1911 barrels. Ramped .45. Why?

[Magic_Salad0892]

I noticed that a lot of .45 guns that STI does use ramped barrels.

Why? What benefits does it have over a non ramped barrel in .45? (Which I thought was more reliable.)

[Haraise]

I'd say it's most likely that they mainly make 9 and .40 guns, so they're just used to ramped barrels. It's easier and cheaper to have one thing that works, and you know how to set it up, than two things.

[Timbonez]

I agree with what Haraise said. I would also say that from a manufacturing or procurement standpoint, using frames designed to accept ramped barrels would be more economical that using multiple frames based on ramped or non-ramped barrels.

[JHC]

Interesting question. I hope Bill weighs in on this one.

[Dave Berryhill]

I agree with what Haraise said. I would also say that from a manufacturing or procurement standpoint, using frames designed to accept ramped barrels would be more economical that using multiple frames based on ramped or non-ramped barrels.

This. All of the 1911 and 2011 pistols that STI builds in Texas use a ramped barrel.

[Handy]

Everybody loves the 1911, but very few of its salient features - like the trigger, link, bushing and interrupted feed ramp - are used on much of anything else. If you're going to change a bunch of other stuff about the gun, why not go to a one piece feedramp? It is more likely to feed better.

[NETim]

I'm going to go with better case support for those who want to wind the ol' ACP up.

Better feeding? Buy a Wilson. :)

[JHC]

This. All of the 1911 and 2011 pistols that STI builds in Texas use a ramped barrel.

Do you rate the ramped barrel design inferior, superior or equal assuming quality construction to the original design?

[NETim]

Hilton Yam:

Here are the basic specifications to examine for a duty 1911:

•Full sized Government Model 1911 format with 5" barrel length and steel frame for increased reliability and durability.
•Chambered in .45 ACP, as that is the caliber in which the gun was designed and functions best. The greatest number of magazine options are available in .45 ACP.
•Standard Browning barrel without integral feed ramp. Ramped barrels have very steep feed ramps that don't feed well. Hollowpoints can also catch at the bottom of the integral ramp, creating further feeding issues.
•Standard milspec short recoil spring guide rod and plug.
•Recoil spring rating of 17-18.5 lbs to improve durability with full power duty loads.
•Availability of ambidextrous safety for left handed users.
•Type of firing pin safety system, if any. See below for further.
•Light rail or standard dust cover.
•Type of finish.

http://www.10-8performance.com/pages/Choosing-a-1911-for-Duty-Use.html

[Dave Berryhill]

....why not go to a one piece feedramp? It is more likely to feed better.
Negatory good buddy. The nose of a .45 bullet strikes the frame's feed ramp lower than you think. Even lower if it's a big hollowpoint and especially the first round out of an 8-round magazine. This point of impact can be lower than the barrel's integral feed ramp plus the ramp on an integral feed ramp is steeper than the frame's feed ramp on the original design.

If you look closely at the feed ramp on an STI .45 pistol you may see that the mag well area surrounding the barrel's integral feed ramp has been "ramped" or blended to help direct any wayward bullet into the feed ramp.

[Tamara]

...very few of its salient features - like the trigger, link, bushing and interrupted feed ramp - are used on much of anything else.

Why not?

[Handy]

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?

[Handy]

Why not?

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.

[GardoneVT]

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?

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.

[Handy]

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.

[Tamara]

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.

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.

[Handy]

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.

[BLR]

I noticed that a lot of .45 guns that STI does use ramped barrels.

Why? What benefits does it have over a non ramped barrel in .45? (Which I thought was more reliable.)

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?option=com_content&view=article&id=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.

[Handy]

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.

[Tamara]

http://chattlibrary.org/sites/default/files/calendar/popcorn_0.jpg

[Haraise]

http://www.231club.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=11


That's incredible. It's hard to even imagine a smith of a gun being called a gunsmith. All I know of 'gunsmiths' are part fitters, and distinction is who makes a funny looking grip surface.

[Tamara]

All I know of 'gunsmiths' are part fitters, and distinction is who makes a funny looking grip surface.

