SR1911 vs. Range Officer

[ditto1958]

Does anyone here own both the SR1911 and the Springfield Range Officer? If so, how do they compare? The Springfield is usually more expensive. Does it earn its higher price?

 

[DSDMMAT]

I have both, although my SR1911 is a Commander and the Springfield is a GOVT model.
Both are stainless steel. The Springfield has an ambi safety (important to me since I am left handed). They both shoot my 200 semi wadcutter loads without issue. I had to replace the front sight on the SR1911 last week (it finally broke off). For what it is worth I own 3 Springfields (one is 30 years old, one is 20 years old, and one is 2 years old) and one Ruger. IMO the Springfield RO is the better of the two pistols but, I don't know if it is 300 dollars worth of better.

 

[Goldstar225]

I own a SR1911 CMD LWT and have shot the Range Officer. Both good guns with, for me, different purposes. My Ruger is my daily off-duty carry gun. Good accuracy, reliable and fits my hand well. The Range Officer gave me better accuracy but was to heavy for daily carry. I will own he Range Officer in the future as a range gun.

 

[revhigh]

I have both, although my SR1911 is a Commander and the Springfield is a GOVT model.
Both are stainless steel. The Springfield has an ambi safety (important to me since I am left handed). They both shoot my 200 semi wadcutter loads without issue. I had to replace the front sight on the SR1911 last week (it finally broke off). For what it is worth I own 3 Springfields (one is 30 years old, one is 20 years old, and one is 2 years old) and one Ruger. IMO the Springfield RO is the better of the two pistols but, I don't know if it is 300 dollars worth of better.

It's really only $100 more on the street ... $180 more for SS. Just an fyi

REV

 

[Rockrat]

I have both, but my RO is in 9mm. Trigger is better on the RO, but the Ruger is the more accurate of the two, but not by a whole lot.

 

[guidedfishing]

I have both, although they are both 1911's they serve different purposes. Both are good, but are setup different. The sights on the Range Officer are superior for target shooting, where the Ruger sights are more combat type sights.

The fit and finish on the Range Officer is better, and the Range Officer is tighter. When I head to a match, I take the Range Officer, when I shoot bowling pin matches I take the Range Officer. I rarely shoot the SR1911, mostly its there for my son to use when he comes with.

Not sure if that answers your question, my humble opinion the Range Officer is more bang for your buck, but there really is no issue with the Ruger.

 

[mohavesam]

Note that the RO uses frames and slides purchased without the lowered ejection port and ducktail safety cut - these are machined in at SA. They advertise those features which, IMO have been around and EXPECTED since about everyone has been alive.
The Ruger and others are cast or forged in as Ruger and Colt design their own frames & slides.Otherwise both guns are fine. Accuracy is 99% of the time, a function of the shooter & ammo in my travels.

Both are fine affordable guns. My only bias is that owners of the SR1911s support hundreds of working rural AZ families.

BTW RH, what street do you buy guns on again? I have never bought a gun on the street... what am I missing? 8)

 

[dakota1911]

I ended up buying two SR1911s in the fall of 2012. There were some very nice sales on them and at an Oktoberfest sale they had them for $599. One has a little bit better fit and finish than the other so I put Eaglewing grips on it. The other I loaned to friends and ended up trading it to a friend last year.



With ROs I again got the .45 on a sale in the fall of 2014. It was $740 with three extra mags and an extra mag holder (it was a SA promotion). Then in Jan 2015 I saw the 9mm RO for $719. I thought the store has mismarked it but they had the 9mm and the 45 at that price for about a month and then they went back up to $820.



In my mind they are sort of different pistols due to the adjustable sights on the RO. Still the fitting of parts is a little better on the RO but not a lot. If you bag them at 25 yards the better SR1911 give the same sub 2 inch groups with the same ammo as the RO but of course one does not have adjustable sights.

 

[lolbell]

I have owned several 1911s in the past. The RO that I had was very finickey about its ammo. It went back to S/A and came back just a little better but still did not like much more than round ball or similar shaped HPs. The SR1911 has digested everything it has been fed, from SWC, Ball to HP,s with no hic ups at all. Both guns were more accurate than me. The Ruger was nearly $200 cheaper. I know you can get good'ens and bad'ens in all of them, but the Ruger worked out best for me.

 

[modrifle3]

Note that the RO uses frames and slides purchased without the lowered ejection port and ducktail safety cut - these are machined in at SA. They advertise those features which, IMO have been around and EXPECTED since about everyone has been alive.
The Ruger and others are cast or forged in as Ruger and Colt design their own frames & slides.Otherwise both guns are fine. Accuracy is 99% of the time, a function of the shooter & ammo in my travels.

Both are fine affordable guns. My only bias is that owners of the SR1911s support hundreds of working rural AZ families.

BTW RH, what street do you buy guns on again? I have never bought a gun on the street... what am I missing? 8)

To clarify some of this. SA and Colt forge there frames to cover both mil-spec and enhanced versions. Ruger cast their frames to their spec but final grip safety radius is machined on all three. Ruger does not need to include the extra tang material because it does not make a mil-spec model. Colt and SA have taken less liberty with their frames and depending on customization the Ruger maybe harder to change. Wilson GS fit the SA very well and several can be added to the Colt. Although a good casting, the Ruger is a cast frame, not a forging like the Colt and SA.

As for slides, all SA come with lowered and flared ports. All are machined to spec, including the Ruger. Ruger however claims slides are not forgings but bar stock machinings.

Every Springfield I have picked up is fit to a closer tolerance than the Ruger and most Colts. Colts rattle but are accurate. Rugers rattle and who knows. Mine was not finish reemed or properly crowned. Also, the barrel lugs did not fit correctly. None of these were an issue on the SA. I have owned all three, still have Springfields and wish I had the Colt.

In conclusion, if someone laid down a Ruger and SA . . . take the Springfield and run.

 

[brushunter]

I had both ... sold the Ruger. There is no doubt "my" R.O. was more accurate than the Ruger. Fit and finish was better on the R.O.. I would have to say the Springfield was just a better buy than the Ruger. Don't misunderstand me , I liked the Ruger. At the time I paid a little over 8 hundred for the Springer then later bought my Ruger for a shade over 6 hundred ... IMHO the difference in price was obvious. Only reason I sold the Ruger ... I wanted another Bisley 45 !!

regards brushunter

 

[jn 41]

Of my shooting buddies. 1 has the RO. 5 of us have some variation of RUGER SR1911. I like them all. I do think the RO has better trigger, smoother controls. Accuracy wise they are fairly even in my hands. The guy who owns the RO shoots it VERY well. He is an old bullseye shooter, so the trigger suits his style better.
RO is worth the few more dollars. But there is nothing wrong with Rugers. all ours shoot well and function fine. Go to a GS, handle both, buy the one that feel best in your hands.

 

[wlhawk]

I have a RO and SR1911. Both have been accurate and reliable but if I only had one it would be the RO.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

I have both, although they are both 1911's they serve different purposes. Both are good, but are setup different. The sights on the Range Officer are superior for target shooting, where the Ruger sights are more combat type sights.

The fit and finish on the Range Officer is better, and the Range Officer is tighter. When I head to a match, I take the Range Officer, when I shoot bowling pin matches I take the Range Officer. I rarely shoot the SR1911, mostly its there for my son to use when he comes with.

Not sure if that answers your question, my humble opinion the Range Officer is more bang for your buck, but there really is no issue with the Ruger.

I agree ^^^ +1. I own both(more than one of each). I like both and have zero issues with either. The RO is just a little more accurate and they have a little nicer trigger.

 

[Chuckybrown]

Note that the RO uses frames and slides purchased without the lowered ejection port and ducktail safety cut - these are machined in at SA. They advertise those features which, IMO have been around and EXPECTED since about everyone has been alive.
The Ruger and others are cast or forged in as Ruger and Colt design their own frames & slides.Otherwise both guns are fine. Accuracy is 99% of the time, a function of the shooter & ammo in my travels.

Both are fine affordable guns. My only bias is that owners of the SR1911s support hundreds of working rural AZ families.

BTW RH, what street do you buy guns on again? I have never bought a gun on the street... what am I missing? 8)

To clarify some of this. SA and Colt forge there frames to cover both mil-spec and enhanced versions. Ruger cast their frames to their spec but final grip safety radius is machined on all three. Ruger does not need to include the extra tang material because it does not make a mil-spec model. Colt and SA have taken less liberty with their frames and depending on customization the Ruger maybe harder to change. Wilson GS fit the SA very well and several can be added to the Colt. Although a good casting, the Ruger is a cast frame, not a forging like the Colt and SA.

As for slides, all SA come with lowered and flared ports. All are machined to spec, including the Ruger. Ruger however claims slides are not forgings but bar stock machinings.

Every Springfield I have picked up is fit to a closer tolerance than the Ruger and most Colts. Colts rattle but are accurate. Rugers rattle and who knows. Mine was not finish reemed or properly crowned. Also, the barrel lugs did not fit correctly. None of these were an issue on the SA. I have owned all three, still have Springfields and wish I had the Colt.

In conclusion, if someone laid down a Ruger and SA . . . take the Springfield and run.

I'm asking an honest question, and not bashing. Why do guys like you even hang out on Rugerforum.com if you're not into Rugers? I got the same thing on a post I had about my new SR1911, about how "MIM parts were inferior", & "fit wasn't that good", etc. I mean, if you're into whatever you're into, go there!

I'm sincerely curious. I don't go onto freshwater fishing boards and point out things that us saltwater gear guys think.....

 

[Pat-inCO]

Why do guys like you even hang out on Rugerforum.com
if you're not into Rugers?

Multiple things here:
1) Veeeeeery few gun people will have only one brand of firearm.
~~ I still have the very first Ruger I bought (when I was 16) in 1960.
~~ Love it, but I have seen Ruger shoot itself in the foot on multiple
~~ occasions, so I look at many other brands, and even buy some.
~~ Think about electronics . . . how many people have ALL of their
~~ electronics from ONE manufacturer? I'll bet none.

2) Many (most?) people that come on the forum and ask questions
about thus-and-such firearm (usually comparing it to Ruger) would
really like the benefit of the experience of those members with more
than myopic perspective.

3) While there are MANY gun forums out there, the people that frequent
a given forum are, for the most part, ones that you are comfortable in
talking with and exchanging opinions with.
~~ There is another Ruger forum that has some people there that have
~~ an approach that I dislike, thus I participate here, rather than there.

How about you take the time to watch and listen, before finding fault
where there could easily be none?

 

[Chuckybrown]

Again, truly asking. There was no "fault" pointed out.

Peace.