H
Handy
Guest
Myth?
The 1911 built its reputation on military guns built by contractors and Colt in the period ending in 1945. These guns were built on machines that have since worn out or been scrapped. The people who worked on these guns are also gone.
Argueably, every 1911 since then, including Colt, is something of a clone. I doubt those turn of the century blue prints were followed to the letter back in the '30s; there was likely some fudging and fitting. So when a modern company tools up, how do they know they are doing everything "right"? I doubt Kimber took those old plans and programmed them directly into their C&C machines. Every modern 1911 maker is starting with some basic, and variable dimensions, and examples of other pistols.
This is the ONLY civilian produced arm that uses the same model name to describe product made by multiple manufactorers.
I think it is silly to not call a Witness a CZ-75, or an FEG a Hi-Power, yet label any manufactorer's 1911 clone a 1911. There is no reason to assign the mystical 1911 qualities to companies that share no link to the original production.
The most interesting thing, to me, about 1911 reliability is that no one ever puts their finger on what is specifically wrong with a "bad" 1911. Every functioning problem should come down to a bad dimension or tension. If it fails to extract, something is lined up wrong, or the extractor isn't flexing right. Period. Yet we talk about "tuning" like this thing is as complicated as a Ferrari V-12. So what did AMT or Auto Ordnance do wrong, and Springfield do right? Until everyone comes up with simple answers to those questions, nothing is going to change.
Every 1911 that fails to work as well as an Army issued piece should be returned, not gunsmithed. If lowered ports and throated bores weren't necessary in 1917, why should they be now?
Oh yeah, if you persist in believing any old 1911 is reliable, go to a couple IDPA matches and watch the action. You may start asking hard questions about the Glock, too.
The 1911 built its reputation on military guns built by contractors and Colt in the period ending in 1945. These guns were built on machines that have since worn out or been scrapped. The people who worked on these guns are also gone.
Argueably, every 1911 since then, including Colt, is something of a clone. I doubt those turn of the century blue prints were followed to the letter back in the '30s; there was likely some fudging and fitting. So when a modern company tools up, how do they know they are doing everything "right"? I doubt Kimber took those old plans and programmed them directly into their C&C machines. Every modern 1911 maker is starting with some basic, and variable dimensions, and examples of other pistols.
This is the ONLY civilian produced arm that uses the same model name to describe product made by multiple manufactorers.
I think it is silly to not call a Witness a CZ-75, or an FEG a Hi-Power, yet label any manufactorer's 1911 clone a 1911. There is no reason to assign the mystical 1911 qualities to companies that share no link to the original production.
The most interesting thing, to me, about 1911 reliability is that no one ever puts their finger on what is specifically wrong with a "bad" 1911. Every functioning problem should come down to a bad dimension or tension. If it fails to extract, something is lined up wrong, or the extractor isn't flexing right. Period. Yet we talk about "tuning" like this thing is as complicated as a Ferrari V-12. So what did AMT or Auto Ordnance do wrong, and Springfield do right? Until everyone comes up with simple answers to those questions, nothing is going to change.
Every 1911 that fails to work as well as an Army issued piece should be returned, not gunsmithed. If lowered ports and throated bores weren't necessary in 1917, why should they be now?
Oh yeah, if you persist in believing any old 1911 is reliable, go to a couple IDPA matches and watch the action. You may start asking hard questions about the Glock, too.