What is wrong with the factory?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now this is a good thread!

I am no expert regarding 1911s, so I can't contribute anything of significance. What I can submit is a subjective affinity to the WWII 1911 that my TaeKwonDo instructor owned. I had opportunity not only to shoot it many times, but also used it as my first CCW pistol while I managed the Nat'l Headquarters for him in Knoxville, TN.

There was something about that pistol that can only be described as smooth as butter. It fed any ammo, fired more accurate than I, and never failed to eject. All parts were original and no modifications.

My present fantasy is to someday (hopefully soon) buy a Caspian set up, and have some old school expert create a plain, but true to the spirit 1911...by hand, the way they should be fit. The estimated cost (as quoted to me) was right around $2,000.00 for Tritium sights and hard chromed, and would come with a

"WILL NOT FAIL warranty"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doc2005
 
CNC should be perfect every time and better / more consistent than the old time tool makers can do on a milling machine using their skill.

But in practice it is not, and Tuner mentions the variance in dimensions he is seeing on the new CNC made guns.

The explanation for this is simple, cost savings, tooling wears . The old school machinist would check his dimensions on every piece. As the cutter wears down the old school machinist makes adjustments, cutting to near the finished dimension line on each piece, and then precisely finishing the part to the exact tollerence.

The CNC operator has instructions to change the tool every 50 parts, now the tool is wearing and the dimensions changing from the first part to the last.
The CNC tool cuts right to the finished part line, no hand adjustment. So by the last part the tollerence is off by .007 which is the amount that the tool wore before being changed.

Hand work by a skilled machinist is more precise. The manufacturers could correct this with the CNC equipment by cutting that last .008 to the finished part line by hand but they won't due to increased cost.
 
Smith & Wesson for one knew that, and gauged the parts. At the beginning of World War Two, the Army ask S&W for a full set of blueprints for the Military & Police .38 revolver, which they were making for them as the "Victory Model," and the U.K. as the "Pistol No. 2, Smith & Wesson .38-200."

S&W was willing, but couldn't comply. They didn't have a full set of their own to duplicate. Yet for over 40 years they'd been making the revolver, and it was considered to be the quality benchmark against which others were compared.

If you disassemble earlier examples made between 1905 and 1940 and examine the workmanship it quickly became apparent that when it comes to fit, precision, and polish today's guns are nowhere near as good - but they are made out of better steel.
 
First, a big thanks to Tuner for his invitation to shoot and chew the barbeque. You are close to SC, they haven't reverted to mustard based sauce there have they?

The issue is quality control, always has been and always will be, no matter the method of manufacture. Even in the good old days it was a problem. I seem to recall the first 300,000 '03s were defective due to poor heat treat QC. The parts made by CNC need quality control, just as much as the parts made by hand. I have seen more than a few pre-war colts that showed roughness on internal parts due to obvious tooling wear.

In another thread some have commented on the golden era of firearms and the products made then. They were beautiful, but how many would carry a prewar PPK in .32 ACP, or a 1917 Colt revolver today. The utility of the designs has been improved and the precision of manufacture has been improved.

QC is obviously a problem for some makers. Firearms are fairly simple as a group of mechanical devices. Go into a modern aircraft or turbine engine plant and take a look at how very complex parts are made. QC and machining in these areas is fantastic.
 
I am with Peter Eick, Ole Fuff, Jim Keenan, and the ones who LIKE the old ones better, but I think the expectations of people today are overly high.

A 1911 type selling for ~ $500 dollars today would be marketed for probably $10 during the great depression. In other words, it would not have been produced. I think the old Colt 1911 was around $50 or $60 then, when many would be happy to work for 10c a day.

The Colt pistol was always high, costing around a month's pay, IIRC. Who would be willing today to work a month for $500? I know I wouldn't. The Colt Government Model to be in line with the old Colt pricing would probably be a couple thou today. The market just will not bear that and the quality you claim to desire cannot be built in for less today. JMTC

On the other hand, technology has advanced by leaps and bounds since 1930, but the aesthetics of many of us are unwilling to advance.

While I stand by my Colts, I have to admit that Glock has got the hot setup for the 21st century. He has integrated cheap manufacture with reliability and has enough flexibility in the pricing where it will be dang hard for anybody else to undercut him unless they come up with a similar breakthrough.

All imho, of course. ;)
 
True quality has never been cheap and never will be, but I think certain modern makers are offering a very good value for the dollar in terms of performance. Art and skill will always be appreciated and valued by those who understand it.
Utility and precise manufacture is more important to the user than artistry.
In any case don't be surprised if low end price doesn't bring high end performance, quality or design.
 
re:

jungle said/inquired:

>In another thread some have commented on the golden era of firearms and the products made then. They were beautiful, but how many would carry a prewar PPK in .32 ACP, or a 1917 Colt revolver today. The utility of the designs has been improved and the precision of manufacture has been improved.<
*****************

Dunno about the ones that you mentioned, but I often carry a bone stock 1918 Colt...other than the grip safety, which makes the hammer truly brutal...
but other than that, it's as Simon Pure as the day it left Hartford.
(Yes Fuff. The stock safety is tagged and bagged.:neener: )Completely reliable and more accurate than I can prove without a rest. It'll feed hollowpoints and even 200-grain semi-wadcutters...just like all my other
obsolete, USGI pistols...:cool: (Well...except for one Union Switch. Haven't tested it beyond the one magfull of hardball right after I got it.)

South Carolina ain't far. I'm one hour north of Charlotte, 3 miles off I-85.

The barbecue here in the birthplace of Hickory smoked barbecue ain't mustard based. Never has been and never will be. Somebody move here and start makin' that stuff, they're subject to git tarred and featherd.:evil:

Come on up and set a spell! Hope ya like Collie dogs in multiples.:p
 
jungle said:
True quality has never been cheap and never will be, but I think certain modern makers are offering a very good value for the dollar in terms of performance. Art and skill will always be appreciated and valued by those who understand it.
Utility and precise manufacture is more important to the user than artistry.
In any case don't be surprised if low end price doesn't bring high end performance, quality or design.
Click to expand...

Sure, it may happen, but comparing apples to apples, American manufacture, ie., not under turdworld hellhole conditions, you will not see it.
 
Peppers and vinegar are the only way.

1911s will live for a long time, I still own the one my Grandfather carried in WWI. He also used it to stop a lynch mob at the County Courthouse one evening long after the war.
The design lives on because it works. Like the P-35, it is still being made. I think you will agree that some of the 1911s made today are as good or better than any made before.
As to rifles, once the military realized that troops in the field actually almost never engaged an enemy beyond 200-300 yards, the criteria for a useful design changed. What works lives on, which is why we don't see too many of the Savage .45s that were in competition with the 1911.
 
I think you will agree that some of the 1911s made today are as good or better than any made before.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the popular price range, imho. Are you including foreign made in that? I would say a boutique 45 auto would be in the same ballpark with a 1930s Colt, and far more user friendly, but you are talking a couple thousand bucks, not $399.95

Also - the aesthetics of the Colt 1930s built is far above a new boutique firearm, im (and probably others) ho.
 
As good or better?

Not a sure bet. Although the steels and heat-treatment have improved by leaps and bounds, that usually only applies to the major parts. Frame, slide, and barrel for most manufacturers. Colt does still use real steel for more of the small parts than the others, but there's still some pretty shoddy stuff
that pops up even in Colts.

Added to the fact that I've never seen as many 1911 pistols and clones with the functional issues that I've seen in recent years. Used to be that you could buy a commercial Colt, load it and go...with complete confidence.
A 1950s and 1960s era Colt 1911 that didn't run like a raped ape straight out of the box was almost newsworthy...No break-in period...No trying this and that magazine to see if it helped...No problems...and there are many issues from all present-day manufacturers that don't respond to the tried and true tweaks that I rarely had to do to any of the older ones...WW1 and WW2-era USGIs and all...and I've been at the guns almost exclusively since 1964. Addressing functional issues, troubleshooting, and repair has always been my specialty. Never much drawn to the custom end of the trade, I've always concentrated on reliability first and foremost...and I'll state flatly that I've learned most of what I know with the guns that have been built since 1975...because the ones built prior to that time rarely needed anything more than a good cleaning, maybe a fresh set of springs, and a good magazine. Now, I almost have to re-engineer some of the damned things just to get'em to run.

In fairness, they've started getting better in the last 3-5 years on those counts, but they're still not up to the standards set by the guns built in the 20s and 30s...and things got even better after WW2 because of the better/complete heat-treatment processes done to the frames and slides.
They were not only dead reliable, they could be shot hard without worry over cracks and premature wear.

Some time ago, I was personally involved with a commercial Colt circa 1921
that laid in an attic for 62 years...fully loaded and in Condition One. I cleared the gun and did a cursory examination...replaced the loose round in the magazine and put it into battery...fired it 7 times and the slide locked on empty. So try to understand that I'm not too happy when it comes to
functional reliability and the current state of things related to firearms.
200 rounds without a burp? Happy day! Sorry...Not impressed. When that count gets up to 10,000 rounds without a single malfunction, then you'll have my attention.
 
Old Fuff said:
At the beginning of World War Two, the Army ask S&W for a full set of blueprints for the Military & Police .38 revolver, which they were making for them as the "Victory Model," and the U.K. as the "Pistol No. 2, Smith & Wesson .38-200."

S&W was willing, but couldn't comply. They didn't have a full set of their own to duplicate. Yet for over 40 years they'd been making the revolver, and it was considered to be the quality benchmark against which others were compared.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I read of the exact same thing occurring when, around WWI, Springfield Armory and Remington UMC were chosen as alternate sources to produce 1911s. Springfield produced drawings according to nominal dimensions and couldn't produce pistols that worked. They went to Colt and Colt didn't have drawings. They had assemblers that understood how the pistol WORKED and put them together to suit.
 
It is certainly true that older 1911s were reliable, but it is also true that many Gunsmiths have made a living on reliability work, needed or not. I've heard that some of the older commercial Colts were military rejects and found their way to the market in that way.
Aesthetics are largely a matter of taste, but I find that bead blasted stainless or Tenifer has a benefit. That doesn't mean that blue and walnut are bad, but they aren't my first choice for carry on a hot day.
If I want to admire artistry the old production has no peer. If I'm looking for resitance to wear and corrosion, extreme useful accuracy, rapid firepower, and sighting system that is useful day or night against fleeting targets-then current designs will be what serves the purpose. Reliability with some of the newer designs is extremely good, certainly on par or better than the best JMB design.
 
Reliability Work

>It is certainly true that older 1911s were reliable, but it is also true that many Gunsmiths have made a living on reliability work, needed or not.<
****************

Sadly, that's all too true. There are unscrupulous people working in the trade just like any other profession, but a lot of reliability work lies in optimizing certain key areas to insure better long-term/adverse conditions reliability, even though the gun is presently working well when relatively new and clean.

A few examples:

Widening the breechface guide rails from below optimum to .484-.488 inch.
Beveling and radiusing the extractor hook to allow smoother feeding.
Polishing the breechface to remove deep toolmarks.
Adjusting the magazine follower angle.
Breaking sharp corners and edges to prevent stress risers and cracks.
Polishing the hammer strut lengthwise to prevent breakage.
ect. etc. etc.

These things are routinely done not because the gun is malfunctioning, but rather to prevent a malfunction or breakage years down the road. As much preventative maintenence as anything else. Guns that are malfunctioning must first be corrected, and then reliability mods are made to insure that the problems don't recur.

When I was a working smith, I very often did extra little things for reasons of long-term durability and/or reliability and usually wrote up a N/C for it on the work order...if I even included it. You'll find that many present-day smiths do the same. Nipping a possible problem in the bud, so to speak, in the interest of providing the customer with a little something extra for his money. People who carry the guns for serious purpose deserve that. When those types bring a gun to me to "make sure it's right", they're literally putting their lives in my hands.
 
One other thing that most tend to forget. For every Colt, S&W, Mauser, Walther, etc that was made as well as it could be in those times past there were probably ten examples of junk built by less able makers for the mass market. These tend to be forgotten because they were not preserved and cherished like the examples of quality.Cost cutting and design to minimum standards are not new concepts. The same thing holds true today.
 
re:

jungle said:
One other thing that most tend to forget. For every Colt, S&W, Mauser, Walther, etc that was made as well as it could be in those times past there were probably ten examples of junk built by less able makers for the mass market. These tend to be forgotten because they were not preserved and cherished like the examples of quality.Cost cutting and design to minimum standards are not new concepts. The same thing holds true today.
Click to expand...

You mean manufacturers like Remington Rand...Union Switch and Signal
...Singer...Ithaca...Smith Corona...General Motors...IBM...Rockola, and the like?:evil:
 
You know that isn't what I meant, but there were plenty of very cheap top break revolvers made during those years that aren't exactly in high demand. Reminds me of a dealer who keeps a plastic milk crate full of non-functional Lorcin, jennings,etc to show potential customers what not to buy.

Your mention of the Wartime contractors is interesting in that manufacturing excellence goes a very long way toward a quality product, no matter what that product may be. Most of those mentioned never built a firearm before the war and never did after the war.
 
Cost cutting and design to minimum standards are not new concepts. The same thing holds true today.
Click to expand...

True. But in the past (prior to about 1965) this wasn't something that was the rule with the top line manufacturers. Today it's a common practice accross the board. Cost-cutting is "the" driving force, with management controled by number-crunchers. Quality comes in second - if the consumer is lucky.

We have another interesting thread going on, concerning double-action revolvers (mostly Smith & Wesson). It seems that the older 1917 models could be loaded and fired using .45 ACP ammunition, but without the clips. Even during wartime the cylinders were correctly chambered. Today that isn't always true, as chambers very, even in the same revolver. The older cylinders were chambered by skilled workmen who cared. The more recent ones were done on a CNC controled machine. Smith & Wesson's response was, "you're supposed to use clips." Says alot about both current manufacturing methods and management attitudes.
 
Plenty of cost cutting went on in the war years like switching to 2 groove barrels and stamped minor parts on the '03, redesign of the 1928A1 to the M1A1, and moving to the M3. Cheaper is not always less functional, and it may even add utility or durability.
It's easy to blame the number crunchers or management, but when consumers wouldn't know quality if it bit them on the rump it doesn't help. I've seen plenty of threads where people return guns for something easily fixed by the consumer or something that is not even a problem at all. I'd say the average 1911 owner can't even detail strip his pistol, much less the average Glock owner. Present company excepted, of course.
It is not uncommon at all to read about accuracy complaints from shooters who would have trouble hitting a barn from inside.
 
This doesn't bode well for the production 1911, from what I'm reading.

Either you spend additional money on hand fitting, maybe some parts replacement or buy a complete semi or custom gun for $1500+.

Maybe, someone should design a 1911 that "fits" within current manufacturing techniques. It wouldn't be a true "1911", but if it feels the same...then many may not care! I may care ;) , but there's new "generations" of shooters coming up that wouldn't...IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, someone should design a 1911 that "fits" within current manufacturing techniques. It wouldn't be a true "1911", but if it feels the same...then many may not care! I may care , but there's new "generations" of shooters coming up that wouldn't...IMHO.
Click to expand...

A number of companies have seriously considered doing that, and I have handled prototypes and looked at drawings.

But when they do a market study those potential buyers that respond say that they are only interested in the unaltered Browning design, and most of them want to buy it for under $600.

So we end up getting what we have now. In other words they expect a Lincoln for the price of a Ford. Might be possible, but not likely.
 
Wartime Production

Yes...Corners were cut, but it wasn't about crunching (dollar) numbers. It was about equipping an army that had about triple the numbers in the ranks as it had weapons to put into their hands. Emergencies take priority...and besides...the 2-groove Springfields shot pretty well. I wouldn't want
a Marine rifleman to be lookin' at ME through that aperture and a finger ticklin' the trigger at a quarter-mile...:uhoh:

As far as junk production goes...That was everywhere, and is still with us today. The old Iver Johnson Owl Head top-break revolvers weren't exactly precision target-grade weapons, but they filled a niche and in doing so, they sent many a man on to glory. Guns that weren't meant to be fired much filled that niche as long as they'd fire. There was a market for a cheap, concealable revolver then...and there still is. And...as long as there are po' folk that need a inexpensive handgun for self-defense, there always will be. Like the guy who walked into the shop where I used to work, and asked for the cheapest pistol we had. Said it only had to work once...:scrutiny:

Anyway...back to the topic...which was a comparison between CNC mass-production and quality weapons from reputable manufacturers of yesteryear.
I have a '43 Colt GI that came to me as a basket case. I rebuilt it using all the original internals except springs, of course. I fitted a good NM barrel to it
because the original was shot out and badly pitted. Peened the frame and refitted the slide...and it does yeoman service in the rotatation as one of my carry guns. It's never failed to function with any ammo or decent magazine I've used in it. It shoots into 2 inches at 25 yards, and it's probably worth less than 500 bucks to a collector or purveyor of things collectible...but I wouldn't trade it straight up for a half-dozen new (Name your favorite brand, including Baer/Wilson/Brown, etc.)

No sentiment involved, understand. The gun has proven itself, and it fills the niche that it was intended for. I think I gave 75 dollars for it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BSA1
  • Locked
S&W K-Frame Trigger Replacement
Replies
10
Views
3K
Old Fuff
O
D
  • Locked
Python tuneup
Replies
4
Views
758
dfariswheel
D
J
  • Locked
Beretta Model 21-A
Replies
7
Views
2K
jondar
J
O
  • Locked
Gentlemen...I really need your help
Replies
12
Views
1K
Traveler
T
R
  • Locked
J-Frame hammer "bobbing" - The final answer
Replies
14
Views
7K
280PLUS
2
Back
Top