Would You Say This Is Correct?

"Guns tend to work best when chambered for the calibers they were originally designed for."
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely.

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?
Click to expand...

I think you are making a leap to a conclusion not made in the original quote.

"Tend to work best" is not saying something else will NOT work, or not work well, only that the overall, the original design works better than a modification.

Your statement about 9mm vs .45 1911 is making a couple of assumptions, not supported by the original quoted passage.

First, you are assuming that a 1911 in 9mm is not a round the 1911 is designed for. If it comes from the factory in 9mm, one can make the argument that it is "designed" to handle the 9mm properly. IT may be a refinement or modification of the inventor's original design, but rest assured that factory engineers have done the work to make it operate properly with the 9mm.

And, second, you are assuming (for the sake of argument) that 9mm 1911s do not work as well as .45 cal 1911s. As far as I know, that's not the case.

As for the Rem XP-100 pistol, I wondered for years why they came out with the .221 Rem Fireball cartridge, when the gun will easily manage .222 Rem, or .223 Rem. Finally I figured it out. That gun has a 10" (or maybe 10.5"?) barrel. You can certainly chamber it in a larger cased round, but the .221 case holds all the powder you can burn in that barrel length. Using a .222 or .223 case just means that you are "wasting" the extra powder for no real gain.

Plus, of course, it meant you had to buy a different Remington product (the ammo), so, more profit for Rem!:D

Lots of gun modifications work just fine. Some don't. I think the general statement about "tending to work better" is true, when you look at the overall numbers of individual guns involved.

Plus, my sig line uses the same general principle, :D
 
I should clarify a bit here: Note that I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what Duane Thomas wrote in that article. The title of my thread is not rhetorical...I myself really didn't have an opinion on this one either way, and am sincerely just trying to get a good discussion going. My 1911 analogy was just an example of what I thought Thomas was trying to convey[although, as 44 AMP pointed out, probably not the best one]. All replies thus far have been exactly that, a good discussion, and as always, I'm mainly here to discuss, share opinions, and most of all, to learn more about this wonderful hobby I've had since my early teens. So far, so good. Thanks to all; hope to see more responses.
 
Last edited:
I think the general statement is correct but then what?

I think there is a lack of appreciation of things that work and how much time, effort, design and craftsmanship it takes for things to work. Take away one of those basic elements and there may be problems. Sometimes excellence in one area may make up for shortcomings in another area. I know you've heard the expression "a triumph of craftsmanship over design." And there are always lots of people who think they can do better, although few try, which reminds me of a team of college students probably 40 years ago who attempted to build a car. Everyone back then knew Detroit couldn't build cars. After the project was over, one participant commented, "It's really hard to make the doors fit right."

Maybe guns are easier. But is, say, a factory produced 9mm Colt Government Model a conversion or not?
 
Its only correct if you think inside the box IMO obviously you limitations of some sort at some point. But the Luger's were originally chambered for the most part in 7.65 (I could be wrong on the caliber) and then in 9mm a few .380's were out there as well as a few 45acp's does that mean they are limited to just that? And was not the Browning Hi Power the refined version of the 1911 and if that be the case then it was improved in a different caliber. I could be wrong but i am just saying.
 
"Seems to me that "tend to" implies majority."

I don't, something that occurs a majority of the time is much more than a tendency. I think "tends to" implies one kind of gun might not as reliable as another kind, as in "That 3" model tends to be less reliable than this 5" model." Not that it will, that it might just be one extra chance in a thousand that you'll get a balky specimen, but the odds are better if you buy the other one.

Losers tend to draw to inside straights among other bad plays. Not an absolute, just a tendency. Sure they hit some of them, and might even hit three in a row once in a lifetime, but the odds certainly aren't in their favor over the long haul.
 
The more I think about this the more nonsensical it seems.

What was the original chambering of the Rem 700? Have subsequent offerings been less reliable or don't "work best"?

Rem 1100 and 11-87? 12ga originally? Either way, are other chamberings less reliable or don't "work best"?

1911? I see no evidence that 45acp versions are more reliable than 10mm versions, or 38super, 9mm, 357sig....

I think it's nonsense. There's no magical connection between the design and it's original chambering.
 
Re: 1911 - many more cracked slides and frames with 10mm versions.

Re: Glock - many more Kabooms in calibers that are not 9mm.

Just to name a couple.
 
Guns tend to work best when chambered for the calibers they were originally designed for
Click to expand...

110% true.

A 1911 designed for 45 ACP works best with 45 ACP
A 1911 designed for 22LR works best with 22LR.
 
Skans said:
Re: 1911 - many more cracked slides and frames with 10mm versions.

Re: Glock - many more Kabooms in calibers that are not 9mm.

Just to name a couple.
Click to expand...


Even if those were indisputable (they're not), those are but two examples.

Much more common are rifles and shotguns that are chambered in DOZENS of cartridges with no distinction in functionality.

The man said "guns", not "the 1911". I suggested those examples because I believe they refute the statement on their own but even if you believe they SUPPORT the statement, are you prepared to find enough examples to make it a "tendency" among "guns"?

That's a very general and nonsensical statement. It MIGHT have an argument with handguns but even there I'd doubt it. With rifles it's just ridiculous.

Even with handguns, how do you define the transition? For instance, say you want a 9mm 1911.
It's pretty obvious that you can't just load a 45acp version with 9mm ammo.
So, a redesign is required. If the redesign is less reliable than the original, is it because there's something inherently better with the other cartridge, or is it because some nimrod screwed up the redesign?
Glock is a good example of this. The kBs are almost exclusive to the 40SW, due to a badly supported chamber which has since been corrected, and it's because Glock rushed the gun to market to beat SW. The other rounds exhibit virtually no kBs at all.
So, it's a redesign problem, not something inherently better with the 9mm version.
 
Much more common are rifles and shotguns that are chambered in DOZENS of cartridges with no distinction in functionality.
Click to expand...
What was the original chambering of the Rem 700? Have subsequent offerings been less reliable or don't "work best"?

Rem 1100 and 11-87? 12ga originally? Either way, are other chamberings less reliable or don't "work best"?
Click to expand...
try chambering an original standard length 700 in 308 or 375 h&h different lengths requires a redesign. same with a 1100 try putting a 3" shell through a standard action.
also some designs lend themselves to change better than others.;)
 
Peetzakilla, I pretty much agree with what you've said. Some guns are best when you use the caliber/version it was designed for. Pushing a Glock, 1911 frame, or Hi-Power frame beyond what it was designed for is like cutting corners to me. They figure if they put a little more metal here and a little more plastic there, its just as good as the original - just a larger caliber. Maybe that's true, but there does seem to be more accounts of things going wrong when certain platforms are pushed in this manner. However, this certainly isn't true for every gun, rifle and/or shotgun as you pointed out.
 
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

Now THAT is splitting hairs!

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Allow me to channel Colonel Sherman T. Potter for a moment:

Horse Hockey! :D In no way shape or form is my saying that rimfire is in general less reliable than centerfire and therefore a pistol that uses a rimfire conversion is less reliable than it was in its original form a case of splitting hairs. That's simply firm logic. Comparing my statement to angels on the head of a pin is a ridiculous overstatement

You said you couldn't name one example. I gave you two. :p Unless you can explain how it is making some narrowly specific statement that the 1911 was not designed for rimfire or that saying rimfire is less reliable than centerfire is a little known technical point unknown by the masses, I have to disagree with you strongly. Less reliable means just that. A failure is a failure is a failure.

I also wonder about your standpoint on the M1 rifle example, since you didn't comment on it
 
Last edited:
common are rifles and shotguns that are chambered in DOZENS of cartridges with no distinction in functionality.
Click to expand...

That is true, but I think you are reading a bit too much into it. Many common rifles (and shotguns) are designed for a class of cartridges, rather than a specific round. Those guns work quite well with all the cartridges in that class, and may work fine with some outside it, or may not, depending on the specifics.

For one example, lets take a look at a common bolt action, the Mauser 98. Now ther are probably a couple dozen cartridges that fit in the class that action will take without serious (or sometimes any) modification. Now lets say you modify the action to take a cartridge outside the class is was originally designed for, such as a belted magnum.

You can get it to work, and even work well. BUT you have to make modifications, and then often tinker with those mods to get it to perform as well as it did unmodified. And sometimes no matter what you do, you can't quite get it to work as well as it did. The difference may be minor, but if you can tell the difference, then it bears out the generality of the statement, "tend to work better in original calibers..."

And by working, I mean function, not accuracy. Ever see a converted gun have feeding issues, when the unconverted one doesn't? I have, more than once. Usually these kind of things can be fixed, but the fact that it needs tweaking to work its best, to me, supports the general statement we are discussing.

"Tend to" means a trend. It could be a majority of the time (and often is) but it doesn't have to be. An awful lot tends to depend on context!:D
 
And by working, I mean function, not accuracy. Ever see a converted gun have feeding issues, when the unconverted one doesn't? I have, more than once. Usually these kind of things can be fixed, but the fact that it needs tweaking to work its best, to me, supports the general statement we are discussing
Click to expand...

If a converted gun doesn't function correctly , it simply means the conversion wasn't designed correctly.
 
Here are a couple more points to ponder. There have been a few guns in living memory that achieved high reputations among their users. One is the M1 rifle; another is the 1911 issue .45 automatic. They were both used under what might be called hard conditions, too. But one thing common to both of them is that virtually all the use of those two weapons is that they were used, at least in military service, with mostly a single cartridge. There was really on one common .45 ACP cartridge and while there were at least three .30-06 rounds in use, they were not radically different (referring to ball, AP and tracer). But these days we attempt to use every conceivable combination of bullet and load in our guns.

The other point follows from that and that is, some people are always looking to hotrod a cartridge, even to include the .45 ACP. While I suppose that's how progress is achieved, sooner or later, one reaches a wall. After all, the .45 ACP didn't start out as a 230-grain bullet and even the M16 didn't start out as a .223. But perhaps guns don't blow up as often as we are led to believe, the nice little display of disassembled revolvers at the range notwithstanding--and I think they're all revolvers.
 
I was just thinking about this a little more and the two guns I just mentioned also had little sporting use, too. The civilian popularity of the .45 auto is relatively recent (I think), although it was always used for target shooting. In that case, it was usually highly modified, sometimes even to use .38 full wadcutters.

The Mauser 98, however, as well as the Lee-Enfield and many other military rifles had a civilian commercial market, too, and those rifles were available in a variety of calibers early on, and some continue to be available, if not always in the original form, but the Mauser 98 seems to have been made and used almost everywhere, except that most of the production was still in Europe. Some military Mauser bolt action rifles were even made in the 1950s.

Well, one of the things about most of those military rifles, including the Lee-Enfield, the Mauser and the 03 Springfield derivitive, was that some changes were made very early in the life of the weapon, mostly associated with bullet weight and shape. In the case of the Springfield, the army actually modified all of the rifles to use a new cartridge, the .30-06, which you may have heard of. For German Mausers, the changes were made before the M98 came along, so there was no redesign but there has been confusion ever since and it didn't help that large numbers of older rifles were sold here in the original chambering. So in the same way the .45-70 is loaded as if you were going to use it in an 1873 Springfield, the 8mm Mauser is apparently loaded as if you were going to use it in the first 8mm Mauser ever made. Along the way there was some confusion over translating German Gothic printing and I think the story is that even the Germans started using the wrong designation.
 
I just think it's great that after a hundred years, someone still has interest enough in the old 1911 to keep on trying to update it. And I realize that not all up-dates are an improvement. But I "tend" to think Mr. Browning had it right the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top