FTF with SW1911SC

[ColColt]

I've had this one about a week and took it out today for a trial run today. I had reloaded about 100 200 gr SWC's using the same two powders I always use and took a box of Speer's 230 gr GDHP 's as well. The SWC's did fine and shot some good groups as did the GD's but after after about three mags of the GD's and on the last round in a Wilson 47D mag, it choked as shown.

That's quite a tilt and as you can see, it never was caught up under the extractor. I don't feel I can blame the magazine as it's never failed when I used it in another 1911 Smith. Any ideas?

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3821a.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3822A.jpg

[35remington]

Since it's not even partially under the extractor, it's not the extractor. Which now puts the focus on the magazine, despite what you might think. Just because a magazine works in one gun does not mean it has no flaws that will not occur in another. Full power ammo will test magazine reliability.

Last round feeding issues are often traced to weak springs. Wilson 47D's are eight shot flush fit magazines with rather weak springs and a smooth follower, which leads to exactly the problem you are seeing.

No surprise there. Inertia is your problem. The magazine is losing control of the round from slide/frame impact when spring strength is at its weakest, and the smooth follower isn't helping.

Full power ammo is your undoing with a weakly sprung magazine on the last shot. A stronger spring obtained in a seven shot magazine, a small radius FP stop, or ideally a combination of the two should help.

[ColColt]

I would have thought that of all the different ammo, the SWC's would have given the problem instead of factory full power 230 gr loads. I have a couple Tripp springs and followers-maybe the mag would work better with those. I also have the new Wilson ETM mag's and Tripp mags. No problem with the Tripp mag today. Maybe the release point has something to do with it. The Wilson 47 has a quicker release point and lips are parallel whereas the Tripp has a longer release point and slightly tapered lips. That could be part of the reason-just speculating.

[Mk42gunner]

Looks like a magazine issue to me, the front of the round popped up too early.

IIRC the Wilsons are meant for feeding SWC's not anything close to a ball profile. Most of the time you can get away with it, but ther is always the chance it won't work.

Robert

[ColColt]

Another thing interesting...I looked through my parts box and discovered I had ordered two Wilson replacement springs/followers for the 47 mag a month or so back and decided to compare the replacement spring with the one currently in the mag I used today and it's nearly three inches longer! Keep in mind, this magazine came with my other SW1911 since the SW1911SC comes with some other brand and that's why I used the Wilson today. That particular magazine isn't more than a month old and yet the spring was nearly three inches shorter. It got replaced.

I don't know if that will matter or not but I'll find out next range trip.

[MtGun44]

Mag.

Bill

[fecmech]

Bet if you put an old stock GI mag in the gun it will feed smooth as butter!

[subsonic]

Another vote for weak mag spring.

[ColColt]

I'm inclined to believe so but can't figure why as this magazine is new. Since I have two that came with the other pistol, I may as well replace that one as well if it's as short as this one was. That's a real bummer to have to replace a spring in a new magazine...Wilson at that. I think they must have used some older magazines as I still have a spare Wilson spring from some years back and it's the same length as the new ones that was in this magazine. The newer ones I ordered about a month back are much longer...go figure.

[btroj]

Don't remember if it was on this site or not but 35 Remington had an excellent post compairring the various magazine and feed lip / followers combinations.
I followed his advice and got some Checkate magazines for about 17 bucks each. I spent about 4 dollars extra on each for Wolff extra power magazine springs. I don't have any issues at all.
Amazing, more reliability at a lower cost.

[35remington]

The problem occurs despite the fact that the magazines are new because the springs in the eight shot magazines come from the factory already weak, and new or old ain't got a thing to do with it. Weak is weak.

Tripp magazines have considerably stiffer springs. Their feed lips are straight, not tapered in any way. Tripps are essentially Wilson magazines with fewer drawbacks. Stronger springs and better followers less prone to wear.

If you like the push feed type magazines, Tripps have advantages over Wilsons, and that includes Wilson's ETM, which was a halfassed effort at improvement that fell considerably short.

Biased? No. Just not rewarding Wilson for poor effort. They do not deserve any kudos for the ETM. The eight shot 47D is still what it was.

[ColColt]

The problem occurs despite the fact that the magazines are new because the springs in the eight shot magazines come from the factory already weak, and new or old ain't got a thing to do with it. Weak is weak.

What is your synopsis as to why Wilson would put weak springs in a magazine that has sold more after market magazines than others?

Tripp magazines have considerably stiffer springs. Their feed lips are straight, not tapered in any way. Tripps are essentially Wilson magazines with fewer drawbacks. Stronger springs and better followers less prone to wear.

If you like the push feed type magazines, Tripps have advantages over Wilsons, and that includes Wilson's ETM, which was a halfassed effort at improvement that fell considerably short.

Biased? No. Just not rewarding Wilson for poor effort. They do not deserve any kudos for the ETM. The eight shot 47D is still what it was.

And, what was it? I'm curious as I'm no magazine engineer but have owned Wilson mags since the 70's and didn't have a problem with them over Shooting Star or Pachmayr, for instance. They were the best around then...don't know about know anymore.

[35remington]

It's still an eight shot Wilson. For better or worse.

Tripp exposed their weaknesses, and they are still present.

[fecmech]

Interesting thread on 1911 magazines:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229073

[MtGun44]

Get some REAL GI lip design NON-early release type mags from Checkmate.

http://www.checkmatemagazines.com/cart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=11&idproduct=27

I never had any problems with a wide range of 1911s over a 30+ year competition history
until I started running the Speer Gold dot 230s in a really nice Colt SS ltwt Commander.
It always WORKED, but there was a definite 'hitch in the feed' as you loaded it manually
for the first round. You could, by very slowly easing the slide forward, get a round to just
sit there frozen on the steel ramp face - MIRROR polished, it looked impossible, but would
do it reliably if cycled very slowly. Never bobbled in 'real life' (actually firing, but it did feel
just a hair weird, I could tell it was just not really happy. I suspect most folks would not feel
it, but after maybe around 300,000 rounds of .45 ACP through 1911s, I could feel something
was not quite right.

I got out some old GI mags with the non-early release, John Browning designed feed lips
and BINGO - it fed slicker than anything you can imagine and absolutely impossible to get
the round to do anything except feed perfectly no matter how slowly you run the slide. The
early release mags depend on inertia rather than mechanically controlled feeding and in
a few guns, with a few boolit/bullet shapes this does not work. I found a REALLY old 1911
mag with original lips and the PINNED ON FLOORPLATE in beautiful factory nickel at a gun show
for cheap and it is my 'up the spout' mag for carry now, with two blued GI mags in the carrier.

John Browning was right (AGAIN!) and the early release mags, intended for super short
target semiwadcutters, should NOT be the standard lip design these days for all mags. Thank
goodness that Check-Mate Industries is still producing original design mags, as far as I know
they are the ONLY remaining source for new REAL GI mags. 35 rem has recommended
their heavy duty springs, too. My carry mags for this Commander are all old real GI mags,
including the one collector type pinned-on floorplate model that is my daily carry mag.

This is not my pic, and I forget where it came from, so I'll apologize in advance to whoever
took it. It was too good not to save. Might be 35 Rem.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=161&pictureid=2355

The original gun with original mags is a controlled round feeding system. Modern
early release mags are inertia feed systems that have the round bouncing around loose
during the feed cycle and "almost always" hitting the chamber. The GI lips do not release
the round until the rim is under the extractor and the nose of the bullet/boolit is in
the chamber mouth.
Bill

[btroj]

I have a fair number of Checkmate hybrid feed lip magazines. Nary a problem with good feeding.
I replaced the original springs with the Wolff extra power springs.

I have proven pretty well to myself that as long as I feed it ammo that chambers freely it isn't going to jam.

[ColColt]

Get some REAL GI lip design NON-early release type mags from Checkmate.

http://www.checkmatemagazines.com/cart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=11&idproduct=27

I never had any problems with a wide range of 1911s over a 30+ year competition history
until I started running the Speer Gold dot 230s in a really nice Colt SS ltwt Commander.
It always WORKED, but there was a definite 'hitch in the feed' as you loaded it manually
for the first round. You could, by very slowly easing the slide forward, get a round to just
sit there frozen on the steel ramp face - MIRROR polished, it looked impossible, but would
do it reliably if cycled very slowly. Never bobbled in 'real life' (actually firing, but it did feel
just a hair weird, I could tell it was just not really happy. I suspect most folks would not feel
it, but after maybe around 300,000 rounds of .45 ACP through 1911s, I could feel something
was not quite right.

Bill

You hit the nail on the head here. I thought the same thing first time yesterday with that magazine. It acted like it wanted to hesitate once it hit the feed ramp and in fact, did once to the point of not going fully into battery but a slight nudge which my hand closed the slide.

That Hybrid magazine you show is the same one that came with my SW1911SC I was trying out yesterday but, I never tried them since I had the two Wilsons and a Tripp mag. I don't know how they would have worked. One is an 8 rnd and the other a 7-rnd. It tapers as shown-not parallel like the wadcutter mag.

What was the magazine that caused you to "feel the hitch"? The Wilson's gave me that same feeling when feeding that first round manual to load one. They did well with the 200 gr SWC's however.

Looking over Checkmate's website, they don't seem to have the GI in an 8-rnd magazine...only 7-rnd.

[MtGun44]

No GI 8 rd mags. IMO, 8 rd mags that are not longer are GOING to eventually cause a
problem. For matches, range work, OK, but I would never trust one for CCW.

Any early release mag, Wilson, Tripp, Shooting Star, Metalform would do it.

My Commander feeds 200 gr H&G 68s perfectly with the early release mags, but it
also feeds them perfectly from GI tapered lip mags. The hitch was with 230 JHPs and
any early release mags. I think the 200 Speer Gold Dots did it too, IIRC.

Remember, mine never actually jammed, but it was "talking to me" about it.

Since I shoot about 99.99% H&G 68s, the early release mags are just fine for me.

But for JHPs and serious social work, I am going to stick to GI type lips.

Bill

[ColColt]

I have a fair number of Checkmate hybrid feed lip magazines. Nary a problem with good feeding.
I replaced the original springs with the Wolff extra power springs.



The two mags that came with the SW1911SC pistol apparently has these mags as the follower has the same patient number and feed lip configuration(hybrid) as the one pictured on the right in the photos provided by Bill. It's also shown on Check0Mate's website so, that looks much like what came with the gun. I haven't tried those as yet as I figured them to be "inferior" to Wilson's or Tripp's.

Every pistol is different for the most part in what ammo/mag combinations they like. The Sw1911 I have doesn't seem to care but the SC seems to be a bit finicky when using hollow point ammo. I may need to try one of the GI mags Bill suggested. The Wilson's sure aren't feeding the GD's very well. I won't give up on the Tripp as it seems to do good with either SWC or the GD's.

It would seem to me that pistol manufacturers would include magazines fit to feed hollow points as that's what many shooters use for CCW purposes instead of early release SWC's.

[Ronbo256]

One little known fact about the wilson 47 magazines that I just recently found out is they hold the magazine .080 higher than JMB's design. I discovered this after installing an EGW .020 higher magazine catch and then finding out that my wilson 47d's hit the ejector now. The Chip MC's and GI mags now feed a lot better, but the Wilsons lock the slide back with one round left in the mag. It's what I get for building my own pistols, I guess, an education!

