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

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

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

Thank You

__________________
Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try. Peggy Noonan
Cynicism is usually an attempt to justify laziness. Jeff Cooper

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

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

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

__________________
Hawkmoon
On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

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

In other words:

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

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

Thank You.

__________________
Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try. Peggy Noonan
Cynicism is usually an attempt to justify laziness. Jeff Cooper

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



and the #1 M1911

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



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

__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper

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

__________________
"A grip safety is just another excess moving part. I have never known one to prevent an accident, and moreover, it is difficult to postulate a circumstance in which it might." Jeff Cooper

You would also need a 1911 receiver and early sights.

__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper

You can get the correct receivers from Caspian Arms.

__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper

This is the info I was looking for. Thank You everybody!

How were the "early" sights different than the GI sights on say, A Springfield GI model?

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

Feel free to post more info if you have it.

__________________
Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try. Peggy Noonan
Cynicism is usually an attempt to justify laziness. Jeff Cooper

Depends on how early you are trying to replicate, early ones (until 1913) were rounded.

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

__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper

OD* that is a great website!

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

__________________
Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try. Peggy Noonan
Cynicism is usually an attempt to justify laziness. Jeff Cooper