I did it

[gossman]

Well, went down today and spent the dough on a GI WW2 Mil-spec 1911A1. Cleaned it up, a little oil, and away to the range with a box of PMC 230 Hardball. Sights are pretty small for my poor vision but was able to group on a 8X11 sheet of blank paper at 50 feet. No FTF's or other problems. Even shot some handloads of 200 JHP ( slightly downloaded for my PT 145, not much but makes the Tauras more pleasant to shoot) and had zero problems. For paying $419, I am not disapointed in it's performance. Next month I am planning on swapping out the stock sights for Novaks from Springfield ( $29 w/ coupon). Are they any more difficult than Colts to change out? :2guns:

[Ray P]

Congrats on the stock 1911a1! Like you, I am a fan of the stock pistol; don't like too many bells and whistles taking away from the "as-issued" look. I do get strange looks from the rest of the shooters at the local action plate event; not only no optics, but not even a beavertail grip, extended controls or adjustable sights. I did just add a full length guide rod, but it is black at the end, so it still kinda looks stock.

Don't know about the fit up on the Novak sights; I'd be concerned to ensure that the hieght matches stock unless you are changing the front sight, too. Does this sight require slide machining to fit?

[Metaldoc]

Congrats Gossman,
If you like yours as much as I like mine you won't soon part with it. It just points and shoots naturally. Everybody has their own tastes but I definitely like this 'plain jane' classic without all the extras. So far it has performed flawlessly.

Enjoy your new piece.

Metaldoc :usa:

[gossman]

RayP, As far as the novaks I think that both sights would be replaced but I am having my doubts because of the height, I like low profile so I might wait and look around. Metaldoc, I enjoy stock firearms, I never redid the stock on my M1 because it is a historical piece, doesn't mean it doesn' get shot though! I have had several 1911's and I like the "plain Jane" the best. Thanks for the support, it eats all that I have fed it, tomorrow I am going to the range with some 180's to try. They work in my PT145 great so the purchase isn't a waste if the Springer doesn't feed. Should I be concerned about the ejector on this pistol? :2guns:

[Metaldoc]

Gossman,
Go back in this Gov. .45 forum to the "Springfield 1911 Question?" topic. Some concerns were discussed there. A couple of users mentioned some restrictive tightness in their SA Mil specs and some feeding problems, but I honestly can say mine has been smooth as silk from day one. Maybe I just lucked out and got a good one. My eyes aren't so hot any more, either, and at first the sights seemed inadequate, but the more I shoot, it has become less of a problem to no problem at all. I tend to shoot offhand, and can regularly hit bowling pins at 25 yards. For my kind of shooting that is plenty good enough.

If you are an NRA member, The April, 2004 issue of The American Rifleman magazine (the NRA's) has a very favorable review of the Springfield Armory Mil-Spec 1911-A1. If your aren't a member maybe you can borrow one from a friend. Otherwise, I can try to scan it and email the article to you.

The one thing that I noticed was they said they fed all types of ammo through it without any problems. So far I have shot only 230gr. ball. But after their report I am going to try some others, at least some hollow points.

With all certainty, I can say, I LIKE this gun!

Metaldoc :usa:

[gossman]

I shot some handloads with no problem ( 185 gr. XTP HP w/ 6.0 Unique) that are for my PT145 and the GI .45 had no difficulties with those loads as far as function and feeding. I bought some Winchester .45's today on sale ($11.99 a box) that are target loads 185 gr. FMJ and am hoping to shoot tomorrow. If I make it out I will give a report on how they functioned. I am keeping the sights for a while, there is a IPSC class coming up at the range (Tri-County (http://www.tcgc.org))that I belong to next week and I am thinking of taking it and using the Springfield for that. I just working on finding the most accuarate loads. What are you guys shooting and at what distances?

Good shooting

Billy

BTW, I did read the American Rifleman and that was the article that made me go back and relook at the Springfield again.