Colt 1991 vs. Springfield RO

[critterbug]

Hi Guys,

I'm just looking for advice. I've got a serious itch for a good 1911 that will be my first and I want something nice that isn't too crazy expensive.
I have seen some used or NIB Colt 1991 models on the web and they are in the same price range as a new Springfield RO.
I like the no nonsense aesthetics of both.

If you have either of these pistols, please give me your impressions. Thanks!
chris

 

[rtprthd]

I don't have experience with the colt. But the RO is a helluva gun at a great price. Definitely can't go wrong with it as a first.

 

[Pompnewbie]

I don't have experience with the colt. But the RO is a helluva gun at a great price. Definitely can't go wrong with it as a first.

+1 On that I have a RO in 9mm, and its like butter..

 

[Sporter]

You'll get alot of opinions on this topic.

I have a Colt AnvIII which is a series 70 and a Springfield Loaded. I bought both new last year. The Colt had a nice breaking 3.5 lb trigger out of the box whereas the Springfield had a rougher feeling 6 lb trigger out of the box. The Colt is loose, rattles, has sharp edges but is actually more accurate than the Springfield due to the very thin front blade sight. The thin sight allows me to aim with more precision compared to the blocky night sights on the Springfield. Of course, this advantage only exist when the lighting conditions allow me to actually SEE that thin front blade. The Springfield is tight and has an excellant ambi thumb safety. I cleaned up the trigger on the Springfield and it's now a very nice breaking 3.75-4 lbs. Both models have forged steel frames which is important if you plan to shoot 460 Rowland like I do. Not important if you just want to shoot standard 45 ACP.

The Colt 1991 is a Series 80 and will require more work to match the feel and precision of a Series 70 trigger. I have a Para P14 Black Ops which is a Series 80 trigger. It is almost as good as the others but it took twice the money to get there. Colts usually have great resale value but the 1991 is the least wanted Colt, IMVHO.

Either gun will work fine and be a joy to own. Can't go wrong either way. By the way, I daily carry my Colt since the Springfield's front slide serrations were chewing up my leather lined Tucker IWB holster.

 

[Telum Pisces]

My first 1911 was just purchased and it was a Ruger SR1911. I love it now that I got through an ammo issue.

 

[ChrisC]

I'd go with the Colt out of the two. Better fit, better finish.

 

[Dan1612]

The Colt is a rattle trap with a nasty trigger. RO.

 

[critterbug]

Ha! Thanks, Dan. Not to stir the pot too much, but is the Loaded worth the few more dollars over the RO?
I do like stainless.

 

[donr101395]

I currently have both. All I did to the RO to make it what I wanted for a carry gun was change the grip panels to VZ, the rear sight to a Harrison fixed rear and add an S&A magwell. The 1991 was stripped down and the only stock parts are the frame, slide, and barrel. Everything was replaced with better quality non-plastic, non-mim parts. I'm not against mim done right, but at the end of the day the Colt needed more work to make it a good carry gun.
I also have a 9mm RO that used to be Dan's and it's had a trigger job, cerakote and Wilson magwell added by him. If you're looking for a base gun for a custom/semi-custom build, either will be fine. If you're looking for out of the box experience; get the RO. Just my two centavos.

 

[critterbug]

Thx guys. It looks like the RO is on the agenda.

 

[Dan1612]

Loaded worth it? Yes, but then you start getting close to TRP or nice used DW money, and they're both much nicer.

 

[1911Junky]

RO for sure.