1911 magazine feed lips.

D

dahermit

New member
The only bullet I shoot in my .45 ACP Colt Combat Commander are my RCBS 201 Cast, powder coated as per these:
enhance


I have a total of fourteen magazines (all Seven round or converted to Seven rounds), with several different feed lip styles.
enhance

I pretty much know what G.I. Hardball lips look like, but despite a picture indicating the difference between Hybrid and Wadcutter lips, I cannot readily see the difference...it would appear that the difference is too subtitle for me to see.
Here is a link to a picture that show G.I., Hybrid, and Wadcutter feed lips. Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between the G.I. and Wadcutter?
http://how-i-did-it.org/magazines2/read-my-lips.html

Also note that I have three different types of followers. A G.I, Rounded (convex), and rounded (concave). The Rounded, concave follower has a tit (it is NOT a "dimple"), but seems not to be in the place where Browning put his, so I am not sure if it performs that same way as the Browning G.I., or if it does anything at all.
 
Last edited:
In your photo above, you have no magazines that have "GI" feed lips. The GI feed lips are straight for their full length, and the width between them gradually gets wider (tapers) from back to front.

In your photo, the two on the left appear to be "wadcutter" feed lips. The gap is uniform for about half the length of the feed lips, then abruptly opens up and the sides of the mag transition to vertical.

The magazine on the right is a "hybrid." Like the wadcutter magazines, the hybrids have feed lips that only run about half the length of the magazine, then abruptly open up and transition to vertical sides. But where the gap at the rear is uniform on the wadcutter magazines, the gap is tapered on the hybrids.

In the linked article, the descriptions are accurate and -- to my eye -- the photos are self-explanatory. You really can't see the difference between the GI magazine on the left and the wadcutter magazine on the right?
 
Magazines two and three in the photo above are as-wadcutter and as-hybrid as you are going to find.
The kink, or dogleg in the feedlips pictured, is missing from fully tapered. G.I. feedlips.
 
In the linked article, the descriptions are accurate and -- to my eye -- the photos are self-explanatory. You really can't see the difference between the GI magazine on the left and the wadcutter magazine on the right?
Click to expand...
No...(in the article) it is the two on the right that look the same to me, the hybrid and the wadcutter.
 
Your loaded round is incorrect. You need more shoulder and less crimp. A modern 1911 will feed properly assembled semi-wadcutters from any magazine.
 
"Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between the G.I. and Wadcutter?"

The following pic is from the link you provided.
I ID'd the mags in red, and you can see the difference in the feed lips.
 

Attachments

  • 45 feed lips.jpg
    45 feed lips.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 70
totaldla said:
Your loaded round is incorrect. You need more shoulder and less crimp. A modern 1911 will feed properly assembled semi-wadcutters from any magazine.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, they pass the "plunk" test and function flawlessly. The picture is a bit misleading.

Aside from that, I posted absolutely nothing about any problem with the functioning of my rounds. I only included the picture of my powder coated .45 ACP rounds because I like see pictures in the posts and assumed that others would like to see pictures also.
 
Last edited:
Carmady said:
"Can someone enlighten me as to the difference between the G.I. and Wadcutter?"

The following pic is from the link you provided.
I ID'd the mags in red, and you can see the difference in the feed lips.
Click to expand...
Thanks but, it is not the G.I. and that wadcutter lips that I have not been able to tell apart...I don't see hardly any difference distinguishable between the Wadcutter and the Hybrid lips.
 
"I don't see hardly any difference distinguishable between the Wadcutter and the Hybrid lips."

Hybrid is in the middle, and WC on the right (from the pic in post #6).

Looks to me like the right feed lip on the WC mag is parallel to the mag center line, and has more roll over than the right lip on Hybrid mag. Both lips on the Hybrid mag appear to fan out a little.
 
Your loaded round is incorrect. You need more shoulder and less crimp. A modern 1911 will feed properly assembled semi-wadcutters from any magazine.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It depends on the chamber. Remove the barrel from the M1911 pistol and do a "plunk test". If the face of the cartridge head is flush / flat with the chamber hood, the semi wad cutter bullet is at the correct depth in the loaded round. I have a M1911A1 with a gun smith fit Kart barrel. It has a short and tight chamber. The perfect semi wad cutter round for my pistol is no more than 0.005 of the bullet shoulder showing above the case mouth. If I try to shoot rounds with 0.015 to 0.020 of the shoulder showing, I start getting failures. I've seen chambers that require flush bullet shoulder to case mouth, and I've seen chambers that require 0.050 showing. It all depends on how deep the chamber was cut.
 
Being as how the feed lips do not contact either the FMJ or wadcutter bullet, what difference can it make??

I have a collection of GI mags, some no name crap, some Colt, some GI contract and even one of the two tone mags made in the 20s. All except the crap ones (which I keep separate and don't use but somehow never get rid of) all of them feed FMJ, SWC and JHP without issue in my Govt Model.

Our world if over full of people who have changed, tweaked or otherwise "improved" the original Browning design, and in my experience it is a change but seldom an improvement.

Semi Wadcutter magazines?? Really?? I think someone is over thinking things, or just hyping something to make a buck from the unwary...
 
The wad cutters were developed with hollow points in mind. They help. The hybrids are supposed to work well with both FMJ and hollow points. IIRC, member 1911Tuner had some input in the design with Checkmate
 
44 AMP said:
Being as how the feed lips do not contact either the FMJ or wadcutter bullet, what difference can it make??

I have a collection of GI mags, some no name crap, some Colt, some GI contract and even one of the two tone mags made in the 20s. All except the crap ones (which I keep separate and don't use but somehow never get rid of) all of them feed FMJ, SWC and JHP without issue in my Govt Model.

Our world if over full of people who have changed, tweaked or otherwise "improved" the original Browning design, and in my experience it is a change but seldom an improvement.

Semi Wadcutter magazines?? Really?? I think someone is over thinking things, or just hyping something to make a buck from the unwary...
Click to expand...
I do believe the the different lips change how the cartridge releases and angles (presents) to the chamber. Hardball with its extended nose is very forgiving of the angle it presents to the chamber whereas wadcutters and hollow points may need a slight adjustment provided by hybrid and wadcutter lip configuration to present at an angle which will assure proper functioning. It is noteable that of the two magazines supplied by Colt with my last 1911, one was of the standard GI hardball, and one of the wadcutter configuration.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
I have a collection of GI mags, some no name crap, some Colt, some GI contract and even one of the two tone mags made in the 20s. All except the crap ones (which I keep separate and don't use but somehow never get rid of) all of them feed FMJ, SWC and JHP without issue in my Govt Model.
Click to expand...

That mirrors my experience. I got 10 CMP GI magazines for $8 a piece a couple years back and they’ve worked great with various lead bullet profiles- SWC, TC, RN. Any of the decent quality magazines (Colt, Wilson, Kimber) I own work great also. Conversely I’ve got 2 random no name magazines that malfunction on a regular basis with just about any ammo.
 
I have no idea how that image grew so large. I fixed in in my post. Dahermit, do you want me to try to fix it in yours?

Never mind -- I changed it. Again, my apologies.
 
KyJim said:
The wad cutters were developed with hollow points in mind.
Click to expand...
The wadcutter magazines were developed for bullseye shooters firing the old "flying ashtray" wadcutter bullets. That's why they are named as they are.
 
Flying ashtray was a 200gr hollowpoint, the wadcutter of "wadcutter feedlip" is the 185gr jacketed match bullet.
The H&G cast SWC was designed to give good accuracy and a clean hole, while still being compatible with G.I. mags.
 
I shot some of those "Flying Ashtrays" back when I bought my Mark IV Government Model in the seventies. I actually did a test with them by shooting into milk jugs filled with water, lined up on my shooting bench. I shot from just a few feet in front of the stack. As I remember, the bullet only went through two or three gallon jugs and formed a perfect classic mushroom. The first two jugs burst from the hydraulic pressure. I was drenched with water from the bursting jugs. That ended my experiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top