The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site - whats right ? whats wrong with the 1911 design ?

1911Tuner

20th November 2005, 21:00

Easy lad! One question at a time! :D

The linkless 1911 barrels are out there, and they work pretty well unless the lower lug is out of spec or doesn't provide ample depth into the slide. The linkless system isn't a "double camming surface" as some believe. It functions exactly the same as the link. It just does it without the drawbacks of a moving part.

The link does have the distinct advangtage of allowing easy access to the camming surface of the lower lug without having to resort to expensive and time-consuming machine setup...or tedious hand-work.

The three lugs are there for strength during the pounding of recoil forces,
and if all three are bearing an equal share, you're gonna be hard-pressed to beat it for durability.

The newer designs get away with one mainly because they're heavier and more massive...and therefore present more surface area than the radial design of the 1911. But the 1911 does quite well with just one lug bearing the load, provided there's adequate vertical engagement AND the lug takin' the pounding is the most supported lug...#1...the wall at the front of the chamber without a slot behind it. They do pretty well even when it's one of the others...at least for a while, until the lug deforms so much that headspace becomes excessive. About 10,000 rounds of hardball will usually do the trick with most guns. The manufacturers are a little more sloppy with their barrel fit than they used to be because they know that they're essentially building a toy that won't see anything near that much use by the average buyer...but it wasn't always so. Time was that the barrels were carefully fitted with equalized lugs, or at the very least, two lugs bearing with the third one coming into play within a couple thousand rounds. Known as pressure equalizing. Military pistols were usually equalized with proof loads causing the .002 inch of lug deformation required to seat and eqialize the lugs.
I have a few of those old pistols, and the lockup is nothing short of excellent.

WW2 era pistols weren't quite as carefully assembled, mainly because of the
urgent demand for pistols and the need for interchangeability of parts from all contractors...but most had two lugs bearing equally, along with
decent vertical lock. Adequate for the guns issued to the masses, but still not quite up to their ancestors.

I guess we can credit...or blame...the WW2 watershed for the upsurge of
the "Drop-In" aftermarket. 1911s aren't built any more on the production line. They're assembled from selective-fit parts that are selected by the use of gauges that have some pretty generous wiggle room...even moreso than the WW2 USGI pistols.

If you get the chance to handle and shoot one of the really good 1911s, you'll understand how really good they were...and can be.
if you ever get into my neck of the woods, I'll put a 1919 production Colt in your hand that'll make a believer out of ya.
I'll even allow a box or so of ammo through it. They just have a different "Feel"...a different character that not even the high-end customs can match.

John

21st November 2005, 03:37

But the 1911 does quite well with just one lug bearing the load, provided there's adequate vertical engagement AND the lug takin' the pounding is the most supported lug...#1...the wall at the front of the chamber without a slot behind it.

Amen to that. One lug is all that is needed, provided etc. etc. JMB was clever enough to know that not everyone would spend the time messing with all three lugs, but he gave us the option.

I do not know, I must be biased, but I can't find something in the 1911 which is not to my liking. ;)

1911Tuner

21st November 2005, 07:11

Amen to that. One lug is all that is needed, provided etc. etc. JMB was clever enough to know that not everyone would spend the time messing with all three lugs, but he gave us the option.

I do not know, I must be biased, but I can't find something in the 1911 which is not to my liking. ;)

I'd say that one lug is adequate...IF...that lug is the first one...AND the vertical engagement is .045 or more...AND...you don't plan on a lot of
shooting or a lot of +P ammo. I've never really been satisfied with "adequate"
except in a gun that will be mainly carried and see limited use. Maybe 8-10 thousand rounds over its service life. Some otherwise knowledgable people have even suggested that the other two aren't necessary..but nothing could be further from the truth, especially if you plan on heavy use with the gun.

Even with the #1 lug engaged at 100% of its potential depth and overlap,
if there's a lot of fore and aft movement in the barrel to slide fit, the lug will deform faster due to the condition known as "Slap Seating" in which the thrust faces have a running start before engaging...and the more it deforms, the faster it occurs because as the distance between them opens up, they get a longer running start...and the condition accelerates. The onset of slap seating is greatly delayed with a close fit and ideally, zero play between barrel and slide.

So...Even though fitting the barrel to engage the #1 lug is acceptable in many circles and by many practices...it's NOT the correct way to fit the barrel. In order to gain the design's full measure of strength and rigidity in lockup, all three should be equally sharing the load.

1911Tuner

21st November 2005, 07:59

Just wanted to add to this thread with a little history.

In the early days, when the Army Marksmanship Unit was getting its pistol
program going, the match pistols were selected from usually new shipments or from existing inventory of service-grade pistols, and weren't hand-built by talented armorers to enhance accuracy.

The guns were selected based on the AMU's accuracy requirements, and if the gun passed, it was turned over to the unit armorer to crisp the trigger up and refit the gun with better sights...and off to the matches it went.

The accuracy requirement? The gun had to hold 3 inches at 50 yards...and many did. Remember that these were standard service pistols taken from existing stocks of service guns, or ideally, from new shipments of the same.

It would be pretty tough to find a high-end 2,000 dollar semi-custom that would match that level of accuracy, and you'd have to go to a hand-built custom to beat it...and not many of those will best it by much.

If you're lucky enough to run up on a really good 1911...one that still has all the parts that it was born with and hasn't been shot to near-destruction...you'll be amazed.

AnthonyRSS

21st November 2005, 10:19

I hardly believe that the metallurgy available to JMB at the turn of the century could be considered a design flaw of the 1911....

OD*

21st November 2005, 10:50

I hardly believe that the metallurgy available to JMB at the turn of the century could be considered a design flaw of the 1911....
DITTO!

I have one from 1913 that is still chugging along.

1911Tuner

21st November 2005, 11:16

OD...The one thing to keep an eye on with that old girl is the breechface area around the firing pin port. One of the really good modifications done on the later guns was the addition of a hardened steel recoil insert around the pin port, drilled through for the pin. The early guns tended to peen and deform around the port under hard use, and would sometimes get the pin into a bind if it went far enough.

Just a little FYI for ya. ;)

OD*

21st November 2005, 11:20

Yes sir, I'm aware of that. Reminders never hurt though, thank you.

emiddio

21st November 2005, 16:16

I hardly believe that the metallurgy available to JMB at the turn of the century could be considered a design flaw of the 1911....

but my question was not about a design flaw in 1911(the year) -- but maybe better metallurgy today that would have allowed a "prefered" design ? or CNC milling now maybe allows for things not practical then.

wichaka

21st November 2005, 16:26

I've seen a load of 1911's come across the bench from L.E. guys that shoot a lot of +P stuff..........why?.........I dunno........anyway, the guts still look good.

The problem with that emiddio, is one still has to pay for it. You have to pay more for solid steel steel parts than cast or MIM.........forged slides rather than cast............but after Colt got the breech face thing fixed, they've ran pretty much flawless ever since.

Always love to work on an old Colt.........tough as nails they are!

OD*

21st November 2005, 16:32

but my question was not about a design flaw in 1911 -- but maybe better metallurgy today that would have allowed a "prefered" design ?

How would metallurgy have allowed a "preferred" design?
And what is a preferred design?

emiddio

21st November 2005, 16:58

ok -- what about the 3 lugs -- "modern" SIGS, GLOCKS -- use the 1 Lug -- do they hold up as well ?

i hear stories of many thousands of rounds -- thru 1911's -- is that like 20,000, or 200,000 ?

are you really saying the 1 Lug SIG's and Glocks -- cannot hold up as well ?

what about the link ? is that really a good thing ? what makes the link better ?

and dont forget the straight back locking designs ( non-tilting) walther p5, or beretta cougar/px4 storm (rotating lockup barrel ).

emiddio

21st November 2005, 17:03

OD*

21st November 2005, 17:04

I'm sorry, I misread your post, you meant your "preferred" design.

emiddio

21st November 2005, 17:09

The problem with that emiddio, is one still has to pay for it. You have to pay more for solid steel steel parts than cast or MIM.........forged slides rather than cast............but after Colt got the breech face thing fixed, they've ran pretty much flawless ever since.

sorry -- i dont follow -- ...still has to pay for it...

i understand 1 thing -- maybe you meant -- same design -- but different quality of parts...

my questions are directed at "design" not cost cutting unless it works as well and as long.

OD*

21st November 2005, 17:11

are you talking about the wear where the cartridge base contacts the breech face ? or maybe just the area where the primer contacts the breech face ?

He's talking about the area around the firing pin. In 1935 Colt started including tool steel recoil plates.

emiddio

21st November 2005, 17:15

I'm sorry, I misread your post, you meant your "preferred" design.

i dont claim to have a better design or prefered one -- but "Tuning" seems to be a design flaw -- a "good" design would not "need" "tuning" -- i would hope.

and i would hope that CNC milling would allow for "drop in" parts -- without ANY "Tuning" required.

-- that seems to be the case with Glock, Sig parts like barrels -- i know the Glock internals are drop in- i've done it -- but hardly consider the glock trigger a trigger much at all.

dont know about Sig internals.

OD*

21st November 2005, 17:19

but "Tuning" seems to be a design flaw

You're not alone, many who don't know better feel the same.
A properly built 1911 doesn't need tuning.

and i would hope that CNC milling would allow for "drop in" parts -- without ANY "Tuning" required.
Not really a good argument, how many companies build 1911s and how many companies build Glocks and Sigs?

emiddio

21st November 2005, 18:29

You're not alone, many who don't know better feel the same.
A properly built 1911 doesn't need tuning.

Not really a good argument, how many companies build 1911s and how many companies build Glocks and Sigs?

cant argue with your 2nd point -- 100+ yrs of variations.

your 1st point seem more like a Jab than a reasoned arguement.

But -- to use an analogy from the computer industry -- a fresh design with published specs -- would allow the aftermarket to make parts without guessing the specs. CNC milling should allow all parts to fit very close -- assuming the specs were followed. And because its a "fresh" design there would not be any history of out of spec parts or guns to have to accomodate.

Maybe things like "sears" would require some hand finishing -- but i would want to believe "barrels" -- barrel fitting -- would not.

