PDA

View Full Version : Testing a 1911 for Reliability...



Dave L.
06-21-08, 08:04
What would be a good test for a 1911(Govt.) to evaluate reliability? I'm not thinking of dragging a gun through the mud/sand and shooting it. Just a test for evaluating a new gun or even an old one with new parts/mags/work in an indoor or outdoor environment.
Maybe something along the lines of buying and shooting 1,000 rounds at a range.
Obviously 100% is what we all go for but it's a 1911; what is an acceptable reliability percentage?
What over-the-counter ammo would you shoot (price within reason, not $1 a bullet stuff), but something with good quality control as not to throw off the numbers?
How many rounds would/should you shoot between cleanings?
Any other advice is more than welcome.
Thanks Guys,
Dave

eb2007
06-21-08, 08:14
Here is a very good article detailing just that:

http://www.m1911.org/technic24.htm

RD62
06-21-08, 08:49
I think 1K would be good. It kind of depends on the intended use of the pistol though as to what type. If it's a target pistol maybe wadcutters or semi-wadcutters, carry hollow points of the grain you will carry, or FMJ if that is what it will see. I stay with 230gr for both FMJ and hollow point carry ammo. Maybe some winchester personal defense jhp or similar? I like and carry Federal HST and it was about .50 a round last I bought some.

If you have had trigger work done and you are testing for safe and reliable operation, there is a test to be done for that. If it's just new to you take it out and run it like you would fight with it.

You don't have to freeze it, or through it in a stream or anything. If you are dropping your mags on the deck doing combat reloads, you are going to introduce some contamination into the system, and I think a more reasonable amount than dunking it in the mud. Be sure to keep it lubed though. I don't clean alot. Certainly not every 1000 rounds, but I wipe it down and lube it and it runs.

I would really suggest taking it to your next class or at least a match or something. The higher rate of fire, with added stress will reveale alot of issues pretty quick if they are there.

I honestly do not expect any weapon to be 100% reliable, because the guy behind the trigger isn't and he can induce a lot of malfunctions. And it's a machine that wears. It will malfunction eventually. Gasp, even my GLOCKs have malfunctioned!:eek: That's why we train in malfunction clearance. But it shouldn't malfunction once a mag, or every hundred rounds, etc. If it does, something is broke and needs to be fixed.

Good luck in your testing!


-RD62

Daveo
06-21-08, 09:39
For a function test, I would shoot 600-800 rounds of the dirtiest, cheapest ball you can get your hands on, and then also a couple hundred rounds of your chosen carry ammo. Keep the pistol lubed but don't clean it. I did this over the course of a couple of range sessions when I purchased my Colt Series 80 and I haven't looked back. That gun didn't get anything more than a field strip and wipe until approximately 2000 rounds, and I've yet to have had a malf that wasn't related to known bad ammo (I had a box of hollowpoints that were loaded to a very long OAL and I couldn't cycle them through my 220 so I thought I'd give the 1911 a try too). That ammo would get hung up on the feed ramp and a light tap on the back of the slide would send the gun into battery.

Just don't press the gun into service until you are 100% confident in it. I would accept no malfunctions in the testing stages.

Sidewinder6
06-21-08, 09:47
Isnt that an oxymoron? :D

No matter how much you test, it is only a snapshot in time.

Dave L.
06-21-08, 10:03
Thanks for all the info so far.
This is not for a carry gun. I don't use a 1911 for CCW, but I just like to make sure that the 1911's in my safe will run if I need them to, and especially if I buy another one.

markm
06-21-08, 10:17
Testing a 1911 of any maker is silly because each and every 1911 is different. The 1911 isn't like the modern pistol where one is exactly like the next hundred or thousand made before it.

Finding a 1911 that will run for 1000 rounds without problems only tells you that THE test gun will perform this way. The very next gun made could crap out in less than 50 rounds.

Ridgerunner665
06-21-08, 10:51
Testing a 1911 of any maker is silly because each and every 1911 is different. The 1911 isn't like the modern pistol where one is exactly like the next hundred or thousand made before it.

Finding a 1911 that will run for 1000 rounds without problems only tells you that THE test gun will perform this way. The very next gun made could crap out in less than 50 rounds.

