What is wrong with the 1911 design?

[Lonestar49]

Not so sure it was a safety flaw, but more to..

...

Of the Colt 80 series, I quote Boats answer, for the few modern horse riders that carry a newer version of 80 series Colt 1911 while riding..
---------------

Quote of Boats:

"Of course the 1911 is an outdated design. It came from an era when weapons were designed to win fights, not to avoid product liability lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your weapon operated and to practice that operation until it became second nature, not to design the piece to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply its fighting men with the best tools possible, unlike today, when our fighting men and women are issued hardware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected congressman’s district."



Ls

 

[DougDubya]

By Colt's logic, as witnessed by passive firing pin blocks built into the Swartz safety models of the Thirties and Series 80 pistols of ongoing production, this "pretty much" was not quite good enough. The grip safety is a poor substitute for passive firing pin blocks.

And yet, the SW1911 utilizing the Swartz safety had incredible teething problems for a long time before finally being sorted out. In the 21st Century. 70 years after the original Swartz. Which HADN'T been in place on any Springfield or Colt produced during those seven decades.

 

[1911Tuner]

By Colt's logic, as witnessed by passive firing pin blocks built into the Swartz safety models of the Thirties and Series 80 pistols of ongoing production, this "pretty much" was not quite good enough. The grip safety is a poor substitute for passive firing pin blocks.

They also dropped the Swartz system about as quickly as they began, as being both unreliable and unnecessary. They left the passive firing pin block system alone for another 50 years. I tend to think that...by their logic...if it had been all that necessary, they'd have kept working on it until they had it right. It's not exactly rocket science.

The Series 80 system came along because Colt saw the handwriting on the wall, and wanted to get a jump on sales in the states that would soon require it...and the same system would allow the gun to fire if it hit the ground muzzle up/trigger pulled by inertia because the system disengages with the trigger pull. The passive firing pin systems are aimed at making the guns more drop-safe if dropped on the muzzle from shoulder height...not on the butt from the back of a horse.

You're starting to grasp at straws, Michael.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

With the solid slide to barrel setup...which does eliminate the need for close fitting of the bushing to the slide in order to minumize play and enhance target accuracy...once the slide becomes worn, it's tossed. If a barrel bushing wears...it's a quick replacement for a fraction of the cost. No need for cherry-picking the barrel with just the right dimensions that allow for tilting and drop clearance.

Hardened SIG slides in commercial production runs following serial number 57001, have been known to last over 250,000 round counts.

If the barrel becomes worn, it necessitates the same selective fitting of the new barrel to function correctly and maintain the gilt-edged accuracy that the US Army didn't really place all that much emphasis on.

Milspec P210 barrels last over 100,000 round counts and drop in without any need for selective fitting.

And finally...30 centimeters? That's nearly a foot. I've never handled one that wasn't worn completely out that shot that bad...and I've had my hands on a lot of old 1911s over the last 40-odd years. I've shot a few that didn't have rifling in 2/3rds of the barrels that shot better than that.

How about quoting those U.S. M1911 and M1911A1 accuracy requirements?

 

[Michael Zeleny]

By Colt's logic, as witnessed by passive firing pin blocks built into the Swartz safety models of the Thirties and Series 80 pistols of ongoing production, this "pretty much" was not quite good enough. The grip safety is a poor substitute for passive firing pin blocks.

They also dropped the Swartz system about as quickly as they began, as being both unreliable and unnecessary. They left the passive firing pin block system alone for another 50 years. I tend to think that...by their logic...if it had been all that necessary, they'd have kept working on it until they had it right. It's not exactly rocket science.

The Series 80 system came along because Colt saw the handwriting on the wall, and wanted to get a jump on sales in the states that would soon require it...and the same system would allow the gun to fire if it hit the ground muzzle up/trigger pulled by inertia because the system disengages with the trigger pull. The passive firing pin systems are aimed at making the guns more drop-safe if dropped on the muzzle from shoulder height...not on the butt from the back of a horse.

You're starting to grasp at straws, Michael.

How many new handgun designs incorporate a grip safety?

How many of them omit passive firing pin blocks?

