BOOGIE the oily
New member
For what it may be worth, FM is currently producing their "95" model (the MkIII under license), though I think they're only making them for the police, not for civilian use.
Browning HP Discontinued
- Thread starter DPris
- Start date
Model12Win
Moderator
That IS a blaster!!
"Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon... for a more civilized age." —Obi-Wan
The issue of hard fit and tight 1911s being or not being combat pistols is one I'm unsure of. I know with loser dimensions (more space between parts) is better for reliability within a certain quality. OTOH, hard fit or tight pistols like Les Baer, Dan Wesson, and the higher priced Springfields have a reputation for being very reliable. Are those combat pistols?
There may be something else that adds confusion. One fellow claimed his tight 1911 is very or extremely reliable (I forget which) up to a certain round count before either re-lubing or cleaning and re-lubing (I forget which). IIRC, that round count was 200 something rounds. Are those tight but high quality 1911s as reliable as a "combat GI pistol" up through 200 or so rounds, but will become less reliable is they are not re-lubed/cleaned?
Didn't they buy the tan Colt 1911 model, then stop using them?
Model12Win
Moderator
That is a tan Colt ....
What do I need a source for exactly?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/04/marsoc-drop-colt-1911s-service/
What do I need a source for exactly?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/04/marsoc-drop-colt-1911s-service/
For Post#126, here's one source of MARSOC discontinuing the M45A1 from use and replacing it with the Glock 19 (last I heard the Gen3 version).
The M45A1 might still be used by other USMC units, but I've not heard any current 1st-hand info regarding use or non-use of the Colt M45A1.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/04/marsoc-drop-colt-1911s-service/
The M45A1 might still be used by other USMC units, but I've not heard any current 1st-hand info regarding use or non-use of the Colt M45A1.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/04/marsoc-drop-colt-1911s-service/
I beat you to it. But here's another source:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/marine-raiders-throw-45-overboard/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/marine-raiders-throw-45-overboard/
I'm wondering if it would have lasted if was a 100% accurate replica of the 1911 made around WWII, assuming they didn't require the rail and whatever other features were on the MARSOC.
Walt Sherrill
New member
bricz75 said:
... in every way EXCEPT that they would still be MUCH more costly than guns like the SIG P320 and they'd have to be produced in the 9mm NATO round. Then, too, a double-stack version would probably be required, and we know that's possible.
Those issues coupled to the fact that handguns aren't the "go-to" weapon for most military applications. Automatic, longer-barreled weapons are more often the weapons of choice -- and that is where more money is spent.
In some respects, a GOOD "combat" handgun is probably a better acquisition for most militaries (the U.S. included) than a VERY GOOD (or EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD) "combat" handgun -- as the folks who will end up using them probably aren't as ready to use these "better" weapons as well as a custom 1911 owner. Military users aren't doing "Bullseye."
.
I won't argue that, but one needs to understand that the military and the police, for general issue weapons, do NOT buy the best possible guns. EVER.
They buy the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE gun that meet their criteria. So, finely crafted arms, made in the traditional manner like the Browning HP and the Colt Government Model are essentially automatically EXCLUDED from consideration, simply because of their price.
I do believe you are wrong about some of these things. Keep in mind, my comments here refer to the "good old days" which are, essentially, from the beginning through the end of WWII, and commercial COLT production after WWII. Also, I did not work for Colt, then or now, and cannot speak with absolute authority on their practices. That being said, here we go,
Parts are NOT QC'd on the assembly line. They are checked after manufacture of the part, BEFORE they are delivered to the assembly line. This is a cost and time (which is also cost) measure. Having the assemblers check each (and every) part for meeting spec means #1 they need all the gauges and fixtures used to check the parts, and #2 they have to take the TIME to check.
This goes a LONG way towards defeating the purpose of an assembly line.
It is more efficient to have inspectors, who do nothing else but inspect, and who can check hundreds, or more parts per day, than having the assembly line slowed by making the assemblers do the needed QC at that point in production. Also, its a pretty rare thing for the assemblers to do the "hand work" to get an out of spec part to fit. It's simply not done, as a standard practice, because it's time consuming, and there fore, expensive. A badly out of spec part will simply be tossed into the trash/recycle bin, and another new part will be used.
Hand fitting the parts is something done in small shop work, where the time needed is not a huge impact on the volume of production. I'm not saying the assemblers never take a couple seconds to give something a swipe with a file to see if that makes it fit easily, only that spending any amount of time "fixing" a bad part isn't their job, and they don't do it as a regular practice. Someone else will, at some point go through the "bad" parts bin, and determine which can be fitted and used, and which are so bad as to be scrap (if any).
Next, "other makers".
Until the US govt issued wartime production contracts during WWII, the ONLY maker of 1911A1s was COLT. And Colt was also the only maker of the "Government Model" civilian gun. All produced by the same company, on the same assembly lines, to the SAME SPECS. (other than finish).
Colt did not make "tight" guns for civilian sale, and "loose" ones for the military. GI guns were just as "tight" as civilian ones. During WWII, the other contractors making guns or just parts, all had to pass government inspectors QC.
Pre war guns (in good condition) are just as "tight" as post war commercial Colts. The "looseness" of GI guns is legendary, but it is mostly that, a legend, formed primarily during the 60s and 70s, based on the worn guns in military service. The last Govt contracts for 1911A1 ended in 1945, so when the GIs get guns with 20-30+ years of service already on then, and some of them are pretty loose, the legend is born, and gets traction.
During my time in the Army (mid 70s), I saw plenty of "loose" .45s, and I also saw some 1911s (NOT A1s) that were as tight as the day they were made, and with all their original parts and finish.
Another point that needs mentioning, is that the 1911A1 JAMMED in combat, from time to time. Everything does. The 1911A1 did not get its reputation for reliability because it never jammed. It got the reputation for reliability because it jammed significantly LESS than everything everyone else was using. And, "the tale grew in the telling"
Tales of the inaccuracy of loose guns mostly come from people who used old, worn guns, AND were usually not well trained pistol shots to begin with. I don't recall seeing any reports of inaccuracy in the pre WWII guns (if there had been, I think 30 years of use, including use in WWI, accuracy issues with the GUN would have been documented), and I don't recall any large numbers of complaints about post WWII Colt commercial guns in that regard, either.
Tightening tolerances (especially slide/frame fit) is something that came about to get the most accuracy possible for match shooting, where maximum reliability under combat conditions was not a factor. The difference between a pistol that shoots a 2" group and one that shoots a 3" group can mean the winning or losing of a match. For combat/self defense, that difference is essentially insignificant.
All the stories that "everybody knows" about the Colt/GI .45s are not the accurate truth. There are kernals of truth in the stories, but those stories are just that, stories, some based on truth, some not.
Ok even if we accept your account of how the inspection and QCing of parts is true it was still done by hand and by human beings adding to the human labor cost of the pistols. So my point still stands. Compared to a 1911 built today with CNC machines, cast parts and MIM there is much less hand inspecting of parts. The machines and the computer programs are what are relied on to do the QC because human labor cost more than the machine labor. This reality has created small variances in 1911 production from one company to another and in some instances cause reliability issues.
When I stated that some claimed that Colts were built to tighter tolerances I was not making a distinction between a USGI Colt and a commercial Colt. I was making a distinction between Colt and other USGI makers of the WWII era. IIRC Remington Rand made a run or two of pistols that had interchangeability issues with other USGI guns. That was what I was referring to so I am not sure how you got to a USGI vs commercial comparison.
In the end it seems the point is moot. The good old days of true USGI guns are gone. All the waxing poetic about them are not going to bring those production methods or those guns back. It appears the BHP will meet the same fate. What really cracks me up is that this type of discussion is why so many people do care that the BHP is going away or that the USGI 1911 is gone because it is irrelevant to most shooters today because those who champion the old guns come off as stuck in the past waxing poetic about how the good old days of metal guns was better. The majority of modern gun owners don't care nor should they IMHO.
Last edited:
Also 44 AMP & Bill DeShivs please understand that I have nothing but love for the 1911 and the BHP. I appreciate what the old USGI Colts and other makers were and what they represent. I just don't live in the past. I live in the present and I understand why the 1911s of today are different than the 1911s of the past.
Part of the reason we get so much back and forth on these things is the assumption of attitudes from various statements, based on inference rather than the actual statements.
Explaining, and defending what was state of the art then is "stuck in the past", with the inferred "we should do now what we did then", and while there are people like that, not everyone is in that camp.
Of course, we make "better" guns today, we darn sure ought to be able to make better designs than guns that went into production 70,80 or over 100 years ago.
I dearly love the 1911A1, I trained extensively with it, and on it. It's part of my family history as well. What is the gun I carry, and the one I have for home defense? A Browning BDA .45 (early version SIG P 220).
Why? because in several ways, its better than a 1911A1, for what I need, and want. Also, I'm not opposed to polymer frame pistols because they are polymer frame pistol, I just don't like the feel and features of the Glock and those guns that closely mimic it.
The point I'm (poorly) trying to make is that for some of us, the new gerneration(s) of pistols haven't proven to be enough better in personal opinion to convince us to replace what we are used to using, and the loss of the ability to obtain new specimens of time honored designs is a sad thing.
I understand all about market reality, production costs, all the different things that lead to the commercial success or demise of a certain gun. I understand that things have changed and to simply be able to afford to make a certain design things cannot be economically done in the old manner.
I understand that as times and attitudes change, things get superceded by newer tech, and old designs go out of production when they are not profitable enough. Doesn't mean I have to LIKE it, but it is the way of the world.
Explaining, and defending what was state of the art then is "stuck in the past", with the inferred "we should do now what we did then", and while there are people like that, not everyone is in that camp.
Of course, we make "better" guns today, we darn sure ought to be able to make better designs than guns that went into production 70,80 or over 100 years ago.
I dearly love the 1911A1, I trained extensively with it, and on it. It's part of my family history as well. What is the gun I carry, and the one I have for home defense? A Browning BDA .45 (early version SIG P 220).
Why? because in several ways, its better than a 1911A1, for what I need, and want. Also, I'm not opposed to polymer frame pistols because they are polymer frame pistol, I just don't like the feel and features of the Glock and those guns that closely mimic it.
The point I'm (poorly) trying to make is that for some of us, the new gerneration(s) of pistols haven't proven to be enough better in personal opinion to convince us to replace what we are used to using, and the loss of the ability to obtain new specimens of time honored designs is a sad thing.
I understand all about market reality, production costs, all the different things that lead to the commercial success or demise of a certain gun. I understand that things have changed and to simply be able to afford to make a certain design things cannot be economically done in the old manner.
I understand that as times and attitudes change, things get superceded by newer tech, and old designs go out of production when they are not profitable enough. Doesn't mean I have to LIKE it, but it is the way of the world.
I feel you... but also feel like we are in the minority.
scoobysnacker
New member
I'm not going to weep angrily if the HP is discontinued, but I will shake my head a little in sadness.
Sometimes, a pistol is a functional heirloom. I'm going to speculate that over 95% of us on these threads buy guns because we like them, like having more than one of them, and may have one or two (or more) that they treasure more than, say, a watch or some other momento.
An all-steel pistol or revolver is such an item, and I don't think it's wrong to say that almost anything with approaching 50% plastic is not likely to be one (I'd say that falls more into the realm of the current cellphone, although with less actual usage for most people, than the phone has). Either pistol can be used in an emergency; unless your line of work demands you have one, most of us will only be prepared, and very likely never need to use it.
My profession doesn't dictate the use of a firearm, so I will choose that which I find most aesthetically pleasing, and which I will pass down to my son. The Hi Power, and the 1911, are 2 examples of these. Surplus weapons from a historically significant time and place are others.
I will shoot them for pleasure, and if need be for defense. Because they are good designs and work.
Can't argue that a new batch of the latest systems might not be better for current M&P use. If you can make something functional but cheaper and more disposable and replaceable, I understand the economic angle. I just don't think they are "neat", and don't buy them.
Sometimes, a pistol is a functional heirloom. I'm going to speculate that over 95% of us on these threads buy guns because we like them, like having more than one of them, and may have one or two (or more) that they treasure more than, say, a watch or some other momento.
An all-steel pistol or revolver is such an item, and I don't think it's wrong to say that almost anything with approaching 50% plastic is not likely to be one (I'd say that falls more into the realm of the current cellphone, although with less actual usage for most people, than the phone has). Either pistol can be used in an emergency; unless your line of work demands you have one, most of us will only be prepared, and very likely never need to use it.
My profession doesn't dictate the use of a firearm, so I will choose that which I find most aesthetically pleasing, and which I will pass down to my son. The Hi Power, and the 1911, are 2 examples of these. Surplus weapons from a historically significant time and place are others.
I will shoot them for pleasure, and if need be for defense. Because they are good designs and work.
Can't argue that a new batch of the latest systems might not be better for current M&P use. If you can make something functional but cheaper and more disposable and replaceable, I understand the economic angle. I just don't think they are "neat", and don't buy them.