[Wvladimire]

I am not expecting any comments for this post. To me it is more of a rant and rave for all the misleading information out there regarding 1911's. And praise to some well made 1911's, as well as some tips when purchasing your first 1911 pistol. Mind you, these are my opinions based on my own experiences, so if I ruffle a few feathers, remember what is said about opinions.

Casting versus forged: This debate has been done over and over again till it's been done to death. I will try to explain what most of the industry considers forged, compared to what we believe forged is.
Forged means that the blank has either been pressed or hammered into a rough shape for machining. To some big name industry makers of 1911's, this means either hammering or pressing a rectangular piece of stock into more of a retangle shape for the slide. And hammering or pressing a square piece of stock into an L shape for the grip frame. This by those big name companies, is their definition as to what a forged slide or frame is. It doesn't matter if this is only a one step process with a press, or two to three hammer strikes, to them this is a forged piece. And technically it's true, no matter how much machining is needed to get the rough shape to look like the final product.

We the consumer think that forged means most of the shape of the final product is made by it's being hammered into submission, with very little machining used to make the final product. My apologies for telling you this and bursting your bubble, but this is known as "hammer forging". And believe me there is a difference. If you think not, then compare the price of a hammer forged barrel compared to one made from a blank, a blank that the industry says is forged. You will see a difference in price, quality, and life of the barrel. Yes "hammer forged" and "forged mean two different things, especially to big business. I'm just letting you the consumer know, that when something says hammer forged and the price is a lot higher, there is a reason for it, compared to just a forged piece.

I go to my fair share of gun shows and visit my share of local gun shops. Over the last two years I have handled many 1911's made by a major american company, which is considered the industry standard for perfection. And I have handled some made by a German company that only recently got into the game of making 1911's. And while these pieces of hardware are well made, pretty, and nice to look at. I have been able to rock the slide, side to side on a fully assembled 1911, made by these companines an 1/8 of an inch or more. To me this is shotty workmanship. And one should expect more for the price they are paying.

Another company who uses investment casting to make their 1911's, I have never been able to do this with. Again to me, I believe the tolerances are tighter on these lower priced 45's, that have proven themselves in the shooting world. Recently one was fired by a well known competition shooter, that put 1,000 rounds through it in 10 mins, with no malfunctions. To me this is impressive. I would like more of the american companies to take this to heart and make a 1911 that can do this. And most importantly improve the design's inherent flaws.

Now some tips on buying your first 1911. Although I love John Browning's design for the 45 ACP, it does have it's flaws. Small parts breakage, weak extractor, and less supported cartridge case than most other semi-auto pistols.

So if you are going to spend big bucks on your 1911, like $1,000 or more, or under $500. Here are some tips to look for for improved function and reliability on your new 1911.

1) Try to go with a design that has improved the extractor. Alot of the American companies just follow the same old design and have not improved it at all. Now to purists out there just saying this is a travesty. But in all honesty, how many times have you guys had to fine tune your extractor? If you've had your 1911 for 5 years or more, I'm willing to bet at least a few times. So my suggestion is to look for a model with a better designed extractor than the original design calls for. External is a better system than an internal extractor. Less hassle with tuning, tension, and all that other non-sense. Or there are some companies that offer a better internal extractor design. An improvement over the original extractor design will lead to less head aches down the road.

2) I would say get a ramped barrel. And while most big companies would lead you to believe that if the barrel is not ramped, then the casing or round is unsupported, and this is not good. To an extent, they are ture, but in all semi-auto pistols, the casing or round is not fully supported, no matter what they try and claim. A ramped barrel will give you more support of the casing than a non-ramped barrel. But there is no such thing as a fully supported case in a 1911. This has to do with static headspace and headspace and more technical jargon that I do not care to get into at this point and time. The ramped barrel will let you shoot more than just hardball ammo. Harball meaning full metal jacket. Ramped barrels have proved to be more reliable when shooting hollow points or self defense ammunition.

3) Make sure the plunger tube is attached to the side of the grip frame SECURELY. Over the past year, I can't tell you how many NEW 1911'S came into my shop to have the plunger tube re-staked. And all of these came from the same factory. While I will not name names here, this company has been around since WWII making 1911's. Please work the thumb safety and make sure it clicks into place nice and sharply. If it does not or you have difficulty taking the thumb safety off of safe. Then you more than likely have a loose plunger tube. And yes while this is an easy fix, it's also a hassle, especially to a new gun owner. Sometimes you can't really tell if the plunger tube is loose until you disassemble the pistol. Meaning more than just field stripping. Something most gun stores frown upon when looking at a new firearms. So please work the thumb safety back and forth at least a couple of times.

4) It doesn't matter if the gun is cast, forged, or made from an exotic hard to find alloy. If the 1911 you fell in love with fits your hand, feels good to you, and has a good point of aim for you. Then buy it and be happy with it. You can add bells and whistles later.

That's about all for now and I hope this helps those tottering on the fence to buying their first 1911.:eek:

Thank you for your time.

