Would You Say This Is Correct?

S

Single Six

New member
Some years ago, I read an article by Duane Thomas in which he stated something to this effect: "Guns tend to work best when chambered for the calibers they were originally designed for." In other words, by this logic, we'd say that a 9mm 1911 would not work as reliably as a 1911 chambered in .45 ACP. What do you guys think of this statement?
 
Theoretically, I suppose there might be some merit. I see that the heft of the 45 works best with the heft of the 1911. But I'm not sure if it's just a general rule or if a few guns fit the profile.
 
I think it's nonsense. There are barrel conversions for many handguns, probably most notably Glock, and they usually work flawlessly. Several people on this forum shoot 4 or more cartridges from one Glock.
 
And that's why it's one of the exceptions to the rule. It's not an absolute rule, just something to be aware of. Sort of like the warning about the history of difficulties with 3-inch 1911s. Don't be surprised if you get one with problems.
 
johnbt said:
And that's why it's one of the exceptions to the rule. It's not an absolute rule, just something to be aware of. Sort of like the warning about the history of difficulties with 3-inch 1911s. Don't be surprised if you get one with problems.
Click to expand...

Is it an exception? Are most conversions unreliable. I honestly don't pay close attention to that market so I don't know for sure. All the ones I do know about are pretty much reliable though. From what I know, I'd say the exception is the unreliable conversions, not the reliable ones.

Plus, from an engineering standpoint, there's no reason why a 1911 can't be converted to reliably shoot 9mm or even 22LR. It's not like the "karma gods" are saying "No, nope, that ones a 45... can't work with anything else."
 
Last edited:
I forgot what it was called, but years ago Remington made a little bolt action pistol in their 221 Fireball. This was a little pistol cartridge that fired the 223 bullet.

A friend of mine brought me one of the little bolt guns and wanted me to re-chamber it for a 223. Before hand, I wanted to play with the gun to see how it shot, and try to determine if there would be any advantage to chambering the gun in 223.

I declined the job, thinking Remington spent millions of dollars to develope a 223 cal pistol round that would work in the short barreled bolt gun.

My friend was disapointed but I couldn't see modifying the gun knowing I couldn't improve on the factory offering.

He took the gun to someone else who did re-chamber it to 223. He never could get it to shoot as well as the 221 fireball round that Remington Chambered it for.

I wonder if this is what Mr. Duane Thomas had in mind when he made that statement.
 
" Start monkeying with things that work, they tend not to...... "

Well, how did we get the first one to work properly?

With in reason changes can be made and with enough development made to work well. Converting a LCR into 44 mag or 50BMG is probably going too far , 357 maximum? might work. The real key is development, just making it hold the shell isn't enough.
 
Sort of like the warning about the history of difficulties with 3-inch 1911s.
Click to expand...

Dude, don't tell me that, I just got one of those!:eek:

I would think that development would be the key as WANT A LCR stated. Thus guns that are "rushed" into production having big probs right out of the gate.
 
In my limited experience this is less true than true. Does my .22 kit for my 226 have some issues? Yes. Would I say those issues are out of line with normal .22 issues? Newp, all my issues were washed away with a more thorough cleaning. In fact I hope to add many more off caliber firearms to my collection, probably starting with a 9mm 1911 and .22 kit for it too :D
 
Too many variables, depends on the design. From what I have seen M1911s in 9MM and 38 Super work fine, you can change calibers by changing barrels and magazines. The Ruger Blackhawks in .357/9MM and 45ACP/45 Colt work fine. Because of slight differences in bore diameters revolvers with cylinders in both 22 LR and 22 Winchester Magnum are often iffy. AFAIK a 30/06 can fire 308 using an adaptor. Some people tried converting an S&W M-39 to fire 38 Super but because the M-39 had been designed as a 9MM they could only use lighter bullets because of OAL limits, when S&W designed the 645 they found it not merely a matter of enlarging an M-639, they ran into some subtle but very real problems that required some redesign. Those who converted S&W N frames to larger calibers encountered problems due to the S&W design placing the cylinder notches directly over the chamber. I have gathered converting a Webley Mark VI to 45 ACP really isn't such a great idea, the Webley really can't take the high pressures of the 45 ACP. Some rifle cartridges require specific rates of twist for certain bullet weights.
 
"Are most conversions unreliable."

I don't think so, but the OP was asking about chambering guns in a different caliber than the original design called for.
 
So you think 9mm 1911s are less reliable than 45acp 1911s?

I'm not arguing, I'm asking. I've never heard that to be true but I don't exactly study the idea either.

My experience is limited to a 10mm 1911 owned by my uncle. It has been utterly reliable except for a bent extractor when it was new.

Still, it seems odd to me that changing the cartridge would make a firearm less reliable. If the firearm is redesigned for the new cartridge, it should be as reliable as any other gun. If its not redesigned, you have a simple barrel and magazine conversion, which have also proven reliable from what I've seen.
 
Everything you or I say is suspect when placed under a strong enough microscope

I had a discussion with somebody today over a shipping regulation, in which the other person wanted to argue the color red with me, on a shipping label. The regs plainly say a certain thing needs to "be red". That's all. Just needs to be the color red. But the other person wanted to argue to precise shade of red that the regulation implied. Would they read the reg and see for themselves that the precise pantone shade of red is not specified or needed? Oh no...but anyway, it goes to show that some people will pick everything apart needlessly and they have something inside that makes them not let it go; splitting hairs is important to them even if no hairs are left to split

Taken in the spirit of things, the statement that says things worst best when used the way they were designed is often quite true. Narrowed down a little more to a specific like a firearm and say "firearms tend to work best in the caliber they were designed for"...well, that's not cut and dry. But when you start restricting blanket statements, its easier and easier to find instances in which they aren't true

Let's not forget that the statement here is "Guns tend to work best when chambered for the calibers they were originally designed for." "Tend" being the critical word. A tendency is not a certainty or an absolute. It doesn't even have to be very likely
 
Seems to me that "tend to" implies majority. Maybe not 95% but it pretty well has to be a majority, otherwise it would seem to have no meaning. If "tend to" could be anything from less than a majority to a large majority, what meaning would it have? "Tendency" means "inclined toward", which would seem to mean the balance is tipped, meaning majority.

Least ways, I'm not even splitting hairs.... I've not seen one example of a cartridge/caliber change that "tended to" make a firearm less reliable.
 
I forgot what it was called, but years ago Remington made a little bolt action pistol in their 221 Fireball. This was a little pistol cartridge that fired the 223 bullet.

A friend of mine brought me one of the little bolt guns and wanted me to re-chamber it for a 223. Before hand, I wanted to play with the gun to see how it shot, and try to determine if there would be any advantage to chambering the gun in 223.

I declined the job, thinking Remington spent millions of dollars to develope a 223 cal pistol round that would work in the short barreled bolt gun.

My friend was disapointed but I couldn't see modifying the gun knowing I couldn't improve on the factory offering.

He took the gun to someone else who did re-chamber it to 223. He never could get it to shoot as well as the 221 fireball round that Remington Chambered it for.

I wonder if this is what Mr. Duane Thomas had in mind when he made that statement.
Click to expand...

This is just my experience, but I have an XP100 conversion from 221 Fireball to 223 Rem and it shoots just as well as the 221 ever did...however, it is not as easy to shoot at that level of accuracy as the 221 was. It requires more concentration on trigger control and grip manipulation than the Fireball and I assume it is because the 223 is more powerful than the 221.
 
Yes, 51% is a statistical majority, there is no argument there. A tendency is an inclination towards something. But I don't call a 51% chance "very likely"

Your statement here:

I've not seen one example of a cartridge/caliber change that "tended to" make a firearm less reliable.
Click to expand...

is subject to examination. There have been, for instance, many .22 conversions for let's say a 1911 originally made in .45ACP

Even if the conversion was every bit as reliably mechanically as the original chambering, the fact that .22s themselves are not as reliable as centerfire cartridges in general, means that the change tends to make the firearm less reliable in .22

The M1 rifle at one time had a conversion to .308, and some of those conversions were not reliable, in the way that the inserts were problematic. I would have to say then, that the original chambering trended towards more reliability
 
So you think 9mm 1911s are less reliable than 45acp 1911s?
Click to expand...
A 1911 has a lot of mass in the slide for the amount of recoil produced by a 9mm round. in order to spring it right it will probably be slightly more prone to limp wristing. I think for the most part guns in general are very reliable. My dad always preached the 90-10 rule where 10% causes 90% of the problems. I suspect with guns it's more like 98-2.

I've also heard some guns having issues going the other way. BHPs for instance seem to have a shorter life when chambered in 40cal.
 
Chris_B said:
Even if the conversion was every bit as reliably mechanically as the original chambering, the fact that .22s themselves are not as reliable as centerfire cartridges in general, means that the change tends to make the firearm less reliable in .22
Click to expand...

Now THAT is splitting hairs!:p

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top