1911 Comparison...Springfield Mil-Spec or Taurus PT1911

[ZakBradshaw]

Ok, my Dad and I each have a 1911. He has the Springfield 1911A1 Mil-Spec, and since he got it he has put on Hogue grips, a stainless steel full length guide rod, and a stainless slide stop. I have a Taurus PT1911 Duotone and mine is brand new no additions, but stock it has extended beavertail, full length guide rod, ambidextrous safety, and Heinie sights. Which is better? Zak.

Dad's Gun-
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=7

My Gun-
http://www.taurususa.com/product-det...crumbseries=19

[goochracing]

taurus all the way, they are both made out of the country and are made in brazil. There are only a few complains about taurus, the safety and all that, but you usually replace something like that with one that you are at home with. I replaced mine with a wilson. Great gun for the money

[Boss302]

This thread will implode in 10, 9...

[nking]

Originally Posted by Boss302

This thread will implode in 10, 9...

You only have 13 posts and already know enough to make an accurate prediction. You're a quick learner!

I would say your dad has the better gun. That's just my humble opinion. You like yours he likes his, why does it matter?


Nate

[BBQLS1]

If I had to buy one or the other, it might be a hard choice. I just about need a beavertail. I owned a Mil-Spec and it would chew a hole in the web of my hand. I never felt it bite, but after 1-2 hundred rounds, it was obvious. Generally, I prefer SA though.

To heck with a full length guide rod though. Give me the old GI guide rod.

[RWW]

Dad's gun is MUCH nicer looking IMHO!!!!


RWW

[Loadedcolt45]

I've never owned any of either maker's pistols but I've shot and handled both and I'd take the Springfield any day over the Taurus. Springfield would not be my first choice in a 1911 but if feels like a more "quality" weapon when compared to the Taurus.

That is just my opinion - if your happy with your gun, my opinion really doasn't mean a thing.

[sousana]

As the owner of 98 1911 platforms, and a shooter of said platform for 39 years, plus an owner of several of each, I'd have to say on a 10 point scale I'd give the Springfield a 9.5 to Taurus 8.

Why? Both have excellent customer service, but, Springfield puts out a better quality controlled product, and it comes from a maker of forged frames and slides, Imbel, with decades of experience using Colt manufactured machines.

On my first purchase of a Taurus blued 1911 steel frame, the frame cracked after 3800 rounds, standard loads. Now, Taurus fixed the problem by sending me a brand new stainless model, which to this day functions flawlessly, but I've inspected many Taurus's and noticed that they do have fluctuations of quality control, where's Springfields QC is consistant.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy and use a Taurus 1911 for range use and everyday plinking, but I won't use it in my carry rotation nor competitions.

[ZakBradshaw]

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, it honestly doesnt matter because I do like my gun and he likes his gun, to each their own on style and accessory parts, I was just curious. We give each other a hard time about whose is better on all the guns we own. Just like I bought a Russian M44 rifle about 6 months ago, and when he got one he bragged that his was better because it had been refurbished at the arsenal, and mine was an unrefurbished with typical wear. Lol, we just do it to mess with each other. Zak.

[mitrod3]

Originally Posted by sousana

As the owner of 98 1911 platforms, and a shooter of said platform for 39 years, plus an owner of several of each, I'd have to say on a 10 point scale I'd give the Springfield a 9.5 to Taurus 8. Why? Both have excellent customer service, but, Springfield puts out a better quality controlled product, and it comes from a maker of forged frames and slides, Imbel, with decades of experience using Colt manufactured machines. On my first purchase of a Taurus blued 1911 steel frame, the frame cracked after 3800 rounds, standard loads. Now, Taurus fixed the problem by sending me a brand new stainless model, which to this day functions flawlessly, but I've inspected many Taurus's and noticed that they do have fluctuations of quality control, where's Springfields QC is consistant. I wouldn't hesitate to buy and use a Taurus 1911 for range use and everyday plinking, but I won't use it in my carry rotation nor competitions.

I would tend to agree. Springer by a hair for me as well. I owned both and shot a number of others at the range. My first Taurus came in with a bad barrel crown. I did not send it back as I had a extrac barrel at hand that dropped in and ran extremely well.

My Springers could be modded easily while the Taurus had some aspects that were "taurus only", although the gun as it came was pretty much set to run without the need to mod up anything.

