SodaPop
member
I vaguely remember asking this question over at TFL, but I can't remember. Can my Colt 1991A1 take +P ammo?
Which 1911's are +P?
- Thread starter SodaPop
- Start date
- Status
BluesBear
member
All day long.
New_comer
Member
I remember reading in Guns Annual 2002 about the Para LDA single stack being able to digest +P ammo, at a great reduction in the pistol's life, by 50%. 
USA-1
Member
+P? You better think RUGER P MODEL.........
Pumpkinheaver
Member
Put an 18 1/2# recoil spring in your gun, change it often you should have no problems.
Up the poundage on your recoil spring as suggested and consider a Slide Recoil Buffer. http://www.edbrown.com/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/003496.3.837244613714222923
Also, its not what your asking but..... a lot of the 6 and 7 inch 1911's are intentionally spec'd and build for the +p loads. For example, the Springfield v-16...
Diesle
Also, its not what your asking but..... a lot of the 6 and 7 inch 1911's are intentionally spec'd and build for the +p loads. For example, the Springfield v-16...
Diesle
Tamara
Senior Member
...and maybe think twice if it's an alloy-framed gun. 
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Steel: yes
Titanium: yes
Alloy: not for long
Titanium: yes
Alloy: not for long
Lone_Gunman
Member
Why would you think a Ruger P series is stronger than a 1911?
----
Also, with respect to alloy guns, people advise against +P in a 1911, but never in other allow framed guns like Sig or Beretta. Why is that?
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Very simple. The 1911 frame was designed for steel, then made of aluminum after the fact. Hence, they have a shorter useful life.
On the other hand, SigSauer and Beretta frames were designed to take into account the fact that they were going to be made of aluminum from the start.
Imagine that one architect draws up blueprints for a house to be made of steel-reinforced concrete. The builder then follows the design, except that he substitutes wood in the place of the steel-reinforced concrete. This is what the alloy-frame 1911 is like; a straight substitution of a weaker material for a stronger one.
Another architect draws up blueprints for a house to be made of wood from the start. The builder then follows the design and makes it of wood. This is what the alloy-frame SigSauer or Beretta is like; it is made of the material it was designed for from the start. Wood may be weaker than steel-reinforced concrete, but desiging for wood can allow you to make a very strong house.
Which do you think produces a more durable firearm?
SodaPop
member
I've had problems with non ball ammo in my Colt 1991A1 and wouldn't trust carrying it with anything but ball ammo ( I don't have a problem with that). I've been checking out the 200gr EFMJ that ammoman.com is carrying. I was thinking about picking them up to see if I liked them.
My Colt has over 10,000rds threw it and I recently replaced all the springs.
My Colt has over 10,000rds threw it and I recently replaced all the springs.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Sean Smith,
I understand your analogy, but I am not sure it is the explanation I wanted.
I understand the 1911 was originally designed in steel, and the Beretta and Sig were designed to have alloy frames from the beginning, but that doesnt tell me anything really.
The fundamental problem with any of these is that a hard metal (steel) is contacting a soft metal (aluminum alloy). What did the Beretta and Sig engineers do that allows their guns to hold up better than an alloy 1911?
I understand your analogy, but I am not sure it is the explanation I wanted.
I understand the 1911 was originally designed in steel, and the Beretta and Sig were designed to have alloy frames from the beginning, but that doesnt tell me anything really.
The fundamental problem with any of these is that a hard metal (steel) is contacting a soft metal (aluminum alloy). What did the Beretta and Sig engineers do that allows their guns to hold up better than an alloy 1911?
Are you guys forgetting that the .45APC round is a very low pressure round. Even the +p .45 rounds are below standard 9mm and .40 pressures. That means that a steel framed 1911 can last a long time since it's not taking as much punishment as aluminum alloy guns firing high pressure rounds. It's not the gun folks it's the ammo. If the 9mm or .40 round pressures were as low as the .45, they would easily outlast any steel framed 1911. Given the ammo used, aluminum alloy is doing very well. Why don't alumium alloy 1911 do well? It might be the design or the alloy used.
Certain aluminum alloys are lighter and stronger than equal weighted steel. There is no magical properties of steel that allows it to withstand +p or +p+ rounds forever, and it will not outlast aluminum alloy either.
+p rounds will shorten the lifespan of your Colt. People might cite all the old 1911 around still going, but how many of them have had a steady diet of very high pressure rounds? Most if not had only lower pressure rounds.
Certain aluminum alloys are lighter and stronger than equal weighted steel. There is no magical properties of steel that allows it to withstand +p or +p+ rounds forever, and it will not outlast aluminum alloy either.
+p rounds will shorten the lifespan of your Colt. People might cite all the old 1911 around still going, but how many of them have had a steady diet of very high pressure rounds? Most if not had only lower pressure rounds.
Lone_Gunman
Member
No kidding.
So are alloy 1911s cast from a different alloy than Berettas and Sig?
What aspect of the design are you talking about?
