1911, Rock Island vs Custom (Kimber) break in theory.

[itsreese]

im sorry i got upset JTQ, I just kind of feel like everyone is missing my point (still) about the AR to 1911 comparison. i am not trying to compare man-hours of fitting to 100% drop in parts. I accept the different eras and the craftsmanship differences between the 2, what i was correlating the 2 on was the vast availability of options to upgrade. with both platforms you can buy one thing and piece by piece completely reshape the purpose of its existence. i can take my RIA and have a slide custom fitted to it from many vendors offering government model slides, i can turn a GI 1911A1 into a tactical (without the rail) or slowly have a gunsmith match a slide to it and make it a match 1911.
my comparison was not to the "ease" of droping the parts in. modern machining has made tolerances negligable in the AR platform and can build one with an AR tool and some punches more or less, on the other hand a BASIC 1911 armorers set on brownells is $200. the glock on the other hand is designed to be literally drop in, the trigger is a pack that pops in and out with a flat head.

and i am truely sorry my OP sounded like a way to "fix" break in periods. i truely am sorry for that. i was trying to share my experiences, what i did wrong (whet stone polish) and how i fixed it (with a real polish as reccomended to me my a local gunsmith).

i think (and hope) that everyone who reads ANY post, takes it at their own risk, as with any DIY project. and with any project start small and work up, i would take a custom STI and hack it with a dremel no sooner than i would do a cylinder head port and polish myself on a porche. you buy one of those because it is already perfect. i seel my RIA as a chevy nova, i dont WANT to destroy it but i accept that it is part of a learning curve.

again sorry i got upset. i kinda felt like my OP was getting more and more misunderstood.

again when i compare the AR to the 1911, it is SOLELY on parts available and the versatility of the platform, not on ease of install or experience required.

as far as 1911 parts and "drop-in-edness" i searched many forums and "lurched" and read a lot of how to's. got some good info too. i FULLY understand that not much will truely drop in. FWIW, i dont think i saw a part for sale on the internet for a 1911 that didnt have a disclamer "some gunsmithing required". most parts are going to have to be hand fit a micron at a time.

and like you said above the 1911 is a gunsmiths weapon. the beauty in the 1911 is in the workmanship. my AR's or glocks arent blended, arent smoothed. the 1911 has heart and i want to learn it

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Well......now....originally you started out with a "theory" as to why some guns need breaking in that involved the barrel being stainless as the main factor. I addressed that so you would understand why some manufacturers recommend shooting without cleaning for a certain number of rounds - fine fitting through lapping.

Your observation of equating the customization of AR style rifles and 1911 handguns because of ubiquitous parts availability is right on.

Have a good time with your future endeavors learning the 1911.

 

[mcdonl]

I have nothing to add, but a question to ask...

Is the tightness of the gun related to accuracy more than reliability to some extent?

My understanding is... lower quality manufacturing, looser tollerences equal guns that have some give to them and may feed/fire more reliably out of the box but the same attributes that make it feed reliably will make it less accurate...

High quality, precision manufactured parts with tight tolerences have very little give and need to be "broken in" to get to where they feed reliable but will be much more accurate as once they are broken in the hi quality parts will maintain that same tolerence and dimensions for a long time.

Just wondering.

 

[itsreese]

buck: i am new to the 1911, and it was a theory, albeit a little misguided. matching through lapping makes sence, and there is probably a reason it is done that way instead of mine right? but thats the beauty of trial and error.

 

[SwampWolf]

A little bit off topic but I'd like to know what is involved with the fitting of a new barrel bushing on a 1911. I have a Series 70 Colt Gold Cup with the "collet-style" barrel bushing. Though I've fired thousands of rounds through it without incident, I keep reading that, eventually, one of the collet "fingers" will break and tie the gun up until a disassembly frees it. I'd like to avoid this happening but I still want to preserve the inherent accuracy I've enjoyed with this pistol, so I'm considering replacing the collet bushing with a conventional 1911 barrel bushing, but in "match" configuration.
So, what is the procedure in fitting a new bushing and can it be done at home by someone not gifted with gunsmithing skills? Thanks-and I hope this post didn't stray too far off base from the op's post.

 

[JTQ]

You can get pretty close by measuring the inside diameter of your slide and the outside diameter of your barrel and ordering the size you need from places like EGW.

http://egw-guns.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=34_26&products_id=208

 

[EddieNFL]

Kimber invented the "break in period" to make up for their shoddy QA/QC.

My Llama 45 was more reliable than my Kimbers. TJ

My belief, as well.

So I have read on this and other forums that custom 1911's, such as Kimber, Wilson and some Springfields have a "break in" period of 200-500 rounds, before they stop haing feed jams (3 point jams) and on the other hand I have read of people with a $300 Rock Island Armory, shooting anything out of the box, 2500 rounds without a hitch.

