrisey.com
Springfield Armory: GI-45? Mil-Spec? Same basic gun?
Moderators: Bullseye, Moderators
Answering at least part of my own question here:
The GI-45 has a "military" (i.e., stock M1911-A1) ejection port, while the MilSpec's is lowered. A lowered port is necessary for reliable ejection with a scope.
Having the GI's port lowered and then having the gun refinished to cover the milled work would more than account for the $40 difference I am finding in "street" prices between the two guns. So my base gun will be the Mil-Spec and not the GI.
Tom
The GI-45 has a "military" (i.e., stock M1911-A1) ejection port, while the MilSpec's is lowered. A lowered port is necessary for reliable ejection with a scope.
Having the GI's port lowered and then having the gun refinished to cover the milled work would more than account for the $40 difference I am finding in "street" prices between the two guns. So my base gun will be the Mil-Spec and not the GI.
Tom
-
Ruffchaser
- New member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:56 am
- Location: Wisconsin
Hi Tom ,
Ive been considering a SA mil - spec also for the same reason . One other difference is the sights . The GI - 45 has a very small front sight compared to the mil spec's , the rear sight is dovetailed which would probably be easy for an adjustable to be installed . I dont know , maybe you would change them both anyway . My reasoning was that I could possibly shoot the mil - spec easier out of the box until I could afford upgrades .
Ive been considering a SA mil - spec also for the same reason . One other difference is the sights . The GI - 45 has a very small front sight compared to the mil spec's , the rear sight is dovetailed which would probably be easy for an adjustable to be installed . I dont know , maybe you would change them both anyway . My reasoning was that I could possibly shoot the mil - spec easier out of the box until I could afford upgrades .
The sights were not a consideration in my case, as my smith will mill the slide out for a Bo-Mar dovetail, anyhow. I am literally taking this pistol from the gun store to UPS and shipping it off to be smithed. I am not the world's greatest bullseye shooter, and probably not in the top 10,000 of the world's bullseye shooters, but I am far enough along in the game that I could not learn anything from a pistol that shoots 8" groups. So I will just shoot my .22 until the Mil-Spec comes back from my smith.
One way to get a Mil-Spec that is probably more accurate out of the box is to look for a serial number starting with "NM." I got this tip from another shooter, and when I compared two Mil-Specs side-by-side I could see why. Pistols starting with "N" alone seem to have a conventional steel barrel bushing, while those starting with "NM" have a stainless bushing.
True, a wad gun often will get the barrel and the bushing replaced by the smith anyhow, but that is not always the case. A careful smith will test the barrel first, and may decide to just modify the stock barrel if it is close enough to specs.
I got the "NM" serial number. Who knows? I might get lucky and save the cost of a new barrel on this competition gun.
Tom
One way to get a Mil-Spec that is probably more accurate out of the box is to look for a serial number starting with "NM." I got this tip from another shooter, and when I compared two Mil-Specs side-by-side I could see why. Pistols starting with "N" alone seem to have a conventional steel barrel bushing, while those starting with "NM" have a stainless bushing.
True, a wad gun often will get the barrel and the bushing replaced by the smith anyhow, but that is not always the case. A careful smith will test the barrel first, and may decide to just modify the stock barrel if it is close enough to specs.
I got the "NM" serial number. Who knows? I might get lucky and save the cost of a new barrel on this competition gun.
Tom
-
Ruffchaser
- New member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:56 am
- Location: Wisconsin
-
allendavis
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm
GI 45 / Mil-spec
I like Springfield guns, I really do. But I've come to hate that company with a passion.
20-25 years ago you could buy a basic 1911 "Mil spec" for $249. Another $50 bought better sights. The finish on both guns was better than mil-spec, but not nearly as nice as what you would get with a Colt Mk IV.
Accuracy with the Springfield was excellent, but not stellar. Reliability was absolute and without fault.
What pissed me off was the way the Springfield's price began to skyrocket. Today, if I'm going to spend a grand for an out-of-the-box gun, I'll buy a Kimber. At least I know it's American-made from top to bottom. I don't see how SA can justify the prices of some of their offerings.
The Springfield is forged and at least partially manufactured in Brazil.
Not that I have anything against foreign-made guns. I own a Hi-Power and one 1911 (the Chip McCormick) that was made in the Philippines.
My gripe is that I think SA guns are grossly over-priced. They're damn good guns, so don't get me wrong, I'm not putting them down. My Philippino .45 shoots as accurately as ANY other 1911 I've ever seen, and better than a bunch of them.
I'm a right-wing conservative capitalist SOB, and if SA can charge the prices they've got and still get business, I say more power to them!
As an aside, I'd buy the SA much quicker than I'd ever buy the Smith & Wesson or the SIG 1911s, and that's solely based on the fact that I don't want an external exractor on a 1911. If John Moses Browning thought an external extractor was better, he'd have designed the 1911 that had one.
The self-tensioning internal extractor has never been a problem unless you're buying after-market parts from some goof-bag working out of his garage. Of the five 1911s I've owned in the last 35+ years, I've only had one extractor breakage. The lower lip chpped off, but the gun continued to function unless I was shooting sharp-shouldered lead semi-wadcutters.
It turns out that extractor had been excessively hardened without proper heat-treating.
John Moses Browning is as close to a gun-making god as I can imagine, with William B. Ruger coming in as a close second. The Hi-Power was not an "improvement" on the 1911 design; it was simply different. And, by the way, Browning didn't actually design the Hi-Power completely. It was completed by that goofy-ass French Belgian guy whose name escapes me, but I don't believe Browning would've approved of the final design, which wasn't released until 1935 (9 years after Browning died).
Back to the original discussion: magazines, more often than not , regulate and determine the functional reliablity of any pistol, especially the 1911 and the Hi-Power.
If you're trying to take the "cheap route" by buying an inexpensive 1911 nd then turning it into some kind of "race gun," why not buy an Auto Ordinance or other inexpensive 1911 (as though one really exists) and build one yourself???
I bought my Chip McCormick 1911 for under $300 brand new (they did have the gun's priced marked incorrectly, so I stole it). I don't like the beavertail grip safety or the ring hammer (I prefer the old-fashioned spur hammer). I DO love the ambidextrous safety and the flat mainspring housing Best of all, I do love the stainless receiver and blued slide arrangement. I liked the Bo-Mar sights, but replaced the rear sight with one that has that radioactive crap in it.
This gun shoots 1" groups at 25 yards, but shoots 3" groups at 50 yards. Made in the Philippines. I'm not compaining. It does even better from a machine rest.
20-25 years ago you could buy a basic 1911 "Mil spec" for $249. Another $50 bought better sights. The finish on both guns was better than mil-spec, but not nearly as nice as what you would get with a Colt Mk IV.
Accuracy with the Springfield was excellent, but not stellar. Reliability was absolute and without fault.
What pissed me off was the way the Springfield's price began to skyrocket. Today, if I'm going to spend a grand for an out-of-the-box gun, I'll buy a Kimber. At least I know it's American-made from top to bottom. I don't see how SA can justify the prices of some of their offerings.
The Springfield is forged and at least partially manufactured in Brazil.
Not that I have anything against foreign-made guns. I own a Hi-Power and one 1911 (the Chip McCormick) that was made in the Philippines.
My gripe is that I think SA guns are grossly over-priced. They're damn good guns, so don't get me wrong, I'm not putting them down. My Philippino .45 shoots as accurately as ANY other 1911 I've ever seen, and better than a bunch of them.
I'm a right-wing conservative capitalist SOB, and if SA can charge the prices they've got and still get business, I say more power to them!
As an aside, I'd buy the SA much quicker than I'd ever buy the Smith & Wesson or the SIG 1911s, and that's solely based on the fact that I don't want an external exractor on a 1911. If John Moses Browning thought an external extractor was better, he'd have designed the 1911 that had one.
The self-tensioning internal extractor has never been a problem unless you're buying after-market parts from some goof-bag working out of his garage. Of the five 1911s I've owned in the last 35+ years, I've only had one extractor breakage. The lower lip chpped off, but the gun continued to function unless I was shooting sharp-shouldered lead semi-wadcutters.
It turns out that extractor had been excessively hardened without proper heat-treating.
John Moses Browning is as close to a gun-making god as I can imagine, with William B. Ruger coming in as a close second. The Hi-Power was not an "improvement" on the 1911 design; it was simply different. And, by the way, Browning didn't actually design the Hi-Power completely. It was completed by that goofy-ass French Belgian guy whose name escapes me, but I don't believe Browning would've approved of the final design, which wasn't released until 1935 (9 years after Browning died).
Back to the original discussion: magazines, more often than not , regulate and determine the functional reliablity of any pistol, especially the 1911 and the Hi-Power.
If you're trying to take the "cheap route" by buying an inexpensive 1911 nd then turning it into some kind of "race gun," why not buy an Auto Ordinance or other inexpensive 1911 (as though one really exists) and build one yourself???
I bought my Chip McCormick 1911 for under $300 brand new (they did have the gun's priced marked incorrectly, so I stole it). I don't like the beavertail grip safety or the ring hammer (I prefer the old-fashioned spur hammer). I DO love the ambidextrous safety and the flat mainspring housing Best of all, I do love the stainless receiver and blued slide arrangement. I liked the Bo-Mar sights, but replaced the rear sight with one that has that radioactive crap in it.
This gun shoots 1" groups at 25 yards, but shoots 3" groups at 50 yards. Made in the Philippines. I'm not compaining. It does even better from a machine rest.