Inertia and the Dimple

Status
Not open for further replies.

1911Tuner

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
18,549
Location
Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
Here ya go fastbolt. This may need editing, since I don't know how many
typos are contained herein.(Fancy talk for a Grits and Gravy eatin' Bubba, hey!) I'll come back and do that in a few.
----------------------------------

Newton's First Law of Motion states that objects in motion tend to remain in
motion, and objects at rest tend to remain at rest. Inertia is alive and well
in the 1911 pistol. Start with a pistol in battery with one round in the magazine.

Bang! The slide moves rearward as the pistol begins to torque upward.
The weight of the round in the magazine fights against the magazine spring as it
tries to push it upward. The pistol is still moving up and back as the mag spring
struggles to do its job of nailing the round up against the feed lips. The
cartridge is obeying Newton's Law to remain at rest, and the pistol moves away from it. The spring catches up, and the round is slightly ahead of where it should be
in the magazine.

The second shock comes as the slide hits the impact surface in the frame,
and the magazine spring's tension is again overcome, and the cartridge "floats"
for a fraction of a second. The impact jerks the pistol rearward and upward
a second time, and the round gets even farther ahead of its optimum feeding
position. If the magazine spring has seen enough use, the second shock
comes before the round can settle into the feed lips. Here is where the round
escapes from the magazine, and is left lying loose on top before the slide can
get past the stop notch, and is locked open because it has read an empty magazine condition.

If the mag spring is in the twilight zone, the round is still in the magazine, but too
far forward for the breechface to make contact, and the extractor hits it instead,
forcing the round into the chamber ahead of the extractor.

In some cases, the round gets up in time for the lower edge of the breechface
to catch it in the extractor groove, and a rideover feed or a live-round stovepipe
occurs.

A heavy recoil spring aggravates the condition, though the reasons are largely
theory, but this is my take. A heavy recoil spring causes us to automatically
pull harder downward as we fight the effects of the recoil AND the spring.
This would seem to have the effect of helping the magazine spring push
upward, but appears to have just the opposite effect. I've noticed that
dropping to a lighter spring often makes the problem go away, with no
other changes. Sometimes simply clipping a half-coil off a recoil spring
can make a real difference.

It would also appear that the newer early-release feed lip design allows
a round to escape control of the magazine easier when compared to
the early, late-release "Hardball" magazine design.

Magazine followers without the small dimple would also increase the tendency
to let the round escape. The dimple is there to arrest forward motion of a
round that is under the effects of inertia, and limit its movement. The dimple,
coupled with the gradual release of the round is probably why so many
pistols are so reliable with hardball ammo and GI magazines.

I've found that it's far easier to get a 1911 to run reliably with a lighter recoil
spring than a heavier one, and I see far less extractor breakage and
need for retensioning as well. Getting the pistol to return to battery reliably
with a lighter spring is a matter of proper throat and ramp geometry and finish,
and chamber dimensions.

To check for a push-feed condition, look to the once-fired brass. If there
is a small ding near the edge of the rim that sometimes kicks up a small burr on the edge, the gun is push-feeding and the extractor is being forced to snap over. Reloaders will recognize this as case rims that are difficult to
get into a shell holder after a few firings. The dings and burrs will be at the
rate of about one per magazine...usually on the last round.

John Browning was no doubt aware of all this, and he did three things to
compensate for it. He put the dimple in the follower...He kept slide
speed low on the return to battery with a 16.5 pound spring, and
he specified that the extractor be made of true spring steel to allow
for the occasional push-feed with extractor snapover without being
affected by the impact and being cammed open by the rim.
 
Just a small comment that slide return is not entirely dependent on the energy stored in the recoil spring. When the slide comes back, it strikes the steel surface of the recoil spring guide, which is backed up by the frame. Steel has a high elasticity, so the slide actually bounces off the guide, gaining back part of the energy it had on its rearward travel.

