2011 magazines essentially taper to a 1911 magazine profile for the top several rounds. Most other double stack magazines are not like this, at least not to the same degree.Originally Posted by JCS
2011 magazines essentially taper to a 1911 magazine profile for the top several rounds. Most other double stack magazines are not like this, at least not to the same degree.
Great P-F sleuthing!!
I'd like to check them out more, almost on this account alone. Small arms development needs time for anything useful and cool to achieve proper maturity and capability- like a kid with potential wandering into the workforce for their first time.
Per the PF Code of Conduct, I have a commercial interest in the StreakTM product as sold by Ammo, Inc.
Those or Beretta 92/M9, CZ, Walther, etc. would be preferred.
320 mags are almost as expensive as 2011 and likewise not any better than the cheaper ones up above.
Might be hard to get a Glock magazine made for that raked grip to work in a 17deg angled receiver.
Otherwise, just whatever you care to mold or machine for.
Molds are expensive but I could visualize Oracle offering butts with magazine well dimensions and catch location for other brand clips. Or get 3D printer files written.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
More choices are good; however, I am not going to be an early adopter. Not because the Oracle 2311 is not a good idea; I think it is. I am going to wait because so few new manufacturers and their designs survive five years in this market. I have other choices in this market, including the original 2011 and the Wilson EDC X9. Both of those designs are from companies that have been around much longer than five years. The EDC X9 design is now more than five years old, and the 2011 design has been run in competition for decades. The 2011 design has a ton of aftermarket support (parts and smithing) while Wilson supports the EDC X9 with their usual customer service.
For 9x19 and similar length cartridges in a self-defense gun, the EDC X9 is great. For longer rounds, the 2011 shines. I also find that the older 2011 pistols are available for much less than the new models. A little bit of work and some new magazines, and the 2011 works well. I do still load long for the 2011 as the closer a round is to .45 ACP OAL the better it feeds. My 2011 .40 S&W rounds will not fit into a Glock magazine. And that is the big knock for the 2011 magazine. It only works well when the rounds are long. For short rounds, feed reliability is not as good and the grip is unnecessarily long.
Some company will win with a gun designed around a short magazine. It may be Oracle, but Wilson is going to be tough competition, especially at the high end. Staccato seems to be playing just beneath Wilson's prices. The Oracle offering is around $1700 to $2000 per some articles, so they are less costly than Wilson and Staccato. But they are three times the cost of a Glock. That is going to limit their market, especially as older 2011 models are available for less.
Not positive but I do believe the top end of the 2311 is 1911/2011 compatible. So it *should be* possible to use a 1911 slide, barrel, etc on the 2311 frame. Similarly, the hammer, sear and disconnector are 1911 parts. I assume the thumb safeties are 2011 pattern? So maybe not every single part will be available to custom smithers or armorers, etc but the major stuff will hopefully work with stuff that's already out there.
I don't think Oracle is trying to move into Glock's market space. I think they are fully aware that this will be a small pistol in a much bigger market space. We'll see how prices shake out but MSRP on the base model is $1700 while the "Combat Elite" with the aluminum grip frame and slide lightening ports is something like $2600. If these two guns have a street price closer to $1400 and $2300 they will probably do okay. Especially if the QC and reliability is there.
Also, not sure what relationship Oracle has with Laugo but it sounds like they may be made by the same shop in Nevada.
I do not believe the barrels will interchange as I thought I heard "linkless" barrel in the SHOT show video. The marketing information also states the barrel is linkless. I wonder if the slide is machined in any way to start camming the barrel into and out of lockup. If so, the slides are not compatible. The top of the slide profile makes me believe the barrel lockup uses the ejection port like many other designs of the last fifty years. That leaves sights, extractors, firing pin stops, firing pins, and firing pin springs as possible upper parts compatible with the 2011/1911.
The other concern is linkless 2011 designs have been hit (Phoenix Trinity) or miss (Briley). The former seems to be good while the latter was known for cracking frames with very small round counts. The standard 2011 frame was weakened due to machining cam tracks for the barrel. I recently passed on a Claudio Salassa linkless build for a steal ($1350 shipped) due to this issue. Hopefully modern manufacturing techniques and Oracle have solved that issue.
The barrel has a cam that looks quite like the one used in the CZ-75.
The barrel and slide must be changed as a unit as they are not individually 1911 reverse compatible.
Reply With Quote