A Nighthawk and a Colt

[Robinson]

I recently bought a Nighthawk GRP Commander, and it's a really nice pistol. I also have a Colt Combat Commander. They are both 45s so one can back up the other.

I took the Nighthawk to the range for the first time today. To my surprise, the slide was locking back prematurely with rounds still in the magazine about once per mag. I broke the gun down and examined the slide release. Sure enough, there was telltale coloration on the nose of the slide release where it interacts with the magazine follower. I used my trusty file and stone to remove a slight bit of material off that part of the slide release. Voila, problem gone.

The Nighthawk is a very nicely built and finished pistol, as you would expect. It is more refined and has a nicer trigger than my the Colt, which is a production line pistol -- typical Colt Series 80. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing too special. But the Colt has been shot a lot and has never malfunctioned once.

Now there are a couple ways I could look at this situation. I could be upset that a $3000+ pistol had a flaw that caused it to malfunction. Granted, it was an easy thing to fix and only took me a minute -- but still, one could take the position that it shouldn't have left the factory with such a flaw. Or, I could take it in stride as a dedicated 1911 user realizing these things happen -- some of the parts require hand fitting and this one got passed them. Assuming the Nighthawk performs reliably from here on I am more inclined to take the second position.

Anyway, it was a fun day of shooting and fiddling with a new gun and I was able to diagnose and fix the one problem I had. If it had been a feeding problem or something with the extractor it could have been much more frustrating.

Oh, and the Colt? Next time it goes to the range I expect it to continue its consistent dependability along with its so-so Series 80 trigger. I wish all Series 80 guns had as nice a trigger as the one on my Special Combat Government -- but then it was tuned by the CCS.

[SecondsCount]

A $3K gun should run from the factory but Nighthwawk has a good reputation for getting it right the first time, just maybe not this time. Colt has kept many a gunsmith in business making their stuff reliable.

[P30]

Now there are a couple ways I could look at this situation. [...] Anyway, it was a fun day of shooting and fiddling with a new gun and I was able to diagnose and fix the one problem I had. If it had been a feeding problem or something with the extractor it could have been much more frustrating.
I think, this is good way to look at the situation. At the end, you and the Nighthawk came out of the situation as an even stronger pair. Cool that you could fix the problem by yourself. Even better: The fix was minimal invasive.

PS:
My "Excalibur", an HK MR308, also had a little problem at the beginning. I had to send it back to HK and they fixed it. Rifle works very well since then. I used quotes because maybe there is no Excalibur in reality, but I'm not sure. :)

[TC215]

I had a Wilson Combat .45 LW Commander with the same issue. It’s frustrating when you spend that kind of money.

[LockedBreech]

My Series 80 Colt ran out of the box with its own magazines and the Wilson ETMs I bought. We're around 3,000 rounds now and I only cleaned and lubed it at the 1500 mark and 3000 mark. I always feel lucky that my first and only 1911 ended up being a good one.

[SwampDweller]

If I bought a $3k 1911 that wasn't 100% reliable out of the box I think my head would explode. You're handling it a lot better than I would, good on you.

[TheNewbie]

If I bought a $3k 1911 that wasn't 100% reliable out of the box I think my head would explode. You're handling it a lot better than I would, good on you.

I was upset over my $165 used P32 Kel Tec having an issue.


Robinson’s outlook is to be admired and makes for a happier person, but I don’t know that I could manage to have it.

[Stephanie B]

If I bought a $3k 1911 that wasn't 100% reliable out of the box I think my head would explode. You're handling it a lot better than I would, good on you.

Oh, yeah. I’d have been demanding a RMA shipping label and that they fix the gun for me.

[willie]

The techs assembling $3000 pistols may have been frying burgers or delivering pizza at their last job. The dude with the famous name is not sitting at the bench. This approach will work if the boss spends time and effort hiring, training, and inspecting. I have observed that unfitted slide stops and improperly tensioned extractors cause most 1911 out of the box malfunctions, and I have seen many. When I was young, many general gunsmiths could repair 1911's and all the main revolver brands. For 1911's there were very many fewer after market parts vendors. You had Colt factory, GI surplus, and maybe a few items sold by James Clark, Armand Swenson, or King Gun Works. My point is that are more shit products on the market now, and the concept of a spec part is a myth. I'm a 1911 fanboy and have been a happy one because I view these pistols as clunkers and realize that converting them from sow's ears to silk purses can make them less reliable depending on whose doing the work. So give me a Government Model with its generous tolerances. Making it run correctly is not difficult.

[Robinson]

Oh, yeah. I’d have been demanding a RMA shipping label and that they fix the gun for me.

Oh, I totally get where you guys (and gal) are coming from. I don't necessarily excuse Nighthawk for letting a gun that's not 100% slip out the door. If I had not been able to fairly quickly and easily diagnose and fix the problem I would have been frustrated -- especially at the hassle of having to send it back for a repair. But as soon as I saw that little line of copper color I knew the problem was the rounds contacting the slide release. So it was easier to just fix it and rock on than to stress out about it.

None of that changes the fact that it should have been right to begin with. But with that little inconvenience out of the way it is a terrific pistol that shoots great.

I am sure the Colt gave the Nighthawk all kinds of shit about it in the safe that night. "I've never had premature slide lock. No malfunctions for this guy. Who's the man now?!"

[SwampDweller]

My Series 80 Colt ran out of the box with its own magazines and the Wilson ETMs I bought. We're around 3,000 rounds now and I only cleaned and lubed it at the 1500 mark and 3000 mark. I always feel lucky that my first and only 1911 ended up being a good one.

I wish I had that kind of luck. Every 1911 I've ever owned hasn't been able to make it to the 1k round mark without a stoppage (I had a Series 80 that came close). I want to love 1911s because of their history, shootability, etc, but I've just never been able to get one that's reliable enough for me to trust. And considering what 1k rounds of .45 ammo costs which would be necessary simply to vet reliability, I probably never will. Thusly, I will be content with HK's and G21s for my .45 caliber pistols which have always been 100% right out of the box.

[Robinson]

I wish I had that kind of luck. Every 1911 I've ever owned hasn't been able to make it to the 1k round mark without a stoppage (I had a Series 80 that came close). I want to love 1911s because of their history, shootability, etc, but I've just never been able to get one that's reliable enough for me to trust. And considering what 1k rounds of .45 ammo costs which would be necessary simply to vet reliability, I probably never will. Thusly, I will be content with HK's and G21s for my .45 caliber pistols which have always been 100% right out of the box.

I've been pretty lucky I guess. Most of my 1911s have been Colt Government Model 45s and the only malfunctions I remember were with a Commander that had been customized by an up and coming gunsmith. It wouldn't feed crappy range ammo reliably -- that was it. Besides that I honestly cannot remember a single malfunction with a Colt 45 1911 -- and that's after many thousands of rounds downrange.

My G21 is a great pistol too. :)

[SwampDweller]

I've been pretty lucky I guess. Most of my 1911s have been Colt Government Model 45s and the only malfunctions I remember were with a Commander that had been customized by an up and coming gunsmith. It wouldn't feed crappy range ammo reliably -- that was it. Besides that I honestly cannot remember a single malfunction with a Colt 45 1911 -- and that's after many thousands of rounds downrange.

My G21 is a great pistol too. :)

Can you give me some of that luck? I'd love to get a 1911 that goes thousands of rounds without a malfunction (provided adequate cleaning/care of course). My first Colt Series 70 new production about 10 years ago had an issue where the hammer would drop to half cock after letting the slide release go sometimes. Even after a trip back to Colt, it would still do it. The Series 80 was a lot better but still not quite there. I had a local smith who claimed to be good with 1911s do some reliability "tuning", and while there was an improvement, it still couldn't go 1k rounds without a stoppage. I've since learned that the number of qualified 1911 smiths (craftsmen, really) is pretty small and they have long wait times. I also had a Springfield Loaded model that I would've loved to have been reliable too. I've thought about spending $3k+ on a Wilson Combat or Nighthawk or something but as I said above, if I spent that kind of money on a 1911 and it had issues, it'd be one of those heart sinking moments.

[Robinson]

Can you give me some of that luck? I'd love to get a 1911 that goes thousands of rounds without a malfunction (provided adequate cleaning/care of course). My first Colt Series 70 new production about 10 years ago had an issue where the hammer would drop to half cock after letting the slide release go sometimes. Even after a trip back to Colt, it would still do it. The Series 80 was a lot better but still not quite there. I had a local smith who claimed to be good with 1911s do some reliability "tuning", and while there was an improvement, it still couldn't go 1k rounds without a stoppage. I've since learned that the number of qualified 1911 smiths (craftsmen, really) is pretty small and they have long wait times. I also had a Springfield Loaded model that I would've loved to have been reliable too. I've thought about spending $3k+ on a Wilson Combat or Nighthawk or something but as I said above, if I spent that kind of money on a 1911 and it had issues, it'd be one of those heart sinking moments.

That does suck, and it's no wonder you hesitate to keep trying to go down the 1911 path.

You're right about 1911 gunsmiths. Typically local people might be okay to install sights or something, but major work or tuning needs to be done by someone who really knows the gun inside and out. The list is pretty small too like you said.

I'm hoping the Nighthawk is trouble free from here on, and if it isn't I will be disappointed and it will go back to Nighthawk -- but I honestly don't expect that to happen.

[45dotACP]

Hot take here:
Nighthawk, Wilson, Les Baer, Guncrafter Industries, Atlas and damn near every other semi custom "gunsmith" that builds 1911s is overpriced and not worth it.

Their quality either has slipped, or it soon will.

They are in some ways, actually worse than a Springfield, RIA, Colt, Dan Wesson and even a Kimber (gasp)


That probably includes my beloved Alchemy Custom Weaponry Prime. Or soon will.

Click bait over. Here's my thoughts.

At one point, those companies all enjoyed a well deserved reputation of stellar reliability and performance.

The problems happened when they "built a brand" and the talented smiths hired several less talented subordinates and they produced guns at a much larger scale and could no longer maintain such exact control over dimensions and tolerances. It's not their fault that they wanted to make money...it's not even the subordinates fault that they weren't as good a gunsmith as Bill Wilson...almost nobody is.

But there got to be too many cooks in the kitchen.

Yes, they will produce a gun with the correct feed ramp angle and they will maybe hand fit the important bits like the barrel and the extractor and test fire a few rounds to ensure the gun works. And yes, the gun will likely be reliable enough and accurate enough for the average user, who will never know the difference. But even Kimber can do that.

Some guns will leave the shop that never would have left otherwise of Bill Wilson built each one.

People buy a Wilson Combat because it's a brand and they assume Bill Wilson's attention to detail and gunsmithing genius is applied to each and every of the thousand of WC guns out there.

It isn't. It's a brand and hopefully his employees share his attention to detail, his brilliance for gunbuilding, and his sense of perfectionism when it comes to the 1911.

But that's gonna be a gamble.

At least with a Dan Wesson, a Colt or a Springfield you know it's a mass produced gun.

And sometimes if you're willing to do the work yourself, you can get it done better than a dude who's trying to leave the shop by 5 so he can go to a bonfire, meet some hot chicks and try to get laid.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[FrankB]

I saw a WC video several years ago, and frames and slides were being hard fitted. Tap, file, tap, file, until well-fitted. I don’t know how much hand fitting is done there now, and that YouTube video is impossible to find.

[RevolverRob]

For folks with the brain exploding situation - there are a couple of things to remember here. Bullets contacting the slide stop on a 1911 can also be dependent upon bullet profile, magazine used, and how far the slide stop was inserted. If someone used SWCs chances of slide-stop bullet contact is reduced. If someone uses a magazine with hybrid or wadcutter lips it might present the bullet at a different enough angle or allow the bullet to wiggle enough to not catch. If someone didn't firmly push the slide stop into place during assembly and testing, it may not have been seated enough to cause it to catch.

I suppose my point is, even a $3000 semi-custom gun can't get tested at the factory with all conditions. Particularly a 1911, where a plethora of magazine and bullet options may be in play.

Anyways, as we have discussed numerous times, xx11s are enthusiasts guns; you need to be prepared to BOTCH* up a 19/2011.

My brand new term:

BOTCH - Bring Out Tools Cash Hate

Tools to fix it
Cash to pay for parts
Hate for loving a finicky piece of outdated iron

[SecondsCount]

I've owned quite a few reliable 1911s over the years and have had to fix a few-

Norinco 1911- It was 90% reliable. I bought some Chip McCormick Shooting Stars and put in a FLGR. It has been 100% ever since.

Norinco 1911 #2- This one has had some work done to it. Colt NM barrel and a few other upgrades. Runs 100%.

Kimber Custom Target- late 90s era and has been through a lot but is very reliable. The little nut on the sight broke but it has held zero.

Kimber Gold Match- A little on the tight side but it runs well. Rear sight is jammed and will not adjust.

Colt 70 series Gold Cup- Reliable as long as the semi-wadcutters are the correct OAL.

Springfield Champion- Would feed ball but not semi-wadcutters.

Springfield Loaded 9mm- It has had a couple bobbles over the years but that was in my boys hands when they were learning to shoot. In my hands it has been 100% except for 124 HST, it won't feed those.

Springfield Loaded 45ACP- Not a lot of rounds on this one but have had zero malfunctions.

Springfield EMP 9mm- Not a true 1911. Early model, had several issues. Sent it back to Springfield and it came back with different issues. I sold it to a guy with full disclosure.

Dan Wesson CBOB- I have owned two of these. Very reliable but I had a few small parts break. They fixed them under warranty.

Dan Wesson Valor 9mm- This gun has run everything I have fed it.

Nighthawk 45ACP- Full size, can't remember the model- Ran 100%.

Les Baer TRS- Mine was 100% reliable. I have seen several of these at classes that ran well. One had an issue with a tight extractor or bad recoil spring as it had issues with going into battery.

Les Baer Concept VIII- This was my carry gun for many years and thosands of rounds. Took an AFHF class with it and had zero stoppages. I did have one malfunction in another class that was a funky plated truncated cone bullet that I was trying. It broke a MSH pin once which was an easy repair. My understanding is that the dimensions on this one is correct but the newer guns have the incorrect government abutment.

Les Baer Boss- Limited round count but it ran 100%.

Desert Eagle 1911s- A friend bought a full size and a 4.25"- Full size ran great but the 4.25 had some failures to extract. I tuned the extractor for him and it ran great after that.

[JonInWA]

Back around 2008, the Nighthawk Regional Rep, who was a personal frient, convinced me to finally (after many discussions) to give Nighthawk Custom a try. I ended up totally custom spec'cing with them a Talon II, the Nighthawk version of the all-steel 4.2" Combat Commander. They also gave me a military discount.

At first, I really liked it. Accuracy was excellent. And while the wheels never really came off, over time and use, my appreciation diminished a bit. First, I found it would only run 800 rounds before needing a new recoil spring-not a huge deal, but my general expectation for a Commander is at least 1,000-1,500 rounds in that department.

Second, whule trying to do me a favor by beveling the inside of the frontstrap (I deliberately did not want a magwell), what resulted was enough steel being removed that in effect the frontstrap became a chisel, and it would dig behind polymer baseplate toes, inducing magazine over-insertion, creating chambering issues; the only real solution was to use welded basepads (or very gently insert extended tube magazines with removable polymer basepads....)

Third, I admired the grippability of what was supposed to be 25 LPI checkering. My finish was a dark Sniper Gray, and when after reading an article on checkering a couple of years after getting the pistol and closely scrutinizing the checkering, I noticed that it was unevenly applied; at the appropriate depth and eveness on one side, and then significantly lighter as it moved over to the other side. I assume that it was machine checkering, and that the receiver was insufficiently affixed to the tombstone during the checkering process. My expectation was that that should have been caught by QC prior to application of the dark finish. The President of NC and I had a very amicable diacussion, and when he asked me what I wanted, I decided to keep things as they were, given the accuracy of the gun. In retrospect, I should have asked for a complete redo or replacement, but in all fairness, that's at least partially on me. Alternatively, they could have immediately taken the high road and offered to replace it, but that didn't happen. Again, in fairness to them, it took me 2 years to notice it.

Fourth, I notice that the barrel to slide fit resulted in a significant gap to the point that you could see the lug and spring. I don't think that resulted in any actual operational issues, but it took the bloom a bit off the rose.

Retrospectively, while I'm glad I had the opportunity to spec and own a Nighthawk, I really don't consider the juice to be worth the squeeze-and now the same gun is literally at least $1,000 more, even more so.

Over time, I've actually been much more impressed by my Colt Series 70 stainless Repro and my SIG GSR XO (although in fairness, the GSR has had some issues requiring 2 trips back to the mothership for correction-which SIG did at their dime, and did well). Other than some initial brass-to-face issues with the first 200 rounds on the Colt (that self-resolved at the 200 round/break-in point) I've never had any issues with it.

Currently, unless I was going the full-house Jason Burton or similar truly bespoke route, about the only 1911 semi-custom outfit I'd consider spending money on today is Alchemy Arms. My current recommendations for prospective 1911 users is to stick with the 5" Government platform, and go with Colt, Dan Wesson or Ruger, which is where I think you'll have a decent chance of getting one that'll run properly out of the box.

Best, Jon

[03RN]

I've had such good luck with stock Springfield guns I'll take any of their offerings sight unseen and challenge any Glock or hk in terms of reliability.

[TC215]

Hot take here:
Nighthawk, Wilson, Les Baer, Guncrafter Industries, Atlas and damn near every other semi custom "gunsmith" that builds 1911s is overpriced and not worth it.

Their quality either has slipped, or it soon will.

They are in some ways, actually worse than a Springfield, RIA, Colt, Dan Wesson and even a Kimber (gasp)


That probably includes my beloved Alchemy Custom Weaponry Prime. Or soon will.

Click bait over. Here's my thoughts.

At one point, those companies all enjoyed a well deserved reputation of stellar reliability and performance.

The problems happened when they "built a brand" and the talented smiths hired several less talented subordinates and they produced guns at a much larger scale and could no longer maintain such exact control over dimensions and tolerances. It's not their fault that they wanted to make money...it's not even the subordinates fault that they weren't as good a gunsmith as Bill Wilson...almost nobody is.

But there got to be too many cooks in the kitchen.

Yes, they will produce a gun with the correct feed ramp angle and they will maybe hand fit the important bits like the barrel and the extractor and test fire a few rounds to ensure the gun works. And yes, the gun will likely be reliable enough and accurate enough for the average user, who will never know the difference. But even Kimber can do that.

Some guns will leave the shop that never would have left otherwise of Bill Wilson built each one.

People buy a Wilson Combat because it's a brand and they assume Bill Wilson's attention to detail and gunsmithing genius is applied to each and every of the thousand of WC guns out there.

It isn't. It's a brand and hopefully his employees share his attention to detail, his brilliance for gunbuilding, and his sense of perfectionism when it comes to the 1911.

But that's gonna be a gamble.

At least with a Dan Wesson, a Colt or a Springfield you know it's a mass produced gun.

And sometimes if you're willing to do the work yourself, you can get it done better than a dude who's trying to leave the shop by 5 so he can go to a bonfire, meet some hot chicks and try to get laid.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Two out of the four Wilsons I bought over a three year period (starting in 2016) had to go back to Wilson. One had to go back multiple times.

They’re not the same company they once were.

[SwampDweller]

Two out of the four Wilsons I bought over a three year period (starting in 2016) had to go back to Wilson. One had to go back multiple times.

They’re not the same company they once were.

I've had a bit too many customers who ordered Wilson Combats on transfer have to bring them back for me to send off for warranty work to ever feel anywhere close to comfortable spending $3k+ on a pistol. If it was made by Bill Wilson himself, that'd be different.

I've never heard of Alchemy. What kind of track record do they have?

[45dotACP]

I've had a bit too many customers who ordered Wilson Combats on transfer have to bring them back for me to send off for warranty work to ever feel anywhere close to comfortable spending $3k+ on a pistol. If it was made by Bill Wilson himself, that'd be different.

I've never heard of Alchemy. What kind of track record do they have?Sample size of one with me, but the zero was 4-5" to the right with mine at 25 yards. I adjusted that and a little bit of tuning the grip safety (so it disengages earlier for me) and all is well.

Otherwise it is reliable to a fault and quite accurate.

That said, I bought it with the understanding that it was an indulgence. A gift to myself for asking the girl of my dreams to marry me. I have a Springfield RO I did some work on myself that is it's peer in every way except looks.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[zeleny]

I'd love to get a 1911 that goes thousands of rounds without a malfunction (provided adequate cleaning/care of course).I am down to two: a bog stock 1957 Colt Government Model and a 1967 .45 ACP Remington Rand M1911A1 AMU National Match s/n 2199842 with two extra NM slide fixed sights and Trijicon RMR assemblies added by David Sams.

87712

The 1957 Colt is stone cold reliable, shooting OK with hardball ammo, of which the 1967 AMU NM throws five bullets into better than 2 MOA at 50 yards with each of its slides. It also tends to hiccup when heated up, and David advises to refrain from removing the barrel bushings. The tradeoffs are obvious.

A reliable and precise M1911 is called a SIG P210. Never fiddle with bushings or links again.

87716

[P30]

Never fiddle with bushings or links again.
What's the disadvantage of 1911 links? Reading your post, I suppose it's a higher rate of malfunctions compared to a SIG 210. But how and why do the malfunctions occur and how often?

Why I ask: I consider buying a 1911. Ed Brown KC9 in 9 mm or a Commander-size Dan Wesson probably in .45. It would be my first 1911. And probably the last pistol I can buy due to the quite bad gun law where I live. Alternatively, I also consider the Laugo Arms Alien.

PS:
In Germany, the SIG 210 has a very good reputation among bullseye shooters (but it does not fit my taste although I acknowledge its very high quality).

[zeleny]

What's the disadvantage of 1911 links? Reading your post, I suppose it's a higher rate of malfunctions compared to a SIG 210. But how and why do the malfunctions occur and how often?
The swinging link betokens a lack of durability and repeatable lockup precision, extra clearances for faster wear, much hand fitting required. The 1967 AMU started out with three point jams from unfired condition. Post David Sams it just fails to return into battery now and then. The M1911 was never meant to be made tight.

[JonInWA]

The swinging link betokens a lack of durability and repeatable lockup precision, extra clearances for faster wear, much hand fitting required. The 1967 AMU started out with three point jams from unfired condition. Post David Sams it just fails to return into battery now and then. The M1911 was never meant to be made tight.

Michael, I don't necessarily disagree with you in principal, but I would note that Ruger seemed to conquer the vicissitudes inherent to the swinging link, at least for 9mm platforms with their P85/P89. However, in support of you, the swinging link didn't play out well when the platform was up-calibered to .40 in their P90; Ruger then went to the cambloc system in mid-production with the P944 (which initially also had the swinging link), which is what HK has done.

Best, Jon

[03RN]

The M1911 was never meant to be made tight.

I think the Springfield Pro put that rumor to bed

[zeleny]

I think the Springfield Pro put that rumor to bedOK, I’ll bite. Show me three Springfield Pros that retain full function and precision after swapping barrels and slides.

[SwampDweller]

Sample size of one with me, but the zero was 4-5" to the right with mine at 25 yards. I adjusted that and a little bit of tuning the grip safety (so it disengages earlier for me) and all is well.

Otherwise it is reliable to a fault and quite accurate.

That said, I bought it with the understanding that it was an indulgence. A gift to myself for asking the girl of my dreams to marry me. I have a Springfield RO I did some work on myself that is it's peer in every way except looks.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

The issues my customers have had were more to do with reliability, accuracy was always 100% as advertised. I wouldn't be surprised if most are 100% reliable as yours is.

There's an intrinsic, innate attraction I have toward the 1911, a scratch I desperately want to itch and have tried to many times. If it weren't for my reliability issues (I want at least 1k rounds without a stoppage provided proper care/lubrication), I'd probably be carrying a 1911. It's just hard to keep spending money and time on it, especially on a $3k pistol, when an HK45 or USP 45 Tactical has the same efficacy as a custom 1911 with 100% reliability right out of the box.

[03RN]

OK, I’ll bite. Show me three Springfield Pros that retain full function and precision after swapping barrels and slides.

Can you provide any documentation that that is a criteria for the 1911?

[Robinson]

On the topic of 1911s, "tightness", design considerations, etc...

The guns built mostly for the military during the first half of the 20th century were built to a specification that didn't call for a real tight fit. To a degree, parts interchangeability was a thing, because when guns were being rebuilt they needed to be able to throw parts from disassembled guns into a box and then later pick parts from the box and build a gun. Some hand fitting of parts was done -- but it was a necessity, not a feature.

The build process today is different and so are the requirements. Guns built by a custom shop (Colt, Springfield Armory, etc...) or a boutique maker are built tighter because that is what customers want. It is seen as a sign of quality. A Springfield Armory Professional model known for its "tightness" can be expected to run great straight from the factory -- moreso than a production line gun built to a less stringent specification. But parts interchangeability for a high-end 1911 isn't really a requirement and isn't feasible due to the hand fitting that is done.

I think that when discussing the specifications, requirements, design considerations etc... of 1911s, one must first define the scope of conversation. Are we talking about old GI pistols, run of the mill production line guns, or higher end guns? And what exactly is a 1911 anyway?

[JRV]

Can you provide any documentation that that is a criteria for the 1911?

I’m blanking on an internet source but have read numerous books/tech manuals explaining that one of the quality control checks for manufacturers producing military 1911A1s was the ability to build functioning guns by disassembling complete guns and swapping parts between manufacturers at random.

[Jim Watson]

OK, I’ll bite. Show me three Springfield Pros that retain full function and precision after swapping barrels and slides.

Not an FBI criterion.
How about them Switzers? Are P210s interchangeable gun to gun or do those serial numbered parts mean you shouldn't?


I’m blanking on an internet source but have read numerous books/tech manuals explaining that one of the quality control checks for manufacturers producing military 1911A1s was the ability to build functioning guns by disassembling complete guns and swapping parts between manufacturers at random.

I would think the plethora of Army surplus "mixmasters" would be a pretty good indication of interchangeability.
But the books do have accounts of QC campaigns required to improve interchangeability in contractor guns.

There are Colts from the period when slides were numbered to receivers that turn up with those parts two or three numbers apart. The theory is that they were used in batch interchangeability trials and left put together however the random reassembly came out.

[03RN]

On the topic of 1911s, "tightness", design considerations, etc...

The guns built mostly for the military during the first half of the 20th century were built to a specification that didn't call for a real tight fit. To a degree, parts interchangeability was a thing, because when guns were being rebuilt they needed to be able to throw parts from disassembled guns into a box and then later pick parts from the box and build a gun. Some hand fitting of parts was done -- but it was a necessity, not a feature.

The build process today is different and so are the requirements. Guns built by a custom shop (Colt, Springfield Armory, etc...) or a boutique maker are built tighter because that is what customers want. It is seen as a sign of quality. A Springfield Armory Professional model known for its "tightness" can be expected to run great straight from the factory -- moreso than a production line gun built to a less stringent specification. But parts interchangeability for a high-end 1911 isn't really a requirement and isn't feasible due to the hand fitting that is done.

I think that when discussing the specifications, requirements, design considerations etc... of 1911s, one must first define the scope of conversation. Are we talking about old GI pistols, run of the mill production line guns, or higher end guns? And what exactly is a 1911 anyway?

I initially meant that well built tight guns are incredibly reliable. Swapping parts around was brought up and I was curious if it was meant to do that. I know that's how it was done but wasn't sure if jmb designed it to be able to do it.

[SecondsCount]

I've had such good luck with stock Springfield guns I'll take any of their offerings sight unseen and challenge any Glock or hk in terms of reliability.

If you look at TLG's track record with "modern" pistols, the M&P, Glock 17.4, and HK P30 endurance test pistols all had issues early in their life.

I still have a couple 1911s, would trust my life to them, but moved on because I needed more capacity.

[David S.]

Hot take here:
Nighthawk, Wilson, Les Baer, Guncrafter Industries, Atlas and damn near every other semi custom "gunsmith" that builds 1911s is overpriced and not worth it.

Their quality either has slipped, or it soon will.

They are in some ways, actually worse than a Springfield, RIA, Colt, Dan Wesson and even a Kimber (gasp)

That probably includes my beloved Alchemy Custom Weaponry Prime. Or soon will.

Click bait over. Here's my thoughts.

I’m not a 1911 guy at all, but this is the impression I’ve got from watching the Chambers Custom Patreon channel.

Whatever you’re paying for, it generally doesn’t seem to be better fit, at least by the metrics (this one apparently controversial builder) considers important. He acknowledges his “mathematical reviews” are anecdotal and not necessarily representative. He also hasn’t reviewed every brand. I don’t think I’ve seen a current production SA or Colt, for example. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d strongly consider RIA, and maybe Ruger, in the budget plinker range, DW in the mid tier, skip the $2-4k semi custom range, or go big with a full house bespoke.

[Eyesquared]

I’m not a 1911 guy at all, but this is the impression I’ve got from watching the Chambers Custom Patreon channel.

Whatever you’re paying for, it generally doesn’t seem to be better fit, at least by the metrics (this one apparently controversial builder) considers important. He acknowledges his “mathematical reviews” are anecdotal and not necessarily representative. He also hasn’t reviewed every brand. I don’t think I’ve seen a current production SA or Colt, for example. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d strongly consider RIA, and maybe Ruger, in the budget plinker range, DW in the mid tier, skip the $2-4k semi custom range, or go big with a full house bespoke.

I think in many of the cases the fit on the semi-customs is better than on the production guns in many areas, but many of them have 1-2 gross errors in fit that make you wonder if the maker just slapped parts together and hoped to get lucky with the end result. Going back through the Word docs was instructive to compare his tone in the videos vs the actual measurements he provides. I think for a full house custom, you may not be pleased depending on who you go with, if you subscribe to the thought process Joe Chambers has on how each part should fit, because not everyone is shooting for the minimal clearances he aims for. On the other hand I think most of his guns just look ugly - not due to lack of effort but simply a question of taste.

[zeleny]

Not an FBI criterion.I am defending my claim that the M1911 was never meant to be made tight. In hindsight, I should have said “not” instead of “never”, not meaning to extend the scope of my claim past the sainted JMB.


How about them Switzers? Are P210s interchangeable gun to gun or do those serial numbered parts mean you shouldn't?Yes, they are. Except for the adjustment of the double pull lever (https://larvatus.livejournal.com/530777.html) in the hammer action assembly, no hand-fitting was involved in the construction of the SIG P210. All other parts were made to the standard of dimensional tolerances that ensured their drop-in fit and interchangeability. As recounted by Fritz Häusler (https://larvatus.livejournal.com/1576958.html), the Swiss army undertook a function test of each pistol with 8 rounds of issue ammunition. Then 10% of the production run was tested for accuracy. Then the guns were retested for accuracy with the inspectors choosing 10 guns and shooting them from a machine rest all into the same target after first firing them at individual targets. All 80 rounds had to fit into the 5½" x 4" rectangle. In practice, the group was much tighter than that.

87806

After this test 5% of the guns were function fired with parts interchanged from each other. This specifically included interchanging barrels from one gun to another. This test was conducted to ensure the quality and interchangeability of major components.


I would think the plethora of Army surplus "mixmasters" would be a pretty good indication of interchangeability.
But the books do have accounts of QC campaigns required to improve interchangeability in contractor guns.

There are Colts from the period when slides were numbered to receivers that turn up with those parts two or three numbers apart. The theory is that they were used in batch interchangeability trials and left put together however the random reassembly came out.That is more or less what I had in mind in issuing my challenge.

[zeleny]

I initially meant that well built tight guns are incredibly reliable. Swapping parts around was brought up and I was curious if it was meant to do that. I know that's how it was done but wasn't sure if jmb designed it to be able to do it.I wouldn’t call my above referenced, super tight 1967 AMU National Match M1911A1 pistol tuned by David Sams “incredibly reliable”. By contraposing this claim, I would have to conclude that it wasn’t built well. “I prefer not to. (https://www.bartleby.com/129/)”

[zeleny]

I’m not a 1911 guy at all, but this is the impression I’ve got from watching the Chambers Custom Patreon channel.

Whatever you’re paying for, it generally doesn’t seem to be better fit, at least by the metrics (this one apparently controversial builder) considers important. He acknowledges his “mathematical reviews” are anecdotal and not necessarily representative. He also hasn’t reviewed every brand. I don’t think I’ve seen a current production SA or Colt, for example. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d strongly consider RIA, and maybe Ruger, in the budget plinker range, DW in the mid tier, skip the $2-4k semi custom range, or go big with a full house bespoke.I have three “full house bespoke” handguns: the aforementioned (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?52427-A-Nighthawk-and-a-Colt&p=1344812&viewfull=1#post1344812) 1967 AMU National Match M1911A1 pistol tuned by David Sams, a 6" 10x25mm SVI Infinity widebody pistol (https://photos.app.goo.gl/Z5G6U4IPQDsPre362) most recently updated to their pivoting extractor (https://infinity.americommerce.com/pivoting-extractor.aspx), and my main carry gun, a steel framed 9x19mm Para Beretta 92FS Centennial with an extra slide and bushed Bar-Sto barrel (https://photos.app.goo.gl/46EBQOgQHsnE68Pm2) fitted by David Sams. Of these three, only the Beretta is fit for social work, and with the permanently fitted cone barrel bushing making its bespoke top end unfit for disassembly, I prefer to carry it in the stock configuration. Long story short, I would rather rely on stock military issue type guns for mission critical applications.

[Jim Watson]

I should have figured interchangeability on the P210s; what with accessories like "lead bullet barrels," .30 barrels, and .22 conversions.

[03RN]

I wouldn’t call my above referenced, super tight 1967 AMU National Match M1911A1 pistol tuned by David Sams “incredibly reliable”. By contraposing this claim, I would have to conclude that it wasn’t built well. “I prefer not to. (https://www.bartleby.com/129/)”

If it's not reliable then it's not well built.

The military issued(formerly at this point?) MEU SOC guns are very tight. The rebuilt ones with Springfield custom slides even moreso.

[Robinson]

I have a brand spanking new SA Professional Operator that is pretty tight, but not ridiculously so. I will soon begin the journey to discover exactly how reliable it is. My expectations are high.

My Colt Special Combat Government was built by the Custom Shop before they started producing their recent CCS models and so was not built as tight as their current guns. It has been utterly reliable and a great shooter since day 1.

So now I can conduct a Springfield Armory Custom Shop tight gun vs. Colt Custom Shop not-so-tight gun reliability comparison project. It won't prove much but I will enjoy it.

[David S.]

What do you guys mean by “tight?”

[Robinson]

What do you guys mean by “tight?”

When speaking about custom or semi-custom pistols, it usually refers to the barrel and bushing being "hard fit" to the gun. Especially when new, it can be difficult to rack the slide until after some break-in.

Other times, people refer to a "tight" slide-to-frame fit, which has much less to do with function and accuracy -- but can give the gun a feel of quality when handling and shooting.

[SwampDweller]

I have a brand spanking new SA Professional Operator that is pretty tight, but not ridiculously so. I will soon begin the journey to discover exactly how reliable it is. My expectations are high.

My Colt Special Combat Government was built by the Custom Shop before they started producing their recent CCS models and so was not built as tight as their current guns. It has been utterly reliable and a great shooter since day 1.

So now I can conduct a Springfield Armory Custom Shop tight gun vs. Colt Custom Shop not-so-tight gun reliability comparison project. It won't prove much but I will enjoy it.

What do you consider to be reliable? In the metric, I guess, of "x stoppages" out of "y rounds fired"

My personal minimum is at least 1k rounds without a stoppage before I'd trust a gun for serious use, and really 2k is the minimum marker for "long term reliable", going off the late Todd's metric which I think is a great one.

I just like that I can pick an HK USP/HK45/Glock 21 up out of the box and it's almost guaranteed to go 1-2k rounds without a failure right off the bat, and as far as accuracy, I'd put one of my HK's up against a custom 1911 any day, and DocGKR seems to agree. But my soul still wants a 1911 fit for serious use, low capacity and all, even after I've been burned several times. What is wrong with me?

[Robinson]

What do you consider to be reliable? In the metric, I guess, of "x stoppages" out of "y rounds fired"

I feel comfortable carrying a gun if it goes 1000 rounds without a single malfunction. That has to include at least a couple boxes of the hollow points I use. All of my Colt 1911s have way surpassed that, and I fully expect the SA Pro Operator to do the same.

I've said here before that you are a bit more likely to get a Glock that is 100% reliable out of the box than a 1911. But that doesn't mean reliable 1911s don't exist or even that they are rare.

[SwampDweller]

I feel comfortable carrying a gun if it goes 1000 rounds without a single malfunction. That has to include at least a couple boxes of the hollow points I use. All of my Colt 1911s have way surpassed that, and I fully expect the SA Pro Operator to do the same.

I've said here before that you are a bit more likely to get a Glock that is 100% reliable out of the box than a 1911. But that doesn't mean reliable 1911s don't exist or even that they are rare.

I'm interested to know how your progress goes with the Pro Operator. It's one of the few 1911's I'd ever consider.

Also, I agree. There's only one maker of Glocks (well, I guess that's not true anymore, but you know what I mean), and there's dozens of 1911 makers of wildly varying quality. It would be interesting to see the numbers en masse of Springfield Pros vs Glocks in reliability

[flyrodr]

I'm another who can't seem to stay away from 1911s. My fascination (not quite an addiction) goes back to the mid '70s, when I had a Combat Commander customized by Armand Swenson. That pistol has had many thousands of rounds of SWC target "strength" loads through it, as well as a few thousand rounds of hardball, and enough JHPs of different brands to confirm reliability of each. I keep it cleaned and lubed, and change the springs occasionally. I'm sure I've had some failures to feed, but they've been few and far between, and the very rare exception. Thus a baseline was established.

Over the years, I've bought some Wilsons, and had full house customs built by several well-regarded individuals. The Wilsons, including 5-inch steel models in .45 and 9mm were built, I suppose, when Wilson was at its peak. Both have been smooth running. The full house guns, built from Colt base guns or Caspian slides and frames that had to be final fitted, yielded mixed results. Without naming the smiths, I recall one that, out of the box, locked the slide back after every shot. It was a quick fix, and quick turnaround, but surprising none the less. Another would hardly go through two magazines without failing to feed, even with hardball. Fixed, after two trips to the smith, but the luster was lost.

"Other than those", I would like to name two smiths that have built guns for me, or done various levels of work that resulted in considerable improvement to others, with outstanding results. Those are John Harrison and Ned Christiansen. Both are first class gentlemen as well!

So what do I carry? Mostly a Sig P365 with a red dot. Grandkids around all the time, so discretion is paramount. Old eyes, thus the red dot. And it runs just fine with HST. My "woods gun"? An HK45c. Bulky, but stone cold reliable. Both are tools. The 1911s . . . well, they're just special.

[Eyesquared]

When speaking about custom or semi-custom pistols, it usually refers to the barrel and bushing being "hard fit" to the gun. Especially when new, it can be difficult to rack the slide until after some break-in.

Other times, people refer to a "tight" slide-to-frame fit, which has much less to do with function and accuracy -- but can give the gun a feel of quality when handling and shooting.

IME the feeling of "tightness" when cycling the gun by hand can be very misleading. For example think of guns with barrel bump having a hitch where the slide stop is impacting the lower lugs. A 1911 could be "tight" in all the right spots and still cycle smoothly, or be "tight" in all the wrong spots and feel "hard fit".

Also tight slide to frame fit is very subjective. On a JEM slide and frame I bought there is literally 0 perceptible wiggle when fitting the slide and frame together (no barrel or recoil spring involved) - if they weren't free to slide back and forth you would hardly know they were separate parts. I've seen plenty of semi-custom or high end production 1911s with a noticeable wiggle but you wouldn't notice it when cycling the gun fully assembled because of the barrel and spring tension, and most people would still consider those guns "tight".

As a sidebar Joe Chambers' latest review of a Dan Wesson kind of illustrates my point before - the gun has 0 barrel fit and has a timing issue with the barrel stopping on the VIS too early before it can link down and clear the top of the slide. He still thinks it's a good gun at $1500, but IMO if I had a gun with those issues, I would still have to send it out to someone reputable for a new barrel to be fit, and possibly some machining on the frame depending on if the timing issue can be addressed with a new barrel. At that point may as well go all out and start from the ground up with someone who agrees with you about the details of how the gun should be built.