Which is more satisfying?
I am currently working with a Para-Ordnance frame and a GI replacement slide plus a Springfield frame and a Springfield slide that didnít come with it. Both pistols experienced reliability problems related to the slide stop and those have been dealt with. The Millet adjustable sight gave me a poor sight picture; Marianne Carniak opened the rear sight up so I can now see daylight around the front sight. Marianne also replaced the recoil springs on both pistols with 18.5 pound ones plus the firing pin springs; I tend to shoot heavier bullets and near max loads.
Now I am left to deal with accuracy; both of these pistol currently shoot grapefruit sized groups at 10 yards from a modified Weaver stance. This is good enough for close range defensive purposes but not up to the standards set by my other 1911s. I will first try different loads in an attempt to find accurate loads for both pistols. If this doesnít work with the Springfield I will go with a match bushing. I intend to use the Springfield for car/carry purposes or home defense.
The Para-Ordnance frame with a GI replacement slide I intend to use for a range gun/ home defense purposes. As such, it will be held to a higher standard; I want to see rounds touching each other at 15-25 yards. Like the Springer I will first try different loads in an attempt to find accurate loads but if I do not find a load that groups well I will either go the match bushing route or a fitted Bar-Sto barrel route. I also have thoughts of replacing the hammer, sear, and trigger plus having the front strap checkered (30lpi) and having the frame and slide hard chromed.
Isnít this more fun and more interesting than buying a super accurate handgun and just being able to shoot it well right out of the box? Let me know your thoughts on my observations and intended improvements to these pistols.