!@#$%^&*()_+!!!!! i give up! SA buggers it again!!!

[Gunsnrovers]

Part of the assumption was based on HD's original post which was about the GI Springfield (the $399 pistol).

Should have figured we'd stray at some point.

The internet is a wonderful place to get information. It's also a wonderful place to screw up conversations that would be clear as day in person over a cup of tea or a pint.

I picked up a GI a little while ago. Fired the snot out of it for a little while and then put about $300 in parts into it and another $150 into a refinish. Aside from the frame, slide, barrel, and plunger tube, it's been gutted. Since then, it's been tried and true and I have no issue depending on it. Of course it's now a $800~$900 pistol....

 

[HD]

Henry...Sorry for the hi-jack. Rant on, brother! Maybe Springfield is watchin'. <---Springfield...or whomever else it may concern.
no , johnny , you don't want me on a rant , i 've worn out 3 rcbs RC's and 2 lee 1000's loading for 1911's (87 guns to date)...
not to mention every brand except taurus/kimber/paraho ....(i know better than to touch those)
i have the SIG 245 simply because it works w/o any bs or worry...
my 1st milspec ,many years ago went thru 25k rnds w/zero problems ...
now they might as well make the parts out of cowpies for the QC i get anymore...
:banghead:
now SA tries to make them work , but as yoda says "do or not do , there is no try"...
debby is helpful as are the others at SA , but somebody needs to get their head out of their exhaust before the $$$$$$ lost on repairs does away with all the profits ...
i will bring you the px9109l when i get there along with some barstow extractors to fit up to it...
the gun is perfect except for the extractor issue...
of my last 9 SA's every one had a crap extractor or some other serious issue nib.... :banghead:
i think JMB would approve of the 245 seeing as it uses something like 9 of his patents in its design...(can you spot them all ?)

 

[1911Tuner]

Conversations

Part of the assumption was based on HD's original post which was about the GI Springfield (the $399 pistol).

Should have figured we'd stray at some point.

The internet is a wonderful place to get information. It's also a wonderful place to screw up conversations that would be clear as day in person over a cup of tea or a pint.

Yep. Actually my post...the one that got us off track...was just raggin' at HD a little. I tried to get him to send me that top-end so's I could tweak it up good and proper. He'd be happily bangin' away with that Springer this very day.

 

[1911Tuner]

Update!

Got a call from my man HD the other night. Somebody gave him a GI extractor. He tensioned it...dropped it in...and his Springfield is now rockin' and rollin' like it oughta.

Does my heart good to hear that a 1911 is doin' its thing.

HD...It's usually somethin' simple.

 

[MCgunner]

Maybe we all need to go back to the 625.

I, for one, would have no problem with that!

 

[Old Fuff]

Got a call from my man HD the other night. Somebody gave him a GI extractor. He tensioned it...dropped it in...and his Springfield is now rockin' and rollin' like it oughta.

I’m delighted at this outcome, but it misses the point.

When he laid his money down, HD had a right to expect that the extractor in the pistol would at least be equivalent to a USGI part, both dimensionally and in the material and heat-treating used to make it. Obviously that wasn’t what he got.

He also had a right to expect that a competent and trained assembler would have properly fitted and tensioned that extractor so that the pistol functioned like it should.

If he had bought a Colt in say 1955 (at the time Colt was the only maker of this style of handgun) he would have gotten a “correct” extractor, and it would have been fitted like it should be. That’s because in 1955 these things were done like they should be.

But that isn’t the way it’s done today. In 2005 companies such as Springfield Armory are selling guns that they know don’t meet the original specifications for materials and workmanship.

But so long as people will buy them they don’t care.

Tuner has conclusively proved that a “Springer” can be rebuilt using up-to-specification parts, and when these parts are fitted as they should be, the pistol will perform as well or better as ones made back in 1955 – give or take a bit.

But buyers shouldn’t have to replace basic parts in a brand new gun simply to make it work dependably. It should come out of the box working that way.

I can’t think of another handgun (or any firearm for that matter) where consumers would put up with this. Name any product you want, and if this situation existed the manufacturer would soon be out of business unless some positive changes were made – and quickly so.

HD solved his problem by turning to another make and design of pistol with a proven reputation for reliability. My solution would have been to buy an older Colt or USGI pistol, or build my own using quality parts – but to each his own.

But the core issue remains… Why can’t (or won’t) companies like Springfield Armory put out guns that do work, out of the box, and keep doing it?

And why do folks keep buying guns that they can’t reasonably expect to be reliable without having parts replaced from git-go?

Like HD I wouldn’t stand for it. I don’t see why anyone else does either.

 

[NMshooter]

You can buy a 1911 that works just fine right out of the box.

They are available everywhere.

Just not for $500.

