Question about fighting 1911s

GhostB14 · #1 03-17-10, 18:44

Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.

My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?

Gutshot John · #2 03-17-10, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostB14

Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.

My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?

My thoughts would be that "original mil-spec" is not as good as some custom or semi-custom 1911s. I think the original spec was something on the order of about 8K rounds before service/rebuild. More modern pistols like a Glock well exceed that number.

Modern parts, experienced gunsmith or a high-end 1911 will get you closer to what you've described than the original.

One way or the other you're looking at ~$2k.

moyler · #3 03-17-10, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostB14

Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.

My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?

Find a nice S80 Repro with the 'slop' fit you are after, or elect to build on your trusty 1918, and give Steve at MARS a call. http://marsguns.com/Home.htm

He may, or may not build one to your 'specs' however. Either way, it will run.

GhostB14 · #4 03-17-10, 20:13

Thank you guys for your thoughts. I will admit that I have not shot any truly custom guns(NH, Wilson, ect.), but the modern ones I have played with just could not hang with my old standby. Everyone of them had something that was not up to (my)snuff when it comes to betting my life on it. Maybe I have had extremely bad luck with new ones and extremely good luck with my old one. FWIW, I am about to buy a Glock 19 until I find that perfect(for me) 1911 which may or may not exist.

1oldgrunt · #5 03-17-10, 20:22

I won't bash Glocks I love them although they don't fit my hand, Don't have any experience with M&P, etc.........but why must most here bash 1911's.
I've carried some form of 1911 pattern pistol on 3 continents in harms way and never felt anything but comfort on those occassions it was called for.
Problem is NOT the 1911 but the user IMHO. Yes they take maintenance, they require understanding, etc. They require EFFORT.....something lacking in most today.

Too many of the "now generation " who carry a gun, can't detail strip it, don't really know how it works, and want to maintain it like their lawnmower. Just like they don't check their cars oil belween changes.......

As to looseness any reputable smith will tell you that a loose 1911 is less reliable than one that has been worked over. the key to reliability is to have every aspect of that pistols function do everything the same each time it is fired.

Not tryin to start a whizzin contest just stop the bashing.
I will agree a semi custom 1911 is now out of most folks budget. as is the cost of 45 ammo.

You can still find like new Wilson CQB's for around $1700 .

DocHolliday01 · #6 03-17-10, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostB14

Thank you guys for your thoughts. I will admit that I have not shot any truly custom guns(NH, Wilson, ect.), but the modern ones I have played with just could not hang with my old standby. Everyone of them had something that was not up to (my)snuff when it comes to betting my life on it. Maybe I have had extremely bad luck with new ones and extremely good luck with my old one. FWIW, I am about to buy a Glock 19 until I find that perfect(for me) 1911 which may or may not exist.

I just ordered a Nighthawk GRP Recon. I just ordered it last week so it is still probably 7-8 weeks out but I will let you know hot it works out. Until then I have my 19.

JHC · #7 03-17-10, 20:44

My TRP (see avatarn) has run 100% to the 3k round mark with two cleanings, the first at 1200 rds. It's Glock-like in pure reliabiliity but way more accurate.

However, my last local "action pistol" match cured me of 1911's for serious stuff. We had failure to stop targets that required 5 hits interspersed. I was reloading constantly. LOL
Give me a high cap to shoot high chest area.

Redhat · #8 03-17-10, 20:45

So what parts exactly need all the maintenance on a 1911?

Thanks

JiMfraRED1911 · #9 03-17-10, 20:58

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32267

DocHolliday01 · #10 03-17-10, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redhat

So what parts exactly need all the maintenance on a 1911?

Thanks

I believe its mostly springs that wear out rather quickly. I think recoil springs are around the 2500 mark on a Gov't size around 1500 for the 4-4.25in guns and about 500 for the 3in guns. The main problem I see lies in the fact that if a part breaks it requires fitting to be replaced and work properly as opposed to say a Glock or M&P that you can just drop the part in and go back to shooting. Not to mention the longer take down process of a 1911.

John_Wayne777 · #11 03-17-10, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostB14

Does anyone build 1911s these days to original mil-spec? Reason I ask is that if someone wanted a CCW 1911 that would run day in, day out, wet, muddy, sandy, ect wouldn't the original spec be better than some of todays custom/semi-custom "tight fit" guns? I envision a "loose" 1911 with modern ergo updates like beaver-tail, grips, checkering, ect. I have a 1918 built 1911 that runs no matter what, can't say the same for some of the modern 1911s I have shot.

My perfect 1911 would be an original with a beavertail, SA magwell, and modern sights. Really, what else does JMB's design need to work as a fighting tool?

Before you contemplate spending any serious money on a 1911, go to the Vickers 1911 course. Watch what happens in the class. Take notes on what Mr. Vickers has to say about the platform.

Then once you know what you need to know about the 1911 from that class, make a decision about the 1911.

tip2oo3 · #12 03-17-10, 21:08

http://www.10-8performance.com/1911_Duty_Use.html. A Great article on the 1911 platform, speaks very highly of the Springfield Operator.

Hersh · #13 03-17-10, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCPatrolAR

I've stopped dumping money into the never-ending quest to have a "fighting" 1911. Instead I've simply decided to go with a modern system to meet my "fighting" 45 needs.

Yeah I'll have to agree. My M&P runs like a scalded dog and my 1911s ... maybe, maybe not.

DocGKR · #14 03-17-10, 21:21

GhostB14--NH, Wilson, etc... are NOT true custom pistols, they are semi-custom production pistols. True custom pistols are those done by folks like Chuck Rogers: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=48880.

While a properly customized 5" steel-frame single-stack 1911 in .45 ACP is a superb, unparalleled choice for the dedicated user willing to spend a significant amount of money to get it properly initially set-up and considerable time to maintain it, these days, if I already didn’t have several 1911’s that were as reliable as my 9 mm Glocks, along with extensive accessories for 1911’s, I would just use an S&W M&P instead. Keep in mind with 1911 pistols that calibers other than .45 ACP and barrels shorter than 5" induce increasingly greater problems. I personally will not use any 1911 with a Schwartz firing pin safety (like on the Kimber II pistols) as I have seen high numbers of them fail; the Colt Series 80 firing pin safety is the only one I might trust for urban LE use, but they have also been known to fail in harsh environments (particularly surf zone and high dust) so I generally prefer a standard USG style 1911 pistol w/o firing pin safety. However, I personally would not choose to carry most stock or even semi-custom 1911's on duty or for CCW without making sure they were set-up properly with reliable function, durable parts, and ergonomic execution. I firmly believe that if you want a 1911 for serious use, the minimum level of quality for a duty/carry weapon is the SA Pro model (either PC9111 or PC9111LR if you want a light rail); if you’re not willing to invest that much into the weapon system, don't get a 1911... I write this after being around quite a few 1911's over the past two decades of military and LE duty, including GI, commercial Colt, SA (Milspec, Loaded, MC Oper, Professional models), Wilson, Kimber, Nighthawk, Les Baer, and Para Ord, as well as custom pistols by folks like Bill Laughridge, Wayne Novak/Joe Bonar, Ed Brown, John Jardine, Hilton Yam, Larry Vickers, and Chuck Rogers. I'd strongly recommend anyone contemplating a 1911 for serious use read all of the material on 1911's here: http://www.10-8performance.com/Articles.html. For folks who want a .45 ACP pistol, but don't want to invest the funds and effort into getting a good 1911, they would be better served with the S&W M&P45 or HK45

Redhat · #15 03-17-10, 21:22

Interesting, I though you just replaced the part. Does anyone know what military armorers did during it's time as the standard firearm?

Did they have to hand fit all those parts being replaced.

hatidua · #16 03-17-10, 22:29

I ran just shy of 20K rounds through one of my Springfields last year, which for the gun-game crowd isn't a lot, but not a single part broke - oddly.

Must have been a complete fluke from what I've been reading, they are supposed to be so unreliable and break fairly often

I ran another 2,000 through it last week for the "2,000 round challenge" posted elsewhere on this site. It stopped when I ran out of ammo.

Then again, both of my Glock 30SF's wouldn't return to battery due to a faulty run of trigger bars that Glock didn't want to admit to. That must have been a fluke as well because those modern guns run no matter what.

DocHolliday01 · #17 03-17-10, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatidua

I ran just shy of 20K rounds through one of my Springfields last year, which for the gun-game crowd isn't a lot, but not a single part broke - oddly.

Must have been a complete fluke from what I've been reading, they are supposed to be so unreliable and break fairly often

I ran another 2,000 through it last week for the "2,000 round challenge" posted elsewhere on this site. It stopped when I ran out of ammo.

Then again, both of my Glock 30SF's wouldn't return to battery due to a faulty run of trigger bars that Glock didn't want to admit to. That must have been a fluke as well because those modern guns run no matter what.

You did this without replacement of springs or other parts?

Ak44 · #18 03-18-10, 00:12

"1911, 45?...old gun"

"Served my country well, long time"

Jason Burton · #19 03-18-10, 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToddG

A Glock, HK, S&W is a tool... the 1911 is a lifestyle.

Kinda’ a neat way to put it... I may have to borrow it.

To the point of the original question... loose no more means reliable than tight means unreliable. In the end the only thing that matters is that the gun is configured and built correctly. There is often much confusion between a gun that is fit right and one that is fit tight but with some care and skill both are quite achievable in the 1911 platform. Parts choices and their application are important but even more so is the correct fitting of every part and this begins at the frame and slide and transcends the entire gun. You can easily have a 1911 that exhibits an extraordinary fit while still being completely reliable but the standard of work it takes to get there is different than what other platforms require.

Simply put, the 1911 is just different than anything else out there and as such it requires an array of different stuff. But admittedly I’m still a romantic who has yet to learn.

BAC · #20 03-18-10, 00:23

My first, and only, handgun is a Springfield Mil Spec. It's been as reliable as I could ask of a handgun, but I've learned a couple lessons since I first started carrying it. First is that 8 + 1 rounds means a lot less margin for error on my part; cover may be more than 8 rounds away, or I might simply have to shoot more to stop the threat(s). Second is that shooting one-handed and/or off-handed is not very easy with a full-sized steel gun. As much as I love shooting my 1911, my next handgun will be a Glock or M&P.

I just wish someone could put a 1911 trigger into a modern polymer-framed handgun. Or, thinking more ambitiously, just make that polymer-framed, fully-ambidextrous, slide-release-within-easy-reach, 10+ capacity 1911 ("2011", name-infringement be damned) for under a grand that we all know can be done.

Yeah, a guy can dream.

-B