1911's raves and rant

[1911Tuner]

For a Thread that was not looking for any replies,this turned into a pretty good read.

Yeah...Threads like this usually do evolve into a historical/technical discussion. The problem with the 1911 is its enormous popularity long after it should have fallen by the wayside. Like the '94 Winchester and the '98 Mauser...it just hangs on like a bulldog. Along with this popularity comes those who want a piece of the pie...and it goes downhill from there as they implement their own ideas of "within spec."

The other part of the problem is mainly because there are so few under the age of 50 or so who have had a real one in their hands long enough to appreciate it, let alone able to actually use what is fast becoming a collectible that is far too valuable to shoot more than a magazineful through every 5-10 years for nostalgia's sake. Even I've put my old warhorses in mothballs...former carry guns...save the pair of WW2-era USGI Colts that I sometimes carry, though I don't shoot'em very much any more.

 

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

The problem with the 1911 is its enormous popularity long after it should have fallen by the wayside. Like the '94 Winchester and the '98 Mauser...it just hangs on like a bulldog.

How true!!!

Any smith that was to tell me that 1911 needs a ramped barrel and external extractor to be reliable and accurate, tells me that he/she doesn't know how to make the original design work properly.

There are derivatives since the original WWII era 1911's that even Colt and Springfield made some minor changes to, (I'll call'm mistakes), but to say that an external extractor is better or that a ramped barrel would provide more case support... For a low pressure cartridge, (Yes, the 1911 was designed for the .45acp. Not other cartridges!) Oh it's just another smith trying to redesign what works very well for its intended purpose.

I have Colts and a Kimber. Internal and external extractors. Forged and MIM. Not a dogon problem with any of them. I shoot LSWC in them too! Not RN. They function fine! No, I don't have a safe full of 1911's like others do. But I have thousands of rounds through what I own. Not the numbers of what Tuner has through his, but probably more than the average guy.

Show me a Bullseye shooter that's been doing it for a while, that shoots a 1911 with a ramped barrel. Or one that uses an external extractor slide. I bet if I put an order in for one with either feature to Clark or Ed Masaki, my check would be sent back post haste with a note that they have the right to choose what customers they service. Many think that reliability is second to accuracy to the Bullseye shooter. That is not true. So tell me why champion BE shooters are shooting guns that are of WWII vintage and design. -Because the nonramped, internal extracted, non MIM, non FLGR guns do shoot reliably and accurately. (I don't shoot a built BE gun, but only because I can't afford one yet. I'll get one some day. Non ramped barrel. Internal extractor.)

Oh.. And another thing.. I don't consider myself an expert in much. I'm a computer geek by profession. I do consider myself the average gun consumer. (many know more than I, some know less than I about guns and metallurgy) So I take offense to the claim that we don't know the differences of investment casting, forged and hammer forging processes. We may not be able to walk into a foundry and do the job, but we got a pretty good idea of what's goin on.

Hmm... Who's got production and sales numbers for say 'pre-series 80/1911A1' designs? Got any other numbers from other manufactures -non1911- that even comes close? OK, the BHP was built for the 9x19. As were a bunch of new era plastic pistols. I'm curious.. Why is it that most every auto loader is compared to the 1911? -Even the DA models.

How could you possibly think that a thread like this would not generate responses?

-Steve

 

[Wvladimire]

To tell you the truth, I didn't think there was anything to respond too.

I mentioned improved extractors just wanting Joe blow to make sure they got a good one. Match grade, bullet proof, hard core, are all made by reputable companies.

Ramped barrels are made by three companies I believe.

And as far as the rest I just wanted to educate Joe Blow about how some companies mislead them with their wording.

It appears as though I was wrong. I didn't want to push one brand over another, that is why I did not name them. And I also wanted people to know that buying a name brand doesn't gaurantee a quality product. I just wanted the average 1911 buyer to really look over their pistol and make sure things were as they should be. My apologies but my intentions were pure.

 

[jmorris]

And as far as the rest I just wanted to educate Joe Blow about how some companies mislead them with their wording.

For the most part “New and improved” is a term better off on my laundry detergent than my 1911’s.

 

[Old Fuff]

The problem is that not everyone sees the "improvements" you advocate as really being better. You have every right to have your opinions about these things, and to express your views in various posts.

Jeff Cooper once remarked to me that everyone had a right to have an opinion about anything, and an obligation to defend it. But the value of any opinion depended on the knowledge and experience concerning that subject that the holder has. If the opinion has value it can stand up to examination, and if it doesn’t it will soon fall to the wayside.

