1911's "Tight VS Loose"?

[Chuck R.]

Since I took the 3” thread off track I figured I’d start a new thread and reengage Old Fuff on his opinion on “tight” 1911’s.

Background info: I’ve owned 7 1911’s over the years since 1978, my current two are both Les Baer’s. My 5” gun has a little over 15K through it and hasn’t hiccupped since the 1st 1000 rounds. My 4.25” Stinger went over 5K yesterday and never has had a stoppage. Most of my range sessions are 3-400 rounds of 200 grain LSWC reloads, I also shoot 2-3 pistol matches a month with the 5” gun.

I’d say that they’re both pretty reliable for any 1911, never mind a “tight” built 1911. At this point I trust them both. I believe that others might disagree based on the “tightness” VS “looser” tolerances, especially in a combat environment. Some have also pointed out that the extra accuracy provided by a tighter fit gun isn’t required. They've even gone so far as to call them "toys" They may be right, but my contention is that a tight gun, put together properly, has enough reliability to spare for practical use.

So I’d like to get some of your takes on the following:

Just how many rounds does a defensive pistol have to shoot to be reliable, both per range session and cumulative?

Is the extra accuracy detrimental?

Exactly how bad are the average SD combat conditions?

My thoughts are, there’s no way I’ll ever go over 300 rounds in a real world situation before cleaning, it’s just not happening. I’ll take whatever accuracy I can get, and the worst conditions I’m likely to see is a spill in a mud puddle on my way to the car.

I do agree with some of the “old Guys” contentions that there’s issues with some of the newer makes of 1911’s and that some companies are letting their customers do QC for them. That’s why I ended up with the Baer’s in the first place.

But do they need to rattle to be reliable?

What do you guys think?

Chuck

 

[Walkalong]

It only needs to be "tight" at lockup to be accurate. Different tolerances for different wants.

 

[JDGray]

My new sloppy fitted SA Loaded Fullsize, is plenty accurate, after fitting a new bushing The slide to frame fit is still kinda loose, but in lockup, the barrel to slide fit is very tight. Before replacing the bushing, I had .012 slop in lockup, resulting in bad groups. I should have stopped after 4 shots on the after target, but I couldn't believe my eyes, and was thinking " I'm gonna pull this last shot, just watch" and I did. Before the tight bushing, my best group, rested or freehand, was the first target. Tight is good, but so is 100% reliable, and I got both.

 

[Hawk]

I was party to that derail.

I've got a smattering of 1911s, all of which run, but I doubt a "smattering" qualifies me to judge what "tight" is or not.

Intuitively, it would seem that tightly meshing parts and battlefield crud wouldn't get along well together. If something can still run after being dragged through a mud pie it should take pocket lint right in stride.

People buying Baers, Browns, Wilsons and Nighthawks are most likely not going to run right out and stomp them into a peat bog. If one runs 100% for 2 Gazillion rounds, Fuff's position, as I read it, isn't compromised - a properly lubricated, fastidiously cleaned, $2K++ firearm runs. There's nothing astonishing about this.

However, if a firearm is tighter than, say, JMB intended, and has a reduced length barrel, and possibly a firing pin block plunger dragging on the slide one might see 3-point jams where omission of one of the factors would not have been such a challenge to proper function. In my personal case, removal of the FPB restored function. Could the FPB have stayed if the slide had less friction from the frame or the recoil sping wound up a notch or the barrel 5" long? I don't know but it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow for the possibility.

A tightly fitted assembly may not smoke out any gremlins by itself but it can play "straw that broke the camel's back" to any number of modifications visited on the old design. Firing pin blocks, snubby barrels and a manufacturer that doesn't give a wet slap are just the factors that come immediately to mind.

I tend to agree with Fuff. In the interest of full disclosure, I carry an STI that locks up pretty tight and it's gone near 1K rounds without a cleaning - I'm still not going to drop it in the creek, though. However, I bought it from a firm that would sooner do a low crawl through two miles of broken glass than utter the words "limp wrist" or "break-in needed" or "try different factory ammo". It shoots all day one-handed, weak handed, upside down, two finger grip being fed any factory ammo and didn't need break-in.

