Why bevel guide rod

Status
Not open for further replies.

landcruiser

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
27
I was reading Sweeney's gunsmithing book and he shows a caption of the back end of a full length guide rod with a bevel on it. It states to do this to yours if it is not already. Does this help with wear, lockup, dissasembly or something else?
 
The real question is why you are bothering with a FLGR in the first place. The only purpose they serve is to make money for the seller and complicate takedown.

If you want to listen to that nonsense, go ahead and bevel the thing before you throw it away.

Jim
 
Beveling the back end of a guide rod has nothing to do with the fact that it is full length or short. It provides clearance so when the dust cover impacts the guide rod head it will impart the force over the the circumference of the rod head's outer edge against the frame instead of the center of the head. There's nothing wrong with using a FLGR. Or with using a GI rod. Whatever floats your boat. All the people on here that jump on people with shokbuffs and FLGRs should ease up a little.
 
-mah, mah; Im a crotchety old man...

get off my lawn, you kids, dangnabbit!
-and take your FL guide rods too.

;)

(Im a new convert back to GI rods/plugs, btw)
 
The purpose of the bevel on the guide rod flange is to provide clearance for the link in Commander-length and shorter pistols that have the correct Colt design lower lug geometry which places the flange close to the lug...AND...in such pistols which have a slight mislocation of the impact abutment.

Not necessary in 5-inch pistols and Commander-length pistols that have the frame's impact abutments correctly located. In this, it's a quick & dirty means to compensate for a little mislocation of the abutment without the need to remachine the abutment and rails.

It also aids in the removal of the guide rod from the slide during field-strip by creating a little clearance as the rod is tilted down and withdrawn from the bottom in pistols shorter than Commander length, and in pistols with a bushingless/reverse-plug recoil system.

In the above-described situations, it's a worthwhile modification.

In the pistols that use the bushingless/reverse-plug recoil system, the FLGR is nearly a necessity for quick field-stripping. These have holes drilled in them for bent paper clips that are used to capture the spring and allow removal of the system as a unit. In others...with standard recoil systems...it's an unnecessary affectation that serves no real purpose.

Shock buffs!

While they do soften slide to frame impact, there are some pistols that won't run satisfactorily with a shock buff in place. They reduce slide travel and runup, and eliminate the rebound effect on impact that helps to get the slide started on the way back to battery...providing more speed and momentum for feeding and chambering the cartridge. For the pistols that function well with a buff...they won't hurt anything, and do offer some protection. For the ones that don't, it's a decision for the individual to make based on how much frustration he or she is willing to put up with. I don't recommend a buff in any carry gun. Murphy's Law is in effect.

I use a buff in two of my high-mileage range beaters. The run fine, though the ejection is a little erratic because of the standard-length ejectors...but I can live with it. These pistols are gettin' long in the tooth, and have seen close to 165,000 rounds each on their clocks.

The buffs are a means to extend their service lives of the slides for a bit, and nothing more. The frame abutments are fine in these guns.

I have one pistol that is boringly reliable as long as there isn't a shock buff in it. Put in a buff, and it goes into spastic fits. Remove it...and reliability returns as though John Browning had waved a magic wand over it...and apparently only the pistol knows why.
 
Sorry, folks for being "a crotchety old man", but then I am a crotchety old man. According to the makers of FLGRs and buffs, their products work magic; alas it is not true, and IMHO, the stuff is mainly a PITA.

I admit to prejudice on the issue and I thank 1911Tuner for explaining the pros and cons much better than I would have.

Jim
 
I don't much like'em either, Jim. About the only legitimate call for a FLGR is for those reverse-plug setups...which I don't much care for, either. I guess there's some advantage in a bushingless/RP system...and about the only real reason to use a bushingless/RP system is in those micro-sized abortions...but it seems an awful lot like re-inventing the wheel, and then makin' it harder to take off of the hub...IMHO.
 
Thank you for the replies. I have a Para CCW and I noticed peening/witness marks in the same place where the recommended bevel would be. The movable link is not contacting, the back end of the guide rod is impacting the barrel/link lugs that the link mounts to. Is this normal?

My para came with a FLGR and spending money on a short one would seem just as silly as going the other way.
 
The movable link is not contacting, the back end of the guide rod is impacting the barrel/link lugs that the link mounts to. Is this normal?

No, and I've run into the same issue recently in another Para Ord, and a mislocation of the impact abutment was the cause. Simple fix if you've got a lathe. Chuck it up and face off about a 64th inch from the butt-end of the rod.
 
1911Tuner,

Thanks for the help. My CCW is new and I have only fired 300 rounds. Can you please explain at what point in the action that this is happening?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top