Posted: 10/18/2006 2:03:40 PM EDT
|
Not owned a 1911 before, but looking at getting one in the future. I've read (in different places) where people have the opinion that 1911's with shorter barrels (ie less than 4.25 inches) are less reliable. Engineering wise, why would that be the case? What, theoretically, would cause the shorter barrel to be less reliable? I tried to do a search, but didn't find the answer. Thanks |
|
The action was originally designed to function with the 5" barrel and slide. SOME short-barrelled designs have failed to tune the recoil spring to compensate for the faster cycle speed of shorter slides. The full-length slide cycles slower than a shorter slide, allowing the magazine spring more time to advance the next round before the slide begins to return to battery. This is my understanding of why sub-4" 1911's are sometimes less reliable than Government 1911's. It has been my experience that this is true, YMMV. |
|
slide speed is one issue causing issues with dwell time at the open battery phase, I believe the other was with the dropping/tilting barrel system on the barrel link. I'm not sure on the exact reason but the angle changes with respect to the barrel length for the barrel dropping/tilting process which is also affected by the barrel bushing setup. I didn't even stay at a holiday inn last nite.  SoS |
|
It has only been fairly recently that the short barrel 1911s have all (virtually all) come out with fully ramped barrels. The original OACP design was basically a chopped down Govt. version with a bit different recoil spring plug. That design did in fact leave a good bit to be desired in reliability, generally speaking. Personally, my SA Micro with 3" barrel is ideal for CCL (for me) & has been 100% reliable after the first 75-100rds....................  My .o2 |
 I guess you can now see why comedy in book form was crushed by moving pictures.
|
+1 (after the feedramp was polished  )and +1 on my granddad's ultra compact as well. |
|
The problem is not the frame side length, but the competent of the builder. Simple put, if the pistol is correctly built/fitted from the start, then the shorter slide are not a problem. Where the problem lies, just like the standard length models, is lack of detail by the drunken monkey just slapping the parts together, and not addressing any burs/rough surfaces/ final tuning. Dry land is not a myth, nor is a 3" 1911 that runs 100%!!!!! |
|
People seem to be side-tracked from the true issue of this post that it is a FACT that shorter is less reliable and the OP wants to know why. That doesn't mean it is impossible to make a 1.75" 1911 work reliably, or that he doesn't believe any 3" 1911 will work so make sure and post anecdotal evidence that proves him wrong. It means he has heard correctly that it is a less reliable design. People have pointed out that one of the things that made it unreliable was the feed ramp system which seems to be aided by the addition of the ramped barrel. The other problem is the recoil spring (the weak link to the auto pistol) which gets the shit beat out of it by the action of the compact. Instead of the standard 5" suggested replacement of 3,000 rounds, manufacturers suggest replacement every 1,000, even every 500 rounds for some models. Some manufacturers have redesigned the recoil system with a 2 spring guide rod. Perhaps this (like the ramped barrel) is the necessary reliability fix for these short weapons. It seemed to work well on my 3.5" |
No, we aren't side-tracked or any other track, sir. Some (as I have) repeatedly post their compacts run 100% w/o ANY mods what so ever. Now, does this mean ALL compacts will do so? No. Nor does it mean none will right out of the box, as you seem hellbent on convincing others..................... 
|
|
It seems the biggest issues from micro .45's came from simply chopping down the slide length and not addessing slide speed issues. Companies like Kimber use a two-spring system to remedy that situation. I don't know how many posts I've read from people who claimed they were having issues with micros who, by what they wrote, had not followed procedures to break in the gun properly (Kimber says in their manual 500 rounds of hardball). Few shooters will do that. That said, I ended up with a 4" barrel when I chose my Kimber CDP. I got the Compact because it's the grip that's the issue in concealment and, frankly, the 4" barrel balances the gun better than the 3". Edited to add that my recommendation for a first 1911 is something fairly conventional and closer to GI than further. Only one of my 1911's is tricked out. Two are GI style and the other is a Springer Loaded that *looks* pretty GI. If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably start with a new Colt Gub'mint 70 series. 
|
QUESTION FROM OP: What, theoretically, would cause the shorter barrel to be less reliable? I tried to do a search, but didn't find the answer. Answer that is on topic: The action was originally designed to function with the 5" barrel and slide. SOME short-barrelled designs have failed to tune the recoil spring to compensate for the faster cycle speed of shorter slides. The full-length slide cycles slower than a shorter slide, allowing the magazine spring more time to advance the next round before the slide begins to return to battery. Another answer that is on topic: It has only been fairly recently that the short barrel 1911s have all (virtually all) come out with fully ramped barrels. The original OACP design was basically a chopped down Govt. version with a bit different recoil spring plug. That design did in fact leave a good bit to be desired in reliability, generally speaking. Answer that is not on topic: (no mention of the truth/misconception about design reliability; merely says this) after 500 rounds I can tell you that my 3” really rules/sucks. Another answer that is not on topic: Whoever said short 1911s are not reliable is full of crap (If the shoe fits…) Another answer that is not on topic: My mother’s cat is named 1911 |
| Hmmm. Ive never had any problems with my Colt Combat Commanders, but my Officers ACP has not been as reliable as it could be. Problems arise when people start messin around, changing springs, recoil buffers, and so forth. Find a load your weapon likes and stick with it for carry use. |
|
The 5" and even 4.25" 1911s have more tolerance for imperfect timing. There's more space and time for the slide to pick up a cartridge, the extractor tension can be a little tight or loose without causing major issues. The 3" guns require everything to be timed perfectly to be reliable, which usually means more frequent maintenance. |
I like ALL the "not on topic" answers. 
|
On ANY blowback-operated firearm, for any perticular caliber, there is a 'minimum length' below which you will have reliability issues... Remember, the weapon operates on the back-pressure created from firing... The longer the bullet is in the barrel (due to a longer barrel) maintaining gas back-pressure, the more 'impulse' you get... The 'minimum length' will vary with action design and weapon construction (the more total force it takes to cycle the action, the longer the barrel will need to be to operate it), as well as the load (weaker load -> less pressure -> needs longer barrel to cycle).... I don't know what the theoretical minimum length is for .45ACP... But that's the theory of operation... Further, a smaller slide/barrel will recoil faster (less mass -> less inertia), as will a lighter slide/barrel (different construction/metal)... If it cycles too fast to properly pick up and feed rounds, you get jams... |
|
Is there any really "short " version of a "standard" pistol that runs as well? Will the Glock 26 run as long and reliable as the 17? I don't know any 1911 smith that will claim the 3" will run as reliable as the 5" over a wide sample and a lot of rounds. And they mean a lot of rounds, not the 1,2 or 3,000 rounds someone might put through a 3". |
|
Thanks for the answers. Very informative. Another question down the same track.... People say that 4.25" (ie colt command size) is the minimum for reliability without modifications (or something like that). What about all the 4" guns out there (Springfield, Kimber, etc). Would they be grouped with the 4.25" and 5"s or would they be grouped with the 3.5" and 3"s? Thanks again. |
FWIW, I've read where Teddy Jacobson recommends the smaller Glocks over "officer"-sized 1911s. Personally, I've never heard of or experienced any difference in the shorter Glocks in terms of reliability, but I don't want to stick my neck out too far...  [Edit: spelling] |
|
Like the Hitcher guide to the universe, this thread need as big "DON'T PANIC" on the front cover. A 3" 1911 that have been assembled and checked/smithed correctly, does not have problems. As stated before, just like some of the longer slide pistols, if the time/talent is not taken to assemble and check the pistol for things out of spec, there will be problems with the pistol, no matter what length the slide is. Simple, buy what every pistol you want, then if you have a problem, send it back to be corrected (production problems cleaned up). Sometimes, this is the only way that the pistol may every be checked over by a real smith (read what should have been done before it left the factory the first time). If you want to play the odds game, then favor the Colt Defender or even the Wilson model. Myself, I have a Micro compact (one of just a few short slide 1911) that I just did an action job when bought the pistol used, sprung it up for the +P ammo that it is feed, and it runs without fault. Again, The Sky is not falling, and where the problem lies, is not the design, just the execution of the assembly/production is less than idea*. Yes the shorter slide pistol may be a bit more ammo/spring selective, but come on, it's not like you going to run a 3" 1911 as a race gun, so what is the concern if a single spring weight will not allow the pistol to run from underpowered loads, all the way up through +p ones (read I don't even know of any full length 1911 that can even boast of that without the frame cracking when under sprung). To sum it up, yes there are more than a few “people/writers/experts” that have spoken out about some of the shorter slide pistols having faults. But the part that blows me away is that they blame the design as an overall, when it is a specific company/production line alone not assembling/producing the pistol properly (where the fault singly arises and too chicken shit call state the obvious in fear of biting the hand that feeds them). * I’m still convinced that short of the custom shop smiths, no one at SA has a clue how to finish ream a chamber). |
|
It's basic engineering. The more you modify a design, the more you have to do in terms of re-engineering and testing/troubleshooting the design to ensure that it functions correctly. It's like that with anything. As the saying goes: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The fact of the matter is that the 5" Government model had more time and effort put into it in terms of R&D. There's simply been less time and energy devoted to perfecting the short 1911's outside of the commerical sector because they were never a general-issue (except to Generals ) sidearm like the 5" Government was.
|
Well, a lot of people can tell you that the Glock 19 runs as well as the Glock 17. Never had a problem with my 19. Just to make sure you all understand I'm not a Glock troll, my Springfield Mil-Spec has never failed me either. I got both 
|
For what it's worth, I have actually had better luck with the "Compact" (4.1" Cone barrel) than the 5" right out of the box, but most any size can be made to run. I would classify them closer to the 5" than the 3". Ironically, the 2 I had the most problems with in my lifetime were full size guns. I have owned only a couple 3" 1911's. One was great, the other not so much. I settled on the Compacts for carry because I found them to be the most comfortable and still quite pleasant to shoot. Again, that's just my experience. Andrew |
For the love of God, Someone shoot me where I stand!!!!!!!  |