This old-timer doesn't have much of an issue with "tight" per se. But if a weapon is tight, short, afflicted with FPB or showing shoddy workmanship and my problems are dismissed with bogus charges of limp wrist or bad ammo or I'm told I have to shoot up most of the recoil springs service life to "break it in", all my patience evaporates in a nanosecond. Such firms have no business reducing clearances - they need all the design help they can get.

 

[critter]

I bought a new Les Baer. It was SO tight that it was hard to rack the slide. I just KNEW that it was TOO tight to cycle. WRONG! She has NEVER missed a beat (except due to a faulty reloaded round). It now has 1650 rounds through it. Like they say, it REALLY slicked up after about 1000 rounds. It is NOT any more loose than it was-just slicker and sweeter. Talk about an AWSOME shooter! WAY more accuracy than I can use offhand. I LOVE it!

Now, about using it as a carry piece. When I had only a few hundred rounds through it, I took it down to clean it. Couldn't get the slide back on! It kept binding and would not go all the way on. After looking CAREFULLY for a while, I finally found the culprit. EXACTLY ONE FLAKE of powder in the slide rail recess! Removed same, slide slid right on as it was supposed to.

So, as a carry piece, a VERY tight, well fitted gun could be put out of commission with very little dirt, crud, etc. it seems to me. Perhaps a more loosly fitted, but properly tuned, 1911 would be a better choice for carry into uncertain environments.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

My 3 Baer's are tight, real tight. But, like everyone else, I have not had a lick of trouble or even a bobble since somewhere between round 100 and 700 depending on the gun.

While some say that tight is not good, I have not seen any problems with it. I admit it is not a requirement for a good shooter, but it shore don't seem to hurt!

 

[AK103K]

Just how many rounds does a defensive pistol have to shoot to be reliable, both per range session and cumulative?

Ideally, 100%, right out of the box. I realize this is not going to happen, especially with some types of pistols, like a lot of the 1911 clones, but I know I want the ones that are the closest to it. For me and 1911's, thats basically box stock Colts.

Is the extra accuracy detrimental?

Not detrimental in the sense of accuracy, but realistic accuracy, regardless of what the gun will do, is not target/games accuracy. A pistol doesnt need to shoot 2" at 50 yards, it doesnt even need to shoot 12" at 50 yards, it just has to hit what your shooting at as hard as you can go, from the holster and while moving and preferably go bang every time you pull the trigger. Personally, most of my handgun shooting is 15 yards and less and most of it isnt static and starts from concealment from and in what I normally wear. If the rounds go where I was looking when I shot, I'm happy. I dont worry to much about tight little groups, and could care less about scores. A $100 Airsoft gun and some force on force with the kids and some friends has REALLY opened my eyes to what realistic combat accuracy and shooting is, much more than any static paper target on a live range ever has.

Exactly how bad are the average SD combat conditions?

Whos to say. One things for sure, it probably wont be like it is on the practice range. It will most likely be at close to contact range, and very animated. What if your gun is knocked out of your hand or you bobble the draw and drop it, will it still work if your lucky enough to scoop it up again and try to shoot? What did it fall in or on? Did you shoot someone at contact distance and hair, teeth and eyeballs got all over and/or in it, will it still work on BG #2, or is it all fouled up with goo? I think you need to figure on the worse, and hope for the best, no matter what you carry.

I think to much of what people seem to think is needed, is nothing more than sales hype, and a lot of people buy into it, thinking they cant make do with a box, stock gun, because they
read somewhere that so and so said so. I also think reality is, "most" who buy the souped up models would be better served with a stock model and spend the difference in price on practice ammo. A fancy gun will not help you shoot better if you cant already shoot.

 

[aspade]

As you already figured out, powder fouling isn't a relevant factor when shooting for real - and as such, round counts at a clean, dry range before powder fouling stops things up are missing the point.

How well does it work after being slammed down on the concrete or into the dirt? Through a dusty drywall? Wet? Bloody? All of the above?

Organizations that have done destructive testing like that don't issue raceguns.

 

[Chuck R.]

Guys,


Thanks for the responses.

Here’s my take on some of your issues so far.