If this is interfered with by, say, installing a buffer to "save" the frame, feeding problems can occur and reliability suffers.

This can actually be seen. Watch from the side as a friend releases the slide of a 1911 type pistol so it comes forward impelled only by the recoil spring. Then watch as the gun fires. You can actually see that the slide forward motion is faster in actual firing than in loading.

Jim
 
Shock Buffers

Jim, you don't know how many times I've tried to explain that shock buffers can and often do affect reliability. Some pistols don't seem to notice, and others go into spasms if a buffer gets anywhere near'em.

Not only do they eliminate the rebound and slow the return to battery, they
reduce slide travel, which can bring on magazine timing issues. I've
even got one pistol that will run 'til the cows come home without one, but
when a buffer is in place, will do a premature slidelock on every other round. Go figger...:rolleyes:

Cheers!

Tuner
 
That's what I was expecting to hear.

My Combat Commander will GENERALLY work with a buffer ... I sometimes used one when I was younger and believed what I read.;) ... and my King's Guide Rod assmebly for my Officers Model uses one. the folks at King's were somewhat insistent that they must be used with their rod. Seems to work fine.

But, I've also seen where the buffer caused just enough shortened slide travel to the rear, and seeming adversely affected slide velocity during the counter-recoil slide travel, that functioning gremlins abounded ... AND debris from a chewed up buffer got into the "works", so to speak ... and so I stopped using the buffers in my CC several years ago. Seems to work fine.;)

I know Bill Wilson still recommends them in his guns ...

I'll have to look at the head of the guide rod in one of the CQB's, but do they use a thinner base to accomodate the thickness (under slight compression) of their buffers? Just curious ...
 
Slide Travel

Howdy fastbolt,

I don't use buffers in any carry gun...I do, however, use them in hard-use
beaters that will run okay with'em. I partially solved the problem of
reduced slide travel by facing off about .040 inch or so from the backside of the guide rod head, and a like amount from the stub end of the rod itself.
By doing that, and using a Hiett Technologies .090 inch buffer. It still
deadens the rebound effect, but regains about.060 inch of slide travel lost to the standard .090 head and .120-.125 thick buffer. The job can be done in a lathe in about 5 minutes.

Luck!

Tuner
 
Johnny/Tuner:

Thanks for the clear transmission of your ideas :)
If "case snapover" really is a design consideration from the git-go,
and an expected consequence of the pistol's operation,
wouldn't that bolster the argument for an external, for the extractor's sake?

Just asking.
 
Externals

Howdy Horge,

With few exceptions, external extractor equipped pistols...notably the
1911 clones...are still supposed to effect a controlled feed, and allowing the
hook to climb over the rim is hard on'em. They'll tolerate it a little better
than an internal, but not forever.

One of the reasons that Browning specified a spring steel extractor was to
allow that particular malfunction to occur while reducing the chances of
a broken hook or stoppage. Just one of those little Anti-Murphy things
that could mean the difference between livin' and dyin'. He stacked
the deck in favor of reliability with every small percentage point that he could manage. No guarantees...just operating on a small percentage point.
Every little bit helps. It was also done to allow for emergency single loading
in the event of a lost magazine(s).

The single biggest advantage of the internal extractor is ease...and speed...of service in the field. (Loss of tension on the internal is a
quick bend/reassembly away. On the external, it dictates driving out a tiny pin and replacing a tiny spring.) Less chance of losing critical parts, and
a smaller window for our friend Murphy to crawl through. Both designs will
do the job, assuming correct specs.

Even so...it's bad for the part, regardless of the design, and steps should be taken to eliminate a push-feed/snapover event in any way possible.


Luck!

Tuner
 
Last edited:
Thanks Tuner,

Just wanted to know you're take on it: particularly appreciated your bringing up the issue of field maintenance.

But you might want to swap out that last 'internal' for 'external', when talking about losing springs and such. I fully understand that it's just a typo, but others might get confused :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top