1943 Ithaca 1911 loading question

[T-Bird]

I recently purchased this gun and not knowing anything much about them, I've been learning a lot. I have found out that it has British Proof marks on it. on the top of (I guess it's the bolt?) there are the markings: 7 tons with a square beside it, .45, .900, BMP with a crown i think. The Bmp is on the slide and the frame. There is no designation that it's not English made like I've read some have. I read that the 7 tons is the proof pressure in psi. I have also read that it's not a good idea to shoot factory modern ammo in these. I have shot a few Lee 200gr rnfp in it over 4 gr Clays. That load should be in the 15,000 CUP range but I can't tell for sure. Starting load is 3.6 gr for 11,000+ CUP and max is 4.3 gr for 17,000 CUP. Is this safe in this gun? I thought proof loads were stiff loads that were much more than the recommended everyday load. The way I read this, 7 tons is 14,000 psi and this a proof load? I don't want to blow this old gun, (or myself for that matter) up!

[Char-Gar]

You will not blow the gun up. They can take 2X the normal powder charge and function. At 2.5X they will lock up, but not blow up.

Here is the real issue: These pistol slides were only hardened at the front and around the slide lock. They had hardened steel inserts in the breech face. However the barrel lug recesses in the slide are not hardned at all and this is where wear will set in. After the War, Colt began to fully hardened the entire slide and many replacement slides were sold to the military around 1950.

For a pistol that will be shot much a "hard slide" is the way to go. For occasional shooting the old 1911A1 will do just fine. Choose a good 230 grain cast bullet and load it over 5.0/Bullseye for a factory level load and have fun.

The 1911 pistol and the 45 ACP round were designed to use the above charge of Bullseye. Billions of round of government arsenal and commercial 45 ACP ammo were loaded with this charge.

[Outpost75]

The British method of pressure measurement is a base-crusher system which uses the actual backthrust of an oiled case against the breech, rather than pressures determined by our W2-era radial copper crusher system. So the absolute pressure numbers do not coincide. Char-Gar's explanation is entirely correct. I would not be concerned using standard .45 ACP loads which are within the SAAMI MAP. Your 4 grains of Clays is fine, as would be also up to, but not to exceed 5 grains of Bullseye.

If the gun has seen a good deal of use I would recommend replacing the recoil spring with a new 16-lb. one.

[T-Bird]

Thanks, I really wanted this gun but don't know a lot about them. It seems to be in really good cond. all lettering is crisp etc. I didn't know about all the other markings on it till did some research. It seems to shoot well with this load, I will only occasionally shoot it at cans etc. Think I'm good

[Bigslug]

+1 on Char Gar's post. You're going to have to work hard to hurt it. That said, my attitude toward my actual military 1911's is this:

Remember when Indiana Jones' adversary said that "We are merely passing through history - this IS history"? The WWII production slides were a balance between making a good gun and making a lot of them fast, so they made the hardening compromises Char Gar mentioned. The cool thing is that John Browning created an absolute tank of a pistol and the design will let you get away with quite a lot of corner cutting. The flip side is that Uncle Sam accepted the reality of wartime economy - a certain number were going to get sunk to the bottom of the Atlantic or blown out of the sky over Europe without ever seeing action - so quantity took on a quality all it's own.

So given that production weakness and the fact that modern "hard slide" 1911's are plentiful, my inclination toward clean examples of the real service guns is shifting more toward preserving rather than running, or at least running with lighter loads. I bought the Springfield WWII replica when they ran them years back so I could shoot something close to true spec when I felt the urge, and Auto Ordnance is currently doing something along the same lines. Given that they're maybe a third the value or less of the real thing and structurally better guns, they're worth thinking about.

[DougGuy]

T-Bird that is a nice old warhorse you got there, everything about that pistol speaks volumes about the American People when that was made. There is a cool old video made by (I think) Union Switch & Signal documenting 1911A1 production in WWII. It is an icon. Watch some of John Wayne's WWII movies you will see the 1911A1 in all it's glory, it will make you crave period correct web belt and holster to store it in and wear it at the range.

I had a 1943 Colt that I still kick myself in the *** for trading away, I jonesed for one for years and finally chose a modern Auto Ordnance lower, with a 1943 Remington Rand slide and all WWII milspec parts in the upper, it made a right dang nice looking replica, that stopped me crying over that old Colt. This one shoots one holers at 10yds as many magazines as you want to run through it.



I wanted one that would be like an armorer picked up a slide in one barrel and a frame in another barrel and assembled a working 1911A1 and issued it. I wanted one like that, just like the Army handed them out to new soldiers just coming into the service. I think it makes the grade, and nails the real thing quite well..

You on the other hand, have the REAL DEAL, enjoy it and shoot it often with hardball or a cast roundnose at standard velocity.

[samari46]

I have a 1943 Ithaca 1911A1 that I shoot nothing but 230 grain hardcast bullets through with 4.7 grains of Winchester Super Target. Used to shoot steel plate matches with it until I had the money for a tricked out Springfield Armory (the new one not the original one). Did find the issue sights a tad difficult to work with. Get some shock buffs and a couple extra 16lb springs. I did install a full length guide rod but have all the original parts tucked away. Frank

[T-Bird]

What do you do, just buy a new slide- any 1911 slide will fit?

[missionary5155]

This is one we will keep to the end. When I look at the prices they are selling for I doubt I would buy another. but about 20 years ago they were very affordable.
Not a collectors model so we happily shoot it whenever we get the notion. Was well used when we were given the opportunity to purchase it. Feeds everything we have tried. But I tend to stick with a 230 grain PBRN cast of range scrap. The ammo in the mag is some 1943 we came across and may never get fired.
This Rand actually is part of our bugout bag. I think this .45 is about all I will need from a hand held pistol to keep us safe. Yes we each will carry a long gun.

[Burnt Fingers]

What do you do, just buy a new slide- any 1911 slide will fit?

The 1911 is not a Glock. Almost all parts require some fitting.

[Char-Gar]

What do you do, just buy a new slide- any 1911 slide will fit?

These pistols were made to have interchangable parts. About 2 years ago, I picked up a Colt 1950 "hard slide" with all the internal parts. I also picked up from the same guy a 1995 Colt frame again with all internal. I had a 2000 barrel, plug and spring in my parts box. It took about ten minutes to put all these various vintage parts together into to a Colt pistol with parts made 50 years apart. The pistol is tight and accurate and 100% reliable.

I did have to remove the Series 80 levers from the frame and replace them with a spacer to fit the earlier slide. Since the pic, I have installed some King Hardball sights I had laying around the shop. Along the way, I added a main spring housing with a lanyard which houses a 19 lb. main spring. I also sent the barrel to DougGuy for his excellent throating and muzzle crowning.

This has become my favorite pistol and a worthy replacement to my Remington-Rand 1911A1 that started my pistol shooting life so many years ago.

Any properly made 1911 slide, should fit any properly made 1911 frame. The operative word is "should", for there are so many people making these style pistols, who can say for certain.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

The 1911 is not a Glock. Almost all parts require some fitting.

Interesting statement. Today there are so many 1911 "builders" and manufacturers of parts, such as Wilson, Kimber, Ed Brown, etc., that fitting parts is not uncommon. But it's been my experience that the WW I and WW II G.I. issue guns require little or no fitting for parts, as they were designed to be fully interchangeable and repairable in the field. Hence, the reputation for being "loosey-goosey" and rattling when shaken.

[Char-Gar]

Interesting statement. Today there are so many 1911 "builders" and manufacturers of parts, such as Wilson, Kimber, Ed Brown, etc., that fitting parts is not uncommon. But it's been my experience that the WW I and WW II G.I. issue guns require little or no fitting for parts, as they were designed to be fully interchangeable and repairable in the field. Hence, the reputation for being "loosey-goosey" and rattling when shaken.

My memory tells me, to test interchability of parts, the military inspectors in WWII took 20 1911A1 pistols of various contractors, disassembled the 100% and put all the parts in a box and shook them up. They then randomly removed parts and assembled 20 fully functioning pistols.

I do know from my above post that Colt continued with same specs and thusly parts interchangability over many years. As you say, there is no telling about the various makers of 1911 clones. However the USGI pistols all had interchangable parts, as did Colts. It is common to run across USGI pistols with mixed parts from both 1911 and 1911A1 pistol and the various contractors. These were various arsenal rebuilds. I should think a post-war Colt slide should fit any 1911A1 frame.

[DougGuy]

The 1911 is not a Glock. Almost all parts require some fitting.

If that were the case, John Moses Browning would have NEVER gotten the military contract and we would never have had the 1911/1911A1. Those pistols were designed with total interchangeability in 100% of the parts. Many vendors made parts, the ONE requirement was that they would all fit and they do.

When you get genuine mil-spec parts, you can buy 1,000 of each single component and in the end you will have 1,000 complete and WORKING pistols.

[T-Bird]

so if I decide to get another slide so I can shoot it with impunity would I look for on that is specified "mil-spec"? Based on y'alls responses and the level I intend to use this gun I don't even know if this is needed but I like to be prepared.

[T-Bird]

This thing is fun to shoot!

[Dutchman]

Technical Manual for Pistols & Revolvers:

http://dutchman.rebooty.com/temp/TM%...s/TM9-1925.pdf

7 tons square x 2,240 = 15,680 pounds -- Brits used long tons.
900 = case length (.898" actually)


Colt 1943

[Bigslug]

The 1911 is not a Glock. Almost all parts require some fitting.

I've ranted on this topic elsewhere. The best thing about the 1911 is also the worst thing about the 1911: you can build it as a mil-spec fighting gun or a ridiculously tight, hand-fitted, pocket sniper rifle. When it ceased to be a military staple, and became subject to the "mine is better than yours, and here are all my smoke-and-mirrors reasons as to why you should drop $3,000 on it" cancer of the mass retail market, easy parts interchangeability without fitting went out the window. This is largely due to selling folks on the false hope of "accuracy", when the reality is a GI spec 1911 is capable of shooting better groups than 95% of the people that ever pick up a handgun.

Now if we can get the modern steels with the old tolerances, THEN we'll be cooking with gas!

[Char-Gar]

This thing is fun to shoot!

Be very,very careful or you will be addicted to these pistols. I remember the very first magazine I put through a Rem-Ran 1911A1 on the banks of the Rio Grande River in 1961. I caught the bug that day and still have it in my system 58 years later.

[Char-Gar]

I've ranted on this topic elsewhere. The best thing about the 1911 is also the worst thing about the 1911: you can build it as a mil-spec fighting gun or a ridiculously tight, hand-fitted, pocket sniper rifle. When it ceased to be a military staple, and became subject to the "mine is better than yours, and here are all my smoke-and-mirrors reasons as to why you should drop $3,000 on it" cancer of the mass retail market, easy parts interchangeability without fitting went out the window. This is largely due to selling folks on the false hope of "accuracy", when the reality is a GI spec 1911 is capable of shooting better groups than 95% of the people that ever pick up a handgun.

Now if we can get the modern steels with the old tolerances, THEN we'll be cooking with gas!

I agree with 99% of what you say. My only point of disagreement would be you can indeed use modern steels that maintain mil-spec interchangeability and still give a tighter and more accurate pistol. A case in point would be my Frankenstein Colt in my above post.

The vast majority of the so called "improvments" over the original Browning designed are just marketing tools to sell unnecessary and expensive bolt on gadgets that serve no real purpose.

A case in point is the lowered and flaired ejection ports that are mandatory on all recent pistols. They will eject cases with undented case mouths, but so what. Millions and millions of cases with dented mouths have been ejected from original design pistols for generations with no ill effect on reliability of the pistol.

I agree with you, the idea of spending $3,000.00 on a 1911 makes me queasy. Perhaps that amount of money is justified for the guy that is shooting very high level competiton and is trying to buy an extra point or two for a higher score.