- Joined
- May 14, 2020
- Messages
- 7,357
- Reaction score
- 23,136
I love 1911 pistols. Lots of 'em have occupied space in my safe over the years. Hands down, Colt is my favorite. In spite of the flaming I'll take for saying this, Kimber is my 2nd favorite brand. All others fall in line somewhere below those two flavors.
Some of the 1911s I've owned, and now own, are inexpensive, basic guns. A couple are higher end. One is over 100 years old and it, along with one other, has likely seen action in at least one World War.
Recently, I was able to get my hands on a Springfield Armory Garrison model. It's a little more well-appointed than their very basic "Mil-Spec" models but it's certainly on the lower end of what Springfield produces in terms of both price and features. The out-the-door price on this one at a local gun shop in Ada was $800...cash. I've had my eye on one since Springfield announced them a little over a year ago.
The Springfield is very similar to another 1911 I have...a Colt. The price on this Colt was $795 out-the-door from the Altus BX. It's the "Classic" model, also fairly new in the Colt lineup, introduced maybe 2 or so years ago. Very nice offering and it's name is spot on. This gun looks just like the commercial 1911 offerings from the 50s or 60s, right down to the rollmarks.
Since the price of these two guns is nearly identical I was curious how they compared. Not just the features and apparent quality, but the subjective things, such as overall "feel". I thought it might be interesting to give them both a detailed, side-by-side look.
Finish/Appearance: Both guns are finished in blue and neither shows any flaws or tool marks. The finish on both guns is remarkably similar. Semi-polished on the flats, matte finish elsewhere. The Colt rollmarks are are actually rollmarks and they're very crisp and distinct, though you can feel the raised edges of the individual letters from the metal displaced by the stamps. The Springfield markings are laser cut and very clear and crisp.
I'd have to give an edge to the Colt in overall finish and appearance...but not by a lot.
Features: Both guns feature the "Series 70" style of operation but Springfield has added some modern touches to the Garrison the Colt doesn't have. The trigger is a long, skeletonized version whereas the Colt offers the classic short trigger. I prefer the shorter style. The Springfield sights are 3-dot, Novak-style and are dovetailed front and rear. The Colt has standard sights with a pinned front sight. Honestly, they both work well for me so I'm good with either one. If I wanted to change them, obviously the Springfield would be easier. The Springfield has a Commander-style hammer and a much larger grip safety that offers a nice "hump" for sure activation and an extended beavertail. That makes for a comfortable feel but also forces my hand into a lower grip than the standard GI setup on the Colt. The tradeoff will be no hammer bite from the Springfield while the Colt will likely draw a little blood from the web of my hand in an extended shooting session. The Springfield has thinner grips than the standard sized grips on the Colt. The Springfield feels like a modern, refined 1911 while the Colt feels like an old-school version of John Browning's masterpiece. The ejection port is flared and lowered on the Garrison and the mag-well is slightly beveled...not so on the Classic. The Colt comes with 2 mags, 1 with the Garrison. Both guns have the standard, short guide rod recoil system. Both guns can be disassembled without tools. As you can see in the below photos both guns have flat mainspring housings with the Springfield being checkered and the Colt having the vertical grooves. Pretty sure the Colt MSH is plastic but I'm not sure. Can't say for sure on the Garrison, either, but I think it's steel. I'll have to take them off to be sure. No front-strap checkering on either gun.
The Springfield feels better in the hand to me, mostly because of the thinner grips. Ideally it would have the short trigger the Colt has. Definite edge to Springfield in this category.
Fit and Function: Both guns seem well built. Both have just a very slight amount of side-to-side movement in the slides, no movement at all in the barrel to slide fit. Triggers are similar with the Colt feeling both slightly heavier (by a very small margin) and smoother. Reset on the Colt trigger feels much more positive than the Springfield. The extractor extends past the end of the slide on the Springfield...smooth and flush on the Classic. The Colt slide movement is much smoother...the Garrison is stiff and gritty feeling. To be fair, I have not disassembled and cleaned either gun. But the Garrison doesn't feel dirty...it feels like the recoil spring is "catchy" in spots. The Springfield slide lock safety is of the extended type and operates smoothly with very obvious "clicks" when engaged and disengaged. The Colt is the standard, older style and it's harder to operate because of it's smaller size. It's just as positive, just not as easy to get my thumb into it for operation. Finding the magazine well is easier on the Garrison. Shoving the mags into place with the hell of the hand results in a positive lock. The thinner grips on the Garrison also make it much easier for me to reach and operate the mag-release button. Mags are ejected quite positively on both guns. The Colt, however, has a very stiff magazine release and with the more rounded, thicker grips I have to move my hand around to the side to release the mag. Both guns lock open as they should on an empty mag. Slide lock levers on both guns engage solidly.
Both guns have distinct advantages in this category. I'd have to give a slight edge to the Colt.
Subjective Qualities: I'll say it right up front... In my opinion Colt has the edge here because...it's a Colt. Say what you will but 167 years of history means something. All things being equal, should I decide to sell both these guns 10 years from now, I'll most likely get substantially more for the Colt than what I paid. Because it's a Colt. Frankly, aside from the name on the side of these guns, they both have advantages and disadvantages over the other and they're quite similar even though the purpose of each gun is different. Springfield Armory offers a lot of nice touches and features on a basic 1911 for $800 with the Garrison model. While the Colt Classic doesn't have some of the modern touches of the Garrison, it's not meant to. The Colt is meant to be a recreation of a classic gun from years gone by and I think they hit that mark nicely. If you have $800 to spend either would be an excellent choice.
