does anyone make a simpler 1911-type pistol?

S

SkinnyJoe

BANNED
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
7,236
I seem to remember browsing a book (by Sweeney?) about a year ago in which he wrote of the 1911 pistol as advanced for its time, and how compared to modern designs like the Glock, the cartridge in the 1911 has to "go a more complicated route to get inside the chamber" - or something to that effect, and that this affects feeding reliability, unless one uses FMJ and/or the pistol is customized.

Can someone clarify this?

I like several things about the 1911 pistol: The looks, barrel length, caliber, all steel, fits my hand nicely, points naturally, relatively thin.

But, if someone has addressed the "problem" Sweeney has mentioned (I think it was Sweeney, and if it wasn't, please correct me), from the inside, thus not affecting the things I like about the gun, I would sure like to know about it.

Thanks.
 
Haven't read that book, but it sounds a bit dated. The original 1911 design was made for the only load available: 230 hardball.

This remained the only factory load for many years. When other bullet profiles arrived on the scene, the unaltered 1911 had trouble feeding them, since the design was not made to accommodate loads other than round nose.

Enter the custom gunsmith and the term "throating" the barrel. This used to be required on 1911's, but no longer.

Most of the quality 1911's will feed any currently available bullet profile there is. Of course, make sure YOUR 1911 feeds the load of your choice, just to make sure. (that applies to Glocks, etc, also)

.
 
I've not heard of the "more complicated route to get inside the chamber" issue - which I don't really think is an issue - but the 1911 is not as inherently reliable as a Glock, for example, which has fewer parts and a more reliable extractor.

This is not to diss the 1911, which I like a great deal. But you never hear of a Glock needing to have an extractor bent (euphemistically referred to as "tuned" in 1911 parlance) to make the gun extract.

But the 1911 does have much going for it. It is, to me, the slipjoint of the gun world - a reminder of the "good old days" and that served long in combat, a gun that has "soul" and is a pleasure to own, shoot and fondle, and so forth. And it feels good in the hand, and can be both very reliable and accurate.



march-1.jpg
 
'Complicated route' How far does the round have to travel to get from magazine to chamber ? Ramp one or two part ? Is the round more or less parallel to the chamber? Where is the extractor ,ejector and ejection port relative to each other ? These are all problem areas for the 1911..
The best I can think of is the H&K P7 which I have .One piece ramp and the barrel is fixed to the frame ,it doesn't move.The ramp isn't even curved and doesn't have to be !! It has the shortest distance between mag and chamber.Round in magazine is very closely parallel to the chamber. Extractor is exactly opposite ejector and is centered in the ejection port.Ejected case never touches the slide [and thus go about 15' ! ]! Yes it's super reliable !!
The P7 is then excellent design where the others are not !!! The others [good quality new manufacture] have to overcome design deficiencies to get reliability.
 
One needs to also take into consideration the cleanliness of more recent ammunition.

Many older pistol designs continue to function "dirty" when many newer designs start to get stopages.

But Sweeney (gosh, haven't read that name in awhile) was/is correct. Merely because guns are now throated at the factory does not negate the issue.
 
How does a more modern design of the 1911 compare to the Colt?
Like my compact SS Kimber. Which is a 1998 model.
2cibcz8.jpg
[/IMG]
 
powernoodle said:
I've not heard of the "more complicated route to get inside the chamber" issue - which I don't really think is an issue - but the 1911 is not as inherently reliable as a Glock, for example, which has fewer parts and a more reliable extractor.

This is not to diss the 1911, which I like a great deal. But you never hear of a Glock needing to have an extractor bent (euphemistically referred to as "tuned" in 1911 parlance) to make the gun extract.

But the 1911 does have much going for it. It is, to me, the slipjoint of the gun world - a reminder of the "good old days" and that served long in combat, a gun that has "soul" and is a pleasure to own, shoot and fondle, and so forth. And it feels good in the hand, and can be both very reliable and accurate.



march-1.jpg
Click to expand...
LOL
Can you please refrain from taking pics of pistols on THE GROUND??!!!:eek:
It makes me cringe;)

I don't really like the safety grip on my 1991A1:mad:
But, it's a minor issue
And I still like it in general
 
Jill, the various 1911 clones often try to "improve" the original and come up short. Kimber decided to use an external extractor instead of the tried and true internal one .After 3 or 4 tries they gave up !. In general any 1911 type with shorter than Commander length is less reliable.
 
mete said:
Jill, the various 1911 clones often try to "improve" the original and come up short. Kimber decided to use an external extractor instead of the tried and true internal one .After 3 or 4 tries they gave up !. In general any 1911 type with shorter than Commander length is less reliable.
Click to expand...

