PDA

View Full Version : 1911 Barrel Link



JGraham
11th December 2013, 20:58
Hello, I am new to the forum and I have a 1911 problem. I understand that the folks on the forum are the 1911 gurus and I would appreciate some valued advice. With that said here is my problem.

I have a RIA 1911 Government Model that has been pretty heavily modified. Almost everything has been changed except the slide and frame. It seems to have a problem feeding anything except ball ammo. When I try to use hollow points they hang on the bottom of the barrel. It looks like there is a pretty good gap between the bottom of the barrel and the frame. I have the factory barrel and it has the same problem but not as bad as the storm lake barrel.

I was wondering if changing to a shorter barrel link would help. Thought I would get some opinions here before I started ordering a bunch of parts.

Thanks,
Jackie

niemi24s
11th December 2013, 21:09
Hello JGraham: :wc: to the Forum!

Can't tell you much based on your description except a different link is probably not the cure. We need more information, and here's something that will give you an idea about some of the things that cause that sort of problem in a 1911 and what we might need to know: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tY9zX-F_dWgxMstQAC-cbfKraO_Tmc6FiaDzaEMvECs/edit

But two questions from that long list immediately come to mind:

Q1: Does the problem occur with all of your magazines?

Q2: Are the hollow points that give the problem handloads?

JGraham
11th December 2013, 21:16
Hello JGraham: :wc: to the Forum!

Can't tell you much based on your description except a different link is probably not the cure. We need more information, and here's something that will give you an idea about some of the things that cause that sort of problem in a 1911 and what we might need to know: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tY9zX-F_dWgxMstQAC-cbfKraO_Tmc6FiaDzaEMvECs/edit

But two questions from that long list immediately come to mind:

Q1: Does the problem occur with all of your magazines?

Q2: Are the hollow points that give the problem handloads?
I have several different manufactures magazines it has the same issue with all of them.
The hollow points are factory SD loads like Hornady and Remington.
I have swapped out the barrel with another pistol, Springfield loaded. That barrel seems to sit lower in the frame and fees better than the other 2. I do not know if it has the standard barrel link or not as I have made no modification to it as it works great.

JGraham
11th December 2013, 21:21
Also looking at the link you provided I see that the barrel sits down on the frame. On mine there is a significant gap between the bottom of the barrel and the grove that the barrel sits when the slide is open. The opening in the tip of the bullet is catching on the lip of the barrel. I was wondering how I would go about closing that gap.

niemi24s
11th December 2013, 21:50
On mine there is a significant gap between the bottom of the barrel and the grove that the barrel sits when the slide is open. The opening in the tip of the bullet is catching on the lip of the barrel. I was wondering how I would go about closing that gap.The first order of business is to figure out why the barrel doesn't fall all the way down to the bed (groove) when the gun is fully assembled. There are three reasons:

1. The link is too long (and pulling the slide stop with the recoil spring removed should close the gap)
2. Interference between the bottom of the barrel and the inside of the slide
3. Interference between the bottom of the barrel and the frame

Regards

Spyros
12th December 2013, 00:27
I'm not sure what you mean by 'significant gap', but if it's big enough for the hollow end of a hollow-point bullet to hang on to, I have to ask this: does your frame, look sorta like this:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/GoodRamp.jpg

...or does it look more like either one of these:

http://www.caspianarms.com/Images/rmp2.jpg

John
12th December 2013, 04:52
Before jumping to any conclusions, can you show us a picture of your barrel-to-frame relationship, as seen when looking down the ejection port? It would help us tremendously in understanding what your problem is.

1911Tuner
12th December 2013, 06:30
Slide off...barrel in the frame. Slidestop pin through the link and frame holes. Does the barrel still stand off the bed?

If so...

Remove the slidestop and see if the gap closes up. If it does, the link is holding it off the bed and is likely too long.

As in way yonder too long.

CAWalter
12th December 2013, 07:55
Of course the link could be too long, however simply going to a shorter link, may reduce the upper lug engagement below acceptable limits. What is it? The barrel when held back on the frame should have no more than .005"space above the bed. Or the barrel is hanging in the slide, another big possibility.

CAW

niemi24s
12th December 2013, 08:20
If you remove the link from the barrel that stands off the frame bed (groove) and nothing is stamped on it, it is most likely a standard 278 link. But if something is stamped on it, compare the stamping with this to see what size link it might be:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/scan0013a.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/scan0013a.jpg.html)

Another course of action is to simply swap links and see if the other link allows it to fall to the bed (groove).

Regards

niemi24s
12th December 2013, 08:56
Another way to tell if the link is too long is to:

• Install the slide stop (SS) with its arm hanging down over the trigger guard
• Remove the recoil spring
• Pull the slide back about " out of battery
• Push down on the barrel through the ejection port.

Under these conditions the barrel should be on the bed (groove), the link should be a loose and the SS arm should swing freely. However, if the link is holding the barrel up off the bed (groove), the link will be in compression due to the pushing and the SS arm will not swing freely.

Q: Does the SS arm swing freely or does the pushing prevent it from swinging freely?

JGraham
12th December 2013, 12:20
The standard RIA link has nothing stamped and it is factory so I assumed it was standard. The link on the Storm Lake Custom barrel has 13 stamped on it. According to the chart it shows to be .291 which may explain the gap as it is +13 which would explain the gap and why the RIA barrel feeds better than the Storm Lake. If I go to a .273 or .268 link that would probably help as long as I don't affect the lug engagement.

niemi24s
12th December 2013, 14:07
If the Storm Lake barrel is a drop-in model (and the barrel stands on the link when in battery), changing the link to a standard 278 link (0.013" shorter) will reduce lug engagement by a tad more than that - about 0.0131". I'd put the standard 278 RIA link on the Storm Lake barrel and see how much vertical engagement you end up with. Most consider 0.040" the minimum acceptable amount.

Regards

1911Tuner
12th December 2013, 14:59
Of course the link could be too long, however simply going to a shorter link, may reduce the upper lug engagement below acceptable limits.

If it's too long, it's too long...and if the correct link reduces upper lug engagement, there's a problem with the lower lug.

And if it's long enough to keep the barrel that far off the bed, there's also a linkdown/drop timing problem.

The link's only function is getting the barrel out of the slide...not raising it into the slide.


The barrel when held back on the frame should have no more than .005"space above the bed.


Static, the barrel should drop all the way to the bed. There should be .003 inch of clearance at the point that the barrel hits the VIS...but when everything is standing still and the slide is all the way back, the barrel should touch the bed.


Or the barrel is hanging in the slide, another big possibility.

Possible, but not very probable. That's one of those things that I see once in a blue moon, and it's always been a spec problem in the slide.

One thing at a time.

Jackie...Run the test and see what you've got. If it's not the link, we can start huntin' Zebras.

niemi24s
12th December 2013, 20:16
​While you may think this...
The link's only function is getting the barrel out of the slide...not raising it into the slide....JMB certainly thought differently and said so in his patent of 1911 (readily available in our Stickies)...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/JMBPatentLinkFunctionk.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/JMBPatentLinkFunctionk.jpg.html)

...in which he clearly states the link also (as a part of that means of attachment) raises the barrel up into the slide as seen by the words shaded in green, above. This is also clearly borne out by analysis of the Ordnance blueprints for the Government Model which also show that if the link doesn't raise the barrel up into the slide it means the barrel must get up there by supernatural forces. That's because (with very rare exception) the slide stop pin contacts the lower lugs only at the instant battery is reached and the barrel is supported vertically by the link when in battery.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/FeetSSPinBatteryi.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/FeetSSPinBatteryi.jpg.html)

If, however, the barrel of a current Government Model happens to be supported vertically in battery by the lower lugs on the slide stop pin - that Government Model does not, repeat, does not meet current Ordnance specifications. Plain and simple. And examination of any existing Government Model has no bearing on this matter. That examination does not determine how a Government Model should be - only how that particular Government Model is. The Industrial Revolution began about 200 year ago and blueprints are an integral part of that revolution. It's why the wings of an A380 Airbus made in the UK fit onto the fuselage made somewhere in mainland Europe.

The link does indeed have more than one function.

Regards

1911Tuner
13th December 2013, 05:17
If that's the way you read it...

I suggest that you assemble the gun without the link and hand-cycle it slowly. The barrel will rise and fall.
If you're still not convinced...pull it back slowly so that gravity will pull the barrel down...then let it snap forward. The barrel will enter the slide just fine.


Anyway.

Do the test and see if it makes any difference. If not...since Jack has indicated that the gun has been "highly modified"...look at the picture. If this resembles what you see, the skilled wrench has pretty much screwed the frame ramp. If the ramp "modification" is severe, it'll look to the untrained eye like there's a gap between the barrel and the bed, and it'll produce the described malfunction.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/Overhang.jpg

Spyros
13th December 2013, 05:36
'means of attachment and connection between the barrel and the frame' can mean equally the link OR the slide stop crosspin, the way I read it. In a 1911 where the barrel doesn't stand on the link in battery, the slide stop crosspin certainly "imparts to [the barrel] another movement by which the barrel and the breech-bolt will be interlocked when they arrive at the forward firing position".

niemi24s
13th December 2013, 10:50
'means of attachment and connection between the barrel and the frame' can mean equally the link OR the slide stop crosspin, the way I read it.No it cannot. That's because if the "means of attachment" was only the slide stop crosspin, the slide stop crosspin alone cannot with surety pull the barrel down out out of the slide (such as when fired upside-down). But now that you bring it up, it's a ". . .means of attachment and connection between the barrel and the frame. . ." so it must necessarily consist of the slide stop crosspin AND the link - not just the link. But for a Government Model (GM) does that mean the link gets the barrel down and only the crosspin gets the barrel up? Not if the means of attachment and connection remains both the link and the crosspin. And also not according to the blueprints.

And that's the nice thing about blueprints - there are little or no semantic shenanigans involved with them. If you follow the Ordnance blueprints of any available era and build a GM out of most anything but Play-Doh or Silly Putty, the barrel will stand on the link when in battery (assuming Gaussian distribution) more than 99% of the time. And 100% of those made using the latest blueprints will stand on the link. The the reason I bring this up each and every time (and will continue to do so) is to dispel the notion newcomers to this forum may get that there's something wrong with their GM if it stands on its link. There isn't. And that's not an opinion based on anecdotal observation or what somebody told me. The patent and blueprints are not opinions. They're facts.

The fact that the barrel will find its way up into and down out of the slide without the link has no bearing on this matter. JMB's patent description included the link. For those wondering how the gap dimensions in the second image of my previous post came to be, they are not opinions. Each is based on a series of calculations: for each of the three eras of blueprints; and for each of the four conditions in each era; twelve in all. Here's the one for the absolute minimum gap of any era using 1973 blueprint data:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/1973FeetKissPine.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/1973FeetKissPine.jpg.html)

Those "S" dimensions are blueprint specifications selected to provide the smallest possible in-spec gap, C8. The negative sign indicates contact - by less than a thousandth of an inch. Mathematical fact. No opinion or hyperbole involved.

Cheers

Jim Watson
13th December 2013, 14:46
Is there a source to read about the use of long links by SA on some NM pistols?
It seems to have been considered a failed experiment and most NMs are fitted to breech up on the lug, but there are some "linked up" barrels out there. And the 13, 17, and 21 oversize links used to be readily available from surplus. I found even a 13 would make my Commander lock up with gratifying solidity... but it also upset the feeding alignment and it would no longer shoot SWCs.

niemi24s
13th December 2013, 15:54
Hi Jackie:

Please don't get put off by this back & forth exchange between 1911Tuner and I - it occurs every month or so.

