Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/9/2005 9:07:28 AM EDT
I have BlackJack buffers in my Kalishnakov rifles, but as I was browsing blackjackbuffers.com the other day I noticed 1911 buffers. I understand the purpose of these on the com-bloc military rifles as you can see impact marks from the carrier on the receiver, but how necessary are they on a 1911, if at all. Just wanted to get some opinions.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:08:22 AM EDT
Solution looking for a Problem, often CAUSING problems......
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:12:48 AM EDT
I use them at the range, but i take them out if used for defence, they can tie up a gun when they get worn out and mushroom on the guide rod. later, W.B.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:13:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 9:14:31 AM EDT by warlord]
If you buy one, make sure you find out what their return policy if it does not function correctly with your particular gun.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:14:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Solution looking for a Problem, often CAUSING problems......



+1. With the buffer in place, it actually prevents that last bit of slide travel beyond the slide lock. This may cause feeding problems when you go to chamber that first round.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:14:09 AM EDT
After looking at them and seeing some internal battering going on, I put one in and it stopped the damage. I have had one ( changing them out for a new one every so often ) in all three of my 1911s for about 8 years or so. NEVER have had a problem.
My advice to you, get some, possibly Wilson's ( that is what I use ) put about 1000 rnds through it and see what happens. If your not having any battering issues , don't worry about it.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:19:13 AM EDT
The people who put 100,000++ rounds through their 1911s use them.

People who don't shoot enough to know their guns are generally afraid of them.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:24:49 AM EDT
They do limit slide travel. That being said, they will keep a Kimber from being able to be "sling shot" (releasing the slide by pulling it back and letting it go.) Kimber's slide stop hole is not mil-spec.

If you have a shooter that you think of like a safe queen then by all means, use buffs.

If it's a daily carry and you have come to grips that it may be worn out after 10,000 rounds, leave the buff out.

JMHO
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:26:02 AM EDT
I shoot only 15-20K per year these days. Never shot more than 82K in a single year. Used them for a short peroid in the late '80s. Had one come apart in the gun.

Use the correct rated spring (I like the IMSI ?), change it BEFORE it gets too short and buffers aren't required.

Eddie
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:26:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By stipilot:
People who don't shoot enough to know their guns are generally afraid of them.



People who don't shoot much ( less than 2,000 rounds a year) don't need them.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:30:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LS1Eddie:
I shoot only 15-20K per year these days. Never shot more than 82K in a single year. Used them for a short peroid in the late '80s. Had one come apart in the gun.

Use the correct rated spring (I like the IMSI ?), change it BEFORE it gets too short and buffers aren't required.

Eddie




Using the CORRECT parts instead of a BANDAID device.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 2:54:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:00:03 PM EDT
But Bill Wilson says................bah
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:34:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By stipilot:
The people who put 100,000++ rounds through their 1911s use them.

People who don't shoot enough to know their guns are generally afraid of them.

+1
Used to get quite a bit of battering on my frame of my Series 80, shooting lots and lots of standard loads for IPSC. So much that the barrel wasn't seating on the frame, and I was having to remove a bit of bulging metal from the frame and replace a stretched link.
I use the buffers, now. no more trouble.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:36:46 PM EDT
As Clint Smith wisely said, "If John Browning thought the 1911 needed a buffer, he'd have put one in there."

Who do you think knows more about the 1911? John Browning or "buffer" salesmen?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:27:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
As Clint Smith wisely said, "If John Browning thought the 1911 needed a buffer, he'd have put one in there."

Who do you think knows more about the 1911? John Browning or "buffer" salesmen?



I agree with you and understand exactly what you are saying, but let me play devils advocate here:

The 1911 was designed for military use and mass-produced for such. When the armory decided that a particular 1911 had surpassed it's usefulness and reliability, it was simply discarded. Easy for them to do, they have an endless supply of money (or at least they think so) to replace it with another 1911. I would have a hard time simply discarding mine and buying a new one. On second thought, that would be easy, it is my wife that would have a hard time with it.

Anyways, that was the root of my question. I can clearly see both sides of the coin. After reading the replies on the thread, I think the coin is still teetering and has not yet fallen.

