My love of 1911's killed by auto ordnance

RetiredUSNChief said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, man...I LOVE the comic relief around here!
Click to expand...
I think this requires a range trip where I get to shoot your "reliable" 1911's and you get to shoot my Gracks, H$K, and Sig Sauer's 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
 
Elenaidan said:
I think this requires a range trip where I get to shoot your "reliable" 1911's and you get to shoot my Gracks, H$K, and Sig Sauer's 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Click to expand...

Oh, heck yeah!

Because shooting's fun!

I've had my Colt 1991A1 since 1991 and never had any issues with it through untold thousands of rounds.

Well...not entirely true. The plunger tube separated once, but was immediately fixed by Colt with a head dizzying rapid turn-around time.

But no jams, FTF, magazine problems, etc. A real joy to shoot.

I'd be happy to let you shoot mine...and any other toys I might bring!
 
Beachville said:
You've had a Ford truck all your life does great all your life suddenly you get one it's it's a POS. Gee I think I might just start driving a Chevy. They seem more reliable now. Maybe down the road I'll get another Ford or I'll just buy an old one again. But some people are closed minded and keep buying the Ford or Chevy or dodge that keeps breaking down. It's just a brand, model, or caliber. As long as you keep buying owning and shooting that's all that should matter. But hey I could start saying Glocks are pretty.
Click to expand...
No. You need to consider the engineering.
A 1911 was designed to be built with handfitting, was not built to be made with modern CNC machining. Same reason why a Luger can't be made on CNC machines.
A modern pistol is made to be fit with interchangeable parts. The tolerances are all different, and they stack.

Your analogy needs to compare a new Ford with a Model T. Different build methodology. You can't get a 1911, and not consider the stacking tolerances and hand fitting needed with the older tech. That's why I don't own a 1911, because I understand that, and don't want to pay for the necessary quality. :p
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Where does this "designed to be built wit handfitting" but "not built to be made with modern CNC machining" come from?

If you build the gun to spec, it works. It's a machine, it doesn't have a choice.
Click to expand...
It is because to build them on CNC they alter the spec. It is because Almost everyone in the business is building guns to a price point they’re not building guns to function 100% out of the box they are building guns that for the most part run and cost X and can be sold at Y.

At one time I owned a Mercedes-Benz 560 SEC it was the last Mercedes that was built by engineers. They designed the car they spec’d it the way they wanted it they finished it the way they wanted it and then the corporation price it.

After that every car Mercedes-Benz has ever made was built on the principle of we want to sell a four-door sedan with a V6 engine with 320 hp that cost us X and we can sell at Y. 99% of guns today are built on that philosophy.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief said:
Well, there you go...if you deviate from the spec, therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...


That goes into the problems of deviating from the plans as an example.
For your original question, somewhere in his plethora of content on ForgottenWeapons or InRanges Q&A's, they go into why guns like the Luger and Bolt Action rifles like the Enfield aren't built anymore. Translating early 1900's methods of production with 2000's production just don't mesh well. Just as translating the woodworking of the 1800's doesn't translate to today. We may have power tools, better glues, and a better understanding of how wood moves over time. But we also don't have a dozen free apprentices to do the intricate decorative carving for us while we're building the stuff. Different times. Similarly, a technical pack for a gun made a long time ago might not take into account the stacking tolerances.
 
Last edited:
Well, there's actually no reason why they can't be translated into modern production methods.

For example, the modern 1911 already isn't the same 1911 as the original in several details. There have been changes to the design over the decades, some of which came and went (like the Series 70) and some which are still very much in production (like the Series 80 modifications).

As for handfitting itself...much of the "hand fitting" involved pieces which were not mass produced precisely to the final dimensions for the very purpose of allowing hand finishing of the pieces to the required final tolerances. This was for a few reasons, one of which may have been the tolerance capabilities of early mass production equipment. As the years and decades passed, however, the need for this was radically reduced.

Nowadays, handfitting is deliberate custom work.
 
Beachville said:
I bought a new auto ordnance 1911 full size. Clean and ready to shoot. Jammed 2 times in 5 mag changes. I've had cheaper and more expensive 1911's never had that happen. A Springfield xdm 45 I was going to sell (didn't want it to begin with) first time I shot it was today. 200 rounds down the pipe no failures.
Click to expand...
Describe your malfunction in as much detail as you can. If you have a picture of it, that would help.

Something that I've said so many times that I can't remember is that these burps are usually something simple, and usually simple to correct. I wish I had a dime for every hopeless case I've "fixed" by simply handing the owner a few proper magazines. The same goes for a little tweaking on the extractor...and I mean going beyond a simple tension adjustment, though sometimes even that can work wonders.

Too bad Supply, NC is such a long drive. I could take a look and probably get it squared away pretty quickly.
 
