Why do most 1911s have the flat mainspring housing?
- Thread starter firestar
- Start date
- Status
Stevie-Ray
Member
Most? In my experience, most are arched housings, though you could be right for the newer guns. Problem is, one of the first things to go when customizing is the arched housing. I left mine on as I like it that way. But my Kimber, of course, came with a flat housing, as they are known for providing most of the custom features wanted on the factory guns. I like the flat housings also. I really don't have a preference, though the flat is probably better for concealed carry.
Matter of preference, really.
With my 1911's, I usually group higher with an arched mainspring housing. So I went with the flat ones on all of them.
If you remember, the original 1911 had a flat mainspring housing. The arched version came out with the 1911A1.
With my 1911's, I usually group higher with an arched mainspring housing. So I went with the flat ones on all of them.
If you remember, the original 1911 had a flat mainspring housing. The arched version came out with the 1911A1.
jimbo
Member
I am the opposite! I have smaller hands and definitely prefer the flat housing of my Kimber to the arched housings Springfield sold at the time. Much the same as the new Beretta Vertecs. The flat rear frame on the Berettas make it more comfortable and easier for people with smaller hands to control.
cratz2
Member
I prefer flat on a carry gun as I shooter better to my point of aim. On a range gun or a play gun, it doesn't really matter. I don't think one is more comfortable for me personally.
IIRC, the primary reason they went from the straight to the arched MSH was raise the point of impact for many soldiers.
IIRC, the primary reason they went from the straight to the arched MSH was raise the point of impact for many soldiers.
JJohnston015
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2003
- Messages
- 466
How would the arched MSH raise the point of impact?
I admit, it may be true - both my milspec Springfields shoot high, but my Kimber (flat) shoots where it looks.
I admit, it may be true - both my milspec Springfields shoot high, but my Kimber (flat) shoots where it looks.
cratz2
Member
I never fully thought about it. But it was discovered that many (maybe even most, not sure) troops were shooting low with the original flat MSH of the 1911. When changes were put into effect and the 1911A1 was born, one of the changes was to the arched MSH to raise the average POI.
This is from memory from reading years ago so don't flog me too badly if I'm wrong.
And I'm not sure if the low POI was from slow aimed fire or from 'just draw the gun, rack the slide and shoot' type shooting. For me, aimed fire doesn't change much but drawing from concealment, taking the safety off and firing, the POI is better with the flat MSH.
This is from memory from reading years ago so don't flog me too badly if I'm wrong.
And I'm not sure if the low POI was from slow aimed fire or from 'just draw the gun, rack the slide and shoot' type shooting. For me, aimed fire doesn't change much but drawing from concealment, taking the safety off and firing, the POI is better with the flat MSH.
without aligning the sights...holding the gun in one hand...holding your wrist straight (without a break or cocking it downward)...
the arched MSH will cause the barrel to point higher than the same pistol with the flat MSH.
the flat MSH was very popular in "combat shooting" competition. you used to see a boxful of discarded arched housings on most gunsmith's benches. the funny thing is that many folks laud the "fit" of the browning HP and the smith m-39, which both have an arched backstrap.
the arched MSH will cause the barrel to point higher than the same pistol with the flat MSH.
the flat MSH was very popular in "combat shooting" competition. you used to see a boxful of discarded arched housings on most gunsmith's benches. the funny thing is that many folks laud the "fit" of the browning HP and the smith m-39, which both have an arched backstrap.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Just personal preference, or whatever the current trend is. I used to like arched, but after shooting a flat MSH gun alot, I like flat better. But I like the curvey backside of a BHP or CZ-75b alot, too. So I dunno.
After WW1 it was found that the arched housing worked better
for the smaller soldiers of the day. Larger hands worked better
with the flat housing. When "combat shooting" became popular
in the 50's 60's and 70's most of the movers and shakers where
big men and everyone wanted what they had. Look at guys like
Elden Carl, Jeff Cooper, Ross Seyfried et. al. they all had/have
large hands.
