[cslinger]

Obviously 1911s are a huge contention point amongst us gunnies. My questions are these.

Was the original 1911 designed around a 5 inch barrel/slide?
Was the original 1911 designed around 230 grain round nose ammo?
Was the original 1911 designed around a 7 round single stack magazine.

If the above is true are we asking too much out of ole' slabsides when we start deviating from the path.

It seems like everybody who gets a nice basic Colt 1991A1, Springfield Mil-Spec.....etc. and so on is generally very happy with the performance. I know I am.

But as soon as you get a smaller barrel length or use a huge hollow point or smaller bullet weight or larger capacity magazines it seems that a good percentage will have a malfunction or another. Now I am not talking about it simply refusing to work but they seem to malfunction more then my other types of firearms.

Once again my 1991A1 is awesome I love the thing but it is pretty true to the original design and I use 7 round magazines and stick to 230 grain ammo.

Is the design itself limited? Please don't take this post as a bash or anything I am just wondering what peoples opinions are regarding the 1911 design and whether or not it is a firearm that needs to follow it's original recipe to always get it right but when you mess with what works(5 inch, 7 rounders, loose, etc.) it causes problems.

Another question is does it have something to do with the fact that the 1911 requires a reasonably large amount of skilled labor versus CNCLASERWATERCUTTINCOMPUTERCADCOOKIECUTTER manufacturing. Is it just a matter of the human element dropping the ball from time to time and the newer designs requiring less human interaction and fitting?

Once again I love 1911s, I shoot them well, they feel great, they are easy to carry and conceal but I just don't think I could trust my life to one given the choice of other options and I find myself never wanting to pay big bucks for one of the really nice ones for fear of getting the Monday morning hangover gun.

Any thoughts. Is it hand fitting skilled labor requirements or is a design recipe that should be followed and when deviated from it can cause issues.

I just got to thinking about this because of the Kimber vs. SIG quality thread.

Chris

[cslinger]

yeah yeah yeah. I know the BHP was his masterpiece, blah blah blah.:D
Just kidding.

[Correia]

Nah. I'm going to have to disagree. I think that we have see malfunctions because there are lots of designs out there that push the envelope, true, but I also think that the envelope has been successfully pushed on the 1911 more than any other gun ever.

On one end you have guns like the Ultra Carry, Micro Carry, LS, BLS, Ranger, etc. where the gun has been chopped down to tiny dimensions.

On the other end of the spectrum you can get an SVI with a 27 round magazine of 9x21.

You can get 1911s chambered in cartridges that border on .44 magnum power. You can also get them in .22.

You can get gas operated 1911s. You can get 1911s with external extractors. You can get double action 1911s. You can get them with ramped barrels, compensators, double stack magazines, and skull crushing ninja spikes. (no I did not make that last one up either!) :p

Sure there are 1911s with problems, but for the most part I think the design is sound, and it lends itself to being stretched really successfully.

There are 1911s that have problems, but in my experience most of the reliability problems with the 1911 have been blown way out of proportion. There are some bad ones out there, no doubt, but I honestly believe that the vast majority of them work just fine.

[doctorhumbert]

You can get them with ramped barrels, compensators, double stack magazines, and skull crushing ninja spikes.

Where can I get Skull Crushing Ninja Spikes?
Is this the thing that used to be attatched to muzzle via acc. rail?
I think I saw it on the gun rag once.

It would be nice to have retractable pointed spike on the bottom of the main spring housing (like auto knife) instead, so I can bash/poke people to death with it while it holding the gun form the slide like a tomahawk.

Or how about recoil spring guide bayonet? 3" spring loaded blade or a spike within the recoil spring guide?

How about emergency single shot .22 pistol that attatchese to the acc. rail guns?

Think of the possibilities!

Wait! Did I just invent yet another 1911 gizmo?!!!:D

[Correia]

Doctor, I don't recall from what issue, but it was about 10 years ago, it was the cover gun on American Handgunner. I believe it was a custom job from Allen Zitta. And I kid you not, it had a spike on the end of the grip. :D

[Quartus]

Was the original 1911 designed around a 5 inch barrel/slide?

Yes.

Was the original 1911 designed around 230 grain round nose ammo?

No. 200 grain. The Army wanted 230.

Was the original 1911 designed around a 7 round single stack magazine.

Yes.

If the above is true are we asking too much out of ole' slabsides when we start deviating from the path.


No. Innovation is a GOOD thing!

[BHPshooter]

and for you BHP people... yeah yeah yeah. I know the BHP was his masterpiece, blah blah blah.

Well... Yes and no. Don't believe that crap about the BHP "correcting the problems that were in the 1911," it's bunk.

The BHP began as a service pistol for France (:D :rolleyes: Yeah, I know...), who had pretty strict demands for their pistol. The original was to be a 15-round capacity with an 8-inch barrel, weighing under 2.2 pounds. JMB had to work around the 1911 patents, since he sold them to Colt, so he ended up with two different prototype pistols with breech-bolt lockup assemblies (as the 1911 style lockup was one of the Colt patents); one hammer-fired, one striker-fired. FN adopted the striker-fired model to pursue a model for the French. For whatever reason, probably that they weren't designed to be dropped :D , the French never accepted the design.

In 1925, JMB died, so FN's Dieudonne Saive took over. JMB's patent was granted in 1927. (interesting note -- the patent DID NOT mention the high-capacity magazine, some think this is because they were afraid it would help their competitors.)

In 1928, Colt's patent ended, and the 1911-style lockup was adopted. It was finally finished in 1934. In 1935, Belgium adopted it as it's standard sidearm, making this the model of 1935.

And the French never ordered even ONE Hi Power. :eek:



-----------------------------



In case you didn't want to read that, the short story is: JMB had to compete against himself when making the P35. That, and HE didn't make the entire pistol, anyhow.

Okay, carry on. :)

Wes

[Double Naught Spy]

Probably the first obstacle to get past is the absolutely wrong perspective that the 1911 is JMB's masterpiece. The gun recognized as a masterpiece is the bastard step child of JMB's prototype works and count changes demanded by the military over a period of years beyond their original request for submissions first answered by a submission in 1906 of the 1905 model being developed. Successive changes had to be implemented over previous changes that had been made which involved a variety of design changes.

You just gotta love the folks who believe that the 1911 was some beautiful creation handed down by God to JMB and that the marvelous design so capitvated the military that it was adopted and used for decades. You hear or see written things like, "If JMB didn't think the 1911 needed it, then it didn't." Usually the statement is some sort of rationalization for having a mil-spec gun and claiming no changes could actually be improvements. Well JMB didn't want some of the crap that ended up as the 1911. What was wanted was to satisfy the ever changing military requirements so as to get a cushy government contract that would help keep the company funded.

The 1911 is far from being some great work of art, designed in isolation by some hermit genius and then handed down from the mountain to benefit us mortals. It was what it was, a corporate bastard stepchild and a darned good one. Oh, and FYI, Browning didn't work on the 1911 by himself. It was a team effort. So some of his "masterpiece" really isn't of his doing.

With that perspective in mind, now realize that we are not shooting the same ammo we used to shoot. We have faster powders, slower powders, and we shoot ammo at pressures different from the original design. We use different weight and different material projectiles. It all figures into the equation.

The 1911 design was fairly sound, but it was a balanced design. When you deviate from the center line of balance, then compensations need to be made. Sometimes they are, sometimes not. To further compound matters, some mullet at some point decided that marketing 1911s with loose tolerances could be said to be done in that manner which it what makes the 1911 so reliable. That was crap. The original 1911s were not rattlebucket guns with loose tolerances. Most of the WWI guns were well made with tight tolerances and were reliable weapons.

[BHPshooter]

Wow, DNS, I learned a lot from your post. Thanks.

Wes

[Nero Steptoe]

One should always be aware that the 1911 really is a remarkable piece, considering that JMB was limited by late 19th century, early 20th century technology. You can bet that his masterpiece wouldn't resemble a 1911, were he designing firearms today.

It's no wonder that many gunsmiths thrive on charging thousands of dollars per pistol, in order to get the 1911's to just feed, function, and shoot accurately.

If JMB were designing today, he'd probably design a utilitarian semi-auto handgun with no more than, say, 32 or 33 parts...maybe with a striker, rather than the hammer-and-sear anachronism. My best guess is that he'd choose a polymer frame, due to the weight savings and double-stack the mags, so that one could have, hmmmmmmmmmm, maybe 13 rounds of .45ACP. He'd design such a weapon so that a gunsmith's services were never needed! ;)

[Blueduck]

I've been asking myself this question a lot this week (especially as I have a about $700 put back and a gunshow to attend this weekend :D)

Big part of me just questions whether a 90 year old design is where somebody such as myself (no historical, or "pride of ownership" interest) needs to be looking for nothing more than a tool for self defense.

On one side you just gotta think there have been design improvements in other newer models, but I also look at the fact that from competition shooters to hi-speed low drag tactical units who also don't care about history or looks are still choosing the 1911.

Maybe it's kinda like the internal combustion engine, old (outdated??) idea but the newest most modern Corvettes and Mercedes still use a highly modified updated version of the same engine that powered the Model T just because nothing betters come along....

[Quartus]

Amont the many myths that surround the 1911 design is this one:


It's no wonder that many gunsmiths thrive on charging thousands of dollars per pistol, in order to get the 1911's to just feed, function, and shoot accurately.


They work fine out of the box. They tinker well, too.

[Sean Smith]

The answer is "sort of."

Like all designs, it was designed with the intent of having optimal function within certain parameters. Change the parameters (e.g. different caliber), and/or change the design (e.g. chopping the barrel and slide down), and you either have to compensate in some way, or you will have problems. Commercial 1911 clones, however, often simply change stuff to hit a market niche and let the customer "beta test" it through the Customer Service department.

Chop the barrel much shorter than 4.25", and the gun starts to get fussy. Too little slide mass, too much slide velocity, and pretty soon people wonder why their +1 magazines (which trade away spring and use a less stable follower to get an extra round in) don't run in their gun.

Overload .38 Super to make major power factor in the original unramped barrel, and the gun blows up. Oops. Several solutions were developed for this (ramped barrels, and the 9x23 cartridge so you don't need the ramp), because the design as it was couldn't handle high pressure cartridges with weak case designs.

You get the idea. Change isn't bad, but you may have to modify something to compensate.

[Nero Steptoe]

They work fine out of the box. They tinker well, too.

Unfortunately, "they" is a little general for the broad statement that "They work fine out of the box." Not too many $500 1911's work fine out of the box. That's a fact, not a myth. (And there are many, many gunsmiths who make a great living doing nothing more than trying to get those "out-of-the-box" 1911's to acually work.)

[Sean Smith]

That's a fact, not a myth.

It is a myth if you provide no evidence to support the claim. ;)

[Nero Steptoe]

Sean: It's not even as strong as a myth...it's just my opinion. I'd opine that it's truly a myth that all 1911's work fine out of the box.

BTW, I happen to own a couple of 1911's that do work fine, but they're darn sure not $500 1911's, made in some 3rd world country, either.

[BigG]

We've beaten this into the ground, here and elsewhere, but it still needs to be recognized that calling anything other than a US govt pistol or commercial Colt a "1911" is just flat wrong. Yes, there are many pistols that look like a "1911" but there used to be a reason people demanded trademarked items: the guarantee backed by the manufacturer's name. That may not mean anything to generation X or whatever we have now but there used to be a differnce and people woudl reject counterfeit products. I still do when it comes to the "1911."

[jercamp45]

Yep, took a number of years to get the 1911 to Army specs for acceptence. But do remember, this was when horse dung filled the streets, roads were almost non existant and the autoloading pistol was a new and unproven design(as was the internal combustion engine).
And it evolved, during the initial phases...to fit Army needs, to make it more reliable, and durable, and easy to clean and maintain. From its acceptence in 1911, it went on to serve all branches of the US military for 75 years...through world wars, police actions, in the hands of outlaws and law enforcement alike.
It continured to evolve...1911A1, National Match, Commander, etc, to todays plethora of 1911's of every size, shape, accessory, in damn near any caliber....over 20 manufacturer's globally.
Sure we expect too much of it!
It still serves the US military, Law enforcement, private civilians, and wins trophies. Still a choice of professionals who can chose nearly any other handgun made since the 1911's introduction.
I have heard alot of badmouthing of the mini's. But the three Officers and ParaLDA Companion I have owned have always worked(one must change the springs more often though!), been accurate and easy to carry. My experience compared to many on this board is very limited I am sure, I have only owned about 10 1911's and fired another 25 or so...some of those beat up 40 year old 1911A1's on guard duty. I only have experienced ONE that would not function with ball(auto-ordnance). And the beat up 1911's still put 'em all in a 3 inch circle at 50 feet, with cruddy sights and trigger(minute of badguy).
I agree with Correia...it has evolved FAR beyond anything JMB could have expected....and I am sure that his creation, yes...I'll call it a Masterpiece(you think Leanardo Davinchi did not have a few..'let's try this again's? Thomas Edison?) would make him rather proud to see that it is still being used by those that go into harms' way daily(including me!)! Still serving his country globally! JMB's work, whether 1911, BAR, M2, 1917, Winchester 97-94-etc, P-35(initial design anyway...hey, he DIED!) was incredible genius!!
Oh, the Fro......I mean French. It was common thought at the time that they were paying for the research on the double column mags, and that they would pirate the design at the earliest opportunity...and they did so! Their design was not so nice....but when you are only going to throw it down to surrender...who needs a nice pistol? Hmm, seems little has changed with France! You need the knife proof trauma plate on your back when dealing with them! Is that where chain mail armor came into being? Out of necessity? They've been odd man out through history, expecting them to grow honor and a pair of cajones all of the sudden is like expecting a frog to sprout wings. Get over it!
UN moves to Paris! US donates 1 megaton warhead, end squabble...news at 11.
OK, speech given!
Oh, Nero...you can start a thread...if JMB were alive to day...would he have designed tactical tupperware....is Gaston Glock the reincarnation of JMB? Whatever. I am sure it will generate some discussion.
Jercamp45

[BluesBear]

I bought my first 1911A1 in 1971. It was Remington Rand WWII vintage. Some goofball had rendered it inoperable by trying to squeeze the slide for a tighter fit. The Slide would NOT move at all.

I took it home, removed the grips, chucked in it the bench vise (wooden jaws) and proceeded to tap on the muzzle with a big rubber mallet. Once the slide had moved slightly I inserted a long, thick wooden dowell and tapped on the muzzle end of the dowel with a bigger hammer until I had aligned the take down notch. After removing the slide stop I then proceeded to tap on the rear of the slide with the rubber mallet until it was off. I then removed the trigger, hammer, sear, disconnector, safety and all associated pins fron the frame. Of course I removed everything from the slide incliding the firing pin.

Using a little 3in1 oil on the frame and some pink jewellers rouge on the frame (my dad had it for lapping cylinders) I proceedes to spend about 3 hours tapping the slide on and off of the frame, cleaning and replacing the oil and rouge every three cycles until it could be moved back and forth with extreme hand pressure.

About 10,00 cycles later it had settled in as smooth as you please.
I had 2 FTF with the first 100 rounds and another 2 or 3 in the next 500. After that it was a perfect in function as you could want.

Since then I have had about a dozen exGI 45 autos, 9 genuine Colts of various models, 2 Auto-Ordinance, 2 parts built guns on Essex frames and 1 Vega. About 13 were NIB and the rest were gently used. I have never had a FTF or FTE that wasn't ammo or magazine related. The same applies to the 4 Colt Super38 models I have had as well.

Some of those guns i had tinkered with quite a bit but they all worked great before and afterwards. On most of them I just did a slight feed rand deburr with some crocus cloth wrapped around a pencil. On the rest I did absolutely nothing.

I would have or did depend on them with my life and all would have faithfully stood up to the task.

I am sorrowful every time I hear of someone having a problem with their 1911 style pistol. But in all honesty I just don't understand it.

But then I have never had single hammer bite with one either.

Maybe it's just me or maybe the old warhorse is a wonderful machine after all.
;)


BTW the most I have ever paid for a 45 is $550
:p

[Abominable No-Man]

IMO, sometimes yes. The 1911(or Government Model, or whatever you want to call it) is a great design, but some of the stuff that is being done to it is abit unneeded. Granted, technology advances, and everything can benefit from it.

But making a 1911 with a polymer frame isn't going to make it into a Glock, nor is chopping one down to miniscule proportions going to make it into a Chiefs Special, nor is making one with a double-action trigger system going to make it into a SIG/Beretta/S&W, etc.

The 1911A1 is probably at it's best when it's as close as possible to the original design. Single-action, 5"bbl, etc. Granted, features that were modified to give it better reliability with hollowpoints and more user friendly(beavertail grip safety, larger thumb safety, sights, etc) greatly benefit the design, but realistically I think that's as far as it should be taken.

ANM

[Quartus]

$500 1911's, made in some 3rd world country, either.



Yugo's don't work fine, either, but nobody would think of questioning the validity of basic car design on that basis.


Most 1911's will do just what they were designed to do right out of the box: They put hardball on the target with acceptable combat accuracy a very large percentage of the time. Throwing in third world junk guns and magazines does change the picture.


It's true there are a lot of gunsmiths making money off modifications, but very little of that is directed towards basic funtionality. (Uh, third world knock-offs excepted.)

[Bren]

I'm glad someone was there to hold John Brownings hand when he designed and patented Rifles, shot guns, machine guns, and hand guns. :rolleyes:

The FACT is, if you asked for something, he built it and built it fast, "and it was good".

Name anyone else like him in the firarms industry.

It's also funny how you can take a CHEAP Chinese Norinco A1 copy and it will feed anything you load in it. :rolleyes:

Is there a law that says you have to throw money at a 1911? I usually hear this from people that don't know sqaut about how they REALLY work.

Also I've carried several 4" 1911's over the years and each were every bit as reliable as a Glock or Sig.

IS the 1911 limited? I say it has the least limits of any pistol today because you can do just about anything with them compared to other designs.

After all, anyone can make a sloppy unsupported chamber and call it perfection. :scrutiny:

The fact is, just about every firearm design was an offspring of JMB's in one way or another. Bren