Poll - Ultimate Fighting Handgun ----> Glock vs 1911

[Hazcat]

***** GROAN *****

[PegLeg45]

***** GROAN *****

Thought that's what you'd say, Old Sport.......

[Big Frank]

During the transition period for PD switching to Glocks, dept. armorers did just that.
All the G17 parts in piles and put back in the guns without any care except for the right part going in the right place.

I'm curious - isn't military small arms wrenching geared toward "get the guns to go bang and get them out of here".
You state you've never fitted a part in your Army days. Isn't that more a statement of the military mindset of "if parts break or wear we just replace them"?  Properly fitted, wouldn't the parts last longer? OK, mil-spec 1911s can work. But at what cost to the parts and their locking surfaces?
Hell, I had to have the thumb safety on one of my (new) Colts fitted just so it didn't feel like mush when operated. Yes, it worked - but it wasn't "right".

More than 200 years before they did that with Glocks someone else did the same thing with musket parts. I'm sure others here are familiar with the concept of interchangeable parts. Anyone who never heard of it before can look up "Industrial Revolution". It was a groundreaking concept then. It's not as impressive to see it done in the 21st century as it was in the 18th. It's just SOP now.

If parts break or wear out they do have to be replaced. What else are you going to do with bad parts? Small arms repair is fixing whatever the unit armorers couldn't fix, and doing whatever it takes to make each weapon work right, with everything within specs. I didn't like some of the armorers who brought their stuff to me because I had to fix things they or the operators screwed up. They weren't trained or authorized to do my job and anytime one of them tried I was the one who had to make it right. If I couldn't fix something they wrote it off as a total loss and exchanged it for a new one. The only total losses were things like M16s run over by an entire tank brigade and the pieces brought to my shop in a garbage bag. I actually groaned oh shit out loud in front of everybody when I heard the jingling garbage bag. I knew it was going to "one of those days" and couldn't help saying it.

If a part broke in two it we didn't weld the broken pieces back together and try to make it work. If parts were worn out to the point of being unserviceable they were replaced. We weren't about to spend hours welding up layers of metal on it then milling it back down to size when it could be replaced at a fraction of the cost in 1/100 the amount of time. Some parts like M85 machinegun sears could be stoned to remove burrs to make them work properly again. I don't consider that hand fitting since it would work in any one of them after being repaired. I never had to do anything like that to a 1911. No filing, stoning, lapping, or anything else. If a part is missing, broken, bent beyond repair, or worn to the point of being out of spec, it got replaced.

The main part of my job was troubleshooting to figure out what the real problem was in the first place, like when someone told me a weapon is doube feeding and I know from the nature of the design that it's not even possible. Then fixing it, and keeping spare parts on hand in case it happened again, and filling out piles of paperwork filled out in quintuplicate. There was a lot more to it but those were the main things. If it took a month to get a certain part we didn't have in stock, we didn't slap a band-aid on and let it go for now. It was fixed right before being used again. Sometimes they couldn't wait and parts were used off two or more broken weapons to get one working. It's called cannibalization because you have to sacrifice some to save the others. It's only possible because all the parts of each model were interchangeable with no hand fitting.

[Big Frank]

To all the 1911 haters out there; if it's such a bad design then why does Glock use the John M. Browning-designed tilting barrel short-recoil system like the 1911?

To anyone who wants to see how a 1911 goes together; check this out. There are some mistakes but it's still pretty cool. http://splodetv.com/video/1911-breakdown

Its true that 1911s weren't designed to be the fastest and most efficiently built on today's machines. They were originally designed for the old fashioned type of machininery that was available back then. But they've been converted over to CAD/CAM designs that can make all the parts to much tighter tolerances eliminating hand fitting. If the parts aren't made to super-tight match tolerances you just slap them together. There are exceptions such as aftermarket parts that are made oversize to fit old worn out guns. Just because the 1911 is an old design doesn't mean it's made with 100 year old methods and machinery. Look around most gun factories and you'll see computers, not some guy with a foot-pedaled lathe. It's not Heinrich or John or Manuel labor.

And always remember, whether you're a police officer or in the military -
all the equipment you bet your life on was built by the lowest bidder! 

[TSB]

They were originally designed for the old fashioned type of machininery that was available back then. But they've been converted over to CAD/CAM designs that can make all the parts to much tighter tolerances eliminating hand fitting. If the parts aren't made to super-tight match tolerances you just slap them together. There are exceptions such as aftermarket parts that are made oversize to fit old worn out guns. Just because the 1911 is an old design doesn't mean it's made with 100 year old methods and machinery. Look around most gun factories and you'll see computers, not some guy with a foot-pedaled lathe.

Good Point!

Modern CNC Lathes, mills and the like are capable of tolerances of better than one-ten-thousandth (.0001)/inch.  To my knowledge, the slide to frame tolerance on high end Wilsons, Kimbers, etc is around .004". 

The technolgy is far better than the industry needs.  I work in 3D modeling, 50 hours a week programing for extremely high tolerance turbine parts.  Those tolerances are intended for a part that may be in a rotating assembly turning 75,000 rpm, about 6 times faster than a formula one engine is turning.  These parts cannot be measured by normal means, they must be optically laser measured for acceptance.

If a high end manufacturer of firearms is still doing it the old fashioned way, I'd keep shopping!!

Tim

[Sponsor]

[Big Frank]

I occurred to me this morning that the ultmate fighting pistol has to be solid steel and heavy enough to pistol-whip the crap out of somebody. Geting hit with a light piece of plastic seems like it would be more like getting hit with a mallet instead of a 2pound ball-pien hammer. If you want to crack skulls get the right tool for the job. 