Today it has become standard for people to expect a flat housing if it is a "custom" or "combat" gun.
for the smaller soldiers of the day. Larger hands worked better
with the flat housing. When "combat shooting" became popular
in the 50's 60's and 70's most of the movers and shakers where
big men and everyone wanted what they had. Look at guys like
Elden Carl, Jeff Cooper, Ross Seyfried et. al. they all had/have
large hands.
Today it has become standard for people to expect a flat housing if it is a "custom" or "combat" gun.
Longbow
Member
I thought large hands work better w/ arched as it adds more width on the grip?
I like arched myself for competition (grip safety is disabled)because its more hand filling than flat. But for carry, I like flat because its easier to disengage the grip safety w/ it.
I like arched myself for competition (grip safety is disabled)because its more hand filling than flat. But for carry, I like flat because its easier to disengage the grip safety w/ it.
The arched housing arose from complaints that the original 1911 pointed too low. Shooters and soldiers of the time were used to revolvers, not automatic pistols which were still somewhat of a novelty back then.
As for why most 1911s come with flat housing these days, I guess it's simply the perceived demand. Years ago 1911s all came with arched housings and short triggers, and everybody was taking those off and throwing them away. With the current "retro" trend regarding 1911s we seem to be going back to more 1911s with the arched housings and short triggers again.
As for why most 1911s come with flat housing these days, I guess it's simply the perceived demand. Years ago 1911s all came with arched housings and short triggers, and everybody was taking those off and throwing them away. With the current "retro" trend regarding 1911s we seem to be going back to more 1911s with the arched housings and short triggers again.
The 1911 points low for hip shooting. The arched housing tips the muzzle up a bit, at least it's supposed to.
I've read a lot of people post that the Colt 45 Auto "points naturally" but that's a lot of malarkey in my opinion. Points naturally for a robot, maybe?
I've read a lot of people post that the Colt 45 Auto "points naturally" but that's a lot of malarkey in my opinion. Points naturally for a robot, maybe?
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
Matter of "Style," I guess
I learned to shoot the .45 auto with an arched MSH, during a time when there was a lot of emphasis on one-handed shooting, both from waist level and more-or-less unsighted fire from shoulder level. By the time I tried to use a flat MSH, I probably had a lot of muscle memory working, and I seemed to hit 'way low with it.
I also read of the reasoning behind the switch to arched MSH on the 1911, and this seemed to tally with my experience. As soon as I could afford a Colt National Match (The early "Gold Cup") I got one. As it was conceived as a bullseye patch pistol, it came with a flat MSH. I started switching arched for flat about that time, and have been doing it ever since. Maybe this is the reason I like the old Commanders and Govt Models so much--They came with arched.
Really, I can make do with either one, but prefer arched. In that so many people were making bulleye guns do duty for fighting guns, it became popular to install flat MSHs, first by the gun smiths, and later by the various factories. I believe it is mostly a fad, like "Full Length" guide rods. A matter of personal preference, mostly.
Best,
Johnny
I learned to shoot the .45 auto with an arched MSH, during a time when there was a lot of emphasis on one-handed shooting, both from waist level and more-or-less unsighted fire from shoulder level. By the time I tried to use a flat MSH, I probably had a lot of muscle memory working, and I seemed to hit 'way low with it.
I also read of the reasoning behind the switch to arched MSH on the 1911, and this seemed to tally with my experience. As soon as I could afford a Colt National Match (The early "Gold Cup") I got one. As it was conceived as a bullseye patch pistol, it came with a flat MSH. I started switching arched for flat about that time, and have been doing it ever since. Maybe this is the reason I like the old Commanders and Govt Models so much--They came with arched.
Really, I can make do with either one, but prefer arched. In that so many people were making bulleye guns do duty for fighting guns, it became popular to install flat MSHs, first by the gun smiths, and later by the various factories. I believe it is mostly a fad, like "Full Length" guide rods. A matter of personal preference, mostly.
Best,
Johnny
The 1911 originally had a flat msh; they changed it on the A1 version, since most people were shooting low when point shooting the pistol. The arched msh raised the muzzle of the pistol. Try them both, then change trigger ie: long or short shoe to fit your trigger finger reach.
blades67
Member
It's the "in" thing right now.
- Status