[1911Tuner]

Wow. I don't know where to start...so I'll go with the extractor.

Made of the proper materials, and correctly within spec...in a gun that's also within spec...the extractor will last the life of the gun and beyond.

I cannabalized a 1918 Colt way back in nineteen-eighty-five, give or take a month, and have used it in several pistols. The latest one is a NRM 0991A1 that's seen close to 60,000 rounds since the extractor went in during a rebuild/refitting.

Other than periodic removal for cleaning it and its channel...I've had to do exactly nothing to it. Zip. Nada.

A pair of ORM/Billboard 1991A1s had new extractors fitted when I rebuilt them at 75,000 rounds. The original extractors were still working fine, but I replaced'em anyway...just because it made me feel warm and fuzzy. Those extractors are now doing service in other pistols...without issues. The new ones are approaching 90,000 rounds each since the initial fit and tweak. No problems there, either. No retensioning necessary.
They're still shuckin' the empties like they did from day one.

Of course, I use proper magazines, which has a lot to do with long and happy extractor life. For the record, I won't allow a current 8-round magazine near one of my pistols...but that's another argument.

Small parts breakage? Yeah. In some of the new bean-counter/MIM models. Can't argue there. In real, honest-to John Moses pistols? Haven't really noticed anything out of the ordinary.

As to the reliability issue...If they were still made the way they were during the WW2-1965, this keyboard would rust solid before I had to respond to any "What causes this malfunction" advice.

Reliable with hardball only? Gimme a break. COme see my unaltered GI pistols...dating from pre WW1 to WW2-era Union Switch, Colt, and Remington Rands gobble hollowpoints and lead SWCs like they were built for the stuff.

Cheers! :)

[Wvladimire]

1911 Tuner,

While not detracting anything from your honest opinions, I will say again that I was not expecting anyone to respond to the post.

The extractor as you mentioned, never having to do anything with, worked out for you. But in all honesty, it is an inherent flaw in the design. I believe I said purists will take the mentioning of this as a travesty. Truth be told, there are better desinged extractors out there today. And if the extractor was as problem free as you say, then why all the books, videos, and classes, just on tuning, tensioning, shaping it, and just plain gettin it to work right?


The 1911's with the loose plunger tubes were newer guns, made by a company that has made 1911's at least since WWII. I am disappointed in their QC recently as well as some others. I am also disappointed that really no American company has taken it upon themselves to improve the design's inherent flaws, which it does have. The only gun worth the price from this company that does feature improvments that were mandated by the FBI is the professional model not readily available to the public. This 1911 is a true work of art featuring improvements for relaiablity, shot recovery, durability, and longevity.

As far as FTF issues in a non-ramped barrel, again studies have shown that a ramped barrel is more reliable. John Browning himself even incorporated the ramped barrel in his second automatic pistol design the High Power. Browning saw the need for this improvement and so do I. Plus any 1911 armorer's course will spend at least an hour going over why a ramped barrel is an improvement over the non-ramped in a 1911.


As to the rest, I know there are trolls here who are industry spokespeople. And that big business doesn't want these little known facts getting out, but that's too bad, because if they are allowed to monopolize everything and not improve themselves, then we really have no freedom of speech.

[Jim Watson]

I don't care about the production method; cast, forged, or barstock will all work.
My gunsmith said that when aftermarket brand C went from cast slides to forged, they required more work in the assembly. That was not the material, but the machining setup on rough forgings not as close to net as the castings.

I don't think I have ever seen a gun that would "rock the slide, side to side on a fully assembled 1911, made by these companines an 1/8 of an inch or more." I would not have though you could move one that far and it still hold together.

As to the New And Improved External Extractors, brand K went through four design iterations, got a lot of complaints, and returned to the internal. Including replacing whole defective external slides with standard instead of continuing to tinker with the in-house bright idea.
Brand S gets better reviews, except for one Operator type who criticizes their setup... and their own custom shop which uses an entirely different set of parts on guns three times the price of the production models. They won't sell you a spare, either.
I dunno about import S, but the gun I saw built on leftover parts after they changed sources was not encouraging.
Do you count brand P which has a mutant internal extractor with no adjustment capability? If it isn't right you are out of luck.

I have only had four guns with integral ramp barrels.
One was just kind of passing through. I made sure it would handle hardball and traded it off.
Another was a compensated racegun that never had to handle anything but roundnose, which it did well.
The other two required a good deal of recontouring of the integral ramps so they would serve as FEED ramps. They are reliable now, but the case support is no greater than with a standard barrel, because the ramp angle and chamber entry were altered to simulate the standard layout. They haven't blown any caseheads, though.

The plunger tube certainly should be attached solidly. Strange they seemed to have less trouble with that in the past than you hear about now. I suspect it is because, while you can set up a CNC machine to cut the outside shape and even the magazine well and action recesses, it is too tough to teach it to countersink the inside of the holes. And too time consuming to teach the assembler how to do it. Which leaves you looking for an integral tube, a keyed tube, a solder job, or a gunsmith who knows how to do it right.

