My idea for a custom 1911 as a project for me

Status
Not open for further replies.
FIVETWOSEVEN

FIVETWOSEVEN

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
5,146
I'm thinking about building myself a 1911 in the near future. My idea is a officers model chambered in .40 S&W. I don't want to bore you in other details like finish and grips but what I want to know is how feasible a officers model in .40 S&W is. Are there barrels and slides available?
 
I looked at sti and they have bare slides for commander length. They have .40 barrels, but they are ramped. That might be good for that round though.
 
I can think of a lot better choices for a first 1911 build then a Shorty Forty.

The 1911 platform was designed for a longer cartridge.

And the Officer size guns are the spawn of the Devil, even for the manufactures to get to work right.

rc
 
I agree with rcmodel (I've found that a pretty safe position) that selecting a short 1911 platform and the short .40 cartridge in a project is taking on a lot of unneeded reliability variables at the same time.

The OACP sized 1911 already has a reduced window of functionality and the .40 brings a whole bushel of feeding issues to the table. That is why folks who shoot the .40 in competition, in full sized guns, are loading them long
 
A 10mm does not sound that bad. How are ammo prices compared to .45 acp? It will be awhile before I can start reloading. I am on my phone so it is difficult to look stuff up. I would prefer a steel frame for durability. How does shortening the slide affect reliability?
 
10mm is less common than .45 ACP, but it can be had. Probably a bit more money for premium factory ammo, but really cheap 10mm plinking ammo is probably not easy to find at WalMart.

In its better loadings it is pretty snorty -- more power and recoil than .45, but some is loaded pretty much down to hot .40S&W levels so no big deal.

I would not really get an Al frame 10mm. I'd think between the loss of recoil-taming weight, and durability as well, the Aluminum would be a bit uncomfortable to shoot much, and might not last.
 
The shorter slide has less mass, will travel at a higher velocity, and have less available travel length available. Folks try to off-set this with a stronger spring. This stronger spring, when compressed, reduces the dwell time slide has available to allow the magazine spring to raise the next round in the cartridge column to be fed by the returning slide.

In simple terms, you throw the timing of the action out of balance when you shorten the slide/barrel beyond a certain length.
 
As I posted in post #4, they are reliable in only a small window where the springs are correctly balanced....that is why you have to change springs more frequently on 1911s as the slides get shorter to keep them functioning
 
In addition to that, the shorter the slide & barrel is, the more acute the angle becomes in order for it to unlock and clear the locking lugs on the barrel & in the slide.

Pretty soon, the barrel needs to drop further to unlock then there is a place left for it to drop in the back & henge upward in the front that far.

You will also lose one barrel locking lug in order to get enough slide travel for it to pick up the next round in the magazine.

While that's OK on the 21,000 PSI .45 ACP.
It's probably not a good thing on the 35,000 PSI .40 S&W.

rc
 
I am thinking that now I am gonna do a Commander slide/officer frame hybrid in 10mm. That is unless the commander length is good enough for .40 S&W round. What did Springfield Armory do to design the EMP? I know that they did some redesign but what exactly?
 
The Commander slide on an OACP frame (now commonly called the CCO) is a good combination which has been around for about 30+ years. The 4.25" length slide/barrel adds a lot more latitude for reliability with .45 ACP length cartridges. The action length is still the same and you'll avoid a lot of issues with the longer 10mm cartridge.

With the EMP, SA shortened the action length to optimize it for the 9mm/.40 cartridges. A .45 ACP won't fit in an EMP frame and wouldn't work through the action if it did
 
With a Commander slide/barrel, it would be excellent and very desirable.

With the 3.5" barrel...I refer you to rcmodeler's post in #3
 
I too would recommend a 5" or Commander size pistol for a first build... in fact, I would never try to build an officers... never owned one either.. I do believe that a lightweight Commander is an excellent choice for a carry pistol.

Might also thing about building a .38 super- They are not any more difficult than a .45 and a 9mm barrel is an easy swap in. Super .38 mags can also run 9mm
 
I was looking at the STI lineup and they have quite a few 3" .40 S&W 1911s. Here's one example. http://www.stiguns.com/the-sti-escort/

STI doesn't appear to offer frames and slide for an officer's model in any caliber so I'm not sure about going that route. They do seem to show however that a short .40 can be done.
 
We're not saying it can't be done, we're saying it isn't a good idea as a first build as it requires experience best obtained on a platform with fewer inherent function issues.

The 1911 is an interesting platform with interesting quirks which aren't always obvious...like the breachface not being vertical or why you should not cut the barrel completely flush with the bushing.

But please build whatever you'd like...it is your money, time and learning curve..we were just responding to your request of feasibility
 
I guess I'll yield to your advice and just settle with a hybrid 1911. Would .45 be the easiest to start with?
 
Just make sure you enter the project with the understanding the 1911 is not like an AR. I know there a lot of young guys (and not so young guys) that figure, "hey, I built my AR from a bunch of parts, how hard can putting a 1911 together be?" The parts on a 1911 don't snap in "Lego style" like they do on an AR or Glock. A poster on one of the 1911 forums suggested the only drop in parts on a 1911 are springs. Be prepared to file and grind a bunch of parts, and also be prepared to buy extra parts to replace the ones you messed up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top