1911 Reliability: Myths vs Facts

[bulletblood]

Apples vs oranges, but not why you think.

Glock is a brand/manufacturer, 1911 is a type of gun. You need to compare a Glock to a Colt.

What if Sig Sauer released a glock clone and it was crap. All of a sudden Glock's reliability will be questioned. See, it's apples vs oranges, or apples vs Sunkist.

You need to compare the Glock against the original 1911 standard, which is the COLT.

[tophatjones]

How do you check tension?

Here is a quick way to check extractor tension. First remove slide from gun, then remove barrel/bushing from slide. Take the slide and slip an empty case of the appropriate caliber under the extractor. Position the case on the breech as if the gun was in battery. Shake the slide and the case should stay put. Try the same test with a round and the round should fall from the slide (please use sense and discretion with the live round).

There are gauges you can get if you want a more accurate way of measuring tension, but the above test should be sufficient for most.

[cannon]

Apples vs oranges, but not why you think.

Glock is a brand/manufacturer, 1911 is a type of gun. You need to compare a Glock to a Colt.

What if Sig Sauer released a glock clone and it was crap. All of a sudden Glock's reliability will be questioned. See, it's apples vs oranges, or apples vs Sunkist.

You need to compare the Glock against the original 1911 standard, which is the COLT.

^^BINGO!!^^

[STAGE 2]

Lots of fail here and as with anything the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Glocks can and do fail. In fact, despite all of Gaston's magic fairy dust glocks seem to be more susceptible to failures via limp wristing than your average genuine 1911.

Nor are genuine 1911s unreliable. People seem to forget that jmb sold the military on the 1911 by shooting 6000 rounds straight with ZERO malfunctions, only stopping to reload and dunk the pistol in a bucket of water too cool it down. And this was without the fancy wunderlubes like we have today. Any pistol that can make it through 6k in one sitting under those conditions is reliable period.

Now it may be that glocks are more tolerant of lubrication neglect. I don't know that anyone can say for sure because I'm not aware of any head to head test using a kunhausen spec'd 1911 and a factory glock. There is more than likely more maintenance/tuning required with a 1911, but again after 6k rounds its an academic issue more than anything.

Most importantly, from a market perspective there are relatively few actual 1911s out there. A pistol that looks like a 1911 that doesn't meet the proper specs isn't any more of a 1911 than a fiero with a body kit is a Ferrari.

Both are great pistols no question. For sheer resistance to the elements, the glock is clearly the better choice. However I don't think there is a clear winner in the reliability department if we compare apples to apples.

[missiontrails]

Bah, hah, hah . . . just blasted water on my keyboard. Thanks.

Reminds me of the old Superman series I watched growing up in the 70's. Bad guy empties his pistol at Superman and all the bullets bounce off his chest. Then the bad buy throws the pistol and Superman dodges it.

Only 1911 I own is a Kimber, bought it at B&B for $600.00 on sale in the mid 90's. Never had a problem with it. But I still prefer to shoot my G21.

B&B........Colt Sportier HBAR $669, Springfield SAR-8 $799 (Greek HK91).... that place was great.

[redcliff]

Here is a quick way to check extractor tension. First remove slide from gun, then remove barrel/bushing from slide. Take the slide and slip an empty case of the appropriate caliber under the extractor. Position the case on the breech as if the gun was in battery. Shake the slide and the case should stay put. Try the same test with a round and the round should fall from the slide (please use sense and discretion with the live round).
There are gauges you can get if you want a more accurate way of measuring tension, but the above test should be sufficient for most.

I don't want to be argumentative, but you should only perform the test with either a live round or a dummy round; you want the weight of a full cartridge not an empty case. The extractor should hold the loaded round during light shaking but release it with more vigorous shaking. Only having the extractor hold an empty case is too weak of a tension setting imho and that of others much more knowledgeable on 1911's then myself; for example Bill Wilson/Wilson Combat http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/uncateg...-on-your-1911/ .

To see if you extractor tension is too light single load the 1911 via the magazine, remove the magazine and fire the pistol. Observe whether you get proper ejection or does the empty case stovepipe or drop down the magazine well. Rinse and repeat at least 5 times.

For those that might be knew to 1911's always remember extractor tension too tight=failure to feed, extractor tension too light failure to eject/stovepipe.

[9mmepiphany]

Yes that is a easy reminder and a guide as to were to look when mis-feeds start occurring...after the magazine.

I also agree that the extractor tension should be tested with a case containing a bullet...that it will retain an empty case means very little.

Firing a 1911 without a magazine and watching ejection patterns is a time tested technique...it also works on Glocks

[tophatjones]

Thanks for sharing, I like it, especially for tool steel extractors. Since they don't hold tension as well, it makes sense to give them more to begin with.

Just a guess here, but mags with parallel feed lips release rounds abruptly so perhaps extractor tension is lost quicker using them. These days, most all 1911 mags have parallel feed lips, so combined with tool steel extractors, more initial extractor tension makes sense.

Since I use spring steel extractors (along with small radius fps, 16 lb recoil springs and tapered mag feed lips), I can get away with a lighter initial setting. Spring steel extractors keep their tension longer.

Crazy thing is, if the gun is built correctly, it'll cycle without the extractor at least until it fouls.

Imho, the most important thing to remember with internal extractors is to check the tension often.

I don't want to be argumentative, but you should only perform the test with either a live round or a dummy round; you want the weight of a full cartridge not an empty case. The extractor should hold the loaded round during light shaking but release it with more vigorous shaking. Only having the extractor hold an empty case is too weak of a tension setting imho and that of others much more knowledgeable on 1911's then myself; for example Bill Wilson/Wilson Combat http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/uncateg...-on-your-1911/ .

To see if you extractor tension is too light single load the 1911 via the magazine, remove the magazine and fire the pistol. Observe whether you get proper ejection or does the empty case stovepipe or drop down the magazine well. Rinse and repeat at least 5 times.

For those that might be knew to 1911's always remember extractor tension too tight=failure to feed, extractor tension too light failure to eject/stovepipe.

[M. D. Van Norman]

How about the feeding problems often caused by hollow points and barrels made to the original specifications? Modern barrels with throated chambers help solve this source of reliability problems, do they not?

[Freq18Hz]

Another Myth, and I am certain Les Baer, Ed Brown and Springfield's Custom Shop would strongly disagree.

Actually, they would agree.

Re-read what I said. I said potential accuracy, potential reliability.


What's this thread about? Lot's of back and forth arguments with no substance, people playing the 'who's got the bigger 1911' game, and glock talk.

Some 1911's require a break-in. All guns shoot differently after a couple thousand rounds. Some issues can improve, other's can get worse.


I'm not really seeing the point to this thread. Reliability and benchrest accuracy isn't a mystery. How many of you folks talking about 1911 accuracy clean your barrels with a guide, so that you don't touch the walls? How many of you talking about reliability have shot 10k rounds in a day without cleaning your 1911?

I'm going to guess, not a one.

Most handguns, especially a well built 1911 are accurate and reliable enough. How many 'unreliable' guns would you take a chance standing in front of? You know, the kind of 'unreliable' gun that: "I just can't trust my life with it. You know, in case SHTF".

Two words:

MALL NINJAS

Here's what they look like, in case anyone needs a reminder:






Increasing the tightness on barrel/bushing fitment and slide to frame fitment can absolutely effect accuracy, and can absolutely effect reliability.

There is such a thing as "stupid tight", and there is a big difference between a 1911 that you can dunk in a bucket of wet sand and fire 10k rounds without cleaning, vs. a very 'accurate' range gun.

Can you find a balance? Of course you can (already stated this in post #2).

Are poorly fit/damaged/bent extractors, bad lube jobs, poor quality magazines, ammo, and recoil springs that aren't tuned to slide weight and load to blame for lots of 1911 malfunctions? You bet.

Can ultra tightly fit barrel bushings, frames/slides degrade 'reliability'? Without a doubt.

The 1911 platform is over 100 years old. These questions/debates were solved a long time ago.


-Freq

[tophatjones]

As long as the JHP has similar ogive with ball, it should be fine. Aggressive barrel throating/polishing is unnecessary just as long as the bullet doesn't contact the barrel throat (or maybe just barely contacts the upper portion of barrel throat). The barrel throat is a clearance cut, not a ramp.

How about the feeding problems often caused by hollow points and barrels made to the original specifications? Modern barrels with throated chambers help solve this source of reliability problems, do they not?

[InGrAM]

I would rather throw my 1911 than shoot a glock.

I love this ^ lol

[Press Check]

Actually, they would agree.

Re-read what I said. I said potential accuracy, potential reliability.

The more accurate, the less potential for reliability.

I was referring to your second statement, which isn't true, period.

[sholling]

The sad thing is that I started this thread with the intension to educate new 1911 owners to accept no excuses from their pistol maker for reliability issues. To show them that there is no-zip-zero excuse for their new pistol to be anything but dead-bang accurate and 100% reliable from the first day and no excuse for the manufacturer to demand that they shoot 500 "break-in" rounds before fixing manufacturing mistakes. But for some reason it turned into a Glock vs 1911 thread, plus a strange accuracy peeing contest.

The bottom line is what Hilton said, that there is no good reason why you should not be able to take your new 1911 out of the box, clean off the shipping preservative, lightly lube it and then use the heck out of it without any issues, and if you can't then it means that the manufacturer shipped a not quite completed pistol and should finish the job that they started.

[stormvet]

I agree. This should be the case with every gun sold. But I also know all guns will perform better after they have been fired a few times.
I own a few guns were the manual states a break in is needed. I always took this with a grain of salt and just shot the gun as I would any other. The only gun were I noticed anything different after the so called break in was my Kahr PM9.
Kahr calls for a 200 round break in if memory serves me correct. The first 50 or so had a few FTF needing a slight push of the slide to go into full battery after that its been good to go.
But as far as 1911s go never needed a break in no matter what the owners manual said.

Waite, I thought this was a 1911 vs Glock thread. What's all this break in talk about....