[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 1911 reliability (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 6/24/2011 7:35:21 AM EDT
|
There have been a number of 1911 reliability threads recently. At the risk of oversimplifying things, some feel that the 1911 is outdated and it is best suited for the shooting enthusiast. If the 1911 has a problem it is because today there are too many cheaply made models that do not adhere to the original design. There are too many 1911s that are poisoned with MiM parts and other production shortcuts. I looked and looked and I can't find any older references to reliablity issues with the 1911. It seems that all the complaints are recent ones and I would be very interested if anyone can point me to any older ( pre 1960) sources that refer to reliablity problems and the 1911 |
|
There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. |
|
Quoted:
There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. yes, yes it is.. parts need to be hand fitted. Like the old days. |
|
Quoted:
A 1911 can be built to run reliably. I would say that a proper 1911 SHOULD be built to run reliably. During WW1 and WW2, literally MILLIONS were built that were extremely reliable. It wasn't until tons of different companies started producing clones, and race gun versions, and everything inbetween, that 1911s started to get a reputation for unreliability. A correctly built 1911 is an extremely reliable gun. I would wager that if someone tried to claim in 1945 that the 1911 was an unreliable gun, they'd be laughed out of the gun community. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A 1911 can be built to run reliably. I would say that a proper 1911 SHOULD be built to run reliably. They're a lot like AR-15 carbines in that regard. The ones that are unreliable and that cause people to bitch tend to have one or more common elements: 1. Cheap and less-than-reputable maker, of the whole gun or of certain critical parts that the owner replaced because they're "just as good as..." 2. Improper/inadequate lubrication. 3. Shitty magazines and/or ammo. I don't know. I'm lazy when it comes to maintaining pistols and I have big hands, so I sold my last 1911 a few years ago and went back to the boring world of Glocks. |
|
Quoted:
Warning! opinion ahead: GI 1911s and fitted match 1911s are reliable. High-end 1911s made with unfitted match parts are where shooters run into problems. I'll agree with that, and add: -USGI 1911s are reliable with ball ammo only -Budget priced 1911s are not reliable. It's a crap shoot and the odds are you're gonna get a gun that doesn't run 100%. I own a bunch of 1911s, including a Wilson, pre 70 Colt, and a few USGI models. If I need a .45 that I can trust my life on, I'm grabbing my Sig P220. |
|
Quoted: No second place winner by Bill Jordan. He specifically mentions how the 1911 won't reliably feed hollow points or soft point. Not sure on publication date but the material and photos look like mid 60s from what I recall. Bullet design and the idea back then the extractor needed to firmly hold the rim to the slide's breech face. I have never touched the extractor on my Springfield which is ~19 years young. It will feed ANYTHING from the mag. Even fired cases. Even from WWII surplus magazines. |
|
I have a 70's era Gold Cup set up for Bullseye shooting and it always tends to have trouble with the last round in the magazine, no matter what magazine I use.
The reliability issue isn't a problem for me since it has a great trigger and is super accurate. Personally I believe the reliability standards for pistols have gone way up and what was OK reliability before the age of Glock now just won't work. For example, my dad has tons of trouble with his GM trucks but he has always bought GM and thinks nothing of it. I buy Honda and can't understand why he puts up with this. |
|
Why not test the 1911. Go to a gOod range and rent a nice colt, kimber and maybe even a Wilson. Send 100 rounds down range. See if any fail.
The first 1911 I owned was a Para ord GI expert.... POS 2. Rock island full-sized.......winner, never one FTF or any failure. Countless rounds 3. Kimber tactical...... Love at first sight. Again never any kind of FTF 4. Rock island compact...... POS 5. Kimber custom Clakamas era........ Again beauty in the fourm of a 1911 Just my 2 cents But I would try out different 1911's before you buy. |
|
Quoted:
During WW1 and WW2, literally MILLIONS were built that were extremely reliable. ...built to essentially a TDP with tight tolerances and fed with ammo specifically designed for reliability in the 1911. A correctly built 1911 is an extremely reliable gun. I would wager that if someone tried to claim in 1945 that the 1911 was an unreliable gun, they'd be laughed out of the gun community. The thing is that "reliable" has been redefined in our era. |
|
http://vuurwapenblog.com
The following is an excerpt from the book A Rifleman Went to War, by Captain Herbert W. McBride, of the Canadian Expeditionary Force and the United States Army. He fought in World War I, mostly in France, and went from junior enlisted to officer during that time. Most of this book is a discussion of rifles, machine guns, or the war in general; all of it is fascinating to a history buff like me, and I found this section on pistols quite interesting. This was written in 1935. As I was quite familiar with the new Colt Automatic, I was able to be of some assistance during the preliminary work of breaking them in, and it was not long until the officers were accustomed to the peculiarities of the gun and could make it behave to their satisfaction. Those who had had experience with the revolver entertained the almost universal prejudice against the automatic. Funny, isn't it, how we hate to discard our old loves and take up with new ones - in the shooting game I mean, it appears to be easy enough regarding some other things. But even the most conservative of the old-timers soon recognize the real advantages of the later type weapon. I staged several realistic demonstrations; including fast reloading in the dark and such stunts, and that converted most of them. As to reliability– dependability in an emergency – there was little choice between the revolver and the automatic. Both types would function properly with the same degree of care. It is possible that there were instances of an automatic "jamming" now and then, but I personally never had it happen to me during the war, nor did I see or hear of any instance of it happening. All these arguments as to the relative merits of the revolver and the automatic pistol will probably continue for another generation. Most of the old-timers who learn to shoot with the revolver have a deep-seated prejudice against the automatic – but when it came down to the root of their argument, it all seems to base upon the "hang" of the two guns - the newer automatic does not point right with the same old habitual "kink in the wrist." I have used the 45 automatic ever since 1911, but for 20 years prior to that time had used the revolver. Even now, I find myself having a sneaking sort of preference for the revolver and feel confident that I can make a better score on the target with it, either slow or rapid fire. But in spite of all of this, I unhesitatingly chose the automatic for actual use in war. To my mind, the great advantage of the automatic lies in the ease and rapidity with which it can be reloaded – especially in the dark. Anyone who doubts this can easily satisfy himself by trying to hurriedly reload a revolver in the dark, with a crowd of roughnecks milling all around and trying to hit someone with clubs, knives and fists. Or, if this seems too rough just get some friend to jostle you about or run into you while trying it... There's just one little trick the user of the automatic should train himself to keep in mind – and do – reload while there is still a cartridge in the chamber; do not shoot until the gun is entirely empty. Even though you have fired but four or five shots, better drop out that old magazine and slip in a full one... ..."Close up" work is the only place that the pistol figures in warfare. Now I'm going to tell you the honest truth about something. During my war experience, which extended from September, 1915 to February, 1917 and included innumerable little contacts with the enemy and several major battles, I fired exactly 7 shots at an enemy with my pistol. Seven – count 'em. I used up quite a lot of ammunition, shooting at rats, rabbits, and tin cans, but as to shooting Germans, well, I've told you, seven was all and the longest range at which I fired at these individuals was never more than 10 feet. But brother, those were seven badly needed shots. There may be a moral in this: I don't know. If so, figure it out for yourself. But there is no doubt in my mind that the mere possession of a reliable pistol – and the knowledge how to use it – is a tower of strength for the soldier who goes up against any enemy. He may never use it, may never have a chance to use it, but it sure does give you a lot of confidence to know that you have the old "gat" handy, in case you do happen to bump into some wild eyed individual coming at you with a bayonet... ...The main thing in considering any military pistol is the matter of dependability. Will it work in all kinds of weather? In mud – in sand – in water? Well, we all know what tests were applied during the two or three years before our Ordnance officers finally approve the Colt. Two solid years of real, practical use, in service in the Islands and in the tests for what you might call durability in which all the others – there were only two, which shall not be named by me – fell by the wayside while the old Colt, refusing to quit, finally wore out the time and patience of the members and board and had to leave it with an unfinished run of some 10,000 rounds without stoppage or malfunction. I was present at that last test, and that may have had something to do with my attitude toward the ugly brute. Still, I can say that my experience in France, as well as that of others of my acquaintance, only tended towards verifying the findings and opinion of our Ordnance board. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be armed with the .45 Colt Automatic found it to be a sufficient and dependable arm in every respect. Let me repeat that I've never had a failure to function properly while in action, nor did I ever hear or know of any such failure occurring with any of my associates or acquaintances. After I came back from the battlefield I commenced to hear of a great many instances in which the gun supposedly gave trouble, but these are invariably told by persons not in the Army or whose line of duty was such as to preclude their ever having actually participated in real fighting, or even front-line service for that matter. Furthermore, I did not consider the automatic pistol to need any special care or attention to keep it in serviceable condition. We had trouble enough with all our firearms for that matter and any rifle, machine gun, revolver, or pistol had to be looked to daily to keep the mud and dirt out of its action and bore. If anything, our handguns were a bit easier to keep in proper shape than the others, because they remained in a holster or inside pocket of a tunic and were not laid down on the ground or exposed to the elements very often. Any military firearm requires daily attention and care to keep it in proper readiness for instant use, and neither pistol nor revolver is any exception to this standing rule. |
|
My father was in the army in the late 50s and early 60s and they never had reliability problems with the 1911. He was on the Army pistol team and they fired standard 1911s that never failed.