I’ll be the first to admit a Baer or any other tight hand fit gun isn’t for the average shooter. I don’t base this on cost; I base it on lack of use. A lot of folks will spend the better part of a year wearing the pistol in. How many rounds do you guys think the average guy shoots a year through one pistol? Honestly, I take “shooters” from work out to my private range all the time. These guys are for the most part retired Army officers like me with a bunch of discretionary income and I seriously doubt any of them put over a 2000 rounds down range a year. I’d put them at about average for shooters I’ve met at the range and guys entering matches.

I won’t carry a gun till it’s had 1-2K through it and I trust it, but for me that’s about a month of shooting. I average around 12K a year through my 1911s alone, most of that is through the 5” gun. To me a “break-in” period is nothing more than a couple weeks worth of normal shooting. On both of my Baers I did the 500 round recommended in an afternoon. On my Colts that started somewhat tight, by the 10K mark they were loose. The latest Colt I owned was a Gold Cup, and by 11K it was starting to sound like some of the 1911A1s I was issued. My 5” Baer however will go over 16K this month and is still tight and smooth. At the rate it’s going it should hit the 30K mark before it needs a re-build, if even then.

I don’t think that the problem is tight pistols per se; I think the problem is tight pistols that are not built right, or tight pistols that are not wrung out. Lets face it, the average shooter does not want to pay a premium to have a 1911 these days, but they still want a tight accurate pistol with all the bells. Hence the MIM parts and return trips to the factory. The days of skilled craftsman may well be over unless you’re willing to pay a premium. And apparently a lot of folks aren’t.

I think another thing might be the popularity of 1911s these days. Back when I started shooting it was rare to see one, even rarer to see a modified one. Colt was the only game in town. Now there’s 1911s everywhere, at any given match I’ll see about 30% of the folks with 1911s. Maybe like some dog breeds, they just got too popular.

Chuck

 

[Hawk]

I'd guess that a tightly fitted "big boy toy" could be reasonably considered a "weapon" if it's put together in a workmanlike manner of properly QC'd parts and purchased by someone with a way above average liklihood of pumping 2K rounds through it, and backed up by an exemplary service department.

By that definition, though, only a vanishingly small number of clearance-challenged 1911 pattern firearms will qualify. Especially given that no manufacturer that I'm aware off qualifies their buyers as being other than one who considers 2K rounds a 10 year supply. Wasn't it Packard that used to require references before they'd sell you a car, or was it Pierce-Arrow?

Nonetheless, such a buyer of such a firearm would never come to attention of either Tuner or Fuff as any problems, however unlikely, would be dealt with by the buyer. Such a buyer would never report an issue on an internet forum.

But problems are reported constantly. Either the thing is a "toy" or the buyer is underqualified, but for whatever reason, there is disgruntlement in Mudville.

There is also joy in Mudville. A number of firearms not by Baer, Wilson, Brown, Nighthawk et al function fine. We occasionally hear from the owners thereof in the "bashing" threads. But there are far too many that have issues. And, if clearances are to be reduced, it should only be after everything is running like a Swiss watch.

And, IMHO, if a "weapon" is to hope to graduate to a "duty weapon" it must be as reliable as any other full-sized .45 (say, a Glock 21), no less accurate than a SIG P-220, and not require any break-in (officer friendly did not sign on for any 2K round "shake out"). Once, in the dim and distant past, 1911s were every bit as reliable as G-21s are now. What happened?

To repeat, IMHO, clearances should be reduced only when and if everything else in the manufacturer's house is in order. It'd also be nice if the buyer didn't have to be the one to put it in order.

I like the 1911 pattern. I like the manual of arms, I like the trigger - dang, I do so like the trigger - that's proven an elusive challenge for any other to meet. But, I will not tolerate the thing not working out of the box and it's nobody's business if I shoot 2K rounds through it or 2. Gaston doesn't care, neither should my supplier. Colt didn't care 90 years ago.

This and the other thread have however moved me closer to throwing my handgun into the bog just to see what'll happen. Frankly, I'd have a smidge more comfort if the lockup was just a bit less tight. Fortunately, it's an ugly thing compared to most 1911's - any of you Baer guys want to join me?