Both makers guns were good shooters so no issue there, although I did pop a custom fitted barrel bushing into both of my Springer Mil Specs that really snapped up the accuracy. Both makers held up very well overall so no issues there.

Have a good day.

[ZakBradshaw]

I do want to replace several parts on mine...beavertail, stide stop, guide rod, magazine release, etc...with the Wilson Combat stainless steel parts. Zak.

[NonConformist]

Id say they are more or less equal, I just like the SA because its sorta made in America and is an American Company

[cuba]

Their both made in Brazil but the Taurus is 100% more refined
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=414414

[WarriorSteel1]

Originally Posted by cuba

Their both made in Brazil but the Taurus is 100% more refined
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=414414

Come again? Please explain.

[Caspian17]

Haha HAHAHAHAHA. Ya no. Taurus doesn't even have a customer service department.

[Caspian17]

Also, the SA is their entry level gun, I don't see what those pictures "point" to?

[1911MasterSmith]

Usually the phrase "an apple don't fall far from the tree" is fitting but not in this case. Your Dad is definitely the wiser of you two. Was you adopted ? JK
If you both like whatever guns you have then why would you worry about asking others opinion on YOUR gun.... unless you have some subconscious regret about buying the Taurus and hoping for "justification"


Edited to add that I didn't get a chance to view your gun on Taurus's web site due to a malfunction

[DArBad]

zak,

While your Taurus has more features, your Dad's Springfield is the BETTER gun.

[Knight1911]

I like the Springfield more, it just feels better.

[aric]

.

[Caspian17]

GO SA, they have a good warranty department, plus if you ever want a big-nae smith to turn it into a full custom, they don't have a problem working on SA's.

[dojpros]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok- I will play. IMNSHO, given the two- Springfield hands down. 10 reasons in no particular order:

1. Better quality across the board
2. Used as base gun by many custom smiths who charge 3K plus for their work.
3. Better resale should you decide sell/trade
4. No funky hammer based safety to fail ( though it does have a proprietary ILS mainspring based locking device. These are easily replaced with quality parts from brownells etc.)
5. Springfield will cover shipping both ways if it needs warranty work
6. Springfield has a highly regarded custom shop should you decide to upgrade with a turn-a-round time measured in weeks, not months.
7. They are at least US based, though much of their product line is manufactured in Brazil or at least manufactured from parts made in Brazil.
8. In the serious 1911 world, Taurus is a decidedly non first tier choice.
9. FWIW, the FBI went with Springfield to outfit both field office based SWAT teams and HRT.
10. Much less use of propriertary components and dimensions should you decide to change things out as 1911 owners are want to do. i.e. sights, arched MSH v. flat MSH, trigger, mag well, etc.

Presuming the price was equal on to equal guns i.e.
5 inch/all steel/same finish/night sights and ambi- which would you pick?

IMNSHO- the choice is pretty clear.

Disclaimers
1. I do not own a Springfield,
2. I own two old Kimber Series I guns
3. My heart loves the 1911, my mind says carrying a glock is usually a lot less hassle.
4. I make grips for the 1911 as a side business
5. 1911s can be persnickity. You will ultimately spend well over 1k
before you figure out what ammo/mag combination will work in your gun such that you would bet your life on it.
6. Knowing everything I know now, if I was going to buy a new 1911 today-as my first 1911, I would buy a Springfield MC Operator, some Tripp, Wilson or CMC Power mags(which ever worked with 230 Golden Sabre and my 230g RNL load of 5.5gns of 231) and drive on.
YMMV greatly,

david of vcdgrips.com

[kat1950]

Have several high dollar 1911s, needed a truck gun and looked at 7, PT 1911, found a good one with night sights and have had no problems after a little over 2500 rounds of assorted ammo, accuracy is pretty good to.

[joszx67]

Originally Posted by cuba

Their both made in Brazil but the Taurus is 100% more refined
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=414414

[Knight Armory]

If it shoots well for you and does what you need, then who cares what the better gun is. A lot of people on here will say Springfield, while there are a few of us who are not that impressed by them, even though they have great customer service.

Taurus has one of the best warranties on the market and some have had problems with their customer service. Every mass production company puts out some lemons. The laws of Murphy come into play on this.

And if you are going to replace parts, then you will make the parts work and the tolerances will be fixed as you install and fit the aftermarket parts.

IMHO stop obsessing which is the better gun and go out and shoot and enjoy your new 1911. You can always trade up at a later date.