Kimber is the only manufacturer I've heard recommend a "break-in" to solve malfunctioning problems. When I purchased my first Wilson, I could not remove the thumb safety. I called Wilson and they the tech told me to shoot several hundred rounds before disassembling and cleaning. I jokingly asked, "Is this like Kimber's "break-in" recommendation?" He replied they didn't expect firing a gun to solve a problem they should have corrected prior to shipping.

Side note: A Kimber rep assured me every 1911, including Wilson, Nighthawk or any other custom/semi-custom 1911 was built using MIM parts. The reps at Nighthawk laughed when I called and asked.

 

[PabloJ]

Well made firearm should not require break in period.

 

[nightal]

Hate to tell you but the RIA pistols don't come with SS barrels.

 

[Shear_stress]

Hate to tell you but the RIA pistols don't come with SS barrels.

Yeah, hard to believe nobody's caught that yet.

To the OP: you didn't polish the barrel "down to the stainless" any more than you polished it down to the zirconium. Your barrel is standard ordnance carbon steel. The non-gunsmith should avoid unnecessary polishing like the plague--especially when trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist for your gun. It's not clear what you were trying to accomplish.

 

[Nushif]

Good luck in your adventures, but I'll get my 1911 advice elsewhere.

I can tell you don't have much of a "pure" science background.

He is espousing a theory. This means he is formulating an idea, based on his own experiment if you will. Not an entirely bad one, I like to think. Whether this is true or not ... I can nto discern.
Nowhere did I read anything about advice in this. This is something you assumed. You also critisized him for what he did with his own gun. I'm not sure what to think of your response, to be honest.

 

[JTQ]

Nushif wrote,
I can tell you don't have much of a "pure" science background.

You are correct.

He is espousing a theory. This means he is formulating an idea, based on his own experiment if you will.

A valid point.

 

[SoulLessGinger]

Well made firearm should not require break in period.

Neither my Colt or my Kimber had a single failure during "break-in". However, if they had, it wouldn't have bothered me.

A tighter fit gun will be more accurate. Thing is, in a 1911, to be assured of out of the box reliability AND extreme accuracy (ie well machined) you will PAY. Wilson, Brown, and Nighthawk cost what they do for a reason. They are tight where they need to be, and not as tight where they don't. That level of attention to detail ain't free.

For me, I don't have $3000 to spend on a 1911, so I will have to deal with a gun that is tight, and accept the possibility that the gun may have to do a bit of "self-smithing" for the first few hundred rounds.

Your statement is over simplifying things. The fact that I partially agree with you however, is the reason I carry a Glock. But unless you were just trolling, you should really spend some time on 1911forum and learn about the platform.

 

[Shear_stress]

I can tell you don't have much of a "pure" science background.

He is espousing a theory. This means he is formulating an idea, based on his own experiment if you will.

Not sure how pure a science background I have but that is miles away from a theory, which can only be called that after repeated validation. At best it is a hypothesis. Still, it's downright bizarre to test a proposed solution to a problem with one brand of gun by making modifications to another that not only does not use the material thought to be at heart of the behavior but was running fine to begin with.

To the extent I agree with all this, it's that it's unexceptable for a defensive gun to need several hundred rounds downrange to get it to be reliable enough to use for defense. On a range gun such compromises can be okay to maximize accuracy.

 

[Nushif]

Good catch on the hypothesis bit. My point remains though that shouting the guy for having an opinion is kinda you know.. not cool.
I know he violated the sacred 1911 but calm down. He commited heathenry, not heresy.

 

[Shear_stress]

Good catch on the hypothesis bit. My point remains though that shouting the guy for having an opinion is kinda you know.. not cool. I know he violated the sacred 1911 but calm down. He commited heathenry, not heresy.

Good point.

 

[tbreihan]

Neither my Colt or my Kimber had a single failure during "break-in". However, if they had, it wouldn't have bothered me.

A tighter fit gun will be more accurate. Thing is, in a 1911, to be assured of out of the box reliability AND extreme accuracy (ie well machined) you will PAY. Wilson, Brown, and Nighthawk cost what they do for a reason. They are tight where they need to be, and not as tight where they don't. That level of attention to detail ain't free.

I have a Colt Combat Elite that I bought new about 18 months ago. I've probably put 2000 rounds through it since (I don't get to shoot a lot, but I try to manage 100-150 rounds a month.) It is a fairly "loose" gun and was loose when I bought it, especially compared to some of the more "fashionable" 1911s I looked at. Slide rattles on the frame a bit, bushing is turns freely, etc. However, both the muzzle and breech end of the barrel are bank-vault solid when its in battery and it shoots more accurately than I can. Not saying that a Wilson, Baer, or Brown won't outshoot it, but it is plenty accurate. It's also had exactly one malfunction, a failure to feed with a Hornady 230 grn +P JHP that I'm 99% sure was my fault for limp-wristing.

