Looking for information on the Springfield "Single Stack Classic?"

[JonInWA]

I had a Browning Mark II from 1986 to last year. So I've been there.
Without going into all the particulars, just recall the P35 range report vs. the SACS/Warren Reliability test threads on this site. 'WTL' 1911 9mm goes 50,000 rounds! Fourteen stoppages in 50,000 rounds - heck, my BHP - worked over my Garthwaite in the 90's - was not nearly that reliable. What's the best guess for BHP wear?? 12K-15K for the barrel, and 35K for the overall gun? And that's with standard pressure ammo. At this moment, I cannot find the final +P round count on the SACS/Warren Reliability test, but it went way, WAY beyond what the BHP can take.

And then there's this gem:


I love her way with words, and you know what? From a former BHP owner, she's right! Look at the price for a new BHP, PLUS what you'd have to spend with a master pistolsmith just to get it to equal a mid-priced 9mm 1911 trigger and accuracy.

I bought a S&W 1911 Pro 9mm. It fits in my Specter Gear rig, there was no change in the manual of arms, it eats commercial HPs AND my Hornady 124gr reloads and my accuracy went up 'just like that.'

So, sorry Jon. I liked the BHP for many years, but now I've moved on. I love the 1911 platform, and I want another, and the Springfield Custom Shop Warren Tactical 1911 9mm is looking darn good in the reviews.

It's all good-and I appreciate your sharing your empirical experiences with us. However, I've literally had only one malfunction with the 3 Hi Powers that I've had (all purchased brand new, all in .40)-a malfunctioning sear that allowed the hammer to fall to half-cock when placing the gun in battery; the problem cropped up someplace between the 6K-8K roundcount. Browning USA replaced the sear (and concurrently the recoil spring which they did simply as a matter of course given the nature of the issue/repair, despite me having regularly replacing the recoil spring {although today I recommend using only Browning/FN replacement springs}).

The commonly touted 12K-15K barrel longevity and 35K overall pistol longevity figures are currently being empirically questioned by forum member Bill Riehl, who's skeptical-he's of the belief that Hi Powers (and especially the current cast-framed and more thorough-hardened examples) are capable of far greater longevity-it'll be interesting seeing what he ultimately comes up with. Especially with current examples of the genre, possessing more thorough-hardened cast frames and other components.

While a SACS/Warren 1911 undoubtedly has some very desirable advantages over a stock Hi Power, I'm not all that sure that reliability is necessarily one of them; as I recall, Todd certainly had some hiccups during his testing. And we need to keep in mind that Todd's guns were not just SACS/Warren examples, they were really custom bespoke SACS/Warrens, with both SAC and Scott Warren really massaging them for Todd as I recall. A much more valid comparo might be between a SACS/Warren and a similarly custom configured and wrenched Hi Power, say, by Heirloom Precision... Ultimately, I suspect that the SACS/Warren would take the win (a 1911 simply is bigger and with larger components in key areas, capable of taking, absorbing, and spreading firing and recoil forces better for the longevity of both individual components and the overall gun), but the journey might be exceptionally interesting. I suspect that such a Hi Power would be quite competitive, and less disadvantaged than suspected.

Hey, I'm hardly blind to the key advantages and disadvantages of the Hi Power-here's a thread I initiated: http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=456583 (we've had a similar discussion here, but this thread was easier to find). And yes, a Hi Power by definition of its trigger/sear linkage is going to have a heavier triggerpull, with a longer reset (i.e., as in letting the trigger go all the way forward to achieve reset). However, in the past 5 years or so, all the commercial Hi Powers that I've owned, handled, and examined have actually had fairly decent triggerpulls out of the box. My current 2004-vintage FN .40 Mk III has a somewhat heavy (but hardly prohibitively so) pull, but it's very smooth and crisp; I've not felt compelled in the least to submit it to an action job.

Is the SACS/Warren a better 9mm single action than a stock Mk III Hi Power? Undoubtedly so. But when you factor in real-world pricing, real-world actual availability, and the capabilities of qualified Hi Power gunsmithing potentially leveling the playing field if desired, I think that the Hi Power is still a viable contender. And yes, I'd still recommend a stock out-of-the-box Hi Power over any 9mm 1911, until you get into the more rarefied stratosphere of semi-custom and full-custom 9mm 1911 builds, especially for out-of-the-box reliability.

Best, Jon

[farscott]

The issue that I see with 9x19 1911s -- and I have one built by John Harrison, one built by David Sams, one by Joey Lehr at Nighthawk, and a SA Range Officer -- is the round is too short for reliable feeding, especially from the first round of a loaded magazine. And everybody has tried a different magazine design approach to overcome that issue. Combined with less of a recoil impulse, the safe operating area is much smaller than with a .45 ACP 1911. There is just not a lot of margin with the 9x19 in a 1911. It is also why each gun has a distinct preference for magazines. And why magazines for 9x19 1911s seem to go down at very short intervals.

Like the .40 S&W used in Limited 10, feed reliability increases when you load long. If I had to carry a 9x19 (and I do), it would not be in a 1911. If I had to carry a 9mm in a 1911, it would be a 9x23 Winchester. That round is just as long as the .45 ACP and it feeds just fine. Combined with the energy of a .357 Magnum, the 1911 runs just fine with the 9x23. The issue would be bankruptcy due to the hipster, boutique ammo expense -- and I have a 9x23. After all, ten rounds of .357 Magnum in a 1911 is just cool.

[fnbrowning]

It appears we are straying from original intent of the thread. Has anyone ever seen, shot, or know something about the Springfield Armory custom shop pistol called the "Single Stack Classic" Model PC9SSC?

Yes I visited the Springfield store and read their description. Sure, the SA sales force will tell me everything great about the pistol. But I'm looking for the Car and Driver, Road and Track, word on the street and behind the trigger owner/operator review. Somebody bought one of these or knows someone who did, and can write something on how it ran. If you want to suggest a better alternative like

I would either spend $2k on the Springfield Warren Tactical 9mm 1911 or $3k on a Wilson CQB 9mm.

I'm happy to research your suggestion!

Now as to the 1911 detractors. Sorry, no matter what trouble you had with your 1911, that's not going to change my mind. I know you mean well, but I'm not buying Tupperware, or a SAO CZ, or a SIG, or a BHP.

[JonInWA]

Good point; my bad. But you did seem to somewhat open the door yourself in your posts #5, 8 and 9... Moving on.

Best, Jon

[_JD_]

It appears we are straying from original intent of the thread. Has anyone ever seen, shot, or know something about the Springfield Armory custom shop pistol called the "Single Stack Classic" Model PC9SSC?

My guess would be no, for the obvious reason that damn near everyone looking to spend that amount of cash on a 1911 would do so elsewhere on an easier to locate (and vette) pistol.


Sent via Tapatalk and still using real words.

[farscott]

My guess would be "No" as well as it is a very new model for SACS and most of the guns they build are either Professional Models or Custom Carry models. That being said, all of the SACS 1911s are built with the same standards of fit, so it really comes down to the choices of sights, the STI polymer trigger, and the traction treatment.

[HopetonBrown]

SACS makes nice 1911s. Larry Vickers recommended Wilson and SACS to our pistol class. Don't know what anecdotal reviews are really gonna say that isn't already known.