[35remington]

No magazine is truly "universal" given the great range of possible OAL's present in 45 ACP ammunition, which can range from about 1.135" to 1.270."

It's probably best to think of applicable ranges. The GI type was superseded by the straight lip, early release type like the McCormick (Tripps are actually later releasing, straight lipped types) for the short 185 grain SWC of approximately 1.175" OAL. However, this magazine type really shouldn't have become "the standard" for the 1911, and it presents feeding changes that don't help the 1911 feed as well as it should. It has drawbacks.

The GI type is at its best with ball, HG SWC's of the 68 pattern loaded to 1.250", approximately, and the longer roundnose ogive hollowpoints, like the 230 Golden Saber and the Winchester White Box 230 JHP's, which define the lower end of OAL at approximately 1.208-1.210." The OAL of 1.200" is really pushing it for GI's, but you may get away with it. Factory Golden Saber at 1.230-1.238", approximately, is about as good as it gets with GI magazines and ball type ogive hollowpoints.

The hybrid type, with the combo tapered lip and earlier release point (it's only a little earlier than the GI's from Checkmate, but the slightly earlier release combined with the abruptness of the release rather than a slight drag) make it more suited to the shorter SWC's. It's about as close to an all around magazine as you can find that still preserves the John Browning feeding path.

No magazine design is foolproof, as a good design can be poorly executed. However, using a magazine that is most similar to that which the original designer intended to work in his gun (GI tapered lip or hybrid tapered) seems to be one of those "duh" moments.......as in, "why do we think a design that changes how the 1911 feeds will increase reliability as opposed to one that feeds the gun as the designer intended it to be fed?"

Why indeed.

GI magazines can be fairly early or "too late" releasing, and may vary considerably if QC is not what it should be. Ideally the round should release when the rim gets only very slightly past the dimple. Release when touching the front side of the dimple is just fine. I've seen poorly manufactured GI's that release way too late, with the rim between 1/8 and 5/32" past the dimple. These would work with ball, barely, but with nothing else.

The Checkmate GI's are just right in release timing and are a bit more versatile than some older, later releasing GI magazines. I had an indirect role in that, I'm somewhat pleased to say.

The GI's of this type can be considered "fully controlled feed." The straight lip early and later releasing types can be considered either "crookeder less controlled feed" or "straighter less controlled feed."

An example of the first type is a McCormick. An example of the second would be a Tripp.

[Ronbo256]

I know the biggest problem I have is that I really need that extra round for the IDPA game I play, and things have really gotten educational since I built the .40 smith 1911! I no longer have feeding problems in the .45 1911, I've found plenty of bullet profiles that will feed 100 out of 100 times.

I should probably give the Checkmate .40 cal mag a try, I didn't even know they made them in .40 smith.

[MtGun44]

The gun was designed by Browning to feed 230 RN at whatever is std length, around 1.275,
I think, with his straight tapered lip design as a controlled round feed gun. With this setup,
it is superbly reliable.

As soon as we started changing the ammo to super short boolits of the totally wrong shape,
in the 1950s(I think), gunsmiths of the day then re-engineered the magazines for those rounds.

As 35 Rem says "These should have never become the standard" - Let that SINK IN A BIT.

The standard 2011 mag for the 1911 is NOT a John Browning design and is NOT a universal
design. In fact, it is NOT optimized at all for what is most commonly loaded today by shooters
in competition (long SWCs like H&G 68) and it is NOT optimum by a long shot for modern
nearly full length JHPs used in CCW applications.

We have "forgotten the code" in a way and are running mags that offer in increased chance
to jam, and degrade the original design.

For long SWCs and long JHPs, we will all probably find better results with GI lips - with the
ONE SERIOUS ISSUE - the original CORRECT design of magazines is almost extinct! This is
a real problem.

I'd love to see Metalform marry proper GI feed lips with their excellent (world beater IMO)
folded metal 3D follower. It is 100% for lock back and cannot flop out of position. Since the
3D Metalform followers must be installed from the bottom, and GI mags have non-removable
floor plates, that will have to wait. Here is the follower - the bottom one, of course.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=161&pictureid=4586

I wonder if I can reform the lips on a Metalform early release to GI shape?

How about a group buy from Metalform - a custom run of GI feed lip mags with their excellent
follower and removable floor plates? A GI-lipped Metalform 45-747? I wonder how many
we'd have to order to get them to build a batch?

Bill

[Ronbo256]

I was looking for magazines a few weeks back, Metalform makes removable base magazines already, but I'll bet those mags don't have GI feed lips. I've been tempted to order a few from CDNN to see, they always seem to have metalform mags for 1911's on sale. And yes, you can reform the Lips, Brownell's sells a tool just for that, but I'll bet that would be pretty hit or miss till you got your technique right, and of course the magazine would have to have enough metal in the right spots to do that, most of the SWC early release mags won't have enough metal in the right place to make GI feed lips. I would not mind carrying 7 with my GI mag since it's a proven working design, but for game playing I really need those 3 extra rounds (3 mag limit in IDPA) Hopefully I'll get to go shoot my .40 today and see if I have my last little problem ironed out and I can get back to finishing the outside of the pistol!

[MtGun44]

Yes, the make removable base mags, but not with the GI lips, for certain. You are right,
there might not be metal where you need it after reforming. I thought the Brownells blocks
were to reform GI to early release - but I only casually looked at them many years ago and
may be way off on that.

Bill

[35remington]

MtGun nailed it......the trouble with the Brownell's tool is it is designed to convert tapered lip GI magazines to straight lip, early release type, which should be a crime!

You cannot convert from straight lip to tapered lip. Too much memory going the other way around, and the "fold" would still be present.

It is possible to "gently" reform tapered lip magazines to earlier release points without the damaging, unnecessary use of the Brownell's tool. The magazine lips will still retain the very desirable taper. The ones I've had done intentionally release at essentially the same point as the hybrid magazines, but with the slight drag present when the abrupt release point is missing. I guess you'd call them "slightly earlier release than standard GI fully controlled feed."

You cannot tell, visually, that they've been modified. A mark on the baseplate takes care of that.

Games dictate whatever magazine design you wish. Serious use should follow the designer's dictates in magazine design.

[ColColt]

Up until recently I didn't figure there were much difference between Wilson, Tripp, McCormick, etc. I knew there were some sorry magazines out there for $8.95 but I'd never buy those anyway. I've always tried to stick with known, brand name mags. I still have a couple Pachmyar and Shooting Star mags from the 70's I've consigned to my "old 1911 stuff" box.

This has been interesting and educational. So, from what I've gleaned, in order for this particular pistol to feed 230 gr GDHP's successfully, reliably, either a full 7-rnd GI mag like the Check-mate or a hybrid they sell would be the ticket? I didn't really have problems feeding the swc's with either the Wilson or the Tripp mags but, since I bought this pistol for possible carry and the GD's are my choice, I need a magazine(s) I can depend on.

Since the Check-mates have a base plate that's not removable(welded) and the follower seems metal, is it a pain to disassemble for cleaning purposes? I haven't seem mags like that in years but at one time had several.

Bill's statement, "The gun was designed by Browning to feed 230 RN at whatever is std length, around 1.275, I think, with his straight tapered lip design as a controlled round feed gun. With this setup,
it is superbly reliable. " got me curious as to why they ever changed things or at least, why they stopped making this style magazine.

[Ronbo256]

The reason they got away from the original feed lip design was 1) short OAL SWC rounds in bullseye competition and 2) to get that extra round in that same length tube and feed. I use the wilson 47 in IDPA and they work great but I agree they take away from the original controlled feed design of JMB. If it wasn't for that game all I would use is in .45 is GI style 7 round magazines like the checkmate. This has been a very good discussion, thanks for sharing your expertise 35Remington, MtGun44 and ColColt, plus anyone else who has chimed in on this thread.

[ColColt]

I did a little measuring with several rounds I have and discovered my reloads using the HG #68 were 1.245" whereas the Gold Dots measure, as the Ranger T 230 gr-1.205". So, my SWC's are actually longer than the factory hollow points. That seems to tell me they should feed at least as good as the SWC's but, last Friday they didn't. Now I'm confused. I thought the "short" SWC would do well with the Wilson quick release type mags, which they do but, the GDHP's, being shorter didn't. What have I missed here? I had some old Black Talons handy in 230 gr and they checked out at 1.210". Factory FMJ, according to my calibers are 1.245"...same as my SWC's.

[MtGun44]

different contact point with the feed ramp and different material at the contact point. Lead
alloy is used to line all the bearings in the engine of your car for a reason. Very low friction
coefficient against steel. Not so much for gilding metal, esp a sharp edge with HP, versus
the rounded end of a FMJ.

With my Commander, Hornady FMJ-TCs fed like **** through a goose, and I switched to them
for a while until I figured out the magazine issue and went back to Gold Dot 230s.

Pull out the firing pin and cycle some rounds through the gun as slowly as you can move the
slide. It is educational to see what hits the ramp, when and where, and what is sitting where
on the breech (and relative to the extractor) at the release point of the round with different
mags.

I tend to agree tha 8 rd mags are for games (and I have played IPSC for 3 decades) and 7 rd
GI mags are for real life social situations.

Bill

[35remington]

In recommending any particular type of magazine, it's important to note that I'm not offering a guarantee........simply a greater chance of reliable function across the board in the average gun.

It's not unheard of for a 1911 to jam, repeatedly, with the exact magazines originally intended for use, as something else could be an issue, like extractor tension or frame ramp angle.

I've got tapered lip hybrids that were cheap copies with weak springs and flimsy magazine tubes, and they're jammo-matics, every one.

Tapered lip magazine reliability is enhanced when the bullet, at least to some degree, mimics the ball shape for at least some length of ogive (the HG 68 mimics the ogive of ball, FWIW). This is catering to the gun's preferences in frame ramp angle and overall length of cartridge. Too short is bad, and the release must be so early that there's little benefit from the taper in the feed lips as the cartridge does not have much chance to go forward before the magazine lets it go.

The GI magazine was no longer pursued for a couple of reasons. First, the release point is too late for the very short rounds, and the cartridge will jam at an angle between the breechface and chamber.....in other words, pretty much a three point. Bullseye shooters wanted to shoot rounds like the HG 130, Lyman 452488 and even shorter "button nose" SWC's of approximately 185 grain weight. An earlier release was mandatory.

The "pivot" of the cartridge was critical. A rounded ogive allows the round to straighten and pivot against the roof of the chamber before it's let go. A broad, flat meplat in a short overall length causes the round to wedge. Not good. So the only solution was to "throw" the round at the extractor before the round started to go straight up.......the breakover has to be properly timed before the feed gets too steep.

Further, a short OAL cartridge strikes the frame ramp lower, and a low frame ramp strike means a consequently steeper feeding angle. Releasing the round at the right time a considerable distance away from the extractor is like shooting free throws from halfcourt instead of the foul line. Less likely to get there, to some degree.

A GI magazine won't do that. It only lets the cartridge go when the rim is much closer to the extractor (actually partially under it) which means it's much more likely to get there. And a 1911 won't feed unless the rim goes under the extractor. Increasing the odds of that occurrence is a reliability aid, pure and simple. Rim proximity to the extractor before release is all important.

Ever notice that frame ramps have become deeper? The short OAL rounds are the reason......lower frame ramp strikes, to the point where the excessive nosediving jams the gun, and the cartridge was striking below the formerly shallow ramps. Longer OAL rounds don't need deep frame ramps because they don't dive so much before glancing upward.

GI magazines had and have a singleness of purpose. They are designed to feed a ball round of approximately 1.265" with little deviation in shape or overall length, and believe me, good GI magazines with ball run and run and run. Few weaknesses.

The taper allows the rear of the round to go up as it goes forward, straightening the angle of feed and reducing stem binding from reducing the angle the cartridge approaches the chamber. GI (and tapered Colt type hybrid) magazines feed even "straighter" than other magazines touted as having "straighter feeding" due to this lip taper. GI magazines are full controlled feed, in the sense that they don't let the round "fly" through space like the other designs do. The round does not get "handed off" until something else has taken control of it.

I've shown this picture before, and in this case the hybrid lips are shown, but they have a taper as well, and it makes the point. Both rounds are shown just barely before their release points in each magazine:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y228/johnnyrem/Feedlips.jpg

Which one feeds straighter; less of an angle? One guess only, and it ain't a hard one to make.

Hybrid lips are simply GI's with a controlled release point. GI magazines can be modified to quicken or slow release timing; the hybrid was simply a way to make it exactly repeatable, and time the release to have a wider range of applicability for varied OAL.

However, Checkmate's GI's are more versatile than most, in that release timing is not extremely late like some old GI magazines exhibit. I've got some experience with them in my own guns over a number of years now, and in my pistols they'll feed rounds down to 1.200" as long as the ogive is rounded, but will occasionally have trouble with the RCBS 230 Cowboy loaded to the 1.200-1.210 and its broad meplat, which will cause issues about once every 500 rounds or so. That's not surprising, and the hybrids are really better for these. GI's run with ball, longnose HG 68, and the longer true rounded ogive hollowpoints, which are essentially ball.

Instead of making the gun conform to the ammo, manufacturers are making the ammo conform to the gun. Here they're meeting the 1911 at least halfway, and this allows the user to make better use of the gun's potential reliability by using magazines that incorporate the original design features. Isn't feeding the gun the way the designer meant it to be fed the sort of thing that strikes everyone as obvious? It does now, when we've finally begun to question how things are done. This has been long overdue.

A final reliability aid is the original small radius stop JMB had in the 1911 for the 6 thousand rounds without a jam trials. These reduce slide/frame impact and the inertial "jerking" of the gun from under the last round in the magazine, which causes that last round to misfeed or simply fly out of the gun.

A magazine with strong springs, a dimple as a speedbump to avoid inertial issues and to hold the round in place, and a small radius stop are the "belt, suspenders and duct tape" approach to 1911 reliability. Multiple redundancies to assure that every eventuality is covered in case one is not optimum. Backup is good; double backup is better.

[MtGun44]

"Small radius stop JMB had in the 1911..." Sorry - you lost me on that one.

Bill

[Ronbo256]

I use the small radius FPS in my .45 1911, that and some fitting makes for a "straighter" muzzle flip. If you remove the FPS from a current 1911 you will notice a large rounded area at the bottom. I use a EGW oversized FPS and just barely break the back lower edge, and angle grind it so that it makes contact more evenly with the hammer face. I'll try to post some pictures tomorrow so you can see what I mean.

[ColColt]

Bill-I took your advise about the Checkmate GI mags and ordered one of those and one of their hybrid's as well. Unfortunately today they called me at work and told me the 7-rd GI mag wouldn't be available for eight weeks!! I told them to just ship the Hybrid and I'd wait for the GI...a bit disappointed in that. Maybe I can find them elsewhere.

35remington-Excellent and most informative read. I've read it a couple times. I never realized pistol magazines could be such a science. So many things we take for granted.

A little update-I did find the Checkmates at Top Gun Supply...ordered two.

[35remington]

ColColt, I've been of the opinion that the Checkmates are best with the XP spring. This is the same as the Wolff 11 lb. and may be ordered from Checkmate (you must ask for it; not on website) for 2.40 extra per magazine.

The spring is added reliability insurance against double feeding and inertial issues. If you had to order Wolffs separately the price goes up to almost 7 dollars per spring. Included with the Checkmates as the XP is the way to go. The other private vendors do not offer it. Only direct from Checkmate AFAIK.

MtGun, Ronbo explained it pretty well. If he posts pictures all will be clear. The small radius stop reduces the slide's leverage on the hammer by making the firing pin stop contact it closer to the hammer's pivot point in the frame. It's like opening a door by pressing near the hinge rather than the doorknob. It takes more effort due to the shorter leverage arm.

This reduced leverage robs more of the slide's velocity initially, making the slide hit the frame with less force. This reduced impact reduces the jarring of slide/frame impact and the chance of inertial misfeeding from the gun jerking from underneath the last round in the magazine.

The army went to the current large radius stop because some of the recruits thought thought the small radius stop made the gun too hard to cock by working the slide. My opinion? The recruits were wimps. It does make the gun slightly harder to cock, but that's the whole point. It's not that difficult unless you're 98 lbs.

It is a reliability enhancement incorporated in all original 1911's until the A1 modification of 1924, and most users report a reduction in muzzle flip and shot recovery as well, which is logical. Most muzzle flip is from the slide striking the frame, and frame/slide impact is in fact reduced. Going to the current 7/32nd radius stop reduced the 1911's reliability. The army retrofitted the earlier 1911's with the 7/32nd radius stop so it is unusual to find an army 1911 that still has one. JMB thought the 1911 needed the small radius stop, and he was right.

It is much smarter to go to a small radius stop with standard or heavier loads, and it achieves a reduction in frame impact that would be otherwise only attainable with a heavier recoil spring. Without the forward battering and misfeeding issues that occur with a heavy recoil spring.

Heavy recoil springs in a 1911 are of course not a good idea. A small radius stop is a better substitute. Google EGW and look up their oversized firing pin stop as Ronbo suggests. It is not difficult to fit this yourself, as even I can do it. Just slightly break the square corner at the bottom and you'll now have a 1911 fitted as JMB intended.

In other words, a now more reliable 1911.

[35remington]

Oh, and one more thing. A tightly fitted firing pin stop also eliminates extractor clocking and (one more time!) makes the gun more reliable.

A double win win: less slide/frame impact and no extractor clocking make a better 1911.

[Ronbo256]

Pictures as promised.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8269/fps3k.jpg
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8510/fps2.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3917/fps1q.jpg

You can see the small radius at the bottom of the FPS and the angle I ground the backside of the FPS at to make it square with the hammer face. 35 Remington has the explanation correct.

Looks like it's time to clean the pistol!

[btroj]

I got one for my Gold Cup. It was pretty easy. I removed a bit too much metal on the sides so it is a little loose but I barely broke the bottom edge.
Recoil has a different feel, brass doesn't go quite as far either.

35 Remington hasn't lead me astray on my 1911 learning yet.

[35remington]

Ronbo did a nice job.

He's also been shooting the pistol a lot lately. From the residue it almost looks like the powder they use in some of the generic factory ammo.

Compare the bottom of his stop to the regular radius. Big difference. Squaring the face of the stop (or slanting it in some cases) ensures the contact is down low on the hammer where the leverage is least. Not all pistols need this squaring but some do.

Some measurements from my last fitting:

Original stop from Colt Series 70 reproduction in stainless

Width 0.4771
Thickness Right tab 0.09895
Thickness Left tab 0.0989
Thickness at firing pin hole 0.1349

Original stop from my father's 1944 Colt 1911A1

Width 0.4662
Right tab 0.0973
Left tab 0.0961
Thickness at firing pin hole 0.1346

New Oversized EGW Stop:
Width 0.4825
Right tab 0.0997 to 0.1007 (slight taper)
Left tab 0.0997 to 0.1002
Thickness at firing pin hole 0.1312 (thinner than both original stops)

Neither tab needed to be thinned to fit on both these replacement EGW's. Width only was adjusted.

Take off the same amount when doing each side. Some notes need to be taken after each adjustment so this is evenly done and the firing pin hole remains centered. I used a medium Arkansas stone to take only a few ten thousandths on each side per trial. Try to fit after each side is taken down evenly; repeat after each removal of metal.

Measure twice, cut once. My fingers were sore after this very slow removal of metal, but the stops are tight, and there's nowhere for the extractor to go.

For example, the final width of the stop that I fitted to the Series 70 Reproduction was pretty much 0.4800." Compare to the 0.4771" of the original stop. I removed just a hair less than three thousandths of an inch to closely fit the stop, and that's about the thickness of my note pad paper I used to record the measurements.

Not a lot of material needed to be removed, but with the Arkansas stones material removal was slow enough that it took me about 30 minutes to fit each stop. I thought the time spent was worth it.

[Ronbo256]

Thank you 35 Remington. Your pretty close on the powder residue, I shoot 4.1 grains of Clays International behind the Lee TL 230 RN boolit. I used a sine plate and a surface grinder to get the angle, 2.5 degrees, and I filed carefully on both sides evenly to fit the FPS and keep it evenly centered. George at EGW makes quality parts, nothing is cast or forged it all comes from barstock.

[ColColt]

ColColt, I've been of the opinion that the Checkmates are best with the XP spring. This is the same as the Wolff 11 lb. and may be ordered from Checkmate (you must ask for it; not on website) for 2.40 extra per magazine.

The spring is added reliability insurance against double feeding and inertial issues. If you had to order Wolffs separately the price goes up to almost 7 dollars per spring. Included with the Checkmates as the XP is the way to go. The other private vendors do not offer it. Only direct from Checkmate AFAIK.



Is that the spring they call "CMI Hi-Performance 7rd Spring" ? I received an email from Top Gun Supply that my two 7-rnd mags are on the way. Check-Mate were out of them.

[35remington]

No.

The XP (extra power) spring must be specifically requested from Checkmate.

If you aren't paying extra for it, that's the clue. $2.40, as mentioned.

[ColColt]

Check-Mate was out of those mags so, I had to order elsewhere It will be 8 weeks before they get another batch, I was told. Meanwhile, if I got the springs from Wolff, what brand...ACT or maybe Colt? They don't indicate Check-Mate or specify the pounds.

[btroj]

I bought a pack of 10 extra power springs straight from Wolff.

[ColColt]

I bought a pack of 10 extra power springs straight from Wolff.

For what magazine? Wolff doesn't specify Check-mate.

[btroj]

I have the Checkmate 7 round magazines so I bought the Wolff springs for 7 round magazines. Work like a charm.
Mine are Wolff part number 71374. For use in 1911 Gold Cup, commander, and Officers model pistols. 45 cal only.
I have Checkmate 7 round magazines with the welded floor plate and hybrid feed lips. They have the dimpled follower. Took very little time to change the springs once I figured out what I was doing.

[canyon-ghost]

Just curious if the slide could be dry or dirty and cause that by slowing down on the return. Is that possible? Just a thought.

