Springfield Armory Prodigy - 1911 DS - double stack 2011 style

How come “we” can produce a gazillion mass market polymer striker fired guns that - for the most part - run flawlessly out of the box, but can’t do the same for a hammer fired 100+ year old design?

CNC is relatively cheap, math and geometry aren’t that hard, etc. I understand the hand fitting needed before manufacturing tech was so advanced, but still having issues like this is baffling to me.
 
Tim said:
How come “we” can produce a gazillion mass market polymer striker fired guns that - for the most part - run flawlessly out of the box, but can’t do the same for a hammer fired 100+ year old design?

CNC is relatively cheap, math and geometry aren’t that hard, etc. I understand the hand fitting needed before manufacturing tech was so advanced, but still having issues like this is baffling to me.
Click to expand...

The WW2-era 1911s ran great; as did the mechanically POS M3 grease gun, which was stamped metal. But I think the secret in the sauce was they were made to hit a target, not a 2" COM circle at 10 yards or whatever.

My first 1911 was a SA mil-spec lightweight, and aside from a horrible trigger, it ran great (for $399). Even the trigger worked, it was just a gritty 1911 trigger. So yeah, it can be done. I think the move to 'fitted' this and 'custom' that in search of tighter tolerances for that 2" COM at 10 yards is where the wheels fell off.
 
Tim said:
How come “we” can produce a gazillion mass market polymer striker fired guns that - for the most part - run flawlessly out of the box, but can’t do the same for a hammer fired 100+ year old design?

CNC is relatively cheap, math and geometry aren’t that hard, etc. I understand the hand fitting needed before manufacturing tech was so advanced, but still having issues like this is baffling to me.
Click to expand...
You have to remember the part design itself dictates in many ways how well a part can be made and by what method. The 1911 was designed in a time of very limited manufacturing techniques and the design is a reflection of that.
Secondly the design is overly complicated and antiquated which multiplies the things that can go wrong. A good example of this is the 1911 extractor. It has very complicated geometry to begin with and requires precise heat treating to work correctly. It then has to fit “just right” into a deep small diameter hole that has to be aligned just right to another deep, small diameter hole (firing pin channel). Compare this to a Glock extractor which is a small, stubby part fitted into a slot with a spring plunger.
 
Fred said:
Does spending more on a 9mm 1911/2011 actually get you one that works? I've heard bad things about expensive brands. Some gunsmithing still seems to be expected.
Click to expand...

Money gets you two things on the front end. "Some more" money (higher-end production like Dan Wesson) buys you more QC in the hand assembly process (e.g. an experienced worker will pair firing pin stops and extractors for fitment, may even bevel extractors slightly, and tension them). "A lot more" money gets you a gunsmith-assembled gun or something close, like skilled hand-fitting through every step of assembly.

Production line-assembled guns can work perfectly out of the box. It's not exactly "enough monkeys with enough typewriters will eventually produce Shakespeare." It's a bell curve with proper working guns on one end, lemons on the other, and functional range toys (guns that might be very picky about bullet profiles and weights or magazine brands, but will run 99.999% with their preferred accessories) in the middle. Money increases your odds of getting a proper working gun. The difference with higher end guns is, if you get a gun that is the rare lemon, it's going back to a gunsmith. If you buy lower end, especially from a brand that's not particularly known for 1911s (like Sig or Ruger), expect that your gun will be going back to a warranty tech... and expect it will come back with an unhelpful note like, "I shot 50 rounds and could not induce a malfunction," or "swapped recoil spring and shot 50 rounds."

@Tim, the WW1 and WW2-era 1911s were built around a strict TDP from the original Springfield Armory in an era when skilled labor was cheap and plentiful. That ensured those guns were dimensionally-proper when they went to finishing. Most modern 1911s are 1911-shaped, but they would absolutely not meet the standards of the military 1911 TDP. If you took a modern Colt, Ruger, and Springfield of identical format and swapped all their slides, I doubt you'd end up with three functioning guns (if they'd even go together at all).

Modern guns are engineered around modern production methods. Stamped slide rails, stamped trigger bars and cruciforms, MIM strikers, injection-molded polymer, chunky locking blocks, coil springs everywhere they'll fit (like extractors). A gun that locks up on a breechblock with a wedge underneath the chamber is simpler than a gun that has to be fitted (or at least manufactured in spec) at:
- slide, bushing, and muzzle;
- slide and upper locking lugs; and
- frame, slide stop, barrel feet/lower lugs, and barrel link.
 
Chuckman said:
But I think the secret in the sauce was they were made to hit a target, not a 2" COM circle at 10 yards or whatever.
Click to expand...

keepcalmandcarryon said:
The 1911 was designed in a time of very limited manufacturing techniques and the design is a reflection of that.
Click to expand...