[1911Tuner]

While not detracting anything from your honest opinions,

Opinions? 45 years of experience working with the 1911s puts it a little beyond simple opinion, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, the slides and frames aren't hammer forged to rough shape. They're machined from forged billets. Major difference.

I don't have issues with cast frames, assuming they're within spec.
Slides? That's a different story. They take a beating.

Nothing is perfect, and all machines have flaws. It's the nature of the compromise beast...but you make it sound like the 1911 is so full of'em that it's a miracle that they don't fall apart when they're fired. One might wonder how it managed to remain in service with the US military for 3 quarters of a century, being that it's such a dog and all.

The weak point in the design is the magazine. The magazine isn't an accessory, but rather part of the system. If the magazine fails, the whole system breaks down.

As far as the plunger tube goes...made of the proper material...steel...and correctly staked in place with the correct prep on the frame to allow good riveting...it'll likely be there when the gun is worn out. Again...Come see a real 1911 pistol.

The problem nowadays is that the manufacturers know that they're essentially building a toy, and they know that 90% of the guns that leave their assembly line won't see enough use for anything to break. They also know that the serious players will immediately see to their shoddy parts and fitting, and upgrade accordingly...the way I've had to do with the current crop of pistols.

My problem is that my supply of used and NOS USGI parts are dwindling, and I hoard them like gold.

FWIW, my beaters are not only my recreational shooters, but they're also test platforms for various "Wonderous New and Improved" aftermarket parts...and they see a lot of use.

Until just recently, I averaged 50-60k a year, and looking forward to getting back up to speed soon if I can find another good source for wheelweights so I can get my bullet stocks replenished. I get nervous when they fall below 50,000. ;)

[Old Fuff]

Well you are going to get some response, but not to worry. I believe in discussing the issues, and not attacking the messenger. ;)

Those who are familiar with all of John Browning’s pistol designs know that with the exception of the Colt 1911 and pre-Woodsman model he used external extractors. Early prototypes of what would become the 1911 also had external extractors. As for the Browning Hi-Power, it originally had an internal extractor, but this was change well after World War Two.

Since he was predisposed to use external extractors, why did he change when it came to the 1911 design? The answer is because the Army wanted a way to remove the extractor, as well as other parts, without having to use any special tools, such as a pin-punch and hammer. This way they could clean the channel and extractor in the field or replace it without requiring an armorer. The same thinking applied to the original Browning P-35.

Sometimes external extractors seem to work (Smith & Wesson) and sometimes they don’t (Kimber), but if you ever have the misfortune of getting some dirt and mud into the pistol you will quickly discover the advantages of Browning’s thinking here.

At this time no one makes an internal extractor using the government’s material and heat-treating specifications. It is important because the extractor is supposed to be a spring – same way as in 98 Mauser and Springfield 1903 rifles. As Tuner pointed out, when you use the “”real thing,” and properly fit and adjust it they will keep ticking for a long, long time.

Today’s manufacturers, or at least most of them, don’t want to go to the trouble and expense required to use the proper materials, and do the necessary fitting and adjusting, and an external extractor is the easy way out. However this doesn’t necessarily make them better.

When Browning developed the 1911 he only had to work with one cartridge, that being the standard 230-grain ball. Today users want to feed it anything but ball ammunition. As Tuner pointed out this can be done using the standard barrel, and in fact you can get the Old Warhorse to hand-feed empty cases with no modification to either the frame’s ramp nor a standard USGI barrel, and that includes polishing of either or both. While the case head may be better supported with a ramped barrel, it’s hardly necessary if you are using loads that meet recognized industry standards. Those that want to exceed them are on their own.

Most of the small part failure you see in current production guns is because those parts are made using MIM technology. This in itself may be good or bad, but the problem is that the gun manufacturers opt for the vendor that makes the least expensive part, and not necessarily the best one.
Your point about plunger tubes is well taken. Most of the problem is because the makers no longer stake them, but try to keep them in place using an adhesive. Next time you find a loose one, check and see if the holes in the frame were countersunk and the posts have a cupped end.

The slide wiggles too much? How much is too much is a matter of judgment. You can have a lot of wiggle and still have a pistol that meets service pistol standards for accuracy. But if it is too much it’s a manufacturing/quality control issue that has nothing to do with the pistol’s design or the methods used to fabricate the frame and slide.

The big problem with today’s pistols is that they are much too tight, lack competent assembling, quality control and inspection is largely lacking, and there is a massive, “if it sells it can’t be wrong” attitude.

Personally, I wish they’d make the pistol like the designer intended, and stop trying to improve it.

[icanthitabarn]

There is something wrong with this world when Tuner has to worry about wheel weights. :)

[Wvladimire]

Jim,

I don't have a problem with cast, forged, or what ever. My point being was that if you are happy with the gun, it fits your hand, and you shoot great with it, then be happy with it. You can add accessories later and have it re-finished.

