[CWL]

Y'all, been trying to figure out where the myth of undependable 1911-style guns originated.

Prior to the 1970s, there weren't any complaints about 'old slabsides'. Enough veterans of WWI-WWII-Korea-Vietnam & LEOs were around to complain, if there was justification.

Near as I can figure, it began in the 1970s largely due to 2 reasons:
1) Colt got lazy and flushed their QC right down the drain. Series-70 guns started to suck, followed by Series-80 including the Gold Cups. Retirement of old-timer gunsmiths, cheaper parts plus the careless manufacture of 1911s resulted in truly bad guns, this was a parallel to overall downturn in America's pride & affected ALL American manufacturing during this time.;
2) Increase in late 1960s-1970s of IPSC & related gunplay. People started to soup-up their guns like teenagers soup-up cars -with same results, usually unknowledgable tinkering & untried parts/modifications destroyed reliability of many classic 1911s. These same guns then started showing-up for resale -and pissed-off a second generation of owners.

(Other factors probably influenced this trend/belief like cheapo clone manufacturers as well importation of alternative guns such as 9mm displaced demand.)

So I guess it isn't really a 'myth' after all, there were justifiable reasons why the 1911 went downhill during this time. It wasn't the gun design itself, just carelessness in quality and modifications.

Which lead us to today, Kimber has displaced Colt, but they are also starting to slip (Series II & uneven QC). But other manufacturers like SA, Wilson, Caspian & even Colt is stepping up to take the place if Kimber completely falters.

So I guess that it is just a cyclical happenstance?

[Stephen Ewing]

I suspect you've pretty much nailed it. The only additional possibility I'd suggest is that all the military guns had been living a hard life for 40 years before they were replaced.

Steve

[TheFrontRange]

Ditto Stephen Ewing's comments. Plus, I recall reading an article some years back in "Handguns" magazine that was attempting to debunk the validity and safety of carrying 1911s cocked-and-locked. The author, a former police officer IIRC, detailed how he'd purchased himself a minty Government Model for plainclothes use and how said pistol promptly went off "all by itself" while he packed it in an IWB holster. He escaped serious injury, and under examination the weapon was found to have been unsafely modified (I don't recall those details) by some previous owner. The writer went on to proclaim that cocked-and-locked carry was essentially like trouble looking for a place to happen.

The heck was...this incident happened in the 70s or 80s with a 1911 that dated back to at least the 1930s or so. So he was carrying a gun that was at least around 40 years old that he'd not had gone over by an armorer or 'smith! No slam intended on the longevity of Ol' Slabsides...I carry a 1911 myself...but to blame the gun and a well-accepted carry method seemed a little silly.

The magazine did have the deceny to print at least one reader's letter in the next issue calling this detail out. :)

[Still Learning]

The proliferation of shoddy, cheap, aftermarket magazines and parts along with a legion of not-too-great gunsmiths didn't help matters a bit. The bullseye competitions that were so popular years ago also led to a lot of people wanting "accuracy jobs" that often adversely affected reliability.

My older Series 70 Colts have no problems and I have had no troubles with my Kimbers to date. I insist on best quality magazines and ammo.

[BHP9]

I think the big problem these days is that in the pursuit of higher and higher profits the gun industry is all playing follow the leader. The thought being that guns like other consumer products can be made as throw away items that are designed to last only X amount of days.

The use of MIM cast parts is proving to be a real disaster both in terms of reliability and in terms of consumer trust in even name brand firearms.

Lack of quality control and lack of hand finish in the pursuit of higher and higher profits have also eroded consumer confidence in new fierarms.

Even with todays CNC machining the process has still not been perfected to the point where handguns can simply be assembled without any final hand fitting especially in regards to barrel lock up and trigger pull.

So what does this all mean to the consumer. It simply means that when he purchases a new handgun he will more than likely have functioning problems, parts breakage problems, poor trigger pulls and and pedestrian accuracy if he is lucky.

Its not just a problem with 1911's but with most handguns being made today.

Many people like myself who have been shooting and collecting all types of firearms for decades have become so disgusted with the present situation that we have quit buying new guns altogether, preferring to often pay a lot more for older weapons that are of known quality and reliablity.

[Old Fuff]

In addition to all the other reasons previously stated, so-called "high performance" ammunition arrived during the 1960's. These featured lighter weight hollow-point bullets with blunt noses and shorter overall cartridge lengths. The Government Model was designed to use 230 grain ball ammunition. It will of course function with something else, but reliability often requires modifications to the gun, and particularly to the magazine. It should come as no suprise that the old warhorse can't be expected to be reliable with anything that's fed it. Ammunition is a functional part of any automatic pistol.

[Pendragon]

I was going to say the advent of newer ammo.

Kitchen table gunsmiths.

Poor mfg.

[blades67]

Origin of the "Undependable" 1911 Myth?

It's no myth, Auto Ordnance makes more undependable 1911's than anything that works.:barf:

[Kahr carrier]

So does AMT its hard to find a good one.:(

[Al Thompson]

I think Old Fluff hit the nail on the head. Once you get away from 230 ball or round nose ammo in a stock 1911 your asking for trouble. I qualified many times (and many soldiers) using 1911A1s and 230 ball ammo. Some of the 1911s were so worn that they wouldn't group, but reliability wasn't a problem.

[Big Mike]

I thought it was originally hollow points?? Mike

[Gerald McDonald]

I agree with all of the above. I will say though that I have a friend who has shown me that you can take one of the sows ears such as AMT or Charles Daley. play with it a little and get a very servicable arm. He has owned more variants of 1911's than I have seen, also probably owned more Gold Cups than I have owned guns. He bought a CD on a whim as a beater and changed a few parts (used govt surplus parts) and told me at last count he had gone thru about 4000 hardballs and +P loads.

Dont know if anyone brought it up but they have also tightned up the tolerances quite a bit. The 1911 Colts I have owned all had that shake it hard to field strip feeling. Nice loose tolerance's might have kept jamming to a minumum.
Gerald

[BigG]

The shake in the original government pistols and Colts is intentional courtesy of Moses, hisself. According to Jerry Kuhnhauser, who should know, the mark of a complete tyro is focusing on slide/frame fit to judge quality of a 1911-type (however this is what most gunshop salespeople extol the most to me as a selling point.* Go figger). Kuhnhausen's experience shows shows slide frame/fit has about 5% of the total potential to increase accuracy, in other words, statistically insignificant. Where you get your bang for the buck is in bbl fit between bushing and lockup. That is at least 50 % of the slack between a garden variety shooter and a bullseye masterpiece. The rest comes into a nice trigger, better sights, and more uniform tailored ammunition.

Imho, most of the doodads found on the current generation Colts and clones are cosmetic or to prevent hammer bite which is a pretty big bugaboo on the original design (at least for me). YMMV

EDITED TO ADD: *I suspect that the full length guide rod craze is just a cheap way to add the illusion of better slide frame fit because it adds an additional point to tie the front of the slide down. However, manufacturers/assemblers would not try to fool us now, would they?

[dfariswheel]

If you read much on the gun forums, you will hear a lot of questions about unreliable 1911's that start off: "I'm having jams in my gun, it's failing to feed/eject, I've replaced the stock spring with....".

It seems the first thing people just HAVE to do is start switching springs. Most gun makers put in the appropriate spring for the gun they build. However, everybody just KNOWS that a different rated spring will "improve" the operation of the gun.

When they have trouble, they wonder why.
So, when their gun fails to extract and eject, or fails to feed, instead of looking at the extractor/ejector, or the magazine, they start switching springs.

Another "unreliability" issue is dirty/cheap/defective/abused magazines. A recent poster had a 1911"'jammer" and apparently didn't realize that after several THOUSAND rounds, he "might" need to clean the magazines.

Still another, is "My 1911 .45 jams. I'm shooting Raoul's Fly-by-Night Ammo Company $2.50 per hundred ammo. What's wrong with this crappy gun"?

It's been my experience, since the 60's, that most firearm malfunctions are owner induced. Yes you get bad guns, but not that many.

[Bergeron]

I think that perhaps the root cause of this has to do with the origins of IPSC. 1911s were among the most suitable guns for IPSC at the time, and I'm betting that a lot of newcomers to the sport wanted something better than the stock "GI" gun. Just about the only "competition" model 1911s at the time were bullseye guns, so if you wanted something better, that was the route to use. Bullseye allows alabies, IPSC doesn't. Plus, the round count to be a good shot and to shoot matches went way up. If you've got a Bulleye 1911 that'll jam, say, once ever two rounds of 2700, no biggie, especially if the pistol is extremly accurate. That's a horrible disadvantage in IPSC. In addition, if most people are using 1911s, those will be the guns that rack up the most number of total jams. It's a selection effect.

I'm sure that the reasons posted above are also correct.:D

[Nick96]

Well, I don't know that I would single out 1911's. Though I've only shot two in my entire life - and both jamed inside of 20 rounds (one Korean War vintage, the other an 80's Gold Cup). And I've seen multiple others on the range that quit working for one reason or another. That said though, I've shot lots of other autos. And guess what - they all jamed too at one time or another.

Maybe it's just me, poor ammo, maintenance or quality issues - whatever. One type of handgun that has never failed to operate for me though is a revolver. Big or small. Cheap ammo or expensive. Pot metal "Saturday Night Specials" to beautifully polished and exotic wood grip adorned jewels. They all worked every time the trigger was pulled.

So guess what I favor for "serious" business.

[JohnKSa]

There were no complaints back in "the old days" for several reasons.

1. People EXPECTED Autopistols to jam. They were taught to clear the jams and continue. That's why police stuck to revolvers into the 80s--all autopistols were considered unreliable to one extent or another.

2. Everyone pretty much shot ball ammo in "the old days". Ball ammo will make any pistol pretty reliable.

When autopistols that would feed anything all day without ever choking began to appear, people realized that:

1. Some autopistols COULD be as reliable as revolvers.

2. Some autopistols weren't--especially with "this newfangled ammo".

Then the complaints began...

[Boats]

Well I suppose the good news is that the 1911 can be as reliable as anything man made can be. The only pistols I have never seen malf are Berettas, but I have no doubt someone has seen some fail. I have also seen 1911s that simply do not go down unless it is from out of spec ammo or worn springs, two things that will tie up almost any autopistol.

What I do not get is all of the "modern" versus "obsolete" talk. I have seen HKs, Glocks, SIGs and other "vunderpistoles" choke and I have seen flawlessly operating 1911s and BHPs in far greater numbers than total jammomatics. It also does not take several hundred or several thousand dollars to have a reliable 1911, what it takes is someone who understands how it works and knows how to troubleshoot it if it starts misbehaving. Usually, it is a cheap magazine or a shot out or incorrect weight recoil spring tying up a factory 1911. Both are easy and cheap fixes

[Amish]

Crappy factory mags, small ejection port, and sometimes ammo.

[arinvolvo]

one word for the downfall of the 1911........







Llama:D

[mini14jac]

I think there a lot of manufacturers making unreliable guns.
You are really not surprised when your $239 Llama jams, but when it happens to a $1000 SA gun, it seems like word gets around.

Bad gunsmithing has a lot to do with it too.
I've heard many people badmouth AR15s.
I'm betting that most of the crappy ARs out there were built from bargain parts on somebody's kitchen table.
I know several guys that built them, and a few of them didn't work.
But, I had a factory-new Bushmaster, that never missed a beat.
(Except for the one time I tried a USA mag. :rolleyes: )

Cheap mags, appparently also contributes to the "1911s are crap" belief.

[Master Blaster]

Bergeron, Hows Puck?

If you've got a Bulleye 1911 that'll jam, say, once ever two rounds of 2700, no biggie, especially if the pistol is extremly accurate.

Actually it would cause you to loose the match, You only get 2 alibis in a 2700 match. and each time you drop the best shots
(jam on round two is a three shot alibi, you reshoot five, and drop the best three shots)

The NRA Rule on Refires or Alibis

9.14 Refiring
(a) No competitor will fire more than one score for the same award except as provided in the program or in accordance with Rule 9.18.

(b) In single stage matches composed of several strings of fire only one refire per match will be allowed.

(c) In multiple stage matches one refire will be allowed in the slow fire stage and one refire will be allowed in the combined timed and rapid fire stages.

(d) Refires of slow fire refires are to be fired immediately after the relay in which the refire occurred.




So jams are unacceptable in bullseye.

I see alot of custom guns at my club, rock river is the new favorite, but I see 30 year old goldcups on their 4th rebuild, LesBaers, and guns custom built by bullseye smiths, like George Madore etc., when I line officer 2700 matches. The last outdoor match the only .45 to jam out of 15 competitors was a Kimber gold match. The jamming was caused by the owner's fogettting to change the seating plug setting on his dies when he went from 200 LSWC to jacketed 185 swc.


After the third jam he dropped out of the match.

A tight slide to frame fit is essential only if you are using a frame mounted red dot.

[Bergeron]

Ooops, My Bad.

Oh well, my advice is generally worth exactly what you pay for it. Absolutly nothing.

[Bronson7]

A lot of good stuff here. Here's my take on it:
1. 1911 was designed to shoot ball.
2. With the gazillions of aftermarket parts for this gun, it leads the novice to believe there's something inherently wrong with all new 1911s.
3. Novice starts buying aftermarket parts to trick-out his new 1911 and install them himself (after all, they're drop-in)
4. Now, he has all sorts of problems and may blame it on the mfg.
Bronson7

[Gearhead Jim]

You guys have pretty much said it all. My only comment is that I had, over a period of years, six Colt Series 70 1911s. All purchased new. NONE of them could go 200 rds of factory hardball without a jam, even after breakin and careful cleaning. Tight bushings and bad extractors were the biggest problems. All were eventually made reliable, but you shouldn't need to do that.

I've also owned 4 Browning HiPowers (9mm) made since 1991, every one of them was totally reliable with any ammo right out of the box, if you had enough strength to pull that trigger.

[Handy]

Myth?

The 1911 built its reputation on military guns built by contractors and Colt in the period ending in 1945. These guns were built on machines that have since worn out or been scrapped. The people who worked on these guns are also gone.

Argueably, every 1911 since then, including Colt, is something of a clone. I doubt those turn of the century blue prints were followed to the letter back in the '30s; there was likely some fudging and fitting. So when a modern company tools up, how do they know they are doing everything "right"? I doubt Kimber took those old plans and programmed them directly into their C&C machines. Every modern 1911 maker is starting with some basic, and variable dimensions, and examples of other pistols.


This is the ONLY civilian produced arm that uses the same model name to describe product made by multiple manufactorers.

I think it is silly to not call a Witness a CZ-75, or an FEG a Hi-Power, yet label any manufactorer's 1911 clone a 1911. There is no reason to assign the mystical 1911 qualities to companies that share no link to the original production.



The most interesting thing, to me, about 1911 reliability is that no one ever puts their finger on what is specifically wrong with a "bad" 1911. Every functioning problem should come down to a bad dimension or tension. If it fails to extract, something is lined up wrong, or the extractor isn't flexing right. Period. Yet we talk about "tuning" like this thing is as complicated as a Ferrari V-12. So what did AMT or Auto Ordnance do wrong, and Springfield do right? Until everyone comes up with simple answers to those questions, nothing is going to change.

Every 1911 that fails to work as well as an Army issued piece should be returned, not gunsmithed. If lowered ports and throated bores weren't necessary in 1917, why should they be now?


Oh yeah, if you persist in believing any old 1911 is reliable, go to a couple IDPA matches and watch the action. You may start asking hard questions about the Glock, too.

[Al Thompson]

"If lowered ports and throated bores weren't necessary in 1917, why should they be now?"

Ammo - even the mil issue 1911s choke on SWCs.

[Sean Smith]

Most of the important points have already been noted. Two of my most reliable guns ever were Colts... a custom Delta Elite and a stock new-production 01991. I had one that was just-OK but finnicky (a Kimber), and a jam-o-matic (Para-Ordinance). My 2nd Delta is getting 'smithed by Dave Berryhill now. :D

[Skunkabilly]

Tight 'match-grade' this and thats that are tight and didn't get proper fitting before leaving the factory?

[Pendragon]

I think whatever has been lost to the passing of time has been made up for by the knowledge of the current crop of 1911 expert smiths.

My Valtro is the absolute tightest gun I have ever seen - but the action is like oiled glass, the gun has never choked and it is extremely accurate.

Jardine spent a lot of time explaining how he fit everything and how his design was different that my Colt and he showed me so many things I can't even remember.

All that aside, the proof is in the puddin' - I am sure a lot of other custom and semi custom makers make guns that are just as reliable. Personally, I would rather have a few 1911s that were made "right" (ie: works right if made right) than try and buy the $600-$750 models and have them "tuned".

Just me and I know I blab on this in every thread, but I was starting to believe that 1911s "just jam" until I met Mr. Jardine.

Oh - I only shoot my own loads in my gun so maybe that has something to do with it as well....

[TheFrontRange]

My Valtro is the absolute tightest gun I have ever seen

Pendragon, I'm still relatively new to the 1911 scene and had never heard of the Valtros until coming to this forum. I have read only ultra-good things about them out here...how long have they been around and do you have a website link for them?

[CGofMP]

Allow me.. And thanks Pendragon :)

Valtro USA can be found at http://www.valtrousa.com

other Valtro posts can be found by clicking here: Valtro Search Results On High Road (http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=61057&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending)

Jardine's Custom website is not yet on the air.. but they kinda comingle.

Jardine tells me that more pictures finally got taken and I will be getting them up on the website in the next couple of weeeks if all goes well.

http://www.valtrousa.com/photogallery/tisevaltromedium.jpg

Take care,
Charles

[TheFrontRange]

Thank you much...good gravy, that's a nice .45! :)

I shall check out the Valtro site forthwith!

[BHP9]

The real truth about the 1911

The 1911's built to John Browning/ and original Colt specs. i.e. all forged parts and spring steel extractors were the most reliable automatic pistols ever built bar none. Given even a minimal throat job I have had 19111's feed everything and anything I ever shot through them including some pretty wild looking flying ashtray hollow points.

Trouble begins when you encounter the following

1. Shooting extremely hot loads , loads the gun was not designed to shoot without first changing to heavier springs.

2. The use of junk cast parts especially MIM cast parts. Any cast extractor no matter what the casting process is a mistake to use or rely on.

3. A gun built so tightly that is requires exotic lubes and a long break in period.

4. An improperly installed extractor that does not have the right configuration or the right tension.

5. A Weak or worn out recoil spring will cause problems even with ball ammo.

6. The use of junk magazines especially with weak magazine springs. And do not think just because you paid a lot of money for a magazine that it will work. I have encountered some of the so called designer magazines to be often nothing more than pure junk.

In short a properly manufactured gun made with quality parts according to original John Browning specs. will be perhaps the most reliable handgun on earth. But you will find very few such guns being built today

Back about 15 to 20 years ago their was a craze to assemble your own 1911 on Essex ARms frames and slides. If you were lucky enough to get a set that were built to spec. many people including myself assembled with little or no hand fitting 1911's. I built , assembled 4 of them and a couple of them had G.I. non throated barrels and the internal parts were all quality parts. I hand no functioning problems whatsoever and I even shot semi-wad cutter bullets and hollow points through the ones that had non-throated G.I. barrels with no jams whatsoever. All weapons had quality magazines.

[Boats]

Another thing that chaps my hide about 1911 myths is one perpetuated inside the 1911 community itself, namely that if you spent less than $1k, you have gypped yourself in reliability and accuracy. My father is fully into this reasoning and so I get to see just how silly it can be first-hand.

Such a belief is nearly total bunk. I have two factory pistols that run just fine and are accurate enough. One was made by Colt in 1994, the other by Springfield Armory from Imbel forgings in 2002. Two FTE on bulged Blazers, and never a failure with brass cased ammo between them.

Will either shoot 1.5" or less at 25 yards? Maybe, from a Ransom, but since I can't string a five shot group that tight at that distance with my father's Wilson or Baer without a rest, let alone group a mag full that tight, it doesn't matter so much to me. I can group my own pistols at about 3-4" at that distance for a full 8+1, which is plenty good enough, and I can hardly imaging myself engaging BGs at that distance anyways. Fifteen yards and in, both of my favorite 1911s are good enough that "tuning" them with match this, and special edition that, would be counterproductive. A 1911 is first and foremost a ten yard and in, smooth and fast shooting, close combat pistol chambered around a really decent defensive round. Used as designed, it doesn't need to be fancy to be reliable and accurate enough to defend one's life. People buy good factory examples of 1911s every day, especially if they know how to shop for one. As sites like this one take off, there should be fewer and fewer new 1911 shooters complaining about having bought crap guns. A little research into what to look for and what should send up red flags is all but inexcusable anymore.

I digress. There is a certain dynamic within the 1911 realm that is akin to the "perfect" samurai sword fetish during the height of the Tokugawa Shogunate. "If I can just buy that perfect weapon, I will become one with it. (and be undefeatable, BTW)" A lot of master craftsmen become somewhat wealthy during periodic spasms of that line of thought and some of the finest examples of weaponcraft come into existence. I believe we are in a sort of "golden age" of 1911 pistolcraft right now. HOWEVER, the plain jane sword or 1911 wielded with skill would still kill you just as dead. There would just be no aesthetic points awarded to your choice of weapon. I prefer to spend below a thousand on my 1911s, take my time choosing one, and then spend like crazy shooting it. A finely crafted weapon that its owner cannot exploit is little better than fighting with a nice bit of sculpture. $1,000-$4000 more for a 1911 offering diminishing returns over a good factory example is a lot of practice ammo that could've been bought, or some training classes that could've been attended.

Of course some guys can, and do, afford both style and beaucoup ammo and training. Some of them are scary good with beautiful pistols, some are hacks with more money than brains.

Someday, (when my student loans are gone) I am building a couple of 1911A1s with a "name" gunsmith. That will happen because I want it, not because that is the only way to get a 100% 1911A1 pistol. Hopefully, I will have shot my "factory dogs" enough to be able to squeeze every advantage out of that custom pistol.

[BigG]

I believe we are in a sort of "golden age" of 1911 pistolcraft right now.

So true. They are the "designer gun" of this age. I've bought enough like new Gold Cups for c. $600 to know I can never outshoot one, let alone something that might be incrementally more accurate but practically unexploitable. Give me the workhorse and good mags and ammo and I'll leave the gun du jour to the trendsetters. Good thread! :cool:

[BHP9]

Argueably, every 1911 since then, including Colt, is something of a clone. I doubt those turn of the century blue prints were followed to the letter back in the '30s; there was likely some fudging and fitting. So when a modern company tools up, how do they know they are doing everything "right"? I doubt Kimber took those old plans and programmed them directly into their C&C machines. Every modern 1911 maker is starting with some basic, and variable dimensions, and examples of other pistols.

Sorry Handy but those 1930 commercial guns are some of the best built ,true to spec, 1911's ever made.

WWII guns were also built to spec. but held to very loose tolerances so that they could be assembled quickly with little or no hand fitting and still go on functioning under the most unimaginable conditions.

When assembling 1911's myself, using many parts from different manufactures the only problem I even encountered was a minor amount of fitting of the safety. But I used quality parts.

Even today with all of the aftermarket parts available it is amazing how many of them will just drop right in and work. NO ,everyone is not just making 1911's to their own dimensions even today. The problem mainly is one of using junk parts rather than the quality parts that were used not so long ago.

The 1911's entire original concept was to produce a weapon that had few parts and whose parts required minimal hand fitting to function in a military style weapon that would function under extreme conditions. The difference between the original 1911 and weapons produced today is that the 1911 was never designed to work with substandard parts but only parts designed of quality materiels which in turn enabled the gun to out last many times over most modern weapons despite all the false propaganda you read about in todays advertisements for the newer designed firearms.

How many recalls were ever made to WWII G.I. guns that refused to work or sufferered early parts failures due to manufacturing short cuts. Or had to be recalled so the the weapon could once again be redesigned (UPGRADED). Does this term mean the first models of todays modern guns were DOWNGRADED for maximum profits?

Todays modern firearms use the cheapest materiels possible in their construction such as lots of plastic, stamped sheet metal and castings and aluminum. Their reliability and longevity certainly shows it. Little or no hand fitting of barrel to frame lock up is used and their accuracy is about on par with the desperate war time loosely fitted G.I. WWII 1911's. Todays modern handguns have far less accuracy than the fitted old time commercial 1911's that were not even in the target class. I am speaking of the standard grade guns. Even they often easily out shot the standard grade guns of today.

My own personal opinion based on extensive use of many handguns including most of the modern ones is that the original 1911 built to John Browning specs is still the most advanced handgun in the world both in terms of reliablity, longevity and ruggednest of construction due to its all steel construciton.

And when I speak of advanced I am talking about a weapon that was designed to last, not be made as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The 1911's never were designed as throw away weapons. .[/B] Gaston Glock to Jeff Cooper: [/I] I designed "plastic throwaway pistols for plastic, throw away soldiers." [/I] Quoted from "THE ACCURATE RIFLE' January 2003, Page 17.

[B]All this is absolutely amazing considering the fact that in 2011 the 1911 will be 100 years old and nothing has come along before or since that even remotely approaches its design. A great tribute to our forefathers or a great condemnation to all that came after it.

[Boats]

BHP9:

All this is absolutely amazing considering the fact that in 2011 the 1911 will be 100 years old and nothing has come along before or since that even remotely approaches its design. A great tribute to our forefathers or a great condemnation to all that came after it.


Bravo. My sentiments exactly.

[Handy]

BHP9

I wasn't saying that the original run of 1911s was out of spec, just that there may have been manufactoring "techniques" in use that made up for the wear and relative lack of precision of the tooling at that time, and that maybe the blueprints didn't tell the whole story. Hence, the problems modern companies have building them, including modern day Colt.

You mention crummy materials, but I had always understood that companies like AMT and Auto Ordnance were using decent steels. Their guns were around long before MIM, and Auto Ordnance wasn't even trying to trick their guns out. So what did they do wrong?

I completely agree that the cheap road is the wrong one, but why do even the "quality" material 1911s go wrong? Compare to the Beretta 92 pattern produced under license, or not, throughout the world. You can say what you want about a Taurus, Vektor, etc., but they all feed out of the box.

[BigG]

There is a little bit of art to building a 45 Automatic Pistol. Handguns of the World has a nice informative write-up on the US Pistols Models 1911 and A1. It mentioned that Springfield Armory prepared detailed blueprints on the original Colt Browning 45 in preparation for going into production. It was unable to produce the pistols until it went to Colt and learned how to make the pistols from the masters. Then they corrected their drawings to reflect how the pistol was actually made.

Probably your better custom pistolsmiths today are producing something akin to an original Colt commercial pistol updated with today's foofuraw?? Clearly, in my mind, a couple thousand of today's bucks does not reflect an unreasonable amount of handwork compared to when those old Hartford craftsmen were turning them out for maybe $.25 an hour. Colts have never been cheap to my knowledge.

[BHP9]

I wasn't saying that the original run of 1911s was out of spec, just that there may have been manufactoring "techniques" in use that made up for the wear and relative lack of precision of the tooling at that time, and that maybe the blueprints didn't tell the whole story. Hence, the problems modern companies have building them, including modern day Colt

I am no expert in the bluepring field but when looking over sets of blue prints in some of the shops that I have worked in much of our machinery had Plus and Minus dimensions in regards to the demensions on the parts.

A Pistol can be built to very close tolerances as in target grade guns or it can be built to more generous tolerances such was the case of the WWII 1911's.

It is my own personal opinion from working in some very old shops with very old fashion machinery and also from my experiece in taking apart many turn of the century automatic pistols is that their machinery was every bit as accurate as the machinery being used today except for the fact that rather than have computers figure out the math it was done the old fashion way using only their grey matter. It may have been slower but was definitaly in no way inferior in the completion of the end product.

I will give you an example: I once had the oportunity to strip down a .32 Acp Mauser pocket pistol model of 1910. When looking at the side of the frame I was astounded to find out that the frame was not solid but had a side plate that was so closely inletted that even a human hair could not have been fitted between it and the frame and when I removed the plate it had a very small ridge milled into it that was a marvel of machining.

