For the 1911 Fanboys

[Deleted]

I got chastized by a clerk in a gun store for doing this.  My own brother the gun expert says "don't do it."

I tend to think like THIS guy does.  In full disclosure, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It really makes no difference.

[Deleted]

I try not to do it but don't care when I do. The big worry is rounding off the slide catch notch but you'd have to do it thousands of times before that ever happened.

[daleko]

Aug 20, 2018 20:09:51 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

I got chastized by a clerk in a gun store for doing this.  My own brother the gun expert says "don't do it."

I tend to think like THIS guy does.  In full disclosure, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It really makes no difference.

Agree. It really doesn't. Metallurgy today is light years beyond 1943. And those guns function well.

[Deleted]

Aug 20, 2018 22:26:51 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

I try not to do it but don't care when I do. The big worry is rounding off the slide catch notch but you'd have to do it thousands of times before that ever happened.

That notch gets the same wear whether you are dropping on an empty or loaded chamber.

The "experts" say you should always slingshot the slide.   Those are the fools who have never been engaged in a real situation where your offhand is busy doing something else. 

A 1911 is a HANDgun for a reason.

On an unrelated note, I have tried racking the slide with one hand by dragging it over my jeans.  I can't do it.
Maybe some folks can, but I'm not going to waste time trying.

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2018 0:29:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 20, 2018 20:09:51 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

I got chastized by a clerk in a gun store for doing this.  My own brother the gun expert says "don't do it."

I tend to think like THIS guy does.  In full disclosure, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It really makes no difference.

Agree. It really doesn't. Metallurgy today is light years beyond 1943. And those guns function well.

Browning designed this gun in 1905, and he wasn't worried about metal wear.  The Army demanded external safeties which led to the 1911, but the basic operating design was the same.

[daleko]

Aug 21, 2018 7:45:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Aug 21, 2018 0:29:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Agree. It really doesn't. Metallurgy today is light years beyond 1943. And those guns function well.

Browning designed this gun in 1905, and he wasn't worried about metal wear.  The Army demanded external safeties which led to the 1911, but the basic operating design was the same.

Understood when it was designed, I just picked a number. My shelf has several books on JMB. Have a Colt 1903, that was made in 1913. Nickel. Functions flawlessly after 115 yrs. The design is simple but brilliant. His computer was his brain. Had JMB's Win Model of 1897 trench gun. With no disconnect, you could slam fire it. Somebody else just had to have and I was accommodating in exchange for a few Benjamins.  

[Deleted]

Aug 21, 2018 23:58:02 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 21, 2018 7:45:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Browning designed this gun in 1905, and he wasn't worried about metal wear.  The Army demanded external safeties which led to the 1911, but the basic operating design was the same.

Understood when it was designed, I just picked a number. My shelf has several books on JMB. Have a Colt 1903, that was made in 1913. Nickel. Functions flawlessly after 115 yrs. The design is simple but brilliant. His computer was his brain. Had JMB's Win Model of 1897 trench gun. With no disconnect, you could slam fire it. Somebody else just had to have and I was accommodating in exchange for a few Benjamins.  

I was only referring to the date to indicate that he wasn't worried about the gun wearing out from the materials used.

I honestly bet he never sat around and thought "Gee, I wonder how many times the slide can drop before parts A or B wear out?"  That's something a modern day anal retentive would worry about.   The only thing the Army was concerned with was how many times the entire gun functioned reliably without a jam or broken part that made the gun inop.

It might be a problem for the folks who own those race guns with the expensive custom trigger jobs on guns that are only meant to punch holes in paper.  If I only care about small groups of holes in paper, I'll use a .22 rimfire.

The 1911 .45ACP was designed to be a rugged military combat weapon, and it fills that role perfectly.  The military made a big mistake trying to replace it with anything else.   When all you can use in combat is FMJ, the big .45 outdoes 9mm ball every time.

I don't think I'd be shooting that 1903 much due to its value, and I wouldn't shoot a 1905 at all!

The only thing that stops the 1905's slide from flying off to the rear is a thin steel bar up near the muzzle.  If that were to fail, you'd have a face full of high velocity steel.

[bamorin]

Aug 21, 2018 7:45:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Aug 21, 2018 0:29:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Agree. It really doesn't. Metallurgy today is light years beyond 1943. And those guns function well.

Browning designed this gun in 1905, and he wasn't worried about metal wear.  The Army demanded external safeties which led to the 1911, but the basic operating design was the same.

they also wanted a different degree of grip to frame.

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2018 9:32:01 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Aug 21, 2018 7:45:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Browning designed this gun in 1905, and he wasn't worried about metal wear.  The Army demanded external safeties which led to the 1911, but the basic operating design was the same.

they also wanted a different degree of grip to frame.

Yeah, the 1905 was too square.