FWIW, I have a half dozen Colt mfg. magazines which have stayed fully loaded for over 10 years which still function correctly. something I cannot say about Lone Star mags-they still feed correctly but do not always lock the slide back after the last round has been fired. I like the idea of 8 round capacity mags but I can live with function better. I have not tried Colts 8 round yet but plan on it soon. It's my understanding that Wilson makes a great 8 round capacity mag, and its price is little different than Colts. Any comments?
Is it that hard to make reliable 1911's?
- Thread starter Blueduck
- Start date
- Status
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Confusing magazine advice made you quite shooting 1911s?
Wilson makes the nicest magazines. But Colt magazines never gave me problems, either. A Kimber I bought a few years ago came with real junk magazines, however.
Wilson makes the nicest magazines. But Colt magazines never gave me problems, either. A Kimber I bought a few years ago came with real junk magazines, however.
Robert Farrar
Member
I have a '91-A1 purchased in October '94. So far so good. I had a
failure to feed in the first 50 rounds, and one just the other day. Both were w/ factory ball, the 2nd. was while shooting one handed. I believe that I "limp-wristed" it. It has been fed all manner of loads from ball to light SWC handloads, many brands of factory HP ammo; and it has digested them all. Seveal thosands of rounds later, I still trust it.
Bob
failure to feed in the first 50 rounds, and one just the other day. Both were w/ factory ball, the 2nd. was while shooting one handed. I believe that I "limp-wristed" it. It has been fed all manner of loads from ball to light SWC handloads, many brands of factory HP ammo; and it has digested them all. Seveal thosands of rounds later, I still trust it.
Bob
Last edited:
farscott
Member
I think there are a few reasons why 1911's can be perceived to have reliability issues.
1) There are so many manufacturers at so many different price points in so very many calibers. Some are quality manufacturers and others are not, and price itself is not a very reliable indicator of which is which. With such a large number of manufacturers, quality and tolerance issues are inevitable. Any complex device requiring detailed manufacturing is subject to quality variations.
This has also been the case with other designs. When S&W more or less copied the Glock design to make the Sigma, the S&W-version had some teething pains. Is the Glock design poor? Is S&W not a quality manufacturer? Not in my opinion, but S&W learning curve to make a reliable Sigma was high.
There is no pistol design factory-chambered in as many calibers, and some of those calibers have not been chambered in enough 1911's to get all of the bugs resolved.
2) The shorter barrel length 1911's are more difficult to make reliable due to the short slide length and decreased slide mass. Getting the whole spring rate and slide speed equation balanced is a trick. In addition, the barrel tilting angle changes with barrel length which adds another variable to the system. The 5" versions are more reliable than the 4.25" versions, and the 4.25" versions are more reliable than the shorter versions. This is also true of other designs. Shorter Glocks are not as reliable as full-size Glocks.
3) Magazines. The Achilles heel of every auto-pistol. Personally I have had very good experiences with Wilson-Rogers #47D and factory Colt magazines. I have seen a lot of junk magazines out there including "G.I." magazines which look like they were tossed in a tumbler with rocks.
4) Gunsmithing. A lot of people work on 1911's, and some of the work causes problems. This is compounded by the sheer number of after-market parts available. I once saw a 1911 go "full auto" after an errant trigger job. I have also seen hammers following slides. These are not the fault of the 1911 design or even the manufacturers (for the most part). Much of this happens after a 1911 has been sold.
5) The original design was made to feed ball ammo. As the ammo has become more complex, the 1911 has had to adapt to the ammo. There was a learning curve to do so. Some older pistol designs also had the same issue, such as the S&W 39. The difference is S&W has second-generation and third-generation pistols to distinguish improvements, and we still call all 1911's "1911's". I think the newer 1911's have proven to reliably feed many of the new ammo designs.
6) The extractor. Probably the weakest part of the design because it requires tension to be properly adjusted. I screwed up a few myself before I got Jack Weigand's tool. Having the right tool to do the job is important, and for too long, I did not have the right tool. I think the external pivoting extractors are an improvement on the original 1911 extractor, and I am putting my money where my mouth is with a Kimber U.S. Team Match II.
After trying a lot of pistol designs, I have settled on the 1911. Why? Because it works for me. Are there other designs that work? Absolutely. But not as well for my set of needs.
1) There are so many manufacturers at so many different price points in so very many calibers. Some are quality manufacturers and others are not, and price itself is not a very reliable indicator of which is which. With such a large number of manufacturers, quality and tolerance issues are inevitable. Any complex device requiring detailed manufacturing is subject to quality variations.
This has also been the case with other designs. When S&W more or less copied the Glock design to make the Sigma, the S&W-version had some teething pains. Is the Glock design poor? Is S&W not a quality manufacturer? Not in my opinion, but S&W learning curve to make a reliable Sigma was high.
There is no pistol design factory-chambered in as many calibers, and some of those calibers have not been chambered in enough 1911's to get all of the bugs resolved.
2) The shorter barrel length 1911's are more difficult to make reliable due to the short slide length and decreased slide mass. Getting the whole spring rate and slide speed equation balanced is a trick. In addition, the barrel tilting angle changes with barrel length which adds another variable to the system. The 5" versions are more reliable than the 4.25" versions, and the 4.25" versions are more reliable than the shorter versions. This is also true of other designs. Shorter Glocks are not as reliable as full-size Glocks.
