Why aren't other guns as slim as 1911?


PDA






SubSolar
October 25, 2007, 06:35 PM
Just wondering why other semiautos don't have the slim profile that the 1911 does. Seems like most other handguns even in 9mm or .40 don't have a thin slide like a .45 1911.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why aren't other guns as slim as 1911?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.W.Dale
October 25, 2007, 06:41 PM
You think a M1911 is slim??????

CWL
October 25, 2007, 06:42 PM
Depends on the capacity of the firearm. The trend of pistols have gone towards doublestack magazines so the pistol can only be as narrow as the magazine+grip width.

Other singlestack guns with slim profiles that I can immediately think of include Kahr K9 & P9, Kel-Tec PA3T & P32, H&K P7M8...

Mat, not doormat
October 25, 2007, 06:59 PM
The other thing is that the 1911 slide is round on top, whereas most newer designs are squarish. that adds to the impression of thickness.

~~~Mat

SubSolar
October 25, 2007, 07:10 PM
I can understand the double stack theory, but even a Sig P220 which is single stack doesn't seem to be as thin.

tnieto2004
October 25, 2007, 07:14 PM
Many guns are Double stack

Walkalong
October 25, 2007, 07:49 PM
Yea. I got tired over the years of hearing how "big" the 1911 .45 was and then they would tout, lets say, the Beretta 9MM, WHICH IS EVEN BIGGER!!!!!! :banghead:

Slim and easy to conceal. It's awesome ain't it. :D

CWL
October 25, 2007, 07:54 PM
Some (actually most) guns were created for military & police applications. In that regards, concealment was not needed but overredundant solidness & reliability were, so you have the big & chunky designs of most of the "service" weapons.

During the past AWB when guns were limited to 10-rd magazines, gun designers actually did focus on smaller, thinner and more concealable pistols.

CPshooter
October 25, 2007, 08:16 PM
You think a M1911 is slim??????
Isn't it though?

I don't own a 1911, but I've read that they are only 0.9" at the slide. That's exactly the same width as my Kahr PM9 slide...pretty darn thin if you ask me. The only place 1911s are thicker is the grips. But w/ some slim grips like alumagrips you are still probably looking at just a hair over an inch. Considering guns like Glocks, Sigs, H&K, etc have slides that are around 1.2-1.3" w/ even fatter grips, the 1911 is a relatively thin gun.

I can't imagine a commander w/ an aluminum frame and some slim grips being very hard to carry at around 28oz and 1" thick...I've actually been thinking of getting one just for the winter when I can get away with carrying a bigger gun than my PM9.

f4t9r
October 25, 2007, 08:22 PM
slim is in and bigger is better, as the sayings go. It gives more options and things to discuss on this forum

sm
October 25, 2007, 08:29 PM
Because they hang around vending machines.
Yep, .gov did a study and said hanging around vending machines causes Obesity.

That is why they want vending machines removed from schools...

Now you know...

;)

Gustav
October 25, 2007, 08:36 PM
People were smaller back in 1911 there fingers were also.:neener:

Papaster
October 25, 2007, 08:53 PM
Most other semi-autos were not directly designed by John Browning. Notable exception: Hi-Power. Also very slim.

Papaster
October 25, 2007, 08:54 PM
I think much of the gripe about 1911 size is in the length and capacity/weight ratio. They are definitely slim, just don't have the capacity of their polymer counterparts.

Papaster
October 25, 2007, 08:57 PM
Because most semi-autos were not designed by John Browning. He also designed the svelte Hi-Power.

Papaster
October 25, 2007, 08:58 PM
Because most semi-autos were not designed by John Browning. He also designed the svelte Hi-Power. Oops! Sorry about the quad post.

Mojo-jo-jo
October 25, 2007, 09:13 PM
I can understand the double stack theory, but even a Sig P220 which is single stack doesn't seem to be as thin.

1911 is Single action only. Sig P220 is SA/DA. The trigger mechanism in the P220 is more complex, as well as not designed to be as compact as the 1911 (the 1911 trigger mechanism is especially compact).

There's actually not a really big difference, but definitely enough to feel it:
1911 (Kimber Custom II): 1.28 inches
Sig P220: 1.40 inches

Car Knocker
October 25, 2007, 09:18 PM
Because most semi-autos were not designed by John Browning. He also designed the svelte Hi-Power.
I'd have to say that is a bit of an overstatement. The BHP is based on a 1922 striker-fired Browning design. When the Colt 1911 patents ran out in 1928, the Fabrique National designer Dieudonne Saive incorporated some of the 1911's features in his third redesign of the pistol (earlier Saive redesigns changed the pistol from striker-fired to hammer-fired and added the "step" to the front of the slide). The BHP wasn't patented until after Browning's death in 1926 and wasn't released for sale until 1935, when Belgium bought 1,000 of the pistols. Arguably, Saive contributed more to the design than Browning.

3rdpig
October 25, 2007, 09:32 PM
It's single stack, it's got a steel frame and it uses steel magazines. Steel parts can be made thinner than similar plastic or aluminum parts and be just as strong. There's little or no lock work on the sides that the grips have to swell around to cover, and the whole gun is rounded off instead of squared off. The way it locks into battery also lends itself to a slim slide. And, the grips are dead flat, not swelled to fill the palm.

Jim Watson
October 25, 2007, 09:43 PM
Hey, Car Knocker, I'll argue. One of D. Saive's main jobs was to plow Browning design features back into a gun that Mr Browning had to design to evade his own patents assigned exclusively to Colt. When the patents ran out, FN used them. Key items being gun assembly tied to the slide stop, a thumb safety on the receiver, and a barrel bushing. (Yes, a BHP has a barrel bushing, even though it is permanently installed in production models instead of the removable 1911 type bushing shown in 1929.) Those are just the obvious ones I recall offhand, there are likely others.

RyanM
October 25, 2007, 09:50 PM
According to my files, a 1911 slide is 0.91" wide, and the frame is about 0.79". Average thickness grips will be about 1.25" wide.

That's not very much thinner than other guns. My G23 is 1.01" thick across the slide, 1.15" frame and grips.

Katana8869
October 25, 2007, 10:12 PM
My Ruger P345 is about the same width as my 1911's. It actually feels thinner in the grip than my S&W 1911PD Commander.

CPshooter
October 25, 2007, 11:10 PM
That's not very much thinner than other guns. My G23 is 1.01" thick across the slide, 1.15" frame and grips.
WIDTH
30 mm / 1.18 in. That's from the Glock website, and it designates that as the slide width. The frame and grips are > than 1.3" I believe... I'm pretty sure this is accurate since I'm almost positive my G19 and G27 were significantly fatter than 1.15" at the grips. Definitely don't think either were only 1" wide at the slide.

That .1 or .2" makes a HUGE difference in comfort when carrying a weapon IWB. An unloaded G26 is just under 20oz. Take a loaded Kahr PM9 (probably close in weight) and you will probably find that the loaded PM9 is MUCH easier to carry simply due to the fact that it is (relatively) MUCH thinner at 0.9" slide and frame. A Glock IWB feels like a small brick riding in your waistline, whereas with the Kahr you don't even notice it's there at all. I won't carry a gun unless it's no more than 1" at its fattest point( minus the slide release or safety width ).

The Lone Haranguer
October 25, 2007, 11:13 PM
The 1911 slide can be rounded on top and more "streamlined" due to its barrel design, with round-topped locking lugs engaging similar grooves in the slide. A barrel/slide lockup that has a squared chamber shoulder engaging the ejection port must necessarily be squared off on top.

RyanM
October 26, 2007, 12:12 AM
If a Glock's slide width is 1.18" wide, then that means .40 S&W is actually a .57 caliber. My calipers are working fine, and the slide width is 1.008", grip width... now it's saying 1.798". And I personally find absolutely no comfort difference between carrying a G23 and Kahr MK40 IWB, using kydex holsters.

Hoppy590
October 26, 2007, 12:16 AM
iv said it before, il say it again. i want a remake of the Browning/colt 1903 pocket hammerless in 9mm.

Hoppy590
October 26, 2007, 12:19 AM
A barrel/slide lockup that has a squared chamber shoulder engaging the ejection port must necessarily be squared off on top.

that would be assuming a square ejection port. wouldnt a rounded port work just as well? im not saying your wrong, im no expert, but if the 1911 can lock with rounded off barrel and slide lugs, then a glock could do it with a rounded off breach lock

TL1234
October 26, 2007, 01:26 AM
I'm not a fan of single action only (because of the need for a manual safety), so I have always wished Sig would make a thinner version of the 220. No reason they couldn't, it would be really nice.

nice shot
October 26, 2007, 02:22 AM
It has to do with the way the barrel locks up to the slide. In the 1911, the barrel locks up by means of locking lugs cut into the top of the chamber which mate with groves cut into the underside of the slide. This allows the slide to more or less follow the cylindrical shape of the barrel, be rounded off at the top, and overall be "slimmer".

In more modern autos (Glock, Sig, HK, etc.), the barrel mates with the slide via a straight, square "lip" at the front of the chamber which requires the slide to also be squared off. This usually results in a slightly "thicker" gun through the slide area.

Not sure why more manufacturers don't use the traditional Browning lock up system. I'm guessing it's either due to patents and/or it requires more machining and is more expense to produce.

Ian
October 26, 2007, 02:30 AM
iv said it before, il say it again. i want a remake of the Browning/colt 1903 pocket hammerless in 9mm.

Now that would be sweet...I wonder if the design could handle 9x19?

I love how thin the 1903 is, and the fact that the grip is long enough to allow all four fingers a nice solid grip. It's a mere 0.82" across the slide, and 1.08" on the grips. Now if I could find a good lefty IWB for it...

The Lone Haranguer
October 26, 2007, 10:44 AM
that would be assuming a square ejection port. wouldnt a rounded port work just as well?

It might. However, I am not aware of any that are made this way. Even the Smith & Wesson "Value Line" pistols with this kind of lockup have square slides, as opposed to the "Third Generation" with round-topped slides. The point of the shoulder/ejection port lockup was to reducethe number and complexity of machining operations. A rounded shoulder would not reduce these operations significantly, IMO.

obxned
October 26, 2007, 11:39 AM
Whatever the reason, it enables a big gun to carry like a smaller one. That's a big plus! Few newer design .45s can match this.

JDGray
October 26, 2007, 11:41 AM
My CZ75 is pretty dang narrow, till you get to the grip:D One in a single stack, would be a perfect carry gun:)

Hoppy590
October 26, 2007, 01:35 PM
A rounded shoulder would not reduce these operations significantly, IMO

so, for ease of production. because iv been thinking about it. and i really cant think og a reason it couldnt be rounded that cant be solved by small tinkering.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why aren't other guns as slim as 1911?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!