To ellis4538 and all. I just got off the phone with Doug at Acc-U-Rail this afternoon. Once the 1911 frame and slide are modified they only work with modified parts. So I can't use an Acc-U-Rail frame on my Mech-Tech CCU. The only way tighten up the old maraca and still use the CCU is to have it squeezed and peened. Right now a Dwyer Group Gripper is making the barrel lock up solidly to the slide, but the slide/frame fit has slop in it. The barrel and sights line up so it still shoots where I aim it even though the slide can move vertically, rotate, and move horizontally a little bit. I wouldn't suggest anyone else buy an alloy frame and shoot it as much as I did mine the past 20 years. That was before I heard people say to use alloy for carry and steel for heavy use.  Oh well, live and learn. In another 20 years I can get it tightened up again. That's the price I have to pay for a 14-shot alloy 1911 that weighs the same loaded as an 8-shot steel 1911. I still need a steel-framed one so I can get it converted to .460 Rowland.

[Ichiban]

It appers that I'm not smart enough to insert a picture so hopefully the attachement will come through.

[twyacht]

Combat Tupperware,....Priceless....

[Rastus]

Give me a wheel gun any day of the week.  Hopefully 44, mag if available.

F O U L

But a dang good point....especially whilst talking reliability.

[tombogan03884]

More than 200 years before they did that with Glocks someone else did the same thing with musket parts. I'm sure others here are familiar with the concept of interchangeable parts. Anyone who never heard of it before can look up "Industrial Revolution". It was a groundreaking concept then. It's not as impressive to see it done in the 21st century as it was in the 18th. It's just SOP now.

If parts break or wear out they do have to be replaced. What else are you going to do with bad parts? Small arms repair is fixing whatever the unit armorers couldn't fix, and doing whatever it takes to make each weapon work right, with everything within specs. I didn't like some of the armorers who brought their stuff to me because I had to fix things they or the operators screwed up. They weren't trained or authorized to do my job and anytime one of them tried I was the one who had to make it right. If I couldn't fix something they wrote it off as a total loss and exchanged it for a new one. The only total losses were things like M16s run over by an entire tank brigade and the pieces brought to my shop in a garbage bag. I actually groaned oh shit out loud in front of everybody when I heard the jingling garbage bag. I knew it was going to "one of those days" and couldn't help saying it.

If a part broke in two it we didn't weld the broken pieces back together and try to make it work. If parts were worn out to the point of being unserviceable they were replaced. We weren't about to spend hours welding up layers of metal on it then milling it back down to size when it could be replaced at a fraction of the cost in 1/100 the amount of time. Some parts like M85 machinegun sears could be stoned to remove burrs to make them work properly again. I don't consider that hand fitting since it would work in any one of them after being repaired. I never had to do anything like that to a 1911. No filing, stoning, lapping, or anything else. If a part is missing, broken, bent beyond repair, or worn to the point of being out of spec, it got replaced.

The main part of my job was troubleshooting to figure out what the real problem was in the first place, like when someone told me a weapon is doube feeding and I know from the nature of the design that it's not even possible. Then fixing it, and keeping spare parts on hand in case it happened again, and filling out piles of paperwork filled out in quintuplicate. There was a lot more to it but those were the main things. If it took a month to get a certain part we didn't have in stock, we didn't slap a band-aid on and let it go for now. It was fixed right before being used again. Sometimes they couldn't wait and parts were used off two or more broken weapons to get one working. It's called cannibalization because you have to sacrifice some to save the others. It's only possible because all the parts of each model were interchangeable with no hand fitting.

I'm using the colors to match the quotes 
It was Eli Whitney trying  (successfully) to get a military contract, a little known fact is that he cheated, each rifle 1 -10 was given an ID number and every part from that rifle was marked with that number, so instead of just assembling them with random parts the Whitney employees discreetly matched up the numbers, some examples of these first test rifles on display in museums still show the assembly numbers that were used.

When I was a unit armorer in the NH Army National Guard, We had an ammo truck driver who knew it all, He didn't need no steenking ground guide, until the day he ran over an M-60 machine gun. When they turned it in to me I said CONSIDERABLY more than "Oh shit". I can laugh about it now (Doubt if he can) The only part they could salvage was the butt plate, It had a weird 90 degree bend in the receiver, got a brand new one from Saco defense at a time when I saw them listed at $10,000 EACH but I doubt the Army paid anywhere near that much.

Good Point!

Modern CNC Lathes, mills and the like are capable of tolerances of better than one-ten-thousandth (.0001)/inch.  To my knowledge, the slide to frame tolerance on high end Wilsons, Kimbers, etc is around .004". 

The technolgy is far better than the industry needs.  I work in 3D modeling, 50 hours a week programing for extremely high tolerance turbine parts.  Those tolerances are intended for a part that may be in a rotating assembly turning 75,000 rpm, about 6 times faster than a formula one engine is turning.  These parts cannot be measured by normal means, they must be optically laser measured for acceptance.

If a high end manufacturer of firearms is still doing it the old fashioned way, I'd keep shopping!!

Tim

CNC milling is what I do for a living, when I worked at Thompson Center, the tightest tolerances we held on Contenders or Encores was +-.005 that's about the diameter of a hair. The machines I'm running now are the same age or older, but because of the tighter tolerances for small medical devices we routinely make adjustments of .0001 to hold tolerances of +-.0005 thats less than 1 /10th the thickness of a hair. Just tonight I ran 220 pieces the greatest deviation between them was .001  (it was NOT on the +-.0005 dimension ) Tonight was nothing special, over the last 14 monthes I have produced more than 30 THOUSAND parts with a greatest deviation of +-.001