All true...1911's that run 100% are like good women, good mules , and good coon dogs...they are hard to find, and getting harder.

I am a 1911 guy...my CCW is a Baer Stinger...was it 100% out of the box? NO

It is 99.9% now (over 10,000 rounds since the last stoppage that was the guns fault)...and thats as good as it gets for any man made machine...they can all fail.

1000 rounds would be a sufficient reliability test I think...


Something that will go a loooong ways towards making a 1911 run 100%...good mags...I recommend Tripp Research Gen II CobraMags.

Dave L.
06-21-08, 10:51
Testing a 1911 of any maker is silly because each and every 1911 is different. The 1911 isn't like the modern pistol where one is exactly like the next hundred or thousand made before it.

Finding a 1911 that will run for 1000 rounds without problems only tells you that THE test gun will perform this way. The very next gun made could crap out in less than 50 rounds.

I completely agree with you. I just want to knock the dust of my 1911's when I get back and evaluate them again; I was just looking for some good ideas on how. One of them is an early model Warrior (That actually runs :eek: ).
I never listen to the gun writers they seem to claim every kimber(or every gun they write about) runs 100% out of the box...

Dave L.
06-21-08, 10:54
Something that will go a loooong ways towards making a 1911 run 100%...are good mags...I recommend Tripp Research Gen II CobraMags.

I have some, I also ordered some of the new Wilson Combat Elite mags.

markm
06-21-08, 11:47
I never listen to the gun writers they seem to claim every kimber(or every gun they write about) runs 100% out of the box...

Kimber has been, by far, the most problematic pistol in the relatively small number of pistol classes I've had.

The other day I got to wondering....

I wonder if the Japanese could make the 1911 platform reliable? :confused:

I mean... Americans still can't build a freaking car that's worth a shit. Turn the 1911 over to the Japanese, and I bet they'll make the thing hum! :p

MarshallDodge
06-21-08, 13:26
200 rounds is my test.

I shoot 200gr. lead semiwadcutters through them and run till it quits. This is a dirty load with lead, bullet lube, and powder residue that gets on everything.

A couple guns that I have done this on:

Pre-II Kimber Custom Target went three range sessions, probably 500 rounds, before it started having issues that were cured with cleaning. With jacketed or plated bullets this gun will run all day long.

Dan Wesson Bobtail Classic. Shot 250 rounds before hanging up. The gun has a tight chamber and when the lead/powder fouling started building it would only feed about 10% of the time. I cleaned it and shot two mags each of 165 and 230 grain Hydrashoks with no failures. Good enough for me to CCW.

My old faithful Norinco would probably run 1000 rounds with these loads but it is much looser in all areas. I have never shot it more than 500 rounds between cleanings and it didn't seem to care, even with a half broken ejector. It's built just like John Browning intended with no frills.

Springfield Champion. This gun was finicky about what loads it liked and wasn't very accurate. It got the boot about a year after I bought it.

Most of todays 1911's are tight and when you start to introduce fouling into those tight areas is when you will see the problems arise. Some of the guys I shoot with have the $350 Rock Island 1911's that rattle when you shake them. They don't have the accuracy of a tight 1911 but the reliablity is there.

Ridgerunner665
06-21-08, 14:22
Most of todays 1911's are tight and when you start to introduce fouling into those tight areas is when you will see the problems arise. Some of the guys I shoot with have the $350 Rock Island 1911's that rattle when you shake them. They don't have the accuracy of a tight 1911 but the reliablity is there.

I respectfully disagree...I have a Baer (the tightest of the tight)...none of the minor break in problems had anything to do with it being tight.

They were all due to weak springs...mag springs to be exact.

MarshallDodge
06-21-08, 15:22
I respectfully disagree...I have a Baer (the tightest of the tight)...none of the minor break in problems had anything to do with it being tight.

They were all due to weak springs...mag springs to be exact.

I thought we were talking about reliability? ;)

My point is that you add dirt/carbon to the equation and you will see reliability drop. If you are like me and don't care because you clean the gun every 500 rounds then it's a non-issue. If it will run with cruddy ammo for 200+ rounds then I am happy because it will run even better with good stuff, the stuff I depend on for my life.

I agree that a lot of the problems with 1911's is magazine related. My personal choice is Chip McCormick Shooting Stars.

Ridgerunner665
06-21-08, 17:25
I thought we were talking about reliability? ;)


We are...It sounded like you were saying that a tight built pistol will be unreliable.

Speaking from my own limited experience...2,000 rounds without cleaning, and that Baer of mine never missed a beat.

rhino
06-21-08, 18:24
Tight is okay if it's also properly fit. The problem is, most guns that are "too tight" are not properly fit in some area (or many).

Ridgerunner665
06-21-08, 19:18
Tight is okay if it's also properly fit.

Agreed...

MarshallDodge
06-21-08, 22:07
We are...It sounded like you were saying that a tight built pistol will be unreliable.

Speaking from my own limited experience...2,000 rounds without cleaning, and that Baer of mine never missed a beat.

No, what I am saying is a tight pistol will choke on dirt before a loose gun will.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with your Les Baer if it will run for 2,000 rounds without cleaning. That's a higher round count than I would go between cleanings, or at least adding a little oil, but shows what a well built 1911 is capable of. :cool:

Ridgerunner665
06-21-08, 22:29
Obviously there is nothing wrong with your Les Baer if it will run for 2,000 rounds without cleaning. That's a higher round count than I would go between cleanings, or at least adding a little oil

I did add a little CLP from time to time...every 200 rounds or so.

Lumpy196
06-22-08, 13:35
I mean... Americans still can't build a freaking car that's worth a shit. Turn the 1911 over to the Japanese, and I bet they'll make the thing hum! :p


Some of you unwashed godless heathens think the Chinese already did :p

bullitt5172
06-22-08, 15:59
I thought we were talking about reliability? ;)

My point is that you add dirt/carbon to the equation and you will see reliability drop. If you are like me and don't care because you clean the gun every 500 rounds then it's a non-issue. If it will run with cruddy ammo for 200+ rounds then I am happy because it will run even better with good stuff, the stuff I depend on for my life.

I agree that a lot of the problems with 1911's is magazine related. My personal choice is Chip McCormick Shooting Stars.

Internet nonsense, I've ran thousands of rounds through my Baers, Wilson and SA Pro without cleaning. There are as many "tight" reliable 1911's as there are "loose" unreliable 1911's. Good mags and ammo and they are as reliable as any other weapon platform.

ToddG
06-22-08, 16:48
Good mags and ammo and they are as reliable as any other weapon platform.

Hmmm, I've never seen an independent test (LE, lab, etc.) turn out that way.

A properly built, properly maintained, properly magazine'd, and properly fed 1911 can be reliable. But incidence of 1911's that are not adequately put together, maintained, magazine'd, or fed is much higher than for Glocks, SIGs, Berettas, Smiths, etc. in my experience.

bullitt5172
06-22-08, 17:02
Hmmm, I've never seen an independent test (LE, lab, etc.) turn out that way.

A properly built, properly maintained, properly magazine'd, and properly fed 1911 can be reliable. But incidence of 1911's that are not adequately put together, maintained, magazine'd, or fed is much higher than for Glocks, SIGs, Berettas, Smiths, etc. in my experience.

Todd, we all know you are not a 1911 fan. That is fine. But you cannot tell me that my Baer, Wilson, Pro and every other well made 1911 I have ever owned is any less reliable than what you stated above. You said it above, it needs to be properly built - my 1911's run clean or dirty. I'm also a huge Glock fan, the 1911 and the Glock are the two best handgun designs ever produced. My 1911's are on par with my Glocks - dirty or clean. Unreliable 1911's is something the internet has created, 99% of failures related to the 1911 are mag related or operator error - if the 1911 was built correctly. It's already been covered in this thread, there are so many 1911 makers out there that are throwing them together to get them out the door. I'd put any 1911 from a semi-custom or custom maker against your M&P or any other modern handgun any day of the week.

Are all 1911's reliable? - NO. Neither are all M&P's, Glocks, Berettas, (insert your favorite handgun here). I've had more reliability issues with my (now gone) M&P's and XD's than I've had with 1911's.

MarshallDodge
06-22-08, 17:13
bullitt- I was stating my personal experience, not what I read on the Internet. :rolleyes:

Les Baer's are great pistols but there is nothing magical about them. ;)

bullitt5172
06-22-08, 17:16
bullitt- I was stating my personal experience, not what I read on the Internet. :rolleyes:

Les Baer's are great pistols but there is nothing magical about them. ;)

I never said they were magical, just reliable - and tight ;) I quoted your post because you made the comment that tight 1911's are unreliable, sorry if that hurt your feelings. It wasn't personal.

ToddG
06-22-08, 17:21
But you cannot tell me that my Baer, Wilson, Pro and every other well made 1911 I have ever owned is any less reliable than what you stated above.

And I didn't.

Out of curiosity, since you qualified your statement with "well made" I'm curious, how many "not well made" 191's have you owned that were less reliable? Which brands or makers were they?


Unreliable 1911's is something the internet has created, 99% of failure related to the 1911 are mag related or operator error - if the 1911 was built correctly.

That's absolutely untrue. I've seen plenty of experienced switched on guys with name brand guns and mags have reliability problems. I've seen it in classes as a student, classes as an instructor, at matches, at the practice range, in dealing with LE agencies large and small ... Suggesting it's some kind of internet myth is no more legitimate than people who say all 1911's suck.

Springfield Custom Shop, S&W Performance Center, Wilson, Les Baer, and Nighthawk all come to mind as "semi-custom or custom makers" whose guns I've seen experience problems.


I'd put any 1911 from a semi-custom or custom maker against your M&P or any other modern handgun any day of the week.

I'm always up for a friendly competition. Send me a PM and if we can find a place to link up, I'm game. If it makes you feel better, I can bring a Beretta or SIG instead of the M&P, or maybe one of each?

BTW, the caveat "semi-custom or custom" isn't exactly unimportant. That's far from apples to apples with a box stock Glock, SIG, Beretta, M&P, etc. The benefits of a stock gun may not be important to you as an individual enthusiast, but it certainly comes into play when you begin talking about issuing weapons to a larger force.

Failure2Stop
06-22-08, 17:23
Though this has defaulted into the obligatory, "1911s suck/Nuh-Uh, Mine is perfect/Glocks are better/1911s are better/your mom's fat" discussion, I am going to help the hijack in this one instance :rolleyes: .

One critical factor is repair. With any modern design, the repair part, be it a sear or slide-release, drops right in, as long as the user knows how to properly disassemble/reassemble the gun. Not so with a 1911. 1911s require advanced skill to keep running through the lifespan of any individual part, where other designs are not so restrained.

Not sayin' anything, just sayin'.

bullitt5172
06-22-08, 17:27
And I didn't.

Out of curiosity, since you qualified your statement with "well made" I'm curious, how many "not well made" 191's have you owned that were less reliable? Which brands or makers were they?



That's absolutely untrue. I've seen plenty of experienced switched on guys with name brand guns and mags have reliability problems. I've seen it in classes as a student, classes as an instructor, at matches, at the practice range, in dealing with LE agencies large and small ... Suggesting it's some kind of internet myth is no more legitimate than people who say all 1911's suck.

Springfield Custom Shop, S&W Performance Center, Wilson, Les Baer, and Nighthawk all come to mind as "semi-custom or custom makers" whose guns I've seen experience problems.



I'm always up for a friendly competition. Send me a PM and if we can find a place to link up, I'm game. If it makes you feel better, I can bring a Beretta or SIG instead of the M&P, or maybe one of each?

BTW, the caveat "semi-custom or custom" isn't exactly unimportant. That's far from apples to apples with a box stock Glock, SIG, Beretta, M&P, etc. The benefits of a stock gun may not be important to you as an individual enthusiast, but it certainly comes into play when you begin talking about issuing weapons to a larger force.

Todd I'm not going to argue with you. I have owned over 30 1911's, from box stock SA's to $3000+ customs. I have owned ONE that wasn't reliable, an internal extracter Kimber.

It is pretty well known that you get what you pay for in the 1911 world. I never said a $500 1911 will be as reliable as a $500 Glock, etc. It's the blanket statement that all 1911's are unreliable that is incorrect.

I'm in Michigan, shoot me a PM if your ever in the area. I'll give you a tour of our plant and we can go shooting afterwards.

ToddG
06-22-08, 17:33
F2S -- Exactly. What works for an enthusiast is one thing, what works across a broad spectrum of users is something else entirely.

bullitt -- I'm supposed to be in WI next year to teach at a SWAT conference of some sort. Maybe I'll try to swing by. I'd certainly love to see how you guys build stuff. You just have to promise I won't glow when I leave. :cool:

bullitt5172
06-22-08, 17:39
F2S -- Exactly. What works for an enthusiast is one thing, what works across a broad spectrum of users is something else entirely.

bullitt -- I'm supposed to be in WI next year to teach at a SWAT conference of some sort. Maybe I'll try to swing by. I'd certainly love to see how you guys build stuff. You just have to promise I won't glow when I leave. :cool:

Just don't swallow any lamps!! :D

DacoRoman
06-23-08, 19:26
Hey Guys, check out this link regarding a 1911 torture test:

http://www.advancedtactical.com/sweeneyarticle.pdf

RD62
06-23-08, 20:53
I'm not interested in propagating a 1911 vs Glock debate.

I carry both and like both. They both shoot well for me, and my one single 1911 has been as reliable for me as my G17, G22, or G27. And none of these as reliable as my Beretta 96. I am not however, a fan of especially tight 1911's, but it is personal preference, and I really don't have the desire or bank account for customs.

I merely mean to add, that although the Glock obviously has a large and loyal following, and a slew of aftermarket parts. A large percentage are left "as-is" and all are made by Glock to Glock specs. The 1911 also has a very large and loyal following, and a even larger slew of aftermarket parts, including many, many designs and manufacturers of magazines. Combine this with a group of owners who seemingly can't resist changing or tweaking something (including me :D) and the fact that there are dozens of manufacturers producing all sorts of bastardizations of what ever specs they dreamed up, and there is bound to be a greater amount of problems. The same is true when comparing the 1911 to Beretta's, Sigs, etc. except that there are usually significantly fewer aftermarket parts, and I think therefore an even larger percentage of factory or near factory examples.

I think if you stay true to the original design ( steel, 5" Gov't in .45ACP) and run good mags, and leave well enough alone. You tend to be pretty far in front of the 1911 curve.

But that's just my opinion.

-RD62

Semi_auto
06-23-08, 21:21
Nothing beats taking a training course with your pistol. You get to practice and test your skills and give the pistol a good work out. Shooting between 800-1500 rounds over a two or three days should give you an idea of how reliable the pistol will operate.

COLT GOLD CUP
06-23-08, 21:33
Buy a Colt it is the best. If it's not a Colt it is just a cheap copy!

Ridgerunner665
06-23-08, 23:04
Buy a Colt it is the best. If it's not a Colt it is just a cheap copy!

:rolleyes: ...hardly

sff70
06-24-08, 09:39
Over 5 or 6 range sessions, I put 3k rounds through one of my 1911s (custom build on a SA mil-spec). I put some Mobil 1 on it somewhere between 1500 and 2000 rounds.

Not one hiccup.

Finally decided to clean it.

Total round count on the pistol is over 20k. It was my duty gun for 5+ yrs, and now it's my training gun.

Earlier this year, I experienced several fail to return to battery stoppages. A new 18.5 lb recoil spring fixed the problem. The old one was notiably shorter than the new one, so my bad on not replacing the spring when I should have.



Another of my 1911s is a NH/Vickers. It has been carried on duty in a 6280 holster every day for the past 2 yrs, and it's a veteran of several classes. Instructor cadre at the classes remarked that they I'd probably have issues with it (after all, it's a 1911!), but when the class was done, they were pleasantly suprised that I didn't. Total round count on the gun now is over 6500.



Not saying that all 1911s are 100% reliable, or as reliable as Glocks (which I also own and think highly of), but if they are built right and maintained right, they can work as well as anything else.

As an instructor and armorer for several organisations, with over 10 yrs experience, and as a competitor in USPSA over the past 10 yrs, I've seen plenty of guns break, including 1911s and Glocks, but that hasn't steered me away from using both for defense purposes.

toddackerman
06-24-08, 19:42
What would be a good test for a 1911(Govt.) to evaluate reliability? I'm not thinking of dragging a gun through the mud/sand and shooting it. Just a test for evaluating a new gun or even an old one with new parts/mags/work in an indoor or outdoor environment.
Maybe something along the lines of buying and shooting 1,000 rounds at a range.
Obviously 100% is what we all go for but it's a 1911; what is an acceptable reliability percentage?
What over-the-counter ammo would you shoot (price within reason, not $1 a bullet stuff), but something with good quality control as not to throw off the numbers?
How many rounds would/should you shoot between cleanings?
Any other advice is more than welcome.
Thanks Guys,
Dave

If this is for self defense, then I say 500 rounds through your #1 magazine ( a major decision on where to start. You will have a lot of inputs on this. i suggest Tripp Research GenII Cobra Mags.) with no malfunctions, and cleaning every 100 rounds or so. I wouldn't start testing until you know you have a reliable mag. (You probably won't be in a fight that goes 100 rounds so cleaning intervals could be every 100. More than this really isn't relevant to civilian self defense.)

You will have your best chances at reliability with 230 Gn Ball (FMJ) Ammo, but there are better alternatives with modern technology Hollow Points. The only issue is that if you're using a stock gun and haven't invested in the proper set-up (Ramp and throat job, relieved ejection port, tuned extractor) you could go through 1,000 rounds of Hollow Points before getting 100 "Fail Free" functionings. FWIW...230 Gn FMJ WILL get the job done with proper hits.

Just my .02 worth.

crusader377
06-25-08, 00:08
From my relatively limited experience with M1911s (Springfield Loaded), I would first fire 200 to 300 rounds before starting any assessment on reliability. My Springfield came very tight from the factory and it did jam several times during the first one or two range sessions. The pistol did get steadily better with use and after the first few range sessions it ran very well. I've owned this pistol for 8 or 9 years now and fire between 600-800 rounds a year and at most I may have one jam a year and I normally buy the cheapest ammo available.

Getting back to your initial question. I would first ensure the pistol is properly lubed and then fire your initial break in rounds. After that I would clean the pistol and then fire a mix of ammunition that you intend to use in the pistol. For me it was FMJ and HP. I think at this stage even a couple hundreds rounds should be a good indicator of reliability but alway more is better.

BTW: The only pistol that I had that was 100% reliable out of the box has been by CZ-75B. So far have owned it about 6 months and fired approx 1500 rds with zero jams and absolutely no problems at all.

sinister
09-19-13, 23:35
http://www.m1911.org/history.htm


M-1911 Pistol History

The Colt Model 1911 was the product of a very capable person, namely John Moses Browning, father of several modern firearms.

The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thompson (inventor of the Thompson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.

In the selection process, which started at 1906 with firearms submitted by Colt, Luger, Savage, Knoble, Bergmann, White-Merrill and Smith & Wesson, Browning's design was selected, together with the Savage design in 1907. However, the U.S. Army pressed for some service tests, which revealed that neither pistol (Colt's or Savage's) had reached the desired perfection. The Ordnance Department instituted a series of further tests and experiments, which eventually resulted in the appointment of a selection committee, in 1911.

Browning was determined to prove the superiority of his handgun, so he went to Hartford to personally supervise the production of the gun. There he met Fred Moore, a young Colt employee with whom he worked in close cooperation trying to make sure that each part that was produced for the test guns was simply the best possible. The guns produced were submitted again for evaluation, to the committee. A torture test was conducted, on March 3rd, 1911. The test consisted of having each gun fire 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and the pistol would be allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and some more tests would then be conducted.

Browning's pistols passed the whole test series with flying colors. It was the first firearm to undergo such a test, firing continuously 6000 cartridges, a record broken only in 1917 when Browning's recoil-operated machine gun fired a 40000 rounds test.

The report of the evaluation committee (taken from 'The .45 Automatic, An American Rifleman Reprint', published by the National Rifle Association of America) released on the 20th of March 1911 stated :

"Of the two pistols, the board was of the opinion that the Colt is superior, because it is more reliable, more enduring, more easily disassembled when there are broken parts to be replaced, and more accurate."

On March 29th, 1911, the Browning-designed, Colt-produced .45 Automatic pistol, was selected as the official sidearm of the Armed Forces of U.S.A., and named Model 1911.

squid8286
09-20-13, 07:13
Some of you unwashed godless heathens think the Chinese already did :p

I freely admit that I love my two Norincos because of their reliability! And I turned my nose up at them when they first came into this country. Now I wish I had a truckload of them! They are the ONE product that has come out of China that I have a deep admiration for.

Ned Christiansen
09-20-13, 09:10
Addressing the original question by DaveL, I would say this:

The first thing in reliability testing should be, stack the deck in your favor, make sure as much as you can that you'll get a good result that will leave you happy and confident. Getting bad results will give you, at best, a lingering doubt about the gun-- even if you fix the problem and then get good results. At worst you'll be so disgusted that you'll sell a gun that may be only five minutes' work short of being a great performer (or it could be five hours.... but it could be five minutes).

For the gun to go a certain umber of rounds without a problem, well, that's good. As long as one doesn't think of it as a "break-in". I maintain that goddamm it, it should work out of the box and not require the buyer to burn $500 worth of ammo to do what the factory should have done at no charge.

Many of them aren't going to run out of the box, there's no candy-coating it. And struggling through malfunction after malfunction to put 1000 rounds through it is not going to fix a tight chamber, bad feedramp, and mis-cut and untensioned extractor. Or a loose OT stop or a passive firing pin safety that's poorly timed. One or more of those and you just wasted 1000 rounds and you "hate this piece of crap!".

So-- stack the deck. Check for and fix these things first and make sure the mags are good-- that's important and worth just biting the bullet getting some. Good mags won't necessarily make up for other shortcomings, and in fact, I find that well-tuned 1911's are way less mag-sensitive, but let's not go to a lot of trouble and then not have good mags.

There's some good info out there on all this (at the usual internet ratio of 1:100 with bad info :bad: ). I don't know where it is because I have my own methods, but at the risk of sounding self promoting, I wrote an article in SWAT Magazine in 2005 that might be worth reading-- you can download it from their site for I think $5:
https://www.swatmag.com/issues/view/january_2005 "What Makes the 1911 (Sometimes Not) Tick"

Magic_Salad0892
09-29-13, 18:02
10-8Performance extractor test.

GunBugBit
09-30-13, 11:08
Here is a very good article detailing just that:

http://www.m1911.org/technic24.htm
The function check link at the bottom of that page is worthy of printing out and keeping around.

GunBugBit
09-30-13, 11:37
Kimber has been, by far, the most problematic pistol in the relatively small number of pistol classes I've had.

The other day I got to wondering....

I wonder if the Japanese could make the 1911 platform reliable? :confused:

I mean... Americans still can't build a freaking car that's worth a shit. Turn the 1911 over to the Japanese, and I bet they'll make the thing hum! :p
There are American companies that make very good 1911s (e.g., Wilson, Dan Wesson). We don't need the Japanese to set us straight on how to build 1911s.

The "unreliable 1911" is mythical to those who know how to check for correct barrel-slide-frame fit, how to tune extractors and ejectors, etc.; in other words, to those who own Kuhnhausen books and have applied some of that information. To those who don't bother to learn how they work or are mechanically uninclined, yeah, I guess they remain mysterious.

Kimbers, well, hmmm, I'd better not go there.

samuse
10-01-13, 23:00
Kimber has been, by far, the most problematic pistol in the relatively small number of pistol classes I've had.

The other day I got to wondering....

I wonder if the Japanese could make the 1911 platform reliable? :confused:

I mean... Americans still can't build a freaking car that's worth a shit. Turn the 1911 over to the Japanese, and I bet they'll make the thing hum! :p

I've seen enough Kimbers shit the bed to know what they're about. No argument there.

But the Japs cars really ain't all that hot. There was a short period in the late 80's when Toyota had a kick-ass 4-banger on the market and so did Honda.

But that was almost 30 years ago. The Jap stuff has been ate up with problems just like the U.S. stuff. Only difference is the perception. A Jap car goes in for a repair? "Great customer service!:-)" American car needs repair? "Domestic POS is not as good as a JAP POS. :-("

I've owned Nissan, Toyota, Ford, Dodge and Chevy and Ford is consistently the most reliable vehicle time after time. And these are work trucks and cars that drive 45-50K a year, not some granny ease around town BS.

JAP shit sucks, the Taco is a minivan with a bed, the Tundra is a Dodge and everything else they make ain't no better.