Is the 1911 a Reliable Design?
- Thread starter LouisianaGunner12
- Start date
- Status
General Geoff
Member
1911s get a bad reputation for spotty reliabily only because of the VAST number of variants and manufacturers and custom parts used in them. The variants and custom parts CAN be made reliable, but only with close attention to detail. In short, you can have a cheap 1911, a reliable 1911, and a fancy 1911, but any one 1911 will only fit two of those three descriptors.
I've only ever owned one 1911 and it was a match-grade gun (Para Ordnance S16-40 Limited). The gun was extremely accurate and shot nicely... for about 100 rounds. Then it would start failing to feed, because of fouling in the extremely tight chamber. Clean it every 100 rounds and it would run flawlessly. But I understood when buying the gun that it was geared toward accuracy and not reliability.
I've only ever owned one 1911 and it was a match-grade gun (Para Ordnance S16-40 Limited). The gun was extremely accurate and shot nicely... for about 100 rounds. Then it would start failing to feed, because of fouling in the extremely tight chamber. Clean it every 100 rounds and it would run flawlessly. But I understood when buying the gun that it was geared toward accuracy and not reliability.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Bullseye powder.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The Model 94 Winchester carbine.
Hangingrock
Member
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and I guess reliability is the same descriptive attribute to a certain existent. That’s to say with a 1911 series pistol the CYA wording so often applied “properly tuned”.
With the 230Gr-FMJ I have no problem but the 200Gr-SWC is bedeviling with the occasional stoppage of failure to feed. Yet use the same 200Gr-SWC loading with an S&W-4506, S&W-99 or a Glock-G21 no problem. These designs can/do transition from the magazine and chamber properly with out a hitch.
One of the respondents stipulated a 1911 series pistol that $1500.00 is an break point between not so good and good functionality. Apparently that’s when we achieve the CYA of “properly tuned”. As for reliable function in my experience the S&W-4506, S&W-99 or a Glock-G21 achieve reliability at a much lower cost per unit.
Two examples a Colt XSE Govt and a Springfield 1911-A1 of recent purchase of let’s say no more than 5yrs past (When you are in your sixth decade most things seem like yesterday but aren’t) occasionally choke on the 200Gr-SWC enough so as to be an irritant.
That’s my story.
With the 230Gr-FMJ I have no problem but the 200Gr-SWC is bedeviling with the occasional stoppage of failure to feed. Yet use the same 200Gr-SWC loading with an S&W-4506, S&W-99 or a Glock-G21 no problem. These designs can/do transition from the magazine and chamber properly with out a hitch.
One of the respondents stipulated a 1911 series pistol that $1500.00 is an break point between not so good and good functionality. Apparently that’s when we achieve the CYA of “properly tuned”. As for reliable function in my experience the S&W-4506, S&W-99 or a Glock-G21 achieve reliability at a much lower cost per unit.
Two examples a Colt XSE Govt and a Springfield 1911-A1 of recent purchase of let’s say no more than 5yrs past (When you are in your sixth decade most things seem like yesterday but aren’t) occasionally choke on the 200Gr-SWC enough so as to be an irritant.
That’s my story.
Is the sun hot? Well, not at night.
The 1911 is a reliable design. Not maybe, not sometimes, not generally, not depending on the make or seasonal weather.
Some makers, gunsmiths and wannabe gunsmiths can and do make unreliable versions, but the design remains reliable.
The 1911 is a reliable design. Not maybe, not sometimes, not generally, not depending on the make or seasonal weather.
Some makers, gunsmiths and wannabe gunsmiths can and do make unreliable versions, but the design remains reliable.
JTQ
Member
Maybe the S&W99 and Glock 21 are at the "much lower cost per unit". I have a Colt Combat Elite 1911 and an S&W 4506, and when new, and I bought both of them new, they cost basically the same. If S&W was still making the 4506, it would cost what they charge for their 1911's.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Isn't that kinda like saying "the pistols are reliable, just so long as they are made reliable"?
Manufacturability, maintenance, cost, and tolerance of non-ideal care are also important considerations in design. Modern designs deal with those particular areas much better, simply because 100 years of R&D has been thrown at the problem.
