Weak points of the 1911

[BluesBear]

9x19 that was my point.
I get so sick and tired of people thinking that just because it says Browning on it that JMB himself designed it from stem to stern. :banghead:

 

[Tamara]

SodaPop,

I gotta say that the "worn feed ramp" thing is a new one on me, too. I've seen alloy-frame guns where someone got too zealous with a dremel and polished the hard anodizing right off the feed ramp, exposing the soft aluminum underneath and causing it to get chewed up by Golden Sabers, but I've never, ever seen a steel-frame 1911 with a "worn feed ramp".

 

[SodaPop]

worn feed ramp

I didn't mean they wear out under normal circumstances, but use of non-ball ammo on a mil-spec 1911 with a GI mag will not function....... very long.


If someone walked into the average gun shop with a GI-1911 and tried to shoot all of the ammo that is sold behind the counter, how versatile is a GI 1911?

If the gun was designed to feed more directly into the barrel (why doesn't my Sig or Beretta need such a feed ramp?) it would have been more versatile.

I know all the short cuts to make a 1911 work.

I use Wilson's 8rd mags and carry 230gr American Eagle for SD.

 

[1911Tuner]

Not long?

I didn't mean they wear out under normal circumstances, but use of non-ball ammo on a mil-spec 1911 with a GI mag will not function....... very long.

Brother, all I can say is that you musta found some pistols
made outta pot metal. Unhardened ordnance steel hits the Rockwell
"C"scale at about 28-30...The cupro-nickelalloy in bullet jacket material might go as high as 3 Rc, regardlessof bullet shape or profile..I'm afraid
you'd go broke long before you wore a feed ramp enough to cause
problems. The trouble with alloy frames isn't the bullets so much as it
is the front of the magazine follower digging in on the last round, and
even that's rare with standard followers.

FWIW, I've shot thousands of hollowpoints over the years in old
GI pistols and Commercial Colts and Springfields...Alloy and steel
frames. Never seen one stop functioning due to frame ramp wear.
I think there's something else at work with your Colt. If you'll get with
me as to exactly what it's doing, I'll try to figger out what it is and try to
get it straightened out.
------------------------------------

If someone walked into the average gun shop with a GI-1911 and tried to shoot all of the ammo that is sold behind the counter, how versatile is a GI 1911?

More than you'd think, even without throating the barrels. It has more to
do with the overall length of the cartridge than the bullet profile. Though
some profiles are more troublesome than others. Try Remington Golden
Saber or Winchester Black Talon in an unmodified GI pistol, with GI"Hardball" mags for a real eye-opener. I understand the Speer Gold Dot
is also very good.
-----------------------------
If the gun was designed to feed more directly into the barrel

That's a question often asked by people who don't understand the controlled feed design of the 1911. The round climbs the hill in order to
let the rim slip under the extractor and keep full control of the round . That's why the 1911 will function upside down as reliably as it will rightside up...Your Beretta probably won't. Climbing that rampand entering the throat at an angle like that also bleeds off some of the slide's momentum and makes for amore gentle return to battery. If it fed with a sharp "whack", the lower lug and slidestop pin would take a worse pounding...as would the hammer and sear and the slidestop hole in the
frame.

Part of getting a 1911 to feed smoothly is in the timing of the barrel's
rise as the slide returns to battery. Correct shape of the lower lug and
center-to-center length of the link is critical, and lends itself to simple tuning
if the barrel rides the link rather than being cammed upward toward
battery/lockup by the front of the lowerlug's radius. Most people who
experience feeding problems automatically assume that it needs a ramp and throat job...and ruin their pistols with overzealous filing, grinding, and polishing as a result. The truth is that the wide barrel throat that's in
vogue isn't really necessary except for shooting semi-wadcutter bullets
and one or two styles of hollowpoints. At most, they usually only require
a small amount of widening/polishing to get them to feed hollowpoints
with rounded or truncated cone-shaped bullets.

Much to learn you have...Teach you we will...but first you must open your mind.

Tune-Fucious say: Reading gunzines, often counterproductive to one's tuning skills.

May your journey be short and your days filled with pleasant warmth
and sunshine.

 

[wally]

My SIG 226 sure has a feed ramp, its part of the barrel like how Para Ordinance "improved" the 1911. My Beretta 92 also has a small reed ramp as part of the barrel. Both also have small feed ramp like cuts in the frame below the barrel's ramp.

I think if rounds are seriously impacting the feed ramp part of the 1911 frame the mag spring is too weak and/or the recoil spring is too strong. Less likely the mag feed lips could be defective and are holding the round down for too long in the feeding cycle.

I can put a resized empty in the mag and it'll feed fine when I drop the slide. Putting a dummy round on top of the empty will generally not feed because there is nothing to push the round up once it clears the feed lips.

--wally.

 

[Tamara]

SodaPop,

If the gun was designed to feed more directly into the barrel (why doesn't my Sig or Beretta need such a feed ramp?) it would have been more versatile.

I would respectfully suggest that you take a closer look at your SIG and Beretta.

 

[Coronach]

Pat357sigfan said:

Its the fastest gun into action.

Really? How is a 1911 with a manual safety any faster than a DAO, DA/SA or Glock, with no manual safety (or, at least, not one that is required to be carried engaged)? Sure, properly carried and employed, it is no less swift, but lets not pretend that its faster.

I think you'd be better off arguing "excellent trigger, good cartridge, good ergonomics" to justify its popularity with LE/military.

Mike

 

[355sigfan]

Really? How is a 1911 with a manual safety any faster than a DAO, DA/SA or Glock, with no manual safety (or, at least, not one that is required to be carried engaged)? Sure, properly carried and employed, it is no less swift, but lets not pretend that its faster.
END

I am not trying to be a argumentative jerk but lets break this down.

With a 1911 your safety comes off in the rock and lock stage of a weaver presentation or as soon as both your hands come on to the gun in isocellese. By the time your sights are on the target you only have a short light trigger pull between you and hitting the target.

WIth a DAO or DA SA you can start pulling the trigger once your in the rock and lock stage or when your hands come together on the gun in the iso stance. This technique would have your trigger breaking about the time your arms extend. This sounds great in theory and should be almost as fast as a 1911. However its very tricky for timmig and I never felt comfortable doing it. So most people end up pulling the trigger only once their arms are extended. They have to pull a trigger that is over twice as long and twice to three times as heavy before they can hit the target.

Most peoples first shot with a da sa or dao handgun is about .1 to .2 seconds slower than from a 1911 or a glock. Thats been my informal observation. Glocks are as fast into action as a 1911 because their trigger is not much longer.

So I stand by the argument that a 1911 is faster into action than dao and da sa type weapons. I would back that up with the fact that 1911's dominate in speed competitions. If something was faster it would be used. Try it yourself with a timer at the range.
Pat

 

[Chris Rhines]

The grip safety is an unnecessary addition.
The original factory sights are crude in the extreme.
The non-fixed barrel. Of course, this is a weak point in most automatic pistols.
The link and lower lug are, to my mind, overly complicated.
The overall design of the gun is geared towards hand-fitting and assembly, as opposed to mass production. This is also a problem with most modern semi-autos.

- Chris

 

[1911Tuner]

Faster

Sigfan nailed that one pretty good. To wit: If there was anything faster, it
would be used. Sure, it's possible to match the speed of the 1911 from signal to shot, but putting it on target is another matter. Only hits count.
Misses are just noise. More than that, the single-action trigger of the 1911
allows a much easier and faster follow-up shot than the DA to SA switch
with the double-action and trigger cocking autopistols.

Now, for the all-time fastest sidearm for the first shot hit...brace yourselves...it's the Colt 1873 Single Action Army. That's right kids
The old Peacemaker is King of the First Shot speed contest.

Bill Jordan mastered the timing on the Draw and Fire exercise. I watched him draw a double-action revolver (M-19) and hit an aspirin tablet at about
10 paces...repeatedly...faster than my eye could follow. He's been timed at a blurred .27 second from signal to HIT. That's faster than some can even react to the signal.

How'd ya like ta draw down on THAT hombre?

Chitty-Chitty, Bang, bang

Tuner

 

[355sigfan]

Now, for the all-time fastest sidearm for the first shot hit...brace yourselves...it's the Colt 1873 Single Action Army. That's right kids
The old Peacemaker is King of the First Shot speed contest.
END

I have heard that but could never do it or understand it. Must take a lot of practice.
Pat

 

[1911Tuner]

Points

Chris said:

The grip safety is an unnecessary addition.