Another example: Is the precision machining that went into the parts that are found in the C96 Broomhandle Mauser. When one looks at all of the machining cuts in the small internal parts of this weapon one cannot believe that the technology existed over 100 years ago to make such precision machined parts. Even with todays machinery it still looks like to would be almost impossible. It would not surprise me that some of todays machinests would throw up their arms in the air and run away screeming if they were told by their boss to make some of those very complicated and precision made parts today.

It often amazes people when they find out that what they think is modern and new has already been done over 100 years ago. The rotary bolt magnum pistols actually go all the way back to the Mars pistols and so do the super magnum pistol cartridges. The Mars was chambered for a string of super magnum cartridges.

Cartridges like the later developed 44 auto mag and various .357 magnum auto cartridges were only a rehash of what had already been done years ago in the Mars pistols.

Even the Glock trigger mechanism was invented back in 1908 in the Roth Styer pistol but back then they did not have any plastic.

And how about the 40 S&W cartridge. Nothing new at all. .40 caliber pistol and revolver rounds have been around for over 100 years. They were once popular only to fade into obscurity and then be reborn as something new within the last few years.

And how about the modern Assault rifle concept of using a very small caliber, low recoiling cartridge like the .223. It was actually first thought of and experimented with by the Russians in the very early part of the 1900's. And I am not talking about the later developed AK47. The original experimentation and experimental weapons were being worked on before Mr. Kalishnokov was even born.

The world of yesterday was often not anything at all like most of the people of today often imagine.

So why don't 1911's being built today work very well. Simple. The use of substandard parts and the lack of quality control. Build a part like an extractor out of a brittle casting and to make it worse do not put the proper tention on it to securely hold the empty cartridge case and it is no great surprise when it first fails to do the job and then later breaks and does no job at all.

[RON in PA]

That there are few basic operating innovations in handguns since the beginning of the 20th century is by and large a correct statement. Blowbacks, rotating barrels, falling or raising blocks and tilting barrels were all figured out before WW1. Some people think that because you make a handgun with stampings, castings, MIM parts or plastic frames that they are inferior. Pistols are meant to go bang when you pull the trigger and have decent combat accuracy. I would suggest that autoloading pistols adopted since 1975 with all their materials and manufacturing innovations are just as reliable and longlived as the classic finely machined handguns made from forged parts. You may not like the modern guns, they may not give you the pride of ownership of a handgun made in the 1920s with their high polished blue and wood grips, but they probably hold-up to the rough and tumble of the real world much better. The Luger is a beautiful example of traditional machining, but if you were soldier on the Eastern Front would you want a Luger or a P-38. Fact of the matter is the P-38 worked better in the mud and snow.

As for the original topic: The 1911 was designed by the US Cavalry and JM Browning to shoot men and horses with ball ammo. If you use good mags, ball ammo, replace springs at regular intervals, tweak your extractor if needed and don't tighten the frame and add custom doodads then the 1911 is reliable. So the unreliable 1911 came about because people changed the original design and shot ammo that was not designed for the gun.

If you want a reliable out-of-the-box 1911 get a current base 1911 made by Colt (even if it has a few cast and/or MIM parts.

[rick458]

I think that tight "MATCH" chambers along with cast bullets with too much lube or oversize, or swaged lead, didn't help things.
also to shoot a 1911 you really do have to hold it with the "Firm Hand Shake" grip, if you hold it like a weenie it won't consistantly cycle.
I bought a box of 230gr cast lead bullets localy that I didn't think I would ever make it through (500 ct) same for a box of swaged lead 200gr swc (100) had to tear the press down and clean out the dies on those.
then as was mentioned before evrybody who owns a 1911 immediatly becomes a wannabe gunsmith, that doesn't help either.

[clem]

Back in 1978-1979, I was at 2nd MAW HQ G-4 Wing Ord as the Infantry Weapons Chief. I recall that about this time the U.S. Military was making the move to a new sidearm. All the testing was started and all the companies had submitted proto types.
Anyway, a listing of M1911A1 pistols held by the Marine Corps as "in-service" was published with the pistol's manufactured date.
I recall the oldest pistol still in service as being made in 1917 and the newest still in service as being made in 1945. Remember, this was the late 70s.