 

[KHawk]

I have found that almost any 1911 can be reliable. It has a lot to do with the amount of time that the shooter is willing to spend on the range. I have a "tight" Springer and an old Colt 70 that is quite a bit looser. Both are accurate because they are well maintained with worn parts replaced on a regular basis. I go to the range once a week, minimum. On my regular schedule I shoot 3 days a week, 200 rounds per day. This gives me a confidence in both guns and the knowledge that I can shoot where I'm looking. I clean any gun I shoot as soon as I get off the line, then twice over the next 3 days.

 

[abarth]

For me I like tight guns. It doesn't matter if it is a 1911 or a Makarov. It is an issue of presume quality. I doubt I will ever see any combat situations. If for general purpose use and the prices are the same, a Springfield is tighter than a Colt, then I will always pick the Springfield.

 

[Hunter0924]

Most all my Government Models are Colts. With that said some are snug and some are not (like my 1918 Colt 1911 that would be on the loose side but not as bad as some new Government Models I have seen) but they all so far are a 100% out the box.
If yall are interested here is my opinion on my latest Colt, a Special Combat Government in Super .38 She is on the tight side but so far 553 rounds (still new) and nary a hitch from home cast truncated cone to JHP.
http://ezine.m1911.org/ColtSCG.htm

 

[45auto]

I'll give my opinion, but I'm not qualified to give one.

I'd want my carry gun to be able to work "dry". It's not supposed to be, but in the "real world", life gets busy, you forget, all the things you shouldn't do...happen. Dry and dirty is bad. You could try that, but at that point you are neglecting the weapon entirely. What's dirty though? Depends a lot on the ammo.

It should "work" with a bad/loose grip. At what point does a tighter gun prevent that...I don't know.


You should be able to "drop it" in a puddle, maybe some mud or sand/dirt...pick it up and fire it for at least a couple of mags. I don't mean stomp on it, bury it 6 feet under in the worst concoction of stuff you can find, but realistic situations. This is where a very "tight" barrel fit might concern me. The ejection port is an open "window" to the barrel "workings".
Along with a tight barrel hood/ breech fit, etc. After the first round fired anyway. That would be a good test. I'm not sure the "opened" ports would be an advantage in this situation.
I can't see how a loose/sloppy slide/frame fit would be more reliable than a tight one.

I don't think firing a lot of rounds without cleaning tells you much, but if you gun should be able to do that.

IMHO, my ideal carry gun would have around 5,000 rounds through it, although I'm comfortable with a 1,000. And then minimal rounds through it to keep the round count low...but confident that it's reliable. Meaning, I'm not carrying a 1911 with 30,000 rounds through it without parts replaced or fitted. Things break, etc

 

[Chuck R.]

Hey Hawk, you’re up!

Hawk,

Read your post this am and luckily I was on my way out to shoot at my place with some friends. As luck would have it, while I don’t have access to a peat bog, I do own a 9 acre pond here’s some pictures:

Us shooting a couple IDPA Scenarios; I put about 250 rounds through doing this



A close-up of my clean Baer Stinger (Note background)



Stinger coming out of pond:



Me testing “tight” gun in simulated “Bayonet Charge”:



The gun functioned for the 8 rounds I fired. I would have shot more, but there was some serious grit in there from my pond, and there’s only so much I’ll do to a 2K pistol.

Do not try this at home! I just spent an hour detail stripping my pistol and cleaning the muck out. Besides IMHO, this really doesn’t prove a dam thing. It’s not likely that the average CCW or HD scenario is going to entail dunking your pistol in pond muck and having to defend yourself.

Like I said earlier, since not many of us are going to be going “over the top of the trench” anytime soon, what handicap does a tight well made pistol have?

Chuck

 

[Hawk]

Just the inspiration I needed!

If my range isn't still partially flooded tomorrow, I should have plenty of various things to drag it through.

Without getting into the Glock "over the top stuff", it seems reasonable that a self-defense arm would skitter into street cheese of some sort - given the amount of flooding we've had recently, mud is plentiful but it's not at all gummy where I am.

Sure am glad my STI is parked. I'm not confident enough to predict the results.

 

[Hawk]

Actually, why wait till tomorrow.

In brief, mud and crud was easily located. Plans changed to an indoor range which dried it out some while I was driving there but it still urped a little bit onto my arms.