W3ell...That one's at least open for debate. Some like it, some don't
I kinda like redundant safeties when I got me a cocked .45 nestled next to my ol' skinny. Trigger movement blocked...Sear movement blocked...half cock backin' it all up if anything breaks. Yeah...I kinda like the grip safety.
--------------------------------

The original factory sights are crude in the extreme.

True enough...but in the role for which the gun was designed, the sights
are adequate. Under the circumstances that the pistol would have likely
been deployed, the shooter wouldn't likely have time to obtain the perfect
grip and sight picture...and there's at least a chance that the action would be in the dark at contact ranges. In that, I can promise that all you'll be thinking about is that, THAT GUY RIGHT THERE...is trying to kill me, and
I GOTTA GET HIM FIRST! Or put another way...When one finds himself up
to his ??? in alligators, it's difficult to keep one's mind focused on draining
the swamp.
-------------------------------

The link and lower lug are, to my mind, overly complicated.
Nahhhh...Not really.
------------------------------

The overall design of the gun is geared towards hand-fitting and assembly, as opposed to mass production.
True enough...if you want that type of pistol, but as Rosie the Riveter and
Gus the Gun Putter Together during the gear-up for war, the 1911 CAN be
mass-produced...and it WAS successfully mass-produced, and by some manufacturers that had never built guns before. They worked then, and they'll work today if you can find a nice one that hasn't been abused.
-----------------------------

My favorite:

The non-fixed barrel. Of course, this is a weak point in most automatic pistols.

Well...It might be a weakness if accuracy is the only yardstick that we use to judge a pistol's utility, but when a barrel has to be replaced in a hurry
in the field, the non-fixed barrel has a lot going for it.

Blanket response to all the above...Remember what the gun was designed
FOR. Not for punching tiny groups in paper. Not for 50-yard bullshooting.
Not for playing games of "Let's Pretend!" Not even for law enforcement. It's not a surgeon's scalpel. It's a broad-head axe that was..and is... intended for emergency use at powder-burning distances. That it's been pressed into other, less lethal roles successfully doesn't alter that.

In its original role, it doesn't need big sights or minute of BS accuracy.
It needs to work.

Be of good cheer and mindful of your six!

Tuner

.

 

[dsk]

Tuner,

While on the subect of lower barrel lugs, are you too noticing how many Kimbers have battered lugs after a short while? Somebody needs to go to their factory and tell them how to fit a barrel properly.

 

[BigG]

Tuner's last post really summed it up well:

Remember what it was made for

Saving your life at powder burn range, maybe in the dark. The fact that the best combat pistol can be adapted to be the best target pistol, game pistol, etc. is wonderful but the real story of the Government .45 ACP was written with the blood, sweat, and tears of thousands of GIs in several wars on several continents. We ought to remember that. Out here.

 

[355sigfan]

I personally prefer visiable sights. I am a firm believer in sighted fire vs point shooting. However at close range indexing works well and the whole weapon can pretty much be used as a sight.
Pat

 

[1911Tuner]

Kimber Lugs

dsk said:

While on the subect of lower barrel lugs, are you too noticing how many Kimbers have battered lugs after a short while? Somebody needs to go to their factory and tell them how to fit a barrel properly.

Dana, to tell the truth, I don't see too many Kimbers in this area since the
S-2's came out. On the ones that I do see, I've noticed some locking lugs
getting rolled/peened on occasion, but when I point to the trouble spot,
some of the owners get defensive...so I learned to approach with caution.

I have seen some lower lugs getting beaten up because of dropping the slide on empty, though...and you guessed it...When I try to gently suggest
that it'll break the gun, I get a lotta "Ah, Who told you that? Haw haw"

Ah well...

Tuner

 

[BluesBear]

That's right kids The old Peacemaker is King of the First Shot speed contest.

I once worked with the legendary Joe Bowman, who if I recall once held the world record for fast draw & fire. He could draw a single action and fire it three times so fast all you could hear was one POP.*
Talk about a blur! He could do it faster than the eye could follow.



