Full Metal Jacket
member
say what?
99% of posters on this thread are speaking form personal experience, including me. not from what was heard somewhere. re-read the posts.
1911 guide rod
- Thread starter TexasGunbie
- Start date
- Status
say what?
99% of posters on this thread are speaking form personal experience, including me. not from what was heard somewhere. re-read the posts.
I'll stick with the original short guide rod. If it needed to be full length, JMB would have made it full length to begin with
I find it funny that people will claim "oh this and that will make the 1911 feed/extract/yadda yadda better!" yet when I'm at the range the only people with problems on a 1911 are the ones with some fancy $1k+ one. I've never had a single problem with a GI spec 1911, and can shoot them just as well as I can the "tricked out" ones
I find it funny that people will claim "oh this and that will make the 1911 feed/extract/yadda yadda better!" yet when I'm at the range the only people with problems on a 1911 are the ones with some fancy $1k+ one. I've never had a single problem with a GI spec 1911, and can shoot them just as well as I can the "tricked out" ones
At the range today, I got to talk to a guy with a Ruger 40S&W double action pistol, I don’t remember the model, but I think it is a P series.
His Ruger has a guide rod. And it caused malfunctions. A burr developed on the guide rod, probably caused by a sharp edge on the slide. The combination of the guide rod burr and sharp edge caused jams.
While this is on a Ruger, it is not beyond the ream of possibility for a M1911 guide rod to develop a burr and create drag.
Which goes back to an earlier statement of mine, a guide rod is just another thing to go wrong.
His Ruger has a guide rod. And it caused malfunctions. A burr developed on the guide rod, probably caused by a sharp edge on the slide. The combination of the guide rod burr and sharp edge caused jams.
While this is on a Ruger, it is not beyond the ream of possibility for a M1911 guide rod to develop a burr and create drag.
Which goes back to an earlier statement of mine, a guide rod is just another thing to go wrong.
bigfatdave
Member
Dr Bullseye (of guntalk-online fame) posted this picture a while back:
It would seem that there is nowhere for a spring to go.
So that makes the "prevent kinks" seem sort of nonsensical.
If the forward weight is helping the balance or return to target, why not add weight to a non-moving part, like thickening the dust-cover?
(I'm laying claim to the "thickened dustcover" and "lead-loaded dustcover" concept, I'll sell it to Kimber for millions!)
The concern for a fault in the guide-rod is valid, but not something I spend a lot of time worrying about. But you won;t ever see me adding one.
Manufacturers add the FLGR because it is another feature to advertise and markup the price based on. They get away with it because most of the guns they sell sit in a safe and go to the range once a quarter (or less) to eat some hardball ammo, and then go home to have their bores cleaned out really well (and the moving parts ignored).
I'd guess (and I admit to speculation here) that a FLGR setup would take more precision manufacturing and QA than a basic GI guide-rod does, for the same reliability percentages across a production run.
It would seem that there is nowhere for a spring to go.
So that makes the "prevent kinks" seem sort of nonsensical.
If the forward weight is helping the balance or return to target, why not add weight to a non-moving part, like thickening the dust-cover?
(I'm laying claim to the "thickened dustcover" and "lead-loaded dustcover" concept, I'll sell it to Kimber for millions!)
The concern for a fault in the guide-rod is valid, but not something I spend a lot of time worrying about. But you won;t ever see me adding one.
Manufacturers add the FLGR because it is another feature to advertise and markup the price based on. They get away with it because most of the guns they sell sit in a safe and go to the range once a quarter (or less) to eat some hardball ammo, and then go home to have their bores cleaned out really well (and the moving parts ignored).
I'd guess (and I admit to speculation here) that a FLGR setup would take more precision manufacturing and QA than a basic GI guide-rod does, for the same reliability percentages across a production run.
Same here. Beyond a few not liking HP rounds or exotic target ammo, a basic 1911 has enough battle rattle to cycle smoothly and should be nice and stable locked forward with the front of the barrel captured and the rear held by the lugs ... your sights and barrel will always be indexed together and the difference between that and the frame's alignment will be microscopic.
Magnumite
Member
I don't know where you guys are shooting your guns at to see all the higher end guns having problems, my experience has been almost the opposite. Its mostly the parts guns assembled by who ever without understanding how to tune the gun that I see the most problems. Or something like an Auto Ordnance or now defunct AMT that has a rep for not being reliable.
And I bet good money you don't see Wilson's and Baer's choking in any significant number. As for the $1K plus guns, I'd wager its a mostly a certain manufacturer that changes aesthetics like we change socks. And most of the cost is in those aesthetics.