The 1911 was extremely advanced when introduced; so far ahead of the competition was it that to this day, many reflexively believe there can be nothing better (not you guys, but non-gunnies
). Compared to a polymer pistol, it's a Swiss Watch. They are beautiful feats of grace and engineering, but that also means there is more that can go wrong, especially in non-ideal conditions. My K31 is a "better rifle" than my 700 SPS, but the design sure isn't.Just because a gun was made "out of spec" or was too neglected is small consolation if it jams when you needed it. If another design was more likely to perform properly in the same scenario, I'm not sure how it could be called an "inferior design" for the task at hand. For example, I'm a revolver fan, simply because I'm not as meticulous about my firearms as others, but I still need them to work when called for (oh, and I like to shoot magnums
).I'm not saying the 1911 doesn't get the job done (that would get me banned here
) just that more modern designs can do it better. "Job" meaning the whole gambit of manufacture, marketing, and performance. Not just "performance". There's a reason subsequent designs were successful after 1911.Now, if you want semi-auto you can be proud of and get the job done, I can think of none better!
TCB
Last edited:
PT92
Member
One should never, ever question the design/s of the late, great John Moses Browning as it will cause problems when one reaches the 'Pearly Gates' of St. Peter
. Seriously though, the Colt 1911 is as reliable as clockwork and IMO historically one of mankind's greatest innovations. Indeed and in that spirit, I would be remiss not to say, God Bless JMB . If you're new to the world of firearms, I would highly recommend researching both the origins of the 1911 as well as the life of Mr. Browning (in fact, I would recommend a biography of him just for the avid reader in general).I didn't want to be the one who said it, but...
-Cheers
HisSoldier
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,330
It seems strange to me to limit it to Colt's, there several brands many of us would prefer over Colt, so I'm wondering why do that? A good follow up question might be "What 1911 is better than Colt's?"
If you'd like to ask that followup question, please start a new thread.
The OP limited it to a specific brand to keep discussion manageable and to avoid the inevitable submission of personal favorites...to discuss the platform as currently produced by the original manufacturer
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I guess the definitive answer to the OP's question is:
The 1911 pistol was designed to function. As long as it's correctly built to spec and fed decent ammunition from a proper magazine, it will function. It doesn't have a choice. It's a machine.
The 1911 pistol was designed to function. As long as it's correctly built to spec and fed decent ammunition from a proper magazine, it will function. It doesn't have a choice. It's a machine.
Cherokee
Member
1911's are great, several have come and gone, some stayed. But, it seems to me some of the newer platforms are as good, maybe better. This is just my experience and I haven't owned/shot them all.
Holland&Holland
Member
Deviations from the original 1911 "blueprint?"
Worked with a master class 1911 smith years ago, a Mr. Hoag, one of Jeff Cooper's original gang in Southern California.
Some of the issues surrounding the 1911 must include that the original blueprint dimensions for the pistol have been independently revised by every manufacturer of "new, enhanced" pistols to eliminate the handwork that used to be (mostly) necessary to get the old ones to function and shoot properly. CNC is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong, but it surely doesn't permit a Kimber frame to necessarily accept an S&W slide with a Springfield barrel!
Seems to me that a lot of the problems are when people who aren't "Gun Guy Hobbyists" want to change the pistol yet further beyond what the respective factory has produced. I agree with several respondents that Colt quality was pretty spotty in the late '70s to early '90s, but the company was also going through ownership upheaval during Colt "Industries" cutting the parent company out of their portfolio, too. I'd also agree that since the mid 1990s that the company appears to have made some pretty nice stuff, but then again, their product line had withered so much by then that they simply had both more time as well as CNC equipment of their own to do a better job.
It is always probably better to leave the thing alone and get some pretty serious trigger time with it before mucking with it, especially if one's shooting skills at the moment do not warrant the modification, unless it's a simple ergonomic change that doesn't change function. This is just my .02 though.
Worked with a master class 1911 smith years ago, a Mr. Hoag, one of Jeff Cooper's original gang in Southern California.
Some of the issues surrounding the 1911 must include that the original blueprint dimensions for the pistol have been independently revised by every manufacturer of "new, enhanced" pistols to eliminate the handwork that used to be (mostly) necessary to get the old ones to function and shoot properly. CNC is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong, but it surely doesn't permit a Kimber frame to necessarily accept an S&W slide with a Springfield barrel!
Seems to me that a lot of the problems are when people who aren't "Gun Guy Hobbyists" want to change the pistol yet further beyond what the respective factory has produced. I agree with several respondents that Colt quality was pretty spotty in the late '70s to early '90s, but the company was also going through ownership upheaval during Colt "Industries" cutting the parent company out of their portfolio, too. I'd also agree that since the mid 1990s that the company appears to have made some pretty nice stuff, but then again, their product line had withered so much by then that they simply had both more time as well as CNC equipment of their own to do a better job.
It is always probably better to leave the thing alone and get some pretty serious trigger time with it before mucking with it, especially if one's shooting skills at the moment do not warrant the modification, unless it's a simple ergonomic change that doesn't change function. This is just my .02 though.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I wholeheartedly agree with he first part...and beg to differ on the second.