*This was using primed cases only. He used Ruger Blackhawks that had the topstraps ground and reconfigured to resemble a Colt SAA because he said the leaf spring in the Colts weren't fast enough.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The grip safety is an unnecessary addition.

W3ell...That one's at least open for debate. Some like it, some don't
I kinda like redundant safeties when I got me a cocked .45 nestled next to my ol' skinny. Trigger movement blocked...Sear movement blocked...half cock backin' it all up if anything breaks. Yeah...I kinda like the grip safety.

This is fine, if you can activate the grip safety with 100% reliability, with either hand, from any shooting position. I can't, and it's the same with many others. The grip safety is simply something more to go wrong. I can put up with double-redundant safety vs. triple-redundant.

The original factory sights are crude in the extreme.

True enough...but in the role for which the gun was designed, the sights
are adequate. Under the circumstances that the pistol would have likely
been deployed, the shooter wouldn't likely have time to obtain the perfect
grip and sight picture...and there's at least a chance that the action would be in the dark at contact ranges. In that, I can promise that all you'll be thinking about is that, THAT GUY RIGHT THERE...is trying to kill me, and
I GOTTA GET HIM FIRST! Or put another way...When one finds himself up
to his ??? in alligators, it's difficult to keep one's mind focused on draining
the swamp.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. At breath-smelling distances, large, highly visible sights are even more important. If the bad guy is five feet away swinging a tire jack, you have to stop him RIGHT NOW. That means placing your shots fast and precisely, 'cause marginal hits aren't going to stop him right there. The original 1911 sights do not lend themselves to fast, accurate shooting. It's an easy fix to improve the sights (so much so that I debated including the sights as a weakness, but as issued, they really are.)

The link and lower lug are, to my mind, overly complicated.
Nahhhh...Not really.

Compared to the solid lug on a P-35 or CZ-75? Or even better, compared to a fixed barrel?

The non-fixed barrel. Of course, this is a weak point in most automatic pistols.

Well...It might be a weakness if accuracy is the only yardstick that we use to judge a pistol's utility, but when a barrel has to be replaced in a hurry
in the field, the non-fixed barrel has a lot going for it.

Replacing a 1911A1 barrel in the field without tools and fixtures? Um, okay. I admit that I've only fitted one 1911 barrel thus far, but it required a vise, file, and a fair amount of fiddling and fitting. With a properly designed fixed-barrel pistol, the barrel can be swapped out by pulling a latch or driving out a couple of pins.

A fixed barrel pistol is not only more accurate (and I've never heard of having too much accuracy ), but has the potential to be simpler in operation, more rugged, and more reliable.

---

The 1911A1 is a fine gunfighting tool, but it is not perfect. It has its weaknesses, just like any other pistol.

- Chris

 

[444]

Grip Safety: I have never failed to activate the grip safety on my 1911s from any position. I have fired quite a few thousand rounds out of them, the vast majority of which were from the holster. Personally, I don't see how you could fire the gun in any recognizable way without automatically depressing the grip safety. Even if you held the gun between your thumb and forefinger you would be depressing the grip safety.

This thread is about the 1911 in general but if you want to concentrate only on the original factory sights, I still feel they are adequate. Not the best by a long shot, but certainly workable. They did work on the military guns for quite a few years. All my 1911s currently have factory sights on them. They are better than the original but not by much. I have competed in IPSC, IDPA, and have used these sights in several big name gun schools. If they were a handicap, I don't think it was much of one. In a class I took this past weekend I shot a score that qualified me at their highest level for that course using factory Colt sights.

"A fixed barrel pistol is not only more accurate (and I've never heard of having too much accuracy ), but has the potential to be simpler in operation, more rugged, and more reliable."
I have to wonder about that. I am no bullseye shooter, but have done a little reading on the subject. The 1911 has dominated the bullseye world for over 75 years. One would think that they would have gone to something else if what they were using was inferior. As far as reliability, this is a very controversial subject. In my mind, there is no more reliable handgun anywhere, ever made that is more reliable than a GI issue 1911.

 

[Amish]

Limited capacity for such a large and heavy gun.

Not as reliable out of the box as other guns.

Only single action. Not DA/SA with cocked and locked option like the USP45.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Personally, I don't see how you could fire the gun in any recognizable way without automatically depressing the grip safety.

It's easy if you have my hands. If I grasp the pistol in my normal offhand shooting grip, thumb riding on top of the safety, the grip safety will not be depressed far enough for the gun to fire. An aftermarket grip safety can help, but a better solution for a part that serves no practical purpose is to remove it. And I don't think that the grip safety on the 1911 has any practical use.

This thread is about the 1911 in general but if you want to concentrate only on the original factory sights, I still feel they are adequate.

There are some modern factory sights that are pretty good. I was refering to the old WWI-era thumbnail front sight and tiny-notch rear sight (both my 1911s are so equipped.)

I have to wonder about that. I am no bullseye shooter, but have done a little reading on the subject. The 1911 has dominated the bullseye world for over 75 years. One would think that they would have gone to something else if what they were using was inferior.

Funny you should bring up bullseye shooting, as that's my main sport. All of the fixed-barrel pistols introduced on the market in the past 75 years have had other features that make them poorly suited for bullseye shooting. There are a couple of companies working on fixed-barrel variants of the 1911, with mixed results so far. Regardless, all else being equal a fixed barrel is always going to surpass a tilting barrel in terms of mechanical accuracy.

As far as reliability, this is a very controversial subject. In my mind, there is no more reliable handgun anywhere, ever made that is more reliable than a GI issue 1911.

That may or may not be true; it's impossible to make an objective assement of reliability for a particular firearm without a much larger sample size than any one person can have. But again, all else being equal, fixed barrels usually mean fewer moving parts. Fewer moving parts means fewer things to break.

- Chris

 

[444]

" it's impossible to make an objective assement of reliability for a particular firearm without a much larger sample size than any one person can have."


It was the standard issue handgun for every branch of the US Military for something like 75 years. How much more of a sample size can there be ?









It was good on Iwo Jima. It was good at the Chosin Reservoir. It was good in Vietnam. And it's good enough for me.

 

[355sigfan]

Limited capacity for such a large and heavy gun.

Not as reliability out of the box as other guns.

Only single action. Not DA/SA with cocked and locked option like the USP45.

END

Well lets start with Capacity. Its a single stack 45 7 or 8 is what they hold. If you want you can get a double stack 1911 with between 10 +1 with a light polimer frame (KZ45) to a 15 shot steel framed Para. To some of us concealability and ergonomics matter more than round count.

The 1911 is very reliable if you get the right one and not a lemon. But overall the lemon factor is higher due to previously mentioned facts. Not a big deal though. Test the gun before you carry it. IF it does not work send it back.

Only single action you say. I like single action its the fastests way to get fast accurate hits on target. The USP45 is not a bad gun but I carried one for about the first 18 months of life as a cop. The cocked and locked feature on this gun did not work well. Most of the time when you took the safety off the gun also decocked. It was top heavy with a high bore axis and muzzle flip was more pronounced. The DA trigger was hell. It was not a bad gun but I would rather have my issue Glock 21 to that and my 1911 to the Glock.
Pat

 

[BluesBear]

all else being equal a fixed barrel is always going to surpass a tilting barrel in terms of mechanical accuracy

You weren't actually planning on mounting both the front & rerar sight to the barrel were you?
If not then mechanical accuacy will depend on the slide to frame fit, since the sights will still be mounted to the slide.


I have never known or seen anyone who had any sort of problem squeezing the grip safety on a 1911 pattern pistol. I've seen nine year old girls who had no problem with them.
If you do I'm sorry. But for a problem that occurs once in a million doesn't make it a weakness. If you don't like, or can't use the GS then it's simple, PIN IT. Or grind the end off of it. End of problem.

As for the original GI sights... have you checked out the sights on a 1917 S&W or 1917 Colt?
Or the Colt New Army/Navy? Or the Colt SAA?
Those Lugers and P-38s had such really great sights too.
Look where the sights were on the 03 Springfield. (not the 03A3)

There were no GI .45s manufactured after 1945. So for the time period produced the sights were about as good as anything else.



edited for spelling - dang Q key

 

[Tamara]

BluesBear,

I have never known or seen anyone who had any sort of problem sueezing the grip safety on a 1911 pattern pistol.

Then you need to choke up higher on the pistol. It'll reduce your splits, trust me.