[ColColt]

btroj-Thanks, I placed an order tonight. The Check-mate's that came with my SW1911SC have pretty strong springs in them already. I wasn't sure what mags they were but now I know. I remember the first time I shot this pistol(last Friday) I didn't even take the Check-mates as I thought they were something else and took my Wilson's instead. I had a nose up jam with 230 gr GDHP's but, next time the Check-mates will be going with me.

canyon-ghost-Nope, the gun was only fired about 30 times before I got to the Gold dots. The SWC's didn't give any problem just the GDHP ammo but I blame that on early feed Wilson mags which are set up for SWC's. They as much as told me that the other day when I asked. Per the Wilson rep...

"...SWC's are the easiest feeding rounds there are unless they are jacketed, they will not feed at all. Ball is next easiest then hollow points are the least easiest to feed."

[35remington]

Depends upon which SWC's.

There are essentially two; shortnose and longnose. The longnose type is the HG 68 pattern, and there are pretty much no others.

The shortnose type are the various target SWC's like the Lyman 452488, HG 130, the various jacketed 185's, etc.

The longnose type are the easy feeders. The shortnose type, less so. That's not to say they cannot be fed reliably, just that it's less common to do so.

The shortest SWC's won't feed through the hybrid magazines either, IME.

You're also getting the "Wilson perspective." When they talk about "easy feeding" they are referring to their own magazines.

Easiest feeding in the 1911, more so than what Wilson states, is ball through GI magazines. Exactly the magazines the 1911 was designed to use, using exactly the ammo it was designed to shoot.

[btroj]

Amazing that the ammo and magazines the gun was designed for works best.

I have never used a Wilson magazine, too expensive for my tastes. I don't shoot any games that requires higher capacity than 7 rounds. Heck, when I shoot at the range I usually only load 5.

[35remington]

"Amazing that the ammo and magazines the gun was designed for works best."

Yeah, absolutely incredible and unbelievable isn't it?

Sorta like saying rain's wet. As in, "duh?"

[btroj]

Yep.

Even more amazing is that we complain when it won't feed ammo way different than what it was designed for. The fact a 1911 feeds all those different bullets at all is amazing.

[ColColt]

The 200 gr SWC's I use are the HG #68 variety from a group buy on the forum some while back. I never realized how beautiful a brass mold was or how well it cast until I got this one.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF4190a.jpg

[btroj]

That's an awesome mold. Mine is such a great casting mold I can't beleive it. If only brass were a bit lighter.

[ColColt]

That's an awesome mold. Mine is such a great casting mold I can't beleive it. If only brass were a bit lighter.

Yep, it is...courtesy of Miha the Great. After knocking out about 300 I'm ready to quit. It is rather heavy and the long handles don't make it any better but, no pain....

[btroj]

Yes, those long handles make it worse. I can do 2 pots from my RCBS then I am done. I have learned to let the mould rest on something whenever possible. My left wrist gets tired more than anything else. That sucker is heavy!
Good thing is that I can get about 800 to 1000 good bullets from 2 pots full. Tha means I only need to do this a few times per years!

[ColColt]

I got two CM GI mags in the mail and upon looking at the follower, I wondered it the unskirted follower would somehow gauge the feed ramp of an aluminum alloy frame like the Colt LW or the SW1911SC. Any problems in this area?

[35remington]

Generally no. Mostly because it has a full rear skirt, and does not tip forward on the last shot like the Devel in the McCormick. Three spring coils stabilize the rear skirt when empty and prevent it from moving forward on slide/frame impact with the last shot.

Some have fears of any follower that does not have a front skirt, but that's McCormickitus. The Devel follower and the lack of a full rear skirt is the problem in those guns that suffer frame ramp dings, not the lack of a front skirt.

Try pulling this follower forward. Now try the Devel in the Power Mag. Now you know why frame ramp dings occur with the McCormick.

Remind yourself the seven shot magazine and the Lightweight Commander went together long before there was a McCormick with no complaints. It was after the McCormick came around that frame ramp dinging started. Stay away from the Shooting Star and the Power Mag with aluminum frames. Only the "new and improved" Power Mag Plus is supposedly safe with aluminum frames due to a tab added at the front of the follower.

[btroj]

So we fixed a problem we had created by straying from the original design. Imagine that.

[ColColt]

I anxiously await next Friday when I can try out the "new" GI mags from CM. I'm going to run SWC's, Ball and GDHP ammo though it and see how things go. I can't help but wonder had the SWC fad hadn't happened if we'd still be using the GI mag since there would have been no need for "parallel lips" and quick releases.

I've gained a lot of insight into this and want to thank everyone for this revelation. As the old axiom says, you never get too old to learn applied to me in spades.

[MtGun44]

Not the "SWC fad", the "short nosed SWC fad". The H&G 68s will feed through GI mags
perfectly in my 1911s (a not inconsiderable sample).

If you are not familiar with the designs, look up and compare H&G 130s and H&G 68s - apples
and turnips, as far as feeding.

Bill

[35remington]

It was the bullets that drove the changes in magazine design, rather than the other way around. Finally, nearly forty years later, we are realizing what was lost.

Col, beware of too short OAL's and nonrounded ogives when working with the GI's. Rather than stating they work with everything, like some makers seem wont to do with their nonstandard designs, I will say that controlled feed of this type needs a certain conformity to what was intended for it to work out.

The hybrids seem a little more forgiving of the shorter OAL's, but lengths well under 1.200" are problematic in the 1911. I've got some that eat up 1.175" 452488's like they are candy using the hybrid magazines, but I'm talking about tendencies rather than absolutes.

In other words, meet the 1911 halfway with proper bullet selection. And recognize when it's a magazine problem versus an ammo selection problem.

The HG 68 works just fine through GI magazines for me as well. A good example of a well thought out bullet for reliability in the 1911. The short SWC's are less so.

