Springfield Mil-Spec 1911 Review: Simple Math
Math was never my strong suit.
I was more of a “wing-an-essay-test, BS-a-term-paper” kinda guy. But, as I sit here, trying to extol the breadth of my reverence for the 1911, I find myself thinking of…
An equation.
An evergreen mathematical construct that cements the 1911’s status as an irreplaceable fixture of our tactical reality. A concise metaphysical dictum that assuages any doubt of the 1911’s perennial excellence… and decisively thwarts the horrifying proliferation of “is it still relevant?” videos on YouTube.
Precise calculations
So, behold, my “meta-Einsteinian super-algebra” for 1911 relevance:
POA = POI
And if you’re not conversant in high-concept gun math, that means:
It shoots where the F you point it.
Or, if you’re a prude: Point of Aim = Point of Impact.
That, my fellow gun hipsters, is what makes the 1911 immortally relevant and existentially… umm… bitchin. And no other 1911 captures the essence of this simple truth, more than the Springfield Mil-Spec .45.
What makes the Springfield Mil-Spec hipster worthy?
With solid fundamentals and quality where it counts, the Springfield Mil-Spec offers a pure expression of the 1911’s timelessly simple formula for superior shootability.
The Mil-Spec embodies what the 1911 means as a handgun. It exists as a fundamental proof-of-concept for what the 1911 is.
But also why it is.
The gun stacks big _uckin’ holes right where you want ‘em. Every time you pull the trigger. No surprises. No drama. No extraneous bells, whistles or BS. Just pure, simple shootability—and practical power—distilled into its most quintessential form.
And in my experience, the Mil-Spec delivers alllll of the above…
Reliably. For around $500.
What could be more relevant than that?
But what makes the 1911 so inherently shootable? What gives it that “X-factor” for precise shot placement? Even after 113 years in the business?
Well…
If Mr. Occam had anything to say about it, he’d tell you the best solution to any problem is generally…
Simply beautiful
The Simplest Solution
In 1897, John Moses Browning patented 4 different designs for semi-auto handguns. One was a straight-blowback concept (which became the FN1900), while the other 3 explored different ways to tackle a locked-breech* mechanism:
One used a rotating barrel (like a Beretta PX4).
One used a gas-operated toggle (like a Luger on crack)
One used a barrel that simply… well… dropped the F down.
Where do you think this is going?
Yeah.
JM Brizzle prioritized the simplest solution to the locked-breech problem. Occam would have been proud. And so was Colt. Because JMB contracted with Colt to produce his “dropping barrel” pistol—which was dubbed the “Colt M1900” (not to be confused with FN’s M1900 pistol).
The patent for the M1900 paved the way for the 1911—note the dual pivoting links
One important distinction…
While most pistols today use a TILTING barrel, the M1900’s barrel moves down and back WITHOUT tilting. It uses two pivoting links—one near the breech, one near the muzzle—to keep the barrel straight as it moves. The tilting aspect came later, as Browning further refined and simplified the concept.
*In a locked-breech design, the chamber is mechanically sealed to contain the pressure of the exploding cartridge; it unlocks as the gun cycles, via dropping/tilting in this case.
Bigger is Better
When the US Army evaluated Colt/Browning’s M1900, it did okay.
It was generally reliable, though the straight grip and mile-long slide were kinda ungainly. Plus, the slide would occasionally fly off if a certain pin failed. Which, I guess, it did. Sometimes.
But the army’s biggest gripe with the M1900 was its .38 caliber chambering. Allegedly, the U.S. Army’s .38 revolvers couldn’t stop crazed Moro rebels in the Philippine-American war (think of them as late-Victorian meth heads).
Because they don’t make a .46
So…
Colonel John T. Thompson (the Tommy Gun dude) and Major Louis LeGarde (medical dude) strung up a bunch of human corpses and shot them with every caliber under the sun. They looked at wound cavities and—get this—how much the bodies swung when struck with various projectiles.
Their findings?
.45 caliber bullets could kill sh!t better than .38 caliber bullets. In 1905, that kind of thinking was literally good enough for government work.
Because the U.S. Army embraced their recommendation.