Like it or not, the safety features of the M1911A1 are no longer regarded as adequate to their purpose.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

"Of course the 1911 is an outdated design. It came from an era when weapons were designed to win fights, not to avoid product liability lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your weapon operated and to practice that operation until it became second nature, not to design the piece to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply its fighting men with the best tools possible, unlike today, when our fighting men and women are issued hardware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected congressman’s district."

I hear the world's tiniest violin whining the world's saddest song.

 

[the naked prophet]

1911Tuner, I understand that it would be easier to replace an extractor on a 1911 than on a Glock, if you don't have tools or a place to work. However... when was the last time you had to replace or tune the extractor on a Glock?

I understand that it may be cheaper to replace a worn barrel link than the barrel itself, but how many Glock barrels wear out the unlocking notch, even after hundreds of thousands of rounds? It may be cheaper to replace a bushing than a slide, but how many Glock barrel/slide lockups get loose enough to affect accuracy, even after hundreds of thousands of rounds?

 

[Michael Zeleny]

I understand that it may be cheaper to replace a worn barrel link than the barrel itself, but how many Glock barrels wear out the unlocking notch, even after hundreds of thousands of rounds? It may be cheaper to replace a bushing than a slide, but how many Glock barrel/slide lockups get loose enough to affect accuracy, even after hundreds of thousands of rounds?

To put in more generally, there is no excuse for barrel bushings and swinging links, given the availability of modern metallurgy and manufacturing precision.

 

[1911NM]

I have pondered the original OP's question, and perused the responses. Thought on it, fondled one of my 1911's a while, and came up with an appropriate answer. IMO, nothin'

 

[Markbo]

Being way, way less informed that our other esteemed colleagues here, excluding the SIG for now... is there any other pistol that has take the original design and removed the swinging link and barrel bushing and replaced them with a tilting barrel, short recoil locked breech design, no bushing and some other extractor design?

Just those changes? Those seem to be what has been narrowed down by one side as the biggest faults of the 1911 design, so what out there NOW has changed just those things?

 

[1911Tuner]

However... when was the last time you had to replace or tune the extractor on a Glock?

Never owned a Glock...but I have known of a few that broke...or the springs went bad.

FWIW...I don't have to tune the extractors on my 1911s either. Oh...maybe once ever 50,000 rounds or so, give or take. Of course, I use magazines that insure controlled feed every round, so I don't have extractor problems.
Feel a little sorry for those that do, though.

Like it or not, the safety features of the M1911A1 are no longer regarded as adequate to their purpose.

You can pretty much blame lawyers for that, rather than what is considered "adequate for the purpose." It's called covering old skinny. The gun manufacturers don't want anyone to have an excuse to sue them into bankruptcy any more than you or I. Plus the fact that several states passed idiotic laws requiring the guns to have these likewise idiotic and unnecessary devices before they'll allow them to be sold within their boundaries. It's known as marketing. The companies are in business to sell guns. They don't wish to be summarily excluded from a potentially lucrative market over what amounts to no more than a gadget. It has very little to do with safety, Michael...and very much to do with money.

This age of litigation that has allowed stupid people to bring hurt to themselves and make somebody else pay them for it has also brought cross-bolt safeties in lever-action rifles that never needed them until the last few years, when it became fashionable to file these ridiculous suits.

Bottom line: The only way to make a firearm completely safe is to silver-solder the chamber so that it can't be loaded...and roll-mark a warning on the side to the effect that if we drop it on our toe, we could be injured.

Finally...Relying on any mechanical safety is false security, and people who do it probably shouldn't operate machinery more complicated than a toaster oven.

Grasping...Grasping at straws, Michael.

 

[1911Tuner]

Whoops! Just saw this one...

To put in more generally, there is no excuse for barrel bushings and swinging links, given the availability of modern metallurgy and manufacturing precision.

Well...You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and it may well be that there's no excuse for a barrel bushing and a link in other designs...but it seems to be popular enough with the tens of thousands of people who carry, build, shoot and...are you sitting down...actually like the 1911 just as it is. If it was so inferior, or if there were such a high demand for change to a "better system", it would have been a done deal shortly after the introduction of the Browning High-Power.

I know that this may come as a shock..but there are some things that are better left alone.

Or as another guy put it:

IMO, nothin'

How about quoting those U.S. M1911 and M1911A1 accuracy requirements?