In general there are to kinds of 1911 pistols. First, those made by Colt and various government contractors between 1911 and about 1965. These were all made to specifications and dimensions that are found in easily obtainable U.S. Army blueprints. The others are post-1965 pistols made by various private companies and Colt who abandoned the older requirements and made various changes - mostly based on reducing production costs. Others were simply cosmetic in nature. The cosmetic affectations seldom affected reliability, but others did. This was especially true when tolerances were tampered with to tighten things up. While custom gunsmiths had been doing this for years to build maximum-accuracy bullseye match guns, each one was bench-made and carefully hand fitted. Too many of the newer guns were made tighter, but not fitted, and the buyer was led to believe that this was normal, and they should spend the money to buy ammunition to “break it in.” In other instances parts were made from non-specification materials without adequate testing to determine if issues might lie in the future. All taken together the result was that the guns sometimes didn’t work, and as a result the 1911 pistol’s fine reputation suffered. Some even went so far as to say that the Browning design was a fault, and needed to be changed. Curiously, the unmodified pistols made before 1965 (give or take) had generally worked fine, and the functional problems so often seen now had come about after the tinkering had started. Younger shooters that have little or no experience with pre-’65 guns may be fooled, but old-timers that have experienced both know the difference.

So by all means continue to advocate the changes you recommended. But be aware that there are others out there that can match and exceed your knowledge and experience that will argue differently, and they are not “industry trolls.” This doesn’t mean you’re wrong, just that you can’t sell your ideas in a vacuum where there is nothing else offered. We encourage discussion and debate, as it leads in the long run to better understanding.

 

[Jerry Keefer]

Well, Old Fuff;

You and I have banged heads a time or two, but I must commend you on this one...that is a very good post.

Jerry

 

[1911Tuner]

My apologies but my intentions were pure.

We never doubted it, and no apology necessary. No harm, no foul.

And as far as the rest I just wanted to educate Joe Blow about how some companies mislead them with their wording.

I've been trying to do the same for lo these many years...but to little avail.

A look in the catalogs will reveal a claim of "Tool Steel" and when the part comes...it's MIM made from powdered 4140 or 4340, or an investment casting from the same material, thus not violating the letter of "Truth in Advertising...but still misleading, even though the manufacturer never claimed that it was machined from toolsteel barstock. Gotta read the fine print and ask questions...even though they may not get a straight answer.

Fuff and I were trying to educate you as well. While many of your thoughts were spot on, some were a little wide of the mark...so we shared our collective hands-on experience that spans several decades. The current crop of production 1911 pistols is so far removed from the original concept that it's almost gotten to the point that...much like a 427 Cobra kit car...it only looks like the real thing.

Yes, I'll have to admit that there have been a few improvements along the way that serve a segment of the buyers. Custom features that one may prefer, while another places no importance on. Diff'rent strokes and all that...but too many of those "improvements" leave the buyer with something less than a rugged, reliable go anywhere sidearm that can be serviced in the field without the aid of an armorer, and without tools. A pistol that can be immersed in thick mud...dunked in water and agitated...shaken off, and work without having to be disassembled and thoroughly cleaned before it can be returned to service.

Call me a purist if you like, but after seeing the pistol change so drastically over the last 25-30 years, and having to address so many functional problems as a result of many of these changes...I've found that sticking with the original specs as closely as possible takes care of about 98% of the issues. With these...most problems are simple in origin and simple to correct. With the ones that have been turned into something that they were never intended to be...sometimes it's not so simple.

Like I said earlier. This keyboard would rust up solid...

 

[Old Fuff]

You and I have banged heads a time or two, but I must commend you on this one...that is a very good post.

Not to worry, I have a very hard head....

Besides, I'm always right...

 

[1911Tuner]

Not to worry, I have a very hard head....

That comes from 20 years livin' in a cave with big rocks for pillows...

I'm glad to see Jerry was followin' this one. He's a serious wrench for things Bullseye, and he can tell you what it takes to build a 1911 pistol that's not only wicked, scary accurate...but reliable as well. Hint: We're talkin' about a pistol that'll run ya in the neighborhood of 4 thousand bucks...if you supply the frame and slide.

My builds have largely been rebuilds of old USGI and Commercial Colts or badly worn recently manufactured pistols. I don't tighten any of them beyond minimum ordnance spec...or at the tight end of allowable clearances set by the original design. Even when I fit a match barrel...I deliberately loosen things up just a bit if it's too tightly fitted for my purposes.

Again...Diff'rent strokes. Jerry and others who do what he does have a specific goal for the pistol. I have a different goal is all.
Mine is to wind up with a 1911 or 1911A1 pistol that is as good as it could be and still fall within US Army specs for a SERVICE grade pistol.

What many don't understand is that when the armorers first began to rebuild the guns for Bullseye competition, the guns were selected from existing stocks and test-fired with match-grade ammuniton. Those that shot into 3 inches or less at 50 yards were sent to the armorers to be fine-tuned for competition. Those that didn't were returned to inventory for service. 3.01 inches failed...and there were a good many that passed and even surpassed the minimum requirement. It was my understanding that there were many, many more that barely failed...just barely.

Good luck finding a production 1911 today that'll shoot into 3 inches...or even 5 or 6.

 

[Old Fuff]

That comes from 20 years livin' in a cave with big rocks for pillows...

20 years my foot! I couldn't move into the first one until I chased out a dinosaur.

I do wish that Mr. Browning had come up with a bigger pistol.

 

[45auto]

Good discussion and read.

Aside from the "cheaper parts" that are used today, compared to yesteryear, it would be interesting to note some of the subtle changes.

Already noted that just "tightening" up a design lead to trouble, without the benefit of experienced handwork.

But, with CNC machines and the "right" bluprints, wouldn't be easier to produce a consistent, reliable 1911?

Just wondering.

 

[1911Tuner]

But, with CNC machines and the "right" bluprints, wouldn't be easier to produce a consistent, reliable 1911?

It should...at least in theory. It hasn't shown to be consistently the case. There's always a tolerance, and there's no such thing as a perfect dimension...though some extremely skilled hands can get very close.

 

[Jim Watson]

... the tight end of allowable clearances set by the original design. Even when I fit a match barrel...I deliberately loosen things up just a bit if it's too tightly fitted for my purposes.

That is the sort of thing some old guy name of Jeff Cooper called a "half accuracy job" suitable for nearly all purposes short of 50 yard slowfire.

But, with CNC machines and the "right" bluprints, wouldn't be easier to produce a consistent, reliable 1911?

There are some makers doing that on the big parts. I am told that one or more of the more controversial makes (In the OP's policy of not naming names, isn't that sweet?) has really straight, square, smooth, and tight slide, frame, and barrel.
It appears from Internet Reports that it is the ersatz materials and the departures from Colt design in the small parts that give the most trouble. What Jan Stevenson called "the maze of little fink parts" that made the 1911 an expensive design to produce at modern labor rates. He did not forsee the cheapening of those bits.

 

[Howard Roark]

Wow, Reading all this makes me wonder how I shot IPSC for 10 years with so few problems.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The extractor as you mentioned, never having to do anything with, worked out for you. But in all honesty, it is an inherent flaw in the design.

An "improved" external extractor on another make of "1911" I had broke off its claw after about 300 rounds.

 

[45auto]

There are some makers doing that on the big parts. I am told that one or more of the more controversial makes (In the OP's policy of not naming names, isn't that sweet?) has really straight, square, smooth, and tight slide, frame, and barrel.

I have "read" KIMBER does produce very good "big parts", just as you detailed.

Old Fuff and Tuner have any opinion on that?

I believe, if that's all true, and they didn't have the series II, they would be selling even more than they do...which is a lot.

I'd rather "replace" small parts than "refit" big parts or have them fail...IMHO.

 

[1911Tuner]

Old Fuff and Tuner have any opinion on that?

Kimber probably doesn't produce many...if any...of its own parts...big or little.

 

[Jim Watson]

I thought they CNCed their machined parts themselves. At one time there was a gunzine free advertisement (feature article) about how S&W was making their rough forgings but Kimber was doing the milling.

Heaven knows where the MIM mung metal pieces come from. I have seen an advertisement for a MIM firm in India showing recognizeable firearms parts identifiable by model if not by brand.

 

[1911Tuner]

Jim...Finish machining isn't producing the parts any more than reboring an engine block is. There are several steps involved with producing a single finished part starting with a block of steel. These days, outsourcing is the name of the game, and they're all doing it. They have to in order to remain competitive. Complete in-house production is a thing of the past.

 

[Art Eatman]

I in no way call myself a gunsmith, although I've been able to make 1911 triggers work better than when I first acquired the pistols.

I gotta admit to getting ungruntled at the notion of, "...should have fallen by the wayside." Why? The dang things work. Mine, always. Press trigger, loud noise, big pill heads down range. Repeat as desired. What's not to like?

And after some sixty years, a 1911 still fits my hand just fine. "It's an ergonomic thing."

I dunno. After some 25 years of buy/sell/trade with gunshow tables, I guess about the only pistol I haven't messed with has been a Sig. That's from Lilliput to Desert Eagle. The thing is, a darned old 1911 is sorta like putting on an old pair of shoes.

But new doesn't necessarily equate to improved.

Art

 

[onebigelf]

If I missed where someone already said this, sorry. Extractor problems in the 1911, once it has been properly setup, are almost always a USER ISSUE. This problem is most frequently a result of folks that like to drop the slide on a chambered round, forcing the extractor to snap over the case rim. Bends the extractors. Anyone who knows the design will tell you, you want to carry a full mag plus 1? Do it properly. Load the mag, chamber a round, drop the mag and reload the extra round. Extractors will last more than you'll ever shoot unless you are a professional competitor.

John