Thread: 1911's
View Single Post
Old January 13, 2013, 11:30 AM   #18
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,684
Originally Posted by WVsig
Yes Tuner the same old argument. Look around everyone and their brother is cranking out a "version" of the 1911 these days. They are made by everyone at almost every price point. The majority of people making them treat the JMB spec and a starting point guideline not the blue print it should be. The good enough close to spec mentality of most of the 1911 manufacturers make this statement true in the real world. In a perfect world scenario where the guns is perfectly built to spec the 1911 is a wonderfully reliable pistol the problem I have found is that it is hard to find one built in this manner these days on consistent basis. Add in the magazine variance and it get worse. Not all guns are built properly and these days the term 1911 does not designate the singular design it once did. My point was and is that with a 1911 it helps to know how to determine how close to or how far off the spec the "1911" variant you are choosing is. Is it necessary no but it helps....
You are aware that pretty much everyone today machines 1911 frames, slides, and many small parts on CNC machines, and uses MIM for other small parts. The original 1911 was designed at a time when every part had to be machined by a person standing there and operating the machine. Most of the parts had a tolerance of .005", which by today's CNC standards is ridiculously loose. Consider slide-to-frame fit, for example. The frame spec was nominal - (minus) .005". The slide spec was nominal + (plus) .005". That means if you got a slide and a frame that were both machined exactly to the nominal dimension, the clearance would be .001". But if you got a slide and a frame that were both at the extreme of the tolerance, you would have a clearance of .011" and still be in spec.

Even the entry level makers beat that with every pistol they produce.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Page generated in 0.04626 seconds with 7 queries