Just curious as to what the opinion is on the Springfield Champion 4". Mainly since I just picked it up. I was manually working the slide to test how it would feed live rounds. It kept failing to go into battery. I was slingshotting it and not riding the slide forward.
3" vs 4" Barrel Compact 1911
- Thread starter kau
- Start date
- Status
ABBOBERG
Member
Was the cartridge getting ahead of the extractor? If not, it sounds like a tight chamber or fat ammo.
ABBOBERG
Member
It sounds like a weak mag spring, but I'm not a 1911 expert.
Ah.... Misfire99:
I hope you realize that the Government Model is not dimensionally the same as an Officer's Model ACP. The lengths of the frame rails and recoil spring tunnel are different. The Officer's Model frame is based on the Commander Model, not the Government model.
As it is the recoil spring tunnel in the sub-compact guns is too short, and your combination would make it even shorter. It would also have a negative effect on the slide’s run-up.
You can do what you want too do, but use a Commander frame...
I find your post somewhat amusing. It sounds like you are telling the bumble bee that he can't fly. I have to tell you that my Frankenstein pistol shoots just fine. I did use a guide rod and ,if memory serves, I used a para barrel. I will see if I can upload a picture for you.
If the image doesn't showup use this link:
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc138/misfire99/?action=view¤t=f1.jpg
I hope you realize that the Government Model is not dimensionally the same as an Officer's Model ACP. The lengths of the frame rails and recoil spring tunnel are different. The Officer's Model frame is based on the Commander Model, not the Government model.
As it is the recoil spring tunnel in the sub-compact guns is too short, and your combination would make it even shorter. It would also have a negative effect on the slide’s run-up.
You can do what you want too do, but use a Commander frame...
I find your post somewhat amusing. It sounds like you are telling the bumble bee that he can't fly. I have to tell you that my Frankenstein pistol shoots just fine. I did use a guide rod and ,if memory serves, I used a para barrel. I will see if I can upload a picture for you.
If the image doesn't showup use this link:
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc138/misfire99/?action=view¤t=f1.jpg
I'm glad you were amused, but the purpose of the post was to explain to others that there is a critical difference between the Government Model and Commander frames, and with one exception I believe that all of the current sub-compacts are based on Commander frames.
I am well aware of the potential problems, because back in the late 1960's I was experimenting with ultra-short guns on Government Model frames - for a good reason (sort of), Commander steel frames weren't available then. The guns I built actually worked too, but not for long, and not with acceptable reliability.
While it appears that your pistol is an exception to the rule, it doesn't change the rule. Based on my own experience I will continue to strongly recommend that Government Model frames not be used to build sub-compacts. Others may do what they want.
M1 Shooter
Member
Uhhh.......Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always thought the Gov't and Commander frames were exactly the same. The only difference between a Gov't and a Commander is the length of the slide and barrel, the frame has the same dimensions between the two. Am I missing something here? Because when I compare the two, the frames look the same to me.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Look closer at your Colts. The Commander's frame rails and spring tunnel are .100 inch shorter than the Government Model's. Likewise, there's a difference with the slide. The slidestop notch location is slightly futher to the rear.
The recoil guide flang abutment in the Commander is also relocated to compensage for some of the loss of slide travel...which makes it necessary to remove the forward ramp on the lug for clearance. Several subtle differences that aren't easy to see at first glance.
When ever I run across situations that two, or more, knowledgeable people have different experiences it does not mean one of them is wrong. But rather there are aspects of the situation that are not the same for both parties. I suspect this is the case with Old Fluff and myself regarding my pistol, or similar pistols.
I suspect the difference here is the fact that I used a ramped barrel with a fully supported chamber. I suspect that Old Fluff would be correct if the original barrel configuration is used. The use of a ramped barrel solves a whole host of problems with the 1911. The original barrel of the 1911 family does what it was made to do very well. That is cycle hard ball ammo. Hollow points give it fits and that goes for just about any bullet that does not have a nice round nose shape. While the ramped barrel will cycle just about any shape bullet you want to feed the thing.
