The new Wilson Combat EDC X9

[JonInWA]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I'm totally missing something here...(wouldn't be the first time...). I was under the impression that a bull-barreled/bushing-less 1911 was MORE difficult to field-strip than a traditional bushing barrel, due to the paperclip or whatever you have to lug around to capture the spring to facilitate the take-down.

And I thought that the looser-fitting 1911A1s produced up to 1945 were the ne plus ultra for 1911 reliability. (and yes, I understand that there's "tighter fitting" and "Les Baer hard fitting...").

And I thought that the informed consensus among the more knowledgeable 1911 cognoscenti was that there was no discernible advantage derivable from a full-length recoil spring guide rod, other than the recoil feeling a bit smoother.

Obviously Bill Wilson knows what he's doing, and has the market success and gravitas to be a stand-up guy here, so what exactly am I missing?

Best, Jon

[Trooper224]

I guess I'm totally missing something here...(wouldn't be the first time...). I was under the impression that a bull-barreled/bushing-less 1911 was MORE difficult to field-strip than a traditional bushing barrel, due to the paperclip or whatever you have to lug around to capture the spring to facilitate the take-down.

And I thought that the looser-fitting 1911A1s produced up to 1945 were the ne plus ultra for 1911 reliability. (and yes, I understand that there's "tighter fitting" and "Les Baer hard fitting...").

And I thought that the informed consensus among the more knowledgeable 1911 cognoscenti was that there was no discernible advantage derivable from a full-length recoil spring guide rod, other than the recoil feeling a bit smoother.

Obviously Bill Wilson knows what he's doing, and has the market success and gravitas to be a stand-up guy here, so what exactly am I missing?

Best, Jon

The EDC X9 is chambered in a round the 1911 was never designed for and has enough design changes to accommodate that, that I think we might consider it a bird of its own color. Consequently, I don't know if your comparisons are apt. I'm sure it's a beautiful gun, as Wilsons are. However, at the price point it can't do anything for me that other cheaper service pistols can't. As such I have no interest in it. On the other hand, Bill knows his customer base and I'm sure the gun will find its place.

[DAB]

it would be interesting to know how it passes or doesn't pass the various tests the 92F was put thru before it became the M9. hot, cold, mud, grit, sand, drop test, etc. it's one thing to design for concealed carry in a holster reliability, it's another to design for any possible use reliability.

[TiroFijo]

Obviously Bill Wilson knows what he's doing, and has the market success and gravitas to be a stand-up guy here, so what exactly am I missing?

Best, Jon

The allmighty power of an established brand, and "magister dixit"...

Perhaps some other untrusting souls would call it "propaganda"

But remember, ALL modern designs with a browning style action have a bushingless barrel (but not conical, which is not necessary and makes it more difficult to make and fit), in most of them the barrel locks up with the slide on the front of the ejection port, nearly all have a one piece recoil spring guide, and the slide runs on rails fore and aft in all polymer guns, and even some metal ones.

I see Wilson kept the barrel link, something that every other design has dropped since 1935 or so... you cannot modify the point where the recoiling barrel unlocks from the slide, and you have two additional parts.

[Sigfan26]

I guess I'm totally missing something here...(wouldn't be the first time...). I was under the impression that a bull-barreled/bushing-less 1911 was MORE difficult to field-strip than a traditional bushing barrel, due to the paperclip or whatever you have to lug around to capture the spring to facilitate the take-down.

And I thought that the looser-fitting 1911A1s produced up to 1945 were the ne plus ultra for 1911 reliability. (and yes, I understand that there's "tighter fitting" and "Les Baer hard fitting...").

And I thought that the informed consensus among the more knowledgeable 1911 cognoscenti was that there was no discernible advantage derivable from a full-length recoil spring guide rod, other than the recoil feeling a bit smoother.

Obviously Bill Wilson knows what he's doing, and has the market success and gravitas to be a stand-up guy here, so what exactly am I missing?

Best, Jon

I don't know... I just rotated the pictures for the previous poster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSparks909]

[MSparks909]

I don't know... I just rotated the pictures for the previous poster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Care to rotate the two I just posted Much thanks! Those last two I posted were supposed to go with the pic I originally posted...instead I somehow managed to post 3 copies of the same pic. #Gunsaavynottechsaavy

[Sigfan26]

Care to rotate the two I just posted Much thanks! Those last two I posted were supposed to go with the pic I originally posted...instead I somehow managed to post 3 copies of the same pic. #Gunsaavynottechsaavy

Lol.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

Reliability would generally be enhanced by tighter fitting combined with tighter tolerances. Tighter tolerances would lead to the ability to provide tighter fitting before reaching the point where tighter fitting starts interfering with reliability rather than helping it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WilsonCombatRep]

I guess I'm totally missing something here...(wouldn't be the first time...). I was under the impression that a bull-barreled/bushing-less 1911 was MORE difficult to field-strip than a traditional bushing barrel, due to the paperclip or whatever you have to lug around to capture the spring to facilitate the take-down.

And I thought that the looser-fitting 1911A1s produced up to 1945 were the ne plus ultra for 1911 reliability. (and yes, I understand that there's "tighter fitting" and "Les Baer hard fitting...").

And I thought that the informed consensus among the more knowledgeable 1911 cognoscenti was that there was no discernible advantage derivable from a full-length recoil spring guide rod, other than the recoil feeling a bit smoother.

Obviously Bill Wilson knows what he's doing, and has the market success and gravitas to be a stand-up guy here, so what exactly am I missing?

Best, Jon

This gun has a toolless takedown-the rod is 90% length and comes in and out like a guide rod in a Glock or Beretta.
Guns shorter than 5" really need a guide rod to support the recoil spring as the short stubby rods don't doo much and they can kink.