John Travis said:
Describe your malfunction in as much detail as you can. If you have a picture of it, that would help.

Something that I've said so many times that I can't remember is that these burps are usually something simple, and usually simple to correct. I wish I had a dime for every hopeless case I've "fixed" by simply handing the owner a few proper magazines. The same goes for a little tweaking on the extractor...and I mean going beyond a simple tension adjustment, though sometimes even that can work wonders.

Too bad Supply, NC is such a long drive. I could take a look and probably get it squared away pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

He doesn't want to fix it. He wants to be unhappy and put it in the safe never to be seen again.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Where does this "designed to be built wit handfitting" but "not built to be made with modern CNC machining" come from?

If you build the gun to spec, it works. It's a machine, it doesn't have a choice.
Click to expand...

Two key examples where human interaction is needed on a 1911, by design:

Extractor. It must be tensioned properly, which must be done by hand. Why? Tolerance stacking—the base of the extractor must be fitted snugly to the firing pin stop, and tiny variances in slide dimensions and jig/tooling wear mean the extractor tunnel through the breechface can be a thou or two in different directions. Couple that with minor variances in spring temper, and you need individual tensioning for each gun. If the extractor is loose or improperly tensioned, say goodbye to reliable feeding and extraction. Replacements need the same exact attention. Machines cannot do these tasks on an economical scale.

Barrel fitting. The barrel link needs to be the proper length, and the lower barrel lugs and slide stop need fitting to ensure proper contact. These dimensions ensure correct in-battery dwell time as the gun unlocks and prevent premature wear. If your link is the wrong length and the slide stop is not making adequate contact with the lower lugs, the gun is basically beating those two parts as they cycle. If the barrel starts rocking down too early (while chamber pressures are higher), then the extractor will be fighting an unnecessary battle with friction.

Machines run to a dimensional spec, which may be + or - 0.003” or 0.005” based on jig and tooling wear, materials variances, or even small variations in operating temperature.

When you stack tolerances in a complex design, and you don’t have experienced tradesmen on staff to adjust tooling throughout the day, toss undersized parts in the garbage, or make judicious file-swipes on small parts for sake of cost/volume—you get unreliable guns.

I still own an old Colt and have owned several older Colts. They’re not all great guns. Loose-fitted .45s running standard ball ammo from a 7-rd mag with a 5” slide tend to “run,” but if you ever shoot them without a magazine in place, you’ll find that a lot of them are relying on upward pressure from the rounds in the magazine to maintain proper case position through the extraction and ejection cycle—i.e. they need gunsmith intervention to finish what the factory started.
 
Last edited:
wvsig said:
At one time I owned a Mercedes-Benz 560 SEC it was the last Mercedes that was built by engineers. They designed the car they spec’d it the way they wanted it they finished it the way they wanted it and then the corporation price it.

After that every car Mercedes-Benz has ever made was built on the principle of we want to sell a four-door sedan with a V6 engine with 320 hp that cost us X and we can sell at Y. 99% of guns today are built on that philosophy.
Click to expand...
1630418539868.png
 
If you haven't figured it out, 1911's are a religion.

Say something about the holy 110 year old pistol, and the faithful will come crawling up out of their caves to shout "TWO WORLD WARS", "45 cuz they don't make a 46!" and "THE PROBLEM IS YOUR GUN AIN'T EXPENSIVE ENOUGH!" until your shake your head and walk away.

Nothing wrong with having a preference for certain guns. We all have our favorites that we love.

But when you need to spend 1500+ on a new gun, then send it to a smith for even more work and parts before it runs as good as a $300 pawn shop ruger... then maybe your gun's design is the problem.
 
where to start...

The 1911 pistol was assembled...as in on an assembly line...not "built" by hand.

The 1911 isn't a complex piece of machinery. As it was originally delivered...and redelivered throughout WW2...it's actually fairly crude when compared to many other designs. It wasn't intended to be complex. It was intended to be treated like a borrowed mule and serviced in the field without the need for a skilled gunsmith or even an armorer for most repairs and parts replacements. The gun can be completely disassembled without the need for tools, save the sights, plunger tube, ejector, and grip screw bushings. Complex machines don't tend to fare very well on battlefields.

The myth that early 1911s had a lot of hand fitting needs to be put to rest. It was the intent of the designer and the US Army that parts be fully interchangeable precisely so they WOULDN'T need fitting by a skilled gunsmith. While the first contract pistols sometimes didn't freely interchange between one vendor's pistol and another because of minor variations in parts dimensions, it usually only required a little cherry picking to get one up and running. Even extractors had a blueprint specification for the correct amount of bend so that the tension in a within-spec slide would be correct and there was rarely a need for any adjustment.

