Posted: 7/4/2007 8:34:06 AM EDT
|
Picked up this gun brand new yesterday. I replaced the recoil spring with a Wolff 20# and put in a shock buff. I took this gun to the range for the first time today. 196 FMJ downrange and 25 assorted hollowpoints (even those flying ashtray Corbon rounds -- damn they're hot!). The gun was VERY accurate at 25 yards. Pretty sweet. Most importantly, it did not throw brass in my face (which has been a real issue for me with commanders as I'm a lefty). It definitely had a lot more kick than a "regular" model, but it should be a good carry gun. The rear sight came loose and drifted out after extensive shooting, but I loctited it and screwed it back in. Now here's my issue-- the gun fed absolutely everything and anything incredibly reliably with my 7-round mags (old Colt and real old GI mags -- which I have found to be the best mags ever made as well as some Metalforms). HOWEVER, it doesn't feed right with Wilson or Tripp or Novak 8-rounders. The 4th round in the magazine will jam into the barrel's ramp. With ball ammo it works ok with only an occasional issue, but with JHP and wadcutter ammo it jams. Now the 4th round in a mag is generally round that comes up the lowest in most mag designs, so that doesn't suprise me that if any were to cause trouble it would be that one. The gun clearly likes the controlled feed magazines but can't deal with mags that try to bypass the feeding sequence like the Wilsons and Tripps. This is the exact opposite of any issue I've ever seen. Usually it is the controlled feeding sequence that is an issue and the WC and Tripp magazines mask this issue and "correct" it by bypassing it. I plan on this gun being a carry gun and as such I don't want to sink a whole lot of money into it. It's going to live a hard life and I don't want it to be a an expensive trophy gun. What do you guys think? Should a smith look into it? I'm unsure of what I want to do. |
| I have a Colt Double Eagle Lightweight Officer's Model that will not feed properly with Wilson 47D's, which are supposed to be one of the best 1911 mags available. As with yours, it feeds perfectly from Colt mags. I wouldn't spend any money to make it work with aftermarket mags if it functions perfectly with factory mags. I also wouldn't mess with a gun that feeds well just to get one more round. Just my .02 |
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. |
Dan - what did you end up dong to correct it? Or what did you decide on for a resolution? I've found the CMC mags to be crap. Never worked reliably in any gun I've had. I don't like the Novaks much either, but I use them for range use in guns that I already know are reliable. |
I bought more SA mags instead LOL I just decided that the one extra round wasn't worth the fixing time. |
You are partially correct. Some of the metal followers are no good and will scratch a feedramp, which can be a problem on an aluminum frame. However, the metalform and Colt 7-round followers are fine and don't cause this issue. The old GI followers are the same as the Colt 7-round followers and are also ok. I think I'm with Dan and Strela and will just leave well enough alone. Who knows, it may polish out in a thousand rounds or so and be a non-issue. |
Yeah, I'm heading back to the range on Saturday with it. I was hoping to not shoot this gun all that much since it's an aluminum frame, but it looks like I'll have to spend some time with it to break it in more. After that, it'll only get shot occasionally to maintain proficiency. But I'm quite convinced that it'll feed just about any JHP. I gave it just about everything I could find, including those flying ashtray rounds. The only issues were clearly mag-related. Which may resolve themself in the next few hundred rounds -- I hope! |
SGB, glad you made this point. Before 1970 if you wanted a commander you had an alloy frame period. I don't know how many thousands of rounds I have shot through lightweight Colt Commanders (they have always been my favoriate) and NEVER had a problem. If fact, I remember a gun mag running 10,000 rounds of hardball through a Commander, Govt Model, and Gold Cup, and the Commander had less wear than the other two. I personally would put the pistol back in stock configuration for a couple of thousand rounds and then change the recoil spring based on your personal round count. JD |
|
What happens with the factory spring and no shock-buff? And how old are your problem mags? May be time for new springs. The slide's had its travel shortened by the shock-buff and it's now returning to battery at a higher speed than originally. I've seen mags with old springs work fine in 5" guns but have problems when used with a Commander. |
I tried a shock buff once a long time ago, in a full size Government model, and it caused it to jam. Rather, if wouldn't feed properly. I ditched the shock buff and have never used them again. |
Good thinking ! 
|
I run shock buffs on my EDGE and sometimes my fullsize 45. never a problem I tried one once on a Combat Commander (1970's ) the gun would feed jam just as you posted. Removed shock buff gun went back to 100%. |
Why anyone would ever want to use Wilson magazines in a defensive firearm is beyond me, anyway. |
I won't say they are worthless and I know of people who use them while doing range time but they come out as soon as they leave the range. The little bit of room they take up can make a big difference reliability wise in a shorter then 5" Govt length. I too am a big fan of the old USGI mags, they work very well IF you weed out the abused one's and replace weak springs. [And stay away from the gun show "GI" ones  ] If I had a Commander that ran perfectly with them I'd leave well enough alone myself, especially when it seems that the new mags are getting tinnier as time passes. Not had any good luck with CMC mags myself tho I only have a few of them. |
The 1911's legendary reliability is based upon Browning's controlled feed design. The short answer is the round is completely controlled by the magazine until it is safely in the chamber. Wilson magazines, like all the other "boutique" magazines, use the much earlier release wadcutter design feedlips thus completely bypassing Browning's controlled feed principle. You are literally counting on the inertial force of the slide alone to feed the round with those type of magazines. Why anyone thinks that is a great idea just to get 1 more round, in a defensive handgun, is beyond me. |
That whole issue smacks of the armchair commando gear queers touting the Knight's RAS on their M4s and bashing the poster who mentions he has a YHM on his go-to rifle because it is a less stable design. Then you get a bunch of guys in the sandbox on a shoestring budget killing Mo just fine with YHMs on the ends of their rifles, and suddenly there is silence on the net over YHMs on go-to rifles. Point being, your assessment that the 8 round Wilson-Rogers design being less reliable may be true, but there is such a vast body of long term users who have used them hard and relied upon their unfailing performance, that such "controversy" about the matter seems silly at this point. Properly maintained Wilson-Rogers style magazines are trustworthy enough for people to stake their life upon. Improperly maintained magazines of any build are a different story. If you feel the need to cushion your reliability margin then by all means, go with the stronger spring and forsake the extra round. It is also worth mentioning that the Kuhnhausen books have a pretty lengthy section about tuning magazines to the gun and most of these "fixes" applied to original USGI styles. Just as some firearms are finicky or partial with respect to certain ammo, some like one magazine better than another. The most important thing is that you know your pistol well enough to know what it wants. |
|
The Original magazine design was for use with FMJ round nosed ammunition. This feedlip design is poorly suited for use with semi wadcutter and many hollowpoint designs. The so called semi wadcutter feedlip design is to allow the cartridge to feed at an higher angle more conducive to this type of ammunition. Not to allow an extra round to be shoved into the magazine. To make a 7rd magazine into a 8rd magazine the skirt depth of the follower and the magazine spring must be shortened. While some 1911s aren't going to like the Wilson magazines, (7 or 8 round) most will. The OP will most likely find that his commander will feed fine after he removes the shockbuff. |
Yeah but a USGI magazine, or even a Colt hybrid lip design could be tweaked to the gun if it cannot easily feed the ammunition of choice. the Colt I carry feeds Gold Dots just fine with the factory Colt 7 round magazines, which is good enough for me. In my opinion, the utmost in reliability is worth the trade off of one round. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. 
|
Yeah but you cannot actually say what I wrote was incorrect, as it is not. I am not disputing what you said about tweaking USGI magazines, it is correct. However, by saying oh well you might be true about the less reliability issue, but so many people use them it is a moot point, is bullshit. Cushion your reliability margin? You say that like I'm the fruit. Let me see here, in a defensive weapon, you want as close to perfection in reliability as possible as Murphy has a tendency to piss on your picnic. Yet you almost mock me because I say the original design is better suited for reliability. Furthermore, your RAS v. YHM argument is similarly inconsistent, since you cited the YHM as being the "cheaper" alternative. Let's see, I can purchase Wilson magazines for ~$30 a piece, or I can purchase either the USGI design or Colt hybrid design from CMI, the last government contractor of 1911 magazines and a current factory supplier for Colt, for under $20 a piece.
|
Even Wilson combat will tell you that thier 7rd mag is more reliable than the 8rd mag. The mag body and follower design are identical the the 7 round follower has a longer skirt and the 7rd spring is longer with more coils. |
|
I put 300 rounds downrange. It's wearing in. It's starting to work better with the Wilson mags. I'm comfortable enough to use the Wilson 8-round mags for carry with it, but not the 10-round mags. I still get some functioning problems with the 10-rounders. With or without the shockbuff doesn't seem to make much difference. It functions great with all my "normal" controlled-feed mags. Not a hiccup. Now my only problem is my own darn self -- I'm flinching with it. I guess I've been shooting too much 9mm lately  . I'm low and right or just plain right consistently. I know it's me cause when I dry fire I see myself doing that. Damn! It's not the first time I've had to battle this problem, but every time I beat it it seems to come back.
|
|
Good to hear on the commander. Funny, but I've been using the same 3 Wilson 8 round Magazines for IDPA, Uspsa since 1996. They been rained,snowed on dropped in the mud,dust,sand,dirt, snow etc. Magazines still the 100% org parts. Thats good enough reliabilty for me. Never had to Tweak them for function. Only time you can have to much ammo is if your swiming. |