So far I'm hearing everybody likes the 1911 best -- the way it is -- but i'm not hearing critical thinking as to WHY ?

and I'm still waiting for why the "link" is "best".

John

21st November 2005, 18:32

emiddio

21st November 2005, 18:53

As it has been said already, the Sigs, Glocks etc have one lug (actually they have no lug, since the shape of their chamber is such) that locks with the slide. However, exactly because there is only one matting surface, that surface is much thicker than the one of a 1911. Have you compared the width of the slide of a Sig or Glock to that of a 1911?

My thinking is simple. The 1911 has withstand the test of several thousands of gun-ignorant soldiers all over the world. It has withstand the test of some more thousands of competition shooters all over the world. It has withstand the test of several thousands of Average Joes all over the world.

And all these tests show that a properly build 1911 keeps working and working and working. Without any problems, without any parts breaking, without any issues. Design flaws would have surfaced many years ago, if there were any.

Now if you are talking about non-tilting barrels, and rotary breech faces/bolts or whatever, these are different designs. I haven't heard of any of them, which has withstand the tests that the 1911 has. Remember that the 1911 is close to 100 years old. All of the others have a long way to go.

i cant argue with your arguement -- but it would take a 100+ years to win against your arguement also. some of the 1911 is due to history -- and even if there were something "wrong" it would still be that way because of all the "history" it has -- that "history" provides all the aftermarket possibilities that otherwise would not be there.

i began this as a question -- not a complaint per se about the 1911.

we hear about all the "tuning" that must be just right -- like it takes a Tuner 20+ yrs to get the experience to really make the gun work right -- all the threads about magazine issues, dimples, .... threads about FTF, FTE, ...;

it just seems overly complicated to make the gun work right -- IMHO -- and therefore there must be some design somewhere that reduces the complication and maintains all the things we all love about the 1911 on the outside.

John -- the point about the 1 Lug issue you mentioned -- size of the single Lug -- i think the other guns are wider -- their Lug surfaces are flat -- not rounded also -- a question -- it seems that if wideness is a main issue -- its seems to me a flat top slide -- like the glock -- could be less wide, with mutliple lugs -- flat lugs -- if that was required.

i feel like i'm on the spot -- like everybody loves the 1911 and how dare i question its perfection.

i'm an engineer -- that what we do.

1911Tuner

21st November 2005, 19:46

Quotes

But -- to use an analogy from the computer industry -- a fresh design with published specs -- would allow the aftermarket to make parts without guessing the specs. CNC milling should allow all parts to fit very close -- assuming the specs were followed. And because its a "fresh" design there would not be any history of out of spec parts or guns to have to accomodate.

Maybe things like "sears" would require some hand finishing -- but i would want to believe "barrels" -- barrel fitting -- would not.

we hear about all the "tuning" that must be just right -- like it takes a Tuner 20+ yrs to get the experience to really make the gun work right -- all the threads about magazine issues, dimples, .... threads about FTF, FTE, ...;
********************

All the things mentioned here have been addressed. Link...Fitting...Tolerances, etc. Study the history of the gun closely, and the answers will become more clear.

There was a time that all this "tuning" wasn't required. You bought a "Gub'mint Model", took it shootin' and were shocked if it didn't run 100%
and hold up for years. This as recently as the late 1960s. Colt was about it then, and most of the parts had been made by Colt in anticipation of a government contract that didn't appear...so they turned the overages into commercial pistols and sold'em...and they worked. Problem was, that the big dogs at Colt sold off the machinery and used the money to do other things,
never imagining that the 1911 would have the upsurge in popularity that started in the late 70s. They turned to vendors to supply the small parts...
and things went downhill from there.

It could be that way again if the manufacturers would just follow the original blueprints...but none do apparently. They've redone the specs...after they had already been redone to allow parts interchangeability between 5 different contractors and a dozen different suppliers of spare parts...and it worked pretty well. The guns were assembled using standardized gauges to insure proper fit... Selective Drop-In Fit would probably be a better descriptive term. Not a precise fit, but much closer than what we get today. See...The gauges and their blueprints are probably also long since gone.

As far as the metallurgy goes...we'd probably have tougher and even more durable guns than even the WW2 GI pistols were, and as long as the extractor material was either 1090 tempered steel, or its modern-day equivalent, there would be some really good pistols...albeit pretty expensive.
(Witness the toughness and durability of the Norinco clones.)

The WW2 guns cost the government an average of about $45.00. If they had been built via the original methods, they'd have cost double that, or more.

The 1911 is a sound design, but it's not a design well-suited to the stamp it out, sell it cheap, use it up mentality of today's "Throwaway" society. In 1970 you could buy a JC Higgins double shotgun for about 75 bucks out the door. A hand-crafted English or Belgian double would cost two years pay.
Double rifles were even more expensive, and a Purdey or Best Grade Westley-Richards in the 1920s was beyond the reach of all but the wealthy or the tradesmen...the ivory hunters who needed a rifle that didn't break down far from the help of an armorer. Their livlihoods...and even their lives...depended on it. Cheaper, mass-produced double rifles were available...but no serious tradesman would even consider one of them. They demanded the best and were willing to pay for it.

Now...if you want the best 1911, the premium is high. You'll have to go to a
specialist who will hand-craft your pistol in much the same way as the custom double shotgun makers...although the same level of precision doesn't even approach that of the Purdeys...it still requires the same mentality. Experience and a complete understanding of the function goes a long way.

And it's been over 40 years for me...not 20. ;)

To be continued..after supper.

1911Tuner

21st November 2005, 20:22

Emiddio wanted to know:

ok -- what about the 3 lugs -- "modern" SIGS, GLOCKS -- use the 1 Lug -- do they hold up as well ?

i hear stories of many thousands of rounds -- thru 1911's -- is that like 20,000, or 200,000 ?

are you really saying the 1 Lug SIG's and Glocks -- cannot hold up as well ?
*******************

Sure they can. As an engineer, you only need to compare the two designs.

The 1911s radial lugs are basically crescent-shaped projections on top of the barrel with a limited amount of surface area to absorb the pounding that a .45 caliber pistol hands out. if you redesigned to use a square, blocky lug that would take the punishment, you'd also have to make the slide square and blocky to accomodate...and then it would look like a Glock. You'd not only lose the rounded shape...which many of us consider as graceful...you'd lose the balance that the 1911 is known and loved for.

As far as the precisely hand-fitted barrels go...that's a match setup, which is essentially a variant of what the gun was designed to be. Accuracy is greatly enhanced if done correctly...but the gun was never intended for that role. You lose something of the original intent there by making it less tolerant of dirt, abuse, and neglect...and reliability under extreme conditions
is...or at least was... a big part of what gained the government contracts for Browning and Colt.

The problem with the 1911 today is that it IS so immensely popular. The buying public wants it to be affordable AND maintain the ability to cut a half-inch ragged hole at 50 paces. They want it tight. They want it pretty. They want it to fit their Walter Mitty visions of tactical derring-do.

They want and want and want...and the manufacturers work hard to give'em waht they want...but something gets lost in the process. Blame the gunzines for accepting hand-built "ringers" for their test articles. The average Joe reads the report...runs out and buys one...and is disappointed in many instances. He thinks he's buying a hand-built semi-custom for a thousand bucks, and what he gets is a production-line drop-in gun with some pretty bling-bling, upswept grip safety, and a list of "tactical" adornments that are
intended to make him THINK he got a pistol that's a cut above the plain-jane
USGI pistol that his daddy told him about. What they actually get most of the time is a conversation piece that's actually a cut BELOW the real deal. A toy.

wichaka

21st November 2005, 21:51

sorry -- i dont follow -- ...still has to pay for it...

i understand 1 thing -- maybe you meant -- same design -- but different quality of parts...

my questions are directed at "design" not cost cutting unless it works as well and as long.

Metallurgy I was speaking of, is what Tuner touched on...........that being the parts......ALL THE PARTS being made from the right metal, hardness etc.
To get that now.........you gotta pay extra for it, or get it from an after market company, like Brown, Nowlin etc.

To get a gun that comes with the right stuff...........you gotta pay upwards to 2,000............sad, very sad.

So don't blame the gun or the design, when the gun doesnt work. Blame todays makers, who arent following the blueprints, and are trying to cut costs by cutting corners............and who loses? You & I............

wichaka

21st November 2005, 22:10

He thinks he's buying a hand-built semi-custom for a thousand bucks, and what he gets is a production-line drop-in gun with some pretty bling-bling, upswept grip safety, and a list of "tactical" adornments that are
intended to make him THINK he got a pistol that's a cut above the plain-jane
USGI pistol that his daddy told him about. What they actually get most of the time is a conversation piece that's actually a cut BELOW the real deal. A toy.

Case in point............Look at Springfields TRP. You pay near or over 1,000 smacks for it, yet all the small parts are the same as the GI, Mil-Spec, & Loaded models.

What do you get for your 1,000?
A one piece barrel, checkered front strap, and a mag well funnel........is the gun tighter, or the barrel fit better than the others?
Yes, some........but I've had a lot of Springfields on the bench, and you couldn't convince me of it. I've seen some of the lower priced models with some good fitting barrels & slides.........

Been to a lot of gun shows where I look at 1911's...........the first thing the buyer points out is all the bells & whistles..........I have a deaf ear to such things and ask if I can take it apart to inspect the guts. I can always put on the "pretty stuff", but its the guts that's sometimes harder to fix.

Its whats under the hood that counts.........

I used to drag race in my youger years. Had a '52 Ford pickup with a built 428 Cobra-Jet motor, sporting twin carbs etc., C6 tranny, with a Ford 4-pinion locker rear end with 4:88's The thing was primered, the interior stock, but she'd run 11.50's all day long.
Take 'er out on the street and wipe out those "pretty" rods.........

Look thru the bells & whistles..........and see what you're really getting.

Hawkmoon

21st November 2005, 22:28

i dont claim to have a better design or prefered one -- but "Tuning" seems to be a design flaw -- a "good" design would not "need" "tuning" -- i would hope.
You may hope, but what you are hoping for is a logical fallacy.

Any piece of machinery is designed ... and optimized ... to perform with specified operating parameters. A Honda Civic is designed and optimized to provide basic transportation, adequate handling, and good fuel economy for a reasonable selling price. The M1911 was designed, and optimized, to provide reliability and maintainability under battlefield, combat conditions ... and to be manufactured for a reasonable price.

Just as the Honda Civic is not designed to be a Grand Prix racer or a Paris-Dakar rally winner, the M1911 was not designed to be a precision target pistol. And just as some folks buy a lot of expensive after-market parts to make the Honda Civic into something it was never intended to be, so also do people buy after-market parts (or specially built pistols) in order to make the 1911 into something it was never intended to be. That's what "tuning" is -- it's adjusting the machine to function optimally under parameters that are different from the original specifications.

Which is why "tuning" in no way indicates a flaw or deficiency in the original design. It indicates only that some civilians want a 1911 but they want to use it as something other than a battlefield, close quarters combat pistol.

OD*

22nd November 2005, 00:01

your 1st point seem more like a Jab than a reasoned arguement.

Sorry you took it that way, but the statement's true.

John

22nd November 2005, 02:04

I didn't take any offence in your questions Emiddio, just trying to answer your questions.

Rgds

emiddio

22nd November 2005, 02:37

1911Tuner

22nd November 2005, 07:09

ok for now -- on to linkless 1911's

i have only heard of linkless 1911's -- can someone show a picture or describe one ?

is it similar to the glock cammed barrel ? which is like the Sig .

or is it a little like the Colt gov 380 -- which uses a slide stop which slides in a channel ?

is the linkess 1911 better -- if not -- what does it offer in tradeoff to encourage its use ?

Emiddio...Go back and re-read my replies. To recap:

The linkless design isn't a "Double Camming" function. it works exactly the same way as the linked design. If the linked lower lug is in-spec, it cams the barrel up into battery, and unlocks the barrel by the same mechanism as the linkless design.
The link's sole function is to unlock the barrel. The linkless lower lug's lower portion does exactly the same thing, and in the same way. it just does it without the link.

I also outlined the drawbacks.

emiddio

22nd November 2005, 16:05

Emiddio...Go back and re-read my replies.

i went back and read.

i need a picture.

1911Tuner

22nd November 2005, 17:09

i went back and read.

i need a picture.

Can't help ya there, mah fren. I'm a pistolwrench...not a 'puter whiz. Ain't gotta picture of a linkless 1911 barrel anyways.
If you can find a picture of a Browning Hi-Power barrel it'll be pretty close.

I'll try to find one on the net and send a link. Best this ol' dinosaur who didn't take a computer class can do. ;)

emiddio

23rd November 2005, 21:40

1911Tuner

23rd November 2005, 22:21

Emiddio asked:

so i guess the question -- would a single Lug 1911 offer anything simpler in fitting ? and would it work good/well? -- obviously -- it would not be a 1911 any more if only 1 lug.

Sure. It's done all the time. First lug fitting only will do. It's just not as strong as all three...and the three lug design isn't less durable than the single lug of the Glock and Sig...It's probably quite a a bit stronger, but all three have to be bearing an equal share of the brunt. The problem is, that you'll have to go to a fitted barrel to get all three into the game...and you'll have to specifically request equalized lugs. Most smiths these days fit to the first lug only because it's adequate for the standard .45 ACP pressures..including +P. And it is adequate for most. If you plan on shooting a lot...upward of 100,000 rounds, and most of it will be with lead bullets, (which wear the barrel at about 5% the rate of jacketed bullets)... you'll want equalized lugs.
Why? To maintain safe headspace.

A savvy old Maryland pistolsmith named Jim Keenan conducted an experiment once that blew me away. He threaded the muzzle of a USGI pistol...junker barrel...turned a steel rod to fit the bore closely and form-turned the end to closely match the shape of a 230-grain jacketed round nose bullet. He inserted the rod and threaded a set-screw into the bore...Loaded the gun with a round of GI hardball...turned the set screw until the rod was tight against the bullet nose...and fired the gun. Not once, but repeatedly. No damage was done, and when fitted with a fresh barrel, the gun continued to function. Strong enough for ya?

Try that with a Glock or a Sig and you'll likely wind up with a handful of plastic and steel imbedded to the bone.

And they said that MY generation was nuts! :p

Oh yeah...The slide didn't cycle, but remained solidly locked. Bullet no move...Slide no move.

SAWBONES

23rd November 2005, 22:30

1911Tuner

23rd November 2005, 22:36

"Bullet no move...Slide no move."

Now that's interesting. That's what I thought would happen with a "net-non-directional" detonation, similar to the result of a cartridge detonating after being thrown in the fire.
By "thought experiment", therefore, the slide and barrel must at least begin to move before the bullet leaves the barrel, otherwise, if it didn't begin to move during the time the bullet was in the barrel, it (the barrel plus slide) wouldn't move at all.

Actually, what Jim was trying to do was to disprove Kunhausen's "Balanced Thrust Vector" theory.(Bullet exits before the slide moves) What he really did was to force the pistol to maintain its equilibrium...and the slide COULDN'T move... and to show that the 1911 is a much tougher animal than we thought. I was impressed.

emiddio

23rd November 2005, 23:59

Emiddio asked:

so i guess the question -- would a single Lug 1911 offer anything simpler in fitting ? and would it work good/well? -- obviously -- it would not be a 1911 any more if only 1 lug.

Sure. It's done all the time. First lug fitting only will do. It's just not as strong as all three...and the three lug design isn't less durable than the single lug of the Glock and Sig...It's probably quite a a bit stronger, but all three have to be bearing an equal share of the brunt.

A savvy old Maryland pistolsmith named Jim Keenan conducted an experiment once that blew me away. He threaded the muzzle of a USGI pistol...junker barrel...turned a steel rod to fit the bore closely and form-turned the end to closely match the shape of a 230-grain jacketed round nose bullet. He inserted the rod and threaded a set-screw into the bore...Loaded the gun with a round of GI hardball...turned the set screw until the rod was tight against the bullet nose...and fired the gun. Not once, but repeatedly. No damage was done, and when fitted with a fresh barrel, the gun continued to function. Strong enough for ya?

Try that with a Glock or a Sig and you'll likely wind up with a handful of plastic and steel imbedded to the bone.

And they said that MY generation was nuts! :p

Oh yeah...The slide didn't cycle, but remained solidly locked. Bullet no move...Slide no move.

1st point:
Tuner -- didnt answer all of my question -- 1 lug simple answer i already knew from what you have said before could work -- typically did work -- but i was asking about a "super" 1 lug -- with enough surface area to make up for the other 2....

your 2nd point -- Interesting -- max pressure in 1911 45acp is 21000 PSI, guess he was just testing a failure issue. -- you really dont think Glock/Sig could withstand same test -- I do -- if it failed it would have to be on the Lug issue -- i really doubt barrel failure would result -- i really doubt 1911 barrel (45acp) is that challenging -- 9mm is 35000 PSI, 10mm is 37500 PSI -- Not 21000 PSI. and -- 9x23 Win 46000 PSI Wincheseter published ammo -- 51000 PSI i've heard of.

and your 3rd issue -- i'm older than you are.

Hawkmoon

24th November 2005, 00:34

If you want pictures of a linkless 1911 ... the Imbel Pistola .380 is such a critter. Actually, it's even more linkless than a Hi-Power (and can easily be argued not to be a 1911 at all, despite outward appearance), because the barrel is rigidly pinned. The deep lower lug has a single hole in it, not a cammed slot, and the barrel doesn't lock up. So the pistol operates on direct blowback.

To see how a 1911 would function without the link, I agree that looking at a Hi-Power will be the answer.

1911Tuner

24th November 2005, 07:21

1st point:
Tuner -- didnt answer all of my question -- 1 lug simple answer i already knew from what you have said before could work -- typically did work -- but i was asking about a "super" 1 lug -- with enough surface area to make up for the other 2....

your 2nd point -- Interesting -- max pressure in 1911 45acp is 21000 PSI, guess he was just testing a failure issue. -- you really dont think Glock/Sig could withstand same test -- I do -- if it failed it would have to be on the Lug issue -- i really doubt barrel failure would result -- i really doubt 1911 barrel (45acp) is that challenging -- 9mm is 35000 PSI, 10mm is 37500 PSI -- Not 21000 PSI. and -- 9x23 Win 46000 PSI Wincheseter published ammo -- 51000 PSI i've heard of.

and your 3rd issue -- i'm older than you are.

Did so answer your question! You're skimming over my replies...Probably 'cause they get a little involved and ya get bored. :D

The 1911 slide, in its present dimensional form, won't acommodate a single "Super Lug." When it was designed, there were set parameters in dimension and weight. It also had to be durable enough to withstand hard use. A single lug that would offer as much surface area as the three existing lugs would require making the slide taller and wider. If the present slide were to be machined to acommodate such a lug, it would become too thin
to offer the strength needed to survive the pounding.

Yes...it was essentilly a failure test, even though that wasn't Jim's intent. and it was directed at the lugs and the chamber integrity...and the strength inherent in the 1911 design hinges greatly on spreading the stress out evenly along a straight line rather than concentrating it into one place...hence the reason that three small lugs will be more durable than one big one because it spreads the load. Just like a bullet hitting a target point on and hitting the target sideways at the same velocity. Even though the impact energy is the same, the point on impact would allow the bullet to penetrate deeper.

And, no...I don't think the Glock would endure that test.
maybe once or twice...but not repeatedly.

kylebakner

26th November 2005, 11:38

Humm....the REAL question is.....what kind of pistol would John Moses Browning design if he was alive today, with CAD tools and the newer materials?

I love the 1911. Actually, I really don't think you need ANY other pistol. A
combat pistol? 5" Government model. Carry? LW Commander. Hunting? The 10mm will do almost anything a pistol is capable of. Target? Stick a .22LR Marvel conversion unit on top. The trigger is what other guns dream about when they grow up.

But in the interests of playing Devil's advocate....and helping Emmido out....the 1911 COULD be improved. Nothing made by the hand of Man is perfect.