As far as tight and reliability goes, there is no correlation. If the gun is built properly a tight gun is as reliable as a loose gun. Moreso even, because all the parts are in proper alignment all the time. That's been my experience. Battle rattle is for guns seeing hard use that may not be cleaned regularly or used in harsh conditions.
As a matter of fact, a major name in building custom 1911's did a sand test using a major name 1911 custom, a Glock and a European gun (Sig I think). The guns were buried in sand. Each gun was cleared as you would any gun treated like this, the magazine reinserted after also being shook out and fired. Guess which one had the best record...you're right, the tight 1911.
And I bet good money you don't see Wilson's and Baer's choking in any significant number. As for the $1K plus guns, I'd wager its a mostly a certain manufacturer that changes aesthetics like we change socks. And most of the cost is in those aesthetics.
As far as tight and reliability goes, there is no correlation. If the gun is built properly a tight gun is as reliable as a loose gun. Moreso even, because all the parts are in proper alignment all the time. That's been my experience. Battle rattle is for guns seeing hard use that may not be cleaned regularly or used in harsh conditions.
As a matter of fact, a major name in building custom 1911's did a sand test using a major name 1911 custom, a Glock and a European gun (Sig I think). The guns were buried in sand. Each gun was cleared as you would any gun treated like this, the magazine reinserted after also being shook out and fired. Guess which one had the best record...you're right, the tight 1911.
Just curious, I recently bought a Delta Gold Cup 1911. A used 1991 model with a full length guide rod. This is the first 1911 I've had with a FLGR and it is factory issue in that model. If it wasn't of some benefit why would the factory go to the added expense of installing it ? BTW, this is an honest question, I am not advocating FLGR use. This is my first encounter with a pistol equipped with one and I haven't had a chance to fire it yet. Just wondering why Colt put them in the Gold Cup if they are as useless and troublesome as I'm reading here ?
bigfatdave
Member
Sure, it can be until it gets dirty or gets fed ammo that a loose gun would digest without a complaint. But it will cost a lot more to do the same job.
I don't see Wilson or Baer guns in any significant number in the first place. A lot of them are "custom" jobs from a couple certain manufacturers, a lot of them are target guns built to run nothing but match-grade ammo, and a lot of them are poorly maintained.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
So they can pass that added expense down to the customer, with an increase. Therefore increasing profit margin. There are also lots of people that think the FLGR is the best thing since sliced bread, and the manufactures don't want their customers calling up and asking why such an expensive gun doesn't have one.
They know it doesn't hurt anything either so just stick one in there to make everyone happy, and add more to the price for the "extras." It's not about the gun it's about money and customers.
Zach S
Member
Actually, this is one occasion where a FLGR makes sense to me. You see, with a FLGR, all you have to do is remove the slide stop and take the slide off as an assembly. The FLGR keep the spring captive so there's no need to remove it.
Magnumite
Member
Let's see, tight guns built for match and professional shooting or even a high end Production guns such as a SA Trophy Match, shoots many hundreds of rounds between cleanings without malfunctions. And that isn't reliable? And if one asks around the proper websites, they would notice the Baers, Browns, Wilson's and high end SA production guns are highly reliable during extended shooting sessions.
I am a competitive shooter and use tight 1911's. I frequently will put over 1000 rounds down the tube while lubing frequently (as I do any firearm) and running a quick brush down the barrel once in a while. And I don't have gun related malfunctions. These guns eat ball, SWC and hollow point ammo with equal effectiveness.
I'd say that's reliable.
I am a competitive shooter and use tight 1911's. I frequently will put over 1000 rounds down the tube while lubing frequently (as I do any firearm) and running a quick brush down the barrel once in a while. And I don't have gun related malfunctions. These guns eat ball, SWC and hollow point ammo with equal effectiveness.
I'd say that's reliable.
mljdeckard
Member
No. With the spring captive, it is to difficult to either remove OR replace the slide stop. Certainly not easier than just replacing it with a GI style plug.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
A mil-spec 1911 GI plug has a lock tab inside it the spring "screws" into.
The other end of the spring is smaller and a tight fit on the recoil gude.
If the parts are mil-spec and properly assembled, the plug or spring simply can't shoot off into the weeds.
No way the 1911 could have successfully fought so many wars if parts went flying every time you took it down to clean it in a foxhole full of mud & water!
Unfortunately, an awful lot of todays 1911 parts are not even close to mil-spec, or the way John Browning designed them.
rc
The other end of the spring is smaller and a tight fit on the recoil gude.