Before the 2nd contract, Colt, in conjunction with Springfield Armory...the real Springfield Armory...set about revamping the specs and tolerances to insure complete parts interchangeability regardless of vendor, and tey developed a system of GO and NO-GO gauges for nearly every part and subassembly in the gun...and it worked. They then proved it by selecting two pistols from each of the five vendors and completely disassembling the,...tossing the parts in a large basket...and assembling 10 working pistols without regard to what went where. The pistols had to not only meed function and accuracy requirements, they had to meet standards for appearance. For example, there could be no misalignment of frame and slide at the rear.

Thus, the concept of the drop-in part came to be.

So, here it is again.

The 1911 pistol was designed to function. If it's correctly built to spec and fed decent ammunition from a proper magazine, it WILL function. It's a machine. It doesn't have a choice.

And for all who've never seen it happen...the no-tool detail strip, courtesy of John M. Browning. Apologies for not removing the grips. Norinco didn't see fit to size and dish the screws correctly for that operation. DUe to the occasional glitch with You Tube, you may need to back the video up to the beginning.

 
Last edited:
John Travis said:
where to start...

The 1911 pistol was assembled...as in on an assembly line...not "built" by hand.

The 1911 isn't a complex piece of machinery. As it was originally delivered...and redelivered throughout WW2...it's actually fairly crude when compared to many other designs. It wasn't intended to be complex. It was intended to be treated like a borrowed mule and serviced in the field without the need for a skilled gunsmith or even an armorer for most repairs and parts replacements. The gun can be completely disassembled without the need for tools, save the sights, plunger tube, ejector, and grip screw bushings. Complex machines don't tend to fare very well on battlefields.

The myth that early 1911s had a lot of hand fitting needs to be put to rest. It was the intent of the designer and the US Army that parts be fully interchangeable precisely so they WOULDN'T need fitting by a skilled gunsmith. While the first contract pistols sometimes didn't freely interchange between one vendor's pistol and another because of minor variations in parts dimensions, it usually only required a little cherry picking to get one up and running. Even extractors had a blueprint specification for the correct amount of bend so that the tension in a within-spec slide would be correct and there was rarely a need for any adjustment.

Before the 2nd contract, Colt, in conjunction with Springfield Armory...the real Springfield Armory...set about revamping the specs and tolerances to insure complete parts interchangeability regardless of vendor, and tey developed a system of GO and NO-GO gauges for nearly every part and subassembly in the gun...and it worked. They then proved it by selecting two pistols from each of the five vendors and completely disassembling the,...tossing the parts in a large basket...and assembling 10 working pistols without regard to what went where. The pistols had to not only meed function and accuracy requirements, they had to meet standards for appearance. For example, there could be no misalignment of frame and slide at the rear.

Thus, the concept of the drop-in part came to be.

So, here it is again.

The 1911 pistol was designed to function. If it's correctly built to spec and fed decent ammunition from a proper magazine, it WILL function. It's a machine. It doesn't have a choice.

And for all who've never seen it happen...the no-tool detail strip, courtesy of John M. Browning. Apologies for not removing the grips. Norinco didn't see fit to size and dish the screws correctly for that operation. DUe to the occasional glitch with You Tube, you may need to back the video up to the beginning.

Click to expand...


I understand that the built by hand is based on a myth but the difference I see today vs the old days is that the pistols are no longer being made to spec. If they were you are right they would run because they have no choice but the fact of the matter is that many 1911 manufacturers at multiple price points have horrible out of the box defect rates. If it is so simple to make why can't they do it?

I think the answer is simple. Back in the day they followed the spec when they manufactured parts. They followed the spec when they assembled them into guns and the guns that left the factory were "in spec". This was checked by hand. The same thing happened with M1 Garands and M1 carbines as I understand it. I personally think that the concept that they were assembled by hand by people who knew how to check it out vs "the spec" over the years changed into "hand fitted." Today no one assembling the guns checks anything. They pick a part out of a bin and slap into in a gun as fast as they can to meet a quota when it comes to production level 1911s.
 
Last edited:
wvsig said:
I understand that the built by hand is based on a myth but the difference I see today vs the old days is that the pistols are no longer being made to spec.
Click to expand...

Yep. Many of these clone makers either seem to feel that the print specs are suggestions or they're making them up as they go. I'm not sure why unless they're trying to prove that they can do it better. The pistol has been around for 110 years. It ain't exactly rocket science.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
To be fair, Glock Fan Boyz are the Holy Acolytes of the Church of Gaston Glock.
Click to expand...

One Glock to rule them all; one Glock to find them;
One Glock to bring them all; and in the holster bind them;
In the land of Austria; where the true sights lie.

Come back, come back, to Glock-land we will take you!
 
John Travis said:
Yep. Many of these clone makers either seem to feel that the print specs are suggestions or they're making them up as they go. I'm not sure why unless they're trying to prove that they can do it better. The pistol has been around for 110 years. It ain't exactly rocket science.
Click to expand...

At its peak, the Hartford factory employed 16,000 laborers. Labor used to be dirt cheap compared to automation. Not all those folks built 1911s, but (especially under the contract produced with the S.A. gauge sets) that type of manpower meant eyes on—QC—at every step. And that produced in-spec, interchangeable guns.

Now, Colt (the entire company, not just the manufacturing laborers) employs fewer than 500 employees in total.

I’ve toured my share of firearm and silencer factories due to my old job… Lots of small parts in domestic guns come on spec from OEMs (even overseas OEMs) with a QC sample pulled from each batch, and that’s it. If the samples are to spec, and the remaining parts fit well enough to be installed, that’s it. No individual gauging beyond “if it fits, it sits.”

Eventually the whole gun is assembled, goes to QC, gets three rounds (either in a clearing barrel or, if you’re lucky, on a short range to confirm “adequate” zero—one large manufacturer considers within 3” of POA at 10 yards a “go”), packed in grease/whatever, bagged, and boxed.

That process works really great if you have reliable OEMs, strict QC protocols for tracking sample lots and trashing no-gos, and designs that were engineered around that type of production methodology.
 
Just making sure I got it....

You bought a gun, it malfunctioned.

Your upset and or disappointed

You refuse to investigate the failure

You refuse to fix the gun

You stuffed the gun in the safe

You no longer like any 1911s

You might get a new 1911 in a "week, month, year"


And.......


You posted here looking for,.....sympathy?


I'm going back to sleep.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JRV said:
No individual gauging beyond “if it fits, it sits.”
Click to expand...
Yep, and there lies the problem with modern day 1911 pistols. The design is sound. The execution of the design is lacking, and has been for some time. It's frankly surprising that as many of them function as well as they do. It's also led to the use of MIM small parts that so many people seem to hate due to early problems, but has largely been ironed out in recent years. As long s the mold turns out a good part and the sintering process is followed to the letter, the millionth part from that mold will be as good as the first...and if the part itself survives a hundred cycles, it'll likely outlast the gun.

As to to the Feed/RTB issues that I've seen cropping up so often over the last 20 years or so, it's been a problem with the extractor about 90% of the time. Not the tension, which is an easy cure...but rather the deflection caused by the location of the claw nd tensioning wall relative to the breechface centerline. Simply put, it's located too far to the left, and the cause ranges from the front pad being too small to the channel itself being drilled on an angle...but most often the first. Easily fixed with the right file and technique for those who understand and recognize the problem, but so many don't. I've fixed a good many delinquent feeders...some that have been back under warranty and returned without resolve...by just spending a few minutes with the extractor, and sent owners who were readyto take a hammer to their pistols home with a big grin and a new perspective.
 
GreatGazoo said:
One Glock to rule them all; one Glock to find them;
One Glock to bring them all; and in the holster bind them;
In the land of Austria; where the true sights lie.

Come back, come back, to Glock-land we will take you!
Click to expand...
If the fan boys understood how much alike the two pistols are...that there are more similarities than differences...they'd stop this silly debate.

Arguing that one design is superior to the other is like arguing that the Chevrolet 350 is better than Ford's 351 because the distributor is in a different location.
 
I guess I've been lucky owing at least a dozen 1911s from numerous manufacturers and never had to spend money to get them to work right. I've often heard that tale that a new Colt 1911 series won't work properly right out of the box but didn't experience it myself. Back around 1973 or so I bought a new Colt series 70 and proceeded to shoot the snot out of it. It always worked fine. According to Mel Tappen It shouldn't have fed a magazine successfully without gunsmith intervention.
 
John Travis said:
If the fan boys understood how much alike the two pistols are...that there are more similarities than differences...they'd stop this silly debate.

Arguing that one design is superior to the other is like arguing that the Chevrolet 350 is better than Ford's 351 because the distributor is in a different location.
Click to expand...

Uh ... sometimes a satirized poem is just a satirized poem for the sake of amusement. Quote someone else for your polemic.
 
Last edited:
GreatGazoo said:
. sometimes a satirized poem is just a satirized poem for the sake of amusement
Click to expand...
And sometimes a quote is used to make a point without an intent to challenge he who used the quote.

Example:

"If it's got tits or tires, you're gonna have problems with it."

Yeah, but it's a problem that we all ask for at some point...and likely will again, no?

Thick skin is a helpful asset with internet discussions.
 
The most problems I’ve had with a 1911, by far, are ones where someone tried to improve things. Of course haven’t bought one in a few years. I think I still have a challenge that I accepted from @BatteryOaksBilly that I can run a 1911 for some number of rounds without a failure, might have been 300, or maybe 1,000, I don’t recall.

Oh, and to get back on topic, I had a bad hamburger today so I’ve decided to never eat meat, dairy, bread or pickles again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom