Why are 1911's built with tighter slide fits than other guns?

[imq707s]

I recently bought my first 1911. And, unfortunatly....I had to send it in for repairs after the slide locked up on it during the first few rounds. I started comparing the slide fit on it, versus my Springfield XD and my friends Glock 17. Both of these have much looser slide fits than the 1911. You can almost hear them rattle when you shake them. But you know what??....they will eat anything, they always go BANG when you fill the trigger, and they are more accurate than I am.

So why do 1911 manufactures insist on making them so tight? Is there really a need for this? Do the mechanics of the 1911 require a tight slide to frame fit, while other guns do not?

Any info?

Thanks

[niemi24s]

So why do 1911 manufactures insist on making them so tight?

I don't think they make them tight on purpose. The slide and frame need some clearance in their rail/way areas just so they'll work OK with powder residue and maybe a little dirt.

Suspect yours was too tight and locked up because it missed some check points at the factory and didn't get "loosened". Or, could be some small hard particle got in the works and got imbedded in the metal somewhere causing the lockup.

A smooth yet "tight" slide/frame fit is probably a rare thing in a factory gun - and would need to be kept quite clean for reliable functioning.

[emilio]

it really depends on the manufacturer and the model of the gun. the same manufacturer that sells a $500 gun with moderate tolerances might also sell a $1000 gun with a tight fit and fancy parts. also, because of the way the barrel mounts, the 1911's accuracy may be more dependent on slide fit than other guns.

i think this question is kind of funny because before i got in to 1911s i thought they had a reputation for being loose guns, the bucket o' springs to shake and hear rattle. this was done for the reason you state: "they will eat anything, they always go BANG when you fill the trigger." but as it's less a GI gun and more a competition and civilian defense gun now, people have been trying to push the limits on its accuracy for decades.

- emilio

[ranburr]

The two guns that you are comparing them two don't have traditional slide rails. Most 1911s are compareable to what you would get out of a SIG, Beretta, etc.

ranburr

[Hill]

I can't say about Glocks but I do have an XD45 5" and the slide fit of my XD is at least as tight as the fit of my new Colt Golt cup. I've fired near 5000 rounds out of the XD.

XD in many ways is a similar design although it locks up with a hook under the chamber that's solid instead of a movable link and doesn't use lugs in the slide for lockup. It's slide is similar but the frame rails are not full length - it has about an inch at the front of steel and another inch at the back of polymer frame to steel slide.

Maybe something else went wrong with your pistol? Seems like it happens sorta' frequently. Maybe these 1911 makers need some Ordnance Colonels inspecting their work..

[imq707s]

If the 1911's are close in design to the Sig's and Berreta's, why don't you ever hear of many people having problems out of them? It seems like people either have great luck with 1911's....or NO luck. And from what I've seen....it seems like the NO luck (until worked over several time) crowd is by far the biggest of the two.

I can see why people would expect a tight gun after shelling out $800+ (like I did), but I would also think that for $800 you would expect a gun that would not lock up on you, or have to be "broke in" for several thousand rounds before saying it's "reliable".

[Amontgomery]

I had a similar problem on a SiG of mine. After over 70% failures on the first shooting of 200 rounds I began to wonder if all of them were like that. It was finicky until I sold it for my Kimber that I am using now.

[1911Tuner]

So why do 1911 manufactures insist on making them so tight?

Largely because in recent years, there's been a demand for ever-increasing tightness of fit because so many people have been led to believe that it's the mark of a quality gun. While that may be true, it doesn't guarantee it any more than a loosely-built pistol is a guaranteed piece of junk.

While a hand-built pistol normally does exhibit a slide to frame mating that is seemingly void of any play, that condition pretty much demands careful and expensive work if the pistol is to be utterly reliable. "Zero Play" is also misleading. There must be some clearance, or the gun would sieze up quickly.

The gun wasn't designed with clearances that tight. .003 inch side-to-side...up/down...and .005 inch at the rear and sides of the barrel hood is about right, and such a pistol will not only be as boringly reliable as an anvil...it'll be more accurate than all but a High Expert marksman can prove without a sandbag rest...and the pistol won't rattle like a bucket of bolts, either. If the rails have a little oil in them, any play will be almost undetectable.

They used to be built like that, and even the "loosened" WW2 USGI pistols weren't rattletraps...at least not when they were new.

Of course...the reliability desideratum also demands that the rest of the pistol is built to spec, especially in the feed and barrel ramp angles...and that proper magazines are used with ammunition that is also within spec. It's a system, and everything means something.

Lastly...A tightly fitted pistol that is built with the criteria of shooting small, bughole groups is a target pistol that's essentially built out of spec. It's not impossible to have an uber-tight/accurate gun that's also completely bet-your-life reliable...but it's tougher...and more expensive...to have all that in one pistol than it is to settle for one with a little play and 3 or 4-inch groups at 50 yards with issue ammunition.

[Hill]

I won't EVER argue with 1911 Tuner as I've never in my life run across a person with a more extensive knowledge and experience of and with the 1911 pistol BUT...........:D... I think that in addition to the ordnance requirement for reliability under severe conditions the pistols were designed in such a way that part interchangability between various pistols and toolless disassembly and reassembly were part of the package.

It had to be built to a dollar cost price point as well, and the manufacturing technology of the early 20th century was such that relatively loose tolerances had to be used so that expensive hand fitting could be avoided.

Things are different today in the machining world with CNC tools making a much higher level of precision possible at an acceptable price point. It seems as though instead of working to close tolerances to increase accuracy the effort now is to find the point at which lost precision of fit restores reliability. I would rather have a pistol built with such close tolerances that I have to carefully remove material to make it work for me than have to artificially close tolerances in the hope that I can make a pistol shoot for me.

[1911Tuner]

I think that in addition to the ordnance requirement for reliability under severe conditions the pistols were designed in such a way that part interchangability between various pistols and toolless disassembly and reassembly were part of the package.

As far as the revamped tolerances of the WW2-era pistols...quite right, Hill...but it wasn't that way in the beginning.

The later USGI contract pistols had one important criteria. That all parts supplied by all suppliers freely and fully interchange not only with one another...but in any pistol that was built by 5 separate contractors...three of which had never been in the firearms business. (Remington Rand...Union Switch and Signal...Singer)

For that...a standardized set of gauges was developed for virtually every part of the gun. Essentially a GO and NO-GO setup that passed or failed every part and sub-assembly...and it worked out very well.

The test was arranged. 2 random examples from each contractor was completely disassembled down to the bare frame...and I mean completely disassembled, aside from the grip bushings.

The parts were tossed into a box, and 20 completel pistols were reassembled without effort toward matching anything. This rtest was repeated 5 times, with a different pair of pistols selected each time.

The requirement at the end of the evaluation was that the armorers must be able to assemble 100 functional pistols with 98% success. None failed.

ANd that, ladies and laddies...gave birth to the "Drop-In" part industry.

[Hill]

If the 1911's are close in design to the Sig's and Berreta's, why don't you ever hear of many people having problems out of them? It seems like people either have great luck with 1911's....or NO luck. And from what I've seen....it seems like the NO luck (until worked over several time) crowd is by far the biggest of the two.

I can see why people would expect a tight gun after shelling out $800+ (like I did), but I would also think that for $800 you would expect a gun that would not lock up on you, or have to be "broke in" for several thousand rounds before saying it's "reliable".

I've been out of the game long enough that there were no sigs or Berretas being used when I was shooting bullseye and working a range as rangemaster one day a week but I'd bet right now that there are as many problems with new guns of those brands as there are with those using the 1911 design. It's more a comment on the quality standards and cost cutting practices of the manufacturers of just about everything than it is a superiority of one design over another.

As Tuner said if they were holding to the practices in place when the great guns of the 1920's through 1960's none of us would have anywhere near as much to complain about.

[1911Tuner]

I've been out of the game long enough that there were no sigs or Berretas being used

Hill...ya just touched on a point there.

The thing about 1911s is that everybody and his outlaw step-brother has jumped into the game to try and get a piece of the pie. With so many different manufacturers...or maybe it's more accurate to say "Marketers/Assemblers" in the game...it's surprising that there aren't more problems than we see. Add to the fact that not even Colt makes all its parts in-house...and hasn't for a long time...and the recipe is there for problems aplenty.

If there were as many people making Glocks and non-1911 type Sigs...there would be many more issues with'em. Bet on it.

As Tuner said if they were holding to the practices in place when the great guns of the 1920's through 1960's none of us would have anywhere near as much to complain about.

Said many times...more than I can remember...If the guns were simply built to even WW2 USGI/Ordnance specs...strictly...this keyboard would rust solid before we had to work these guys through a functional diagnosis and fix. I'd hafta take up actually doin' somethin' productive again to fill the empty hours. :D

[Hill]

The thing about 1911s is that everybody and his outlaw step-brother has jumped into the game to try and get a piece of the pie. With so many different manufacturers...or maybe it's more accurate to say "Marketers/Assemblers" in the game...it's surprising that there aren't more problems than we see. Add to the fact that not even Colt makes all its parts in-house...and hasn't for a long time...and the recipe is there for problems aplenty.

If there were as many people making Glocks and non-1911 type Sigs...there would be many more issues with'em. Bet on it.

Yeah, it's a testimonial to the brilliance of the design that it survives through all of the hapless 'accurizing' by people like me, the variations of all those who believe that they are the makers of the better mousetrap, through war, misuse, cost analysis, corporate failings, and the misguided legislation aiming to make it safer or otherwise alter it out of existence. It survives and if it falters a quick and fairly simple move back toward the original design will get it going again.

[bophi]

i think the old gun mfg. did a real good of a job to make all of the gun parts
interchange w/ one another. a would rather have a loose gun that will go bang every time than a tight one that i don't know if it is going to jam or go bang.

[EchoBravoKilo]

...there were no sigs or Berretas being used when I was shooting bullseye...but I'd bet right now that there are as many problems with new guns of those brands as there are with those using the 1911 design.
I'm sure that's true. Last spring my son was qualifying on M9 and during the shoot the slide fell off...

I think he said something about wanting a 1911 - some were not amused.

[OD*]

I'm sure that's true. Last spring my son was qualifying on M9 and during the shoot the slide fell off...

I think he said something about wanting a 1911 - some were not amused.
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/images/smilies/lmao.gif

Now that's funny.

[Frank]

...It's not impossible to have an uber-tight/accurate gun that's also completely bet-your-life reliable...but it's tougher...and more expensive...
Yup, I have some "high end" guns, Les Baer and Nighthawks, that have no discernible play in slide to frame fit. They are also completely reliable. They are neither mass produced nor cheap; but, and most importantly, they aren't necessary.

I just happen to like nicely put together machines. There are plenty of well made, production guns out there that will serve any reasonable purpose quite well.

DVC

[Joni Lynn]

A lot of people have come to believe that to be a good gun the slide/frame fit must be snug. While a Les Baer may be so snug that they almost appear to be one piece most of the other brands of guns will run just fine and give quite acceptable accuracy without going to that extreme. The extreme tight fit is also one of the trademarks of the Les Baer 1911's.

[Joni Lynn]

That is truly funny. I can just ee shooting the pistol and the slide or part of it just falls off. :D:D:D:D

[Hill]

That is truly funny. I can just ee shooting the pistol and the slide or part of it just falls off. :D:D:D:D

I'd heard that it was a fairly common occurence with the early Berretta. not sure if they came up with a fix.

It was not all that unusual a day to have someone's auto pistol come apart and fling pieces downrange when I used to rangemaster a public range.

Seemed to happen most often with Spanish made pistols like Llama's and Stars when I was doing it, but that might have just been coincidental and I do not mean to make an across the board condemnation of any pistol maker or of the national origin of any pistol. (Am I PC good, or what?)

People bring all sorts of junk out to public ranges. The obviously defective or dangerous items usually aren't hard to spot and a rangemaster shouldn't allow their use, but some are not so obvious until they fling their springs and slides. :)