Unless you missed it...those are the US Army's minimum requirements with a given lot of ammunition. It doesn't mean that they asked for pistols that would shoot that badly...and none did shoot that badly when they were new. I've fired some of the ugliest, most abused examples you've ever seen that did far better than minimum requirements. The Marines required a minimum number of pullups...but you can bet your bippy that nobody who left Parris Island alive and sane defaulted to the minumum. Very often, the minimum requirement was used as an indicator that the pistol needed the attention of the unit armorer.

Milspec P210 barrels last over 100,000 round counts and drop in without any need for selective fitting.

Apparently you don't have much experience with mass production of steel components and tolerances There's no such thing as a perfect dimension, and there's always a tolerance. If the tolerances between to interacting parts happen to stack in the wrong direction, you have either a loose fit, or you have a tight fit. If it's too tight...all that's required to create interference is for one or the other to go a thousandth or two beyond that tolerance...which happens more often than you might suspect...even with Sig...and if it's a true, guaranteed drop-in fit...the tolerances are necessarily pretty generous.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Like it or not, the safety features of the M1911A1 are no longer regarded as adequate to their purpose.

You can pretty much blame lawyers for that, rather than what is considered "adequate for the purpose."

I am not looking to place blame, merely to make a factual observation that remains uncontested by all ensuing verbiage. To he-men inclined to blame lawyers for all social ills, I recommend a one-way ticket to a society that favors non-judicial means of conflict resolution. I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.

How about quoting those U.S. M1911 and M1911A1 accuracy requirements?

Unless you missed it...those are the US Army's minimum requirements with a given lot of ammunition.

Would that be a foot of dispersion at 50 yards, or something else?

Milspec P210 barrels last over 100,000 round counts and drop in without any need for selective fitting.

Apparently you don't have much experience with mass production of steel components and tolerances There's no such thing as a perfect dimension, and there's always a tolerance. If the tolerances between to interacting parts happen to stack in the wrong direction, you have either a loose fit, or you have a tight fit. If it's too tight...all that's required to create interference is for one or the other to go a thousandth or two beyond that tolerance...which happens more often than you might suspect...even with Sig...and if it's a true, guaranteed drop-in fit...the tolerances are necessarily pretty generous.

Be it as it may, the drop-in fit of P210 parts coexists with guaranteed accuracy of 5cm at 50 meters, over six times better than the M1911.

Here is a tip borne out by seven years' worth of experience at being a real party in interest. When answering a challenge of merit, it is of no use to cite traditional origins. To say that M1911 design features are justified by the reasons whereby they came into existence is no more convincing to an impartial arbiter than responding to a diagnosis of acute appendicitis with Darwinian speculations on the evolution of the cecal appendix. No rational being owes his sympathy to the deceased kook deterred from urgent appendectomy by the ensuing tirade. Likewise as regards the blinkers wilfully worn by the faithfyl acolytes of the 1911 cult.

 

[DougDubya]

1911Tuner, does this SIG P210 target pistol versus mud-proof fighting 1911 thing happen often?

 

[Michael Zeleny]

this SIG P210 target pistol versus mud-proof fighting 1911 thing

SIG P210 remains in active service in Switzerland, Denmark, and Latvia.

 

[ugaarguy]

In summary

Mr. Zeleny wants a benchrest pistol, and Tuner wants a combat pistol.

 

[MICHAEL T]

If you want to take my bet, you must do it on my terms. I stipulate 5,000 rounds out of a machine rest at 50 yards, fired at an NRA bullseye target, with mutually agreed upon score penalties for failures to fire or cycle. The loser pays for all testing expenses.

you must do it on my terms

seems every thing must be on your terms. BS


The penalties for failure to fire or cycle in combat is your dead.
The test shoud be 5000 rounds no repaires and if it failes to fire you loose at that point.
You want it all ,The nice pretty cover your butt shoot from rest . A lost of points if breaks . Bull shoot like what it was suppose to be designed for Combat conditions . 1911 has the right idea test like it would be used for real. Its a military pistol it should be able to take it. If not its a looser.
I think yours would prove be a looser. That why you try to stack deck with clean conditions and pentenly points. 1911 never asked for any of those. Just a real test A test in which you pistol will go belly up very quick.