My point about forgings was to inform the public, what the big companies who make 1911's call forgings, and what we the consumer believe a forging to be. To say a slide or frame is forged, when it is only made from a forged billet or barstock, then 90 some % machined, that is misleading and not a true forging. Hammer forged where most of the shape in done by a hammer forging machine is what most of the consumers have in mind when they hear the word "forged."

The brand who had problems with the external extractor, is the one that is considered to be the industry standard for perfection in the 1911 design. They made the external extractor too small and too weak to work properly. The German company who just got into the 1911 market a few years ago, has the external extractor right, with no problems.

The Feds who have brand S make their 1911's for the tactical team has improved the design. Extractor included. Only problem is it takes possibly two years to get one made, and it is not available to the public. Yes there is a civilian model, but it is not the same pistol.

Again I did not post this information to have debates or argue points. I posted this information sort of as a PSA and to get some of things off my chest that have been bothering me lately from the 1911 makers.

I believe I said that mentioning some of these things would not sit well with purists to the 1911 design. Fact is, there are improvements to the design that the american companies have not followed up on. Which I wish they would have, magaizines being included Tuner. Slide stops would also be another improvement. So I don't have to carry a spare with me to the range, even though I use the bulletproof or hardcore series from brand name manufacturer's.

[rcmodel]

I will say again that I was not expecting anyone to respond to the post.Then why did you post it?

IMO: Your opinion and advice is of little value, because it is wrong in so many ways.

But I gotta go.
The GI extractor I put in my 1911 match gun in 1969 must be way overdo for a tuning!

Because I haven't even touched it since then, except to take it out and clean it a few times!

rcmodel

[Wvladimire]

I'm gonna give OLD FLUFF an AMEN brother. That was the point I was trying to get across. That the big companies do not take the time or expense to make things to spec. And that they mislead the consumer with their wording, to how the part was actually made, and how the consumer thinks it's made.

Old Fluff you are much more eloquent in making you point than I am. so I conceed to your wisdom of words.

Thanks

[Wvladimire]

Tuner, I'll give you a diddo too. I do believe that some of the older model 1911's made back during WWII, Korea, or Vietnam are better made than todays. Yes the GI parts are well made and I too am hording all that I can, because they are so well made. They were made to work, tempered correctly, and just plain good ol quality american made workmanship.

Sadly, we don't really see that today. Back in the day, when they said it was forged, it was forged, not mostly machined or cast.

[Jim Watson]

Wvladimire, I dunno about "we the consumer".
I have seen pictures of raw forgings for major gun parts, know what they look like, and have a good idea of what is required to turn them into finished products.

I know what is going on in the manufacture of a hammer forged barrel and how it differs from drop forging a rough part to be machined into a large irregular piece.

I am not responsible for the buying public's ignorance on the subject.


Also, can you provide of details on the improvements made in the FBI's guns not available in the "civilan" version advertised to be the same product?

[Wvladimire]

Jim I sent you a private message with the answer to your question. If you have anymore, please feel free to contact me. One thing I will say is that the FBI's TRP has a heavy duty match grade extractor, heat treated to their specifications. The regular TRP sold to the public has a standard one.

There are other changes that I list in the e-mail. I have shot one of the earlier models that was released to the public that a friend has, which at that time was exactly the same as the one the feds use. And it was the best feeling, best shooting, and smoothest cycling 1911 I have ever handled and fired. Better even than some custom guns. If I had the money and could buy one, I would. But the earlier ones I have seen at shows and gun stores, sell for nearly double of what the newer ones go for.

Again to those reading, this is my opinion on the TRP, not all may agree.

[Jim Watson]

I did not know you were talking about the TRP, which barely qualifies as a 1911, it has so many mutations. I was considering the original Professional Model of conventional configuration except for a few fad items.

After that, we are getting down into catalog specifications and advertising claims. Woo, woo.

[Wvladimire]

Agreed Jim.

[1911Tuner]

At this time no one makes an internal extractor using the government’s material and heat-treating specifications. It is important because the extractor is supposed to be a spring –

There's something to be said for making a part function as its own spring. Fewer parts is one of them.

The specifications called for 1075-1090 steel of Austenitic fgrain size 7 or smaller...hardened and drawn to spring temper...and done like that...they will withstand a lot of abuse.

Newer extractors are actually made of better stuff, metallurgically speaking. The trouble is that they're not springs, and many are so inflexible that they require modifications to allow them to function more like a spring. Correctly done...they also hold up very well. I've been dinkin' with'em since the aftermarket jumped into the small parts segment...and I finally got it figured out. Shame that we have to do things like that, but such is the state of the art.

I also discovered that the highest-priced extractor...or the toughest-sounding extractor...isn't necessarily the best. Wilson's Bulletproof is a prime example. Chuck Rogers suggested that I try the Wilson Heavy-Duty...so I did. It's a better extractor for a buck less, though if both are correctly executed, either one will do nicely. I've switched to the Heavy-Duty, since I usually order a dozen at a time, but if I needed one, and they were out of stock, I wouldn't hesitate to order the Bulletproof.