That’s kinda my point. What’s the infatuation with this design?

I look at a 2011 and wonder just why folks are dropping multiple thousand chasing one that works when my Sig X5 Legion holds 21 rounds, hits where I aim and goes bang EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Fresh outta the box.
 
Last edited:
I think there are multiple reasons.
Nostalgia is certainly one. Shooters 50 and older grew up when the 1911 was THE automatic pistol in the US. In the 80’s when I started shooting your choices of autoloader was 1911, Beretta 92 or S&W 39/59. There were some European auto loaders out there but were very uncommon. To them that IS THE pistol.
Nostalgia from 50+ year olds (again). We have disposable income and want to relive our youth in some way. I have fond memories of shooting a 1911 with my dad and f**ck I have the money now to buy a nice one to flex on the other old farts at the gun club.
Hammer fired guns just have better triggers. If you are a trigger snob 1911 is a good way to go.
”Two world wars!”. the myth the 1911 singlehandedly won two world wars.
1911’s are reliable (except when they are not)! There is a myth that 1911’s are reliable.
 
From my experience WWI/II era guns are not the fine quality, painstakingly made heirloom quality firearms we like to think they are. In reality they were made as quickly as possible under enormous wartime strain by partially skilled workers and an objective look at them reveals this. Part finish would not pass muster by todays standards, nor would their accuracy be acceptable. Dimensionally parts vary wildly. The reliability was not great by today’s standards out of the factory either.
The examples around today of 1911’s, M1’s etc (including my own) have been back to the armory several times and reworked multiple times to function reliably. After that they went to shooters like us who tweaked and improved them to get them working right which gives the illusion that they were this great new.
 
@keepcalmandcarryon, under the WWII-era Springfield Armory TDP, the military acceptance/QC protocol was taking multiple guns from multiple manufacturers, disassembling them, rebuilding them with mixed parts, and function-checking them. That only worked because the parts were the correct dimensions. Now, several decades of abuse, mediocre heat treats, parts replacement by hamfisted armorers later...
 
What was acceptable accuracy of a military WWI/WWII era 1911? There is a spec in the TDP, compare that to what people think they need today. I have not seen the TDP, but have read the requirement was 10 inches at 50 yards.
 
Last edited:
AR10ShooterinNC said:
What was acceptable accuracy of a military WWI/WWII era 1911? There is a spec in the TDP, compare that to what people think they need today. I have not seen the TDP, but have read the requirement was 10 inches at 50 yards.
Click to expand...

I've seen the same information, but never with a source (5"/25Y, or 10"/50Y).

Not exactly impressive... reminds me of the early M&Ps.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
What was acceptable accuracy of a military WWI/WWII era 1911? There is a spec in the TDP, compare that to what people think they need today. I have not seen the TDP, but have read the requirement was 10 inches at 50 yards.
Click to expand...

10"/50 yards sounds right, but I don't remember where I heard that. There are plenty of stories about GIs and Marines effectively using the 1911. I am sure there are also tails where the 1911 was not effective and jammed or whatever.
 
I'm certain that this will stimulate a bunch of pearl-clutching, but I'm just not sure how many different ways a 1911-platformed pistol can continue to get folks' rocks off???
 
From the 1946 FM 23-35 Pistols And Revolvers I have is the Exterior Ballistics of 45 APC 230 gr ball ammo.

45 ACP Ammo
Range Mean Radius Mean Vertical Deviation
Yards
25 0.86" 0.62"
50 1.36" 0.91"
75 2.24" 1.42"

There is nothing in this FM about the gun accuracy.
 
JRV said:
@keepcalmandcarryon, under the WWII-era Springfield Armory TDP, the military acceptance/QC protocol was taking multiple guns from multiple manufacturers, disassembling them, rebuilding them with mixed parts, and function-checking them. That only worked because the parts were the correct dimensions. Now, several decades of abuse, mediocre heat treats, parts replacement by hamfisted armorers later...
Click to expand...
that is a functional check and unfortunately that can not prove the parts are dimensionally correct. It is a useful tool to quickly determine if there is a problem but it can not tell you definitively there is not.
real world example: This ETS mag fits in my glock it must be just as good as a factory mag!
 
Fred said:
2011s are the best guns for fast accurate shooting.
Click to expand...
1911's??? The platform seems to have worked a long, long, long time ago and if I think about "ROI" - return on investment and point of diminishing returns, I'm not so sure that the $350 Tisas is delivering any more or less than the 1940's version that is worth thousands today or the double-triple "high-tech" versions of the 2000's are today.
 
jfanatic said:
1911's??? The platform seems to have worked a long, long, long time ago and if I think about "ROI" - return on investment and point of diminishing returns, I'm not so sure that the $350 Tisas is delivering any more or less than the 1940's version that is worth thousands today or the double-triple "high-tech" versions of the 2000's are today.
Click to expand...
Agreed. See pics of my 1918 manufactured 1911 vs my Gen 5 Glock 26. note how wildly offset the firing pin hole is on the breech face on the 1911. Surface finish on the 1911 would make even a Taurus QC inspector blush.

C4CF0454-BF5E-422D-899B-DBE25EE32519.jpeg

F92B6053-F28D-4352-B5C5-3DE9B8015CCC.jpeg

84519446-DD8C-4C5A-B680-1DF8C21E160B.jpeg
 
Fred said:
Tim asked why people are still interested in 1911s/2011s. I said it's because they continue to dominate competitions and fast accurate shooting. They were great guns then and now they have 110 years of competitive shooting optimization. We have lighter triggers with a shorter reset, better iron sights instead of the WWII tiny notch and blade(even with fiber optics or tritium), optics mounting capability either side mount or slide mount, compensators, extended controls, better grips or modular replaceable 2011 grips, magazine wells for faster reloading, larger ejection ports for better reliability, better quality more accurate barrels, more precisely made parts that lock up tighter.

The other pistols are slower out of the box and can't be modified to perform as well.
Click to expand...
Thus I maintain: Where then is the point of ROI and return on "investment". I think that since the '40's we have gone way past the point of diminishing returns and/or ROI.
 
To say 1911’s dominate competitions and fast accurate shooting is a pretty broad and bold statement. What type of competitions? Are people absolutely unbeatable with 1911’s?
Yes there are world class shooters who use highly modified 1911’s. Is that the reason the can win?-No. Do shooters with other types of pistols beat them?-All the time
 
jfanatic said:
I'm certain that this will stimulate a bunch of pearl-clutching, but I'm just not sure how many different ways a 1911-platformed pistol can continue to get folks' rocks off???
Click to expand...

I’ll try to give you my explanation. Which may only make sense to me.

I have an old DVD of an fundraising concert Clapton held for his drug rehab. Guitarists from every walk of life played. All very talented. I absolutely hate John Mayer. I absolutely know nothing of Vince Gill. They both played and were very skilled. Mayer seemed technically refined and very mechanical. But he had no heart and soul in his play. Gill played with a passion and was excellent even though it wasn‘t music I listened to at the time.

And that unmeasurable thing is why people love 1911’s. It has character. Oh, and the ergonomics and unbeatable trigger as compared to the modern marvels.

I’m not a bike guy, but it is probably similar to the Harley vs crotch rocket argument. History and character counts for something.
 
jfanatic said:
Thus I maintain: Where then is the point of ROI and return on "investment". I think that since the '40's we have gone way past the point of diminishing returns and/or ROI.
Click to expand...

These aren‘t investments. They are tools. Some people will pay more for better performance and more joy. A few more $ doesn‘t really matter. If I pay $500 more and love that gun for years it was well worth it. And if you are using it for carry or self defense would you rather roll the dice with a $350 Tisas or a $3,000 Wilson Combat? At that point price is irrelevant to me.
 
Last edited:
keepcalmandcarryon said:
To say 1911’s dominate competitions and fast accurate shooting is a pretty broad and bold statement. What type of competitions? Are people absolutely unbeatable with 1911’s?
Yes there are world class shooters who use highly modified 1911’s. Is that the reason the can win?-No. Do shooters with other types of pistols beat them?-All the time
Click to expand...

I hear @fieldgrade is unbeaten when he uses his 9mm 1911’s. 🤣
 
CZfool68 said:
These aren‘t investments. They are tools. Some people will pay more for better performance and more hot. A few more $ doesn‘t really matter. Of I pay $500 more and love that gun for years it was well worth it. And if you are using it for carry or self defense would you rather roll the dice with a $350 Tisas or a $3,000 Wilson Combat? At that point price is irrelevant to me.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the $3k Wilson makes it NO more reliable and/or less effective. So, the .45's that our GIs were using in WW2 were somehow less effective than the $3k Wilson??? The $300k Bentley doesn't get me to work any or more less "effectively" than the $30k Accord.
 
Tim said:
I look at a 2011 and wonder just why folks are dropping multiple thousand chasing one that works when my Sig X5 Lefion holds 21 rounds, hits where I am and goes bang EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Fresh outta the box.
Click to expand...
I hear this is especially true for the P320s. 🤭
 
jfanatic said:
Honestly, the $3k Wilson makes it NO more reliable and/or less effective. So, the .45's that our GIs were using in WW2 were somehow less effective than the $3k Wilson??? The $300k Bentley doesn't get me to work any or more less "effectively" than the $30k Accord.
Click to expand...

Ok, you do you. I don’t rely on cheap crappy guns for carry of home defense. If you would rather carry $300 gun than something more proven go for it. Different butts for different seats,

And you comparison kinda sucks. Guns made in the USA in the WW2 era were certainly manufactured differently than modern firearms at a plant in Turkey.

And yes that Bentley may save your ass. Sometimes you need to accelerate, swerve or brake more quickly to avoid an accident and death. At some point that Bentley may save your ass. But I’d take the Honda for reliability so that comparison sucks too.

You want to argue over who’s daddy can beat up who’s in a PM? 👻
 
Fred said:
If people can improve a product, and other people are willing to pay for the improved product, it will be produced. And the improvements will become cheaper and more popular until they are standard. No modern 1911s(that are made for functionality, not reproductions) have the original tiny ejection port. Noone even thinks about it anymore.

The Wilson is absolutely more effective. Better sights, trigger, accuracy, and reliability. Not enough to make any difference in a war, or enough to justify the cost to a military acquisition organization. But it is a higher performance handgun. And people are willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

So you didn’t hate shooting my Wilson? 😁
 
jfanatic said:
Honestly, the $3k Wilson makes it NO more reliable and/or less effective. So, the .45's that our GIs were using in WW2 were somehow less effective than the $3k Wilson??? The $300k Bentley doesn't get me to work any or more less "effectively" than the $30k Accord.
Click to expand...

A Wilson is absolutely more reliable and more effective. Even more, It is built with better QA/QC and tighter tolerances and can shoot that 3" group, reliably. So can Ed Brown, Vickers, Nighthawk, and a host of other higher-end 1911s.

Can an AMC Gremlin go across the state? Sure. Can it go with the same fuel economy as a Honda Accord? No. Can it go at the same speed as a Porsche 911? No. If you try to go faster and the gremlin then the Porsche, will it require some mechanical tinkering and more maintenance? Absolutely.
 
CZfool68 said:
I hear @fieldgrade is unbeaten when he uses his 9mm 1911’s. 🤣
Click to expand...
Posted my best scores running 1911’s in 9mm despite my dismal performances actually operating them as they should be run.

That said, one day we will meet.

When we do, we’ll either be fast friends, because most folks know my best friends tend to be assholes...

or I’ll shoot your tires out.
 
Last edited:
fieldgrade said:
Posted my best scores running 1911’s in 9mm despite my dismal performances actually operating them as they should be run.

That said, one day we will meet.

When we do, we’ll either fast friends, because most folks know my best friends tend to be assholes...

or I’ll shoot your tires out.
Click to expand...

Yer gun will probably jam. But I’ll drive the company car just in case.

We should meet at @thrillhill fire pit so he can moderate. Hard to be angry with him around.
 
BatteryOaksBilly said:
If a 1911 of Any brand is 100% reliable with 230 ball through 5,000 rounds And will hold 2 inches from a Ransom Rest at 25 yards is a $3,000 one better than a $350?
Click to expand...
You know the answer to that. The number and quality of your collection says that you understand non-utilitarian value very well.
 
Gaston said:
Personally, I'm holding out for one chambered in .30SC. 🤭


That was my thought too -- seems like SA is racing Sig to the bottom.
Click to expand...
True, true. The 4.25 seems like a natural for a high capacity .30SC.

I'll wait until the 'first run beta testers' work out the bugs, then maybe pick up a used 5" one hopefully for less money. Then try to figure out a way to convert it to a 9x23 and spend 3x as much money on it. o_O
 
Fred said:
2011s are the best guns for fast accurate shooting.
Click to expand...

Really broad statement that just isn't true. "Best" is subjective.
2011's Only good for certain divisions. Limited and Open. Those are going to be dominated by guns that cost 4000-10,000$. Minor power factor divisions are dominated by other guns.

Bob Vogel
Taran
Frenchie
Ben Stoeger
Jerry Miculek
JJ Racaza
Nils
etc etc etc etc
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
The purpose of divisions is so that guns besides top of the line open guns can have somewhere to compete. If there were no divisions open guns(2011s, mostly) would win- because they're so good at fast accurate shooting.

Which guns are better than 2011s at minor factor now? CZs?
Click to expand...

I just gave you a very partial list of world champions who use everything from glocks to CZ to Tanfo to Beretta to Canik to S&W.
Most of them also shoot Open guns that are not 2011's.
"Better", again, is subjective but NONE of them shoot minor through 2011's. Can you list some that do?

Edit: and YES, CZ's are one for sure.
 
Last edited:
I see where a few Prodigies have been bought and/or sold on the forum.

I know the initial reports out on the web indicated some bugs needed to be addressed. Mag related I think.

Any recent, local range reports on the Springfield Prodigy?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom