1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Carl...Correct again. See? That bullet is smart. It knows what to do... 
Hey Tuner, xray of 1911 firing
- Thread starter Brian Williams
- Start date
- Status
SDC
Member
You're not getting the point here; in the Schwarzlose (the only blow-forward design I have personally handled), it takes maybe 3 pounds of forward pressure on the slide/barrel to load and cock the pistol. In use, that operation is performed by the "drag" of the bullet passing through the barrel. So, what happened to all these "thousands of pounds" of pressure that you insist is produced by the act of firing a bullet down a barrel? That "extra" force can't simply disappear, it either has to go somewhere, OR there wasn't enough there to worry about in any event, and this unseen, immeasurable force is the equivalent of a snipe hunt.
presspuller
Member
Huh....ever heard of a thing call recoil?
SDC
Member
Try to keep up; "recoil" is force that's directed BACKWARDS. The force that Tuner is trying to convince me is so vital to the operation of a 1911 is caused by the bullet DRAGGING THE BARREL FORWARD (you know, the OPPOSITE direction).
presspuller
Member
You aint even listening to yourself much less anybody else. You asked what happened to "
That pressure is trying to go in all direction but thanks to modern metallurgy it doesn't. It goes in the only direction it can.
While I have never fired one of these that you talk about I can just about bet the farm that there is rearward recoil when fired. That would account for the effects of some of that pressure that is forcing the bullet down the barrel.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Try to keep up? You've gotta be yankin' my chain. That uneducated country boy is smokin' you like a cheap cigar...
SD...Have ya ever heard of a little thing called an impact surface? It's what stops the recoiling slide in an autopistol. It's made up of the rear face of the slide's spring tunnel and the front face of the frame rails. The recoil guide rod flange is sandwiched between the two surfaces. The slide strikes it and comes to a stop. Thus, the unnecessary energy and momentum of the slide is absorbed and causes about half of the muzzle rise that we experience as recoil.
The oddball design that you're referring to would require one for the barrel as well. Otherwise, it would launch downrange for a pretty fair distance. I had that happen once when firing an old USGI Colt. The barrel had flame cut so badly that it separated just forward of the chamber. I found the forward section of the barrel buried up in the 100-yard berm...with the bullet still stuck inside it.
SD...Have ya ever heard of a little thing called an impact surface? It's what stops the recoiling slide in an autopistol. It's made up of the rear face of the slide's spring tunnel and the front face of the frame rails. The recoil guide rod flange is sandwiched between the two surfaces. The slide strikes it and comes to a stop. Thus, the unnecessary energy and momentum of the slide is absorbed and causes about half of the muzzle rise that we experience as recoil.
The oddball design that you're referring to would require one for the barrel as well. Otherwise, it would launch downrange for a pretty fair distance. I had that happen once when firing an old USGI Colt. The barrel had flame cut so badly that it separated just forward of the chamber. I found the forward section of the barrel buried up in the 100-yard berm...with the bullet still stuck inside it.
SDC
Member
There's no DOUBT that there's recoil generated by firing a shot; this is a necessary reaction to the bullet being propelled in one direction (and recoil, therefore, goes in the opposite direction). But, Tuner is claiming that this other force is working in the same direction that the bullet is travelling, and that this force is the result of the bullet "dragging" the barrel along with it. I agree fully up until this point. But, he further claims that this is an immensely powerful force, so powerful that it can beat and pound the lugs of a 1911 to the point where they don't lock properly anymore. Well, if it's that powerful, how come when we look at a design that actually USES that force, the best that that force can do is move an ounce or two of barrel against spring pressure, no more than we can easily do by hand? Firing a bullet down a bore certainly produces SOME "barrel drag", otherwise blow-forward designs wouldn't work, but it's ludicrous to claim that this force is anywhere NEAR as powerful as Tuner makes it out to be.