Of course, the small supply of genuine USGI extractors that I have on hand are mine. MINE! ...and ya can't have any of'em! :evil:

My first rebuild...complete rebuild...was in 1964, under the tutelage of my father and my uncle...a retired Navy armorer. It was an Ithaca that dad picked up at a gun show for 35 bucks. He spent an additional 15 dollars for a barrel and various small parts from the same vendor. The original extractor and ejector were good, so we used them. I still have the gun, and though I put it into semi-retirement in the late 80s since they became sought-after collectibles...it did fairly hard service for me during the years that I shot it. I'd estimate probably 50,000 rounds with no more than spring changes and one worn disconnect that I replaced just before I put it up. I shoot it once a year, on the anniversary of my father's death...and it works just fine. Oh! I like to be as gentle as possible on the old ugly girl...so I use lead SWC ammo loaded to about 800 fps. No. It's never been modified to handle SWC ammo. The barrel and feed ramps are Simon-pure USGI.

[jmorris]

It has been my experience that non ramped barrels are just fine for 45 the other calibers seem to be better off with a ramped barrel. I have seen more problems with external extractors than internal. Almost all of the external designs are different and seem to change periodically (two signs that there is no method to get them as reliable as internal). I do use Aftec extractors in some of my non 45 1911’s as they seem to work better than the original design. As for improvements on the design by American companies take a look at sviguns.com and stiguns.com, the only thing I’ve felt slicker than an SVI is….well I can’t talk about that here.

[1911Tuner]

It has been my experience that non ramped barrels are just fine for 45

Mine has been that it's harder to get a .45 caliber pistol to feed with a ramped barrel than in the original configuration.

The first integrally ramped barrels that I remember seeing were on doublestack open .38 Super guns back when some few were overloading the cartridge off the scale, and using small rifle primers to keep from blowing them. They needed all the case head support that they could get, and even that wasn't enough sometimes. A couple that I talked to to told me that they started with unfired brass...fired it...reloaded it once...and tossed it after the second firing. With pressures like that, I think I'd want a fully enclosed case head.

But standard .45 ACP pressures...even +P? Unnecessary and oft times persnickety.

The big clew here is that the barrel ramp isn't a feedway or bullet nose guide. It's a clearance. The bullet nose properly glances up off the feed ramp and skids across the top corner of the barrel ramp with minimal or no contact with the barrel ramp's face...or the "throat" as it's come to be incorrectly called for some obscure reason.

[Jim K]

I continually see quite a lot of praise for Browning in the design of the BHP. Odd, because he didn't even design it and never saw one!

Jim

[Wvladimire]

From Duane Thomas
Handguns magazine 1994

***Come on, folks, if John Browning was alive today, do you really think he'd be designing guns like the 1911? Heck no, (Actually, Browning had moved far beyond the 1911 by the time he died in 1926. In his prototype for the Browning Hi-Power, already completed at the time of his death, he did away with many of the flaws of the basic 1911 design.)***

[1911Tuner]

Come on, folks, if John Browning was alive today, do you really think he'd be designing guns like the 1911?

it's almost funny that people still think that Browning had complete autonomy, and that he disappeared behind a door and appeared a few weeks later with the 1911 pistol.

It wasn't his Holy Grail. It was an assignment...a paying job, and that's all it was. He gave the US Army what he was asked for. No more and no less. He did the same with the P35 for what little time he was actually involved with it, and he didn't have a thing to do with the final design. Nothing.

Dudonne Saive (sp?) and a team of engineers at FN finished it.
It did have an internal extractor early on, though.

The 1911 has a grip safety because it was asked for. If the Hi-Power had been requested with a grip safety, you can bet dollars to donut holes that it would be wearing one today.

It's also strange that people seem to have the notion that he designed it all by himself when he actually had a team of Colt's top engineers at his disposal...and they all had a hand in it, as did several members of the Army Ordnance Board. There were probably no fewer than 50 hands in it by the time it was finished.

I'd also be willing to bet that...by the time the Army gave the go-ahead...Browning was likely pretty sick of the whole project, and ready to move on.

Strange notions.

[1911Tuner]

Come on, folks, if John Browning was alive today, do you really think he'd be designing guns like the 1911?

And...

Apparently Gaston Glock, Bill Ruger, the good folks at H&K and a few others thought it was a pretty good idea.

Take a close look at those and other designs. Tilt barrel...Locked Breech...Recoil operated. A few cosmetic changes, linkless barrel operation, and differences in the fire control setups...but they're all pure Browning under the skin.

[Jim Watson]

Mr Browning had more to do with the final design of the BHP than you might think.
D. Saive was no dummy as a designer, but he was also no dummy as a developer. One of his means of getting a gun to market after Mr Browning's death was to plow 1911 design elements into the FN gun as patents assigned to Colt ran out. He kept the cam-track locking and walking beam sear linkage but used patent-expired 1911 stuff when he keyed the gun's assembly to a lateral slide stop shaft, moved the safety to the side of the receiver, and put in a barrel bushing (removable like a Colt's in prototypes, pressed in for production.)

[1911Tuner]

Mr Browning had more to do with the final design of the BHP than you might think.

Yeah...there's all that, but I was thinkin' more hands-on. He died in 1926...nearly 9 years before the P35 was a reality. Like Mr. Keenan said. He never saw one.

[f4t9r]

For a Thread that was not looking for any replies,this turned into a pretty good read.

[1911Tuner]

For a Thread that was not looking for any replies,this turned into a pretty good read.

Yeah...Threads like this usually do evolve into a historical/technical discussion. The problem with the 1911 is its enormous popularity long after it should have fallen by the wayside. Like the '94 Winchester and the '98 Mauser...it just hangs on like a bulldog. Along with this popularity comes those who want a piece of the pie...and it goes downhill from there as they implement their own ideas of "within spec."

The other part of the problem is mainly because there are so few under the age of 50 or so who have had a real one in their hands long enough to appreciate it, let alone able to actually use what is fast becoming a collectible that is far too valuable to shoot more than a magazineful through every 5-10 years for nostalgia's sake. Even I've put my old warhorses in mothballs...former carry guns...save the pair of WW2-era USGI Colts that I sometimes carry, though I don't shoot'em very much any more.

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

The problem with the 1911 is its enormous popularity long after it should have fallen by the wayside. Like the '94 Winchester and the '98 Mauser...it just hangs on like a bulldog.

How true!!!

Any smith that was to tell me that 1911 needs a ramped barrel and external extractor to be reliable and accurate, tells me that he/she doesn't know how to make the original design work properly.

There are derivatives since the original WWII era 1911's that even Colt and Springfield made some minor changes to, (I'll call'm mistakes), but to say that an external extractor is better or that a ramped barrel would provide more case support... For a low pressure cartridge, (Yes, the 1911 was designed for the .45acp. Not other cartridges!) Oh it's just another smith trying to redesign what works very well for its intended purpose.

I have Colts and a Kimber. Internal and external extractors. Forged and MIM. Not a dogon problem with any of them. I shoot LSWC in them too! Not RN. They function fine! No, I don't have a safe full of 1911's like others do. But I have thousands of rounds through what I own. Not the numbers of what Tuner has through his, but probably more than the average guy.

Show me a Bullseye shooter that's been doing it for a while, that shoots a 1911 with a ramped barrel. Or one that uses an external extractor slide. I bet if I put an order in for one with either feature to Clark or Ed Masaki, my check would be sent back post haste with a note that they have the right to choose what customers they service. Many think that reliability is second to accuracy to the Bullseye shooter. That is not true. So tell me why champion BE shooters are shooting guns that are of WWII vintage and design. -Because the nonramped, internal extracted, non MIM, non FLGR guns do shoot reliably and accurately. (I don't shoot a built BE gun, but only because I can't afford one yet. I'll get one some day. Non ramped barrel. Internal extractor.)

Oh.. And another thing.. I don't consider myself an expert in much. I'm a computer geek by profession. I do consider myself the average gun consumer. (many know more than I, some know less than I about guns and metallurgy) So I take offense to the claim that we don't know the differences of investment casting, forged and hammer forging processes. We may not be able to walk into a foundry and do the job, but we got a pretty good idea of what's goin on.

Hmm... Who's got production and sales numbers for say 'pre-series 80/1911A1' designs? Got any other numbers from other manufactures -non1911- that even comes close? OK, the BHP was built for the 9x19. As were a bunch of new era plastic pistols. I'm curious.. Why is it that most every auto loader is compared to the 1911? -Even the DA models.

How could you possibly think that a thread like this would not generate responses?

-Steve

[Wvladimire]

To tell you the truth, I didn't think there was anything to respond too.

I mentioned improved extractors just wanting Joe blow to make sure they got a good one. Match grade, bullet proof, hard core, are all made by reputable companies.

Ramped barrels are made by three companies I believe.

And as far as the rest I just wanted to educate Joe Blow about how some companies mislead them with their wording.

It appears as though I was wrong. I didn't want to push one brand over another, that is why I did not name them. And I also wanted people to know that buying a name brand doesn't gaurantee a quality product. I just wanted the average 1911 buyer to really look over their pistol and make sure things were as they should be. My apologies but my intentions were pure.

[jmorris]

And as far as the rest I just wanted to educate Joe Blow about how some companies mislead them with their wording.


For the most part “New and improved” is a term better off on my laundry detergent than my 1911’s.

[Old Fuff]

The problem is that not everyone sees the "improvements" you advocate as really being better. You have every right to have your opinions about these things, and to express your views in various posts.

Jeff Cooper once remarked to me that everyone had a right to have an opinion about anything, and an obligation to defend it. But the value of any opinion depended on the knowledge and experience concerning that subject that the holder has. If the opinion has value it can stand up to examination, and if it doesn’t it will soon fall to the wayside.

In general there are to kinds of 1911 pistols. First, those made by Colt and various government contractors between 1911 and about 1965. These were all made to specifications and dimensions that are found in easily obtainable U.S. Army blueprints. The others are post-1965 pistols made by various private companies and Colt who abandoned the older requirements and made various changes - mostly based on reducing production costs. Others were simply cosmetic in nature. The cosmetic affectations seldom affected reliability, but others did. This was especially true when tolerances were tampered with to tighten things up. While custom gunsmiths had been doing this for years to build maximum-accuracy bullseye match guns, each one was bench-made and carefully hand fitted. Too many of the newer guns were made tighter, but not fitted, and the buyer was led to believe that this was normal, and they should spend the money to buy ammunition to “break it in.” In other instances parts were made from non-specification materials without adequate testing to determine if issues might lie in the future. All taken together the result was that the guns sometimes didn’t work, and as a result the 1911 pistol’s fine reputation suffered. Some even went so far as to say that the Browning design was a fault, and needed to be changed. Curiously, the unmodified pistols made before 1965 (give or take) had generally worked fine, and the functional problems so often seen now had come about after the tinkering had started. Younger shooters that have little or no experience with pre-’65 guns may be fooled, but old-timers that have experienced both know the difference.

So by all means continue to advocate the changes you recommended. But be aware that there are others out there that can match and exceed your knowledge and experience that will argue differently, and they are not “industry trolls.” This doesn’t mean you’re wrong, just that you can’t sell your ideas in a vacuum where there is nothing else offered. We encourage discussion and debate, as it leads in the long run to better understanding.

[Jerry Keefer]

Well, Old Fuff;

You and I have banged heads a time or two, but I must commend you on this one...that is a very good post.

Jerry

[1911Tuner]

My apologies but my intentions were pure.

We never doubted it, and no apology necessary. No harm, no foul.

And as far as the rest I just wanted to educate Joe Blow about how some companies mislead them with their wording.

I've been trying to do the same for lo these many years...but to little avail.

A look in the catalogs will reveal a claim of "Tool Steel" and when the part comes...it's MIM made from powdered 4140 or 4340, or an investment casting from the same material, thus not violating the letter of "Truth in Advertising...but still misleading, even though the manufacturer never claimed that it was machined from toolsteel barstock. Gotta read the fine print and ask questions...even though they may not get a straight answer.

Fuff and I were trying to educate you as well. While many of your thoughts were spot on, some were a little wide of the mark...so we shared our collective hands-on experience that spans several decades. The current crop of production 1911 pistols is so far removed from the original concept that it's almost gotten to the point that...much like a 427 Cobra kit car...it only looks like the real thing.

Yes, I'll have to admit that there have been a few improvements along the way that serve a segment of the buyers. Custom features that one may prefer, while another places no importance on. Diff'rent strokes and all that...but too many of those "improvements" leave the buyer with something less than a rugged, reliable go anywhere sidearm that can be serviced in the field without the aid of an armorer, and without tools. A pistol that can be immersed in thick mud...dunked in water and agitated...shaken off, and work without having to be disassembled and thoroughly cleaned before it can be returned to service.

Call me a purist if you like, but after seeing the pistol change so drastically over the last 25-30 years, and having to address so many functional problems as a result of many of these changes...I've found that sticking with the original specs as closely as possible takes care of about 98% of the issues. With these...most problems are simple in origin and simple to correct. With the ones that have been turned into something that they were never intended to be...sometimes it's not so simple.

Like I said earlier. This keyboard would rust up solid...

[Old Fuff]

You and I have banged heads a time or two, but I must commend you on this one...that is a very good post.

Not to worry, I have a very hard head....

Besides, I'm always right... ;) :D

[1911Tuner]

Not to worry, I have a very hard head....

That comes from 20 years livin' in a cave with big rocks for pillows...

I'm glad to see Jerry was followin' this one. He's a serious wrench for things Bullseye, and he can tell you what it takes to build a 1911 pistol that's not only wicked, scary accurate...but reliable as well. Hint: We're talkin' about a pistol that'll run ya in the neighborhood of 4 thousand bucks...if you supply the frame and slide.

My builds have largely been rebuilds of old USGI and Commercial Colts or badly worn recently manufactured pistols. I don't tighten any of them beyond minimum ordnance spec...or at the tight end of allowable clearances set by the original design. Even when I fit a match barrel...I deliberately loosen things up just a bit if it's too tightly fitted for my purposes.

Again...Diff'rent strokes. Jerry and others who do what he does have a specific goal for the pistol. I have a different goal is all.
Mine is to wind up with a 1911 or 1911A1 pistol that is as good as it could be and still fall within US Army specs for a SERVICE grade pistol.

What many don't understand is that when the armorers first began to rebuild the guns for Bullseye competition, the guns were selected from existing stocks and test-fired with match-grade ammuniton. Those that shot into 3 inches or less at 50 yards were sent to the armorers to be fine-tuned for competition. Those that didn't were returned to inventory for service. 3.01 inches failed...and there were a good many that passed and even surpassed the minimum requirement. It was my understanding that there were many, many more that barely failed...just barely.

Good luck finding a production 1911 today that'll shoot into 3 inches...or even 5 or 6.

[Old Fuff]

That comes from 20 years livin' in a cave with big rocks for pillows...

20 years my foot! I couldn't move into the first one until I chased out a dinosaur. :what: :what: :what:

I do wish that Mr. Browning had come up with a bigger pistol. :D

[45auto]

Good discussion and read.

Aside from the "cheaper parts" that are used today, compared to yesteryear, it would be interesting to note some of the subtle changes.

Already noted that just "tightening" up a design lead to trouble, without the benefit of experienced handwork.

But, with CNC machines and the "right" bluprints, wouldn't be easier to produce a consistent, reliable 1911?

Just wondering.

[1911Tuner]

But, with CNC machines and the "right" bluprints, wouldn't be easier to produce a consistent, reliable 1911?

It should...at least in theory. It hasn't shown to be consistently the case. There's always a tolerance, and there's no such thing as a perfect dimension...though some extremely skilled hands can get very close.

[Jim Watson]

... the tight end of allowable clearances set by the original design. Even when I fit a match barrel...I deliberately loosen things up just a bit if it's too tightly fitted for my purposes.

That is the sort of thing some old guy name of Jeff Cooper called a "half accuracy job" suitable for nearly all purposes short of 50 yard slowfire.

But, with CNC machines and the "right" bluprints, wouldn't be easier to produce a consistent, reliable 1911?

There are some makers doing that on the big parts. I am told that one or more of the more controversial makes (In the OP's policy of not naming names, isn't that sweet?) has really straight, square, smooth, and tight slide, frame, and barrel.
It appears from Internet Reports that it is the ersatz materials and the departures from Colt design in the small parts that give the most trouble. What Jan Stevenson called "the maze of little fink parts" that made the 1911 an expensive design to produce at modern labor rates. He did not forsee the cheapening of those bits.

[Howard Roark]

Wow, Reading all this makes me wonder how I shot IPSC for 10 years with so few problems.

[The Lone Haranguer]

The extractor as you mentioned, never having to do anything with, worked out for you. But in all honesty, it is an inherent flaw in the design.
An "improved" external extractor on another make of "1911" I had broke off its claw after about 300 rounds.

[45auto]

There are some makers doing that on the big parts. I am told that one or more of the more controversial makes (In the OP's policy of not naming names, isn't that sweet?) has really straight, square, smooth, and tight slide, frame, and barrel.


I have "read" KIMBER ;) does produce very good "big parts", just as you detailed.

Old Fuff and Tuner have any opinion on that?

I believe, if that's all true, and they didn't have the series II, they would be selling even more than they do...which is a lot.

I'd rather "replace" small parts than "refit" big parts or have them fail...IMHO.

[1911Tuner]

Old Fuff and Tuner have any opinion on that?

Kimber probably doesn't produce many...if any...of its own parts...big or little.

[Jim Watson]

I thought they CNCed their machined parts themselves. At one time there was a gunzine free advertisement (feature article) about how S&W was making their rough forgings but Kimber was doing the milling.

Heaven knows where the MIM mung metal pieces come from. I have seen an advertisement for a MIM firm in India showing recognizeable firearms parts identifiable by model if not by brand.

[1911Tuner]

Jim...Finish machining isn't producing the parts any more than reboring an engine block is. There are several steps involved with producing a single finished part starting with a block of steel. These days, outsourcing is the name of the game, and they're all doing it. They have to in order to remain competitive. Complete in-house production is a thing of the past.

[Art Eatman]

I in no way call myself a gunsmith, although I've been able to make 1911 triggers work better than when I first acquired the pistols. :)

I gotta admit to getting ungruntled at the notion of, "...should have fallen by the wayside." Why? The dang things work. Mine, always. Press trigger, loud noise, big pill heads down range. Repeat as desired. What's not to like?

And after some sixty years, a 1911 still fits my hand just fine. "It's an ergonomic thing." :D

I dunno. After some 25 years of buy/sell/trade with gunshow tables, I guess about the only pistol I haven't messed with has been a Sig. That's from Lilliput to Desert Eagle. The thing is, a darned old 1911 is sorta like putting on an old pair of shoes.

But new doesn't necessarily equate to improved.

Art

[onebigelf]

If I missed where someone already said this, sorry. Extractor problems in the 1911, once it has been properly setup, are almost always a USER ISSUE. This problem is most frequently a result of folks that like to drop the slide on a chambered round, forcing the extractor to snap over the case rim. Bends the extractors. Anyone who knows the design will tell you, you want to carry a full mag plus 1? Do it properly. Load the mag, chamber a round, drop the mag and reload the extra round. Extractors will last more than you'll ever shoot unless you are a professional competitor.

John