Springfield/Warren 9mm 1911 Endurance Test: Report #31

3-Jan-14 – 18:05 by ToddG
64,579 15 stoppages 0 malfunctions 5 parts breakages

And we’re done…

It’s been a long time since I’ve written an update and as you can see the gun has fired a lot of rounds since the last one. But alas the past couple of range sessions have led me to believe that the barrel wear has finally caught up. On average the test pistol (WTS 017) is shooting groups about twice the size of the backup gun (WTS 016). I’m certain it was the steady diet of +p lead-free ammunition which caused it and as such I feel guilty for calling the test over when the gun probably has so much more life left in it. But rules are rules and a failure of a major component (frame, barrel, slide) has always signaled the end of a test.

Nonetheless, my intention is to get the gun rebarreled by the Springfield Custom Shop and put it right back into everyday service until the 2014 test gun arrives.

I’ll write up a more comprehensive review later this month, probably after I’ve had a chance to talk to some folks at Springfield at the SHOT Show. But as I’ve said before, suffice to say that this gun has completely transformed my opinion of — and belief in — the 1911 as a dependable sidearm.

Train hard & stay safe! ToddG

You can also follow and discuss via the pistol-forum.com 2012-2013 Endurance Test thread.

Previous Springfield/Warren 9mm 1911 Endurance Test posts at pistol-training.com:

  1. 14 Responses to “Springfield/Warren 9mm 1911 Endurance Test: Report #31”

  2. While over the past 30 years I have had quite a few .45 Auto 1911’s run as reliably as my Glocks, it was nice to see a 9 mm 1911 work as nicely as yours did. Well done!

    By DocGKR on Jan 3, 2014

  3. It was a great run and an even better gun :-)

    By Scott E on Jan 3, 2014

  4. Terrific test–I never thought a 9 mm 1911 would work so well. Congratulations to the guys who built the pistol as well as to you for taking a chance. And, of course, the pistol isn’t even permanently damaged. With the fitting of a new barrel it could keep going.

    So what are you going to be shooting now? You’d look strong at the range with one of those rainbow Sigs. Alternatively a Judge would make a definite statement.

    By SteveJ on Jan 4, 2014

  5. Very impressive. I too was not one to believe a 9mm 1911 could be reliable. That being said, I’m not surprised the barrel wore out first.

    By John on Jan 4, 2014

  6. Nnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! I would imagine he will be running the back-up until the primary gets re-barreled. That’s an impressive result for a pistol not too many people thought would run properly.

    Moreover, hypothetically speaking, comparative to past pistols – yes, you have a major component failure. However, maybe I am a little foggy on this, Todd wasn’t able to take the primary on past test pistols and run it through after a “simple” component change. Glock would have needed a whole new slide, HK would have needed a whole new frame, Smith would have needed (a slide? Can’t remember). Except the HK 45, of course. The component change for that would have been new wrists and elbows!

    The 1911 needs a new barrel and can then keep pushing on. I enjoyed this project. I hope updates will continue on it after the new barrel is fitted because then we can see if anything else gives out. And I am looking forward to the Heirloom project.

    Good show!

    By John K on Jan 4, 2014

  7. Once I hear back from Springfield Custom Shop (remember this happened on a Friday afternoon and didn’t get reported until Friday evening) I’ll decide what to do next.

    I am leaning toward continuing to use the (rebarreled) SACS/Warren gun once it gets back. But I don’t want to give this gun a benefit that past guns were denied because that skews the results unfairly. I can’t hold this gun to a different standard just because I like shooting it.

    By ToddG on Jan 4, 2014

  8. Todd:

    Why not? Everyone knows that the real way to design a pistol standard is to figure out exactly what you want and then write a standard to get you there. Just ask the Marine special operations guys.

    And anyway, you didn’t feed anywhere near that amount of +P ammunition to your other pistols. That alone is enough of a difference to justify at least footnoting the standard.

    By SteveJ on Jan 4, 2014

  9. I vote for dusting off the Beretta Vertec until the custom 1911 arrives…

    By JSGlock34 on Jan 4, 2014

  10. Todd,

    Pardon if you have covered this before…what ammo do you typically use?

    By Fixer on Jan 4, 2014

  11. I see what you’re saying but “technically,” the test was finished more than 10,000 rounds ago. I would call this a $hit$ and giggles experiment!

    By John K on Jan 5, 2014

  12. If the Springfield with the shot out barrel shoots as good as a new M&P is that really considered a parts failure?

    By Wilsoncombatrep on Jan 5, 2014

  13. WCR — Ha!

    By ToddG on Jan 5, 2014

  14. I’d love to see the next test gun be one of the compact 9mm pistols on the market.

    By Mitchell, Esq. on Jan 6, 2014

  15. hi todd just a question on the barrel. is it standard procedure that if a gun shoots twice the group size it is considered a barrel failure? say if it shot 2 inches brand new then doubled to 4 inches isn’t it still accurate enough?

    By bryan on Jan 11, 2014

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.