Keep the replies going!
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:33:13 PM EDT
Do the Wilson Combat CQBs come with buffers?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:35:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mywifehatesguns:
The 1911 was designed for military use and mass-produced for such. When the armory decided that a particular 1911 had surpassed it's usefulness and reliability, it was simply discarded. Easy for them to do, they have an endless supply of money (or at least they think so) to replace it with another 1911.



Yeah, but there are guys who've been in the service before and during the transition to the M9 who'll tell you that they've seen 1911s in basic that have probably seen MILLIONS of rounds fired over the years. They still work. These are probably the most abused pistols anywhere. The only real maintenance done is the recoil and firing pin spring changes.

The only time a shock buffer would be recommended is if you're feeding it a steady diet of +P ammunition (not recommended anyway), shoot a 10mm, or if you have an aluminum frame, which is more prone to the work hardening and eventual failure.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:35:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mywifehatesguns:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
As Clint Smith wisely said, "If John Browning thought the 1911 needed a buffer, he'd have put one in there."

Who do you think knows more about the 1911? John Browning or "buffer" salesmen?



I agree with you and understand exactly what you are saying, but let me play devils advocate here:

The 1911 was designed for military use and mass-produced for such. When the armory decided that a particular 1911 had surpassed it's usefulness and reliability, it was simply discarded. Easy for them to do, they have an endless supply of money (or at least they think so) to replace it with another 1911. I would have a hard time simply discarding mine and buying a new one. On second thought, that would be easy, it is my wife that would have a hard time with it.

Anyways, that was the root of my question. I can clearly see both sides of the coin. After reading the replies on the thread, I think the coin is still teetering and has not yet fallen.

Keep the replies going!



I'll +1 that..I have a buffer in my WWII Colt. Yah, it hindered some things (like the slide wouldn't lock back if I had an empty mag in it and manually pulled the slide back, unless I really tried)..but if anything it's saving a lot of battering to the frame. I've put a lot of rounds down it with the buffer in place. Now, the slide will lock back under normal pressure, manually. It's about time to replace it.

For a new piece, I'd just throw in an 18# or 20# spring and call it a day; after all, it's a new piece. For an old warhorse that I'll be shooting occasionally, a buffer is a safe bet. It certainly can't hurt.

I've had no loss of shooting functionality, and it's locked the slide back just fine shooting.

I've heard of failures in feeding when the buffer fails and basically comes apart inside the weapon; that's to be expected. Just replace the buffer after X rounds as regular maintaince (I'd suggest between 1-2k rounds/buffer; could probably go 5k without problems, but...why risk?)

Was it designed for one? No...could it use one, especially on older pieces/things like Sistemas which are reputed to have softer steel? Yes.

In my opinion.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:36:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 6:38:40 PM EDT by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:39:22 PM EDT
I use Wilson ShokBuffs in my Kimber and it doesn't affect it at all. If you do use them, inspect them regularly to make sure they're not battered and beat-up.

HH
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:39:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SilverState:
Do the Wilson Combat CQBs come with buffers?



well?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:41:52 PM EDT
Didn't need them in 1911, don't need them now.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:45:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SilverState:

Originally Posted By SilverState:
Do the Wilson Combat CQBs come with buffers?



well?



The reason I ask is because I bought my Wilson Combat CQB used and it came with a buffer. So I was wondering if all the CQBs come with them, or if the previous owner added it. If it came with it, I will continue to use them, but if not, then I won't use them.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:52:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SilverState:

Originally Posted By SilverState:

Originally Posted By SilverState:
Do the Wilson Combat CQBs come with buffers?



well?



The reason I ask is because I bought my Wilson Combat CQB used and it came with a buffer. So I was wondering if all the CQBs come with them, or if the previous owner added it. If it came with it, I will continue to use them, but if not, then I won't use them.



I'm pretty sure they do come with the new gun. Wilson Combat is in the business of selling shock buffers, and if they don't even use their own product, what makes you think anyone else would buy them?


However...... they are the ONLY company that uses them....... and no complaints from users of other companies' guns......
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:59:51 PM EDT
I am not sure of military pistols in the past seeing a whole lot of shooting. The pre-modern military was very stingy with ammunition, most weapons were worn out via maintenance and not shooting.
Top Top