OT Rant; Why I dislike HK Firearms

Certainly the mag feed lip geometry affects feeding and reliability, but don't forget the extractor. Too much/too little force on the case rim and incorrect extractor claw and slot geometry will play hell with feeding. In my experience with 1911s, I look at the mag first, then the extractor. 99.5% of the problems are with either or both, IMO.

Noah
 
Cliff355;

I bought a Springfield, had it ramped and ported, and never had a problem since. My friends also had Springfields and Para's, and had no problems.
I don't know 1911's the way you do, though they are the only semi autos I own. I observed that a gunsmith bent the mag bottom plate, not the feeding lips of the mag. Perhaps he'd already inspected those and found them acceptable.

If the 1911 were as finicky as many here think, it would have died out 80 years ago.
Cliff brought up CNC manufacture, and I hadn't thought of that one way or another. Military 1911's are sloppy by civilian standards, aren't they?
More attention to reliability than accuracy.

I'm going to do an experiment today- and call two gunsmiths I really respect and like. One used to build 1911's, and the other has built everything. I'll let you all know what they say.

munk
 
munk said:
. . . I observed that a gunsmith bent the mag bottom plate, not the feeding lips of the mag . . .

. . . Military 1911's are sloppy by civilian standards, aren't they?
More attention to reliability than accuracy . . .
Click to expand...

Munk:

Not to butt in to your reply to Cliff, but the angle of the stamped mag follower is pretty important for proper feeding. It is one factor that controls the angle of the cartridge in the magazine, and how that cartridge bears on the feed lips.

Military 1911A1s that I worked on in the early 70s were pretty well worn even then, let alone 10 years later as the M9 began to fill the supply pipeline. As long as certain components were OK, they ran and ran . . .
Certainly wouldn't win any matches, but out to 50 yards or so they were still very much suited for the intended purpose.

Noah
 
Guru say;

Slide to reciever fit important. After that, having the right springs for the load/bullet being used. If you want more, trigger work after that. Barrels? Any decent barrel will work. Most aftermarket accessories are designed to make Brownells and Ed Brown rich. Mil mags fine.

If you want a 38 Super or 9X23, more work required.

I do not believe it neccesary to spend 2000 dollars on a 1911. I don't want to spend 1000 on an HK either.

When I got my 1911, I got the springs I needed for the load- slightly warm. Never occured to me there was anything remarkable about that.


munk
 
Noah, I don't know what to say to you and others who suggest this is very tricky stuff.

I can't say you are all deluded about your experiences- because they are your experiences.

I managed Coburn's Discount Guns in Calif for several years. I knew the Smiths in the local area. I knew the gun community. No one I knew in my immediate circle ever had a problem using Military mags with their 1911's, or reliability problems with the guns.

I've friends whove swapped out every part imaginable between 1911's. In one case- trying to get a Para frame to feed with a new Springfield slide, my buddy had to do a little work.

Guru say- any competent gunsmith for under a hundred dollars can make a 1911 work and shoot well. He said for 50 bucks- but he's been retired for several years and may not be in the loop any longer.

I guess as long as my inexpensive Military mags don't know they're unreliable, and continue to provide me with full function at a small price, I'll use them and keep them uninformed.

munk
 
Guru is absolutely correct.

Military mags (those stamped as such and found in military packaging) work just fine, in my experience. While still a Small Arms Repairman (2111) in the early 70s, seldom was the GI-sssue mag the question unless it was physically damaged.

It's the cheap "no-name" or no-marking mags with clearly inconsistent feed lip geometry that have been problematic in my civilian career.

Most of the time the 1911 will feed and function with the factory extractor. Some guns eject near vertically backward and drop cases on the shooter's head, behind their glasses, down a shirtfront, etc. Some tweaking of the claw and groove helps that, and some guns whose extractors are too stiff impart too much force to the case rim, impeding feeding and causing feed ramp hang-ups.

Note that the vast majority of 1911s that I've worked on either in the Marines or during the time since have functioned flawlessly. It's been the ones with Triple-K or no-name gunshow mags, or low-end guns like Charles Dalys that have come across the bench.

Noah
 
You're right. I've had trouble with all semi auto weapons and cheap mags. Glad to hear the military versions are OK.

Thank goodness the AWB is over and one can get high quality high cap mags again.
Noah Zark;
Are the modern production non Colt 1911's tighter than the military issue? That's my sense. Some of these flattop AR's are pretty tight as well. They've always fed for me, but I've never shot mag after mag with a glowing barrel as the enemy came over the ridge. I've never even had to use the forward assist.

munk
 
The Springfield 1911s seem to be to be exceptionally tight, yet any one that I've fired has been reliable. The 1911A1s in service in the 70s were pretty well worn by the time I came through Parris Island, and it was a case of making do with what was on hand. The run-of-rack 1911A1 was fairly loose in most respects, yet they seemed to run. Sorta the "AK" of semi-auto pistols.

Noah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top