If the parts are mil-spec and properly assembled, the plug or spring simply can't shoot off into the weeds.
No way the 1911 could have successfully fought so many wars if parts went flying every time you took it down to clean it in a foxhole full of mud & water!
Unfortunately, an awful lot of todays 1911 parts are not even close to mil-spec, or the way John Browning designed them.
rc
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That's why I use the captive system installed by my gunsmith years ago, it allows for the ease of removal and installation since nothing is under spring pressure when you pull the slide stop.
Apologies for the fuzzy pic, I don't do macro well. It's hard to see but there's a hole right in front of the frame shroud through the FLGR.
What you see here is what I have on all my 1911's. It's a single piece FLGR with a hole drilled through just in front of the shroud of the frame, and the hole is chamfered so it won't catch on anything.
The small pins are pieces of drill stock.
You lock the slide back and insert one of these small pins through the hole. You slowly lower the slide until the plunger hits the drill stock, locking the spring in place. At this point you can push the slide on forward til you can remove the slide stop with no spring pressure at all applied.
You then remove the FLGR with the spring in place from the slide, take out the barrel for cleaning or whatever with no worries about losing springs etc.
Assembly is simply the reverse but since there is nothing under pressure when you are putting it together the slide stop goes in easily and you can easily move the link around to get everything to line up if you want.
If you do want to take it apart the old way you can still do that of course.
I've been doing it this way for 20+ years. It's the only reason I use FLGRs. Especially in IPSC or something similar where you want to open the thing up often for a quick clean and lube, this way is great. And I've never shot a spring across the room doing it this way either
Attachments
mljdeckard
Member
What YOU are suggesting would. What Zach S. is suggesting would not.
I'm not a gunsmith nor do I claim to be more "knowing" than the novice 1911 owner. Both my SA Loaded and DW Pointman 7 came with a FLGR. I see no reason to change. My only experience, by owning these guns, tells me that the FLGR works extremely well. I personally don't care if it takes 60 seconds or 10 seconds to dissassemble my gun. I'm not in or on a combat front line. So many of you are saying length doesn't matter? Just having some fun guys.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Oh absolutely, that's why I'm recommending drilling one little hole
sleepyone
Member
Browning designed plenty of guns w/o having to assign the Garand to him. None of his weapons ever failed an ordinance test; we are talking 1911, machine guns, rifles, aircraft machine guns, 30 and 37 mm cannon etc... An amazing feat that has never been duplicated and never will.
And the FLGL, was supposed to improve accuracy, but the DW Valors, Les Bears, Ed Browns, etc... do pretty well with the GI style design.
And the FLGL, was supposed to improve accuracy, but the DW Valors, Les Bears, Ed Browns, etc... do pretty well with the GI style design.
Magnumite
Member
The FLGR is not intended to improve accuracy, the claims are it smooths spring compression and rebound.
What Zach S. is suggesting does work, without the little hole in the FLGR. You move the slide slightly out of battery, remove the slide stop and remove the upper assembly. It will stay together. It has for me for many years.
What Zach S. is suggesting does work, without the little hole in the FLGR. You move the slide slightly out of battery, remove the slide stop and remove the upper assembly. It will stay together. It has for me for many years.
mljdeckard
Member
I didn't say it wouldn't work. I said it wouldn't be easier.
Magnumite
Member
No drilling, no little pin, no extra steps. That's not easier? I don't get it. If one likes the. Hole and pin, that's cool with me, I have a FLGR with the hole. But how can one say not doing the hole thing is easier than the no hole?
He didn't design the Internet either. :ROTFL: neither did Al Gore. LOL!
------
I had a standard Short guide rod in my Para. My gunsmith replaced it with a two piece about 12 years ago. Although it would loosen, it never came apart during shooting.
I don't think we will come to a convincing resolution to this discussion. It's like the Revolver v Semiauto or caliber wars, to each his or her own. YMMV.
Magnumite
Member
Yeah, I agree, CDRGlock. It's just amazing how quick the flgr gets electronically castrated in these threads. Purism is irrational dogma. LOL. Just calling out irrational logic
Last edited:
I could be mistaken, but I have a Colt with a loose slide/frame fit and with a FLGR, it rattles less and the ejection pattern is much more consistent than with the GI rod.
Obviously, it works fine with the GI rod, but it would seem the FLGR has some "influence" on how the slide rides the frame??
Obviously, it works fine with the GI rod, but it would seem the FLGR has some "influence" on how the slide rides the frame??
Magnumite
Member
It's possible, smoother spring operation, more consistant lockup and recoil patterns.
- Status
