M1911 of March 29 1911

[Clint]

Ok , so as I understand it, the Army approved the M1911 based on performance of the sample on March 29 1911. Then, having found the design acceptable they proceeded to change things on it almost immediately. One example be the hammer was lengthened to make dry fire easier, with the result being hammer bite.

If one was inclined to, what would need to be done to say , a Springfield GI model to bring to spec as JM Browning had it on March 29 1911?

Remember, I talking about the M1911 spec not the M1911A1 spec.

Thank You

[Hawkmoon]

OD* has on occasion posted a photo of both an M1911 and an M1911A1 with arrows and call-outs explaining the differences. Aside from changing (or adding) some rollmarks, most of the differences can be accomplished by swapping parts: hammer, grip safety, trigger, MSH, slide stop, sights. The "toughie" would be removing the "scallop" finger clearance cuts from the receiver just behind the trigger.

Other than buying a genuine M1911 or one of Colts M1911 reproductions, probably the best way to get a receiver w/o the scallop cuts would be to buy a "Classic" receiver from Caspian Arms.

http://www.caspianarms.com/RC.php

[Clint]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I already know about the "A1" changes. I'm asking for the changes made Before WW1. You know, the little things the army changed that didn't get any "Modification designation". What are THOSE changes? An example is that the hammer was lengthened. By how much?

In other words:

What are the differences between the JMB design of March 29th 1911 and the pistol the Army used in World War One?

Or does anyone have blue prints of the gun used on March 29th 1911 and blue prints of a "current" M1911?

Thank You.

[OD*]

Here is #3 (Model M1910), reportedly John Browning's personal weapon;

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/OD1911/JMBs1910.jpg

and the #1 M1911

You can see subtle differences in the mounting of the stocks, hammer, grip safety and of course the addition of the thumb safety (which is not obvious in this picture, but is on the pistol).

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/OD1911/1Colt.jpg

I don't believe there where any major differences on the first 40 M1911 pistols that were assembled on 28 Dec, 1911 for the military.

[RickB]

The hammer wasn't lengthened until the gun had been in service for a year or two. The early "long sharp" hammer was probably 1/4" longer than the short hammer. Early guns also had a magazine catch lock that allowed removal of the mag catch without tools. The radius on the heel of the firing pin stop was enlarged, but I think that wasn't until 1916? I think all three of those early features were "fixed" via retrofitting before the U.S. got involved in the war. The hammer can be easily shortened and recontoured. The firing pin stop can be replaced with one from EGW. The mag catch can probably be removed in the manner of the original style, by depressing the mag catch as you would to turn the lock, but then instead turning the protruding mag catch. I suspect it would scratch the frame, doing it that way. It may be possible to make some mods to the catch and/or the lock to facilitate that sort of removal.

[OD*]

If one was inclined to, what would need to be done to say , a Springfield GI model to bring to spec as JM Browning had it on March 29 1911?

Remember, I talking about the M1911 spec not the M1911A1 spec.

Thank You
You would also need a 1911 receiver and early sights.

[OD*]

You can get the correct receivers from Caspian Arms.

http://www.caspianarms.com/Images/rcc2.jpg

[Clint]

This is the info I was looking for. Thank You everybody!
You would also need a 1911 receiver and early sights.
How were the "early" sights different than the GI sights on say, A Springfield GI model?

It is nice to know someone makes a "pre-A1" frame. I would never have guessed that.

Feel free to post more info if you have it.

[OD*]

How were the "early" sights different than the GI sights on say, A Springfield GI model?
Depends on how early you are trying to replicate, early ones (until 1913) were rounded.

You can find a great deal of information here;
http://coolgunsite.com/pistols/parts/sights/sights.htm

[Clint]

OD* that is a great website! :D

I knew that the hammers were replaced but I wonder why? Do you know why the Army switched from the short wide hammers to the long sharp ones?

[OD*]

Do you know why the Army switched from the short wide hammers to the long sharp ones?
I have read it was to making thumb cocking/lowering the hammer easier, I don't know for a fact whether that is true or not.

[Hawkmoon]

OD* that is a great website! :D

I knew that the hammers were replaced but I wonder why? Do you know why the Army switched from the short wide hammers to the long sharp ones?
Are you referring now to the later change, from the "wide-spur" hammers to the WW2 hammers with flat sides? That was probably done to speed up production for the war effort. The hammers with flat sides are still made the same way at Colt's. The profile is extruded into steel bars about ten feet long, and then the bars are wire cut to the width of the hammer, just like slicing bologna in a deli.

[Clint]

Are you referring now to the later change, from the "wide-spur" hammers to the WW2 hammers with flat sides? No, I mean from the type 1 to the type 2 hammers. There were both wide but the later was longer.

It was a pre-A1 change at about n 90000.
http://coolgunsite.com/1911hammers.htm

I heard it was to make thumb cocking easier too, and knowing the US military's thinking about dry firing it makes sense. The problem with common knowledge however is that everyone agreeing with it doesn't make it right.

[Hill]

The services would need to accomodate shooters with thumbs of various lengths.

Some ordnance dept. general probably had pudgy hands with short thimbs and had a hard time reaching the hammer, and ordered a change be made.

[Clint]

Some ordnance dept. general probably...No offense but we were looking from some hard facts maybe with documentation.

Everyone has a pet theory or two. Mine is that the drill sergeants requested the changes due to dry fire practice. The short trigger made thumb cocking too “tricky.” The recruit would think the hammer is back and let go but then it would fall to half-cock. The platform wouldn't allow the leverage needed and using the left hand was a no-no. Longer hammer=easier practice.

[Clint]

So far my project for 2009 is to either

(A) buy a Caspian frame and built a 1911 from the ground up or...

(B) buy a Springfield 1911 GI and modify it. This seems the more likely option.

Mods include:
springs
FPS (needed on any new 1911)
hammer
mainspring housing
trigger

The frame cut outs are a "live with" as will be the mag release screw.

Anything I miss?