1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Metalform Round Followers...The Skinny
About a year or so ago, I was involved in a running conversation with some of the good folks at Metalform concerning a request that I had on the location of the little dimple on their flat followers. I wanted to get a dozen or so followers with the the location moved rearward by about .010 inch as part of an experiment. I was informed that the cost for retooling would be prohibitive...and I became involved in a conversation with a knowledgeable guy on the precise location of that dimple.
Now, I'm an advocate of the dimple...but they can cause their own set of problems if the location isn't within about .005 inch of ideal. It has to be
just a tiny bit behind the release point of the magazine in order to do its job properly...and sometimes they just ain't located in the right spot.
Too far rearward, and the dimple can stop things quick. Too far forward, and it might as well not even be there. The problem lies with manufacturing tolerances that happen to stack in the wrong direction...and I had noticed the problem on a few Metalform magazines. If the dimple is just a tiny bit too far rearward, it can be adjusted for...which is why I suggested a slightly farther aft location.
About that time, I had heard a few rave reviews about their proprietary
round-topped followers...and I inquired about the specs. He offered to send me a half-dozen magazines on loan for evaluation, and the deal was struck.
When I got the magazines, I spent about an hour studying the follower design...and noticed that the top had a very slight upward slant toward the front, and falling off just forward of center. The follower was rock-solid stable in the tube...and the angle on the top would work toward allowing the last round to jump the follower like so many smooth-topped followers do at times. The springs were a little soft for my tastes, but I figured that if the design was sound, a stronger spring wouldn't be all that critical...so I struck out with a brace of pistols...600 rounds of ammo...and the 6 magazines. In the brace of 1911s was a Lightweight Commander equipped with a recoil spring that tested at 17 pounds at full compression as installed in the gun. The rest were 5-inch guns, with springs that tested between 14.5 and 15.5 pounds. The smooth contour at the front would also serve to prevent damage to the feed ramps in alloy frames. It looked like a winner.
The magazines worked flawlessly, and I thought that here was the answer to the varying dimple location. I ran home, convinced that they were a real
improvement over conventional 7-round magazines in their present state of the art.
The next trip was uneventful until near the end of another 600-round test run. The Commander started to show problems with the magazines. The
5-inch guns were holding steady. Okay...The Commander was a trifle oversprung according to Colt's practices...so I replaced the spring with a lighter one, and all was well.
Another trip...about halfway through the session...the problems with last-round feed started again, except this time it was in the 5-inch guns. Springs were replaced with new 14-pound Wolff units...and it all smoothed out again. The Commander failed on all 6 magazines, and I wouldn't spring it any lighter than 15 pounds.
On the final range trip, even the undersprung 5-inch guns were failing at
the rate of about 50% randomly. One time a magazine would choke on the last round...the next time it would feed. By the time I had 25 full cycles on the magazines, the failure rate was in the high 80% bracket...
The followers won't accept standard Wolff springs...so that was out. On the one that I was able to modify to work, last-round feeding was perfect, but the magazine wouldn't accept 7 rounds. My understanding is that Wolff does make a spring that will work with that magazine, but reports are that even those need light modification to hold full capacity.
Since the magazines are identical to standard Metalforms...I paid for the mags and started plaing with the followers. I filed a light cut across the follower with a triangular file, and finished it with a round needle file to create a "ditch" for the rim to drop into and stop the forward movement. It worked well enough, but the problem of precise location was still there.
The other problem was that...in between the time that the magazines worked and the point that they stopped working...I had already recommended them to several people. Luckily, only two have had issues with 5 different magazines total. I installed standard followers with Wolff springs and solved the burps...and we're waiting to see how the others do. Meanwhile, the magazines have been delegated to range use only.
On a brighter note, they do work well in luightly sprung guns that are tuned
to light loads for target use...so I guess all isn't lost. They do work well in that role.
I broke one of my cardinal rules about not tryin' to outsmart ol' John Moses.
Cheers!
About a year or so ago, I was involved in a running conversation with some of the good folks at Metalform concerning a request that I had on the location of the little dimple on their flat followers. I wanted to get a dozen or so followers with the the location moved rearward by about .010 inch as part of an experiment. I was informed that the cost for retooling would be prohibitive...and I became involved in a conversation with a knowledgeable guy on the precise location of that dimple.
Now, I'm an advocate of the dimple...but they can cause their own set of problems if the location isn't within about .005 inch of ideal. It has to be
just a tiny bit behind the release point of the magazine in order to do its job properly...and sometimes they just ain't located in the right spot.
Too far rearward, and the dimple can stop things quick. Too far forward, and it might as well not even be there. The problem lies with manufacturing tolerances that happen to stack in the wrong direction...and I had noticed the problem on a few Metalform magazines. If the dimple is just a tiny bit too far rearward, it can be adjusted for...which is why I suggested a slightly farther aft location.
About that time, I had heard a few rave reviews about their proprietary
round-topped followers...and I inquired about the specs. He offered to send me a half-dozen magazines on loan for evaluation, and the deal was struck.
When I got the magazines, I spent about an hour studying the follower design...and noticed that the top had a very slight upward slant toward the front, and falling off just forward of center. The follower was rock-solid stable in the tube...and the angle on the top would work toward allowing the last round to jump the follower like so many smooth-topped followers do at times. The springs were a little soft for my tastes, but I figured that if the design was sound, a stronger spring wouldn't be all that critical...so I struck out with a brace of pistols...600 rounds of ammo...and the 6 magazines. In the brace of 1911s was a Lightweight Commander equipped with a recoil spring that tested at 17 pounds at full compression as installed in the gun. The rest were 5-inch guns, with springs that tested between 14.5 and 15.5 pounds. The smooth contour at the front would also serve to prevent damage to the feed ramps in alloy frames. It looked like a winner.
The magazines worked flawlessly, and I thought that here was the answer to the varying dimple location. I ran home, convinced that they were a real
improvement over conventional 7-round magazines in their present state of the art.
The next trip was uneventful until near the end of another 600-round test run. The Commander started to show problems with the magazines. The
5-inch guns were holding steady. Okay...The Commander was a trifle oversprung according to Colt's practices...so I replaced the spring with a lighter one, and all was well.
Another trip...about halfway through the session...the problems with last-round feed started again, except this time it was in the 5-inch guns. Springs were replaced with new 14-pound Wolff units...and it all smoothed out again. The Commander failed on all 6 magazines, and I wouldn't spring it any lighter than 15 pounds.
On the final range trip, even the undersprung 5-inch guns were failing at
the rate of about 50% randomly. One time a magazine would choke on the last round...the next time it would feed. By the time I had 25 full cycles on the magazines, the failure rate was in the high 80% bracket...
The followers won't accept standard Wolff springs...so that was out. On the one that I was able to modify to work, last-round feeding was perfect, but the magazine wouldn't accept 7 rounds. My understanding is that Wolff does make a spring that will work with that magazine, but reports are that even those need light modification to hold full capacity.
Since the magazines are identical to standard Metalforms...I paid for the mags and started plaing with the followers. I filed a light cut across the follower with a triangular file, and finished it with a round needle file to create a "ditch" for the rim to drop into and stop the forward movement. It worked well enough, but the problem of precise location was still there.
The other problem was that...in between the time that the magazines worked and the point that they stopped working...I had already recommended them to several people. Luckily, only two have had issues with 5 different magazines total. I installed standard followers with Wolff springs and solved the burps...and we're waiting to see how the others do. Meanwhile, the magazines have been delegated to range use only.
On a brighter note, they do work well in luightly sprung guns that are tuned
to light loads for target use...so I guess all isn't lost. They do work well in that role.
I broke one of my cardinal rules about not tryin' to outsmart ol' John Moses.
Cheers!
Last edited:
