Amateur mess up or a good job????

[hutch1510]

OK so i have a para ordnance LTC 4.25 commander with ramped barrel.... and it seemed like the link pin installed was just a tad long so as holding slide stop off the rear recess curve of barrel feet... and maybe standing a little, so as actually pushing barrel up into slide, while that may be good, i wanted barrel to mate to slide by naturally going back to battery when firing, and not being "forced by the link"... so i gently honed the top of the link "slide stop" hole, so as when going back to battery, the slide stop, could actually bear into the recess at the rear feet moreso than it was, and so as when went back to battery was doing so, by fit...rather than being forced up by the link... anyway since only top of link hole was slightly honed, barrel drop was uneffected and barrel drop occurs still within .25 inched to full lock down,,,, BUT engagement of barrel lug to slide went from about .050 to a lower .048.... however i would think a natural .048 engagement is better than a forced .050 am i right or wrong??? i have a set of EGW links so i could make back to factory, "standing a little" just wondering if i made gun better or worse... i am a ametuer in learning...lol... thanks...ccr

[niemi24s]

FWIW, a mid-spec full-sized USGI M1911A1 will ride the link all the way into battery with the lower lugs/feet lifted 0.007" off of the slide stop cross-pin by the standard 278 link.

When in battery, this mid-spec gun will have 0.039" of the maximum possible 0.060" of vertical engagement at the first lug - or 65% engagement.

Don't know about shorter guns with ramped barrels, but the only practical way to obtain more vertical locking lug engagement with the feet on the slide stop in battery is with a hard-fit barrel.

Your use of "natural" and "forced" to describe how the barrel is held up when in battery is quite subjective. The JMB design as reflected in the US Army blueprints yields an assembled gun riding the link into battery - never vertically supported by the slide stop cross-pin.

Your modified link gives (based on your reported measurements) 80% engagement. Is that enough? Start here: http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=46857 at Post #2.

[hutch1510]

"The JMB design as reflected in the US Army blueprints yields an assembled gun riding the link into battery - never vertically supported by the slide stop cross-pin."

if the link is riding the barrel up to battery, hence giving it a extra push, due to length, then the force is translated to the slide stop pin??? i may be wrong but isnt the link just there to guide the gun barrel "down" and not to help force barrel up??? should'nt the barrel go up and take it's natural "seat" even without the link...

[garrettwc]

I would also suggest these two threads:

Stopping Barrel fall at linkdown (http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=22661)

Link Fitting voice of experience (http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=22240)

[hutch1510]

yes i read those before, my linkdown time is fine, as the hole was only buffed on top, not bottom so as link down has been altered... it has full linkdown at .25 inch which i assume a commander is same as full size 1911... also the rear lower barrel rear lug does make "contact" with the vis... my main question is which is better... having lug engagement of lower barrel feet with pin more in the recess and having .048 lug engagement, or reinstalling a link, back to where it was, where the link holds the barrel feet and slidestop pin off the recess at feet a little more but offers .050 lug engagement, albeit a bit forced by the longer link... The current link still could theoretically offer .050 of engagement as it is still long enough, but it chooses the go further up and to the recess of feet, now that is has the "option" due to the buffed top portion of the slide stop hole.... so when barrel goes to lock up, it is now choosing it's path to go to recess, rather than link forcing it up... my main question is which is better, letting the lock up go naturally to .048 lock up with more support on feet and slide stop pin, or installing another link without the hole buffed in which, it will be further away "standing" from the feet recess, but the link will push up to .050 lug engagement... i would think letting the barrel have the option of choosing it's own natural lock up, would be better than forcing more lock up with the link, am i wrong to assume this?

[Iron bottom]

Without the link installed, I kinda think the barrel could ricochet up off the slide stop pin when the lower lug hit the pin. I can't see a smooth transition back to battery without the link.

[1911Tuner]

.048 inch of vertical engagement is good. The barrel standing on the link by .002 inch wouldn't have been a terrible thing. Not ideal, but not all that bad, either, but
.048 on the slidestop pin is better than the extra .002 on the link, in any event.

As long as the lug doesn't impact the slidestop pin at the curve, you're okay. You want the link to take the first bit of vertical engagement, but once it's past the corner, it should all be on the crosspin. If yours rides the lug and the link equally, you're good to go.

I've opened up the top of the link pin hole a little myself. Limited to .003 inch, though.
If it needs more than that, it probably needs a shorter link for correct linkdown timing anyway.

[hutch1510]

phew!!!!!!! i'm glad, now i can just carry the thing and be haapy, unfortunatly not same for my nork which still needs a barrel... thanks for help guys, it's much appreciated.......