the real purpose of a lowered ejection port

[Mr Fixit]

I'm wondering what it is?

I have my Sistema with the standard govt. port. Assuming I wanted to make it a CCW gun, would there be a good reason to lower the port?

Since all the "tactical" and "tacticool" models have lowered and flared ports, I assume there must be a reason. I have an opinion and believe I know the reason, but want to make sure.

So, pros and cons of it?
And opinions of lowering it on my Sistema.?


Mr Fixit

[Talegunner]

It prevents beating up of the brass(for reloading) & helps with reliable ejection of spent brass.........................TG

[Nathan]

Esentially, it eases extractor and ejector tuning. With a narrow ejection port, a gunsmith has to work longer to get the timing such that the cases fly out the port instead of hitting the slide. Also, the narrow port timing puts it such that the case will fly closer to your head, increasing the risk of being hit. My 45 ejects about 30 deg up angle and about 120deg from the bore angle. I think with the narrower port, I would have to tune to get it more like 60 deg up and 100 from the bore axis. Which, should have them ploping in my shirt or glasses on occasion, I would think.

[John]

In other words, if it works, don't fix it. Unless you are reloading and your spent cases come out dented.

[pa_guns]

Hi

Tactically there is a *slightly* higher likelihood that a un-lowered port will toss brass in your face. I'm with John on this one, it's simply not worth doing if the pistol is working as it is.

Bob

[Mr Fixit]

Hi

Tactically there is a *slightly* higher likelihood that a un-lowered port will toss brass in your face. I'm with John on this one, it's simply not worth doing if the pistol is working as it is.

Bob

That was my opinion as well. I guess I look at it sort of like a bake on finish; Not necessarily better to the point I NEED it, but different and might want it if I was choosing between that and blued.

You know there is so much in print and online from "experts", and lots of them talk about the lowered port in a way that makes it seem like it is needed for a fighting pistol. I just can't help think that the 1911 was a fighting pistol for several decades before someone thought it was needed.

[Tom]

How many thousands of MIL-SPEC M1911 and M1911A1 pistols functioned properly, in spite of adverse environmental conditions? :)

Exactly my point. It is not "necessary" for the M1911-styled pistol to perform for defensive use.

[Ross6860]

It makes it easier to identify your brass......

My Colt leaves a nice ">" shaped ding right on the case mouth.

Said pistol also has about a 1% FTE rate. Usually a nice stove-pipe, once per every 'hundred rounds or so (probably needs some extractor work).

[wjkuleck]

Which, should have them ploping in my shirt or glasses on occasion, I would think.
—and you would be right. I once had a case wedged between the bottom of my glasses frame and my cheeckbone. Took years for the scar to fade. Good thing it was in the day when I had glass lenses; plastic might well have melted :) .

Regards,

Walt

[Auto Mag]

I still have a scar on my chest from a 45ACP round!!! Man did that hurt!!!! :lm:

[pa_guns]

Hi

I've spent decades listening to how much you *need* the improvements made to the original 1911 design. How it didn't do this or didn't do that until they "fixed" it.

Thanks to the WWI repo models I've had a chance to actually shoot 1911's in nearly their original format. They are not 100%, but they are close. My conclusion is that the original design works *very* well. The value of each of the improvements is pretty debatable in my book. I would have absolutely no problem at all depending on an original format 1911.

Bob

[hiloboy32531]

If it dont work 100% then maybe the fix is to lower the ejection port? if a gun dont work 100% of the time then your cant depend on it with your life. Besides a gun that dont work is just a club.

[John]

Hi

I've spent decades listening to how much you *need* the improvements made to the original 1911 design. How it didn't do this or didn't do that until they "fixed" it.

Thanks to the WWI repo models I've had a chance to actually shoot 1911's in nearly their original format. They are not 100%, but they are close. My conclusion is that the original design works *very* well. The value of each of the improvements is pretty debatable in my book. I would have absolutely no problem at all depending on an original format 1911.

Bob
I whole-heartedly agree, with one remark. How on earth did they see those tiny sights all these years??? That's the only thing I would change, I just can't see the darn things!!! :D

[niemi24s]

FWIW, there is no difference at all between the Ordnance Dept. specifications for the ejection ports of the USGI and National Match slides for the M1911A1 - at least as shown on the blueprints in our Tech Issues section.

Regards

[wjkuleck]

I whole-heartedly agree, with one remark. How on earth did they see those tiny sights all these years??? That's the only thing I would change, I just can't see the darn things!!! :D
I heartily concur. My first 1911 was a DCM Rem-UMC with WWII replacement Colt slide. Even with my 13-year-old eyes it was a challenge picking up that front sight. Now, 50 years later, I'm not sure if I can see the pistol, much less the sights ;) !

Cooper was right, and the first major thing I did to that pistol was to emulate Cooper's pistol with the K-frame rear sight and ramp front. Now, that works.

I have a spare Chateau-Thierry I think I'll put sights on...

Regards,

Walt

[niemi24s]

I have a spare Chateau-Thierry I think I'll put sights on...
Sights on a.....bottle of wine????? :confused:

[A.B.]

...How it didn't do this or didn't do that until they "fixed" it. They always seem to charge a minimum of 800 clams today, too. Funny coincidence, that. :p

Sights on a.....bottle of wine?????
:lh:

I'm sore from laughing, today. Here you go:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t316/gordonsorensen/CTColtad.jpg

The four commemorative M1911s they made '66-9 are really well made!!

[wjkuleck]

Why a Chateau-Thierry? Here's a mediocre scan of one of mine:

http://www.1911timewarp.com/Pics/Chateau-Thierry_Scanned-800.jpg

I got 'em so I could take the grips, put them on my first pistol, the DCM Rem-UMC, to which I added the K-frame rear sight in the early '70's, in order to recreate one of Cooper's old pistols:

http://www.1911timewarp.com/Pics/Chateau-Thierry1-800.jpg

—and the result is this:

http://www.1911timewarp.com/Pics/PatchworkColt-800.jpg

It's a work in process; I have to change out the trigger, for example.

Ah, for a time machine...

Regards,

Walt

[pa_guns]

I whole-heartedly agree, with one remark. How on earth did they see those tiny sights all these years??? That's the only thing I would change, I just can't see the darn things!!! :D

Hi

Indeed, the sights are a bit much if you have made it past age 30. Of course most of the "intended audience" was at most in their early 20's ...

Bob

[1911Art]

My Colt 70 Series Repro gave me the opportunity to practice tuning extractors and ejectors. Through trial and error implementation of the recommendations here I got the gun from fringing brass at my head and face, then got the dent in the case mouth issue almost solved.
This resulted in the opportunity to practice my dremel skills on my $900 Colt.

I put an UltraDot on my 45 Bullseye gun - the brass is really slamming the scope tube.

My approach this time is to put some heavy tape on the tube where the brass is hitting.