Front Serrations

[bwframe]

Exactly! Now you are catching on!

Alrighty then.
Condition 2 or 3?

 

[Kick]

Exactly! Now you are catching on!

That trigger on ur Milspec looks a little longer than the one John Moses Browning originally designed....

... ejection port looks kinda low, a little bit flared too....


...... just saying. A true "purist" wouldn't stand for that...

 

[rockhopper46038]

Exactly! Now you are catching on!

Pretty pistol, for sure. But I believe I detect a lowered and flared ejection port...

 

[Kick]

Pretty pistol, for sure. But I believe I detect a lowered and flared ejection port...

 

[7.62asprin]

Some guns have front serrations because people like ugly, unnecessary features on their guns.

This is how I feel about it.

 

[bwframe]

Ah, the difference between the shooters and the collectors.

 

[Kick]

Ah, the difference between the shooters and the collectors.

Just curious, which category would you put me in based on comments alone?

 

[Fordtough25]

Exactly! Now you are catching on!

Purdy piece! I have the same in GI format, which has the original vertical slide serrations, your Mil spec has them a bit canted forward. Again, nice piece! I'm a fan of the newer 3 dot style sights on the 1911's, and or Novaks. I like 1911's in general.

 

[thompal]

Purdy piece! I have the same in GI format, which has the original vertical slide serrations, your Mil spec has them a bit canted forward. Again, nice piece! I'm a fan of the newer 3 dot style sights on the 1911's, and or Novaks. I like 1911's in general.

These designations still confuse me. If a handgun is "GI" then how can it not be "Mil-Spec?" Are we to think that something that is government-issue doesn't meet mil specs?

I prefer a 1911A1, which, to me, would be both Mil Spec AND GI, but apparently I'm wrong.

 

[Pitchfork]

I don't know about you guys, but THIS is how I use front serrations: Catastrophic "I don't have hands" slide rack with teeth.

 

[Kick]

These designations still confuse me. If a handgun is "GI" then how can it not be "Mil-Spec?" Are we to think that something that is government-issue doesn't meet mil specs?

I prefer a 1911A1, which, to me, would be both Mil Spec AND GI, but apparently I'm wrong.

The Springfield Armory GI is the John Moses Browning version. The Mil Spec comes with a lowered and flared ejection port and apparently that longer trigger... The names a just product model names... Nothing more.

 

[Leo]

A lot of the race guns use mounts for optics that make it impossible to readily grab the back of the slide. The front grip surfaces come in pretty handy on them.

 

[Fordtough25]

These designations still confuse me. If a handgun is "GI" then how can it not be "Mil-Spec?" Are we to think that something that is government-issue doesn't meet mil specs?

I prefer a 1911A1, which, to me, would be both Mil Spec AND GI, but apparently I'm wrong.

I dunno, thats how Springfield designates them. The GI model has old school sights and is pretty much a plain jane A1. I agree that they are all pretty mil spec.

 

[jurassicnarc]

I dislike front serrations, so when I finally got around to buying a Wilson, I got the 4" Professional instead of the 5" CQB. For me, it was the better choice, and I have not regretted the decision. Maybe some of y'all can, but I can't tell any apparent difference in power, expansion, or penetration between the Pro & the CQB, and the Wilson shoots better than I do. I may invest in a used Wilson 5", but it will probably be a target version.

 

[rvb]

It is also easier to hold open the slide when in "Show Clear" with sweaty hands...

This was how I mostly used front serations. Gives the RO a much better view of the chamber (for those of us who don't consider ULSC to be on the clock! haha!).

I mostly used the front serrations for making the gun hot, too (though I use the rear of the slide for malfunction clearing and unloading).

Front serrations are the only thing I think Glocks are missing.

Agreed. Didn't realize how much I liked the serrations there until I switched to glock. I'm really surprised glock has never at least given the "competition" models (eg the 34) front serrations.

If God wanted front serrations on a 1911, John Moses Browning would have designed them there in the first place.

Some of us even [gasp!] USE TWO HANDS when shooting!! Technique and tools evolve. I think JMB would would be very opposed to remaining stagnant.

I hear comments like this and I wonder how giddy JMB would be to play w/ something like a 2011 in .40. What ideas could HE come up with TODAY!? He was a builder and a tinkerer and a visionary, not a prophet. The design wasn't etched into stone only to be carried off the mountain by JMB.

-rvb

 

[sparkyfender]

I dislike them, especially on a 1911 pistol.
Simply for cosmetic reasons........... To each his own.

 

[singlestacksig]

These designations still confuse me. If a handgun is "GI" then how can it not be "Mil-Spec?" Are we to think that something that is government-issue doesn't meet mil specs?

I prefer a 1911A1, which, to me, would be both Mil Spec AND GI, but apparently I'm wrong.

Mil-spec would be current or most recent contract specs, GI would be WWII era specs.