The Art and Science of Keeping Your 1911 Running

[Elwin]

Bad day: I took too much material off of an Ed Brown ambi safety sear engagement surface and it doesn’t work in the gun I was fitting it to. Hammer drops to half cock when the trigger is pulled very hard on safe and then the safety is deactivated. FUBAR.

Good day: It does fit and pass all function checks* in another gun that had a Swenson safety, so not a total loss. Kimber MIM Swenson ambi to an Ed Brown machined ambi is an upgrade, and now both my 1911s will have the exact same profile safety.

And learning occurred.

*As in I hurt my finger pulling the trigger as hard as I could to be extra sure.

[Robinson]

Bad day: I took too much material off of an Ed Brown ambi safety sear engagement surface and it doesn’t work in the gun I was fitting it to. Hammer drops to half cock when the trigger is pulled very hard on safe and then the safety is deactivated. FUBAR.

Good day: It does fit and pass all function checks* in another gun that had a Swenson safety, so not a total loss. Kimber MIM Swenson ambi to an Ed Brown machined ambi is an upgrade, and now both my 1911s will have the exact same profile safety.

And learning occurred.

*As in I hurt my finger pulling the trigger as hard as I could to be extra sure.

Yep, I've had days like that -- and with thumb safeties no less. Thumb safeties and grip safeties are among the few parts I will take it upon myself to correct if they are not tuned properly at the factory. I'm not a gunsmith after all.

Glad it worked out for you.

[awp_101]

Rear sight question. What improvement does the Yost-Bonitz style rear sight like on Trooper224's CZ offer over a Novak style rear sight? Is it because it's "drop in" (as much as any 1911 part can be) on a GI slide without needing machine work like a Novak would or is there something else?

[45dotACP]

Rear sight question. What improvement does the Yost-Bonitz style rear sight like on Trooper224's CZ offer over a Novak style rear sight? Is it because it's "drop in" (as much as any 1911 part can be) on a GI slide without needing machine work like a Novak would or is there something else?

Basically that. I have a Colt that I put a 10-8 rear sight on and it was because I didn't want to do all the work to get it milled.

That said, after the front sight unstaked itself, I did send it in to be milled, but only to get a front dovetail.

It still has a classic retro look that I like, but is a wider notch and a U shaped notch, which I also like.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[awp_101]

Thanks, I thought that might be the case.

[farscott]

Rear sight question. What improvement does the Yost-Bonitz style rear sight like on Trooper224's CZ offer over a Novak style rear sight? Is it because it's "drop in" (as much as any 1911 part can be) on a GI slide without needing machine work like a Novak would or is there something else?

That retro sight originated with Robbie Barrkman of Robar when we did work for Gunsite; I had one put on a Colt Lightweight Commander Robar did for me in 1997. It was designed to allow a better sight picture than the GI rear without needing to mill the slide for a different dovetail while still resembling the GI rear sight. It does need to be fit to the slide, usually by sanding the sight base until the sight can be drifted into place into the dovetail. It is then secured in the factory dovetail cut with a set screw with thread locking compound. The sight also allows one to cycle the slide without fear of bending the sight. It was later adopted by Ted Yost and then by John Harrison at https://shop.harrisoncustom.com/hd-003-retro-rear-sight. The rear serrations were added to the sight well after my 1997 version. I believe John was the one to add the serrations although a Yost gun would often have the sight hand serrated during the build. [ETA] Yost-Bonitz added the serrations. [/ETA]

There is a later Yost-Bonitz sight that has the sight picture of a Heinie Slant-Pro with the ability to use the slght to cycle the slide. It is called "Professional Grade".

[Trooper224]

Rear sight question. What improvement does the Yost-Bonitz style rear sight like on Trooper224's CZ offer over a Novak style rear sight? Is it because it's "drop in" (as much as any 1911 part can be) on a GI slide without needing machine work like a Novak would or is there something else?

As stated, I went with that sight because I didn't want to spend the money having the slide milled. I prefer its aesthetics to the National Match rear sight 10-8 sells. John Harrison does offer the sight with a U notch, if that's your thing. My favorite old school rear sight was the King-Tappan. That was my typical sight choice for years, but it's no longer made. This is a good substitute.

[45dotACP]

As stated, I went with that sight because I didn't want to spend the money having the slide milled. I prefer its aesthetics to the National Match rear sight 10-8 sells. John Harrison does offer the sight with a U notch, if that's your thing. My favorite old school rear sight was the King-Tappan. That was my typical sight choice for years, but it's no longer made. This is a good substitute.

I regret not picking up one of those CZ1911s when they were available.

One of my favorite types of 1911 is the sleepers that look like a mil spec but shoot like not a mil spec.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[Trooper224]

I regret not picking up one of those CZ1911s when they were available.

One of my favorite types of 1911 is the sleepers that look like a mil spec but shoot like not a mil spec.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

I'm very glad I didn't let it lie. It's one of the smarter things I've done gunwise.

I just got back from the range. It definitely doesn't shoot like mil spec.

[rd62]

I have the Harrison sight on my Commander. The sight picture is improved over stock while maintaining a traditional aesthetic I preferred.