SIG and Beretta uses the same Aluminum-Zinc-Magnesium alloy:
"7xxx series – Zinc in amounts of 1 to 8% is the major alloying element in this group, and when coupled with magnesium and copper (or without copper) results in heat-treatable alloys of very high strength. Usually other elements such as manganese and chromium are also added in small quantities. The out-standing member of this group is 7075, 7050 and 7049, which is among the highest strength alloys available and is used in air-frame structures and for highly stressed parts."
Looks like Kimber aluminum frames are made of the 7075 aluminum, which is very strong. Which means that if they are having problems with standard pressure .45APC rounds, it's the 1911 design that's the problem. Perhaps it is not well suited for use with aluminum. Take for example SIG and Beretta frames. Beretta frames will last longer than SIG's even if they are of the same material, because of the design of Beretta's frame and the way the recoil is transfered to it. Maybe the 1911 just isn't a good design to use with aluminum after all it was designed with steel in mind.
"7xxx series – Zinc in amounts of 1 to 8% is the major alloying element in this group, and when coupled with magnesium and copper (or without copper) results in heat-treatable alloys of very high strength. Usually other elements such as manganese and chromium are also added in small quantities. The out-standing member of this group is 7075, 7050 and 7049, which is among the highest strength alloys available and is used in air-frame structures and for highly stressed parts."
Looks like Kimber aluminum frames are made of the 7075 aluminum, which is very strong. Which means that if they are having problems with standard pressure .45APC rounds, it's the 1911 design that's the problem. Perhaps it is not well suited for use with aluminum. Take for example SIG and Beretta frames. Beretta frames will last longer than SIG's even if they are of the same material, because of the design of Beretta's frame and the way the recoil is transfered to it. Maybe the 1911 just isn't a good design to use with aluminum after all it was designed with steel in mind.
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman
Member
Lots of speculation, not much else.
Tamara
Senior Member
Lone_Gunman,
The point Sean was trying to make is that the SIG and Beretta were designed from the ground up to use alloy frames, while the 1911 was designed with a steel frame in mind. When you translate a steel frame to a dimensionally-identical aluminum one, you lose strength. Do a search on TFL or FAL files for "Williams Arms Combat Elite" for an example.
The point Sean was trying to make is that the SIG and Beretta were designed from the ground up to use alloy frames, while the 1911 was designed with a steel frame in mind. When you translate a steel frame to a dimensionally-identical aluminum one, you lose strength. Do a search on TFL or FAL files for "Williams Arms Combat Elite" for an example.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Tamara,
Ok, I can buy that. You are saying it takes more mass of alloy to provide the same strength as steel?
So there would be more alloy in a SIG or Beretta frame then? Maybe not total mass, but at least in critical areas?
Ok, I can buy that. You are saying it takes more mass of alloy to provide the same strength as steel?
So there would be more alloy in a SIG or Beretta frame then? Maybe not total mass, but at least in critical areas?
Tamara
Senior Member
Yeah, that's a better re-phrasing of what I was attempting to say before my tangue got tongled.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Ok, now let me ask a really dumb question...
What factor of +P ammo actually damages guns?
Is it the increased chamber pressure? It would seem to me that might cause chamber/barrell problems, but how would it affect the frame?
Is it increased recoil, and slide velocity?
What factor of +P ammo actually damages guns?
Is it the increased chamber pressure? It would seem to me that might cause chamber/barrell problems, but how would it affect the frame?
Is it increased recoil, and slide velocity?
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
It is an outright lie to say that aluminum alloys used in guns are as strong as steel. It is inferior in all relevant qualities, particularly ultimate tenstile strength and fatigue strength. Ain't even close, folks. You can fabricate a load-bearing aluminum part to be as strong as a steel part, but you have to make it bigger/thicker than the steel part, and you will probalby only equal the yeild strength... not the ultimate tenstile strength, and certainly not the fatigue strength.
There is no free ride here. You can't get an aluminum frame as strong as a steel frame without making it bigger, and just making a 1911 frame out of aluminum instead of steel is going to result in a VASTLY weaker part. It isn't even close if you actually know the material properties in question, instead of just making stuff up and posting it here. You don't need to take my word for it, the properties of 4140 or 4340 carbon steel and the various aluminum alloys actually used to make handguns are well documented.
Lone_Gunman: you are confusing material properties here. Hardness and strength are not the same thing. You can anodize aluminum to make it nice and hard (as is typically done with handgun frames), but it is still weak as hell compared to steel. The problem isn't the metals rubbing together, but rather the repeated cycles of physical pounding that the frame has to take from firing the gun. Sig and Beretta frames are simply thicker in high-stress areas to compensate for the limitations of aluminum.
There is no free ride here. You can't get an aluminum frame as strong as a steel frame without making it bigger, and just making a 1911 frame out of aluminum instead of steel is going to result in a VASTLY weaker part. It isn't even close if you actually know the material properties in question, instead of just making stuff up and posting it here. You don't need to take my word for it, the properties of 4140 or 4340 carbon steel and the various aluminum alloys actually used to make handguns are well documented.