Some of the following ideas have been discussed before....some of them seem to be good.....and some of them are really, REALLY off the wall. But all of them are free.....and worth exactly what you paid for them. ;)

1. Single stack magazine.

Look at the picture below, from Tripp Research. It illustrates what happens when a 1911 magazine is loaded. After the 5th round is loaded, the top round is no longer supported by the one below it, leading to nosedive type jams.

http://home.supernet.com/~kbakner/angular%2520gap.jpg

If you load a 7rd 1911 mag to full capacity, the top round is NOT supported
like the first 2 or 3 rds. Try to strip the top round of a fully loaded 1911 mag and you'll see what I mean. The round immediately nosedives, moves forward a little bit, catches in the rim below it, then "leaps" forward to break free....and dives straight down into the front of the magazine.

The double column magazine supports the top round in a consistent manner, almost eliminating nosedives.

2. The swinging link.
A lot has been said about this. I personally feel the slot cam used on the Hi Power, CZ, S&W Double Actions, and the Star Firestar's is a better design...it allows you design in a longer period of delay in which the pistol stays locked, but by the same token, doesn't let you custom fit the barrel to different, possibly out of spec frames and slides. One final note.....what design DID JMB go with in the Hi-Power? ;)

3. The Grip Safety
It was put in as an afterthought. It serves no useful purpose.....and....how
about THIS for a wild idea:

We could make the mainspring housing and beavertail one piece, and have it slide up the back of the pistol, just as the mainspring does now. Mill the back of the gun (almost) flat, have the entire assembly secured by the thumb safety pin. This would allow for an almost INFINITE number of shooter specific changes. Extra large beavertail and flat back strap? No problem. Small beavertail for carry, with a rounded bottom? Again, no problem...wait! Checkering tears up your clothes, but stripling doesn't? We can do that.....
The variations could be custom made to order.....Along with changing the grips, the pistol could be completely configurable for ANY hand......For a REALLY wild idea, you could supply a clay form for the customer, he'd squeeze it to get an impression of his hand, then ship it to the pistol smith.....who would have it laser scanned, then turned into a CNC program to mill out the perfect back strap.

If you wanted to REALLY change things....the entire sear/disconector/hammer/safty could be made part of a removable assemble, attached to the beavertail/back strap. Easy to remove for cleaning or repair.....

4. In-line feeding.

The 1911 has a much less in-line feed than more modern pistols. I've got a Star Firestar that's almost PERFECT.....the rounds barely touch the ramp before they feed. The 1911 has to make a pretty steep "jump" before it makes it into the chamber.

5. Barrel to hand height.

The 1911 has one of the best bore to hand heights of any pistol.....much better than Sigs or Glocks, or almost ANY of the more modern pistols. But ANYTHING can be improved. As a REALLY off the wall idea.....what would happen if the bore of the pistol was dropped into the frame.....the locking lugs milled into the frame.....and the recoil spring put on TOP of the gun. It would improve recoil control, the axis of the barrel would be closer to your hand. The feed would be almost perfectly in line.....granted, there would be a LOT of challenges to get it to work.....

Hope I haven't offended anybody. Again, just some thoughts.....I wanted to play Devil's advocate, plus help Emmido out.

1911Tuner...if you're reading this, I don't post much, so I figure I'll say
it here. Thanks for all of your posts. I learn more from 3 minutes of reading
what you write than 3 years of reading Kuhnhausen.

Kyle

1911Tuner

26th November 2005, 12:39

Howdy Kyle. Thanks for the good words...A few points can be made, but I don't know just where to start...so I'll start with:

>>3. The Grip Safety
It was put in as an afterthought. It serves no useful purpose.<

and go from there.
*************************

Actually, it was the thumb safety that was an afterthought that was requested by the Army Ordnance Department. The 1910 prototype, which was submitted just prior to the testing and acceptance of 1911 as we know it today had the grip safety but not the thumb safety. Other than that, the gun was pretty much identical to the 1911/1911A1. Why the added manual safety lock?
To prevent the troops from shooting themselves or their own horses in the frantic scenes that the battlefield was sure to become. Otherwise, the grip safety is sufficient as long as ya keep your finger off the go-bang button.

A study of the evoloution of the M1911 is in order..which began about a decade before the final product... so that you can better understand what you're lookin' at. Check out BluesBear's excellent pictoral history and commentary on the development of the pistol on this link.

You'll find that the bottom picture is of particular interest.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1982567#post1982567

The angled feed of the pistol isn't even an issue if the frame's ramp is within spec, the mag follower is of the correct geometry, and the magazine release point is good. Many people don't understand the controlled feed concept, and
aren't aware that the angle is only an issue if the mag spring is weak and can't push the rear of the feeding cartridge under the extractor at the point of release. Once that happens, the angle of entry is straight-line. Starting the round in a straight...or much straighter line...sets it up to get ahead of the extractor when it has to come from underneath in order to remain under complete control...which puts impact stress on the hook that it wasn't designed to acommodate, whether or not it snaps over the rim.

I'll address more in a while. Gotta tend to the dogs...again.

OD*

26th November 2005, 18:39

Well, with the exception of the one piece MSH-grip safety, you pretty well described the Para PXT High Capacity Single-Action Limited. Thanks but no thanks.

1911Tuner

27th November 2005, 11:08

Ai'ght...I got a little time to examinate this a little closer. (Examinate is a perfectly legitimate word in Reb-Bonics...just like "Conversate".) :D

Kyle said:

We could make the mainspring housing and beavertail one piece, and have it slide up the back of the pistol, just as the mainspring does now

It's been done. Didn't work out too well. The hammer on a 1911 overcocks in operation, and the upswept ducktail requires a ring hammer and generous relief in the hammer well. Otherwise both parts get beat up and it only takes a little dirt in the well...or just a little tolerance stacking to cause interference. Same deal on a standard ducktail, but at least it has a little built-in "give"...even when you've got a grip on the gun. No give equates to a busted hammer eventually. Also makes disassembly and reassembly a real PITA. I've handled a 1911 so modified.

It also does away with another safety device that requires a grip on the gun to make it go bang...which is a plus when carrying cocked and locked.
***************************

>Mill the back of the gun (almost) flat, have the entire assembly secured by the thumb safety pin.<

That would throw a lot of stress on one relatively small pin. With today's "Wonderful New" MIM-based powder metallurgy, we already have
pins breaking on thumb safeties when they're only bearing the load of the thumb and grip safeties...and all they do is pivot. Adding the stresses of
the shock of recoil levering against the pin from the mid-point of the grip frame probably wouldn't be conducive to a long, happy life for the pin.
Of course, you could make safety replacement a regularly scheduled
operation, like a recoil spring...but that wouldn't be very attractive for the average buyer. He'll either have to farm it out to a smith...who probably has a 6-week backlog...or learn to do it himself.
***********************************

>>The variations could be custom made to order.....Along with changing the grips, the pistol could be completely configurable for ANY hand......For a REALLY wild idea, you could supply a clay form for the customer, he'd squeeze it to get an impression of his hand, then ship it to the pistol smith.....who would have it laser scanned, then turned into a CNC program to mill out the perfect back strap.<<

Got any idea how expensive that would be? Custom build every gun that a company sells? Not to mention that the customer would have a waiting period
before his gun would be delivered. See 6-week backlog above.

>>If you wanted to REALLY change things....the entire sear/disconector/hammer/safety could be made part of a removable assemble, attached to the beavertail/back strap. Easy to remove for cleaning or repair.<<

And do we replace the whole unit when...not if...something breaks?
Such a sub-aseembly would require extensive hand-fitting in order to reliably work across the board in all guns. Very complex and expensive...not to mention the part about the armorer's backlog. Sorry. Won't fly.

>>4. In-line feeding.<<

Aready addressed. A study of how and why the Browning Controlled feed design works...and has worked for nearly a hundred years will turn on a light for ya. if the frame and barrel ramp are within spec...and the magazine follower is of the correct angle...and the magazine spring is up to the task...and the extractor is made of the right stuff, of the correct geometry and tension...and you use halfway decent ammo that's within design parameters both inside and out...the gun will work with monotonous reliability.
A visit to my digs for a range trip and demo will convince ya.
****************************

>5. Barrel to hand height.

The 1911 has one of the best bore to hand heights of any pistol.....much better than Sigs or Glocks, or almost ANY of the more modern pistols. But ANYTHING can be improved. As a REALLY off the wall idea.....what would happen if the bore of the pistol was dropped into the frame.....the locking lugs milled into the frame.....and the recoil spring put on TOP of the gun. It would improve recoil control, the axis of the barrel would be closer to your hand. The feed would be almost perfectly in line.....granted, there would be a LOT of challenges to get it to work.<

One major problem here. If the lugs were in the frame, either the barrel would have to unlock upside down, or you'd have to use a straight-blowback
operation...or some method of mechanically delayed blowback...which is a bit complex. (See smith backlog above) Unlocking upside down would require very close tolerances and critical timing...and when a little wear occurs, you're looking at a very expensive corection...or a destroyed barrel and frame.
(See backlog)

Recoil spring on TOP of the gun??? Doable, but that would be one butt-ugly sidearm, bro. If you did all that to a 1911, it wouldn't even be close to a 1911 any more. That would be a whole different gun...and the whole point to owning a 1911 is...to own a 1911.

Bottom line...and pay close attention. Most of the functional issues noted with the current crop of Colt-Browning clones are attributed directly or indirectly to the current crop of engineers and designers who have been trying for so long to outsmart John Browning, (and the team of engineers who
were involved in the development of the gun) that they really believe they have. When the gun is built to original specs...and even the WW2-era guns that were redesigned for parts interchangeability among several contractors...
it'll break your bank account trying to buy enough ammo to make it choke.
(And I stand willing and ready to prove that one too. Come shoot my abused beaters and come prepared to be impressed. Come prepared for mega-strong coffee too.) ;)

auto45

27th November 2005, 11:28

OD*

27th November 2005, 11:43

Most of the functional issues noted with the current crop of Colt-Browning clones are attributed directly or indirectly to the current crop of engineers and designers who have been trying for so long to outsmart John Browning, (and the team of engineers who were involved in the development of the gun) that they really believe they have.
No truer words...

1911Tuner

27th November 2005, 12:06

I have to agree that I see no useful purpose of a grip safety. I see it on the same level as Glocks safety on the trigger.
It doesn't prevent an AD if the gun is dropped or if you have sear/hammer problems, i.e. hammer following the slide down, etc.

You really need a series 80 FP block to prevent AD's that can really happen...IMHO. :)

Not really...If ya just stick a new 2-dollar firing pin spring in the gun every 5 or 6 thousand rounds, the gun will have to be dropped straight down onto a concrete floor from a height of about 8-10 feet to cause the inertial pin
to hit the primer with enough force to light it. A slightly lighter firing pin...such as the Series 80 pin... adds a little to the safe-ness...as does a firing pin that's made to spec on OAL, and ammo with primers of sufficient toughness. Federal primers are touchy. Winchester less so. CCI much better. CCI Mil-Spec primers are spot on, as are the primers in PMC ball. Remember? ORDNANCE-SPEC, and that includes the ammuntion. So, unless you're in the habit of handlin' your pistol standin' on a ladder, you're about as likely to get shark-bit
in Lake Erie. Has happened, and will happen again...but it's more a matter of
sloppy maintenance and prickly primers than design flaw. Nobody ever claimed that the pistol was maintenence-free. A new FP spring with every other recoil spring change will take care of it. Oh yeah...In case you're wonderin'...Yes. I've tested the drop-fire theory with empty, primed cases. Really a non-issue...unless you load up with Federal ammo and spend a lotta time practicin' your fast-draw on a ladder...

Another thing I forgot to mention in the last post was that...with a barrel that unlocks upside-down...where's the unlocking mechanism gonna be?
Gotta have a lug of some description and a pin to work it.
If it's on top of the gun, there's either gonna be a funny-lookin' hickey
on top of the...slide? or the whole housing that covers it will have to be the
full length and width of the top of the gun. That thing would be a truly odd-lookin' piece of ordnance, methinks...Not to mention that the balance would be off the scale.

Kyle? what say you?

Barry in IN

27th November 2005, 13:52

What's wrong and what's right with the 1911?
As for me, I have gripes about every gun ever made, and the 1911 is no exception.
I carry a 1911 99% of the time because the things I don't like are relatively insignificant. Or, at least the positives outweigh the negatives.

My favorite handgun design is probably the HiPower. I love the feel, the way the slim slide carrys IWB, But as they come, they need some things to make me happy. Nothing that can't be overcome, but.....

But we're talking 1911s here.
I guess my biggest 1911 complaint is the grip safety. I wouldn't miss it.

Kyle- There may be hope for us on the horizon. I was poking around Novak's website recently, and saw a one-piece backstrap "coming soon" for 1911s that replaced the mainspring housing and grip safety.
Exactly how it will work out, I don't know. Pictures were there, but scarce. Detailed info was even scarcer.

Re: The locking lug discussion-
You guys made me curious, so I did some measurin' just now.
I wondered how the locking lug areas compared between the 1911 and the "oversized chamber" types like Sig and Glocks. I got a Sig P220 45ACP from the safe to compare against the 1911, because I wanted to compare 45ACP guns- if it matters.

I measured the locking surface on the Sig barrel where it had been worn shiny from mating with the slide, and got .060 deep X .520 wide.

Keep in mind that these are sloppy measurements. Partially because I'm doing them, partially because we are dealing with odd shapes, and partially because it can be hard to tell how much is making contact. Many of these figures are averages- especially depths.

A 1911 measured .035 deep X .600. The .600 is around the curve of it's engagement surface. Those numbers are for ONE lug, and an average of all lugs.

Doing the math, the Sig had an engagement area of .0312 square inch if I did that right.
The 1911 had .021 Sq In for ONE lug.
OK, that's less than the Sig, but it's only one lug of three. Triple that figure (to .063) if all three lugs were to be engaged, and the 1911 has twice the locking area. But having all three lugs fully engaged is doubtful, at least in my guns.

I know- I should clean one of oil, DyKem the lugs, and shoot it a bit to find out how much is really engaging there.

Just for fun(?) I measured a HiPower's lugs. They were a little more used, so I could more easily see where they had been contacting. They averaged .060 deep X .470 around the curve, for a total of .025 Sq In per lug. That's more than the 1911, mostly because they had deeper engagement.

1911Tuner

27th November 2005, 14:17

Barry...If your 1911 has .035 inch of vertical lug engagement...that's a problem at roughly 60%. One lug only is a thrice larger problem...and very few factory pistols these days engage on more than one...and rarely on all three. Keep an eye peeled for slap-seating...barrel and slide.

1911Tuner

27th November 2005, 15:02

A point that must be considered when Barry said:

>Kyle- There may be hope for us on the horizon. I was poking around Novak's website recently, and saw a one-piece backstrap "coming soon" for 1911s that replaced the mainspring housing and grip safety.
Exactly how it will work out, I don't know. Pictures were there, but scarce. Detailed info was even scarcer.<
*************************

If you do decide to bite into that piece of reengineering, be aware that you will have deliberately and effectively disabled a designed-in safety feature
that has been in place for nearly a hundred years. In the event that you
use the gun in a defensive shooting, or even if somebody is accidentally shot during a game...even if it had nothing to do with the lack of a grip safety...
the legal ramifications could be both traumatic and life-altering.

The point of having a 1911 is to have a 1911. If it's not your cup of tea, buy something else...or study engineering and design one to your specifications...
build a prototype...and submit it to a manufacturer. Don't be surprised if it doesn't fly, though...For every design in production, there are a thousand that didn't make it past the drawing board.

Not pickin' a fight...Just lookin' at it from a logical standpoint.

Barry in IN

27th November 2005, 15:35

I'll re-check that lug engagement. It was very imprecise measuring, to say the least.

Agreed on the grip safety (or lack thereof).
Perhaps if it were called the "pivoting upper grip" or some such nonsense, it wouldn't be such a big deal to bypass it- but it's not called that.
My 1911s all have theirs, and they're operative. I would just as soon they never existed, but they do.
I admit to only having one 1911 whose grip safety was an issue, and it was easily corrected. But that was the least of that particular gun's problems.

While I doubt that thing-a-ma-bob on Novak's site will ever see the light of day, I do wonder what it will do that deactivating a grip safety by any of several methods would do.
Besides cost more.
Oh, I may have just answered that question.

kylebakner

1st December 2005, 01:13

Sorry it took so long to post a reply...starting with the one piece beavertail/mainspring housing....I gotta give credit where credit is due, I got the idea from Novak's website....anyway...didn't want people to think I was stealing anything. Didn't think about using a standard hammer, I was only thinking of the newer ring style. I'd think that the forces would roughly be the same on the pin, as longas the hammer was contacting the safety in the same place. There MIGHT be some difference,as the hammer hitting the grip safety on the 1911 causes it to cam down and pushes it against the frame, dissipating some of the energy.....?

Actually, what I was thinking was.....the mainspring hole at the base of the frame would be open at the bottom, a slot. The mainspring housing pin would be inserted in the bottom of the beavertail/mainspring assembly, just as it is now in the mainspring housing itself, and retained by a groove in the MS pin, just as it is now. The whole assembly would be slide up into the frame, the MS pin would slide into a slot cut in the frame where the pin for the MS housing used to be pushed in and out. Then the safety slide into the hole in the top of the grip, just as it is now.

PROBLEM is.....this means that the safety pin needs to take all of the force of the cocked mainspring.....not sure if it makes much difference, but.....wouldn't want to try it with one of them split ambi safeties. :) (Is this what you meant, 1911Tuner?)

I wasn't really thinking of the companies offering different grips. Probably just the two kinds we have now, straight and arched. The after market's where the different variations come in.....me, I'd make them in plastic.... opps... meant "polymer" :) ...which should make them easier and cheaper to make. IF and only if, they hold up. Colt's nylon seems to do pretty good, but I have a feeling the stresses are gonna be a lot different. Lots and lots of testing would be needed...is it worth it? Who knows.....

For the idea of making the fire control assembly (less the trigger) attached to the back strap, my idea was, the entire thing slides down from the TOP, until it's stopped by the mainspring housing pin. It would contain the safety, hammer, sear, disconnecter. You MIGHT be able to secure it to the frame with the upper grip screws.....not sure...plus, to help handle the forces on it, the two slots that the mainspring housing rides in would go almost to the top of the frame. You wouldn't want the force of the hammer being cocked
distributed on just the top grip screws.....the sear, hammer etc would be held in place exactly as they are now....something breaks, just replace it, exactly as we do now.

Advantages.....well....not TOO awful much. If you wanted a trigger job, you'd just send the assembly to a pistol smith, he'd tune it, then send it back. No need to send the whole gun. Easier to clean, too....

In -line feeding. 1911Tuner, I THINK I understand how the Browning Controlled feed works....to be honest I was thinking of starting another thread to make sure I've got it. But if you rely on a strong mag spring to "pop" the rounds up under the extractor hook, and to push the round in-line with the chamber mouth, isn't that adding another piece to the system that needs to function just right to work? How much of the Glock, Sig, etc. so-called "flawless" reliability is building in redundant systems to get it to work?

All manufacturer's produce bad springs from time to time....this might reduce the strength of the spring.....but the gun will still run....Ok, on the other hand, maybe the spring is 100%....but the mag was dropped in sand, now it's down to 50%, but again, because the round doesn't need to pop up under the extractor, it still runs. (Better not get a weak mag spring that's dropped in sand! :) ) Every little bit helps......Not sure I'm looking at it right, so I may start another thread on that.....

Now....on to the spring on top, barrel underneath.....I gotta get some sleep tonight, so I can't say too much but....yah, the gun would be butt ugly. :-) And the challenges to build it are monumental......I was thinking about it.....first, you'd need a way to somehow connect the link on the top of the barrel to the frame.....then lower the locking lugs in the slide about the height of the recoil spring....but the really interesting aspect, the link must cam UP in order to push the barrel down to unlock it. In the locked position, the link is at roughly 45 deg, where a normal 1911 is UNlocked. To unlock it, the barrel must swing down (to meet the frame, otherwise it won't feed) and the link goes to vertical, in the UNlocked position. Probably too complicated....but it might be possible to move the link and cam forward on the barrel, and have the pin just forward of the trigger guard, THEN put just the spring on top. I foresee lots of problems, though.....the cases would eject right by the top of your hand...I think some of the slide would need to be cut out in places, which would weaken it....lots of other things....plus it would look like a humpback whale.....of course, so did the Browning Auto shotgun, and that worked..... :)

I really wonder what JMB would be designing today, if he were alive. If I understand it correctly-please correct me if I'm wrong-his early autos didn't have either the thumb OR grip safety....which leads me to believe he intended the user to carry with an empty chamber, and rack the slide when needed. (Please let me know if anybody can disprove this....JMB might have assumed everybody was smart enough to just keep their finger off the trigger until they wanted to shoot, which will work, but...) What would he have done with his design if he was told from the start the gun was to be kept loaded with a round in the chamber, all day long? That it needed a match grade trigger....and needed to be light enough to carry all day?

Here....take a look at this.....A Star "Firestar Plus", single action, LW frame:

http://home.supernet.com/~kbakner/Firestar1.jpg

Integral feedramp, linkless cam, bushingless bull barrel:

http://home.supernet.com/~kbakner/Firestar2.jpg

http://home.supernet.com/~kbakner/Firestar3.jpg

Inline feed. The nose of the bullets just barely skim the throat before
they're in.

http://home.supernet.com/~kbakner/Firestar4.jpg

I've never, ever had a problem with this gun. It's NEVER malfunctioned on me. Know something else?

I haven't shot it in 4 years. It has no soul. It's single action, yes, but the trigger is horrible, feels like a DAO. The grip feels like a 2x4, and it's at the wrong angle. Just plain awful.....

Let me repeat myself, before people start jumping all over me.....I don't shoot it anymore, I'd rather shoot my 1911's. I DON'T want to replace the 1911....like an older car, it has a soul like no other....but I'm also not convinced it can't be improved.

Hope I haven't bored anyone....1911Tuner, I've got a couple of questions about the 1911 that always bugged me, I was thinking of starting new threads for.....probably post them in the next couple of days.....Thanks again,

Kyle

1911Tuner

1st December 2005, 08:08

Whew! Kyle...All this fairly makes my head spin.

You could eliminate the link/unlocking question by going to a rotary bolt, and a longer recoil operation...making it a bit more complex, but workable.

One point:

>In -line feeding. 1911Tuner, I THINK I understand how the Browning Controlled feed works....to be honest I was thinking of starting another thread to make sure I've got it. But if you rely on a strong mag spring to "pop" the rounds up under the extractor hook, and to push the round in-line with the chamber mouth, isn't that adding another piece to the system that needs to function just right to work? How much of the Glock, Sig, etc. so-called "flawless" reliability is building in redundant systems to get it to work?<
******************

It doesn't take a "strong" spring...just strong enough. It also requires
correct extractor tensioning and ammo that is within spec on dimensions.
The Glock-type design achieves a lot of its feed reliability from undercutting the barrel ramp area a little too deep for my comfort zone, which sacrifices
a lot of case head support. The H&K USP shares this. Not sure about SIG since I don't see one very often and haven't had the chance to really examine one closely. This feature makes them more feed reliable with "Who-Hit-John" junk ammo, but it does lead to a kaboom a little too often for me not to be leery of'em. If barrel unlock timing comes a little too early...that's about all it takes with some ammo...and not just bargain-basement stuff either.

Part of the reason for the Browning controlled feed design...namely the
angles and camming up, etc...helps to buffer the slide's impact a little during the final approach into battery, which contributes a lot to preserving the slidestop pin, its hole in the frame, and the lower lug feet. if you get a 1911
that'll feed and go to battery with a "SCHLAAAAP" it's taking a beating in these critical areas. It's not supposed to clatter and almost come to a halt, but it should have a little brake applied just before it locks in. Again..."Just because the gun is functioning, is no guarantee that it's functioning correctly." In a well-tuned pistol, this braking effect shouldn't be readily apparent while you're handling the gun...but it should be there. Ever notice how hard a Glock slams into battery as opposed to a good 1911 or P-35?
Look at the Glock's barrel throat (actually the barrel ramp, but I ain't gonna split hairs) and compare it to a correct throat on a 1911 to see why.

Feed/Return to battery reliability is achieved through using a good magazine
with good spring tension...A good extractor made of the right stuff and correctly tensioned...and decent ammo that is not only within spec exterally, but internally as well. When you step too far outside of these boundaries,
you're subject to get a malfunction. Most factory-supplied magazines
don't have sufficient springs. If you could find a USGI mag that had been gathering dust in a remote corner of some armory and test the spring...you'd be surprised to find that it's very close to the Wolff 11-pound spring. Wolff
hypes them as "Extra-Power" when they're actually nothing more than just a little over spec for the design. The half-pound or so extra tension is likely
there to allow the spring to take its initial set TO the correct tension, and provide longer service life. In this, they're really second to none, and will maintain tension within the limits of tolerance for years of hard use.

So...the way the gun feeds...up the hill and over the top...camming the extractor open, etc. isn't incidental. It was carefully planned, and...like everything else on the gun...has a very good reason for being planned that way.

1911Tuner

1st December 2005, 08:39

Got disconnected before I could finish. :confused:

Anyway...I've always had a knack for studying a design and figuring out what the designer had in mind. To illustrate the statement about proper magazines and the 1911's "Braking Effect" as it feeds, a close look at the two basic differences between the original "Hardball" type magazines and the timed
release magazines that are common today. Most people think that the "new"design feed lip geometry was for the purpose of feeding hollowpoints
when...in reality...it's an old design that just happens to work with hollowpoints. The mag feed lips were modified in order to feed target ammo loaded with lead SWC bullets, usually loaded to a much lower velocity level
than hardball...with the light recoil springs used in the old BUllseye guns.
It started way back in the early days of the Army Marksmanship program,
and it carried over to modern times because it DI provide more reliable feeding with...are you sittin' down...out of spec ammo. Most hollowpoint
ammo is shorter than hardball. That required that the round release earlier
and straighten out as it entered the chamber...hence the timed-release feed lips. The lighter recoil springs (Which sometimes went down as far as 10-12 pounds) didn't beat the gun up as much, and all was well
with this "schlapp" recturn to battery. Problem is, that these magazines release the round a little too early and too abruptly for use with full-power ammo and the required full-power springs that accompany it. The tapered feed lips of the old hardball magazines effect a more gradual release into the extractor...and apply a little more of the brake as the rim cams it open. Once the rim IS under the extractor...the cartridge is in a straight line, and
chambering is only restricted by friction.

Also...with a pistol that is in-spec, along with a proper magazine...including FOLLOWER DESIGN AND ANGLE...(all you Powermag/47D fans)...The bullet nose actually contacts very little of the feed ramp before being deflected into the chamber...with ammo of the correct length and bullet profile. The round doesn't nose-dive into the lower part of the frame ramp, but strikes it well above the centerline. When you shorten the cartridge overall length below about 1.250 inch...this nose-dive becomes more pronounced (steeper)...and hence the need for modified feed lips that release the round early.

If the magazine and the ammo are correct, the frame ramp could get by with much less depth. The reason that it's the way it is? Another Browning redundancy with reliability as the goal. Just in case the pistol is used with weak mag springs...a bad follower angle...or ammo that has had the bullet set back to a too-short overall length. The deep ramp allows the bullet to nose-dive a little more than it should...and return to the correct angle for reliable chambering.

If you'd like to see a demonstration, you've invited to come and watch several old (1919-to1945)bone-stock USGI pistols gobble up 200-grain lead SWCs..from the original hardball only magazines...without the benefit of ramp and throat polishing or modification.

And...now ya know! ;)

OD*

1st December 2005, 09:50

If I understand it correctly-please correct me if I'm wrong-his early autos didn't have either the thumb OR grip safety
Take a look at the M1907, M1909 and the M1910.
Your correct on the thumb safety, it was requested by the U.S. Cavalry, but he retained it on the 9mm Parabellum Semi-Automatic Pistol, later to be named the P-35, High-Power etc., so he must have found it useful.

1911Tuner

1st December 2005, 11:35

Kyle...Did ya happen to open those pictures?

kylebakner

2nd December 2005, 01:17

Tuner....actually, it was Browning's early autos's I was thinking of....the ones with the dual links, front and rear, like the 1905:

http://home.supernet.com/~kbakner/1905_2.gif

I read a little from the original Colt manual, it only has 1 safety, the disconnecter. I really wonder how JMB intended it to be carried.....full mag and empty chamber? Or cocked and UNlocked? People took responsibility for themselves in those days.....guns were assumed to be dangerous, and you were expected to keep your finger off the trigger until you were ready to shoot.

I'm still trying to digest what you wrote.....I've read it 3 times (takes a while for it to sink in :) ) but I'm beginning to see your point about controlled feed and reliability, it just contradicts several things I thought were true.....gotta think about it.

As a side note...it looks like Browning was messing with the grip angle of his autos as they evolved into the 1911.....was this an attempt on his part to improve reliability? The angle of the 1905 looks like it would present the round in a more "nose up" position than the 1911.....If I understand some of what you wrote.....this might actually DEcrease reliability......

1911Tuner

2nd December 2005, 08:22

Hey Kyle,

hard to say how the earlier "unsafe" models were intended to be carried, but I'd guess either in Condition 2 or 3. People in those days didn't go berserk
over lowering a hammer on a hot chamber the way they do now...because it was understood and the technique was practiced until it was mastered.

Look again at the Luger on the grip angle question. The angle was changed
in order to make the gun fall into the hand and point more naturally. The near 90-degree angle of the earlier pistols tend to cause it to point low when using the gun in a hurry. if you ever get a chance to handle and fire an old 1916 Steyr, you'll see what I mean. You have to make a concious effort to
shoot straight. Not a good feature in a weapon that's intended to be used in
a furious, close-quarters fight. The angle shouldn't have an effect on feed reliability one way or the other as long as the frame and barrel ramp angles are correct.

To take the controlled-feed concept just a little further...Much is made of
the failure to go to/return to battery due to the "Stem Bind" condition...but that description is actually misleading. The 1911...and all true controlled feed systems always operate correctly under a little stem bind. That's what
keeps the round under control from the time it goes into the magazine until the empty case clears the ejection port. When the round is fully controlled, the gun will function just as reliably when held upside-down as when held in the normal position...and this isn't true of straight-line, push-feed/snapover
designs. So, stem bind really contributes to reliability instead of degrading it.
It's excessive stem bind that leads to the 3-Point Jam...caused by the angles
being too steep, or the barrel sitting too high in the bed while in the linked-down feeding position...or the corner at the top of the barrel ramp being too sharp.

Let's walk through the feeding cycle in slow-motion, and it'll be a little clearer.

The slide strikes the round and starts to move it forward. With just a little movement, the round encounters the frame ramp. It's now under pressure at two points...ramp and slide. The rim is against the breechface under pressure, but at a slight angle. (Now you can understand why the fairly large gap between the extractor hook and the breechface. There must be in order to allow for the angled entry under the hook.) The round deflects upward just as it approaches the magazine's release point, and comes under pressure from the bottom of the barrel ramp. Stem bind begins now. The round deflects higher and over the leading edge of the top of the barrel ramp. Stem bind is nearly in full swing, and the cartridge angle performs the primary extractor cam-open. The magazine spring's upward tension begins to push the rear of the cartridge upward, forcing the extractor to reach maximum
deflection as the round starts to break over to horizontal. The bullet nose
strikes the underside of the chamber hood, which...by way of the bullet ogive
forces the nose toward horizontal. The cartridge reaches the magazine release point just as the rim is nearly centered on the breechface due to the upward push of the magazine. The magazine releases the round, and the final approach to battery along with the top corner of the barrel ramp and underside of the chamber finishes rolling the cartridge over to horizontal.
This straight-line entry occurs at just past the mid-point of the chambering phase. The cartridge is 70% in and 30% out...roughly. The round now has a smooth, straight shot at the chamber...and it's been under total control since the cycle began.

Change one thing...Ramp or throat angle...Cartridge overall length...Bullet ogive geometry...Magazine release point...Barrel height when linked down...
Slide speed...Anything...and reliability is compromised. Utilize a magazine design that presents the cartridge at a higher point relative to the breechface, and the rim isn't far enough below the extractor to remain under control. The slide can knock the round ahead of the extractor, and force a push-feed/snapover. Reduce magazine spring tension below a certain point, and the same is true when the magazine gets below 3 rounds. Remove the dimple from the follower and when the last round is up...and mag spring tension is at its mimimum, and the round doesn't usually remain in the correct feeding position, or can even jump the follower under the inertial forces generated by the recoiling pistol. The dimple not only arrests the round's attempt to escape...it helps to time the release of the round. Note that the dimple's location causes the rim to hit a snag just before the release point.
The dimple is important, and its location is critical to correct last-round release timing. It can be a little too far rearward...but not forward.

Study on it. I'll go find a picture sequence of the complete cycle so that you can see each step. The light will click on for ya.

EDIT to Add:

Couldn't find a pictoral of the whole sequence, but if you'll go to the Technical Issues page and scroll to the bottom, you'll find
a link to "How the 1911 Really Works" by Jerry Kuhnhausen.
The very top photo shows the beginning of the feeding phase in which the cartridge is just into the throat, but not yet into the chamber. This shows the angle. Let your imagination do the rest.

Note that in this description, Kuhnhausen makes his most serious error in his description of the "Balanced Thrust Vector" theory of
recoil operation. It can't work the way he describes it, because if the bullet exits before the slide moves, the slide WON'T move.
Other than that one glaring issue, the description is pretty good.

OD*

2nd December 2005, 09:48

was this an attempt on his part to improve reliability?

The change from 84 degrees to 74 degrees was done because it more closely resembles that of an arm held outstretched and the hand in a firing position.

kylebakner

6th December 2005, 00:15

Wow... Tuner...wow. I am actually starting to understand this....after reading
it about 10 times..... and hand cycling a few mags..... and reading it 10 more times..... :)

I actually posted this on a board a while back..... I THOUGHT I had it all figured out.....

I've always loved 1911's......BUT I HAVE NEVER found one that was reliable..... and I think I finally understand why.

Look at the picture below, from Tripp Research. It illustrates what happens when a 1911 magazine is loaded. After the 5th round is loaded, the top round is no longer supported by the one below it, leading to nosedive type jams. (See Tripp Research web page at http://www.trippresearch.com/feature/angulargap.htm (http://) for more info)
Try to strip the top round of a fully loaded 1911 mag and you'll see what I mean....it's awful....the round immediately nosedives, moves forward a little bit, catches in the rim below it, then "leaps" forward to break free....and dives straight down into the front of the magazine.

Compare this to the double stack mags of more modern pistols.. The top round is fully held nose up as it's striped from the mag....no catching in the rim below it, just a smooth glide into the chamber......

I USED to think the 1911 was inherently unreliable because it didn't have "in-line feeding" . Now I really believe it has more to do with the lack of support on the top round.

Because of this, I believe that ALL single stack autos are designed unreliable. If you read the Kahr forum, they have the same reliability issues the 1911 has. You very rarely hear any problems with Sig's, Glocks or CZ's.... I believe because of the double stack mags.

Now....I'm beginning to suspect I might have been a little...."hasty" in my judgment about single stack magazines.....and in retrospect.....all of my single stack magazines were junk.....the only "good" one was a 8rd Wilson....
and it had the usual problems relating to not having the dimple on the follower.

Just a couple of questions, if you have the time...

1. Is "controlled feed" even possible if the round is in-line with the chamber? Or does it need the "bump" to make sure the round is pushed against the breechface and under the extractor? Do all in line feeding pistols push-feed every once in a while.....and thus need an external extracter?

2. Do you think Browning understood the concept of in-line feed and discarded it? Or the idea never occurred to him? I had always assumed it had never occurred to him..... but he was a smart guy.....I can't believe he didn't think of it.

3. The "old style" tapered magazine lips vs. the "new style" wadcutter lips. It seems to me that the "old style" would release the round at different points as spring pressure drops as the mag empties. The first round, being under more pressure, will be pushed up sooner than the last round, which is under less magazine pressure.....which might be BETTER than the wadcutter lips, which seems to me would release the round at the same point all the time.....

Thanks,
Kyle

OD*

6th December 2005, 00:42

Kyle,

Pick up a copy of "John M. Browning: American Gunmaker" Book by John Browning and Curt Gentry. You may be pleasantly surprised at what JMB knew.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=662669

1911Tuner

6th December 2005, 00:43

1. Is "controlled feed" even possible if the round is in-line with the chamber?

No. In order to be controlled, the round has to come at the extractor from underneath. The angle is necessary for controlled feed.
**************

2. Do you think Browning understood the concept of in-line feed and discarded it? Or the idea never occurred to him? I had always assumed it had never occurred to him..... but he was a smart guy.....I can't believe he didn't think of it.

Of course he did, and he also realized that the round would be pushed ahead of the extractor with a straight-line feed. In fairness, it wasn't Browning's idea. He took it from the Mauser Brothers' bolt-action rifle that would become the workhorse of the German Army...and others.
*******************

3. The "old style" tapered magazine lips vs. the "new style" wadcutter lips. It seems to me that the "old style" would release the round at different points as spring pressure drops as the mag empties. The first round, being under more pressure, will be pushed up sooner than the last round, which is under less magazine pressure.....which might be BETTER than the wadcutter lips, which seems to me would release the round at the same point all the time.

Nope. The release point is controlled by the feed lip geometry. The tapered lips release the round more gradually, and the "wadcutter" design releases it abruptly...Sometimes too abruptly. The tapered design actually STARTS the release a little earlier...but due to the more gradual release, finishes slightly later. Mag spring tension only serves to get the round into position in time...holds it there...and helps to push the rim under the extractor's resistance. It has nothing to do with the release timing.

emiddio

6th December 2005, 03:43

the main reason the full magazine has the bullet end lower is probably related to weight -- the lead end of the cartridge is much heaver than the front -- put 8 45acp together and measure the torque required to keep them level -- the mag spring probably pushes pretty linear upon the follower -- meaning little torque -- IMHO

somehow the 1st/top round being against the mag lips keeps it straight -- and what it looks like in a mag outside of the gun is not necessairly what it would like like when the mag is in the mag well.

1911Tuner

6th December 2005, 08:40

Emiddio, with a proper 1911 magazine, the rounds encounter a little resistance at the back of the mag as it fills. By the time you get to round 5, 6, and 7, you can feel them snap into place as they're pushed toward the rear of the tube...
about the final 1/10th inch...and they're held pretty tightly at the correct angle. When the slide strips the round, the initial point of release causes the round to tip downward slightly and make contact with the upper portion of the feed ramp while the feed lips still have a grip on it. The frame ramp deflects it up toward the mid-point of the barrel ramp. At this point, primary extractor cam-open begins. As the round moves just a bit further forward,
the rim approaches the release point...which has actually already started with the old-style tapered "hardball" lips...and the mag spring gives it a boost
as it starts to break over to horizontal. The transition from magazine to extractor control is smooth with the old magazine design...and fairly abrupt
with the new-style.

If the cartridge overall length is too far out of spec..short...the angle on entry
into the chamber is steeper, causing the bullet ogive to strike the top area of the chamber too far rearward...and you have a 3-point jam. A short OAL also allows the round to move farther forward before deflecting off the feed ramp, causing it to go into a steeper downward angle...and right there is the cause for nose-dive failures to feed. If the round does happen to deflect upward enough to enter the chamber, the angle of entry is even steeper, compounding the problem. Too steep on the upward angle also makes it harder for the rim to get under the extractor unless it's modified slightly in the area behind the hook...actually moving the rear portion of the hook farther forward with a file...increasing the distance from breechface to hook
to allow for the sharper angle.

It all goes back to correct specs. Magazine...Ammunition...Extractor.

The biggest problem with today's guns, magazines and ammo is that they've been made wrong for so long, very few people below the age of 50 remember how they used to be. They think that this is the way it's always been...and it just ain't so. It's been said that the 1911 was designed to feed and function with ball only...but the assumption is made only because that's all that was available then. The gun will function with a variety of ammunition
other than ball...in its original guise...as long as the ogive shape is correct and the overall length falls between 1.230 and 1.270 inch...and the closer you stick to 1.250, the better.

The H&G 200-grain SWC was designed to duplicate the OAL and the bullet nose contact points of ball for a very good reason, and if the gun is within spec on all counts, it will feed that bullet shape from a WW1 or WW2 issue "Hardball" magazine...without the benefit of the darling of the gunzine crowd...the "Ramp and Throat Job."

I've shot a few of my original, unmodified GI pistols on occasion with downloaded handloads using the 200-grain H&G bullet design. Witnesses are amazed, and ask what in the world I did to get that old warhorse to feed semi wadcutters. I answer..."Not a thing." They don't believe it and ask to see the ramp and throat. Stock as the day it was built. The old-style magazines that feed the guns is the clincher. They assume that I've simply fallen onto a rare gun...until I show'em how the others run with the same ammo and mags. WW1 era Colts...WW2 era Rands and Colts and Ithacas and US&S pistols...They all work fine because they were properly made.

Nope. They just don't build'em like they used to. If the pistol is within spec on all counts...and the magazines are correctly made...and the ammo is as it should be...the 1911 will wear out your hand and your wallet long before it malfunctions.

SAWBONES

6th December 2005, 15:47

'Tuner, I've had occasional problems with spec Colt, Wolff and other standard flat-with-tiny bump magazine followers (and other "non-skirted" or "short-skirted" followers like the Devel angled-leaf type) riding forward after feeding the last round, thereby tying up the magazine removal. I have never had this happen with longer-skirted followers like Tripp's or the Metalform steel convex, though both of these lack the little bump, of course.

I understand your descriptions of the mechanics of and reasons for the design of the original follower, but I must say I've never had problems with the noted longer-skirted followers; they feed every round, don't ride forward, and are reasonably durable.

Do you see particular problems with these followers, and can you recommend a solution to the tendency for the stock followers to ride forward after feeding the final round, or do you perhaps know a source for followers which have the stock specs but with a longer front skirt?
Thanks.

1911Tuner

6th December 2005, 16:27

Howdy Sawbones,

The dimple addresses one issue. namely, the control and release timing of the last round. That's the whole reason that it's there...and mainly for control...keeping the last round from jumping the follower and getting ahead of the extractor. It's actually more of a backup to the spring as it weakens with use. Although a good, strong spring reduces the frequency of that malfunction, it doesn't do it every time, and can't be counted on to do it
after it loses just a little of its original tension.

The standard 7-round follower shpuldn't rock forward and nose-dive enough to contact the feed ramp if it's in-spec. Some do, though, and the solution is to simply shorten the front a little...about .010 inch should do. Follow the radius and break the sharp conners and burrs that are left. This is one operation that a Dremel is iminently suited for. I've owned and used several Colt alloy-framed Commanders over the years, and have always used the standard magazine/follower design...and I've never had a damaged frame
ramp resulting from follower contact that so many people are noticing with the
split-leaf, Devel followers in the aftermarket 8-round magazines. On the last batch of Metalform mags and spare followers that I ordered, a small percentage required a little reduction at the front to work smoothly in the magazines, and most of those were with the spares.

I did a fairly extensive test using Metalform's round-topped followers in 10 magazines, and although they're very good, they don't adequately control the last round. Partly due to the tension with the proprietary springs that the magazine/follower combination require, and partly due to the lack of a positive stop provided by the raised dimple on standard magazines. The slight upward angle of the follower does help a lot, but not quite enough. It may be enough with an adequate spring, but not as it stands. The standard Wolff 11-pound spring will only occasionally fit under the follower and allow 7-rounds in the magazines. I was able to get 3 out of the 10 that I tested to work...and even at that, I would occasionally get a last-round malfunction with the round jumping the follower and forcing the extractor to climb the rim.

I did a slight modification on the round followers that provided a positive stop...a shallow groove that ran across the follower just behind the release point, and flattening a narrow area just behind the groove to allow the rim to drop in it...installed the followers in short Officer's Model magazines with the Wolff 11-pound springs...and it worked like a charm. If Wolff would market an extra-power spring that would fit under Metalform's round followers correctly...and I could get them to study my redesign, they'd probably have a winner on their hands.

The round follower has one advantage over the flat follower...It provides a convex surface that helps to kick the last empty round out of the port in a more positive way when extractor tension is less than it should be. Now that I mention it...that's another function that many people aren't aware of. When using the standard, non-extended ejector, the upcoming rounds in the mag actually bump the empty case while it's still held by the extractor, providing primary ejection. When using an extended type, the case hits the ejector before the slide is rearward far enough to let the upcoming round contact the empty. Another one of those little things about the gun that never occurs to most folks unless it's pointed out.

emiddio

6th December 2005, 16:42

Emiddio, with a proper 1911 magazine, the rounds encounter a little resistance at the back of the mag as it fills. By the time you get to round 5, 6, and 7, you can feel them snap into place as they're pushed toward the rear of the tube...

my previous comment you reference Tuner -- was regarding the discussion earlier -- in regard to the picture at "http://www.trippresearch.com/feature/angulargap.htm"
thanks for the info.

1911Tuner

6th December 2005, 17:44

my previous comment you reference Tuner -- was regarding the discussion earlier -- in regard to the picture at "http://www.trippresearch.com/feature/angulargap.htm"
thanks for the info.

I know...I've tested two of the Tripp Cobras, and was pretty much unimpressed with their performance. The design tries to "correct" the feed angle and straighten it out by presenting the round farther up in the magwell. It neatly solves the problem of the 3-point jam that wouldn't occur if all specs were adhered to...and possibly creates another problem by presenting the round so high as to negate proper controlled feed in some guns. In short, a band-aid fix...An ingenious solution to a non-existent problem...and an expensive one at that. Plus, it doesn't always work as advertised for the one problem that it's trying to solve.

Read this carefully: The controlled-feed concept requires that the cartridge approach the chamber at an angle. When that carefully designed angle is changed or reduced, controlled feed is compromised. Those angles were the result of many hours of midnight oil in the development of the gun. There was no: "Well, this looks about right. What's next"?

Like the "Wonderful, New" PXT extractor, and the Aftec that preceeded it,
it's another one of those things that the manufacturers are furiously trying to convince us that we simply MUST have in order to make our unreliable, outdated 1911 pistols function. Marketing.

The much-bemoaned lack of cartridge support at the front of the magazine isn't an issue if all is within spec. It worked that way for over 90 years before the Cobra, and it'll work for another 90 years without it...if the guns are built correctly and ammo of the correct length is fired in them. The new-age toy designers are in deep denial that John Browning really did know more about his pistol than they do...or apparently ever will. For the record...
I never saw so many functional problems with the 1911 until Colt entered its
Series 70 dark days...and other gunmakers, smelling blood...jumped into the market with their own versions...few of which met specifications. Competition then forced everybody to dumb down...and the result is what we now have. Namely, everybody scrambling about attempting to "correct the design flaws, and make the guns run." Sheer madness...Go get the blueprints and build'em just like that, right down to the grip screws...and many of the gadget and gimmick pushers will have to find other markets to milk their fortunes from.

Invitation stands....Come see my 60-90 year-old pistols gobble up about anything you can throw at'em...without trick magazines or full-length guide rods or shock buffers or variable springs or power extractors or super lubes or
any of the gamer's gadgets that sell like ice in hades. Lemme know when you'll be here. The pistols stand ever at the ready. ;)

Pappy

6th December 2005, 18:34

If you plan on shooting a lot...upward of 100,000 rounds, and most of it will be with lead bullets, (which wear the barrel at about 5% the rate of jacketed bullets)...

Johnny, why do you say lead wears barrel faster than copper? Embedded grit and dirt? Thanks...Pappy

1911Tuner

6th December 2005, 20:21

Johnny, why do you say lead wears barrel faster than copper? Embedded grit and dirt? Thanks...Pappy

Pappy...You been samplin' the cookin' wine again? :D

5% = 1/20th...

Pappy

6th December 2005, 20:50

Pappy...You been samplin' the cookin' wine again? :D

5% = 1/20th...

OOOps!! Looks like I read it bass-ackwards....Hic!!

1911Tuner

6th December 2005, 22:24

OOOps!! Looks like I read it bass-ackwards....Hic!!

:D

This gettin' old business is a real pisser ain't it?

Wouldn't have surprised me if I HADDA written it. My haste-induced dyslexia
fairly sings some days.

novak

15th January 2006, 23:20

another question -- not a complaint -- not a recommendation.

Tuner and others have said the 3 lugs each provide a lesser amount of surface than the Glock/Sig single Lugs designs do -- but in total provide a "super sufficient(my words) amount of surface area -- but some fittings do not use all 3 lugs even though they are present.

if the colt design used a single lug -- deeper (thicker doesnt seem to make sense regarding the 1st/closest to chamber lug) -- i presume the tilt angle would have to be more -- and might work in the full size 1911 -- but might be hard to make work in the shorter action guns - but if deep enough -- even though not "flat" like Glock/Sigs -- seems like it "could" work -- could have same surface area?

seems to me fitting 1 Lug is easier than 3 -- and I've seen that even with a short Hood -- in my opinion -- adequate results have been obtained -- i made hood short for one 9mm/38super barrels i've fitted to my guns -- and have about 4000 rnds thru them so far.

Part of the barrel mates to the slide breech in places other than the Hood.

so i guess the question -- would a single Lug 1911 offer anything simpler in fitting ? and would it work good/well? -- obviously -- it would not be a 1911 any more if only 1 lug.

to be a 1911 design it cannot be improved - by definition.

I have also been wondering about the 1911 design & how we could improve it. I agree with your observations & i mean no offense to all of you here folks, i also love the 1911. But i'd be inclined leave its original design for sentimental reasons hehe & build a totally new .45 cal pistol making the 1911 model as its base and incorporating the following improvements:

1. Barrel lacking design of Berretta 92FS or the Glock model, Berreta's seems to be more accurate & less jam prone while Glock seems to be more robust.
2. Long slide rails of Tanfoglio, Jericho, & other European designs.
3. Hammer spring design of Kel-tec .380s & 9mm for simplicity.
4. Titanium slide & frame.
5. Double slack but sleek magazine style of STI.
6. Ghost ring sights designed for pistols.
7. External Extractor with loaded chamber indicators.
8. Barrel bushing should be incorporated with the slide & exposed barrel Berretta 92 style.

There you go... Whatta nice pistol we got here.

What dya think hehehe

Thanks,

P.S. i'm an engineer too...