Some of the 1911s I've owned, and now own, are inexpensive, basic guns. A couple are higher end. One is over 100 years old and it, along with one other, has likely seen action in at least one World War.
Recently, I was able to get my hands on a Springfield Armory Garrison model. It's a little more well-appointed than their very basic "Mil-Spec" models but it's certainly on the lower end of what Springfield produces in terms of both price and features. The out-the-door price on this one at a local gun shop in Ada was $800...cash. I've had my eye on one since Springfield announced them a little over a year ago.
The Springfield is very similar to another 1911 I have...a Colt. The price on this Colt was $795 out-the-door from the Altus BX. It's the "Classic" model, also fairly new in the Colt lineup, introduced maybe 2 or so years ago. Very nice offering and it's name is spot on. This gun looks just like the commercial 1911 offerings from the 50s or 60s, right down to the rollmarks.
Since the price of these two guns is nearly identical I was curious how they compared. Not just the features and apparent quality, but the subjective things, such as overall "feel". I thought it might be interesting to give them both a detailed, side-by-side look.
Finish/Appearance: Both guns are finished in blue and neither shows any flaws or tool marks. The finish on both guns is remarkably similar. Semi-polished on the flats, matte finish elsewhere. The Colt rollmarks are are actually rollmarks and they're very crisp and distinct, though you can feel the raised edges of the individual letters from the metal displaced by the stamps. The Springfield markings are laser cut and very clear and crisp.
I'd have to give an edge to the Colt in overall finish and appearance...but not by a lot.
Features: Both guns feature the "Series 70" style of operation but Springfield has added some modern touches to the Garrison the Colt doesn't have. The trigger is a long, skeletonized version whereas the Colt offers the classic short trigger. I prefer the shorter style. The Springfield sights are 3-dot, Novak-style and are dovetailed front and rear. The Colt has standard sights with a pinned front sight. Honestly, they both work well for me so I'm good with either one. If I wanted to change them, obviously the Springfield would be easier. The Springfield has a Commander-style hammer and a much larger grip safety that offers a nice "hump" for sure activation and an extended beavertail. That makes for a comfortable feel but also forces my hand into a lower grip than the standard GI setup on the Colt. The tradeoff will be no hammer bite from the Springfield while the Colt will likely draw a little blood from the web of my hand in an extended shooting session. The Springfield has thinner grips than the standard sized grips on the Colt. The Springfield feels like a modern, refined 1911 while the Colt feels like an old-school version of John Browning's masterpiece. The ejection port is flared and lowered on the Garrison and the mag-well is slightly beveled...not so on the Classic. The Colt comes with 2 mags, 1 with the Garrison. Both guns have the standard, short guide rod recoil system. Both guns can be disassembled without tools. As you can see in the below photos both guns have flat mainspring housings with the Springfield being checkered and the Colt having the vertical grooves. Pretty sure the Colt MSH is plastic but I'm not sure. Can't say for sure on the Garrison, either, but I think it's steel. I'll have to take them off to be sure. No front-strap checkering on either gun.
The Springfield feels better in the hand to me, mostly because of the thinner grips. Ideally it would have the short trigger the Colt has. Definite edge to Springfield in this category.
Fit and Function: Both guns seem well built. Both have just a very slight amount of side-to-side movement in the slides, no movement at all in the barrel to slide fit. Triggers are similar with the Colt feeling both slightly heavier (by a very small margin) and smoother. Reset on the Colt trigger feels much more positive than the Springfield. The extractor extends past the end of the slide on the Springfield...smooth and flush on the Classic. The Colt slide movement is much smoother...the Garrison is stiff and gritty feeling. To be fair, I have not disassembled and cleaned either gun. But the Garrison doesn't feel dirty...it feels like the recoil spring is "catchy" in spots. The Springfield slide lock safety is of the extended type and operates smoothly with very obvious "clicks" when engaged and disengaged. The Colt is the standard, older style and it's harder to operate because of it's smaller size. It's just as positive, just not as easy to get my thumb into it for operation. Finding the magazine well is easier on the Garrison. Shoving the mags into place with the hell of the hand results in a positive lock. The thinner grips on the Garrison also make it much easier for me to reach and operate the mag-release button. Mags are ejected quite positively on both guns. The Colt, however, has a very stiff magazine release and with the more rounded, thicker grips I have to move my hand around to the side to release the mag. Both guns lock open as they should on an empty mag. Slide lock levers on both guns engage solidly.
Both guns have distinct advantages in this category. I'd have to give a slight edge to the Colt.
Subjective Qualities: I'll say it right up front... In my opinion Colt has the edge here because...it's a Colt. Say what you will but 167 years of history means something. All things being equal, should I decide to sell both these guns 10 years from now, I'll most likely get substantially more for the Colt than what I paid. Because it's a Colt. Frankly, aside from the name on the side of these guns, they both have advantages and disadvantages over the other and they're quite similar even though the purpose of each gun is different. Springfield Armory offers a lot of nice touches and features on a basic 1911 for $800 with the Garrison model. While the Colt Classic doesn't have some of the modern touches of the Garrison, it's not meant to. The Colt is meant to be a recreation of a classic gun from years gone by and I think they hit that mark nicely. If you have $800 to spend either would be an excellent choice.