You have a Government Model (GM) in which a barrel meeting GM specifications may possibly be installed. The link is a +13 link which is 0.013" longer than a standard 278 link. If everything else about this gun has average (mid-spec) dimensions of the 1994 blueprints, that barrel's lower lugs will be 0.013 + 0.010 (from Post #15) or 0.023" above the slide stop crosspin when in battery. Installing a 278 link will reduce that gap by 0.013" bringing it back down to the 0.010" average. This will also reduce the vertical engagement of the radial locking lugs by that same amount (0.013") and there is no problem with the lower lugs. There may, however, be a problem with too little vertical engagement with the 278 link. Here's how to measure it:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P0882000023a.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P0882000023a.jpg.html)

Recommend you not fire the gun with the 278 link until vertical engagement is checked and found to be 0.040" or greater. BTW, if an average "1994" GM has a +13 link it will keep the barrel a bit more than 0.006" up off the bed at linkdown (link in compression). And if it's not an average 1911 but has its tolerances stacked the right way, the +13 link will keep the barrel a maximum of about 0.020" above the bed.

Anyhow, please do the tests and get back with us.

Regards

niemi24s
13th December 2013, 16:08
Hi Jim:
Is there a source to read about the use of long links by SA on some NM pistols?If by "SA" you mean the now-closed Army Ordnance Springfield Armory, the only authoritative one I'm aware of is an article by Capt Carl J. Davis, USA, published in the April 1963 edition of The American Rifleman. Even then, the use of the +13, +17 and +21 links with GM barrels in building NM pistols is only mentioned in passing - no substantive discussion. There might possibly be something in one of Kuhnhausen's books.

Regards

Roger S
13th December 2013, 17:02
Sorry I might get in trouble for this post, I love these back and forth discussion I learn so much!

Jammer Six
13th December 2013, 17:56
The patent and blueprints are not opinions. They're facts.
Niemi, you've been my hero since I started paying attention here.

This may be the only thing you've ever said that I disagree with.

I was a contractor. Believe me, a blueprint is not a fact. In the best case, a blueprint is correct. In the worst case, if you put the pencil in the teeth of an epileptic quadriplegic and waited, the blueprint would become more accurate.

niemi24s
13th December 2013, 18:44
Thanks for the kind word, but saying this...
. . .a blueprint is not a fact....is getting into a semantic quagmire. Even if something such as this impossible thing http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gershon/EscherForReal/EscherCubeRealFront.gif were to be drawn on a piece of paper with some dimensions it would be a blueprint of that impossible thing. That in itself is a fact, even though the thing is pure fiction. The blueprint's not fiction - simply because that piece of paper exists (as goofy as it is). I think. I've always felt that semantics is the fuel of flame wars.

But I fully understand your point about blueprints containing incorrect data. That's why I use only official Army Ordnance blueprints for the GM and not any of their ersatz redrawings available online or in print. Too much chance for transcription errors. There are several of those errors in Kuhnhausen's books. While the ersatz drawings themselves may be larger and/or clearer, I always have a lingering doubt about the dimensions themselves. Even saw an ersatz blueprint for the extractor posted on this forum drawn with the tensioning bend the wrong way! Here's the thread about it: http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?100901-Ersatz-1911-Blueprint-Caution&highlight=ersatz+1911+blueprint+caution

And the absolute ultimate blueprints IMHO are the official pdf's from Picatinny Arsenal. They're clear as a bell even when enlarged, but I don't have too many of them as there's a fee of about US$50 for each one.

Regards

1911Tuner
13th December 2013, 22:32
I know this is probably a waste of time, Dan...but lemme see if logic works.

If Browning meant for the link to lift the barrel into the slide, too...

why make the lower lug with such an intricate shape, and with such close tolerances? That's a pretty complicated machining operation.

Why not just use a rectangular block with a stop shoulder at the back? That would've been simpler, easier...and cheaper...than the way it's cut. The 1911 was a contract. In all contracts, time is money. A machine tied up is money. Tooling is money. Manpower is money. If it could've been cut that way, it would have been cut that way, and the link could have done it all.

But it wasn't cut that way...for a reason.


a blueprint is not a fact. In the best case, a blueprint is correct. In the worst case, if you put the pencil in the teeth of an epileptic quadriplegic and waited, the blueprint would become more accurate.


I'm glad that somebody besides me understands that...and finally said it. When the prints don't show what's present on real guns...you start to grapple with the idea that the prints don't tell the whole story.

Or, as the man said:

"When the results of the experiment don't jive with the theory...go with the results."

Now, if we're done with this whizzin' contest, let's try to focus on figurin' out what's wrong with the man's gun. If removing the link lets the barrel hit the bed and the gap disappears...it's been long-linked.

We're assuming that the frame ramp hasn't been trashed. So far, we don't have much to go on. So, let's try to eliminate the most likely or most obvious before we start to look for the complex stuff.

1911Tuner
14th December 2013, 05:38
OP...Does your frame ramp look anything like this?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/RuinedRamp-2_zps44209a6d.jpg

Or does it look like this?

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/GoodRamp.jpg

niemi24s
14th December 2013, 10:39
I know this is probably a waste of time, Dan...but lemme see if logic works.Good sound logic always works with me. However...
If Browning meant for the link to lift the barrel into the slide, too...why make the lower lug with such an intricate shape, and with such close tolerances? That's a pretty complicated machining operation....as I've not had the privilege of of getting the answers by personal conversation with JMB, I must defer to his written description in the patent - instead of any blather I might add. When reading further on page 2 of the patent it can be seen that the "means of attachment and connection between the barrel and the frame" consists not only of the link and slide stop crosspin but ALSO the barrel's lower lugs. That's because it states:
. . .this means of attachment and connection shall at the same time be the means which shall positively limit the rearward movement of the barrel with the breech-bolt, arrest the movements of the barrel as soon as the same becomes unlocked from the breech-bolt, and which shall be adapted in location, form and strength to transmit to the frame the stress due to the sudden arrest of the movements of the barrel without injury resulting therefrom to either the barrel or the frame or to the means of attachment between the same;...provides the answer to the following question of yours:
Why not just use a rectangular block with a stop shoulder at the back? That would've been simpler, easier...and cheaper...than the way it's cut. The 1911 was a contract. In all contracts, time is money. A machine tied up is money. Tooling is money. Manpower is money. If it could've been cut that way, it would have been cut that way, and the link could have done it all. But it wasn't cut that way...for a reason.It's cut that way for "form and strength" purposes according to JMB's own words, undoubtedly so the lower lugs wouldn't break off when hitting the VIS. And it was not cut that way (with the curve at the forward part of the lower lugs) so that the lower lugs could ride the barrel up into battery with the link loose and playing no role as some so fervently believe. It was, instead, cut that way so the lower lugs would not come into contact with the crosspin until battery was reached. And that last sentence is not my opinion: It's JMB's very own description:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/Fig7Lines39through45b.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/Fig7Lines39through45b.jpg.html)

I don't need my own words to provide a written/verbal description of how this gun is supposed to work. I rely on JMB's. You are cordially invited to spend some time reading the patent to discover how he intended his gun to work. The patent is available, in English, in the Stickies.


Now, if we're done with this whizzin' contest. . .I'm done, for now, simply because it appears you will always continue to believe what you do - contrary to what its inventor says. And while you may call it a "whizzin' contest", my only goal is to dispel the erroneous notion there's something wrong with a Government Model if it stands on the link in battery. You may have two wheelbarrows full of them that do stand on their lugs, but that has no bearing on the matter.
. . . let's try to focus on figurin' out what's wrong with the man's gun. If removing the link lets the barrel hit the bed and the gap disappears...it's been long-linked.We already know it's been long-linked: Jackie said it had a 13 link (no doubt a Bob Marvel link) 14 posts back.

Q: How are those tests coming along, Jackie?

Regards

niemi24s
14th December 2013, 16:08
While we're all sitting around on pins & needles waiting for Jackie to get back with us, here's something else JMB had to say about this subject. I'd posted it about four years ago and promptly forgot about it:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/JMBLugPatenta.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/JMBLugPatenta.jpg.html)

The image in Post #27 has information from the patent detailing the manner in which the lower lugs & barrel get up into battery. That patent is like a horn of plenty or Cornucopia. It just keeps on giving and giving and giving and giving. At least to those who dare read it. And I don't think I'm having a "whizzin' contest" with anybody. Seems to me somebody else is having one with JMB.

Regards

John
14th December 2013, 16:27
May I humbly suggest to you two mentors to quit arguing and focus on solving Jackie's problem?

I know very well that you have different points of view on this subject, but I am pretty sure that you can work together to solve our member's issue.

And I certainly would expect no less from either of you.

Thank you guys!!!

Jerry Keefer
14th December 2013, 18:03
Been watching this, and have deleted several rebuttals..as "what's the use"... But, aside, I believe there is more to this. A 13 link works out to . 291 That suggests to me that the lower lugs might have been welded up, or this is a very out of spec situation. There's a reason why a 13 link is necessary. That reason needs to be corrected. Small notation: Al Marvel made links..not Bob. When Al stopped production, he told me how many he had produced over the years.. I can't recall the exact figure, but it was an astounding number..he had a punch press and made them in his shop. I bought several hundred blanks, (no holes), made a fixture, which enabled making custom links.
Jerry

niemi24s
14th December 2013, 18:38
Hi Jerry:

Thanks for the correction. At least I got the last name right. Maybe a photo like this (with the 13 link) would help us tell if the lower lugs had been welded up - or maybe were oversized to begin with:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P09C040007atxt.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P09C040007atxt.jpg.html)

Could also be a 13 link on GM barrel if Storm Lake makes them.

BTW, even though the pic is of an AO barrel, measurements show its lower lugs do meet GM specs. And that's all I've been talking about in this - the Government Model. Anything else is anybody's guess. If you're unsure Jackie, photo posting instructions can be found in our FAQ section at the top of every page.

Cheers

Jammer Six
14th December 2013, 22:15
I'll be .

The phrase "...that this part of the lug clears and freely moves over..." persuades me. In particular, the word "clears".

niemi24s
15th December 2013, 08:29
That verbal/written description seems a pretty good match for Fig 7 from the patent (see Post #28) and the drawing based on the Army Ordnance blueprints (see Post #18). The sad (pathetic, actually) part is that it's been written that way for the past 102 years! And specified that way in the Army Ordnance blueprints for the past 85 years!! Dad always told me that being literate would come in handy later on in life. Maybe he was right.

C'mon Jackie - where are you? :D

Regards

P.S.: See Post 27 for an update to the ". . .clears and freely moves over. . ." stuff.

JGraham
15th December 2013, 19:27
Here are some pics of the barrels that I am working with. The parkerized barrel is the stock RIA barrel that came with the pistol. I assume the link is stock .278. The stainless barrel is the storm lake that I picked up for a very reasonable price off of Ebay. Once a qualified person looks at it they may see something that I am not aware of. It has a link that is stamped 13 on the side.
The Storm Lake barrel shoots and feeds great with ball ammo. No complaints except for the feeding of hollow points and flat nose cast bullets. I have tried the storm lake with both the standard link and the 13 link. I don't seem to have any problems with lug engagement or lock up and the accuracy is great.
I actually ordered a Wilson Link kit to try to see if the .273 link will fit and function properly. I have also ordered a Wilson Oversized barrel bushing to tighten up the front of the barrel. The current bushing has more play than I like.
Hopefully a combination of these parts will improve the feeding.

niemi24s
15th December 2013, 20:03
It looks like somebody has tinkered with both the top corner of the frame ramp and the bottom corners of both barrel ramps, rounding them over when they should all be nice and sharp like this:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/FourBblRampGapsa.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/FourBblRampGapsa.jpg.html)

A sharp corner at the top of the frame ramp is especially important because it does a lot lot keep bullet noses away from the bottom corner of the barrel ramp. As they are, I think either barrel will be a marginal hollow point feeder unless the frame ramp can be corrected (not always possible without installing a ramp insert). Too bad. Lots of 1911's get ruined that way.

Q: How much gap (use layers of card stock if necessary) is there between the bed and the Storm Lake barrel with the 278 link installed?

Jammer Six
15th December 2013, 20:54
I agree. The Storm Lake barrel in particular is trash.

Ask me how I know, and why my milspec has a new barrel... :bf:

John
16th December 2013, 00:36
And the frame doesn't look very well either. Someone rounded the top of the frame ramp, as Niemi said. Bad joojoo!

niemi24s
16th December 2013, 09:27
I have a kit of hand tools (available for use by any member of this forum) which can do a fairly good job of restoring frame ramps provided there's enough metal remaining in the proper places. The best chance for successful restoration is when:

The barrel bed is higher than normal
The ramp angle is steeper (closer to the vertical) than normal
The ramp itself is located farther back than normal and
The top corner isn't rounded over too much

It is, however, quite difficult to tell if these conditions exist because their measurements are far from easy. And they're made all the more difficult when the top corner is rounded over as can be seen in this:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P6130001d.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P6130001d.jpg.html)

The angle of the ramp is especially important and is probably best measured using a protractor with a shortened arm like this:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P102160005c.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P102160005c.jpg.html)

That protractor is not included in the restoration kit, but many hardware stores have them. Restoration can also be farmed out to EGW who'll install an insert. Let me know if you're interested in trying it yourself. Here's a thread that covers most of the details: http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?78060-Ramp-angle-and-depth-How-to-Measure&highlight=ramp+angle+ramp+depth

Regards

niemi24s
16th December 2013, 19:20
To avoid any future misunderstanding, the following are provided regarding the lug-link-crosspin discussion:

The gaps shown for the three different eras of blueprints (1994, 1973 and 1944) in the table in the second image in Post #15 are different for each era solely because of differences in barrel specifications. Blueprints for the 1973 and 1944 Government Model (GM) barrels can be found in our Tech Issues section. The blueprint for the 1994 GM barrel can be found in the blueprint set available from Nicolaus Associates or singly from Picatinny Arsenal.

While lines 41 and 42 on page 3 of the patent of 1911 (see Post #27) say the center of the forward, lower curve of the lower lugs is at the link pin center, that is true only for the 1973 and 1944 era barrels. The center of this curve for the 1994 barrel lies significantly aft and above the link pin center as seen in this...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/OldNewBblLugsa.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/OldNewBblLugsa.jpg.html)

...and also the image of Post #31

[this space reserved for the third thing I was going to mention - but can't remember!]

Regards

Jerry Keefer
17th December 2013, 17:49
http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt128/jerrykeefer/DSC00429_zps87e9fa46.jpg (http://s604.photobucket.com/user/jerrykeefer/media/DSC00429_zps87e9fa46.jpg.html)
Many ramps have been saved with tig, and re machining..
Jerry

niemi24s
17th December 2013, 18:06
Hi Jerry:

Thanks. Guess I forgot about that as an option. Is any heat treatment (annealing?) required afterwards?

Jerry Keefer
17th December 2013, 19:20
Hi Jerry:

Thanks. Guess I forgot about that as an option. Is any heat treatment (annealing?) required afterwards?
No.. Steel frames are a snap...Now, alloy is another matter, and an absolute candidate for the insert..
Jerry

niemi24s
19th December 2013, 09:50
As the time limit for editing has now been re-instated, the following image was meant to replace the hand-scribed quote from the patent contained in Post #27. It, with the image already in Post #27, explain in JMB's own words why the lower lugs are shaped as they are: large enough to be strong enough to resist damage when hitting the VIS; yet not so large that they touch the slide stop cross pin until the moment battery is reached.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/Fig7Lines18through30a.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/Fig7Lines18through30a.jpg.html)

When reading this it's helpful to remember that JMB's "means of attachment and connection" is between the barrel (b, in Fig 7) and frame and consists of the lower lugs (b1), link pin, link (d) and slide stop cross pin (i).

Note to moderators: While there may be certain advantages to having a time limit for editing, a time limit often forces additional posts like this when improvements or corrections are needed or wanted. Just my 2 worth.

Regards

niemi24s
19th December 2013, 18:23
Hello Jackie:

Spent some more time staring at your photos and it looks like the polishing may have also put a curve in the ramp, making it convex when it should be straight at the centerline. If that's true, measuring it's angle with a protractor (such as the one shown in Post #38) will be very difficult. Because of that, the best way to get an idea of the situation is by using a fixed gauge like this:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P073070003c.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P073070003c.jpg.html)

But an adjustable protractor is still needed to assemble the gauge at the proper angle. Edit: After assembly, it can be used to assess both the angle and linearity of the ramp by first coating the center of the ramp with sight black or candle soot and then gingerly scraping a bit of the black stuff off (gingerly, so the knife edge is not damaged).