They still had them when I joined in the mid-80s until we replaced them with berettas. We never had reliability issues with them. |
|
Not many complaints about it's reliability before the 1970's. More common issues noted at the time were accuracy, size/weight, and capacity.
Col. Charles Askins was setting records with the 1911 pistol when most here's grandparents were little kids. He actually wrote more disparigingly of the 1911 in his 1930s and 1950s books than in his ~1980 book. Keep in mind this is a man who carried a Frank Pachmayr custom 1911 in WWII. His dings against the pistol were size/weight, recoil, and stock accuracy. As noted above, Bill Jordan felt the pistol's inability to feed anything but FMJ or RNL was an issue. At the time, I'll say he was right. Hollow points were virtually non-existant for automatics, and even today most autoloaders can't cope with sharp Keith-style SWC or SWC-HP designs that were considered the best pistol cartridges at the time. Fairbairne & Sykes ran a large police force (7,000 men IIRC) in a very violent pre-war Shanghai. Their men made heavy use of the 1911. They traced most reliability issues back to magazines, and went so far as to procure magazine inspection dies from Colt so that their armorers could veryify magazine integtrity were in for maintenance. |
|
Quoted:
No second place winner by Bill Jordan. He specifically mentions how the 1911 won't reliably feed hollow points or soft point. Not sure on publication date but the material and photos look like mid 60s from what I recall. He also wasn't the most objective voice. He was very much a revolver guy. My experience with mil spec 1911A1s was that they would, in fact, feed JHPs reliably, including the Speer 200 gr "flying ashtray". Of course, this experience is limited to several samples, and only one was feed a large quantity of JHPs (and then, only in the hundreds), but the reliability was 100% in my experience. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No second place winner by Bill Jordan. He specifically mentions how the 1911 won't reliably feed hollow points or soft point. Not sure on publication date but the material and photos look like mid 60s from what I recall. He also wasn't the most objective voice. He was very much a revolver guy. My experience with mil spec 1911A1s was that they would, in fact, feed JHPs reliably, including the Speer 200 gr "flying ashtray". Of course, this experience is limited to several samples, and only one was feed a large quantity of JHPs (and then, only in the hundreds), but the reliability was 100% in my experience. Yes, I have a Military colt 1911 made in 1918 and it feeds hollowpoints reliably as well. Has not been customized or changed since it left the army. |
|
Quoted:
Not many complaints about it's reliability before the 1970's. More common issues noted at the time were accuracy, size/weight, and capacity. Col. Charles Askins was setting records with the 1911 pistol when most here's grandparents were little kids. He actually wrote more disparigingly of the 1911 in his 1930s and 1950s books than in his ~1980 book. Keep in mind this is a man who carried a Frank Pachmayr custom 1911 in WWII. His dings against the pistol were size/weight, recoil, and stock accuracy. As noted above, Bill Jordan felt the pistol's inability to feed anything but FMJ or RNL was an issue. At the time, I'll say he was right. Hollow points were virtually non-existant for automatics, and even today most autoloaders can't cope with sharp Keith-style SWC or SWC-HP designs that were considered the best pistol cartridges at the time. Fairbairne & Sykes ran a large police force (7,000 men IIRC) in a very violent pre-war Shanghai. Their men made heavy use of the 1911. They traced most reliability issues back to magazines, and went so far as to procure magazine inspection dies from Colt so that their armorers could veryify magazine integtrity were in for maintenance. 1911 accuracy was a big problem with the design early on. That's a key reason a lot of old timers didn't care for 1911s or semi autos. Mostly it was fixed by fitting barrels and improving sights and trigger pull and getting rid of hammer bite. I wrote above about actual 1911A1s I've shot, and the one I shot the most (which proved reliable with the JHPs I feed it) was hard to shoot accuratly. The trigger was heavy (or so it seemed at the time), the sights were small and the hammer bite was annoying. I was also shooting a pre WW1 Peacemaker in .45 Colt at the same time, and would have selected it over the 1911 for self defense because I could hit much better with it. In my experience, 1911s can do well with Keith SWCs, there is a very good 240 gr Keith bullet designed for .45 ACP revolvers that can work well in 1911s (or not, it depends). And magazines are a big part of it. The modern double column mags that funnel the rounds before feeding them are huge potential clusterfucks if not done right. |
|
Quoted:
I have never touched the extractor on my Springfield which is ~19 years young. It will feed ANYTHING from the mag. Even fired cases. Even from WWII surplus magazines. My Springfield 90s Edition is about the same age. It was uber reliable for most of that time, shooting huge amounts of ammo (mostly 200 gr SWCs cranked out on a Dillon, W231 bought in 8 lb containers). The few times I went shooting with people who owned Glocks, the Glocks jammed and the 1911 didn't (each time the Glocks only jammed once in several hundred rounds, but they did jam, so in my admitted limited experience, plastic perfection is short of perfect). About a year ago, the staked on front sight fell off during fast draw drills (it was my primary pistol for those 19 or 20 years and was used in all my fast draw drills until this last year). It has been replaced with dovetailed night sights. I have had several instances where the hammer followed while shooting recently (the pistol had an accuracy job including a very light trigger). For this reason it has been in the safe while the new M&P9 is under the bed (the front sight bead on the M&P fell out in the first several hundred rounds but it doesn't have a hammer follow problem, or even ahammer). |
| I think a lot of the 1911 reliability discussion is due more to the shooter than the gun. Limp wristing IS a factor. I have a friend that swears up and down that my 1911's are unreliable and junk, because every time he shoots them he gets a ridiculous number of stovepipes and feeding issues. Literally every other round fired or more. But I can take it straight from his hands, clear the stovepipe, and put multiple mags through it without a hitch. The second it is back in his hands, the feeding issues pop up. It's how he shoots it, and he refuses to grasp that the problem is with HIM, not the gun. |
|
Quoted:
I think a lot of the 1911 reliability discussion is due more to the shooter than the gun. Limp wristing IS a factor. I have a friend that swears up and down that my 1911's are unreliable and junk, because every time he shoots them he gets a ridiculous number of stovepipes and feeding issues. Literally every other round fired or more. But I can take it straight from his hands, clear the stovepipe, and put multiple mags through it without a hitch. The second it is back in his hands, the feeding issues pop up. It's how he shoots it, and he refuses to grasp that the problem is with HIM, not the gun. I would expect the platic pistols to have more of a limp wristing problem, due to lighter weight and frame flex. Not sure if there is any hard data on it, but it would be my expectation. |
|
The collective minds from internet boards and forums dictate what is cool or uncool. It's going to happen, just got to take it with a grain of salt. The problem is that we as people generally like to put everything in one basket. An example would be the Kimber and MIM parts. The collective mind would say that ALL Kimbers suck and are a POS. From what I recall the pics of the broken Kimber was one out of how many 1000s or ten of 1000s of Kimbers out there? The pic gets posted on various forums on the net, it then becomes viral. It appears to most that it is a major concern with every Kimber out there. But with out valid data to back it up, things get a little blown out of proportion. Much like ALL Glocks are hand gernades waiting to esplode.
