Started By
Message

re: Springfield vs. Colt - talking 1911s

Posted on 9/10/13 at 4:47 pm to
Posted by LouisianaChessie
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since May 2010
2582 posts
Posted on 9/10/13 at 4:47 pm to
When I was in the market for a 1911 a salesman at Jims let me hold feel and rack the slides on any gun they had. When it came down to it I was between a colt special combat government and the springfield trp. The special combat government was the more expensive of the two and compared to the trp was unbelievably sloppy for fit. He said my gut instinct was right and between the two it was no contest. Fwiw he didn't know if I was buying from him or not and in the end I didn't because they wanted over 1800 out the door for the trp. Would have been about 2-300 more for the colt if memory serves me correct.
Posted by dawg23
Baton Rouge, La
Member since Jul 2011
5065 posts
Posted on 9/10/13 at 8:22 pm to
quote:

The special combat government was the more expensive of the two and compared to the trp was unbelievably sloppy for fit.


That "sloppy fit" is intentional for combat handguns. They're designed to function even if some dirt//sand//crud//blood gets in the action of the gun.

The loose tolerances are a huge benefit in terms of building a reliable weapon. But for those seeking a range gun that will be uber-accurate, the "sloppy fit" is a negative. It all depends on what you think you'll use the gun for.

The high-end, high dollar Kimbers, Nighthawks, Wilsons and Baers will impress your friends. A Glock will impress your enemies.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram