Well, I for one am glad I'm not stuck with a spur hammer and GI sights. What do you say?

For the record, I say unless it's built exactly the way JMB designed it,regardless of who manufactures it today, it's a deviation and theoretically could be called a knock off or not a true 1911A1.

Right?

Hammers and sights don't change the basic design - "Cosmetic changes". The internals of most 1911s are close enough to JMB's original design to satisfy my purist desires.

Browning's 1911-380, however, uses a linkless design. Now that changes it to a 1911'ish pistol instead of a true 1911. Kinda ironic that Browning's own "1911" isn't.

http://www.cotep.org/forum/picture.p...pictureid=1046

Agreed. I personally don't mind a little deviation, just don't like the "tactical" crap they put on 1911 clones.

And yet I just had a milspec parked ww2 with gi sights internals replaced to race gun performance and prefer to carry it over all the other 1911's, including the Ed Brown Kobra Carry worth 4 times the milspec. :D

Good point.

I'm in your park on this one....I carry Springers that look like they are decades old....but the guts are fine tuned and they run like clocks.

Actually they are decades old....sights and all...:D

I agree 100%, I guess I should've been more clear with my initial response.

Cool beans.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have an vintage Colt or Singer 1911 for nostalgic sake. To me, it'd be like owning a 1970 Dodge Challenger vs one from today.

Deviation is good except in ones septum .