SDC
Member
EXACTLY. Yet, all that this pistol requires to stop the forward movement of the barrel is a lightweight spring, an ounce or two of metal in that barrel, and a lightweight takedown piece that would quickly be battered beyond usefulness if the forces you claim are being directed against it were ACTUALLY being directed against it. If these "bullet-pulling" forces were as strong as you claim they have to be, either the recoil spring would have to be so strong that we wouldn't be able to cock the pistol, the barrel would have to be so heavy that the pistol wouldn't operate as a semi-auto, or the barrel would be launched off the end of the receiver with the very first shot fired. Since none of these things happen, the only conclusion I can come to is that you're imagining this force to be much greater than it actually is.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
SD...Have you tried to manually push a bullet through a barrel? Actually tried it?
Where did I say that? Do you have the first clue how the pistol works?
Don't spin my statements to suit your argument.
That's about all that it takes to stop the slide on a 1911...or haven't you noticed? Cut the spring tunnel off a junk slide and weigh it.
Keep in mind that the 1911's slide is massive.
Study this picture carefully. Enlarge it if you need to. Notice that the lugs are flanged at the front corners, and just below the flanges, you'll see a distinct stair-step shape. That's straight-line damage, and not the result of a barrel linkdown timing problem...which causes the lug corners to become rounded.
The damage here was caused in part by excessive endshake....fore and aft play between barrel and slide lugs...which gave the slide lugs about .010 inch of running start before engaging the barrel lugs. The other issue here is that the barrel lugs only provided about 70% vertical lug engagement. The two issues combined resulted in peened barrel lugs within about 500 rounds.
The final result of this deformation is that the working headspace increased to well beyond the maximum limit. The pistol wnet to battery easily on the standard NO-GO gauge...and allowed a .020 feeler gauge to slip between the breechface and the gauge. The stair step on the worst lug was .035 inch deep.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Okay...back. I decided to split this mini-tutorial into two pieces. Partly because I had to go deal with the dogs, and partly because I didn't want my man SD to go into overload.
The first thing that you need to understand is that the primary function of the recoil spring....which should correctly be named the "Action Spring" is NOT stopping the slide. Its primary function is returning the slide to battery. The same would apply to the blowforward thing. Read that again.
Stopping the movement of the reciprocating part is the function of the impact surface....not the spring.
Moreover...The spring's effect in delaying the slide is only a part of the whole...and a pretty small part, because it only compresses a measly 1/10th inch past its preload before the bullet exits.
Now then...If you want a blowback 1911, it can be done. Remove the lugs, and it'll function as a straight blowback...but if you want to fire it without blowing the case due to early breech opening...you'll need about a 40-pound recoil spring...so good luck in manually racking the slide.
The first thing that you need to understand is that the primary function of the recoil spring....which should correctly be named the "Action Spring" is NOT stopping the slide. Its primary function is returning the slide to battery. The same would apply to the blowforward thing. Read that again.
Stopping the movement of the reciprocating part is the function of the impact surface....not the spring.
Moreover...The spring's effect in delaying the slide is only a part of the whole...and a pretty small part, because it only compresses a measly 1/10th inch past its preload before the bullet exits.
Now then...If you want a blowback 1911, it can be done. Remove the lugs, and it'll function as a straight blowback...but if you want to fire it without blowing the case due to early breech opening...you'll need about a 40-pound recoil spring...so good luck in manually racking the slide.
SDC
Member
Yes, I have tried it, and it's impossible to do it without some sort of tool. This has NOTHING to do with the issue you're trying to convince me of, since the levels of force involved are vastly different between firing a bullet down a bore and manually pushing that bullet down that bore. It's a red herring that you are clinging to because you want to avoid answering the question I've put to you; "If this force is as powerful as you claim it to be, then how come those designs that actually USE this force to operate, 1) work as blowforwards, and 2) only require a little bit of weight and spring force to do so?"
You say it not only several times previously in this very thread (beginning at your post #49 "It takes a lot of opposing force to beat the lugs back in a straight line like that") and even in the very REPLY above. Yes, I know how the pistol works, and I know how it's described to work; I've never read, seen, or heard ANYONE (other than yourself) make any claim that the pistol makes any use of this "bullet pulling force" to operate the way it does.
Yes, and that's part of what I've been arguing; I'm confident that the 1911 would not only operate as a blowback (if, for example, you were to grind the locking lugs off of a barrel), but that this "bullet-pulling force" plays no part whatsoever in the operation of the pistol. However, you claim that this "bullet-pulling force" is one of the things that makes the 1911 work the way it does, and there is no evidence at all for this idea. As proof, I point to a design which actually USES this "bullet-pulling force" to operate (the Schwarzlose 1908), and it turns out that this "bullet-pulling force" is nowhere NEAR as powerful as you're trying to make it out to be. If it was, the Schwarzlose 1908 wouldn't be able to operate the way it does while still being constructed the way it is.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Vastly different indeed. It requires much more force to drive it through when it has to be accelerated to 800 fps than it does to push it through slowly with a hydraulic press. The harder/faster that you try to accelerate an object, the more force you have to use. Any little league baseball pitcher understands...that if he wants to speed up his fastball...he has to throw it harder.
There's ample evidence. You simply refuse to believe what you're seeing.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Swartzlose
I can see the impact/stop mechanism clearly. Can't you?
Well...You're still evolving. You've at least admitted that you can't push a bullet through a barrel without a powerful tool...so we're making progress.
Now...Let's try this from a different angle. Shall we?
If you have to impose a thousand pounds per square inch of force to push the bullet in....would it also make sense to believe that the barrel itself is under a thousand pounds per square inch of force in the same direction? That, if the muzzle was in turn pressing against another object...that THAT object would also be under a thousand pounds per square inch of directional force?
Think about it! You're close!
I can see the impact/stop mechanism clearly. Can't you?
Well...You're still evolving. You've at least admitted that you can't push a bullet through a barrel without a powerful tool...so we're making progress.
Now...Let's try this from a different angle. Shall we?
If you have to impose a thousand pounds per square inch of force to push the bullet in....would it also make sense to believe that the barrel itself is under a thousand pounds per square inch of force in the same direction? That, if the muzzle was in turn pressing against another object...that THAT object would also be under a thousand pounds per square inch of directional force?
Think about it! You're close!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
No argument? Outstanding!
Now then...Let's go a step further, and add locking lugs.
If you have to place a thousand pounds psi to push the bullet into the bore...and the barrel also is under the same measure of forward force...and the barrel lugs are bearing against the slide's lugs in the same direction...would it be reasonable to assume that the same measure of directional force is transmitted to the slide through the lugs? Now, this is a direct connection, with no buffering between the lugs...and it's a 1:1 ratio, so there's no mechanical reduction.
Therefore...would it be reasonable to assume that whatever force is imposed forward on the barrel...and transmitted to the slide...that it would require a like force in the opposite direction to pull the barrel backward AGAINST the force that is holding the barrel forward?
Would it also be reasonable to assume that the contact between the barrel and slide lugs is likewise under that same measure of force that is driving them in opposite directions while literally trying to shear the lugs?
Have you ever seen a barrel lug crack in the bottom corner... or even pull loose from the barrel, bringing a hunk of the barrel with it? I have...Many times.
Now then...Let's go a step further, and add locking lugs.
If you have to place a thousand pounds psi to push the bullet into the bore...and the barrel also is under the same measure of forward force...and the barrel lugs are bearing against the slide's lugs in the same direction...would it be reasonable to assume that the same measure of directional force is transmitted to the slide through the lugs? Now, this is a direct connection, with no buffering between the lugs...and it's a 1:1 ratio, so there's no mechanical reduction.
Therefore...would it be reasonable to assume that whatever force is imposed forward on the barrel...and transmitted to the slide...that it would require a like force in the opposite direction to pull the barrel backward AGAINST the force that is holding the barrel forward?
Would it also be reasonable to assume that the contact between the barrel and slide lugs is likewise under that same measure of force that is driving them in opposite directions while literally trying to shear the lugs?
Have you ever seen a barrel lug crack in the bottom corner... or even pull loose from the barrel, bringing a hunk of the barrel with it? I have...Many times.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
The reason the slide doesn't move much relative to the bullet is because of the relative velocities. The bullet is honking out of the barrel at 800 fps. The barrel slide combo is crawling with a peak velocity of 20 fps or so.
