craig
Member
AMEN!!!
Tuner's Springfield Rant & Colt
- Thread starter XMP
- Start date
- Status
Jammer Six
member
{Jammer waves his hand frantically}
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Me! Oooh! Oooh!
Dave Sample
member
The only Norinco 1911 parts that I used in the dozen or more that I built were the frame, the slide and the barrel. I installed everything else from aftermarket parts from known makers. The interior parts are very soft and will not hold up very well so I scrapped them. This included the barrel link and pin. Since beaver-tail safeties were installed, I used ring hammers. I would love to buy barrels from Norinco because they are ideal drop in barrels to save a junk gun, but in a new high end gun, they would not fit in. I form my opinions about these matters from the parts I have worked on, not from hear-say.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Soft as Silk
Soft..Hmmmm. The few that I've Rockwell Ceed have checked right on or above ordnance spec. If'n I need harder, I can always heat that puppy up to straw-red and dunk it in Kasenit. Done that a few times... Ba-Da-Bing! Hard as a file and tough under the skin. Worked good on some GI sears that didn't check to spec...
Soft..Hmmmm. The few that I've Rockwell Ceed have checked right on or above ordnance spec. If'n I need harder, I can always heat that puppy up to straw-red and dunk it in Kasenit. Done that a few times... Ba-Da-Bing! Hard as a file and tough under the skin. Worked good on some GI sears that didn't check to spec...
Last edited:
DHart
Member
Those who would bad mouth Colt probably haven't really had enough experience with recent Colts. This may sound excessive, but I've bought over 15 new Colt 1911's in the last three years and I'm really impressed with them... very high quality in general. Does that mean they're all perfect in every way? Of course not. No brand is. But Colt corrected the two issues I had quickly and effectively. Go out and buy 15 Springfields or 15 Wilsons, or 15 Kimbers and I assure you, there will be an issue or two or three or more here or there with any of the brands.
Recently I was in a gunshop checking out the Springfield mil specs as I had been thinking of buying another Springer (I've had 3.... my first was a SS Loaded which was a total dog, my next was a TRP which is great and I still have it, my third was LW Compact... also a good one). Anyway, going fro mil spec to mil spec I found that the slide to frame fit varied widely from individual gun to individual gun... freaky, really. And the trigger feel and pull also varied considerably... from pretty decent to terribly gritty and heavy. The experience really opened my eyes to why they are so inexpensive. I did call SA a few weeks ago and asked about the source of the milspecs; I was told that the mil specs are manufactured AND assembled entirely in Brazil. Springfield imports them as whole guns and ships them on to distributors. Just like they do with the XD models, which I believe are completely manufactured and assembled by an Eastern European company-SA just imports and distributes them. Not necessarily right nor wrong... just the way it is. Some people will be ok with that, others will not be. Higher priced Springfields have a mix of Brazillian parts and labor with USA parts and labor. Of course, SPringfield is a little vague about just what's what with the higher end models. They wouldn't even tell me which parts are MIM. But for a $150 inspection fee they told me they could inspect a Springfield and report to me as to what's MIM and what isn't. Sheesh. In the end, I decided to spend a tad more and buy another Colt 1991A1 rather than another Springfield.
Now back to the Colts... I'd take a new Colt over any other production grade 1911 these days. In my experience they are as reliable right out of the box as anything, if not more so. And I do have some premium 1911's as well. I found that you don't have to spend a lot of money to get a reliable and reasonably accurate 1911. And sometimes when you spend a huge chunk of change, you still may not get reliability! But Colts are hard to find... Colt is having a difficult time keeping up on the various models they make. And a lot of dealers tend to focus more on the whiz-bang Kimbers or the dirt cheap Springfield mil-specs. Many of them bad mouth Colts in an effort to steer you toward what they have in their gun case and want to sell you! Some are still perpetuating the myth that Colt is out of business... what a crock that is. No doubt Colt has had some difficult financial times, but they never went out of business. And their current production is as good as they've ever been, possibly better, due to improved metalurgy and their resistance to using cheaper grade (MIM) parts. New Colts have just 3 MIM parts: sear, disconnector, and magazine catch. If you want a MIM free 1911, buy a Colt and replace those three parts for around $75 and you're there.
Yes, Colts tend to be priced a bit higher than Springfields, but have better quality materials to begin with and they're ALL USA made... so what do you expect? In the end, you'd pay more to bring the SA small parts up to the grade level of the small parts in the Colt. Yes, there may be a feature or two or three you might tweak or switch out down the road for a different variant on features (some like beavertails, some don't), but that's the case with nearly ANY 1911 you might buy.
Not that the Springfield would be a bad choice, I just feel the quality is generally better with the Colt. Most pistolsmiths tend to feel the same way. And on all of my Colts, the slide to frame fit is just right, not too loose, not too tight, just snug. Think about it... what brand of guns are known for utmost reliability? Yep, Glock. Now, go check out how tight the Glock slide to frame is... they build in a little play to enhance reliability... in fact Glocks are a relatively sloppy fitting gun. A little play to ensure reliability is something Colt has known to do for decade after decade after decade. And it's made their 1911's run well in horrid wartime conditions. On recent production Colts, barrel lock up is solid as a bank vault... no play in the barrel hood and nearly no play in the bushing.
That said, I'd like to get one of the SIG GSR's (once they get the quality worked out... there have been quite a number of troubled guns from SIG's initial runs... but I'm sure in time, they'll get the guns running just fine.) When they make a model without the rail, and the quality is worked out, I'd love to have one of them... the small parts are all of high grade and the slide and frame (Caspian, I believe) are great. SIG is just an assembler of the GSR... they don't make any of the components. You could buy the same components and assemble it yourself if you knew what you were doing. But the gun was well spec'd out and when they're put together right, should be a great 1911 for around $1000.
The best deal in a high grade 1911 today is without a doubt Colt's 1991A1. And (good thing) it's a series 80 design... great feature to have on a carry gun especially! The design is tested, tried, and true. Such a good design, in fact, that SIG also selected the Series 80 firing pin safety design over the Schwartz system (as used in kimber's) for the new SIG GSR. Anyway, for around $550 or so, the polished blue steel Colt 1991A1 is a fabulous pistol, excellent quality parts, great price, all USA made. I like it! The stainless version tends to run about $75 more. Here's one of mine:
And for a visual connection... here are a few more of mine:
Colt WWII Reproduction
Colt Special Combat Government-Blue over Satin Nickel
Colt LW Commander XSE
Colt Combat Commander (pre-series 80) Ned Christiansen-pistolsmith
Colt Series 70 Re-issue (Casull trigger & Smooth Walnut Grips)
Oh... and my TRP (and I can't wait for Colt to make a TRP-like Colt... it would sell like hotcakes!)
Springfield TRP
Recently I was in a gunshop checking out the Springfield mil specs as I had been thinking of buying another Springer (I've had 3.... my first was a SS Loaded which was a total dog, my next was a TRP which is great and I still have it, my third was LW Compact... also a good one). Anyway, going fro mil spec to mil spec I found that the slide to frame fit varied widely from individual gun to individual gun... freaky, really. And the trigger feel and pull also varied considerably... from pretty decent to terribly gritty and heavy. The experience really opened my eyes to why they are so inexpensive. I did call SA a few weeks ago and asked about the source of the milspecs; I was told that the mil specs are manufactured AND assembled entirely in Brazil. Springfield imports them as whole guns and ships them on to distributors. Just like they do with the XD models, which I believe are completely manufactured and assembled by an Eastern European company-SA just imports and distributes them. Not necessarily right nor wrong... just the way it is. Some people will be ok with that, others will not be. Higher priced Springfields have a mix of Brazillian parts and labor with USA parts and labor. Of course, SPringfield is a little vague about just what's what with the higher end models. They wouldn't even tell me which parts are MIM. But for a $150 inspection fee they told me they could inspect a Springfield and report to me as to what's MIM and what isn't. Sheesh. In the end, I decided to spend a tad more and buy another Colt 1991A1 rather than another Springfield.
Now back to the Colts... I'd take a new Colt over any other production grade 1911 these days. In my experience they are as reliable right out of the box as anything, if not more so. And I do have some premium 1911's as well. I found that you don't have to spend a lot of money to get a reliable and reasonably accurate 1911. And sometimes when you spend a huge chunk of change, you still may not get reliability! But Colts are hard to find... Colt is having a difficult time keeping up on the various models they make. And a lot of dealers tend to focus more on the whiz-bang Kimbers or the dirt cheap Springfield mil-specs. Many of them bad mouth Colts in an effort to steer you toward what they have in their gun case and want to sell you! Some are still perpetuating the myth that Colt is out of business... what a crock that is. No doubt Colt has had some difficult financial times, but they never went out of business. And their current production is as good as they've ever been, possibly better, due to improved metalurgy and their resistance to using cheaper grade (MIM) parts. New Colts have just 3 MIM parts: sear, disconnector, and magazine catch. If you want a MIM free 1911, buy a Colt and replace those three parts for around $75 and you're there.
Yes, Colts tend to be priced a bit higher than Springfields, but have better quality materials to begin with and they're ALL USA made... so what do you expect? In the end, you'd pay more to bring the SA small parts up to the grade level of the small parts in the Colt. Yes, there may be a feature or two or three you might tweak or switch out down the road for a different variant on features (some like beavertails, some don't), but that's the case with nearly ANY 1911 you might buy.
Not that the Springfield would be a bad choice, I just feel the quality is generally better with the Colt. Most pistolsmiths tend to feel the same way. And on all of my Colts, the slide to frame fit is just right, not too loose, not too tight, just snug. Think about it... what brand of guns are known for utmost reliability? Yep, Glock. Now, go check out how tight the Glock slide to frame is... they build in a little play to enhance reliability... in fact Glocks are a relatively sloppy fitting gun. A little play to ensure reliability is something Colt has known to do for decade after decade after decade. And it's made their 1911's run well in horrid wartime conditions. On recent production Colts, barrel lock up is solid as a bank vault... no play in the barrel hood and nearly no play in the bushing.
That said, I'd like to get one of the SIG GSR's (once they get the quality worked out... there have been quite a number of troubled guns from SIG's initial runs... but I'm sure in time, they'll get the guns running just fine.) When they make a model without the rail, and the quality is worked out, I'd love to have one of them... the small parts are all of high grade and the slide and frame (Caspian, I believe) are great. SIG is just an assembler of the GSR... they don't make any of the components. You could buy the same components and assemble it yourself if you knew what you were doing. But the gun was well spec'd out and when they're put together right, should be a great 1911 for around $1000.
The best deal in a high grade 1911 today is without a doubt Colt's 1991A1. And (good thing) it's a series 80 design... great feature to have on a carry gun especially! The design is tested, tried, and true. Such a good design, in fact, that SIG also selected the Series 80 firing pin safety design over the Schwartz system (as used in kimber's) for the new SIG GSR. Anyway, for around $550 or so, the polished blue steel Colt 1991A1 is a fabulous pistol, excellent quality parts, great price, all USA made. I like it! The stainless version tends to run about $75 more. Here's one of mine:
And for a visual connection... here are a few more of mine:
Colt WWII Reproduction
Colt Special Combat Government-Blue over Satin Nickel
Colt LW Commander XSE
Colt Combat Commander (pre-series 80) Ned Christiansen-pistolsmith
Colt Series 70 Re-issue (Casull trigger & Smooth Walnut Grips)
Oh... and my TRP (and I can't wait for Colt to make a TRP-like Colt... it would sell like hotcakes!)
Springfield TRP
Dave Sample
member
Great Guns and Great Pictures. I am delighted to see these and wish I were green with envy, but......................................oh well. I do not have any desire to Rockwell Test Chinese parts when I touch them with a stone and feel that they are soft. My time was money then and it was easier for me to replace them with a known quality rather than try to build a gun I would not be happy with. These 1911's carried my No BS Lifetime Warranty so I wanted them to be as good inside as they were outside.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Chinese Rockwell
The Cap'n said:
I do not have any desire to Rockwell Test Chinese parts when I touch them with a stone and feel that they are soft.
____________________________
Ah! Okay...Trustin' soul, are ya? I kinda like doin' a hardness test on various gun things myself. Very revealing...I guess it goes back to the days when all we had was NOS or even good used USGI sears and hammers and such. Hammers were 5 bucks a copy and sears were 5 dollars a dozen. If they checked out to spec, in they went. If they were soft, it took about a quarter's worth of propane and a dime's worth of kasenit to make'em good.
'Course, we never did those short, square hooks and .015 inch wide
primary angles either. I guess ya need somethin' harder than hell's hinges
on those, but the case-hardened parts exceeded even the high-quality
specs on modern aftermarket components, and they weren't brittle at all.
I'm in the habit of puttin' even those to the Rockwell test so I'll know how hard they are, which is also very revealing....'cause ya don't know 'til ya know....ya know? ( I don't trust feel. I trust the Rockwell tester.) Sometimes they check too hard, which would tend to make them too brittle for an application. Take that Colt MIM sear that I saw crack just a couple weeks ago. That one tested at 67 Rc...dang near as hard as a file all the way through. Just fine for the stock primary and .028 hooks...but
maybe a problem when things get stoned too short and thin.
Well...as they used to say in old Roma....Suum Cuique!
The Cap'n said:
I do not have any desire to Rockwell Test Chinese parts when I touch them with a stone and feel that they are soft.
____________________________
Ah! Okay...Trustin' soul, are ya? I kinda like doin' a hardness test on various gun things myself. Very revealing...I guess it goes back to the days when all we had was NOS or even good used USGI sears and hammers and such. Hammers were 5 bucks a copy and sears were 5 dollars a dozen. If they checked out to spec, in they went. If they were soft, it took about a quarter's worth of propane and a dime's worth of kasenit to make'em good.
'Course, we never did those short, square hooks and .015 inch wide
primary angles either. I guess ya need somethin' harder than hell's hinges
on those, but the case-hardened parts exceeded even the high-quality
specs on modern aftermarket components, and they weren't brittle at all.
I'm in the habit of puttin' even those to the Rockwell test so I'll know how hard they are, which is also very revealing....'cause ya don't know 'til ya know....ya know? ( I don't trust feel. I trust the Rockwell tester.) Sometimes they check too hard, which would tend to make them too brittle for an application. Take that Colt MIM sear that I saw crack just a couple weeks ago. That one tested at 67 Rc...dang near as hard as a file all the way through. Just fine for the stock primary and .028 hooks...but
maybe a problem when things get stoned too short and thin.
Well...as they used to say in old Roma....Suum Cuique!
I've been off the net for the weekend, but thanks for all the replies.
DHart (and others I'm sure), I don't have a problem with the Series 80 for a range gun, but when it comes to a 1911 I'm going to rely on it won't have Series 80 or a Schwartz safety in it. I'm convinced that Murphy understands geometrical progression -- the more parts the more the odds of something going wrong increase geometrically. So, if I'm going to bet my life or those of anyone I care about on a gun, it will be on a 1911 in its original simplicity.
Anyway, I'm still convinced that the SA Milspec is a pretty decent gun with a few parts changes, but I did pick up a blued Series 70 Colt. (I haven't, however, ruled out picking up another Milspec too). I already had a stainless series 70 (along with other series 80 Colts), but my subjective impression is that stainless guns never are as smooth as carbon steel ones. I was able to get rid of a Kimber Eclipse for $550, so that eased the pain of picking up the Colt for $880.
I haven't decided what all I want to do/have done to the Colt. Ergonomically I prefer a long trigger and a flat MSH, so I'll change that and think about the rest.
Just a few comparisons between my SA Milspec and the Colt for anyone considering the same options. The Colt is much better looking (blued vs. parkerized), although I don't mind the business-like appearance of parkerizing (probably a nostalgia thing). And of course it does have the "horsie" . The SA Milspec has a fully throated stainless barrel (one piece in mine and other NM#), which the Colt doesn't have. Also the magwell is beveled, whereas the Colt's isn't. The Colt has more side to side play in the frame to slide fit, but neither has any vertical play and both lock up tight. The SA has three dot sights and the Colt has all black sights. I guess it come down partly to the quality of the small parts and personal preference.
One other thought-- it is hard to place too much stock in the original finish of the gun (blue vs parked) if enough changes are goint to made, such as sights, checkering, etc. which would require the gun to be refinished anyway.
DHart (and others I'm sure), I don't have a problem with the Series 80 for a range gun, but when it comes to a 1911 I'm going to rely on it won't have Series 80 or a Schwartz safety in it. I'm convinced that Murphy understands geometrical progression -- the more parts the more the odds of something going wrong increase geometrically. So, if I'm going to bet my life or those of anyone I care about on a gun, it will be on a 1911 in its original simplicity.
Anyway, I'm still convinced that the SA Milspec is a pretty decent gun with a few parts changes, but I did pick up a blued Series 70 Colt. (I haven't, however, ruled out picking up another Milspec too). I already had a stainless series 70 (along with other series 80 Colts), but my subjective impression is that stainless guns never are as smooth as carbon steel ones. I was able to get rid of a Kimber Eclipse for $550, so that eased the pain of picking up the Colt for $880.
I haven't decided what all I want to do/have done to the Colt. Ergonomically I prefer a long trigger and a flat MSH, so I'll change that and think about the rest.
Just a few comparisons between my SA Milspec and the Colt for anyone considering the same options. The Colt is much better looking (blued vs. parkerized), although I don't mind the business-like appearance of parkerizing (probably a nostalgia thing). And of course it does have the "horsie"
. The SA Milspec has a fully throated stainless barrel (one piece in mine and other NM#), which the Colt doesn't have. Also the magwell is beveled, whereas the Colt's isn't. The Colt has more side to side play in the frame to slide fit, but neither has any vertical play and both lock up tight. The SA has three dot sights and the Colt has all black sights. I guess it come down partly to the quality of the small parts and personal preference.One other thought-- it is hard to place too much stock in the original finish of the gun (blue vs parked) if enough changes are goint to made, such as sights, checkering, etc. which would require the gun to be refinished anyway.
Jammer Six
member
Wait! Wait! Wait!
Hell's hinges would be really, really hard, right? Or would they be melted to a puddle of goo?
The real question is how do you test for hardness? Is it a million dollar piece of equipment, or are there methods us basement-type guys can use to get results that are close enough?
("Close Enough" is actually a construction specific technical term. Knowing when something really is Close Enough is one of the main hallmarks of a journeyman. I imagine it translates straight across to gunsmithing, even if there's not as much room between the little marks on the tape.)
And finally, what does "some kook" mean?
Enquiring Minds Want To Know!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Hard Stuff
Howdy jammer,
A Rockwell tester is a pretty expensive piece of equipment.
haven't priced one in years, but they were pretty high when Hector was a pup. Basically, it pushes a hard, pointed tip...diamond...into the steel
and gauges the hardness of the material by the depth of the hole that it makes.
A Brinell tester checks softer materials with a ball bearing, and the scale is different.
Either one will cost more than a hobby smith can justify buying for one or two jobs a year. I've got access to a machine shop, and am thus spared the expense. I just have to drive up the mountain to get there to use it.
Nice drive, though...and I get to use the nifty mills and lathes with the
digital readout axes.
Suum Cuique...Soo-Um Coo-EE-Quay...from the Latin: Et Sic...Suum Cuique!
And thus, to each his own. A looser translation would be:
Whatever floats yer boat, sport!
Ave et Salve...et Pace Vobiscum!
Gladius Tunercus
Howdy jammer,
A Rockwell tester is a pretty expensive piece of equipment.
haven't priced one in years, but they were pretty high when Hector was a pup. Basically, it pushes a hard, pointed tip...diamond...into the steel
and gauges the hardness of the material by the depth of the hole that it makes.
A Brinell tester checks softer materials with a ball bearing, and the scale is different.
Either one will cost more than a hobby smith can justify buying for one or two jobs a year. I've got access to a machine shop, and am thus spared the expense. I just have to drive up the mountain to get there to use it.
Nice drive, though...and I get to use the nifty mills and lathes with the
digital readout axes.
Suum Cuique...Soo-Um Coo-EE-Quay...from the Latin: Et Sic...Suum Cuique!
And thus, to each his own. A looser translation would be:
Whatever floats yer boat, sport!
Ave et Salve...et Pace Vobiscum!
Gladius Tunercus
Jammer Six
member
You're giving me hives, 'Tuner.
I don't have access to a machine shop, but I have access to a machinest IN a machine shop.
I'll see if he has a hardness thingy. Thanks!
Dave Sample
member
Hard , harder, and too hard. I depend on my suppliers to do the right thing and yes, I am a trusting soul. I have had parts break during building a 1911 and the men who supply me never charged me or faulted me, even when I told them it was my fault. They usually had a part in the mail right away knowing that I would have one on the way back to them and they would cross in the mail. Caspian Parts come to me with tags that tell me what the Rockwell is and I trust them. I am delighted that Tuner can drive to a shop that has a Rockwell Tester, and that speaks a lot for his need to know. I don't have anyone here that has one or needs one so I guess I will just have to stumble along and hope all those guns I built don't come back the same day for the No BS Lifetime Warranty! That would be a Wicked GOOGILY!
Here are my observations concerning my Mil-Spec and a "older" Series 70.
The Colt does have more side to side play and just a touch of vertical play. The Springfield is tighter in both ways. I am more accurate with the Springfield & so far, it has been slightly more reliable. Both guns have standard "hardball sights". The trigger is crisper on the Colt but slightly heavier. The Springfield has some take-up. My main gripe with the Springfield is its sharp edges and glued in ejector, but the gun is a joy to shoot.
DHart
Member
I compared a shelf full of newly arrived Springfield mil specs the other day in a gunshop... slide to frame fit was all over the map, so was trigger pull quality. Some were horrible. Some were much looser than current production Colts, some tighter, of course the Colts vary somewhat as well... just the way it is. I haven't seen near as much variability of fit in the new Colts... most of them seem to be just the right snugness without being too tight. Slide to frame "tightness" is only an issue if it's way too loose or way too tight... a little play is a good thing!
Rob96
Member
But what do you use as a gauge for too loose? I have a stainless NRM Colt that sure as hell rattles when you shake it. But it sure can shoot. I have an ORM Colt (blued) that is definetly fit tighter but has a little looseness to it.
DHart
Member
If it shoots well and fires every time... doesn't matter how loose it is I guess. The seeking the holy grail of "tightness" thing of recent years is mostly a bunch of whoopla over not a lot. Reasonably snug works very well indeed. Enjoy!
Rob96
Member
Believe me, it doesn't really bother me. It just makes you wonder with everyones opinion all over the spectrum. Read on John Farnams site of an instance with Springer Mil-Spec in the class that was suffering from failures. The culprit...........a very tight slide to frame fit. I have made one change to one of my Colts to date. I replaced the rear sight with a Novak tap in sight. Great improvement overthe factory. I will do the same thing to my stainless Colt as well.
Michael Zeleny
member
It is a bad thing. As Wyatt Earp taught us, a sidearm should swing like a bludgeon, not like a mace. The M1911 rattle witnesses the deficiency of Browning's first attempt at designing the slide to frame interface via a single pair of rails facing outward. His final design, as completed by Saive, is definitive, with dual rails facing either way on the GP35. The Neuhausen full-length inverted frame rails are the zenith of realizing the Browning reciprocating slide concept.
I just fondled my new Colt NRM Ser. 80, courtesy of Wild Alaska.
Oh, and a few bills.......
I'm thrilled that it is nice and tight and gorgeous in every aspect.
That said, wouldn't a rattling gun be somewhat of a liability in the field?
I think of some specops operator sneaking up on an enemy, or a tunnel rat in Vietnam trying to be quiet, and all the while their 1911's are rattling like tin cans on a string.....
But what do I know....
Oh, and a few bills.......
I'm thrilled that it is nice and tight and gorgeous in every aspect.
That said, wouldn't a rattling gun be somewhat of a liability in the field?
I think of some specops operator sneaking up on an enemy, or a tunnel rat in Vietnam trying to be quiet, and all the while their 1911's are rattling like tin cans on a string.....
But what do I know....
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Rattle-Bang
Michael said:
The M1911 rattle witnesses the deficiency of Browning's first attempt at designing the slide to frame interface via a single pair of rails facing outward.
___________________
Without meaning to flame, I must beg to differ, sir. It's obvious by your statement that you've never handled a decent pre-war Colt...commercial
OR military issue. The "rattle" came along in the re-toleranced rush for production in the WW2 era GI pistols...The ones that preceeded them were
of such fit that with a drop of oil in the rails, you'd be hard-pressed to
feel any play in either direction, and barely discernible when dry.
In fact, the re-tolerancing of those pistols played a big role in the
"Drop-In" aftermarket that we have today.
And, no...a little rattle isn't a bad thing at all.
Cheers!
Tuner
Michael said:
The M1911 rattle witnesses the deficiency of Browning's first attempt at designing the slide to frame interface via a single pair of rails facing outward.
___________________
Without meaning to flame, I must beg to differ, sir. It's obvious by your statement that you've never handled a decent pre-war Colt...commercial
OR military issue. The "rattle" came along in the re-toleranced rush for production in the WW2 era GI pistols...The ones that preceeded them were
of such fit that with a drop of oil in the rails, you'd be hard-pressed to
feel any play in either direction, and barely discernible when dry.
In fact, the re-tolerancing of those pistols played a big role in the
"Drop-In" aftermarket that we have today.
And, no...a little rattle isn't a bad thing at all.
Cheers!
Tuner
Michael Zeleny
member
I have fondled very tightly fitted 1911 pattern pistols of all vintages. It remains that their reliability tends to go hand in hand with looseness, unlike the case of the Neuhausen design.
It's a judgment call. To join you in channelling Cicero, justitia suum cuique distribuit.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Reliability
It remains that their reliability tends to go hand in hand with looseness, unlike the case of the Neuhausen design.
Not in my experience, Michael. I have a few pistols that don't exhibit any rattle or looseness at all, yet never miss a beat...clean or dirty...hot or cold...oiled or dry. Tightly fitted match pistols tend to go a little off the scale in the quest for the nth degree of accuracy, and they do tend to be a
little less tolerant of dirt and lack of oil...but a correctly built pistol can
be rattle free and boringly reliable.
Pace et Concordia?
It remains that their reliability tends to go hand in hand with looseness, unlike the case of the Neuhausen design.
Not in my experience, Michael. I have a few pistols that don't exhibit any rattle or looseness at all, yet never miss a beat...clean or dirty...hot or cold...oiled or dry. Tightly fitted match pistols tend to go a little off the scale in the quest for the nth degree of accuracy, and they do tend to be a
little less tolerant of dirt and lack of oil...but a correctly built pistol can
be rattle free and boringly reliable.
Pace et Concordia?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Latine Langua!
DrJones said:
Only on THR do the members argue and flame each other in Latin.
Classy stuff, eh what?
DrJones said:
Only on THR do the members argue and flame each other in Latin.
Classy stuff, eh what?
- Status