I guess the point is that this gun seems to be tight where it needs to be and loose where it needs to be, too.

 

[Zerodefect]

Strange how Kimbers supposedly require a break in period before the function properly, yet the much tighter semi-customs like the Baer's don't? Interesting.

I have a RIA that locks up like a bank vault, so I wouldn't say that RIA's have loose tolerances. At least, mine doesn't.

LB's have a smoother finish on the outside of the barrel than Kimbers. Takes a while to smooth out that drag.

My DW has a smoother finish on the ouside of it's barrel when compared to my K. They just spent more time making it right.

Kimbers idiot service dept gave the "break in" excuse out too often and discredited themselfs, when indeed, thier 1911's do in fact smooth out after 500 rounds. I've bought a few used troubled K's for peanuts from angry owners that couldn't get past the breakin. (And the need for quality mags, quality ammo, good lube, and a little ramp polish) Easy fixes.

 

[SoulLessGinger]

I have a Colt Combat Elite that I bought new about 18 months ago. I've probably put 2000 rounds through it since (I don't get to shoot a lot, but I try to manage 100-150 rounds a month.) It is a fairly "loose" gun and was loose when I bought it, especially compared to some of the more "fashionable" 1911s I looked at. Slide rattles on the frame a bit, bushing is turns freely, etc. However, both the muzzle and breech end of the barrel are bank-vault solid when its in battery and it shoots more accurately than I can. Not saying that a Wilson, Baer, or Brown won't outshoot it, but it is plenty accurate. It's also had exactly one malfunction, a failure to feed with a Hornady 230 grn +P JHP that I'm 99% sure was my fault for limp-wristing.

I guess the point is that this gun seems to be tight where it needs to be and loose where it needs to be, too.

My Combat Elite is the same way. It is an accurate shooter and has been totally reliable (except it won't chamber Gold Dots). But to reach its full accuracy potential, the slide-frame and barrel-slide would need a bit better fitting. I'm fine with mine the way it is, however. There's a great sticky on this on another forum, but I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to post links to other websites here.

 

[JLaScala]

Well first off, he polished it the wrong way. If you want to remove rough coating, or tool marks to achieve smoother cycling and that nifty chrome look, you need to use gun oil, and automotive grade wet sand paper. Start with 1000 grit and finish with 2000. After all of the sanding is done, clean the parts thuroughly. Then you can buff with chrome polish or the like. Really makes the parts shine, not to mention it helps lubricate, and protect the parts you just stripped of their coating. I have used this technique on multiple guns, including my RIA tactical. All of the polished parts are as smooth as glass. It improved the accuracy, smoothness of cycling, and of course its looks. The RIA's are made of 4140 steel which has an excellent strength to weight ratio. While this grade of steel does contain chromium, it is not in great enough quantities to provide the corrosion resistance found in stainless steel. So for all of you wondering about the barrels, there you go. The frame is cast and the slide is bar stock. Its strong, corrosion resistant enough, and when worked on the right way, can be more accurate than the shooter for over 3000 failure free rounds, just like mine

 

[Zerodefect]

Is this really that complex of a topic. Not sure where all this confusion is coming from.

Break in has absolutely nothing to do with the tightness of the slide/frame fit. I don't care how tight LB is and how loose C,K,SF are.

It's about smooth metal finish. Two buttered pieces of glass slide against each other alot better than two buttered bricks.

K and many under $1000 1911's have a rougher surface finish on the outside of the barrel you can feel with your finger nail. When that smooths out your broken in.

LB,DW, EB have a smoother finish that deosn't require breakin. As tight as those are. They have no choice but to sell smooth metal, otherwise the gun would be coming back under warranty for jamming during breakin. When your tolerances are tight, you don't have room for rough machining.

They also lapp the slide rails, that's where they get that smooth slide feel. C, K, SF, will feel smooth like that after 10,000 rounds.

Kahr also has a very rough finish on the outside of many of thier PM series. Those guns smooth out alot after 1000 rnds.

 

[jbm0207]

I have a kimber custom 2. THe basic one. It has been 100% reliable so far with approximately 800-1000 rounds.

It is a joy to shoot. The only thing I can offer is the thing needed to be cleaned and lubed prior to shooting.

 

[RON in PA]

Just for the record, RIA states in the paperwork that comes with the gun that there is a break in period of 500 rounds with 230 grain ball ammo.