 

[DougDubya]

Switzerland, Denmark and Latvia?

Quick, name some known military operations that these nations have been involved with, especially in areas of adverse conditions like mud (Vietnam, Korea), freezing rain and snow (Korea, the Battle of the Bulge), or sand in the works (actually, why do I even have to explain these environments that the 1911 has endured through?).

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Switzerland, Denmark and Latvia?

Quick, name some known military operations that these nations have been involved with, especially in areas of adverse conditions like mud (Vietnam, Korea), freezing rain and snow (Korea, the Battle of the Bulge), or sand in the works (actually, why do I even have to explain these environments that the 1911 has endured through?).

Sorry to rain on your parade, but judging by the XXth century body counts, U.S. small arms rate orders of magnitude below German and Russian ones. If you want to play soldier, get a Luger or a Tokarev. If you want to hit what you're aiming at, get a p210. The M1911 is neither here nor there.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

The penalties for failure to fire or cycle in combat is your dead.

So are the penalties for missing your target.

Looks like the P210 is six times as likely to hit its target as the M1911.

It is worth our while to tolerate a higher failure rate in exchange for increasing overall hit probability. Do the math.

 

[ugaarguy]

It is worth our while to tolerate a higher failure rate in exchange for increasing overall hit probability. Do the math.

No, because your hit probability numbers are bogus. The M1911 in true GI form will easily stay on a man sized torso silhouette at 25 meters and in. Beyond that use a rifle. If you want a benchrest handgun get a used XP-100, Savage Striker; or equivalent Anschutz model if you insist on a european gun.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

It is worth our while to tolerate a higher failure rate in exchange for increasing overall hit probability. Do the math.

No, because your hit probability numbers are bogus. The M1911 in true GI form will easily stay on a man sized torso silhouette at 25 meters and in. Beyond that use a rifle. If you want a benchrest handgun get a used XP-100, Savage Striker; or equivalent Anschutz model if you insist on a european gun.

This reckoning makes perfect sense as long as the shooter can get his targets to stand still while presenting broadside. Short of that, he would be best advised to aim much smaller.

 

[1911Tuner]

Well...Okay, Michael. However you want to try and persuade us all that the old girl is obsolete...but a couple of things stand in your way.

One is that the 210 is defunct...except in limited areas...and the 1911 is still going strong. If Colt and Springfield were the only two companies producing the pistols, they could no way meet the demand.

The Sig hasn't proven itself...except under controlled conditions. The 1911 has...many times.

After switching to the 9mm cartridge in order to have ammunition commonality with our European allies...a mistake IMO...the US Marines have taken a second look at the failures of the cartridge and the platform, and have begun to call the old .45s remaining back into the game, and issuing them to the people who are actually taking pistols into a fight rather than to a target range.

So...Enough talk. You want to conduct a test to see what the outcome would be, but you want to drink tea and dance a minuet. I want to see how your 210 does in a street brawl. Drink a few beers and step outside, if you will. After all...If the sidearm is a fighting tool instead of an officer's symbol of rank, that would be a much better litmus test. I'll even go with the machine rest thing that you seem to be so convinced is the end-all venue to prove its worth...but after the brawl.

I'm not arguing that the P210 isn't a fine pistol. I've handled and shot a few. I was very much impressed. Nice piece of engineering, without a doubt, but I...and many others...aren't impressed with how nicely a pistol behaves at a tea party. What we want to know is how well it can dance after its nose has been bloodied.

So, rather than continue to use the most minute detail to nit-pick this thing to death...let's step out in the alley and settle the matter. I stand ready and willing. What say you?

 

[texagun]

Quote:
"Sorry to rain on your parade, but judging by the XXth century body counts, U.S. small arms rate orders of magnitude below German and Russian ones."

As has been pointed out previously, most of those shots attributed to the Germans and Russians were delivered to the back of the head. Certainly not an indication of effectiveness, and thus, a meaningless statistic.

 

[psychophipps]

I'm sorry, but my scorecard is showing a landslide to Ol' Slabsides in the red, white and blue trunks. The european contender was doing good until 4 rounds ago when Slabby's coach told his boy to start gnawing on earlobes and throwing head butts...