So I think that Old Fluff and I are both right. The reason that my pistol works is I used a ramped barrel and a guide rod. This combination solves all the problems.
I suspect the difference here is the fact that I used a ramped barrel with a fully supported chamber. I suspect that Old Fluff would be correct if the original barrel configuration is used. The use of a ramped barrel solves a whole host of problems with the 1911. The original barrel of the 1911 family does what it was made to do very well. That is cycle hard ball ammo. Hollow points give it fits and that goes for just about any bullet that does not have a nice round nose shape. While the ramped barrel will cycle just about any shape bullet you want to feed the thing.
So I think that Old Fluff and I are both right. The reason that my pistol works is I used a ramped barrel and a guide rod. This combination solves all the problems.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
There's another little myth that I can lay to rest for ya...with about a dozen original, unaltered USGI and early Commercial Colts. None of'em can tell the difference between hardball and hollowpoints and lead SWCs...and they do it with the old GI "Hardball" magazines. Demonstrations are available on demand if you can make the trip.
There's another little myth that I can lay to rest for ya...with about a dozen original, unaltered USGI and early Commercial Colts. None of'em can tell the difference between hardball and hollowpoints and lead SWCs...and they do it with the old GI "Hardball" magazines. Demonstrations are available on demand if you can make the trip.
Are you saying that the 1911 wasn't designed to fire hardball ammo? Or are you saying that your gun is better then mine? It sort of sounds like a kid saying my daddy can beat up your daddy. But I have seen failure to feed problems with hollowpoint bullets. And have seen it happen many times to others at the range during competition. When that happens during a match it's death to any chance you have of even placing in the match. The fastest way to clear that failure is to drop the mag and reload. But that still takes a great deal of time. But semi wad cutters do feed very well. A 200 grain swc is what I used when I was competing.
But the point of my post was that when problems arise using a ramped barrel and a guide rod will solve them ninety percent of the time.
Are you saying that the 1911 wasn't designed to fire hardball ammo? Or are you saying that your gun is better then mine? It sort of sounds like a kid saying my daddy can beat up your daddy. But I have seen failure to feed problems with hollowpoint bullets. And have seen it happen many times to others at the range during competition. When that happens during a match it's death to any chance you have of even placing in the match. The fastest way to clear that failure is to drop the mag and reload. But that still takes a great deal of time. But semi wad cutters do feed very well. A 200 grain swc is what I used when I was competing.
But the point of my post was that when problems arise using a ramped barrel and a guide rod will solve them ninety percent of the time.
After owning two Detonics minis, a Colt Officer's ACP, and a Wilson Sentinel, I have concluded that I will avoid such small 1911 pistols if defending my life is the goal. Little things that do not matter as much with a full-sized pistol will affect reliability with a mini, with its reduced length of slide travel. Even Commander-length pistols are not going to be as inherently reliable as a full-sized 1911, though Commanders can certainly be reliable. I find myself once again considering a compact 1911, but am most interested in the Officer's-length grip frame with a Commander-length slide and barrel. Colt no longer lists such a pistol, though I believe Les Baer's Stinger might be such a pistol. I am seriously considering a total custom, based on a 5"-barreled 1911 with just the grip frame cut down to Officer's length, as I have no trouble concealing a Government model IWB; a Commander is no more comfortable.
Misfire99:
I have no doubt that your ramped barrel feeds the ammunition you use, but the point Tuner was trying to make was that a correctly set-up pistol with the Colt/Browning barrel will do the same. In fact I have hand fed empty cases from the magazine into the chamber using an unaltered (not throated) USGI barrel and unpolished feed ramp. This of course in nothing but a stunt, but it does get people's attention...
All of the sub-compact 1911's I know of use a FLGR. They have to because of dual-spring setups. On the full-sized guns they add muzzle weight, but not much else.
If you go to the trouble of using this forum's search feature you may discover that Tuner has solved endless failure-to-feed and failure-to-go-into battery issues for numerous members without having to resort to either a ramped barrel or full length guide rod.
I have no doubt that your ramped barrel feeds the ammunition you use, but the point Tuner was trying to make was that a correctly set-up pistol with the Colt/Browning barrel will do the same. In fact I have hand fed empty cases from the magazine into the chamber using an unaltered (not throated) USGI barrel and unpolished feed ramp. This of course in nothing but a stunt, but it does get people's attention...
All of the sub-compact 1911's I know of use a FLGR. They have to because of dual-spring setups. On the full-sized guns they add muzzle weight, but not much else.
If you go to the trouble of using this forum's search feature you may discover that Tuner has solved endless failure-to-feed and failure-to-go-into battery issues for numerous members without having to resort to either a ramped barrel or full length guide rod.
Thanks, Old Fuff, but I doubt I would want to pay the collector's ransom price. I am within driving distance of Briley's, Vandenberg, and Ten-ring Precision here in Texas, so I would probably talk to them about cutting the frame of a Government-sized 1911. It's not a difficult task for even a basic-level 'smith, but going with an APG member or internationally-recognized outfit lends the work more prestige.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Nope...and you've gotta be kiddin' me.
I'm saying that if the gun is right...both as to correct frame and barrel ramp geometry, and fed through proper magazines...it's not limited to hardball. I'm saying that if the gun is right...it'll eat about any reasonable bullet shape that you can stuff in it. I'm saying that there are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the 1911...many of which were born because of
worn out guns and/or guns that were cobbled up from parts and sold at gun shows as "originals." I've yet to handle a 100% original example that was in good shape mechanically that wouldn't do the same thing...and I've handled more than a few. I'm sure there are some out there that won't...I just haven't found one yet...from pre-WW1 to the end of the run in 1945.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
I chose the Kimber Ultra Raptor as my carry 1911. I'll be getting a Pro Carry or Pro CDP in the near future. I have no issues with accuracy of follow-up shots with a 3" 1911 or the recoil of the lighter firearm.
I'd feel confident in recommending the Ultra for your CCW.
I'd feel confident in recommending the Ultra for your CCW.
Mad Magyar
Member
Are you as certain of this statement using JHP's or Truncated Cone as to the utmost reliability for a carry weapon as you are with your assertion of reduced reliability for shorter barrel lengths?
I ask this because in the course of this long thread you have gone against the grain of what has been accepted as "gospel" by many leading authorities in the realm of CQC street fighting: barrel/bullet configuration & of course the barrel length controversy of reliability. This does not include "upteen" gun reviews that indicate with all the gun tests; w/o some work,a.k.a "throating" or change in design, "integral ramp"; all ammo will not perform similarly in reliability..
Mad...
Do yourself a favor. Notice that John Travis (aka 1911Tuner) has something close to 10,000 posts on this forum alone, and beyond The High Road he has posted even more. About 85% or more of those posts have been in the course of talking some 1911 gun owner through a misbehaving pistol. When he finishes the gun - according to the owner - is ticking like a fine clock. So go use the search feature and do some enjoyable reading. You may even what to drop some stuff to a printer.
Other members have visited him in his home, sometimes taking guns that have been through some big-name shops and still not worked, and they report that while he sits at his kitchen table the problems are fixed. Not one has ever posted a message that, “Tuner tried, but still couldn’t get it to run,” although I sure there have been some. His “range beaters” are mostly old USGI guns, and the yearly round count that goes through them is staggering.
It has been my experience that the gun-zines push reliability packages because some of the folks that do such work are advertisers. In other instances extra work is necessary because of the sloppy workmanship so often seen in some of today’s guns. Do notice that Tuner said:
Yes indeed! When things are right the machine works. The trouble today is that too much stuff is on the market that isn’t “right.” They are too tight in the wrong places, and put together by workers that simply assemble parts. It is my understanding that one major maker only test fires small sample lots of their production. Given this kind of quality control (?) it's a wonder that anything works.
Do yourself a favor. Notice that John Travis (aka 1911Tuner) has something close to 10,000 posts on this forum alone, and beyond The High Road he has posted even more. About 85% or more of those posts have been in the course of talking some 1911 gun owner through a misbehaving pistol. When he finishes the gun - according to the owner - is ticking like a fine clock. So go use the search feature and do some enjoyable reading. You may even what to drop some stuff to a printer.
Other members have visited him in his home, sometimes taking guns that have been through some big-name shops and still not worked, and they report that while he sits at his kitchen table the problems are fixed. Not one has ever posted a message that, “Tuner tried, but still couldn’t get it to run,” although I sure there have been some. His “range beaters” are mostly old USGI guns, and the yearly round count that goes through them is staggering.
It has been my experience that the gun-zines push reliability packages because some of the folks that do such work are advertisers. In other instances extra work is necessary because of the sloppy workmanship so often seen in some of today’s guns. Do notice that Tuner said:
Yes indeed! When things are right the machine works. The trouble today is that too much stuff is on the market that isn’t “right.” They are too tight in the wrong places, and put together by workers that simply assemble parts. It is my understanding that one major maker only test fires small sample lots of their production. Given this kind of quality control (?) it's a wonder that anything works.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
As certain as I am that I'm responding to this drawn-out thread. My old 1919 Colt GI is especially fond of truncated cone bullets...jacketed or cast.
Magyar...I really ain't tryin' to bust your...chops. For real. Just tryin' to lay waste to a few misconceptions.
When I first got started with 1911 pistols, the now highly sought-after and collectible guns were so plentiful, the gun show vendors had'em stacked up like cordwood. Couldn't give'em away. 35 or 40 bucks would net a pretty nice WW1 era Colt. My ol' man...an engineer/tool and die maker by trade...
made a .45 caliber bullet mould for us to use. It was a truncated cone because that was the simplest bullet shape to make...and nearly a dead ringer for the old Hydra-Shok design which gave several pistols fits only 20 years ago. We wore out a few 1918 "Black Army" Colts with those bullets and rebuilt'em...and proceeded to wear'em out again. Malfunctions were so few and far between that they really don't even rate mentioning...and we got the same deal in the WW2-era Colts, Rands, and Ithacas that we scarfed up.
I'll repeat my standing offer. Come see'em do it. Coffee flows in copious amounts and anyone who's been here will tell you that hospitality is first-rate.
Bring on your truncated come/JHP ammo. I won't abuse my old girls with +p any more than it takes to let'em show their stuff. They're gettin' on in years, and they are pretty valuable these days...but they're still up for a little outing.
Oh! Almost forgot. On the integral ramped barrels...Talk about not havin' a lot of +/- wiggle room on the angle! Whew! I prefer not to fool with'em.
choochboost
Member
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you but of you're saying that it is the industry standard to manufacture/test .45 ammo for 4" barrels, that is not correct.1911 guy said:
I see there is a contaversy here about 1911 compact guns. The answer is this, you are always better off purchasing a weapon designed for a specific purpose, rather than a weapon that has been modified to fulfill a market niche. Those composuite guns , "of which I have 3", were made for concealment, not chopped or cut down to fulfill the need of someone who wanted a full sized 1911, made smaller. I have a Commander, and it is a pleasure,that is as small they can make the 1911 and keep it reliable IMO, but every time I tried to go smaller there was almost always a problem. The full size gun is still the most reliable, because that's the way it was designed. I do like the way that sub compact 1911, from springfield arms, 3", but for a thousand bucks, it isn't worth the headache, I can buy 2 decent pistols instead of 1 that will have problems down the road. Just my opinion.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
If it is a standard...and I'm not sure that it is...it's probably because the standard 5-inch pistol...aka "Government Model" has a 5-inch barrel, but only 4.1 inches of that is rifled. So, it stands to reason that the advertised velocity for some ammo manufacturers is determined in 4-inch test barrels.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
