Why not?Originally Posted by RX-79G
Why not?
I don't see what stiffer than designed recoil springs do for your, other than increase slide speed and the amount of force the slide goes into battery. A spring is not a buffer.
Why would a ramped barrel be any steeper than the ramp the 1911 was designed with?
Depends. Some of it is cost - later machining techniques made it easier to make slides with that didn't require bushings.
Then there's the military requirement for no-tool detail stripping, which has more to do with the trigger design than anything else - it isn't like target pistols use anything like it.
And links don't stand up to heavier recoil, as Ruger found out in the earlier P944. Plus, the fixed geometry of a swinging link limits what can be done with the slide mass vs. recoil. Many non-link barrels keep full lug contact for a greater distance of slide recoil that isn't possible with a link.
My brief ownership of a jacked up Para USA 14.45 and the attendant insane quest to make it run taught me much about how NOT to make a 1911.The ramped barrel on that piece was steep enough to merit a runaway truck trap. Coincidentally, the only thing it would even pretend to run was FMJ after I fixed the extractor.
Jedi Master Hilton knows what he speaks.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I did some checking, and you're right. Because of the way the rounds move in the mag, ramped barrels can't occupy the same space a frame ramp would. So they are cut shorter and angled more steeply. This is a .45 problem, not with other calibers.
I've wondered about that, since it predates the military requirements for the 1911; I believe all the classic Browning designs (ie, other than the mostly-Saive P35) use the stirrup, either with an integral trigger or activated by a pivoting trigger. Obviously the design is only good for single action guns.
I don't know it'd be all that hot for a pure target pistol since, while you can get a very good tactile feel in that trigger relative to its actual weight, a certain amount of friction is baked into the design by virtue of having to slide in that channel. Adjustments to the pull weight and travel are also perforce done with relative stone axe methods like welding and filing.
I agree completely, Tamara. The 1911 is a mix of lots of odd requirements which dictated its final design. We've already pretty much thrown out Browning's patented decocking grip safety design as irrelevant.
Haraise and Dave are spot on in the use of ramped barrels for that breed of 1911.
Ramped barrels aren't the blight many experts seem to think they are, if the ramps are cut correctly. It wasn't until the significantly over pressure Supers were used in IPSC/USPSA that ramps were an issue. The were, and are, only used for increased safety in high pressure rounds.
The issue with ramped/non ramped barrels in 1911s is most emphatically not a steepness of the ramp issue (assuming a good barrel, if you're talking Para, you're on your own). It's a magazine and barrel/ramp location issue. In that light, take note of (what I consider the true SMEs on 1911s) what Charlie Kelsey and Jim Boland did. For example:
http://www.231club.com/index.php?opt...d=10&Itemid=11
Excellent read. The blog "Arsenal of Democracy" is an excellent Devel and Boland resource. While it's true the ramp in the 45, in some instances, is a little more steep than a frame ramp, it's not the night and day issue many make it.
Distilled down and making some assumptions, there are two fleas on the 1911. First, the magazine needs redesigned. By that, I don't mean a facelift, but an honest to gosh redesign. As long as the top round's rim hooks on the second round's groove, you're gonna have a bad time. Second, the barrel needs to move away from the mag well just a little bit. The magazine (aka "nose dive phenomena") flea is the bigger, uglier flea.
RX-79G - bushing barrels are easier to fit to be ultra accurate. Note what the S&W PC did with Briley. The link (like the extractor and maintenance bits) is grossly over played. It's really a non issue, design wise. It's also not needed in ammunition loaded to sane pressures. After all, the Colt 9x23 didn't use a ramp, fed like a dream, and didn't blow out cases. Old design Supers sure did, though. My impression is a gubberment agency was blowing brass in their Pros a while back with non-tox stuff, and they wanted a ramped barrel to solve the issue.
Bill, unless I'm completely misunderstanding, location IS the issue with ramped barrels in 1911 .45s. Unless you change the location of the magazine or location of the breechface or the location of the cross pin, the location of the chamber after unlocking has been dictated by geometry. If you change the caliber, you've changed one of those factors, and things work better. While a Para might not have all of this worked out perfectly, it still sounds like moving the ramp to the barrel when you had to cut away the magwell might not be optimal in any .45 1911.
I understand the advantages of a bushing for customization. But Browning didn't build a customizable pistol on purpose - anymore than Beretta did not on purpose. Certainly, the 1911's popularity comes in part from the fact that all those $50 surplus guns could be turned into bullseye guns with a few lathe turned parts and some tack welds. Had Browning used a Sig type barrel and no bushing, that wouldn't have been the case.
When it came to developing the next stage in military guns, the Swiss went with a linkless system because it works better for producing accuracy without hand fitting. Most people don't understand that P210s shoot 1" 50 yard groups with replaceable, drop in parts. Small clearances and tight tolerances, but also better geometry.
Reply With Quote
