1911 question

[Kazzy]

Thanks for all of your help guys!! Much appreciated!

[DacoRoman]

"I held at one at the gun store today and I must say I was impressed."

M_P

touché! that's is indeed the ultimate chump understudy verbal stamp of approval

[Dunderway]

...a "chart" on the 1911 would be practically impossible since there's no real TDP out there for the 1911, but if we could muster one we'd be up to our elbows in inflamed manginas and hurt feelings.

I would just be happy if there were enough companies that made Mil-Spec 1911s to justify a chart.

When I say "Mil-Spec" I'm talking about throwing five fully disassembled pistols into a pillow case, and being able to put together five perfectly functioning pistols by drawing random parts.

[FuriousGeorge]

...like people all over the place bitching their little lips off because LAV said that if you want something smaller than a 5" .45 1911 then buy another gun on Tactical Arms...I mean, really...what the hell does *HE* know about 1911's? I've put 200 rounds through my 3" Kimber in the last 5 years and it works great!...

That isn't a serious post, is it?

I'm not aware of any manufacture charts for 1911s. I would just talk to different smiths on the forums, and come to your own conclusion.

[John_Wayne777]

Wow.....That's just embarrassing. Who's "LAV"? Larry Vickers? Yeah, I'm sure Vickers is the only guy in the entire world that recommends against anything shorter than a commander length 1911. I would add a few zeroes behind your 200 before you comment on the guns reliability.

Revel in the embarassment:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ms-1911-a.html

[markm]

Get over the romance!!

[cathellsk]

Revel in the embarassment:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ms-1911-a.html

I'm reveling....and feel dumber after reading it.
What the hell are people thinking?! That these guys (Vickers etc.) don't have a clue what they're talking about?

[ChicagoTex]

When I say "Mil-Spec" I'm talking about throwing five fully disassembled pistols into a pillow case, and being able to put together five perfectly functioning pistols by drawing random parts.

There are only two ways to acheive that level of interchangeability (especially in a 1911), one would be an absolutely insane quality control that'd run the cost of each pistol up to about $3k apiece (and even then you wouldn't have accuracy and reliability would be hit-or-miss), or to build em like they did in the old days: with tolerances so loose you could wake the dead from rattling 'em.

Parts interchangeability is all well and good, and can be a point of significant value to a large military or police instutition maintaining a tremendous number of guns but to us, the average buyers, we actually get a better 1911 with our parts fit to the specific gun.

Mil-spec ain't no great shakes in my book...

[Spiffums]

Bac over on Glock Talk is supposed to be doing a write up for entry level 1911s. I don't think he has it posted yet and while he doesn't claim to be an expert on the 1911, he personally owns almost 1 of every brand.

Might want to check in there now and again to see if it has been posted yet.

[Dunderway]

build em like they did in the old days: with tolerances so loose you could wake the dead from rattling 'em.

That is what I want: build the gun to a spec, like they did in the old days. One of the major complaints about the 1911 is that it takes a fairly skilled individual/a great deal of time to replace the majority of the parts.

I also do not know if I agree with your other statement. I think this may be an exaggeration from people who have only seen abused, 60 year old surplus weapons. Comparing a DCM "rack grade" M1 to new as issued M1 is not a fair comparison. Even then, "waking the dead" is quite an exaggeration for the fit of a particular Rem Rand that I have had the chance to fire on occassion.

A NIB original 1911A1 is not something that many of us have had a chance to inspect. However, I have handled like-new Government Models that were from around the same era and there was no "rattle" to speak of. Colt's WWII reissue was supposedly held to the original blueprints, and the examples I have seen were not rattle traps either.