It ran 3 mags without incident, 33 rounds. (It's a staggered column .40S&W)

On take down, it appears there's crud in the locking lug recesses and dust cover (that I can see).

Now we'll see how tough it really is - It'll have to wait a couple days for a full cleaning. I may give it a blast of gunscrubber and spray lube.

Impressive honest wear on that stinger, by the way.

The stuff is organic but probably not as nasty as you're thinking...

 

[Chuck R.]

Hawk,

Do you mean to tell me that you subjected that STI "Race Gun" to that sort of abuse and it still ran???

Inconceivable!

I think sometimes the tighter tolerances keeps some of the crud out. Let me know how much you like cleaning it because I did not enjoy that part at all. Wait till you drop the trigger out, I thought I saw small creatures living in mine.

Impressive honest wear on that stinger, by the way.

Thanks, it's my almost daily CCW gun so it's not exactly pampered.

What do you want to do next, toss them off a roof?

Chuck

 

[AK103K]

Its good to see your comfortable enough with it to dunk it. Its also nice to see they worked as they should. Then again, I would be a little annoyed if they cost that much and didnt, especially if they were built as a working gun. I doubt my Springfield's or Kimber would have fared as well. Actually, they never worked reliably when spotless and supposedly broke in. If I ever go back to one of my 1911's, I think I'll still stick to one of the stock Colts I kept. I dont have $2000 in the three of them.

What do you want to do next, toss them off a roof?

I dropped my freshly loaded Series 70 Commander to the kitchen floor once. That was the LONGEST 2 second's of my life. I'd have liked to have that dance on tape.

 

[Hawk]

The STI is my "everyday" gun so all this talk was going to force me to find out sooner or later - Chuck R. gets the credit for making it "sooner".

The idea that the fit keeps some of the crud out sounds right although I'm not sure how much more water would have been inside one of my "looser" 1911s.

What do you want to do next, toss them off a roof?

That'd probably be easier to clean up after.
I think mine is starting to smell...

I don't know if STI makes their "duty" 2011s different from their "race" versions but I believe the Dawson package I bought differentiates between end uses and mine was clearly "duty". Still, I have to admit to being happy and maybe a touch surprised it didn't cough.

Whatever comes next, my poor STI is going get a bath and a pat on the back.

 

[XavierBreath]

I'll toss in a few thoughts........

Many folks claim a tighter gun will fail with dirt and such......When you think about it though, a tighter gun allows less dirt inside those spaces......So in theory, the tighter gun should be more reliable because less grit can fit in the space to start with, assuming the tolerances are less than a grain of grit.

The repeatable accuracy of a 1911 is dependent on how closely the barrel and slide return to the same relative position after each cycle, not how tightly the slide fits on the frame.

I keep my carry gun spotless. Never the less, it might pick up crud from somewhere, but it is not dirty from shooting it.

1911s usually are not subject to pocket lint. They tend to be carried in holsters, not pockets.

Usually the rattle in a 1911 is a loose grip safety.

In my opinion, the ejection port is a greater concern than the tightness of the pistol. I do not like a lowered ejection port on a defensive 1911. Why? Compare the area between the barrel on a lowered port vs a GI style port. The lowered ejection port has a much greater area for debris to get in underneath the barrel. If I'm considering a "protect my bacon gun", I don't care if the brass gets dinged, or if I get beaned with the occasional shell casing. A GI port ejects just fine, and it lets less grit inside the gun.

 

[Hawk]

Although not specifically related to clearances, many have noted that the original GI stubby guide rod and cap are not improved by alternatives.

When I got around to cleaning the STI, the recoil spring assembly looked like a chia pet - whatever got on it grows in adverse conditions. This lead to me removing the green plastic gizmo and giving the thing a good scrubbing followed by reinsertion (almost) of the green gizmo. The first failed attempt launched the end cap at warp 9 into one of my wife's ceramic angels shattering into hundreds of tinkling shards and leading to a full scale search for the offending part. Don't even get me started on how ceramic angel parts are sharp.

Through this, I could almost feel the voices of Tuner and Fuff behind me chortling as both are too much the gentleman to actually gloat. No more (intentional) swamp water in the works for me.