DGW1949 is living proof as to what I was pointing out he is a colt man and only a colt will do or at least a copy that is so close you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a glance.
I'm a Ruger guy and always will be. But not to prod to admit I like my springfield 1911. We are living in great times when there s so many options for us to choose from
You are dern-close in your assessment.
Actualy, I'm a 1911A-1 man. Whichever company it was (or is) produced by is not revelent to me, so long as it made made from decent materials and the workmanship is up to par. It just happens that the one I presently own was made by Colt.
That does not however, mean that I'm stuck on the military version. The older Colt "Government Model" suits me just fine too, although I will admit to exchanging the Series-70 "finger bushing" for a solid bushing on the one's that I've had.
I could also make do with the present clone made by RIA, and actualy owned an SA-clone once. My first order of business with the SA was to get rid of it's silly "lockable" mainspring housing Ass'y and replace it with USGI parts. It shot well enough, and I probably would have kept it but someone came along later who wanted it worse than I did.
On the other end of the mule, I found out early on that I have no real use for extended controls, beavertails, hollowed-out hammers, special triggers, flared magwells, nor for "bumper pads" on my magizine(s). That is because I actualy tried some of those things way back when such "improvemnets" were becoming all the rage, but what I discovered instead was that FOR ME AND MY USES, either they didn't add one bit of utility to the gun, or in some cases, actualy caused other problems.
All that said though, I do realize that we aint the same and that each of us has our own requirements for our gun. I personaly believe that the 1911A1 was about all the improvement that the 1911 needed. But if the SR-1911 suits the next guy better, that's great too.