Lone_Gunman: you are confusing material properties here. Hardness and strength are not the same thing. You can anodize aluminum to make it nice and hard (as is typically done with handgun frames), but it is still weak as hell compared to steel. The problem isn't the metals rubbing together, but rather the repeated cycles of physical pounding that the frame has to take from firing the gun. Sig and Beretta frames are simply thicker in high-stress areas to compensate for the limitations of aluminum.
I know that Jardine claims that the 4340 chrome molly used in the Valtro is stronger than some other alloys used in the fabrication of 1911's. He also claims that he has reinforced weak areas that are subject to early metal fatigue. So, I don't think that you can make generalizations that apply to all guns that use the same "basic" design. I asked him if I could use +p in the Valtro and he told me it wasn't a problem. He then explained the above and pulled out cracked slides to show me how other guns were not as strong. He is especially critical of the 9mm U.S. military Beretta 92's.
Black Snowman
Member
This Smith is going to agree with the post from the previous Smith. I'm not familiar with the Sig's construction but in my friends 96FS the recoil absorbing area where the barrel meets the frame is THICK to take the beating. On my Glock the same area is steel reenforced. Without the embeded steel the poly frames would just tear right apart.
It would be possible to make a strong light alloy frame using a similar combination of steel where it's needed and alloy for less critical areas. Not quite as strong as a full steel, and lot quite as light as full alloy and more expensive to make than either due to the added complexity.
FYI since the original subject was +P ammo in a 1911, related info: HK says you can shoot .45 +P and .45 Super in the USP and SOCOM but recommend replacing the recoil spring more often.
It would be possible to make a strong light alloy frame using a similar combination of steel where it's needed and alloy for less critical areas. Not quite as strong as a full steel, and lot quite as light as full alloy and more expensive to make than either due to the added complexity.
FYI since the original subject was +P ammo in a 1911, related info: HK says you can shoot .45 +P and .45 Super in the USP and SOCOM but recommend replacing the recoil spring more often.
Look towards the aerospace industry and the fatigue life of aluminum framed aircraft.
Every stress placed on the structure and airframe counts towards the eventual failure of the part. It has been explained to me that Aluminum has a specific fatigue life, it can be designed to be strong enough to do a job or be equally strong to a steel part. Difference is that with each shock loading on the part, even if it's within design specifications, Aluminum eventually will fatigue where as steel generally will not.
Say you've got 2 rods, one of aluminum and one of steel. Diameter doesn't really matter because each has been designed to be equally "strong". Place the bars perfectly parrallel to the ground and put a loading on them within their design specification's tolerance for strength, both should be fine. However, work both pieces several dozen times, or thousand times, and as the Aluminum is worked each loading placed on the part leads towards it's eventual failure even though the loadings on it are within design specifications. Steels on the other hand generally will stand up to countless loadings so long as it is within design specification limits, go beyond those limits or do it while dealing with hardened alloys and the metal may be stressed towards it's failure.
Every stress placed on the structure and airframe counts towards the eventual failure of the part. It has been explained to me that Aluminum has a specific fatigue life, it can be designed to be strong enough to do a job or be equally strong to a steel part. Difference is that with each shock loading on the part, even if it's within design specifications, Aluminum eventually will fatigue where as steel generally will not.
Say you've got 2 rods, one of aluminum and one of steel. Diameter doesn't really matter because each has been designed to be equally "strong". Place the bars perfectly parrallel to the ground and put a loading on them within their design specification's tolerance for strength, both should be fine. However, work both pieces several dozen times, or thousand times, and as the Aluminum is worked each loading placed on the part leads towards it's eventual failure even though the loadings on it are within design specifications. Steels on the other hand generally will stand up to countless loadings so long as it is within design specification limits, go beyond those limits or do it while dealing with hardened alloys and the metal may be stressed towards it's failure.
BluesBear
member
Actually the original question was regarding +p in a Colt 1991A1.
My brother has put over 1,000 of the Hornady +p loads (along with about 3,000 rounds of hardball) through his blue steel 1991A1 with no noticable wear and I know that I had put over 10,000 rounds through it(many of them +p or equal) before I traded it to him.
I now have over 5,000 rounds through my Series 80 Colt Lightweight Commander with no noticable wear. But of course I always use the Wilson Recoil Buffers and I change them every 500 rounds or so because THEY take a pounding.
My brother has put over 1,000 of the Hornady +p loads (along with about 3,000 rounds of hardball) through his blue steel 1991A1 with no noticable wear and I know that I had put over 10,000 rounds through it(many of them +p or equal) before I traded it to him.
I now have over 5,000 rounds through my Series 80 Colt Lightweight Commander with no noticable wear. But of course I always use the Wilson Recoil Buffers and I change them every 500 rounds or so because THEY take a pounding.
- Status