By 1910, Colt/Browning had further refined the M1900 design into an elegant .45-caliber weapon we’d recognize today as the 1911. As mentioned, a key aspect of that process involved simplifying the barrel-cam mechanism into the now ubiquitous tilting-barrel design—which utilizes one link and a muzzle-bushing that allows the barrel to angle up.
The elegant simplicity of Browning’s tilt-barrel design
Best of the Best
Colt/Browning pitted their M1910 prototype against German Lugers chambered in .45 as well as a .45 cal variant of the Savage M1907 (which, interestingly, used a rotating-barrel system). The Germans withdrew the Lugers before testing was complete, so that left the Savage and the M1910 to duke it out.
There was no comparison.
In one test, the M1910 fired 6,000 consecutive rounds with zero breakages or failures. The pistol literally got dunked in water when it got too hot.
Mind you, that’s impressive by today’s standards. And it was downright amazing in 1910. I’ll talk more about reliability in modern 1911s here in a bit, but just remember:
Six THOUSAND rounds, homey.
Anyway…
Following that stellar performance, the U.S. government officially adopted Colt/Browning’s .45 caliber pistol the following year.
Which happened to be 1911.
Simply Shootable
Compared to its contemporaries—like the Luger, the Mauser C96 and the Steyr Hahn—the 1911 stands out as an elegant expression of mechanical efficiency. No funky toggles. No weird stripper clips. No fancy ratcheting mechanisms. Just a big ole’ slab of a slide with a barrel that tilts.
And a trigger that feels like meeting an old friend.
BOOM!
The take-up is minimal. The break is precise and predictable. It makes double taps feel like opening a file in Windows 95.
BOOM! BOOM!
That’s because—unlike 99% of semi-auto pistols—the 1911’s trigger pushes straight back on the sear (the part that holds/releases the hammer). And instead of using a single-sided trigger bar, the 1911 uses a two-sided “stirrup” that transfers force more evenly. Both these elements conspire to create a seamlessly direct sensation at the break.
The 1911’s dual-sided trigger bar slides straight back to engage the sear
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!
In essence, you don’t even feel the trigger—you feel the sear, moving out of hammer notch.
There’s nothing as natural. There’s nothing as intuitive. There’s nothing as honest as the straight-back push of a 1911 trigger. And while there are more esoteric ways to make a handgun’s accuracy accessible—like the roller-delayed action of the HK P9S or the rotating action of the Beretta PX4…
Nothing produces accuracy as easily and dependably as an old-school 1911 trigger.
It exemplifies John Browning’s philosophy of superior performance via simpler mechanics. And even after 113 years, it’s still—arguably—the best way to make POA = POI.
And while some might say the Springfield Mil-Spec is a “budget” 1911…
The quality and character of its trigger suggests otherwise. The Mil-Spec does NOT use a firing-pin safety (it’s a Series-70), which keeps the break exquisitely clean and crisp. Just don’t drop it—too hard. Sure, bougier guns have lighter triggers. But, to me, the Mil-Spec’s trigger is everything a 1911 trigger should be.
Honestly, the entire gun feels like everything a 1911 should be.
Respect the ‘Spec
The Mil-Spec exudes a certain sense of density that well-made things typically do. Its all-steel construction engenders a satisfying heft in the hand, while its rakishly long slide projects an air of righteous confidence.
Like you’re gonna win two world wars or something.
Even if you had no context for what a full-size 1911 should feel like…
…the moment you grab a Mil-Spec, your inner gun hipster will be screaming in your metaphorical ear, “it should feel like THIS, bro!”
The 1911’s grip angle falls somewhere between a Glock and a Beretta 92. And despite the length of the .45 ACP cartridge—and requisite depth of the grip—the Mil-Spec’s short trigger allows it to work with even the smallest hands. It’s still not quite as good as a Browning Hi Power, but not much is. Those with bigger mits will want to consider swapping in a longer trigger.
The Mil-Spec’s short trigger is perfect for smaller hands
Finished in a tactical tuxedo of slate-black phosphate, the Mil-Spec projects an air of sleek sophistication. The markings are minimal. The lines are clean. To me, the gun’s spartan character feels like a feature… not a compromise. And “yes,” you can get one in stainless, too. Though it costs a bit more.
Moreover, I love the Mil-Spec’s slanted serrations. They complement the grip angle and capture a more refined character, overall (in my opinion). And sorry—I can’t stand front serrations on 1911s. So, this gun strikes the perfect pose for me, aesthetically.
In terms of fit, the Mil-Spec feels taut, but not necessarily tight. It eschews any perception of slop (like some Colt 1911s I’ve owned) yet avoids the sensation of undue friction—as you find in some high-end 1911s.
As you pull the slide back, there’s a subtle hesitation as the barrel lugs disengage—letting you know that someone was paying attention to the lockup. The slide glides effortlessly over the rails, then springs back into battery with a decisively solid “whomp.” You feel but a trifle of resistance as the bottom of the round-stripper grazes the disconnector.
And when you combine all that touchy-feely goodness with the best trigger in the business…
Every shot reminds you why a classic 1911 remains the benchmark for shootability in semi-auto pistols.
It shoots as good as it looks
Math, Not Magic
BOOM! Bullseye.
BOOM! Bullseye.
In some sense, you’re like “Dude, this should be harder.” Even when you flinch a little. Even when flub the trigger a little. Even when you swear you shot your B34 silhouette in the d!ck…
The Mil-Spec still puts a round—more or less—where you want it.
BOOM! Close enough.
I can’t say it’s magical. I can’t say it gives you some hyperconscious sense of connection (like an Archon Type B).
But it doesn’t have to.
The long, heavy slide—combined with the beefy bullet—gives you a firm yet predictable “wallop.” It never feels rushed. It never feels whippy, snappy or uncontrollable. You get the sense that it’s powerful, but not violent. And while locking blocks, roller delays and rotating barrels offer more feel, shot to shot…
The 1911’s recoil impulse never gets in the way of accuracy.
You feel a big brawny shove. You let the muzzle do its thing. And you’re right back on that deliciously direct trigger break.
BOOM! Bullseye.
50 rounds @ 10 yards (I’ve got the factory hammer on it, here)
It feels more intuitive than a Smith & Wesson 4506-1. It feels more planted than a Sig P2XX .45.
To me, the 1911’s shooting experience exemplifies pragmatic perfection. The weight of the slide. The mass of the bullet. The geometry of the grip. The crispness of the trigger. It all adds up to…
Easy accuracy. Nothing more. Nothing less. It’s an ingeniously simple solution to the perennial challenge of handgun shootability. And the Springfield Mil-Spec delivers on that paradigm… beautifully, efficiently and completely.
The $1,911 Question
So, if the 1911 is THAT good… and the Mil-Spec is THAT good of 1911…
Why doesn’t everyone just carry a Mil-Spec? Sh!t, why do we even have other guns? Who needs an entire century’s worth of handgun innovations when we’ve got a factory in Illinois churning out ~$500 bullseye machines?
Good question.
As we’ll discuss, the 1911 is generally a dish best served in .45 ACP with a 5” barrel. Prevailing wisdom suggests that compact / 9mm 1911s don’t run as well as full-size .45s. And while there are many, MANY variables that play into that… I tend to agree with that perspective, based on personal experience.
So, if you’re NOT looking for a giant (albeit slender), single-action gun in .45, you’re probably better served by other platforms. For instance, I tend to favor compact-ish, DA/SA pistols in 9mm (like the Sig P239 or P229). Not really a 1911’s wheelhouse.
Lately though, it seems like ALL 1911s—regardless of size and caliber—have come under scrutiny in terms of reliability. Perhaps “stigmatized” is a strong word. But suffice to say, many have lost faith in the 1911’s ability (as a platform) to compete with modern designs, when it comes to reliability.
“But six THOUSAND rounds! In 1910!!!” you say. “Don’t they KNOW!??!”
Yeah, yeah. I’m with you, dude.
But let’s dig into this a little, before we all get too terribly butthurt…
1890s Tactical?
Here’s the truth.
John Browning designed the 1911 at a time when western powers still had colonial empires, people still heated homes with coal and consumers still believed in marketing. And—in that gilded age of wood, steel and blind faith in commercialism—hand-finishing was the norm for mechanical products.
Today, it ain’t.
Original M1911—made when the Ottoman Empire was still a thing
So…
Can a gun designed for 19th century manufacturing tech maintain its functionality if it’s made with CNC machines and far less “hands-on” intervention?
Wilson, Nighthawk and others are happy to charge you $3,000+ if you don’t have faith that the above is true. They pay people 21st century wages to finish guns with 19th century skill, care and craftsmanship—and likely make more margin than Word 2007’s default settings.
So, is that the price of entry for “world-war worthy” reliability in a 1911 these days?
I have my opinion.
But first, some historical context.
Colt’s Calamity
The term “1911”—as we use it today—is a relatively new development in casual gun parlance.
Up until the 1990s, “1911s” were almost exclusively a Colt product. You had a few obscure options (Detonics, etc.) and custom shops. But 20th century humans generally referred to “1911s” in an innocuous way that reflected brand and/or caliber.
Like “Colt .45 Automatic.”
Or just “.45.”
Anyway, back to Colt…
The ‘50s and ‘60s became a golden age for Colt. They had deep pockets from war-time contracts and a deeply skilled labor force. But by the 1970s, the old-school gunsmiths had left the company. Labor costs were rising. New people had to be hired.
Quality control suffered.
Through the ‘80s and ‘90s, Colt’s reputation languished as the company struggled through strikes and bankruptcies. At some point, people simply accepted the fact that Colt’s 1911s were kinda hit or miss in terms of reliability.
Competitors sprung up. Springfield. Kimber. And we had to start calling them “1911s” because Colt wasn’t the only game in town anymore.
But were the newcomers actually making better 1911s than Colt?
Maybe? Sometimes?
Regardless, they were usually doing it cheaper.
My 1997 Colt Combat Commander Enhanced—Mil-Spec is nicer
New World Order
Unfortunately, by the mid-2000s, the damage to the 1911’s reputation was done.
The “tactical intelligentsia” favored Glocks, Sigs and HKs. And as “Gun-Culture 2.0” rose from the ashes of our once 1911-centric reality, many saw ole’ slabsides as a nostalgic anachronism: a “shootable curio” for gun hipsters, ignorant neophytes and old men who didn’t know any better.
And if you did need to trust a 1911 as a legit fighting pistol, you had someone tweak it, fix it or build it. By hand. Someone like Wilson or Nighthawk.
But times have changed since the 1990s.
Manufacturers learned from Colt’s trials and tribulations. And they’ve had over 30 years to adapt JMB’s design to modern mass production. They may use injection molded (MIM) parts. They may glue ejectors and use pre-bent extractors. They may rely on CNC machines instead of human discretion.
And “yes”—all of aforementioned applies to the Springfield Mil-Spec. It definitely uses MIM parts and its ejector is unmistakably glued.
But, again, manufacturers like Springfield know what works by now. They use good-quality MIM and they’ve proven that glued ejectors can stand up to thousands of rounds, with zero issues. Moreover, the Mil-Spec uses high-quality forgings for the slide, barrel and frame; you often get a cast frame with other 1911s in the same price range (not that castings won’t do the job).
So, as of 2024, if you buy a mass-produced 1911 in its ORIGINAL 5” configuration…
Chances are, it’ll _uckin’ work. And, chances are, it’ll work even better than the 1911s that won both world wars. Like, in every imaginable way.
Case and point…
Practically Reliable
My Mil-Spec has done over 500 rounds with zero issues. Moreover, it ran dirty. It ran without fresh lube (though never dry). And it ran just fine when I handed it to brand-new shooter at my local range.
No, that’s not a blow-your-mind round count nor does it constitute a “torture test.” But guns that have problems typically exhibit… umm, problems… within those parameters of usage.
Plus, you can find plenty of anecdotes, reviews and videos that show people beating sh!t out of Springfield 1911s. They usually do quite well.
Classic, Government-length goodness—this is what you want
All that said…
Out of the box, IS there a higher chance of reliability issues with a 1911 versus, say, a Glock?
Yes.
There are simply more variables in the 1911’s design. It’s a simple design—but it’s more analog compared to modern stuff. Extractors have to be bent at the proper angle. The lower lugs have to be cut to index on slide stop properly. Etc., etc.
Nevertheless, I still think your chance of issues with a modern 1911 is very low. And well worth the minor risk when you consider how well even a basic 1911 shoots.
But keep this in mind:
With all the aforementioned, I’m referring specifically to Government-length (5”) pistols in .45 ACP. In other words, Johnny B’s original design. The OG. The mack daddy. The pistol that raw-dogged 6,000 rounds like a bausss, back in 1910.
Built right. It works. And this fine-lookin’ Springfield Mil-Spec is irrefutable evidence of that.
“1911-Like Objects”
But in this day and age, we all know that “1911” means more than just a full-size .45. So, what about Commanders, Officers, 9mm Ultras and the hordes of other “1911-like objects” (to quote gun writer, Tamara Keel) that span the modern tactical firmament?
Can they be reliable?
Sure.
But, as mentioned, research suggests that your chances for reliability go down, the further you stray from JMB’s original design. I realize that sentiment is an over-generalized platitude; it’s been parroted endlessly in every 1911 review since the fall of Rome.
Nevertheless…
It does somewhat corroborate my experience with non-standard 1911s:
1990s Colt Combat Commander .45 (4.25” barrel): Always had failures to feed after ~100 rounds.
2015 Colt Wiley Clapp CCO .45 (4.25” barrel): Terrible fit and feel. No reliability issues in ~50 rounds; sold it soon after the first range trip.
2019 Springfield EMP 9mm (3” barrel): Wouldn’t feed hollow points. Returned to SA, ran everything.
That’s what I know. Do with it what you will.
I had a 3” Springfield EMP that wouldn’t feed JHPs until SA adjusted the feed ramp
The Bad Old Days
Being a gun hipster, I like the idea of having “the original.” So, fundamentally, I like the idea of the Springfield Mil-Spec: a gun that embraces the trappings of what a classic GI 1911 truly is (or at least close enough for $500).
But I’m tellin’… I can’t stand GI grip safeties. For me, it’s not even a matter of preference… or nuance… or whatever. It’s a matter of a sharp, stabby piece of MIM boring a hole straight into my hand. The thing drew blood within 3 mags. I sh!t you not.
Your mileage may vary, of course. You may not have soft, sensitive, emotionally intelligent hipster hands like mine.
But if you do…
Get ready to invest in a new beavertail and a commander hammer. I bought a King’s Gunworks #204 beavertail (which is known to fit Springfield 1911s) and a machined hammer from Fusion. Both dropped in with zero fitting and worked 100%.
KGW grip safeties fit the Springfield tang design with NO filing—same with this Fusion Commander hammer
And…
If you don’t wanna deal with the GI grip safety, consider a Springfield Garrison. Yes, it costs more. But in addition to a more “civilized” grip safety, you also get Novak sights and a shinier finish. So, I feel like you get your money’s worth; it just comes down to what’s important to you.
There. We’re through the negatives. I literally like everything else about this gun.
So…
Let’s conclude this review, shall we?
Relevance Revisited
Consider the following question: Why is the 1911 still soooo popular after 113 years?
I hope—after reading this review—you don’t say “nostalgia.” Yeah, the 1911 is a classic. Yeah, it’s a quintessential slice of 20th century Americana and it represents a turning point in the history of small-arms design.
But there’s nothing nostalgic about the way a 1911 shoots. There’s nothing soppy and sentimental about effortless accuracy. There’s nothing quaint about a brilliantly intuitive trigger that helps you shoot more effectively, more often.
Just checking my math
Again, it’s a simple equation:
POA = POI.
That’s just as relevant today as it was in 1911.
And there’s no simpler expression of that simple truth, than a Springfield Mil-Spec in .45. As long as you change the goddam_ grip safety.
Thank you so much for reading.
What are your thoughts on the Springfield Mil-Spec? Experiences? Opinions? Scathing condemnations on my review? Feel free to share below…
#hiptac
© 2024, Hipster Tactical