So many factors to consider when talking about a 1911, who does it belong to? Is the guy a Moron does he burn the water when making soup? Who made the 1911 and did anyone alter it?Did they WESCOG it right out the box? Who is doing the evaluation on it? Is it the 9mm is for homos type guy? Maybe its a nutinfancy review guy. With all the various manufactures out there, aftermarket parts, IMO it boils down to the end user. A 1911 is a design and will vary from one company to the next. It would be like the statement made All 4 door sedans are unreliable because my neighbor had a flat tire and a dead battery. Some people destroy shit because the have club hands or don't really know what they're doing. As in: It worked great, but after monkey fuckin it now it doesn't work therefore all 1911s are unreliable because joeblow12345678intampa claims to be an expert on 1911s and others back his claim( plus the fact he has a cool avitar and a super duper high post count so it must be treated as the gospel). Edit spelling and a paragraph. |
|
Quoted:
There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. This is what echo said, "GI 1911s and fitted match 1911s are reliable. High-end 1911s made with unfitted match parts are where shooters run into problems." This is the correct answer... and also your answer. |
|
Too many precision made 1911's that require TLC to keep running.
The original design rattled. The original design had compatible parts even with several manufacturers. It was plenty accurate for its intended use. Today, accuracy, accuracy, accuracy It is still a great gun. |
|
I will say that my Kimber (newer production) has actually been 100% reliable. I did polish up the extractor / breechface before shooting it though, but aside from that its 100% stock. My dad's Springfield Mil-Spec has also been very good to him, no problems with it that i've seen (and it hasn't been cleaned in 3-4 years). I really have yet to run across any 1911 that's been unreliable - even had a friend of mine rent a Auto-Ordinance 1911 at a range to test & it was 100%. Actually, of all my handguns, the one that i've had the most failures out of has been my G19 (exactly 1). I will say though that the only HPs that I feed my 1911 with are Speer gold dots - it likes them so I haven't felt the need to try anything else.
I remember reading somewhere a while back that a lot of problems with 1911s are due to the fact that we're building them with such tight tolerances now, and the design wasn't really meant to be as 'tight' as it is now. My suspicion is that tight tolerances work fine, as long as everything else is 100%. |
|
The main problems historically were trying to fire wide mouthed hollowpoints in pistols not properly setup for it. That was fairly easily fixed by a decent smith, just a matter of some shaping of the feed ramp and polishing. After that you started seeing issues because people began tightening up the pistol's fit without sufficient attention to detail and allowance for what happens when you do that with a gun not designed that way. In a race gun, perfectly tuned and maintained and tested you don't have an issue, but with factory guns in the hands of joe blow it becomes a problem. This is why premium models tend to work just fine while there are regular issues with the mid range models and then the bargain basement ones seem to work well again. The cheapos are loose and built more like the original, they work because just like an AK47 works, lots of parts moving where they are supposed to in loose formation. The mid range models are tightened up but unlike the premiums are not fully tested on an individual basis and can have issues until broken in or tuned.
In a way, it's a design flaw, but only in the sense that the design does not lend itself to the modernization it has undergone. The original works just fine, even with HP's with minor adjustments. I love my 1911's but the design has it's issues in modern use. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. This is what echo said, "GI 1911s and fitted match 1911s are reliable. High-end 1911s made with unfitted match parts are where shooters run into problems." This is the correct answer... and also your answer. High end 1911's sporting cheapo magazines are another source. My Colt always works as long as I have the good sense to use a magazine that is serviceable. I'm drinking the Tripp Kool Aide on mags these days. Tripp or Wilson, either will fix 90% of what ails the 1911. Don't get me started on DIY gun smiths and some of the idiotic modifications they do to a fighting gun. Good gun+Good mags+Good ammo= Good To Go |
|
Quoted:
Too many precision made 1911's that require TLC to keep running. The original design rattled. The original design had compatible parts even with several manufacturers. It was plenty accurate for its intended use. Today, accuracy, accuracy, accuracy It is still a great gun. Michael Bay did an accuracy job on my Springfield back in the early 90s, including a Bar Sto bbl with a "Marine Corp cut chamber". By comparison, my Kimber 1911 has a tighter chamber and won't feed some rounds that are out of spec that work fine in the Springfield with its looser chamber. |
|
The 1911 has had issues for a very long time. The original GI 1911's were fit very loosely to improve reliability, you can take a GI 1911, even one in excellent condition, and the slide flops around a lot, they rattle because the parts are fit so loosely. 1911's sold to the public were fit tighter and often had feeding problems if you tried to use anything other than the 230 gr FMJ bullet it was designed for. In 1970 I bought a brand new Colt Gold Cup Series 70, while very accurate it would only feed 230 gr FMJ bullets, I fought that pistol for years and finally gave up and sold it. In the 80's I bought another new 1911, horribly unreliable, after working on it for years I've got it so it will feed round nose ammo about 98% of the time, anything other than round nose will only feed about 50-60% of the time. In the 1990's I kept hearing how great the Kimber's were, great features at a reasonable price, so I got a new Kimber 1911 Match Target, I'll tell you I love that pistol, very accurate and feeds everything I throw at it. 1911's can be a great pistol, but some of them require a lot of work to feed right, sometimes even with round nose ammo. If you get one that isn't just right, it will drive you absolutely crazy! |
|
Quoted:
There have been a number of 1911 reliability threads recently. At the risk of oversimplifying things, some feel that the 1911 is outdated and it is best suited for the shooting enthusiast. If the 1911 has a problem it is because today there are too many cheaply made models that do not adhere to the original design. There are too many 1911s that are poisoned with MiM parts and other production shortcuts. I looked and looked and I can't find any older references to reliablity issues with the 1911. It seems that all the complaints are recent ones and I would be very interested if anyone can point me to any older ( pre 1960) sources that refer to reliablity problems and the 1911 
|
|
Quoted:
The 1911 has had issues for a very long time. The original GI 1911's were fit very loosely to improve reliability, you can take a GI 1911, even one in excellent condition, and the slide flops around a lot, they rattle because the parts are fit so loosely. 1911's sold to the public were fit tighter and often had feeding problems if you tried to use anything other than the 230 gr FMJ bullet it was designed for. IIRC, some experiments they did back in the 90s showed that tight fit 1911s tended to be more reliable. I seriously doubt civi 1911s from the 20s and 30s were built any different then the military ones. The military ones I've shot were very nicely finished. An actual Colt 1911A1 from pre WW2 put my 90s edition Springfield to shame in quality of finish (my Kimber doesn't). My Springfield put the 1911A1 to shame when actually shooting––not due to reliability, both were 100%––the sights and trigger on the Springfield made a big difference. |
|
Quoted: I would disagree with the possible exception of the thumb safety and maybe the extractor (but I think that could be properly toleranced).Quoted: There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. yes, yes it is.. parts need to be hand fitted. Like the old days. The issue is: Ordnance prints are oldschool. They need to be production toleranced for modern manufacture. There are a couple areas in the design of 1911s where, to have a reasonably loose tolerance to allow for economical manufacture, there is a possibility of tolerance stack up. Guns are relatively complex machines when compared to the price that the market will bear. Sure, you could build a 1911 that has critical areas toleranced to where stack up is impossible. This would dictate tolerances on some parts in tenths. (.ooo1) It would also cost 3000 bucks. That is not to say it would be a tight gun, like a hand fit race gun. The tolerance on the parts would be such that it was appropriately loose where it should be and tight where it should be. A 1911 can be a very reliable gun. However, it is an old design. The round has to do some acrobatics between the magazine and the chamber. Modern pistols have the round presented in much closer to a straight line in relation to the chamber. These designs are, necessarily, more likely to be reliable. Modern machining, materials and heat treat processes would lend themselves to making a production 1911 as reliable as the design would allow IF and only IF the prints/solid model were toleranced from the ground up to be stack up free. I don't believe this has been done. I believe they run these pistols on 80 year old prints, dial in the production numbers so that the samples fit and funtion and that's good enough. I'll allow for the possibility that the design of the 1911 may have some places where tolerances would have to be too tight to allow economical machining and still preclude tolerance stack up possibility. Design and production tolerancing go hand in hand. This is one of the beauties of designs like a Glock. It doesn't have to have highly toleranced parts to work well. That is the genius of the design. Any clearance is taken up by springs, ramps, etc. Think of one of the little kids toys with the figure on top of a spring loaded box. Push the button underneath and the figure collapses. Release the button and the figure stands rigid and in it's original position. |
|
Quoted:
There have been a number of 1911 reliability threads recently. At the risk of oversimplifying things, some feel that the 1911 is outdated and it is best suited for the shooting enthusiast. If the 1911 has a problem it is because today there are too many cheaply made models that do not adhere to the original design. There are too many 1911s that are poisoned with MiM parts and other production shortcuts. I looked and looked and I can't find any older references to reliablity issues with the 1911. It seems that all the complaints are recent ones and I would be very interested if anyone can point me to any older ( pre 1960) sources that refer to reliablity problems and the 1911 The main reason for reliability problems in 1911's that are made today are that they are too tight. The match guns will give you superb accuracy but will fail when they get dirty. All of my 1911's including the ones I've built run flawlessly and feed empties consistently. The rattle when you shake them but they work when most other handguns will puke their guts. It's not hard to get a reliable 1911. Get over trying to make the gun into a sniper rifle. It's a handgun, 1 inch at 25 yards is more than you really need for a defensive handgun. |
|
My dad, a WWII vet didn't care for the 45. Not that it wouldn't kill the enemy (he did carry one on the hip) but he wasn't a good shot with one.
He did sleep with his Garand along side him every night. The rifle was cocked and safety on pointed at the door (in Japan / occupation forces 1945). The ammo was free and the army wanted them shoot to stay proficient after the war ended. He and a few buddies shot all the time, but that 1911 he couldn't shoot worth beans. Now, that rifle he loved! His son on the other hand can shoot the 45. I also have shot the pistol all my life. There are no reliabilty issues with them, if you have one built right and they are maintained. Dad most likely was given a well worn pistol that needed repair. |
|
Quoted: I think a lot of the 1911 reliability discussion is due more to the shooter than the gun. Limp wristing IS a factor. I have a friend that swears up and down that my 1911's are unreliable and junk, because every time he shoots them he gets a ridiculous number of stovepipes and feeding issues. Literally every other round fired or more. But I can take it straight from his hands, clear the stovepipe, and put multiple mags through it without a hitch. The second it is back in his hands, the feeding issues pop up. It's how he shoots it, and he refuses to grasp that the problem is with HIM, not the gun. That can be fixed. 1911 is one pistol that is not very susceptable to limp wristing. I can shoot mine with just my thumb and trigger finger. The damn thing is almost in free recoil mode and doesn't stove pipe. Glocks, otoh, (particularly the 19) have issues with this. My wife had to get rid of her 19 and settled on the 26 which oddly enough doesn't give her troubles. |
|
Out of the only three I've ever shot, two were standard G.I. models and liked to fail to feed. The nose of the bullet would impact the top of the chamber and get stuck.
The other one was like $2000 or whatever and it ran great, but only with certain ammo. Until I fire ten times as many as I already have and all of them perform wonderfully, I'll never own one. My current three out of three fuckups is enough to keep me away. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I have never touched the extractor on my Springfield which is ~19 years young. It will feed ANYTHING from the mag. Even fired cases. Even from WWII surplus magazines. My Springfield 90s Edition is about the same age. It was uber reliable for most of that time, shooting huge amounts of ammo (mostly 200 gr SWCs cranked out on a Dillon, W231 bought in 8 lb containers). The few times I went shooting with people who owned Glocks, the Glocks jammed and the 1911 didn't (each time the Glocks only jammed once in several hundred rounds, but they did jam, so in my admitted limited experience, plastic perfection is short of perfect). About a year ago, the staked on front sight fell off during fast draw drills (it was my primary pistol for those 19 or 20 years and was used in all my fast draw drills until this last year). It has been replaced with dovetailed night sights. I have had several instances where the hammer followed while shooting recently (the pistol had an accuracy job including a very light trigger). For this reason it has been in the safe while the new M&P9 is under the bed (the front sight bead on the M&P fell out in the first several hundred rounds but it doesn't have a hammer follow problem, or even ahammer). Replace the arch spring and your problems will go away. This spring also forces the disconnector up into the slide. |
|
Quoted: I will say that my Kimber (newer production) has actually been 100% reliable. I did polish up the extractor / breechface before shooting it though, but aside from that its 100% stock. My dad's Springfield Mil-Spec has also been very good to him, no problems with it that i've seen (and it hasn't been cleaned in 3-4 years). I really have yet to run across any 1911 that's been unreliable - even had a friend of mine rent a Auto-Ordinance 1911 at a range to test & it was 100%. Actually, of all my handguns, the one that i've had the most failures out of has been my G19 (exactly 1). I will say though that the only HPs that I feed my 1911 with are Speer gold dots - it likes them so I haven't felt the need to try anything else. I remember reading somewhere a while back that a lot of problems with 1911s are due to the fact that we're building them with such tight tolerances now, and the design wasn't really meant to be as 'tight' as it is now. My suspicion is that tight tolerances work fine, as long as everything else is 100%. This term is misunderstood. A machine can be built to very tight tolerance and fit together very loosely. I can have a .2500" diameter pin that fits into a .2600" hole. Four decimal places generally are +/- .0002". So, we have a very tightly toleranced set of parts with a very loose fit. Modern 1911s tend to have too tight of a FIT, not necessarily too tight of a tolerance. In fact, modern machine methods have allowed a tighter tolerance to be held on the machine which in turn allowed a tighter fit between parts. I agree that the design (as a military sidearm) was not intended to be as tightly fit as modern pistols tend to be. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. This is what echo said, "GI 1911s and fitted match 1911s are reliable. High-end 1911s made with unfitted match parts are where shooters run into problems." This is the correct answer... and also your answer. High end 1911's sporting cheapo magazines are another source. My Colt always works as long as I have the good sense to use a magazine that is serviceable. I'm drinking the Tripp Kool Aide on mags these days. Tripp or Wilson, either will fix 90% of what ails the 1911. Don't get me started on DIY gun smiths and some of the idiotic modifications they do to a fighting gun. Good gun+Good mags+Good ammo= Good To Go Not to nitpick, but just to point out that nothing is ever 100% in the 1911 world - I went out and bought myself half a dozen Wilson Combat mags based on online reccomendations. 5 of the 6 had to be tweaked by a gunsmith to work.  Same with the three Wilson ETMs I bought.
I don't consider this to be normal for Wilson by any means, but it just goes to show nothing should be relied on out of the box. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. This is what echo said, "GI 1911s and fitted match 1911s are reliable. High-end 1911s made with unfitted match parts are where shooters run into problems." This is the correct answer... and also your answer. High end 1911's sporting cheapo magazines are another source. My Colt always works as long as I have the good sense to use a magazine that is serviceable. I'm drinking the Tripp Kool Aide on mags these days. Tripp or Wilson, either will fix 90% of what ails the 1911. Don't get me started on DIY gun smiths and some of the idiotic modifications they do to a fighting gun. Good gun+Good mags+Good ammo= Good To Go Not to nitpick, but just to point out that nothing is ever 100% in the 1911 world - I went out and bought myself half a dozen Wilson Combat mags based on online reccomendations. 5 of the 6 had to be tweaked by a gunsmith to work. Same with the three Wilson ETMs I bought.
I don't consider this to be normal for Wilson by any means, but it just goes to show nothing should be relied on out of the box. I've had the best results with 7 round Metalform mags with Wolff extra power springs. Wilsons, McCormicks, etc. all ran like shit in the guns I've owned. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There have been a ton of opinions lately. And that's why I'm trying to find out whether there were any older complaints about the 1911 and its reliability. I want to test the hypothesis that perhaps this reliablity issue might be the result of today's methods of manufacture. This is what echo said, "GI 1911s and fitted match 1911s are reliable. High-end 1911s made with unfitted match parts are where shooters run into problems." This is the correct answer... and also your answer. High end 1911's sporting cheapo magazines are another source. My Colt always works as long as I have the good sense to use a magazine that is serviceable. I'm drinking the Tripp Kool Aide on mags these days. Tripp or Wilson, either will fix 90% of what ails the 1911. Don't get me started on DIY gun smiths and some of the idiotic modifications they do to a fighting gun. Good gun+Good mags+Good ammo= Good To Go Not to nitpick, but just to point out that nothing is ever 100% in the 1911 world - I went out and bought myself half a dozen Wilson Combat mags based on online reccomendations. 5 of the 6 had to be tweaked by a gunsmith to work. Same with the three Wilson ETMs I bought.
I don't consider this to be normal for Wilson by any means, but it just goes to show nothing should be relied on out of the box. I've had the best results with 7 round Metalform mags with Wolff extra power springs. Wilsons, McCormicks, etc. all ran like shit in the guns I've owned. I've had decent luck with those as well. I was gonna sell all my mags on the EE, but then happened upon this smith while out-of-town for work. Had him go through all of my mags (exceot two Chip McCormick 10 rounders that have been infallible and are accordingly treated like gold  ). I've now got a hodge-podge of mags that I KNOW work.
Not every problem can be solved by buying more shit apparently. Old gunsmiths are cool. |