Detonics is alive??

[John]

Dear Members,

For those old enough to remember the '70s, the name Detonics should be familiar.

It looks as if they are back in business, and they produce the same models they did back then. Check M1911.ORG to see their offerings. By the way, to facilitate your navigation to M1911.ORG, there are links to The M-1911 Pistols Home Page, both at the top as well as at the bottom of each forum page.

One thing that I noticed in their site, is that their president name is Jerry Ahern. Does anybody know if this is the same guy who used to write for Combat Handguns, and who at some period had a holster business? If this is the person, I am speechless.

Rgds

[Rabbi]

Yes John, it is the same Jerry Ahern who tested and made holsters and wrote for several gun magazines.

Ahern also wrote several series of "men's adventure novels" in the seventies and eighties, most notable of which was "The Survivalist" series. The hero of the Survivalist series was one John Rourke, a survival and firearms combat expert who carried twin Detonics minis in a double Alessi shoulder rig. Ahern was the world's greatest spokesman for Detonics .45s. His novels were well known in the gunner community as being very accurate in terms of what real life guns could do and he wrote very knowledgeably about a lot of different firearms, ammo, accessories and knives. He is/was very opinionated about what he considers the best in many areas of equipment.

I've heard that he has been trying to resurrect the old Detonics line for many years and has finally gotten some financial partners to pony up the $ to get going again.

I handled a few of these pistols and fired about eighty rounds thru one in about 1984 or 85. They were very well executed in terms of machining and fit and finish but had some odd (for me) design features like the peculiar rear sight arrangement/location and lack of grip safety. By the time Detonics went belly up they were making about a dozen varieties including government style 1911s, a target model patterned on the Gold Cup, a longslide and a couple different models of shorties.

I'll bet these things are going to be EXPENSIVE as hell.

Regards,

Rabbi

[John]

Well, I do know the guy and I can't say I am impressed with him. I had the misfortune to order a holster from him, some years ago, and what I received was a joke. It was the worst executed sample of holster, I've ever seen.

I wish Detonics luck, an old name is always welcome back, but with this management I am not sure about their future.

Rabbi, thanks for the info, I appreciate it.

Rgds

[michael t]

There going to cost $1000+ if I remember I e-mailed him about 3mo. ago . to much for this old boy.

[Rabbi]

A direct link to the website is www.detonicsusa.com

Ahern describes the three pistols currently being made.

Rabbi

[OD*]

The originals were great little guns, I had a Combat Master in blue and one in stainless.

[stans]

I am thinking these will be niche guns at $1000+ per specimen. I wish them well, but I don't think we are going to see tremendous sales at that price.

[John]

Anyone has any explanation as to why the rear sight is mounted so forward in the smaller of their models? I mean apart from making it different, what was the reason they pushed it forward?

Rgds

[Rabbi]

John,

There is a segment of the "1911 community" who stubbornly refuse to carry these things Condition One or cocked-and-locked, thinking it unsafe. They prefer to let the hammer down on a live round and thumb cock as needed like the single actions of the Old West.

Detonics went with the sloped topstrap and forward mounted sight for those guys who prefer that method of carry. Your thumb just glides down the slope and cocks the hammer.

In my opinion, it is a solution to a non-existant problem. John Moses Browning made NO mistakes in the design of the 1911 and Condition One is as safe a system as exists anywhere. I don't like the idea of easing the hammer down on a live cap under any circumstances.

Rabbi

[John]

Good Lord, who ever thought of this had a wierd mind.

I would never carry a 1911 in that condition, it's either cocked and locked, or empty chamber for me.

That was one thing, I could never imagine. Thanks for sharing it with us Rabbi.

Rgds

[stans]

For the safety conscious, the Detonics Combat Masters had no grip safety. That's right, the grip safety does not work in the Detonics Combat Masters. As J.M. Browning designed the 1911, it had three safeties. The thumb safety, the grip safety and the person controlling the trigger. Personally, I don't care for the deletion of the grip safety. Lowering the hammer on a chamber with a live round does carry some risks, so I prefer condition one when I rely on a 1911. I also don't particularly care for firing pin safeties, just more small parts to break. But, that is just my opinion.

[OD*]

stan's

I don't believe it was designed with a thumb safety, but was add later at the request of the US Calvary by Colt and JMB. Thus the 1910 becomes the 1911.

[Gammon]

I once owned a Combat Master; it is one of the few guns I have ever sold. my dislikes were:
1. Size and weight made for uncomfortable IWB carry.
2. Poor trigger.
3. Front sight cast as part of the slide, usually done on cheaply made pistols. The SS sight wasn't very visible and almost impossible to change.
4. Cheap, poorly engineered rear sight.
5. Ridiculous cut in the slide and forward mounting of the rear sight shortened an already too short sight radius.
6. No grip safety? This pistol needed a beaver tail grip safety. I made the mistake of firing the gun with my thumb riding on the (thumb) safety. The slide took a huge divot out of the first knuckle of that thumb. I bear the scar to this day.
I can't see anyone successfully marketing this design in the face of competition from Colt (Officer's Model) and S&W (4516-1).

[1911slabsides]

Anyone has any explanation as to why the rear sight is mounted so forward in the smaller of their models? I mean apart from making it different, what was the reason they pushed it forward?

Rgds

We never could figure that out, I had a little moonlight job at a gunstore and we had a detonics there for awhile, we speculated that it was to keep it from catching on clothing, The one we had worked great, it did kick a bit hard cuz it was so small. I don't understand why they were so expensive then and I really wouldn't understand if they were expensive now. It was a nice gun but nothing to rave about.

[Gammon]

The word I got when I purchased mine was that the slide cut was to allow the pistol to be thumb cocked on the draw. This was to satisfy the demands of a LE purchase; the department in question would not allow their officers to carry cocked and locked.

[warmrain]

Anyone has any explanation as to why the rear sight is mounted so forward in the smaller of their models? I mean apart from making it different, what was the reason they pushed it forward?

Rgds
"Repositioned (forward) rear sight and sloped rear of slide in order to facilitate thumb cocking when the pistol is carried hammer down"

OK, go ahead, beat them up over this :nono: They might just deserve it... :dead_hors

[SAWBONES]

"Anyone has any explanation as to why the rear sight is mounted so forward in the smaller of their models?"

As stated by others above, this was for the option of thumb-cocking, and back in '85 was only offered on the Combat Master, IIRC. I recall the writeup on the gun in Combat Handguns back then.
Dunno if the current iteration of that model in the revival of the Detonics marque still has that "feature" or not.

As to the grip safety, there's lots of folks who would like to see it done away with. I can take it or leave it, but with a functional thumb safety and obedience to Rule Three, it's not truly necessary.

[warmrain]

"Anyone has any explanation as to why the rear sight is mounted so forward in the smaller of their models?"

As stated by others above, this was for the option of thumb-cocking, and back in '85 was only offered on the Combat Master, IIRC. I recall the writeup on the gun in Combat Handguns back then.
Dunno if the current iteration of that model in the revival of the Detonics marque still has that "feature" or not.
It does, all models. In fact, they are priding themselves on full parts interchangability with older models.

As to the grip safety, there's lots of folks who would like to see it done away with. I can take it or leave it, but with a functional thumb safety and obedience to Rule Three, it's not truly necessary.
There seems to be a very small "panel" above the MSH that looks like a small grip safety...

[Gammon]

I am sorry to hear that the new pistols will be identical to the originals. The original Mark V (I think that was the model designation of the small pistol with adjustable[horrible] sights) was a POS; it remains the ONLY pistol I have ever sold. The Colt Officers Model was a tremendous improvement; I tested them side by side. I doubt that the new Detonics will be around for long.

[warmrain]

stan's

I don't believe it was designed with a thumb safety, but was add later at the request of the US Calvary by Colt and JMB. Thus the 1910 becomes the 1911.
IIRC it was the grip safety that was added at the insistance of the US Calvary.

[warmrain]

...I can't see anyone successfully marketing this design in the face of competition from Colt (Officer's Model) and S&W (4516-1).
Their gunsmith also dings Kimber (assuming the Ultra) in their video.

[OD*]

IIRC it was the grip safety that was added at the insistance of the US Calvary.

Look at a picture of a 1910, which became the 1911 after the thumb safety was added.

The gun had a grip safety, no thumb safety.
http://www.coltautos.com/images/1910.gif

[warmrain]

Look at a picture of a 1910, which became the 1911 after the thumb safety was added.

The gun had a grip safety, no thumb safety.
http://www.coltautos.com/images/1910.gif
Thanks OD, I remembered it backwards... :o

[Gammon]

It does, all models. In fact, they are priding themselves on full parts interchangability with older models.


There seems to be a very small "panel" above the MSH that looks like a small grip safety...

I have seen these guns fitted with a beaver tail; the grip safety doesn't block the trigger, but it does make the gun more comfortable to shoot and allows the use of the "high thumb" grip. Major improvement over stock.

[warmrain]

OD, The post that lead me astray was on http://www.sightm1911.com

"A torture test was conducted on March 3rd, 1911. The test consisted of having each gun fire 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and the pistol would be allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and some more tests would then be conducted.

During the trials, several alterations were made to the original design such as a single swinging link, an improved manual safety, and the inclusion of a grip safety and a slide stop. The other significant change was to the grips, which were angled more acutely and lengthened slightly."

[warmrain]

It looks like there was an early version without a grip safety too!? There is a link from the www.m1911.org site under history.

http://www.m1911.org/images/garry1.jpg

[OD*]

There were a number of variations of the .45 ACP.
1905, 1907, 1909. The gun you posted above is a 1903 Pocket Hammer .38 ACP. The selection trials began in 1906, so yes, many changes and improvements were made, but it was the thumb safety that the US Calvary requested, in addition to those made by the Ordnance Board.

[warmrain]

Thanks OD*,

You're obviously on top of your game. I'll let us stop the off topic tangent now, but a really appreciate your input.

P.S. Gee, an external extractor too...!

Best, Cars