3) Magazines. The Achilles heel of every auto-pistol. Personally I have had very good experiences with Wilson-Rogers #47D and factory Colt magazines. I have seen a lot of junk magazines out there including "G.I." magazines which look like they were tossed in a tumbler with rocks.
4) Gunsmithing. A lot of people work on 1911's, and some of the work causes problems. This is compounded by the sheer number of after-market parts available. I once saw a 1911 go "full auto" after an errant trigger job. I have also seen hammers following slides. These are not the fault of the 1911 design or even the manufacturers (for the most part). Much of this happens after a 1911 has been sold.
5) The original design was made to feed ball ammo. As the ammo has become more complex, the 1911 has had to adapt to the ammo. There was a learning curve to do so. Some older pistol designs also had the same issue, such as the S&W 39. The difference is S&W has second-generation and third-generation pistols to distinguish improvements, and we still call all 1911's "1911's". I think the newer 1911's have proven to reliably feed many of the new ammo designs.
6) The extractor. Probably the weakest part of the design because it requires tension to be properly adjusted. I screwed up a few myself before I got Jack Weigand's tool. Having the right tool to do the job is important, and for too long, I did not have the right tool. I think the external pivoting extractors are an improvement on the original 1911 extractor, and I am putting my money where my mouth is with a Kimber U.S. Team Match II.
After trying a lot of pistol designs, I have settled on the 1911. Why? Because it works for me. Are there other designs that work? Absolutely. But not as well for my set of needs.
Tamara
Senior Member
Handy,
FWIW, there's also the fact that the TRP uses all in-house Springfield parts while the Pro uses S&A, Nowlin, Wilson, et cetera.
The FBI specified that in their RFP; they didn't just, for instance, say "The pistol must have a magwell like an S&A" but rather "The pistol must have an S&A magwell".
FWIW, there's also the fact that the TRP uses all in-house Springfield parts while the Pro uses S&A, Nowlin, Wilson, et cetera.
The FBI specified that in their RFP; they didn't just, for instance, say "The pistol must have a magwell like an S&A" but rather "The pistol must have an S&A magwell".
H
Handy
Guest
So are you saying the price difference only reflects the parts? Or has the Pro received a lot of "fitting"?
Maybe the problem with modern 1911s stem from the manufactorers trying to improve the accuracy AND match the reliability of the original US issue guns. It's hard to sell a pistol that shoots 4 or 5" groups for magazine reviewers, since other designs (Sig, etc.) are so accurate. I think JMB would be surprised at the accuracy people get, and expect, out of stock production guns.
Colt won the 1911 trial on reliability, not accuracy. No one ever claimed that stock 1911s were inherently accurate til quite recently. Tuned, yes. Stock, no.
Maybe the problem with modern 1911s stem from the manufactorers trying to improve the accuracy AND match the reliability of the original US issue guns. It's hard to sell a pistol that shoots 4 or 5" groups for magazine reviewers, since other designs (Sig, etc.) are so accurate. I think JMB would be surprised at the accuracy people get, and expect, out of stock production guns.
Colt won the 1911 trial on reliability, not accuracy. No one ever claimed that stock 1911s were inherently accurate til quite recently. Tuned, yes. Stock, no.
Tamara
Senior Member
Handy,
Oh, there's a lot of hand-fitting there, too.
When you look at the accuracy and reliability requirements the Bureau gave, I don't doubt that there's also some guy with a bone through his nose waving a chicken foot over the finished pistols, as well...
Oh, there's a lot of hand-fitting there, too.
When you look at the accuracy and reliability requirements the Bureau gave, I don't doubt that there's also some guy with a bone through his nose waving a chicken foot over the finished pistols, as well...
Ridgerunner665
Member
All I see is a lot of barking about the price of 1911's...
They are all steel (at least the best ones are), they are machined to close tolerances, they often do require some "fine tuning" even before they leave the factory...
That's why they cost so much...but after all that a few of them still ain't quite right, which is due to the fact that they are built in a hurry. That goes for all of them (Baer, Brown, Wilson, etc.) and even more so for the Kimbers and Springfields.
A properly tuned and well maintained 1911 will hold its own against ANY handgun...PERIOD.
That does not mean you have to constantly tune them either...get it working and run the hell out of it, simple as that.
I carry a $1700 Baer without a 2nd thought...that's what I bought it for...that, and Kimber left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth (4 different pistols...none of them ran)
Until recently (past few years), good magazines were what was hard to come by...and they were responsible for most of the 1911 fed problems. Now we have the Tripp Gen II CobraMags (the "new" best mag) along with the Wilsons that usually work too.
They are all steel (at least the best ones are), they are machined to close tolerances, they often do require some "fine tuning" even before they leave the factory...
That's why they cost so much...but after all that a few of them still ain't quite right, which is due to the fact that they are built in a hurry. That goes for all of them (Baer, Brown, Wilson, etc.) and even more so for the Kimbers and Springfields.
A properly tuned and well maintained 1911 will hold its own against ANY handgun...PERIOD.
That does not mean you have to constantly tune them either...get it working and run the hell out of it, simple as that.
I carry a $1700 Baer without a 2nd thought...that's what I bought it for...that, and Kimber left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth (4 different pistols...none of them ran)
Until recently (past few years), good magazines were what was hard to come by...and they were responsible for most of the 1911 fed problems. Now we have the Tripp Gen II CobraMags (the "new" best mag) along with the Wilsons that usually work too.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked