Welcome to M1911.ORG
The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site


John needs your help
Please read this message.


Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from the companies advertising above, or near the bottom of our pages, please use their banners in our sites. Whatever you buy from them, using those banners, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Page 1 of 22 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 217

Thread: Commanche design defect?

THREAD CLOSED
This is an old thread. You can't post a reply in it. It is left here for historical reasons.Why don't you create a new thread instead?
  1. #1
    Join Date
    20th December 2007
    Posts
    45
    Posts liked by others
    0

    Commanche design defect?

    I posted a rant on another site about chronic ejection problems with my C7 and 8, even after they have been back to Baer and to two very reputable smiths. As a result of some helpful responses and research, it appears that Baer uses full-size frames on the Commanches, and that this creates inherent reliability problems due to insufficient slide travel. If this is true, why don't they use proper Commander-sized slides, and shouldn't they be disclosing the problem to buyers (like me)? I'm going to try having an EGW ejector cut extra long, and if that doesn't work I think my only option is to have the frame cut down. Doesn't seem right.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    29th May 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece, Earth
    Posts
    28,076
    Posts liked by others
    204
    Blog Entries
    2
    The difference between a "Government" and a "Commander" frame is that the slide rails and the area where the guide rod flange rests are cut back by about .1". That's 2.54mm. If you believe that's the reason for the problem you have, there is a way to prove it. Take a standard guide rod and machine its flange back, so that it is about half its initial thickness. That should give you about 1mm of travel back without sacrificing anything. If that corrects the problem, even partially, you can then machine the slide's spring tunnel for the rest of the difference.

    But I seriously doubt that's the source of your problem.
    John Caradimas SV1CEC
    The M1911 Pistols Organization
    http://www.m1911.org

  3. #3
    Join Date
    24th April 2005
    Posts
    240
    Posts liked by others
    0
    I have about 500 rounds through my TRS Commanche without a single problem.

    Tom

  4. #4
    Join Date
    19th September 2007
    Posts
    32
    Posts liked by others
    0
    I have one that has about 200+ rounds through her....no problems what so ever.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    25th December 2006
    Location
    Ringgold, GA
    Posts
    577
    Posts liked by others
    0
    SRP Commanche - no problems.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    20th May 2006
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    3,376
    Posts liked by others
    2
    It's NOT a "Commander". Hence, the name change.

    The only time I slingshot a pistol is simply to teach a client how to do it. IMPO, any gun that won't chamber reliably from the slide stop is junk and should be repaired or destroyed. Sligshotting is slower and requires time and manipulations that could get you killed. Commanches are intended as carry guns. I don't see any reason to ever slingshot a carry gun.

    Other than above, I don't have a problem with slingshotting, but it's not a bulwark of design competence. I certainly understand that JMB designed the M1911 to slingshot, but he had nothing to do with the design of the Commander, any more than he did in the design of the Commanche.

    The title of this thread makes my hockles stand up. The gun runs or it doesn't. Period.
    Guns kill people the same way spoons make you fat.
    Likes (1) :
    shadowflight762 (2nd February 2019)



  7. #7
    Join Date
    18th December 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    765
    Posts liked by others
    2
    My first Bear was a C-7, a beautiful pistol that had lots of FTE's and FTF's, after 2000 rounds and a trip back to Bear it still had problems so I returned it to Davidson's for a refund.
    My TRS Commanche had lots of FTF's when new and would not slingshot until 1500 rounds and a lot of breakfree, now it's my main carry gun but it took a while to trust it.
    My full size TRS has 0 problems, GREAT pistol.
    I recently purchased a used C-6, runs 100%. The only problem is it will not slingshot. When the pistol is locked open and the slide is pulled to the rear it will not disengage the slide lock, either the notch in the slide is wrong or the slide stop is not right. To me every 1911 should slingshot, especially a 2000$ one.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    17th October 2006
    Posts
    839
    Posts liked by others
    0
    Saw a reference on a post at louder than words from a pretty high end smith who indicated that Commanches tend to have reliability problems...
    EBK
    "...there's one in every crowd for cryin' out loud, but why was it always turning out to be me?" --- W. Jennings

  9. #9
    Join Date
    27th December 2004
    Location
    GTT
    Posts
    893
    Posts liked by others
    0
    I don't get the 'hockles standing up' from Ping. In this post, it seems that he is addressing issues of perceived terminology.

    The OP said 'Commanche' and refered to 'Commander-size'.

    He also said that it didn't work.

    I like my 'Commander size' Baer.

    I wouldn't do it again had I known about Mr. Baer's mfg shortcuts.

    He makes his Commanche version of a Commander from a std Gov't Model frame. No disclosure is made to the prospective buyer.

    If the OP has a $ 1,800 pistol that doesn't work, my hockles wouldn't stand up...but be as bent out of shape as Rosie's lawn chair.

    salty
    Last edited by saltydog; 21st December 2009 at 12:55.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    17th October 2009
    Posts
    121
    Posts liked by others
    0
    here's some food for thought...

    Quote Originally Posted by John Harrison
    I am not assuming to speak for Baer, but would offer this guess. They are not taking the extra steps needed to give their shorter guns full Commander spec rearward travel because it would require several additional steps in machining and manufacture. It might require stocking extra Commander spec components. I am guessing that they choose to leave these steps off because they think their shorter guns run okay without the full rearward travel that Commanders have. Some of them do and clearly, some don't. As far as I know, they are the only manufacturer that takes this short cut. Why they do it is none of my business.

    The Commander (even when built to Colt specs) has a little over .100" less rearward travel than a Government Model. When you start taking away rearward travel, you change the point where the empty case is brought into contact with the ejector as well as how much more travel beyond that point is available. When you change the Commander system by leaving the recoil spring seat at the Gov't Model location, you take away another .100" of rearward travel. I'm not an engineer, but I know that if you don't let the case meet the ejector about .450" or more before the slide stops, then the energy that is smacking the case rim and launching the empty out of the pistol is reduced and ejection consistency and reliability will suffer.

    I have reached the conclusion that in most Commanders and Officers pistols, the ejector nose should be approx. .280" forward of the front mounting leg. That's what I've measured from a number of Colt Commanders. Not all aftermarket ejectors have a nose that long. When you use an ejector with this nose length, you may have difficulty ejecting live rounds and need extra clearance at the front wall of the ejection port.

    To make a non-spec gun to Commander spec takes a boring bar operation to face back the seat for the recoil spring guide by .100" to make it Commander spec. The lower barrel feet also have to be reshaped to Commander spec by removing a bit of steel from the front face, so it doesn't bump into the back side of the spring guide. The "button" in the center rear of the spring guide must be shortened to Commander spec for the same reason. Finally, the ejector should be set up as mentioned earlier.

Page 1 of 22 1234511 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, please use their banners above. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Non-gun-related supporters.
Thank you for visiting our supporters.