The WW2 GI pistols weren't hand-fitted and individually tuned, and most of the hand work on the early versions was in the final prep before they were blued.
They all worked out of the box. No tuning or break-in required. All parts from all five contractors freely interchanged with no loss of reliability or functionality.
They were built to spec. They were equipped with proper magazines.
Funny thing is, most of the non-1911 pistols out there are really a similar form of JMB's innovations, such as the full-slide, attaching the slide via frame rails, and a tilting barrel. The fundamental design of the 1911 was so sound that it fundamentally influenced the vast majority of pistol designs in some way continuing today. There are very few other designs that have had such longevity and influence.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Yep. Glocks are more 1911 than the Glockers want to admit. Browning's fingerprints are all over it.
Holland&Holland
Member
I agree with you as far as your historical recollection goes...for original military usage, feeding only round nose full metal jacket bullets, narrow barrel feed ramp, high ejection port, loose tolerances, they "worked" just fine. Nowadays however, many folks expect more than this. The earliest WWI era guns were made of pretty soft steel, it didn't take much shooting before one would see peened slide locking lugs and looser fit of slide to frame, especially if the older notions of "light film lubrication ONLY" taught by the military of the era was rigorously adhered to.
These days, a 1911 is expected to feed about all of the modern JHP ammo, we know that some magazines work better than others for proper feed release angle, and while probably it doesn't affect accuracy as much as barrel and bushing, hood and link lug fits, a loose, rattly slide means a lot of people will pass on an otherwise fine 1911.
Hope that clarifies things just a tad...neither of us is absolutely right or wrong here! =)
These days, a 1911 is expected to feed about all of the modern JHP ammo, we know that some magazines work better than others for proper feed release angle, and while probably it doesn't affect accuracy as much as barrel and bushing, hood and link lug fits, a loose, rattly slide means a lot of people will pass on an otherwise fine 1911.
Hope that clarifies things just a tad...neither of us is absolutely right or wrong here! =)
CmdrSlander
Member
Recently posted this in another M1911 thread. I believe it is relevant here as well.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
It's more than historical recollection. I've got hands-on experience with'em...and they weren't all that "loose" until they were worn out. Before I sold it, I had a 1925 commercial Government Model that didn't offer up any slide to frame play at all if there was a little oil in the rails...and barely discernible when dry. A minty, 98% likely unfired Remington Rand that's as tight as many new Colt's I've handled. A moderately used 1919 USGI Colt that's got very little "looseness" anywhere. A pair of US&S pistols that are also quite good in that respect.
And none of the above pistols can seem to tell the difference between hardball and hollowpoints. The commercial pistol...the Rand...and the Black Army Colt will run like a house afire with my home cast 200-grain LSWCs. The Union Switch twins haven't been fired with those, but I have no doubt that they'll take'em.
And that's where a lot of the trouble starts. "More" very often means that the pistol is essentially built out of spec.
Except for spot hardening in key areas, so were the WW2 slides. That's been addressed with better steels and fully-hardened slides. Those things shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not to adhere to the blueprints specs for the ramp geometries...which is what determines whether or not the gun will feed reliably.
As far as the rattletrap loose vs bank vault tight comparison...Loose doesn't guarantee reliably any more than tight guarantees accuracy, and too loose can make the gun less reliable. I've seen loose ones that choked like pukin' buzzards, and tight, hand-fitted guns run like Singer sewing machines. It's in the specs...not the clearances.
Accuracy was always a secondary consideration for me, but the 1919 Colt will stay in 4 inches at 50 yards with issue hardball, and it'll break 3 inches with my handloaded SWCs...from the bags. Never targeted the Rand and the Union Switch twins, but before my eyes betrayed me, I could bounce Pepsi cans at 50 yards pretty regularly with'em firing offhand. I consider that adequate accuracy for their intended purpose.
None of the above mentioned pistols has ever been specially tuned in any way. They're bone stock.
Most of my work on 1911s has been addressing functional issues and seeing to reliability. What building I've done has mostly been rebuilding old or worn out pistols to return them to serviceable condition. I work with the rule of 3s. .003 inch clearances for slide to frame and barrel hood to breechface with .005 inch on the sides of the hood. Assuming proper ramp geometries, there's no problem feeding and accuracy is better than most shooters can prove without sandbags.
I'll say it again. The 1911 pistol was designed to function. If it's properly built to soec and fed decent ammunition from proper magazines...it will function. It doesn't have a choice. It's a machine.
- Status