A gunsmith can make you a gun out of a chunk of metal. An armorer can make sure your extractor fits in the gun.

[Haraise]

A gunsmith can make you a gun out of a chunk of metal. An armorer can make sure your extractor fits in the gun.

Custom guns. That's what I've seen offered. And all it means is you get to choose your parts that are fitted. Well fitted, sure. But it's still just parts fitting, at Springfield Custom, Wilson Combat, Les Baer, Nighthawk, Akai, Dawson, Brazos, Limcat, I could go on until my keyboard breaks with the 1911 'smiths' out there... even the smiths who are just known by their name, you ask them for a 1911 with an HK mag, half ramped barrel, push rod trigger, reversed frame rails, redesigned beavertail and a reworked barrel link? I'd give good odds on getting a funny look at best.

Edit: I'm absolutely enthused by the idea of 3D printing being ubiquitous and leading the way to truly custom guns.

[Tamara]

Okay, you win.

Seriously, though, most gunsmithing schools have for a final exam actually making a gun. Granted, it's usually a break action or falling-block, but that's a big difference from "I've been to Brand X Armorer's School! I R A Gunsmith!"

ETA: To paraphrase a friend, most of the people waving their hands about the miracle of 3D printing on the intertubes couldn't turn a Bridgeport mill on. It's just another way to make parts; one still has to put the parts together to make things.

[Handy]

Edit: I'm absolutely enthused by the idea of 3D printing being ubiquitous and leading the way to truly custom guns.

It will likely lead to more mangled hands than anything else. Half the gun companies barely have a handle on how guns work. When anyone else decides to redesign a gun based on their ideas, there's a good chance the printer is going to produce a hand-bomb.

[Tamara]

It will likely lead to more mangled hands than anything else.

Word.

[Tamara]

FWIW, a lot of folks don't have any experience with real gunsmiths. I have at least three firearms (one of my Frommer Stops, a Colt 1902 Military, and a Webley Mk.IN) that wouldn't be running at all if gunsmiths hadn't fabricated replacement parts out of steel stock largely by eyeball and without even any technical drawings from which to work.

[Haraise]

It will likely lead to more mangled hands than anything else. Half the gun companies barely have a handle on how guns work. When anyone else decides to redesign a gun based on their ideas, there's a good chance the printer is going to produce a hand-bomb.

And that'll be fine. The awesome thing about distributed design is that if it blows up, the community fixes it. Just don't be the first one!

Super high tolerance automatic part production will eliminate the need for fitting, and gunsmithing can turn from guys with files to engineers with computer aided design, fluid analysis, stress analysis and some high end CNC/3D printing. That's something I can get behind. Not Tom down the street printing out Zipgun version .1.2 alpha.

[BLR]

A gunsmith can make you a gun out of a chunk of metal. An armorer can make sure your extractor fits in the gun.

QFT.

RE: Printing. This reminds me of the MIM argument, nee' casting argument. It really all depends on who is doing it and how. Pick the right metal, sinter right, and it won't become an issue. 3D printing, aka additive manufacturing, has been in use for quite some time (like MIM and casting were before the firearms world discovered it), and many of the bugs have been worked out to allow excellent prototypes to be made with material suitable to making things like barrels.

That said, hand a printer to a bunch of non-engineers and sure, fingers will be lost.

RE: CAD - I actually blame the loss of prototyping in favor of 3D modeling for the fleas on many modern designs. The 92, USP, pre-plastic Smiths, P88, and so on were all built up in a model shop, were tested, then re-designed and tested again. The FNS, I'd put money on the frame molds being made w/o a prototype ever existing. Which, IMO, is why mags fall out of the gun from the strong hand hitting the ambi button. Additive manufacturing would certainly help this though.

Just my $0.02

[WilsonCombatRep]

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.


I have seen a lot of SIG 210 test targets and while some are quite good, 90% are not 1" guns though. More like 3", 50 M guns based on their 6 shot targets. The new German made ones are more like 2" guns at 25 M based on the targets I have seen.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=392890066

I think the SIG shoots so well because the pistols are made to the tightest specs of any handgun in the world. They are beautifully made to one set of prints and are basically offered in one breechface dimension of the best materials. They are grossly overbuilt for the caliber they shoot and the barrel quality is splendid. Full length slide rails are nice also.

In my opinion the build quality and attention to detail are severely hampered by poor ergonomics, low capacity, less than good sights, lousy triggers and excessive weight for the caliber. The most overrated gun on earth.

But it is a great gun otherwise :)

Linkless systems reduce 2 parts and strengthen the locking lug and they are a superior method IF you control every part on the gun like SIG does.

In a 1911, the various link dimensions gives you the latitude to fit a barrel to guns of varying dimensions-a problem SIG doesn't have to contend with since their dimensions are all practically the same.

[BLR]

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.

Whats the breech face have to do with this?

I'm not not sure you read my post, based on the first sentence of the quote above. And I don't believe most of the Bullseye gunsmiths would agree with "a few lathe turned parts and some tack welds."

[Handy]

Whats the breech face have to do with this?
The breech face is one of the fixed points that determine where the chamber is located. If you could simply move the breechface forward several millimeters, then you chamber the barrel more deeply and have a shallower feed ramp. But the location of the feed ramp and chamber are dictated by the breechface, among other set points that define a "1911".

And I'm not minimizing what a smith can do with a 1911. I am saying that the alterations necessary to hugely reduce the group size of a 1911 are minimal compared to just about any other design, due to the way the parts fit together and how many there are. The outstanding results untrained folks can get with a Kart EZ-fit barrel kit demonstrate this nicely.

WilsonRep,

I was speaking of the Swiss ones - no experience with Sauer P210s. And I don't disagree that the P210 ergos leave something to be desired - I can't reach the safety with my thumb. However, I don't see what is "overbuilt" - the slide and barrel are not heavier or have more lug engagement than a CZ-75, and even the overall weight of a standard P210-2 is only 36 ounces.

While the specs are tight, we are still talking about guns built on 1940s tooling with drop in parts - nothing is "tight" in terms of fit, just without play. I think the geometry of the slide rails and lower lugs have a large role in producing the accuracy we see. Most other designs fail to brace the barrel and slide as effectively due to the distance from boreline critical engagements are located. 1911s can be made enormously accurate, but the tiny lower lug width, short rails and variable top lug engagement depth make it harder - which is why handfitting becomes necessary.

Slap a P210 slide and barrel on a custom hi-cap frame with the correct dimensions and you'd could have the thoroughly modern wondernine with all the same accuracy as the original.

I wouldn't carry a P210 because it is slow for me to get into action, but if the fight starts with drawn pistols, I wouldn't have any qualms about using it. Mine was made in 1951, feeds hollowpoints like a champ and has very little muzzle rise and a great trigger - until it runs out of ammo, it "fights" about as well as anything else. And if I'm fighting someone who won't use a slide release, it reloads about as fast as a button release magazine gun.

If I can find the time to make some really thin micarta grips to improve the safety issue, I may use it at IDPA now and then.

[BLR]

The breech face is not a fixed point. It's a dependant variable. The location of the stop axle is an independent variable. The breech face has, at least, one degree of freedom.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

[Handy]

The breech face is not a fixed point. It's a dependant variable. The location of the stop axle is an independent variable. The breech face has, at least, one degree of freedom.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using TapatalkIf that's the case, then all you need to do to shallow out the feed ramp is move the breech face forward by by .1" or so. Simple, right?

[BLR]

Wut?

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

[Handy]

I know that I'm making sense, so if you'd like to refine your question as to how the location of the breechface can be used to change the location of the chamber and the resulting feed ramp angle, please do.

[WilsonCombatRep]

The breech face is one of the fixed points that determine where the chamber is located. If you could simply move the breechface forward several millimeters, then you chamber the barrel more deeply and have a shallower feed ramp. But the location of the feed ramp and chamber are dictated by the breechface, among other set points that define a "1911".

And I'm not minimizing what a smith can do with a 1911. I am saying that the alterations necessary to hugely reduce the group size of a 1911 are minimal compared to just about any other design, due to the way the parts fit together and how many there are. The outstanding results untrained folks can get with a Kart EZ-fit barrel kit demonstrate this nicely.

WilsonRep,

I was speaking of the Swiss ones - no experience with Sauer P210s. And I don't disagree that the P210 ergos leave something to be desired - I can't reach the safety with my thumb. However, I don't see what is "overbuilt" - the slide and barrel are not heavier or have more lug engagement than a CZ-75, and even the overall weight of a standard P210-2 is only 36 ounces.

While the specs are tight, we are still talking about guns built on 1940s tooling with drop in parts - nothing is "tight" in terms of fit, just without play. I think the geometry of the slide rails and lower lugs have a large role in producing the accuracy we see. Most other designs fail to brace the barrel and slide as effectively due to the distance from boreline critical engagements are located. 1911s can be made enormously accurate, but the tiny lower lug width, short rails and variable top lug engagement depth make it harder - which is why handfitting becomes necessary.

Slap a P210 slide and barrel on a custom hi-cap frame with the correct dimensions and you'd could have the thoroughly modern wondernine with all the same accuracy as the original.

I wouldn't carry a P210 because it is slow for me to get into action, but if the fight starts with drawn pistols, I wouldn't have any qualms about using it. Mine was made in 1951, feeds hollowpoints like a champ and has very little muzzle rise and a great trigger - until it runs out of ammo, it "fights" about as well as anything else. And if I'm fighting someone who won't use a slide release, it reloads about as fast as a button release magazine gun.

If I can find the time to make some really thin micarta grips to improve the safety issue, I may use it at IDPA now and then.

We are talking about guns built by the Swiss with a "precision at any cost" build philosophy. It is a 36 ounce 9mm. The gun is a really "neato" gun and is probably just fine as a military sidearm and will surely last 100 generations. No one else in the world could make that gun the way they did in a "not for profit" fashion. I am sure that every single part on that gun is gauged and if it doesn't meet specs, scrapped.

Compared to a lot of other things it sucks on the "shoot-ability" scale. Between hammer bite, capacity, lame sights, bottom mag catch, small, hard to reload magwell, small slide to grasp in a hurry and an absolutely unusable thumb safety its just great :) For plinking its just fine.

A Sig 210 slide and barrel on a high cap frame would be awesome. Like a witness. But nice.

[Handy]

It strikes me that the P210 sights are a bit better than a 1911-A1 sights, as issued. Current 1911s have "aftermarket" sights, and a P210 can get those too. Same thing with a stock 1911 magwell, stock hammer or stock grip safety.

And the humpbacked P210 slide is very easy to engage. Especially since the rear sight isn't the bizarrely slick Novak type.

There are customized and factory P210s that address all those issues you mention, as well as aftermarket beavertails, extended safeties, bobbed hammers, etc. It is kind of strange to compare the as-issued 1949 P210 to a modernized 1911 and decide that is a fair comparison. Also, keep in mind that the P210 made use a wide variety of cost cutting production techniques. Compared to the Swiss Lugers they replaced, they were a much less expensive. And they were also "cheap" enough for the Danish to afford to buy them.

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/larvatus/3533539/53910/53910_original.jpg

[BLR]

I know that I'm making sense, so if you'd like to refine your question as to how the location of the breechface can be used to change the location of the chamber and the resulting feed ramp angle, please do.

Sure. Go ahead.

[Handy]

Go ahead with what? Do you have a question beyond "wut"?

[BLR]

I know that I'm making sense, so if you'd like to refine your question as to how the location of the breechface can be used to change the location of the chamber and the resulting feed ramp angle, please do.

Here you go. Please proceed.

[Handy]

As I already said, if you machine the slide with the breech face closer to the muzzle, you can set the chamber deeper in the barrel and a deeper chamber means a less steep feed ramp.

I don't think you can just do that - all of the points like that in a 1911 are interdependent, and the breechface is broach cut. But you suggested that the breechface is movable, somehow.

You can't just move the cross pin location - the hammer won't reach the firing pin because that will move the slide forward. Talking about any one of those points as independant doesn't make any sense - only by making a new slide, barrel and frame could you move the barrel further forward to change the ramp slope.

[WilsonCombatRep]

It strikes me that the P210 sights are a bit better than a 1911-A1 sights, as issued. Current 1911s have "aftermarket" sights, and a P210 can get those too. Same thing with a stock 1911 magwell, stock hammer or stock grip safety.

And the humpbacked P210 slide is very easy to engage. Especially since the rear sight isn't the bizarrely slick Novak type.

There are customized and factory P210s that address all those issues you mention, as well as aftermarket beavertails, extended safeties, bobbed hammers, etc. It is kind of strange to compare the as-issued 1949 P210 to a modernized 1911 and decide that is a fair comparison. Also, keep in mind that the P210 made use a wide variety of cost cutting production techniques. Compared to the Swiss Lugers they replaced, they were a much less expensive. And they were also "cheap" enough for the Danish to afford to buy them.

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/larvatus/3533539/53910/53910_original.jpg

Who's comparing it to anything? The P210 was a commercial and military failure except in Switzerland. It was issued by Switzerland, Denmark, Some German Border guards, Latvia, Kazakstan and Monaco. It is a supremely well made gun but lets not get crazy and think it is remotely in the same league as a p-35 or a 1911 as defensive or military sidearm. Both of which were commercial successes for worldwide military and law enforcement.

The problem with the 210 is that they focused on construction rather than design. They took an older design, the French M1935A and basically copied it. They did enhance the safety lever and at least gave it a decent caliber but the result is underwhelming, at least to me.

All the enhancements you speak of? Not garden variety in the least.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

This blows. One of my big goals for May was to get in a 1911 argument with briehl and someone from Wilson Combat, and this guy completely stole my thunder.

Still...I heard Pat Rogers and Paul Buffoni post on a forum somewhere and I do have some thoughts about the AR.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[TheTrevor]

Misanthropist...
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130905022422/cardfight/images/c/cd/36243-slow-clap-citizen-kane-orson-w-bJkI.gif

[BLR]

This blows. One of my big goals for May was to get in a 1911 argument with briehl and someone from Wilson Combat, and this guy completely stole my thunder.

Still...I heard Pat Rogers and Paul Buffoni post on a forum somewhere and I do have some thoughts about the AR.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

Now I feel used.

ETA: Who is clapping dude, anyway?

[JV_]

I think it's Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.

[WilsonCombatRep]

ROSEBUD!

[WilsonCombatRep]

Here is the coolest p210 of all time. Jim Boland custom.
Note the checkering, beavertail and the way cool ambi safety.

This is the ONLY 210 that I am aware of that ever was used by a serious pistol shooter that made a top 16 finish in a major match in the USA (Angelo Spagnoli, Steel Challenge)

Most countries where the 210 is prolific (Like Scandinavia) they have pretty much quit using heavily them due to frame cracking.

Jim Boland was probably the most innovative gunsmith who ever lived. No surprise that he could work on a 210.



http://i59.tinypic.com/3df8g.jpg

[TheTrevor]

I think it's Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.

Yup.

[Handy]

Wilson,

I thought we were comparing 210s and 1911s when the rep of a company that builds customized 1911s (whose modifications address many faults of an old military issue sidearm) says that another military issue sidearm is a fail because it lacks the features that come from customizing.

Both of these weapons have their faults - most of which are addressed by people like you that have made a business modifying old designs. Both guns have certain strengths that the custom houses attempt to emulate. They also both have a historical and cultural story outside their design that has a lot to do with our current perceptions. If the 1911 wasn't a .45, or hadn't been in issue so long, or WWI hadn't prevented the adoption of the Remington M3, or hadn't had Jeff Cooper come along and advocate Condition 1 carry, or so many 1911s hadn't ended up on the cheap surplus market decades ago, your industry might not exist.

The P210 is far from perfect, but it is still a military issue firearm, designed for mass production with no handfitting as a lower cost replacement for the Lugers that truly were expensive to produce. Compared to the Tokarev, Beretta 1934, Beretta 1951, P-1, BHP, PP and Radom, it was a pretty decent military weapon in the era it was introduced and stayed in service for a very long time in the few countries it served.

Had the US been forced to adopt a NATO caliber pistol in 1950, Wilson Combat would likely have become a company that offers beavertails, push button mag releases and Novak sights for the US M1951 SIG 9mm service pistol, and we'd both singing its praises as America's mass produced fighting handgun. But the P210 never became common enough to have a Wilson Combat type company invest in the design. That was left to Cylinder and Slide, Nils and several other European companies who address the ergonomic faults of the P210, just as Wilson, Baer, Nowlin and others address the ergonomic, accuracy and reliability faults of the M1911.

Personally, I'm glad I have an HK to carry whose accuracy and ergonomics are as good or better than either old gun design.

[WilsonCombatRep]

Wilson,

I thought we were comparing 210s and 1911s when the rep of a company that builds customized 1911s (whose modifications address many faults of an old military issue sidearm) says that another military issue sidearm is a fail because it lacks the features that come from customizing.

Both of these weapons have their faults - most of which are addressed by people like you that have made a business modifying old designs. Both guns have certain strengths that the custom houses attempt to emulate. They also both have a historical and cultural story outside their design that has a lot to do with our current perceptions. If the 1911 wasn't a .45, or hadn't been in issue so long, or WWI hadn't prevented the adoption of the Remington M3, or hadn't had Jeff Cooper come along and advocate Condition 1 carry, or so many 1911s hadn't ended up on the cheap surplus market decades ago, your industry might not exist.

The P210 is far from perfect, but it is still a military issue firearm, designed for mass production with no handfitting as a lower cost replacement for the Lugers that truly were expensive to produce. Compared to the Tokarev, Beretta 1934, Beretta 1951, P-1, BHP, PP and Radom, it was a pretty decent military weapon in the era it was introduced and stayed in service for a very long time in the few countries it served.

Had the US been forced to adopt a NATO caliber pistol in 1950, Wilson Combat would likely have become a company that offers beavertails, push button mag releases and Novak sights for the US M1951 SIG 9mm service pistol, and we'd both singing its praises as America's mass produced fighting handgun. But the P210 never became common enough to have a Wilson Combat type company invest in the design. That was left to Cylinder and Slide, Nils and several other European companies who address the ergonomic faults of the P210, just as Wilson, Baer, Nowlin and others address the ergonomic, accuracy and reliability faults of the M1911.

Personally, I'm glad I have an HK to carry whose accuracy and ergonomics are as good or better than either old gun design.

I think you are making a wacky argument.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Wilson,

I thought we were comparing 210s and 1911s when the rep of a company that builds customized 1911s (whose modifications address many faults of an old military issue sidearm) says that another military issue sidearm is a fail because it lacks the features that come from customizing.

Both of these weapons have their faults - most of which are addressed by people like you that have made a business modifying old designs. Both guns have certain strengths that the custom houses attempt to emulate. They also both have a historical and cultural story outside their design that has a lot to do with our current perceptions. If the 1911 wasn't a .45, or hadn't been in issue so long, or WWI hadn't prevented the adoption of the Remington M3, or hadn't had Jeff Cooper come along and advocate Condition 1 carry, or so many 1911s hadn't ended up on the cheap surplus market decades ago, your industry might not exist.

The P210 is far from perfect, but it is still a military issue firearm, designed for mass production with no handfitting as a lower cost replacement for the Lugers that truly were expensive to produce. Compared to the Tokarev, Beretta 1934, Beretta 1951, P-1, BHP, PP and Radom, it was a pretty decent military weapon in the era it was introduced and stayed in service for a very long time in the few countries it served.

Had the US been forced to adopt a NATO caliber pistol in 1950, Wilson Combat would likely have become a company that offers beavertails, push button mag releases and Novak sights for the US M1951 SIG 9mm service pistol, and we'd both singing its praises as America's mass produced fighting handgun. But the P210 never became common enough to have a Wilson Combat type company invest in the design. That was left to Cylinder and Slide, Nils and several other European companies who address the ergonomic faults of the P210, just as Wilson, Baer, Nowlin and others address the ergonomic, accuracy and reliability faults of the M1911.

Personally, I'm glad I have an HK to carry whose accuracy and ergonomics are as good or better than either old gun design.

I see your argument, but it's kind of weird, and I'm not sure what that has to do with ramped 1911 barrels, breech face variations, or anything like that.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Linkless systems reduce 2 parts and strengthen the locking lug and they are a superior method IF you control every part on the gun like SIG does.

In a 1911, the various link dimensions gives you the latitude to fit a barrel to guns of varying dimensions-a problem SIG doesn't have to contend with since their dimensions are all practically the same.

Now... THAT is something I hadn't thought about.

[45dotACP]

Now... THAT is something I hadn't thought about.

Ditto. Somehow I feel lucky that my 1911 even works :D

[Handy]

I see your argument, but it's kind of weird, and I'm not sure what that has to do with ramped 1911 barrels, breech face variations, or anything like that.
I made a comparison to how P210s were made, and that caused an editorial about the failings of the P210, which I responded to.

The primary point I was making off the bat was that ramped barrels aren't a better design, but something it appears we have to live with because there isn't room in a .45 1911 for anything else to work well. But when you have the freedom to start from scratch, a lot of good things happen - if you like pistols that can be assembled without a gunsmith.

[BLR]

Now... THAT is something I hadn't thought about.

Same thing with that horrible internal extractor that allows tuning. And fitting.

[Handy]

Same thing with that horrible internal extractor that requires tuning. And fitting. Fixed? ;)



I can't edit my last post, but I meant "non-ramped barrels aren't a better design, but..."

[Magic_Salad0892]

Same thing with that horrible internal extractor that allows tuning. And fitting.

I'll be honest. I like external extractors now that I have more experience with them. They work fine.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Ditto. Somehow I feel lucky that my 1911 even works :D

Really? That post made me wonder how anything else does. Especially with companies who don't have the most insanely stringent quality control in the world like Glock, or S&W. (Good quality, but it's not Wilson Combat quality.)

[Handy]

Really? That post made me wonder how anything else does. Especially with companies who don't have the most insanely stringent quality control in the world like Glock, or S&W. (Good quality, but it's not Wilson Combat quality.)

And they often don't. Remember the GSR's introduction, or how M&Ps grouped like shotguns? Many consumer marketed pistols don't work very well at all.

[Magic_Salad0892]

And they often don't. Remember the GSR's introduction, or how M&Ps grouped like shotguns? Many consumer marketed pistols don't work very well at all.

M&Ps still pattern like shotguns, from what I understand. And I don't remember the GSR introduction. I don't pay attention to SIG 1911s, though I heard that they do have them sorted out now. Which is weird.

[45dotACP]

And they often don't. Remember the GSR's introduction, or how M&Ps grouped like shotguns? Many consumer marketed pistols don't work very well at all.

One could say something to the effect of "remember those few years where almost everything coming out of Sig was awful?" :cool:

The beauty of guns like Glock and the M&P is the fact that they have so little need for precision fitting and fine tuning. They are more mechanically simple by orders of magnitude because they did away with linked barrel systems, barrel bushings, leaf spring extractors and sear springs, as well as utilizing a slightly more effective magazine design and ramped barrels. Of all these things, I'd say the magazine is probably the main reason the modern plastic people poppers are so much more reliable. But the coil spring external extractor probably also has something to do with all that...

[Handy]

I don't know if it is just simplicity. Ruger P89s worked great - with a link. The Beretta 92 is super complicated, but probably one of the very best feeders out there.

I could see the argument that Glocks are a little too simple - too many functions combined onto one part.

Really, it is hard to think of a really problematic design that couldn't be fixed with a better magazine and feed ramp profile. Most autos since the '30s have worked pretty darn well - BHP, Tokarev, P-38, etc. "Modern reliability" seems to be more of a fable than a truth brought on by modern manufacturing. My Glock 19 wasn't unreliable, but it was less reliable than other, older guns I have owned.