 

[MCgunner]

My 1911 experiences were in the 80s and it was no different. You get one, it MIGHT feed the ammo you like, unless it's 200 grain Speer hollowpoint. It will probably need a smith (both mine did) to properly port and polish to get it reliable with anything not ball ammo. It may have other parts that need fitting, like the extractor in my AMT Hardballer that wasn't even touched on assembly, apparently! You just have to EXPECT you're going to spend a hundred or two in pistolsmithing to get the thing to work, before you even take the thing to the range! That's my biggest gripe with 1911s. For what some of 'em cost, you'd THINK they'd work, feed ANYthing out of the box. Ruger's do!

The problem lies in the fact that the gun was designed from the outset to feed 230 grain ball. I've seen new 1911s that wouldn't feed that, though. You can get all into aftermarket stuff and mods on a 1911, though, integral barrel/feed ramps being a good thing. If you spend enough time an money on it, it's a really effective and reliable gun.

I'm not into 'em enough to know which ones are more likely to work out of the box. I've read a lot of good things about the Kimber in the zines and the Norinco import 1911s, amazingly. I've heard Springfield and Auto Ordinance trashed a LOT. And, I can tell you AMT was a POS. If I get another one, I'll look around for an old war horse and put it together. Seems to be the most reliable and cheapest way in the end. But, I ain't fallin' over myself to get another one anytime soon. If I stumbled on a deal of deals on a Gold Cup, I might pounce. But, right now, no money for that.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It's just a shame that everybody cuts corners on their 1911's and that getting a reliable one is such a crapshoot. This kind of crap never went on back in 1944. Of course, young mens' lives were on the line so they all HAD to care.

Also keep in mind that back then there were 2 things different that DRASTICALLY impact the reliability of the 1911:

1) People didn't care about a 1911 being "tight". Loose and loud was the standard of the day back then. Still is key to a good working 1911.
It should rattle like a maraca.

2) They were ONLY shooting 230gr FMJ.

Most manufacturers 1911's, with the above 2 conditions, will work surprisingly well. It's only when we try to get away from one or both of those things that things seem to go downhill.

There are always exceptions, and I'm sure there were plenty of 1911's back in the 40's that had problems too, they just didn't survive long enough for it to matter.

 

[Old Fuff]

You can buy a 1911 that works just fine right out of the box. They are available everywhere. Just not for $500.

I don’t buy this excuse …

From a manufacturers’ perspective, the additional cost of a made-to-original-specification extractor and ejector that were correctly fitted wouldn’t add more then $20.00 to the cost of the basic pistol, and probably less then that. Of course if you buy single parts at retail from someone like Brownells the cost is much higher, but we’re talking about a gunmaker making large quantity buys. I highly doubt that magazines made to spec would add any additional cost. As Tuner has shown, these are the factors that usually cause most of the problems.

The cost difference between a “GI model” and a “loaded” one has more to do with cosmetics, gadgets, and sights rather then superior internals and fitting until you get up into the $800.00 range or higher. We also see a fair number of complaints concerning the higher priced stuff too. Unfortunately many buyers are attracted by what a gun looks like, rather then the quality of the parts therein. I presume that they take for granted that the parts are the right kind, and don’t realize that this may not be the case.

My older Colts (unaltered or modified) reliably fed 185 grain mid-range wadcutters, 200 grain wadcutters, and 230 grain “ball” back during the 1950’s and onward. Most of them were not excessively loose. Tuner occasionally shoots current-day hollow points through his older guns, and they feed like gangbusters – even in his “range-junkers.” I seldom shoot this kind of ammunition because I don’t have a need for it. It doesn’t really matter, but I have unaltered commercial Colt’s and USGI pistols that will hand-feed empty cases – as well as any ammunition I choose to feed them. It’s all in having the right magazines and extractor tension.

 

[grizz5675]

your comparing a 425.00 sa/gi to a 800.00 hk ,thats not really a fair comparison,Im not disagreeing with the fact that when you buy any gun it should work.It's almost the same as saying a ruger p series isn't as accurate as a wilson cqb.

 

[Erik Jensen]

my GI .45 has been 100% flawless since day one. the only problems I've ever had were directly atributed to two badly out of spec "GI" mags I bought at the gun show for seven buck for both with the pouch. kept the pouch, ditched the mags. bout a slew of 7 round GI-spec Metalforms. kept the gun absolutely stock for a year. then I did a minor trigger job with some Ed Brown parts (hammer strut, extractor, and sear). 100% reliable after said mods, too.

pistol cost $400 out the door.

 

[Old Fuff]

grizz5675:

No, I am comparing a "basic" Mil-Spec .45 to a more expensive version of the same pistol - more expensive because of cosmetics, gadgets and perhaps sights.

In addition, accuracy isn't the issue here, plain ol' reliability is.

Forget about collector value for the moment. My older Colts and USGI pistols are not much different then the "basic" guns being turned out today - except for the material and dimensional quality of the parts, and maybe the magazines. If you take a "basic" Springfield Armory pistol (as Tuner has done) change out the extractor and maybe the ejector for "original quality" parts, replace the magazine(s), and take a few minutes to do some simple tuning, it will proceed to shoot with the same reliability that the classic older guns do, and keep ticking for thousands of rounds under harsh conditions. And even when the new parts are bought individually the increase in cost doesn't exceed $50.00. If a manufacturer did this it would cost far less.

So why don't they?

 

[Gunsnrovers]

You're right. SA should correct their poor quality parts. The cost would be negligable even if passed on to the consumer.

I wish they would. Certainly would make things easier and would go a long way towards building their reputation as a firearms company.

That being said, little things that are easily correctable at limited cost won't keep me from buying a good deal. No more then bald tires will keep me from buying a good used car or a fugly exterior paint job and/or landscaping on a house. I can fix these things inexpensively and wind up with what I want, especially if the cost of purchase is low enough.

It's a $400 pistol. Frankly, that's a hard price point to argue with these days for a NIB 1911.

 

[NMshooter]

You pay for extra QC, or perhaps having any QC at all in some cases, plus things like the tools used not so worn that they produce out of spec parts.

This is not to say that you automatically get those things by paying $1000 for a 1911.

Many manufacturers are more concerned about price points and profit margins than reputation, and until this changes we will continue to see more of the same.

I suspect the ban on importation of Chinese firearms and ammo was in much the same vein as the 68 GCA, with domestic manufacturers more willing to use government than actually compete directly.

 

[Old Fuff]

It's a $400 pistol. Frankly, that's a hard price point to argue with these days for a NIB 1911.

The Old Fuff is ready to argue the point this morning...

To be specific, Springfield Armory could correct the few parts (extractor, ejector, and magazine) for a fraction of what it costs an individual to do the same thing - especially if they have the replacement and fitting done by a professional 'smith.

So, would you prefer to buy the pistol for $400.00 and put an additional $100.00 or more (parts and labor) into it... Or buy it for $450.00 or maybe slightly less and have it right in the first place?

S.A., Kimber, and all of the rest excluding Colt don't manufacture guns. They buy ALL OF THE PARTS (including frames, slides, and barrels) from outside sub-contractors and suppliers. In many cases the source is the one that offers the lowest bid, and the system tends to work against a sub-contractor that might have the best quality. This would be especially true of what goes into the lower cost models. It also means that quality control, if there is any, is more dependent on the parts contractors rather then the guns' maker who only does the finishing and final assembly work.

Prior to World War Two, 100% of the parts in a Government Model were made in the Colt factory - everything from the frame, slide and barrel to the smallest springs and pins started out as raw material. Obviously under those conditions they had a complete handle on quality control - and it showed. Today that isn't the case, and many of the parts are purchased from outside vendors - but last I knew they were still making their own frames and slides at least.

This practice - across the board - of assembling guns totally made from sub-contracted parts, is part of the reason that some work and some don't.

The nature of the 1911 pistol's design is such that in today's economy it is very difficult if not impossible to put together a pistol matching yesteryear's standards for under $600.00 to $800.00 or more. But it could be done if the focus was on what went into the gun, and not the amount of gadgets that were hung on it.

 

[trickyasafox]

how hard is it to do an extractor yourself? im fixing to buy a mil-spec cause its about all i can afford, and was wondering if its economically feasable and just plan reasonable to do for a first time 1911 owner

 

[Old Fuff]

Do It Yourself

I have good news for you.

Go to this forum's search feature and do a search using the key words "Tuner," "Extractor" and "Springer." You'll find what you want to know, and all of the information is free.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Quote:

>The problem lies in the fact that the gun was designed from the outset to feed 230 grain ball. I've seen new 1911s that wouldn't feed that, though. You can get all into aftermarket stuff and mods on a 1911, though, integral barrel/feed ramps being a good thing. If you spend enough time an money on it, it's a really effective and reliable gun.<
*****************************

True, but a common misconception is that they won't feed anything except ball without modification, tuning, tweaking, ramp and throat jobs, and things like integral feed ramps. It's more the overall length of the round and the ogive geometry than the round nose, assuming that the feed ramp ANGLE is 31 degrees and the barrel lower lug geometry and link center-to-center length are correct.

I have several original, unaltered USGI pistols from WW1 and WW2 era that'll run on hollowpoints and even 200-grain semi-wadcutters...from GI Hardball magazines...like they were specifically tuned for the ammo. Seen too many others do the same thing to believe that mine are flukes or that I just got lucky.

Much has been made of the "wrong" feed angle for the 1911, but that angle is necessary to effect the controlled feed that was intended. Straighten out the feed angle with a trick magazine, and controlled feed is compromised or even lost. The rim has to get under the extractor by approaching from well underneath. Straightening the feed by positioning the feeding round higher or altering the feed ramp to reduce the upward angle, and the round is pushed into the chamber and forces the extractor to climb over the rim...which is NOT was the extractor was designed to do...internal OR external. Loss of reliability
and extractor problems result. You can get have controlled feed by getting the rim under the claw before chambering, or you can force the claw to climb the rim after chambering. It's either/or...but it can't work both ways.

I hoped that Springfield had gotten their extractor issues squared away, but it seems that they keep reappearing. I worked with one of the bad ones long enough to give up...which is rare for me...and came to the comclusion that
the simplest approach is to just get a good extractor. This may be letting Springfield off the hook, but they don't seem to learn from their mistakes, and either keep buying parts from the same vendor that supplied the last batch, or won't reject the whole shipment and let the vendor eat the trash that they make. It's about a 30-dollar part that takes a little time to install and
tune. GI Mil-Specs also probably need a good ejector.

Springfield makes a pretty good pistol otherwise, even with the MIM ogre looming large. Good magazines...A good extractor...And decent ammo usually sets'em straight. For the record, I don't consider any current 8-round magazine as good, and don't even use'em in range beaters. Of course, YMMV but I almost never get to practice malfunction drills...and I use some funky ammo at the range. My GI Mil-Spec is now on par with the real McCoys, and
a bit more accurate to boot, if that really matters. I trust it enough to carry it...and that says a lot, considering how anal I am over reliability.

 

[dsk]

When he laid his money down, HD had a right to expect that the extractor in the pistol would at least be equivalent to a USGI part, both dimensionally and in the material and heat-treating used to make it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......... surely you jest. The only thing "mil-spec" about most of these pistols is the name on the outside of the box.

 

[Old Fuff]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......... surely you jest. The only thing "mil-spec" about most of these pistols is the name on the outside of the box.

Of course you're right, but anyway - doesn't a buyer of one of these pistols have a right to expect that they will work "out of the box?" We aren't talking about accuracy, or a light, crisp trigger pull. Just that it simply function. I don't believe that any of the companies involved represent their lower-cost products (or anything else for that matter) as kits where the buyer is expected to pour additional time and money changing parts or making adjustments just to get the d**n thing to work. It would appear that they should be charged under some truth in advertising law. Maybe a class action suit might do it. Anyway it's a shame that Tuner has to keep explaining over and over on various threads and forums why the thing isn't working, and what too do about it, while the makers get to sit and count their money.

If I buy a Beretta, Glock, SIG, H&K, Ruger, (some) S&W's, CZ, Taurus, or a number of other current day pistols I can have a reasonable expectation that it will work.

But not if it's an under $800.00 1911 style gun.

 

[MM]

I followed Tuner's example and had a smith build up this old Colt over Essex for me. I bought it in a hardware store years ago. The smith says perhaps WWI vintage on the slide, it is definately soft wartime production metal.
At any rate it was and is a tackdriver and served me well when I competed. Trigger is way too light for a carry gun, but I still shoot it fairly frequently. While learning to reload for 45 acp, my initial efforts that weren't crimped, (watsa crimp?) refused to feed thru my Kimber Ultra but fed fine thru the old loose throat of this gubmint model. Learning about crimping and applying same just sweetened the results.
SatCong

 

[poppy]

Oh my! What if Ruger made a 1911? Now that is a pistol that I could buy.

poppy

 

[HD]

ok , the ww2 now works , px9109l now works (new extractor)and shoots tiny little groups with ball or wadcutter ammo... one is sold , the other is in the 9th drawer from which no gun ever returns to service ...
both have been replaced by a sig 245 and a beretta elite 2 9mm (what a nice shooting soboag!)...
wth can't SA do as good a job as beretta ?
come on people , i didn't lay out my $$$$$$ just to start replacing parts right out of the box !!!!
the beretta is a serious arse shooting machine , at least the equal of the old sig 210 target ... and thats with the crappy novak fixed sights !
a set of LPA's is on order for it to see if i can improve on dime-nickel sized groups on a 50' bullseye target...
shoots 147 jhp so soft you'd think it was a colt 38 AMU...
heck its as accurate as my M52 S&W 38 spec WC gun was...
watch out for beretta , they are serious about their QC !

 

[Ken Rainey]

Yep, Beretta has a good reputation but I have a friend who recently had his stainless 92 9mm break two slide stops, the factory replacement within just a few rounds....the old one didn't have much on it either - he don't shoot much at all. I didn't get to see them personally but from the way he described them they were either cast or MIM parts. He traded the pistol for a Ruger !