I’ve wanted one of these two for some time. Up until now options for a MA approved 9mm 1911 were pretty thin.
So I bought both and have now run a decent sample size of rounds through each. Upwards of 500 for the Colt and probably 1000 for the Springfield.
Obviously both are full size all steel 1911’s.
The Springfield is parkerized and doesn’t look quite as nice as the Colt IMO, which is blued. The Colt is a bit polished on the side surfaces but kind of bead blasted everywhere else.
I prefer the wood grips on the Springfield to the blue Colt synthetic grips but that’s subjective. Both have the upswept beaver tail type grip safety which I like.
The Colt slide rattles and is not that tightly fitted. The barrel bushing is easily removed by hand. Undercut trigger guard is nice. The mainspring housing is plastic. Yuk. Colt should use a metal on but I get these are guns built to a price. Colt does make the Gold Cup and I’m sure it’s more tightly fitted.
The Springfield slide is much more tightly fitted. It doesn’t rattle. The barrel bushing is super tight. When the gun was new i ruined a plastic bushing wrench trying to turn it. Now that the gun is a bit broken in its a little easier but still very tight. Metal checkered mainspring housing. The barrel is ramped if it matters to you. The Colt barrel is not. The Colt has a dual recoil spring. They claim less recoil (I don’t feel much difference) and extended service life. Recoil springs are cheap and easily replaced. Meh.
The triggers seem similar. Crisp. Both are Series 70 type I believe. I haven’t pulled out the scale but the effort seems similar. My finger says 4-5lbs.
I like the fiber optic front sight Colt uses. Not as wild about the rear more of a combat type IMO but it is adjustable for elevation with a screw and windage with a punch. Both front and rear are dovetailed. No issues with them. The fiber optic draws your eye to the front sight nicely.
The Springfield sights are target type with a large rectangular rear sight. Adjustable with a screwdriver for windage and elevation. The front sight is dovetailed and pinned.
The rear sight on the Springfield has been an issue. It is a sloppy fit. So sloppy that if the set screws aren’t tight the sight falls out if the gun is turned sideways. And the set screws shoot loose. After shooting loose a few times I applied some loctite to the set screws. Held up to about 250 rounds last time. Fingers crossed.
For target use (my intended use for either of these guns) I have a preference for the Springfield sights although I’d take a fiber optic front if I could get it.
Shooting the guns I had some issues first time out with the Springfield and IMI ammo. Gun would jam with a live round chambered but the slide about 1/8th inch from in battery. Was a pain to clear. Hasn’t happened after changing ammo. I’m going to guess the Springfield has a tight chamber. Shoots my reloads fine as well as Winchester White Box and Blazer.
The Springfield mags have tight springs and are a pain to load. It seems to like Metalform mags fine and they are much easier to load.
The Colt mags are OK to load but I get a few stovepipes with both the Colt mags and the Metalform mags. I also get some brass to the face. The gun runs better and ejects better with Wilson Combat mags. I have not noticed any ammo sensitivity with the Colt although I may experiment with different loads to try and get good function with other than the Wilson Combats.
Other than these teething issues the guns have been pretty much reliable.
Accuracy wise frankly not much different. Maybe a slight edge to the Springfield so far but I am not 100% on this yet need to shoot the Colt more.
As for the verdict I think the finish is better on the Colt but the fit is better on the Springfield. The rear sight on the Springfield has been an annoyance but I like the sight picture. The Colt’s fiber optic front is nice but the rear sight isn’t quite as good for target use IMO. Almost a hybrid target/combat sight.
Other than with IMI ammo the Springfield seems to be settling in to be reliable. So long as I use Wilson Combat mags the Colt has been too.
If the rear sight decides to stay put in the Springfield is probably give it a slight edge. If not I’ll be using it as a boat anchor and shooting the Colt!
So I bought both and have now run a decent sample size of rounds through each. Upwards of 500 for the Colt and probably 1000 for the Springfield.
Obviously both are full size all steel 1911’s.
The Springfield is parkerized and doesn’t look quite as nice as the Colt IMO, which is blued. The Colt is a bit polished on the side surfaces but kind of bead blasted everywhere else.
I prefer the wood grips on the Springfield to the blue Colt synthetic grips but that’s subjective. Both have the upswept beaver tail type grip safety which I like.
The Colt slide rattles and is not that tightly fitted. The barrel bushing is easily removed by hand. Undercut trigger guard is nice. The mainspring housing is plastic. Yuk. Colt should use a metal on but I get these are guns built to a price. Colt does make the Gold Cup and I’m sure it’s more tightly fitted.
The Springfield slide is much more tightly fitted. It doesn’t rattle. The barrel bushing is super tight. When the gun was new i ruined a plastic bushing wrench trying to turn it. Now that the gun is a bit broken in its a little easier but still very tight. Metal checkered mainspring housing. The barrel is ramped if it matters to you. The Colt barrel is not. The Colt has a dual recoil spring. They claim less recoil (I don’t feel much difference) and extended service life. Recoil springs are cheap and easily replaced. Meh.
The triggers seem similar. Crisp. Both are Series 70 type I believe. I haven’t pulled out the scale but the effort seems similar. My finger says 4-5lbs.
I like the fiber optic front sight Colt uses. Not as wild about the rear more of a combat type IMO but it is adjustable for elevation with a screw and windage with a punch. Both front and rear are dovetailed. No issues with them. The fiber optic draws your eye to the front sight nicely.
The Springfield sights are target type with a large rectangular rear sight. Adjustable with a screwdriver for windage and elevation. The front sight is dovetailed and pinned.
The rear sight on the Springfield has been an issue. It is a sloppy fit. So sloppy that if the set screws aren’t tight the sight falls out if the gun is turned sideways. And the set screws shoot loose. After shooting loose a few times I applied some loctite to the set screws. Held up to about 250 rounds last time. Fingers crossed.
For target use (my intended use for either of these guns) I have a preference for the Springfield sights although I’d take a fiber optic front if I could get it.
Shooting the guns I had some issues first time out with the Springfield and IMI ammo. Gun would jam with a live round chambered but the slide about 1/8th inch from in battery. Was a pain to clear. Hasn’t happened after changing ammo. I’m going to guess the Springfield has a tight chamber. Shoots my reloads fine as well as Winchester White Box and Blazer.
The Springfield mags have tight springs and are a pain to load. It seems to like Metalform mags fine and they are much easier to load.
The Colt mags are OK to load but I get a few stovepipes with both the Colt mags and the Metalform mags. I also get some brass to the face. The gun runs better and ejects better with Wilson Combat mags. I have not noticed any ammo sensitivity with the Colt although I may experiment with different loads to try and get good function with other than the Wilson Combats.
Other than these teething issues the guns have been pretty much reliable.
Accuracy wise frankly not much different. Maybe a slight edge to the Springfield so far but I am not 100% on this yet need to shoot the Colt more.
As for the verdict I think the finish is better on the Colt but the fit is better on the Springfield. The rear sight on the Springfield has been an annoyance but I like the sight picture. The Colt’s fiber optic front is nice but the rear sight isn’t quite as good for target use IMO. Almost a hybrid target/combat sight.
Other than with IMI ammo the Springfield seems to be settling in to be reliable. So long as I use Wilson Combat mags the Colt has been too.
If the rear sight decides to stay put in the Springfield is probably give it a slight edge. If not I’ll be using it as a boat anchor and shooting the Colt!
