1911 Full Length Guide Rods

KyJim, I can understand why Ed Brown does not believe that a FLGR will be any benefit in the accuracy of his guns, I would agree with him whole heartedly.
I already stated one would be hard pressed to see any accuracy gain in a gun with a hard fit barrel, with the close tolerances that Ed builds his guns I would consider the barrel fit of his guns to be hard fit.
Click to expand...

I always understood Ed Browns barrels were not hard fit.
 
What type of accuracy are your handguns capable of at 50 yards? Which models are most accurate? Does a 1911 barrel/slide/frame fit have to be super tight to get the most accuracy possible?

Ed Brown guns are capable of producing the accuracy the highest quality ammunition is capable of. With a 45 ACP, this is about 1 1/2" at 50 yards. A common misconception is that a gun has to be extremely tight to be accurate. What is required to reach the accuracy potential is consistent lock up of the critical components. Any tighter than zero movement is useless, and can only reduce reliability and detract from handling. It doesn't have to be tight, it just has to be right.

There are no significant functional or quality differences in our handguns - each represents the best engineering, manufacturing, and craftsmanship we have to offer. They are divided into different models mainly because of cosmetic finishing differences and different features. Under extremely precise testing, the 5" models are slightly more accurate than the 4.25" models, however it is very difficult to notice any practical (handheld) difference.
Click to expand...

WVsig, I can't swear by how Ed fits his barrels but when he states his guns should shoot about 1&1/2 inch at 50 yards with good ammo I would have to say the barrels are fit pretty good.

I can assure anyone reading this if you have a gun capable of the accuracy required to shoot 1&1/2 inch groups at 50 yards you will be very hard pressed to see an accuracy gain of any kind by installing a FLGR, even if the gun is shot from a mechanical rest.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
KyJim said:
Even the experts seem to disagree. Mr. Hunter thinks a FLGR can improve accuracy (and I certainly cannot debate him). Ed Brown doesn't think so...
Click to expand...

Actually, I think he said it could help with some poorly fit guns. THAT was the point that was confusing for me. He explained WHY he felt this to be the case. It's all about lockup.

My unintentional focus as I was reading and responding was better-fit guns; that was in my mind when I said the barrel bushing is providing support up front. He, on the other hand, is focusing on the worst case situations -- which he said from the first. Barrel bushing support up front is irrelevant in the scenario he offers. Hunter Customs is saying that there can be more consistent lockup in a poorly fit gun thanks to a FLGR.

I didn't really understand how using the FLGR is really different than just using a heavier spring unless . His point seems to be that there is more flex in part of the mechanism using a GI guide rod, and in a poorly-fit gun NOT using a full-length guide and there is less mechanicall consistency. That is, I think, what his following comment is all about:

Now the FLGR does have front support and can not tilt, because of this the spring pressure from the recoil spring along with the front and rear support of the FLGR force the rear of the barrel into a more consistent lockup every time the gun is cycled.​

THAT may also be the reason that a FLGR only helps SOME poorly fit guns and NOT others. It seems to me that some improvement might also be possible with a heavier recoil spring used with a GI guide rod -- but consistency is the key, and consistency may be less likely without the FLGR. Maybe a heavier spring and a FLGR is the solution for some other poorly-fit guns. I'm sure that not all poorly fit guns are poorly fit in the same way -- and not all of them will necessarily benefit from a specific remedy such as the FLGR. Hunter Customs doesn't make that claim, either.

That was the reason for my earlier "serendipitous" comment: if it works, you're lucky; it's a cure that won't work for every gun. But for some guns, it would appear that a FLGR may be the cheapest way to improve accuracy; in others -- as might be the case with most well-fit and maintained handguns -- it may just be wasted money and added inconvenience. For those better guns it may be a bit like putting one of those deer whistles on the front of your to help prevent deer/car bangups: it's just decoration.

I try to understand this stuff, but sometimes don't get there. The point that seems to stand out in all of this is that poorly-fit guns are the ones that might benefit most from a FLGR.
 
Last edited:
The recoil shield of both guides is in contact with the lower lug of the barrel, however the front of the Short Spring Guide not having any support allows the spring guide to tilt, therefore the recoil shield of the spring guide does not keep the same contact and pressure each time the gun is cycled, this will allow for inconsistent lockup of a loose fit barrel.
Click to expand...
The guide rod is stopped by the frame and in contact with the bottom of the barrel certainly not the barrel lower lug.
Now this tilting,also takes place with a longer rod only further along the spring in
other words no difference.And because it cannot be measured it becomes a matter of speculation and choice.
 
polyphemus said:
The guide rod is stopped by the frame and in contact with the bottom of the barrel certainly not the barrel lower lug.
Now this tilting,also takes place with a longer rod only further along the spring in other words no difference. And because it cannot be measured it becomes a matter of speculation and choice.
Click to expand...

As I thought more about this process, I realized that there might be more of a difference than I first thought. The entire recoil spring is maintained as a unit with the FLGR; and while the TILTING does take place with either guide rod system, the GI guide rod doesn't maintain the same structural rigidity in the spring assembly.

I would expect the front of the GI-guided recoil spring to try to move straight back as the slide moves and pring compression begins and the rear of the spring drops; the front of the FLGR-guide recoil spring will start to tilt as the rear of the guide rod starts to tilt, keeping the spring straight as compression begins.

There could be a difference in how the energy is stored or transferred in those two different guide rods as the gun cycles -- but unless the results of one system are MORE INCONSISTENT than the other, it might not matter.

Would the physical difference in how the springs are compressed be enough to induce a different result in how the spring functions? I don't know, but that might explain why Hunter Customs saw improvements in some poorly-fit guns. He made no other claims.

In one of the tests I linked to earlier, measured both systems using 13 different 1911s (ranging from less-expensive models, on up to a custom model). Accuracy was assessed as were many other physical characteristics, using sophisticated electro-mechanical devices. there were absolutely NO differences observed. That seems pretty conclusive. These weren't poorly-fitted guns.

A different test using an apparently solid gun, using both the GI guide rod and a Wilson Group Gripper, a slightly different FLGR system, showed group sizes cut almost in half when the Wilson version of the FLGR was installed. That test was also done using a Ransom Rest. It seems hard to believe that such a BIG improvement could be seen in one gun, unless the gun had problems -- and you'd expect a device offering such a profound improvement to have gained many, many adherents by word of mouth, alone. That doesn't seem to be the case.

I'd be inclined to think that the Group Gripper results were spurious; from a purely scientific perspective that test is not as meaningful as the same sort of tests done with a larger number of guns with a wider array of measurements done. Perhaps The Group Gripper results were serendipitous -- matching a particular gun's weakness to an accessory's strength and not typical of what might be seen when that same device is installed in other guns.

I'd love would love to see that test done using the Group Gripper and the 13 guns used in the first test, or an equally diverse group of handguns of the 1911 pattern. (If I read following comments in this discussion properly, the Group Gripper required some minor mods to the using gun -- and folks might not want to do THAT to 13 guns.)

I would think that for SOUND guns, reasonably well-fit and tuned, the FLGR is a waste of money. It might be of value when used in a poorly-fit gun (as Hunter Customs suggests); most of us probably don't want to try to make a silk purse out of that poorly-fit sow's ear.

.
 
Last edited:
Don't really have a preference, but I will say my self-customized Mark IV has a FLGR, and is the most accurate pistol I own. Kinda need one with a bushingless bull barrel and comp.
 
I have guns with and without flgr's, It does make the slide "feel" smoother, but I normally only pull it back once each session so that doesn't effect me much, also it is a bit more difficult to field strip, weighs a bit more, but the guns shoot the same..

A friend of mine swears by them and uses them with flat springs, I am at the point now where I would rather just buy a gun and shoot it how it came.. So instead of buying a $1000 1911 and adding $900 in swag to it, I would just buy a $1900 1911 and leave it be.. There are a bunch of very nice 1911s for under $2000 now, les baer premier and the Dan Wesson Valor to name a couple, no matter what drop in parts you add to a $600 RIA, its not going to be as nice as a valor {For the money}...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top