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.
That IS a blaster!!
"Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon... for a more civilized age." —Obi-Wan
This is true but they are also being made and "redesign" to complete a modified task. Many of the slicked up 1911s of today are not combat GI pistols. They are guns games pistols built for made up game which require speed. Others are being setup to squeeze out every bit of accuracy out of the pistol as possible. This was not the case with your old school USGI Milspec pistol of the past. There was a lot of tolerance built into those pistols and every parts maker adhered to the spec. These days 1911 makers treat the JMB design and spec as more of a suggestion than a a true blueprint because they are looking to make pistols for different purposes, markets and price points. Price point IMHO really drives the changes.
True, but the number of 1911A1s in use seems to be declining. There are now probably many more Glock 19s and 17s in use than 1911A1s.
Source?That was MARSOC and it didn't last long.
That was MARSOC and it didn't last long.
bricz75 said: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?
but the number of 1911A1s in use seems to be declining. There are now probably many more Glock 19s and 17s in use than 1911A1s.
Please correct me if I am wrong but it has always been my understanding that the people on the lines assembling the original guns were also QCing the parts to insure that they would meet the spec. If small changes needed to be made they were made by hand by those who assembled the guns. Is this not the case?
It is also my understanding that Colts were considered tighter and that some of the other manufactures at time had trouble meeting the interchangeability aspect of the spec. So the good old days were not always as good as we remember them.
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.
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).
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.
I feel you... but also feel like we are in the minority.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.