In the time it takes the bullet to travel 5" (assuming linear acceleration, so the average velocity is 400 fps, and 10 fps) the slide has traveled .010 inches
Bullet 400fps = 4800 ips. 5"/400ips = .001 seconds
Slide 10fps average* .001 seconds = .01 inches of travel.
At everypoint the bullet and the slide have exactly the same momentum.
That's why the slide barely moves before the bullet leaves.
The lugs are necessary to prevent the barrel from shooting down range with the slide. Ever notice that all blow back pistols have berrels fixed to the frame?
Also, on a tilt barrel like the 1911 or glock, the lugs are necessary to pull the barrel to the rear so the barrel can tilt to allow the slide to unlock.
In the time it takes the bullet to travel 5" (assuming linear acceleration, so the average velocity is 400 fps, and 10 fps) the slide has traveled .010 inches
Bullet 400fps = 4800 ips. 5"/400ips = .001 seconds
Slide 10fps average* .001 seconds = .01 inches of travel.
At everypoint the bullet and the slide have exactly the same momentum.
That's why the slide barely moves before the bullet leaves.
The lugs are necessary to prevent the barrel from shooting down range with the slide. Ever notice that all blow back pistols have berrels fixed to the frame?
Also, on a tilt barrel like the 1911 or glock, the lugs are necessary to pull the barrel to the rear so the barrel can tilt to allow the slide to unlock.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Good post, Owen, and pretty accurate. There's more delaying the slide than inertial mass alone, though. There are six different things at work. Seven if you count the frictional resistance offered by the frame and slide rail interaction...but that one is so miniscule that it can practically be ignored.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Using the momentum equations allows you to ignore all the other forces. It turns it into a blackbox system that can be analyzed. Considering that most of the other factors affect the internal ballistics of the gun itself (ie, a high engraving force can actually increase velocity because of the jump in pressure) that I'm not sure its a valuable exercise. As an engineer, if I were to spend the weeks necessary, im pretty sure my boss would be pissed. In a previous life I actually spent a few days drawing diagrams of the forces on a bunch of different parts. Trying to work all those forces together into a coherent mathematical system became a mess.
It was an interesting exercise, and I think the visiting VIP's were impressed with my whiteboard and the reams of math on my desk, but in the end, I'm not sure I learned much beyond the fact that most components of guns are radically overbuilt and that running an all-inclusive mathematical model of a recoil operated pistol would probably choke a supercomputer.
We can take an actual pistol, with a specific lot of ammunition, and take some measurements. We can get a pretty good pressure curve for the ammo, but if we do what Jim wants to do by boring out the rifling, that pressure curve is useless.
Add in the complexity from the fact that the range of ammunition a gun is expected to run well with is like expecting a V-8 to run on every flammable fluid from parafin to acetelyne, just by changing the muffler. ( there are something like 900 commercially available loadings for 9x19)
What do we know? we know that a 230 grain bullet at 800 to 850 fps, or any ammo with a similar muzzle momentum will run a stock 1911.
BTW, I think he's right. I'm pretty sure if you give the breach face a good whack, while never touching the barrel the gun will cycle just fine. All of the factors you are talking about go into calculating exactly what the necessary whack on an existing gun is, but its the hard way around to get there.
The force Tuner is talking about does exist. By worrying about the friction in the barrel you are approaching the dynamic system from the work and energy direction, instead of the momentum direction.
Using the momentum analysis is like using the stock market to measure the economy. All the factors are being accounted for, but its a black box. No one is sure what factor accounts for how much.
Trying to measure all the forces and frictions is like trying to measure the economy by interviewing every single person in the country. You know exactly how much each factor accounts for, but you spend so much time doing it that you never ever wanna try again. Economy? Screw that, i'm gonna watch the game!
It was an interesting exercise, and I think the visiting VIP's were impressed with my whiteboard and the reams of math on my desk, but in the end, I'm not sure I learned much beyond the fact that most components of guns are radically overbuilt and that running an all-inclusive mathematical model of a recoil operated pistol would probably choke a supercomputer.
We can take an actual pistol, with a specific lot of ammunition, and take some measurements. We can get a pretty good pressure curve for the ammo, but if we do what Jim wants to do by boring out the rifling, that pressure curve is useless.
Add in the complexity from the fact that the range of ammunition a gun is expected to run well with is like expecting a V-8 to run on every flammable fluid from parafin to acetelyne, just by changing the muffler. ( there are something like 900 commercially available loadings for 9x19)
What do we know? we know that a 230 grain bullet at 800 to 850 fps, or any ammo with a similar muzzle momentum will run a stock 1911.
BTW, I think he's right. I'm pretty sure if you give the breach face a good whack, while never touching the barrel the gun will cycle just fine. All of the factors you are talking about go into calculating exactly what the necessary whack on an existing gun is, but its the hard way around to get there.
The force Tuner is talking about does exist. By worrying about the friction in the barrel you are approaching the dynamic system from the work and energy direction, instead of the momentum direction.
Using the momentum analysis is like using the stock market to measure the economy. All the factors are being accounted for, but its a black box. No one is sure what factor accounts for how much.
Trying to measure all the forces and frictions is like trying to measure the economy by interviewing every single person in the country. You know exactly how much each factor accounts for, but you spend so much time doing it that you never ever wanna try again. Economy? Screw that, i'm gonna watch the game!
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
As an aside, man I bet the recoil on that blow-forward feels funky.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
hmm
im thinking about how to calculate the actual frictional force of the bullet down the barrel. Anyone have a mathematical model of the .45 ACP hardball pressure curve.
If we take the work done by the pressure (Pressure x Area x Distance) and subract the muzzle energy (1/2 MV^2) the difference should be the work done by friction to slow the bullet down. The average friction force should be the difference noted above, divided by the length of the barrel.
So actually, we are looking for is the integral of the pressure curve from 0 to t, where t is the time of the bullet exiting the barrel, times the area of the bullet, times the length of the barrel.
im thinking about how to calculate the actual frictional force of the bullet down the barrel. Anyone have a mathematical model of the .45 ACP hardball pressure curve.
If we take the work done by the pressure (Pressure x Area x Distance) and subract the muzzle energy (1/2 MV^2) the difference should be the work done by friction to slow the bullet down. The average friction force should be the difference noted above, divided by the length of the barrel.
So actually, we are looking for is the integral of the pressure curve from 0 to t, where t is the time of the bullet exiting the barrel, times the area of the bullet, times the length of the barrel.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Sure it will. By setting the slide in motion, it pulls the barrel backward with it...just like pulling on the slide from the rear. It doesn't realize what force set it into motion, or where it came from.
There's where we differ. I'm of the mind that nothing is everything, but everything is something...and nothing can be ignored or discounted.
I actually did that...and the gun cycled just fine. It was a demonstration to show that most of the recoil force is generated at the outset of bullet acceleration rather than depending on acceleration after the pressure peak.
It worked largely because the lack of bullet drag on the barrel didn't work against the slide. The pistol essentially functioned as a straight blowback with a varying slide mass...losing the barrel after it linked down.
The pressure curve generated with pistol powder with a quick burn rate is more like a spike, with very little area under the curve. Even slow numbers like Olin 296 and Hodgon's H-110 are pretty peaky, according to some of the graphs that I've seen. They peak early and fast, and drop off quickly as the bullet moves forward and increases the volume of the cylinder. Slow rifle powders are another matter. They peak pretty early too...but the area under the curve is much larger.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Owen...One last thing. Peterotte is devising a test to determine how much force is required to drive a bullet from chamber into the barrel. If you...or he...can use that and plug in his rate of acceleration to determine how much would be required to accelerate it to...say...700 fps in a half inch of travel, it would be of great help.
The main argument here is how much drag force is on the barrel at the instant of peak pressure. All else is incidental.
The main argument here is how much drag force is on the barrel at the instant of peak pressure. All else is incidental.
SDC
Member
Such as? The things that you've pointed to as "evidence" for these extreme "bullet-pulling forces" (such as deformation on the front face of the barrel lugs) are far more explainable by other mechanisms such as barrel inertia; not only are they NOT "proof" of this force you're claiming is a vital component of operation, they can be duplicated by means that have no "bullet pull" whatsoever (like John KSA's rod and hammer experiment, or even converting a 1911 to work via air pressure).
SDC
Member
There is a physical forward limit for the slide travel in the Schwarzlose, but the pistol never reaches that limit in operation (unlike the 1911). So, this leaves me wondering again where all these "thousands of pounds of barrel-pulling pressure" magically disappear to when you fire a cartridge in the Schwarlose. They don't go into the rearward recoil (wrong direction). They don't go into the frame (otherwise they would cancel out the REARWARD recoil, and you'd have a magical recoilless pistol that everyone and their dog would be carrying today). Most importantly, they don't go into the barrel, otherwise that barrel would be torn off the frame and launched downrange, and who wants a single-shot semi-auto pocket pistol? Any "bullet-pulling" force that this pistol generates is soaked up entirely by a lightweight barrel and a pitiful recoil spring, and if that's all it takes to counteract those "bullet-pulling" forces, that tells me they weren't much to begin with.
ONLY if that barrel wasn't locked to the breechblock/slide; the force you're talking about now isn't JUST pulling the barrel forward via barrel/bullet friction, it's also pulling the barrel BACKWARD via the locked slide/barrel lugs. This cancels out the "bullet-pulling force" you're arguing in favour of, and leaves the pistol operating exactly the way Browning describes it in his patent.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Well...Okay. I give up now. SD...You a good ol' boy, but you're beyond redemption. An engineer just told you that the forces that I've mentioned are real...but I guess you missed that. Givin' up is somethin' that I rarely do, but I can't find a way around your thought process...so I really don't see any other way...but I'll go ahead and give you some background, and relate an interesting story.
First...I have a bit of design engineering in my past. I had to drop out of the M.E.T. program for various personal reasons, and regret not going back to finish it up. I only had two quarters to earn a 2-year Associate's degree. I missed out on "Hydraulics." I'm also a toolmaker by trade.
Second...I've been wrenchin' on the 1911 pistol since 1964. Very little of what is commonly referred to as custom work. A worthy pursuit, but just not my thing. What building I've done is actually rebuilding, repairing and returning worn or damaged guns to serviceable condition. But, fully 95% of what I've done over the past 40-odd years is to take delinquent, unreliable pistols and make them run like a Timex watch. Discounting outright junk, I've never failed to deliver. Ever.
Admittedly, it sometimes takes more than one attempt...but rarely more than two. I've been able to achieve that track record through intense study and a full understanding of exactly how the gun functions...or rather how it's supposed to function...and in being able to recognize when it's not functioning correctly. That's the part that most people miss. They think that because it's runnin'...that it's runnin' right. You'd be amazed at the number of these pistols that don't do that. It's the ones that malfunction once every 500 -1,000 rounds.
Those are the tough ones to figure out.
When I was doin' the job at a small but unbeliveably busy gun shop, there were two smiths on duty. I was assigned to the 1911s and nothing but the 1911s...and I only worked on other guns when Ray was gone or covered up. Ray was assigned anything else that came in.
Dave Berryhill recently paid me the greatest compliment that I've ever had. He told me that I had the ability to "Think like Mo." He was referring to John Browning. The people who worked closely with him called him that. "Think like Mo." It's not hard to do, but it does require the acceptance of the fact that a theory may not be correct...and the willingness to look at it from all angles. I've looked at a lotta angles in 43 years.
Ned Christiansen has it. His trick is to mentally morph himself down to a half-millimeter tall...project himself into the gun...and watch it work in slow-motion. Ned is also devoid of arrogance...which is a big help. We once discussed a point of function, and when I explained it to him...he said that it made perfect sense...and that after doing his miniature man trick...he said that could see it happening as described.
Dave Berryhill has it...even though he probably doesn't realize it. Not an ounce of arrogance or ego in Dave. I don't say that because of what he said...but because of the things that I've seen him write. As I post this, there is a custom smith and builder of high-end raceguns headed this way from Baton Rouge. He's attending an engraving course at a community college close by...and he said that he wants to come and pick my brain...so that he can better understand the workings of the pistol. He'll be here for a few days. We'll be doing a few experiments while he's here to show evidence of several things...and he'll probably write about it on another forum. If he does, I'll provide the link. Maybe that'll help. I don't know. First, you'll need to at least entertain the notion that your theories are wrong. Only by doing that can you explore the other angles.
Good luck in your pursuit. I'm gonna wait for Owen to respond in hopes that we can find a way to calculate everything. He's still fresh on all the math, and it's been a while for me...
You seem to be gettin' a mite agitated. Take a breath and relax.
First...I have a bit of design engineering in my past. I had to drop out of the M.E.T. program for various personal reasons, and regret not going back to finish it up. I only had two quarters to earn a 2-year Associate's degree. I missed out on "Hydraulics." I'm also a toolmaker by trade.
Second...I've been wrenchin' on the 1911 pistol since 1964. Very little of what is commonly referred to as custom work. A worthy pursuit, but just not my thing. What building I've done is actually rebuilding, repairing and returning worn or damaged guns to serviceable condition. But, fully 95% of what I've done over the past 40-odd years is to take delinquent, unreliable pistols and make them run like a Timex watch. Discounting outright junk, I've never failed to deliver. Ever.
Admittedly, it sometimes takes more than one attempt...but rarely more than two. I've been able to achieve that track record through intense study and a full understanding of exactly how the gun functions...or rather how it's supposed to function...and in being able to recognize when it's not functioning correctly. That's the part that most people miss. They think that because it's runnin'...that it's runnin' right. You'd be amazed at the number of these pistols that don't do that. It's the ones that malfunction once every 500 -1,000 rounds.
Those are the tough ones to figure out.
When I was doin' the job at a small but unbeliveably busy gun shop, there were two smiths on duty. I was assigned to the 1911s and nothing but the 1911s...and I only worked on other guns when Ray was gone or covered up. Ray was assigned anything else that came in.
Dave Berryhill recently paid me the greatest compliment that I've ever had. He told me that I had the ability to "Think like Mo." He was referring to John Browning. The people who worked closely with him called him that. "Think like Mo." It's not hard to do, but it does require the acceptance of the fact that a theory may not be correct...and the willingness to look at it from all angles. I've looked at a lotta angles in 43 years.
Ned Christiansen has it. His trick is to mentally morph himself down to a half-millimeter tall...project himself into the gun...and watch it work in slow-motion. Ned is also devoid of arrogance...which is a big help. We once discussed a point of function, and when I explained it to him...he said that it made perfect sense...and that after doing his miniature man trick...he said that could see it happening as described.
Dave Berryhill has it...even though he probably doesn't realize it. Not an ounce of arrogance or ego in Dave. I don't say that because of what he said...but because of the things that I've seen him write. As I post this, there is a custom smith and builder of high-end raceguns headed this way from Baton Rouge. He's attending an engraving course at a community college close by...and he said that he wants to come and pick my brain...so that he can better understand the workings of the pistol. He'll be here for a few days. We'll be doing a few experiments while he's here to show evidence of several things...and he'll probably write about it on another forum. If he does, I'll provide the link. Maybe that'll help. I don't know. First, you'll need to at least entertain the notion that your theories are wrong. Only by doing that can you explore the other angles.
Good luck in your pursuit. I'm gonna wait for Owen to respond in hopes that we can find a way to calculate everything. He's still fresh on all the math, and it's been a while for me...
You seem to be gettin' a mite agitated. Take a breath and relax.
SDC
Member
Yes, and (just like battered lugs) this can be explained wholly by the forces that are put on the lugs by the SLIDE pulling on the BARREL, not by the bullet pulling on the barrel.
- Status