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P073110002b.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P073110002b.jpg.html)

Regards

Big_Blue
19th December 2013, 21:31
Gotta bookmark this thread. http://i1272.photobucket.com/albums/y390/Michael_R_Mardis/Popcornsmiley2_zps5a029da9.gif

Red Mike
20th December 2013, 03:24
No kidding!

niemi24s
20th December 2013, 11:00
The second bulleted paragraph in Post #39 is amended as follows:
To avoid any future misunderstanding, the following are provided regarding the lug-link-crosspin discussion:

• While lines 41 and 42 on page 3 of the patent of 1911 (see Post #27) say the center of the forward, lower curve of the lower lugs is at the link pin center, that is true only for the 1973 and 1944 era barrels. The center of this curve for the 1994 barrel lies significantly aft and above the link pin center as seen in this...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/OldNewBblLugsa.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/OldNewBblLugsa.jpg.html)

...and also the image of Post #31. For the 1973 barrel, the center of the curve is somewhere within about 0.010" from the pin hole center and depends upon the actual radius of the curve. It's a bit complicated because of the differences in the curve's radius and how it's location is specified on each of the three different blueprints.

Regards

niemi24s
20th December 2013, 13:24
This explains why differences in gaps exist between the three different eras of GM barrels - their specifications are different:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/19447394BblDwgd.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/19447394BblDwgd.jpg.html)

Dimensions not needed for lug-to-crosspin gap calculations have been omitted for clarity, with the exception of the forward curve radius. Because of that, the forward geometry of the 1994 lugs cannot be ascertained from what's seen here. Nothing except the green lines for 1944 has been added. The other specifications needed in the lug-to-pin gap calculations are for the link pin, link and crosspin. These are the same for each era and are not included here. What all this means is that statements about a GM barrel's lower lugs may not mean much unless the era of the barrel is mentioned.

Regards

P.S.: Jackie! Have any more thoughts about fixing your gun?

JGraham
20th December 2013, 19:16
Well I had been waiting for the parts that I ordered to come in and they arrived today.
I had kind of made the determination from all the great data the you guys provided that the problem wasn't really the barrel link. The ramp polishing was some of my doing and not asking the right questions to the right people before I attempted it on my own. I guess you learn as you go and that is one reason that I started my project with a $350.00 RIA and not a $1200 Kimber, lol.

I could not have asked for better resources and will definitely be talking to you guys more in the future.

I purchased some items from Midway and have been waiting to get then in and install them on the gun before I made any more comments.

I fit the new Wilson Oversize barrel bushing to the frame and barrel so that I have a snug fit in the frame (requires a bushing wrench but can be moved by hand) and about .001 clearance in the stock RIA barrel. I also installed a new Wilson Full Length Guide Rod. I then cycled three full mags of the troubling SD Hollow Points through by hand with zero FTF. I guess the real test will be when I take it to the range tomorrow and try several types of ammo to see if the problem has been corrected.

niemi24s
20th December 2013, 21:54
When you go to the range, treat it like a fact-finding mission. Take your camera, note pad and pencil. If you get a jam or any other malfunction, stop and take the time to analyze what happened. I may be wrong, but don't think either the new bushing or the full length guide rod will improve the operation of your gun. Your problem was hollow points catching on the bottom of the barrel ramp. With the same barrel and frame the problem may well still be there. All I can suggest is set the gun up with a link that's just barely short enough to allow the barrel to fall all the way down to the bed (groove). And remember that if the link is too short it may prevent the lugs from hitting the VIS. When that happens the link will attempt to stop the barrel's aftward motion and may break.

The rounded corners of the frame and barrel ramps are enough of a handicap - even if the barrel does fall all the way to the bed. Any gap just makes the situation worse than it already is.

For my own peace of mind, go back a week to Post #11, do the test outlined and answer the question. And please don't shoot the gun until you do.

Regards

JGraham
21st December 2013, 08:57
When you go to the range, treat it like a fact-finding mission. Take your camera, note pad and pencil. If you get a jam or any other malfunction, stop and take the time to analyze what happened. I may be wrong, but don't think either the new bushing or the full length guide rod will improve the operation of your gun. Your problem was hollow points catching on the bottom of the barrel ramp. With the same barrel and frame the problem may well still be there. All I can suggest is set the gun up with a link that's just barely short enough to allow the barrel to fall all the way down to the bed (groove). And remember that if the link is too short it may prevent the lugs from hitting the VIS. When that happens the link will attempt to stop the barrel's aftward motion and may break.

The rounded corners of the frame and barrel ramps are enough of a handicap - even if the barrel does fall all the way to the bed. Any gap just makes the situation worse than it already is.

For my own peace of mind, go back a week to Post #11, do the test outlined and answer the question. And please don't shoot the gun until you do.

Regards
I did the test on both barrels. With the RIA barrel & link installed it will set all the way down on the bed and the SS does swing freely. With the Storm Lake barrel and +13 link installed the barrel looks to seat all the way down on the bed but the SS does bind. I am currently using the RIA barrel and link. I am going to work on one barrel at a time. If I get the stock RIA barrel to function properly and the storm lake still give me problems I will just stick with the RIA barrel.
Thanks,
Jackie

the.batman
21st December 2013, 08:58
Jackie

I gotta say I will be very surprised if your link has anything to do with your issue. After looking at the picture of your unaltered frame ramp, I think you're experiencing a problem all too common in the value priced 1911 lines- your feed ramp appears to me to be out of spec. It is likely not steep enough (31.5 degs) and it definitely does not extend down into the mag well far enough, in my opinion. The photo prior to your polishing shows the ramp ending approximately half way down the slide stop lobe slot in the frame. I've recently seen a similar feed ramp problem (among other issues) on a value priced Taurus that I remedied for a shooter- on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com), search "CQBOPS" under Outdoor Goods/Services.

I would suggest putting a couple hundred, if not a thousand rounds of the problem ammo through that gun before you call it fixed. I feel pretty strongly about 1911 dependability and I completely agree with Hilton Yam that if your 1911 can't go 1000 rounds without a malfunction on a regular cleaning/lubing schedule- there is a problem with the gun.

Good luck at the range and let us know what happended.

niemi24s
21st December 2013, 13:04
Jackie:

The.Batman must have good eyesight to see that about your frame ramp. And he may be onto something favoring ramp restoration - ramp too far back and too steep. Use your eyes to compare your ramp with this:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/FrameRampSSHolea.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/FrameRampSSHolea.jpg.html)

Best way to tell where the ramp begins to tilt forward from the magazine well is to coat that area with candle soot and then use a long, round dowel up against the forward part of the well to rub off the soot. You may have to remove the magazine catch to avoid interference. A pic of that would be nice too.

Regards

JGraham
21st December 2013, 17:16
Well after the trip to the range today everything is looking much better! I tried 5 different types of bullets including the dreaded hollow points and SWC that has given that pistol fits since it came new from the factory. I fired 50 200gr SWC, 50 Ball Factory FMJ, 20 230gr Lead TC, 20 Lead 220gr RN and 8 very expensive 230gr Hornady Critical Defense Hollow Points. All feed and ejected without a single issue. This was with the factory RIA Barrel and Link. I will work with the Storm Lake barrel next week. If I can't get it to feed properly I can always go back to the RIA barrel.

niemi24s
21st December 2013, 21:43
Q1: How does the bottom of the frame feed ramp compare using the instructions in Post #53?

Before moving on to the Storm Lake Barrel you should answer this honestly:

Q2: Is this gun with the RIA barrel really fixed - or did it just not happen to jam on this range trip?

Jammer Six
21st December 2013, 23:26
Q3: how do you know?

Todd_M_S
22nd December 2013, 09:11
the.batman


After looking at the picture of your unaltered frame ramp, I think you're experiencing a problem all too common in the value priced 1911 lines- your feed ramp appears to me to be out of spec.


The ramp polishing was some of my doing and not asking the right questions to the right people before I attempted it on my own.


Keep in mind this IS NOT an unaltered feed ramp. Its most likely the entire problem was caused by lack of knowledge and experience when Jackie polished his ramp, much less likely it was supplied like this from RIA.

Sincerely,

Todd S.

niemi24s
23rd December 2013, 14:20
While we're all twiddling our thumbs waiting for Jackie to respond to the questions in Posts 55 & 56, here's a graphic that sort of summarizes all the patent and blueprint information scattered throughout this thread. Please bear in mind this applies only to the M1911A1, which is by definition the Government Model (GM):

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/Pct19947344OnLinkj.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/Pct19947344OnLinkj.jpg.html)

An example showing the series of calculations for one of the gaps can be found in Post #18. The percents were calculated assuming the various possible in-spec lug-to-pin gaps are/were normally distributed as there was no reason to think otherwise. In addition, even if the gaps were not normally distributed within the population there would be no way to find out how much or which way the distribution was skewed. The Ordnance designation for the National Match version is "M1911A1 NM" which consisted of (disregarding sights) specially selected GM frames and depending on the build year: one of four different NM barrels; a NM barrel bushing; perhaps a NM slide. All fitted, as far as I know, by skilled 'smiths at Springfield Armory - the Army's, that is. Maybe Kuhnhausen was unaware Ordnance blueprints existed for these NM parts when writing:

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/JKOrdSpecWordse.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/JKOrdSpecWordse.jpg.html)

Blueprints for the NM bushing and slide are available in the set from CNC gunsmithing which can be found in our Tech Issues section.

Regards

Pyrenean
24th December 2013, 15:29
I do not post here very often but threads such as this one teach me a lot.
Doesn't mean I like link standing though… :blt:

Red Mike
24th December 2013, 15:54
the.batman





Keep in mind this IS NOT an unaltered feed ramp. Its most likely the entire problem was caused by lack of knowledge and experience when Jackie polished his ramp, much less likely it was supplied like this from RIA.

Sincerely,

Todd S.
Will one of you expert gunsmith types please expound on this, either here or in a new thread? I, personally don't have the knowledge to be able to look at one from the other, and know which one might be messed rather than spec, just from a picture. I would like to know, for example, what part is messed up and what is the likely result, and why? Though these guns look pretty simple, clearly they are not as simple as they seem. Thanks in advance for these kinds of threads and replies. GOOD STUFF! happy holidays to all!

Jerry Keefer
24th December 2013, 17:08
If one has the fixturing, to set the frame up at a "true" 31.5 degrees...dykem the ramp and take .0005 skin to see what the existing angle actually is, you will be lucky to find a frame ramp that is to that spec.. Further more...it's tough to cut that ramp to 31.5 to the depth of .400 and not move the barrel bed forward..
I'd rather have the depth, than the exact angle. There are many 28/30 degree ramps out there, runnning like swiss watches..
Jerry

Hawkmoon
24th December 2013, 17:29
Jerry, I have heard (read) from various sources that the ramp angle (and depth) should be different for a 9mm or .38 Super pistol. What's your view on this? If the "pea shooters" should be different, what would be the ramp specs/dimensions for 9mm and .38 Super?

Jerry Keefer
24th December 2013, 18:45
Hello Hawk;
I have never done an un ramped sub caliber. I stopped working on them about ten years ago, so I am also out of tune with them... Neimi can probably verify, but I have never seen a print in regard to the sub calibers. The cartridge sets a higher in the magazine, because of the smaller diameter. The ramp jobs I did years ago ran pretty darn good, as long as the barrel was located for & aft just right..
Jerry

niemi24s
24th December 2013, 21:57
Hi Jerry:
. . .it's tough to cut that ramp to 31.5 to the depth of .400 and not move the barrel bed forward... I'm curious about your 0.400" depth figure. I calculate that distance as 0.366" for the average 45 Auto frame. Assuming it's measured down vertically from the frame top to the bottom corner of the ramp, is that 0.400" distance one you found works best?

With the exception of a few ersatz attempts at making a more readable one or making one that conforms to modern GD&T standards, I've never seen a frame blueprint except the Ordnance M1911A1 ones - which by definition is for the 45 Auto/ACP cartridge. But then I've never looked one in any other caliber. I suspect every manufacturer has its own modified version of the Ordnance ones (slide, etc) for the other calibers - assuming they're different.

Cheers

Red Mike
24th December 2013, 22:57
Okay, so you guys are framing this in terms of the prints, but we now have much more accurate ways to build components, without the level of human variation that would have existed. So are todays 1911's more or less to spec than the originals? If not, why? If so, why?...and what effect does that have on todays pistol.

Jammer Six
25th December 2013, 01:03
Depends on whether or not you're looking at a part that has had it's geometry "improved" by an "expert".

If it's been "improved", it's probably way, way out of spec. The best examples I'm aware of are the various examples of "improved" hammer geometry. The hooks can be many, many degrees from where they should be.

I fought Wilson Combat hooks, in particular, for a long time before I gave up.

Todd_M_S
25th December 2013, 07:43
Will one of you expert gunsmith types please expound on this, either here or in a new thread? I, personally don't have the knowledge to be able to look at one from the other, and know which one might be messed rather than spec, just from a picture. I would like to know, for example, what part is messed up and what is the likely result, and why? Though these guns look pretty simple, clearly they are not as simple as they seem. Thanks in advance for these kinds of threads and replies. GOOD STUFF! happy holidays to all!

Mike,

Look at posts #16 and #26 of this thread. There is one good feed ramp shown out of the three pictures. The bad ones are the result of overzealous "polishing" and have the original factory geometry of the ramp all wavy and distorted, and required sharp edge at the top of the ramp all rounded over.

Keep in mind this geometry is relatively critical so the two bad ramp jobs likely resulted in unusable (junk) pistols.

Sincerely,

Todd S.

Jerry Keefer
25th December 2013, 08:53
Hi Jerry:I'm curious about your 0.400" depth figure. I calculate that distance as 0.366" for the average 45 Auto frame. Assuming it's measured down vertically from the frame top to the bottom corner of the ramp, is that 0.400" distance one you found works best?

I've never seen a frame blueprint except the Ordnance M1911A1 ones - which by definition is in for the 45 Auto/ACP cartridge. But then I've never looked one in any other caliber. I suspect every manufacturer has its own modified version of the Ordnance ones (slide, etc) for the other calibers - assuming they're different.

Cheers
I feel good if I can get in the area of .400 Often hard or impossible to do without moving the top forward.
There are some smiths that try for and prefer .420
Jerry

Hawkmoon
25th December 2013, 09:09
Okay, so you guys are framing this in terms of the prints, but we now have much more accurate ways to build components, without the level of human variation that would have existed. So are todays 1911's more or less to spec than the originals? If not, why? If so, why?...and what effect does that have on todays pistol.
Blueprints are blueprints. The Ordnance Department blueprints give us the dimensions that JMD designed the pistol to operate at, and then they give the tolerances (the amounts by which a particular piece can vary from the design dimension and still be "in spec"). Have you looked at the blueprints? The largest allowable variation from the nominal dimension is .005 inches. That's not a big variation. And some of the tolerances are smaller, like .003 inches.

Not even CNC machines can make all pieces exactly the same size. Modern methods may make it easier to hold tolerances, or may result in fewer pieces being rejected for being out-of-spec, but the use of modern machines doesn't mean the design changed or should change.

When Para-Ordnance was still located in Canada, right after showing visitors the CNC machines that produced the slides and receivers they took the visitors into the quality control area and opened up a drawer to show them a set of U.S. Ordnance Department blueprints. That's what they used to verify their production quality.

Don't be so quick to denigrate blueprints. In fact, it seems every time someone sets out to "do it better than Browning" they get a disaster. Like the first two (or three?) generations of SIG 19811s.

niemi24s
25th December 2013, 09:19
. . .we now have much more accurate ways to build components, without the level of human variation that would have existed.Quite true. However, do you really think many manufacturers use those methods to make parts for 1911's? I'd much prefer a 1940 vintage machined slide stop over one of these modern pieces of junk...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/CastSlideStopc.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/CastSlideStopc.jpg.html)

...made with modern metallurgy and 21st Century manufacturing methods where little seems to matter but the "bottom line".

Just my 2 worth.

Regards

niemi24s
25th December 2013, 10:08
And some of the tolerances are smaller, like .003 inches.The tolerance on some frame hole diameters is +0.0015" or 0.00075". Horizontal and vertical tolerances for the MSH pin hole location are 0.001" and are 0.002" for most other frame holes.

Red Mike: Please follow up on Hawkmoon's suggestion and open up the set of Ordnance blueprints in our Tech Issues section (15th bulleted link down) and give them a look-see. You'll find parts other than the frame also have some really tight tolerances - just spotted a 0.001" tolerance on one dimension for the thumb safety (lock, safety). And all these are for the plain-Jane Government model: the one Grandad used in WWI a century ago; made by a machinist in a machine shop; on machines which may have been driven by leather belts; using a (tee-hee, snicker) analog micrometer with a 0.0001" vernier; and a dirty Ordnance blueprint as his reference. This guy made one like the the lower example below. Which one would you rather have?

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P095230003b.jpg~original (http://s129.photobucket.com/user/niemi24s/media/P095230003b.jpg.html)

Can we make them better today? Certainly! Do we? With rare exception, I don't honestly think we do. Nowadays I think it's all about making them quickly and inexpensively. And in my book that means cheaply and cheap ≈ chintzy. Or as my Father-In-Law was fond of saying, "GE - Good Enough!"

Regards