Losing Faith in the 1911. Help

There's a mistaken notion that Browning had a free hand in the 1911's design. The pistol was essentially designed by a committee. All Browning did was give the paying customers what they asked for.

Click to expand...

Provided this is true (and I have no inclination to believe it's not), it does beg the question: why is JMB so enthusiastically praised as a genius for "his amazing design" (the 1911)?

Also, that story was pretty incredible. I've never shot a 1911 and now even I have a renewed faith in them. Who makes the best magazines?

Provided this is true (and I have no inclination to believe it's not), it does beg the question: why is JMB so enthusiastically praised as a genius for "his amazing design" (the 1911)?

Click to expand...

Oh, it's true...and not only that, but Browning didn't do it alone. He had a team of Colt's top engineers at his disposal. They all had a hand in it.

Browning was working for Colt under contract...and Colt was working under contract by and for the US Army. As is usually the case in these things...the people who sign the checks get to have the final say. The army wanted a grip safety and they got one. They wanted a manual slide-locking safety...and they got one.

The 1911 was an assignment. A job. No more and no less.

Browning's genius lay largely in his penchant for redundancy and his ability to design one part to perform multiple functions. The slidestop has no fewer than five. The extractor is its own spring. It can also be used to scrape debris from the slide and frame rails.

Additionally, the 1911 is its own tool box. In its original configuration, it can be completely disassembled and reassembled without tools, other than its parts. Even the grip screws were sized and dished to allow removal with a cartridge case rim. Those things weren't coincidence.

Who makes the best magazines?

Click to expand...

I hesitate to go there. There have already been too many firestorms over that question. Search, m'fren. Search.

Browning was generally regarded as a genius for his design of firearms before work began on the 1911.

He did not work alone. First with his brothers and later heading teams of engineers from the companies he worked with. Often he developed a basic concept which they refined working with him. By all accounts others enjoyed working with him.

He was already famous in Europe for his pistols by the early years of the last century.

Browning sold his first rifle design to Winchester in 1883. It was followed by dozens of lever action rifles, shotguns, pump action rifles and shotguns, bolt action rifles, the Remington Model 8 semi-automatic rifle in 1906. In 1917 he developed the Browning Automatic Rifle (B.A.R. in 30-06 for the military) which is still in service somewhere and is produced in it's sporting version.

He developed machine guns for the military some of which are still in use.

He designed and built the first semi auto pistols made in the U.S., the model 1900 and the first U.S. designed pistol round the 38acp (38 Super).

He designed along with Colt engineers a number of pistol and rifle rounds (32 acp, 380acp, etc.).

You can see the growth of some of his designs here. The evolution of his designs...

http://www.coltautos.com/

His work with Winchester, Remington, Colt and FN in Belgium had made him well known before the 1911 was produced.

A bit more about him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning

http://theunionstation.org/museums-2/john-m-browning-firearms-museum/

tipoc

I have 2 1911's A Kimber and a Safari Arms The SA is a match pistol finicky about reloads Everything has to be right on to function 100% The Kimber eats everything you feed it every time . no FTE with either one . I do have quality Mags so that is not a problem . Well My experience with my 1911's no problems with the guns just somw with ammo .

Thank you for the response, 1911Tuner. You seem to be a wealth of both practical and entertaining knowledge.

1911s can be...finicky. My father's Taurus has never jammed, all that happens with his Remington 1911R1, is failure to go into battery when it's dirty. My Colt is reliable, IF I keep it clean and lubed, use Colt or GI magazines, and grip it tightly.

Improper grip will cause stovepipes and failure to lock back. And it need not be a loose grip. Shift your fingers a millimeter, and a gun that runs like a sewing machine will jam. Lack of lube can cause failure to go into battery.

All of that being said, 1911s are not the platform for everyone. I know how to use one if it's what I have at hand, but in all honesty, Glock, SIG, and even Beretta make better tools. You have to be willing to put the work into keeping them running, and the OP clearly is not.

Find the tool that IS what you need the tool to be...don't use a hacksaw when you're trying to drive nails.

Since the 1970's I have owned more 1911's that I care to admit. The vast majority have been plain jane Colt 1911's with a few higher end Springfield's thrown in along with the occasional Mil Spec and Norinco when I can find one. I can remember 1 Springfield GI that I had to send back, but I remember it because it "was" the one gun I had to send back.
Maybe I have lead a charmed life. But I have not had the problems that some people talk about when they mention 1911's.
The suggestion that 1911's are prone to have problems is bull.

Anachronism? Not relevant. External design elements, mag capacity, etc are also not relevant and serve to muddy the waters.

Badly built and/or modified? Entirely relevant.

The point is I wasted tons of time and money chasing after 1911 pistols that needed to be replaced by Kimber and Springfield. I have never needed to do this with (non-1911) SIG, Glock, HK, etc. These guns run because the company built to the spec and QC'd them before leaving the factory. I do not do a 500 round break-in either; normally they get 100 rounds of FMJ and 20 rounds of JHP scattered through several mags. My Colts worked fine because proper attention to detail was maintained through the construction process. I could have had several Ed Browns or Les Baer pistols for the cash I wasted on other guns.

So, yes, many 1911 pistols are absolute junk because the manufacturer never intended to build them properly. The 1911 *market* is filled with shoddy guns and requires the buyer be technically proficient in evaluating a gun to make sure it will run. This is a complete pain in the ass unless the buyer works with a trusted gunsmith.

Don't get me wrong: I like the platform. I like the looks and love the trigger. But, unfortunately, the market has encouraged too many manufacturers to build cruddy 1911's.

I own 3 1911's my grandfathers Ithaca, colt series 80, and a Wilson combat,good mags make a big difference,mine function and are a joy to shoot. I don't carry them cc or oc they don't hold enough ammo,

Haven't the pleasure to own any 1911's, but my understanding is for reliability the looser the better. In fact 3k 1911's with their tight, handfitted slides and bushings and tuned triggers are great for sweeping competitions and shooting tight groups, but like the original government, you want one with generous room. A breaking in period could be necessary to wear in a tight 1911 enough for good function. This also explains why many people have good reliability with even the new cheap 1911 brands which make tolerances looser to speed up QA and save on hand fitting.

Okay, I'll start the firestorm.

The best magazines I've ever used are made by Tripp. I've used every brand out there with some that are pure junk and many that run just fine. Wilson and CMC are now my second choices.

Just to back up for a minute, or a few days...

There's a mistaken notion that Browning had a free hand in the 1911's design. The pistol was essentially designed by a committee. All Browning did was give the paying customers what they asked for.

Click to expand...

Well no, it was not designed by a committee. Not in the sense that the Glock was, where there actually was a committee that sat down and worked out the design from scratch as Gaston knew nothing about firearms and so knew enough to call on those who did.

The 1911 was designed to the needs of the U.S. Army with the input of Colt engineers and it's development and testing was drawn out over a number of years. Browning himself did the bulk of the work and rework alongside Colt engineers. So it was built to meet the needs of the Army but very far from "design by committee".

It's evolution over the following decades has been the work of many.

Mags, I've never had a problem with Colt mags. It's all I use in about every 1911 Except a Dan Wesson.

tipoc

The 1911 was designed to the needs of the U.S. Army with the input of Colt engineers and it's development and testing was drawn out over a number of years.

Click to expand...

Along with the input from the US Army Ordnance Board. Everything had to get past them.

Browning and Colt's dream team gave them what they asked for.

So did Savage and their chief designer.

Then it came down to the trials to determine which pistol was better suited to fit the needs of the US Army...decided by the same members of the ordnance board.

If that's not "Design by Committee" I don't know what is.

If that's not "Design by Committee" I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

Never cede territory you don't have to or unless it gets you more territory. So in this case let's say your unclear on the concept.

"Design by Committee" is a disparaging term. It means a design so flawed in a variety of ways that it must have lacked a guiding vision and been the result of being designed by a committee where compromises were made up and down the line. As in "A camel is a horse designed by committee"

That was not the case with the 1911.

But let's see, google "meaning of the term:design by committee" and we get...

Design by committee is a term sometimes used to describe a design that is flawed because too many people provided input. The phrase implies a lack of a coherent vision and, perhaps as a result, a failure to successfully solve the problems the design was intended to solve.

Click to expand...

and,

Design by committee is a disparaging term when a project has many designers involved, but no unifying plan or vision.

Click to expand...

So when you accept the term as a useful one to describe the origins of the 1911 your buying trouble you don't need or want. Or you walk right into the punch, with eyes wide open.

Unless, of course you actually think the design is inherently flawed, then the term meets your needs.

But it's not an accurate term in any case for the 1911.

When the U.S. Army looked for a replacement for the 1911 they had a well thought out and detailed list of requirements for what they gun should be. Which led to the eventual adoption of the M9.

The same is true for the Austrian Army. Their equivalent for the Board of Ordnance had a clear vision of what they wanted. Glock formed a committee to meet their needs or surpass them.

In both cases good guns emerged. Committees were deeply involved with both. The disparaging aspects of the term "design by committee" don't apply here.

This was not the case with the 1911. The Army did not have a detailed, thought out list of requirements. The list was short. They were looking for a new type gun and made changes along the way...not in advance. It was built from the ground up. Not by a committee but by years of work and design changes. Work that actually began in 1898 when the U.S. Army began looking at semi automatic pistols and Colt decided to go for that contract and contracted with Browning to see it through.

The whole process was the opposite of "Design by Committee". The end result was not a confused and poor design but one of the most influential guns of the last century. One that can still does it's job well.

tipoc

A beat-up old Colt brand 1911 served me very well the last three years of the Vietnam thing - weaned on that platform and about all I know - old school - own a WC CQB and a LB PII now - haven't failed me yet, just like that old Colt. I just like the handgun.

My SW1911 needed a reliability tune by my regular gunsmith. My DW Valor needed minor rework by another gunsmith to correct a failure to lockback problem. My STI Trojan 9mm chokes on that ZQI 123 gr. NATO ammo, but is 100% with everything else. A 1911 needs ammo it likes, and good quality aftermarket mags and you are good to go after that.

The whole process was the opposite of "Design by Committee".

Click to expand...

Despite the number of people who had input and influence on the end product.

Well, okay. I quit. You win.

They are sexy with parts galore and the history well, they are iconic but... For the cost of a lower end 1911 you can get a much better performing modern .45acp.

I sold my 1911's and replaced them with Rugers, Glocks & S&W.

I love the 1911s with a thin profile (thin grips) I do really like the feel of them.

The beat up 1911 rental gun I fired at the range did have it's fare share of hickups every now and then and the beat up glocks that I tried just kept firing and firing and firing.

They are different and I have to admit as much as I hate the ugly looks and plastic feel of the glock it is what I would want if I really needed a firearm to rely on.

The glock is a modern firearm that holds more rounds, is lighter, and in my opinion more reliable. My impression is they were designed from the ground up to eat all kinds of crap ammo fairly well at a time when autoloaders are in high demand by the consumer and competition stiff.

The 1911 is a crappy design, yet manages to be very popular because of culture, the trigger system and the cottage industry that thrives on tuning them. There is nothing wrong with that. We have the manufacturing ability to make guns to precise specifications and many guns *still* don't run out of the box. The 1911 requires the owner to have some knowledge and skill beyond shooting in order to keep them going without paying a gunsmith. Again, I have no problem with this so long as the user goes into it knowing that they'll have to put some effort into the gun.

If you're going to use the 1911, I always recommend three things:

1) Budget money beyond the gun and accessories for shipping, additional quality magazines, testing and gunsmithing.
2) Attend a 1911's armorer course and acquire some tools and parts. Knowing how to diagnose and fix the gun will keep you sane between range trips. Spend the time with the gun required to ensure it's running properly.
3) Buy quality and make sure a gunsmith has worked on it. Higher end guns will get this treatment.

Otherwise, buy a gun from HK, Glock, SIG, Beretta, or S&W. Their guns do not need all the testing and other silliness associated with 1911's. They all have great customer service and will make their guns work for you.

My next 1911 will cost at least $1,800 and will likely be an Ed Brown. I want someone to build it; I do not want a "tech" to slap it together at the factory. I have done this too many times and played the "four trips back to Kimber/Springfield" too many times. It's tiring and annoying after eight of these guns. While my Colts were the best of the bunch, I didn't bother to acquire the skills needed to keep them running well. I should have attended Yam's 1911 course and I would likely still have at least one of those guns.

You can dodge the 1911 completely by buying a SIG P220 Super Match with single action trigger or an HK USP with one of the thumb safety only variant systems. The Browning Hi-Power MKIII is also available in 9mm. You could even buy an S&W M&P 45 Compact with thumb safety and still have an eight shooter. I think of the P220 Super Match every time I think about buying an Ed Brown. This is why I don't have that Ed Brown This is how I save myself a huge headache!

Tomrkba, I agree with what you said and I have owned my fair share of 1911's.
I certainly am no gunsmith, however, the only 1911 I ever had a problem with was the American Classic commander (and Gun Tests magazine gave it a "D" grade) and I promptly got rid of it. Currently I own just one 1911, a Ruger SR1911 cmdr. So far it runs just fine. I've owned a number of Glocks (duty requirement) and have never had a hiccup with any of them: 17,26,27,21,21SF,19. My clear favorite is the 19, just a bit shorter than the 17 and that makes it concealable.

I don't have any defensible rationale for hanging around 1911's. It's purely aesthetic: I love the look and the feel and the shooting of it but it's clearly an anachronism. The Glock 17 holds 17 rounds in the mag and one in the chamber. That's 18! One round more than twice what a 1911 with an 8 round mag with one chambered (and a reload) can hold.

So my feeling is that if you're in a profession that requires daily carry, your choice is clear. Otherwise, love your 1911.

Agree with the comment about better mags (I like Tripp).

Could also be ammo specific: some guns have preferences just as we do.

I have a Colt 1991 which shoots ANYTHING I feed it.

All my 1911's have a character and preferences: once you find them they are rock solid and dependable.

The 1911 is a crappy design

Click to expand...

Beg to differ.

The design is solid. If it hadn't been, it would have gone the way of the French Chau Chat by 1919.

It's the recent execution of the design that's usually the problem.

The 1911 was designed to function. If it's correctly built to spec, and fed decent ammunition from a proper magazine (and note that I said proper magazine) it will function. It's a machine. It doesn't have a choice.

Note that I said decent ammunition...not hardball only.

tomrkba said:

My next 1911 will cost at least $1,800 and will likely be an Ed Brown. I want someone to build it; I do not want a "tech" to slap it together at the factory.

Click to expand...

My last 1911 cost $350, runs like an unstoppable machine, never has been back to the factory, never has had a part replaced and has a PM schedule which consists of a bore snake and a can of remoil.

Maybe if people would start buying guns based on their actual capability and not the high dollar roll mark on the slide, there would be such concerns as buying an $1,800 dollar gun.

Maybe if people would start buying guns based on their actual capability and not the high dollar roll mark on the slide, there would be such concerns as buying an $1,800 dollar gun.

Click to expand...

I have played that game and lost. Cost of shipping, testing, parts and gunsmithing took my $400 SA to a $1,000 gun that never worked. The point of the high dollar gun is to have an actual skilled person build it.

The design is solid. If it hadn't been, it would have gone the way of the French Chau Chat by 1919.

It's the recent execution of the design that's usually the problem.

Click to expand...

Too many new guns won't run out of the box. Something is causing it and modern manufacturing should be able to solve the problem. Somehow, it has not overcome the design's deficiencies. I think at some point in the manufacturing process a gunsmith has to use judgement to finalize the build. My guess is that this step is skipped in many instances. If modern manufacturing cannot account for this, the the fault is the design.