Springfield Armory has a split personality. On one side of the company are modern designs like the Hellcat, Echelon, and the Hellion. On the other are guns built on history — the 1911s and M1As, and now the SA-35.
We’re here today to talk about two of those classics: the well-established Mil-Spec 1911 and the more recent SA-35. But let’s be clear on one detail: These are both close approximations of the originals, and they’re not meant to be carbon copies or 1:1 reproductions.
Instead, the Mil-Spec and the SA-35 both do what Springfield does exceptionally well, and that is to fill in a much-needed gap for the firearms collector. So, go into this with those expectations clearly set.
Some people carry the Mil-Spec and SA-35 for EDC, but they’re few and very far between. I’d point to Echelon and Hellcat as much more appropriate guns for most EDC applications.
That said, if your budget is limited, there’s no reason these guns won’t get the job done.
A tale of two Brownings
The 1911, as we know it now, is almost always chambered in .45 ACP. The 2011 craze and many of the earlier single-stack single-actions are built around the 9mm, but the .45 ACP is still the norm.
As a .45 ACP-chambered handgun, the rounds are slow, and the capacity of the 1911 is limited. And the grip is still big, despite only holding 7 rounds. This has always been the biggest complaint about the 1911 (in general, not the Mil-Spec specifically).
On the other hand, the Browning Hi-Power had the advantage of being chambered in 9mm. The originals held 13 rounds, which was seen as a significant improvement (despite the lackluster 9mm rounds available when it was originally released in 1935).
And while we almost always give Browning the sole credit for the 1911, the Hi-Power bears the fingerprints of Dieudonne Salve, a Belgian who picked up the project after Browning’s death in 1925. How much of the design is original to Browning? The answer there is harder to pin down.
Both guns, though, have striking similarities. While many 1911s (including the Commander and Officer length guns) all look like they belong on the same family tree, the SA-35 and other Hi-Power-inspired guns look more like distant cousins.
Yet both are steel with wooden grips. Both guns rely on their weight to do the work of recoil management and leave off the extra serrations and milling that assist with ergonomics. The Mil-Spec and SA-35 are both classic single-actions that rely on their external safeties.
Where the SA-35 shines
Like the Hi-Power before it, the SA-35 has upped its game with greater capacity. As most full-sized guns hold at least 17 rounds of 9mm, Springfield has built the SA-35 around a 15-round magazine design. They’re steel, and solid. That’s better, but they can be hard to find. Newer Hi-Power mags will work, though, so there are options.
Even without front-strap serrations, the SA-35 shoots incredibly flat. Follow-up shots are easy to keep in tighter groups as the weight holds the 9mm steady. I get less muzzle rise from the SA-35 than I do from most 9mms. The notable exception would be a gun like the Springfield Prodigy.
With greater capacity and manageable recoil, the SA-35 makes a compelling case for the platform. It runs smoothly, and after shooting the gun for more than a year now, I’ve yet to have a hiccup.
Where the 1911 Mil-Spec Shines
Here, I’ll begin with the history. I’ve always been a 1911 fan. Ever since I was old enough to know what one was, I considered this to be the quintessential American semi-auto handgun. Way back, when I was trying to put together enough scratch to buy my first gun, I was going to buy a 1911. Even though there were many other more efficient designs, it was the basic appeal of the old Browning classic that spoke to me.
Some imports sold for less than the Mil-Spec. Their tolerances, though, were visibly rough. While this isn’t always a problem with guns designed to be modular, I didn’t like the way they would knock about and rattle. The Mil-Spec and the GI (a Springfield model that is no longer in production) had a much better build quality.
As fate would have it, I began writing about guns about this same time. Instead of either, I picked up a Range Officer, which had the look I was going for and even more match-grade enhancements.
The Mil-Spec, though, which I’ve had for many years now, is still a solid historical homage. And it is a great choice for a first 1911. In saying that, I am not calling this an entry-level 1911 or implying that it is in any way a compromise. It is still the case, though, that the Mil-Spec remains the most affordable of the American-made 1911s.
And it shoots exactly as you’d expect. The sights on this one are an improvement on the hump-and-bump originals (without looking like garish, modern target sights). The barrel is much better than any you’ll find on an import, too, and the results show in the accuracy.
If you are accustomed to front strap serrations to help hold down recoil, you will struggle here. The gun doesn’t have the extra texture that often makes newer 1911s more user-friendly.
Springfield’s 1911 mags are solid.
What is the historical appeal of the Mil-Spec 1911 and the SA-35?
True history buffs will balk at the subtle changes made to the Mil-Spec. The slide serrations are canted and not vertical, and those of us with OCD tend to be bothered by small things like this. And there are other slight improvements, like the match-grade barrel. These are subtle, though, and the benefit of the Mil-Spec being a gun you can shoot without worrying about its collector value makes it an ideal working historical homage.
The same is true for the SA-35. Not everything is original. The increased mag capacity is a big win, but smaller details like the improved sights and beveled magazine well make it a bit more user-friendly. As with the Mil-Spec, the changes are subtle, keeping the SA-35 relevant for an entire group looking for a historically significant reproduction.
Yet the Hi-Power is a bit more niche in its historical appeal. This might be entirely different in Europe, but I doubt it. The 1911s legacy has been cemented by a century of use in film and television and by the proliferation of historical imagery and video from too many battlefields to count.
The 1911’s muscular visage is uniquely American. Though there’s little practical difference between the size of the two guns or their respective lengths, the strong lines of the 1911’s slide in the hands of a GI are unmistakable. I know of no such imagery that puts the Hi-Power in the same historical light.
I’m not slighting the Hi-Power here. Instead, I’m simply stating how I see the 1911 as a symbol of the larger fighting spirit of the men who carried it.
What’s next for the Springfield line?
I’m personally holding out for a Webley-Fosbery Automatic Revolver.
If the 1911 line and the M1A serve as a roadmap, we’re more likely to get updated versions of the SA-35. Both guns have evolved in the catalog. And the Hi-Power-inspired guns seem to be making a comeback — a trend I’d argue is connected to the 1911’s evolution into the 2011 and the attention these guns have been getting in the last five years, all of which has renewed interest in steel and aluminum framed 9mms.