I've never had that gun even come close to jamming.
 
jill jackson said:
How does a more modern design of the 1911 compare to the Colt?
Like my compact SS Kimber. Which is a 1998 model.
Click to expand...

That's a fine pistol and IMO much better than most Colts. It's not much different than the original 1911, it just has some 'tweaks' like an enlarged ejection port, beavertail safety, larger thumb safety, etc. I may be biased though, as I own 3 Kimbers. ;)

mete said:
Jill, the various 1911 clones often try to "improve" the original and come up short. Kimber decided to use an external extractor instead of the tried and true internal one .After 3 or 4 tries they gave up !. In general any 1911 type with shorter than Commander length is less reliable.
Click to expand...

Not all Kimbers had the external extractor, in fact most had the standard internal one.
 
I bet he (Sweeney) was saying that a 1911 doesn't have a ramped barrel. Instead the bullet goes up against the frame and the throat in the barrel which can cause hollowpoints to sometimes hangup on that transition point. You could always buy a 1911 with a ramped barrel or just skip it all together and get a Glock,SIG, etc.
 
As for the functioning of John M Brownings model 1911, folks look at the year it was started, that is 1911!!! It is almost 100 yrs old. Yes there are more designs now, but this basic design has been copied hundreds of times with no major changes. We have to remember this gun was one of the first semi auto pistols created and the only one from that era to still be with us. As for whether or not someone should have one I say it is preference, but dont let anyone tell it is not a reliable design.
 
jill jackson said:
How does a more modern design of the 1911 compare to the Colt?
Like my compact SS Kimber. Which is a 1998 model.
2cibcz8.jpg
[/IMG]
Click to expand...

Same basic design, just as others have said, a little refined..
With the exception of an external extractor, parts are interchangeable (some require a little fitting).
The only real difference between your Pro Carry Kimber and my favorite Colt Combat Commander is the Kimber doesn't have a barrel bushing.
 
SkinnyJoe said:
What improvments did the Browning Hi Power bring?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

None, actually, unless you count the high capacity (which wasn't Browning's idea)

It did away with the grip safety, but countered that with a horrible magazine safety.

It did away with the recoil spring plug, so when you take the slide off, the spring doesn't go flying. But they countered that with a needlessly small thumb safety that was difficult to disengage in a hurry.

.
 
1911s are horrible, unreliable antiques. You should not use them for any purpose. I will help all of you by allowing you to send your 1911s to me so that you won't be burdened by their suckitude anymore. :D
 
SkinnyJoe said:
What improvments did the Browning Hi Power bring?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

David E said:
None, actually, unless you count the high capacity (which wasn't Browning's idea)

It did away with the grip safety, but countered that with a horrible magazine safety.

It did away with the recoil spring plug, so when you take the slide off, the spring doesn't go flying...
Click to expand...

Also, the barrel link was done away with and the trigger/sear is a more complicated arrangement.

The P-35 (Hi-Power) was never really intended to be an "improvement" over the 1911 - it was originally designed to fulfill the requirements of the French military while the 1911 was originally designed to meet the requirements of the American military. A major factor in it's design is that Colt owned the patents to the 1911, not John Browning, and he had to "work around" this when he started on the new pistol. Dieudonne Saive was later able to implement some of the 1911's features back into the High Power as the patents expired.

David E said:
But they countered that with a needlessly small thumb safety that was difficult to disengage in a hurry.
Click to expand...

One has to remember that these pistols were originally meant to be carried in "condition 3" and usually in a holster covered with a flap. The safety lever was not originally designed for quick function.
 
The 1911 was originally intended to be carried in Condition Zero, cocked and unlocked, relying on the grip safety. Not at all a bad idea, but the thumb safety can be used without loss of time so most people have used it.
 
Cougar Allen said:
The 1911 was originally intended to be carried in Condition Zero, cocked and unlocked, relying on the grip safety. Not at all a bad idea, but the thumb safety can be used without loss of time so most people have used it.
Click to expand...
...Unless you happen to be a "lefty" like me and don't add an ambidextrious thumb-safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top