[ColColt]

I guess the shortest boolit I ever shot in a 1911 was the old Flying Ashtray Speer came out with in the early 90's. In my 4506 it fed that round like a standard 1911 feeds hardball...always did and never failed. I think the OAL was 1.205".

Now, I mostly shoot the H&G 68, hardball reloads with the Hornady 230 FMJ, Ranger T 230 gr and lately, the Speer 230 gr GDHP. THAT one has given problems that I blame on the Wilson magazine and intend on trying it again with the Tripp and my recently acquired two GI mags from CM.

By the way, speaking of CM, I had written them yesterday about the XP springs and asked how I might acquire some since I didn't know about them until mentioned here. i told them I had ordered two mags from Top Gun Supply and one from them but was unfamiliar with the springs at that point. A lady named Catherine wrote me back and said she'd send me some. I wrote and thanked her and asked for the price plus shipping and she told me she'd send them for free!! You can't beat that sort of PR today. Kudos to Check-Mate!

[Char-Gar]

I had a brief flirtation with 8 round mags, some years back. Who doesn't want an extra round, right? AFter a short time, I went back to good 7 rounds mags, and all the feeding issues went away. Just saying....

I have had excellent results with 7 rn MetalForm mags with the rounded follower.

[ColColt]

Someone tell me why an 8 round mag isn't just as reliable as a 7 round one. I still haven't gotten that one figured out. I know that's what JB originally designed the 1911 for but there's been a lot of decades since then that 8 rnd mags have been made. A slight change in spring strength should be all that's required to make it the same as a 7 rnd. Why all the glory to the 7 round mag?

[35remington]

"A slight change in spring strength should be all that's required to make it the same as a 7 rnd."

Except that's unlikely to happen in most instances when speaking of flush fit magazines. There really isn't anything about making springs that has changed in the interim since the gun has been designed, and a shorter, thinner spring is a weaker spring. We don't make springs any differently now than we did then, and springmaking was a very mature technology in 1911.

What has to go to fit in the eighth round? Part of the spring. Some of the coils have to go away to make room for the extra shot. The follower skirt also has to be shortened so it can get closer to the bottom of the magazine. Either by itself isn't good, but now you've got both drawbacks, just because you "must have" the extra shot in a flush fit design.

Now you're trying to make less spring work as well as it did formerly and this requires the weaker spring to expand in more space, and you've got an additional round for it to push up to the feed lips. The shorter weaker spring now has to push the round further up the tube with less force. The shorter, weaker, distance challenged spring slows the rise of the last round in feeding and has reduced inertial hold on the last round. It often isn't up to the job. The chance the slide outruns the magazine or the round is ejected from the gun instead of fed increase, as does the chance of double feeding. The short rear skirt follower that is needed to fit in the eighth round is also more prone to nosediving and low frame ramp strikes, as well as damaging aluminum frames.

This is an improvement?

If the original designer thought he could have fit the eighth round in a flush fit design without drawback(s), he would have done it. The fact that someone came along and did so sixty years later does not mean we have a good idea simply because more than half a century has passed.

If some magazine peddler tries to claim you can "have it all" without any downside, he's selling you something that you may not want. That, or he would have you believe that he knows more about the pistol than the original designer, which is laughable.

If you want the extra round with no loss of spring strength and a follower than is not a drawback, look at the extended tube designs that project below the magazine well when seated. Yes, you lose some of the compactness with the magazine extension, but at least the magazine is less likely to jam.

Take the spring out of a seven shot magazine and look at it. Now compare it side by side to an eight shot flush fit magazine spring. Also look at the followers.

Nothing more needs be said.

[ColColt]

I'll check those springs out tomorrow. I never looked at it from this perspective or thought of it that way. Quite an explanation and thanks for taking the time to do this. I never have loaded any magazine to it's full potential. If it was an 8 round mag, I would load seven. It just seemed trying to get that 8th round was like trying to put a 10 pound bag in an 8 pound bag and had to have really compressed those springs.

My 4506 I keep under the pillow will hold eight but I only put seven in it. I rotate the seven magazines I have for it every three months. Oddly enough, this pistol doesn't care about the ammo it's fed and the magazines have always been reliable. I suppose when it comes to the 1911 all bets are off and the 1911 is more finicky with magazine, spring and follower choice. I haven't quite figured that out yet.

[Heavy lead]

This thread made me do something about my mags. I spent Sunday morning firing all 4 of my 1911's. After I sorted the 3 GI type blued mags out, that never given any trouble, two blued ones of 8 round variety, three 8 round stainless, and one fancy 8 round stainless of unknown manufacture, with a base pad.
The 8 round mags all were gutted and new Tripp 7 round mag springs (very heavy springs BTW) with the Tripp hybrid follower with the small bump toward the back of the follower.
They all fed in all 4 guns without a hitch, with factory 230 grain Remingtons, handloads with the Hornady XTP's and the Lyman 452460, with the exception of the mag with the base pad.
Very happy with the 8 mags that are go to now, the other will be trashed, not worth the trouble, I will continue to test these out. I fired about 300 rounds Sunday and will be taking at least one 1911 to the range and shooting it with all eight mags every weekend.
The 7 round with the bump on the follower sure seems to work well, I'm no 1911 expert, so advice here has been helpful. It does all make sense if you cycle the gun with dummy's, that's what I did before ordering from Tripp's.

[35remington]

Loading one less in an eight shot magazine won't help on the last shot and won't address the spring or follower isssue in a 1911. The magazine spring is still short, and the magazine doesn't know one less round is loaded. The magazine spring is undersprung, period. The spring will take a set very quickly, and the underloading won't help.

Magazine tension from the spring on the last shot is still low, whether six shots preceded it or seven.

Underloading an eight shot by one cartridge won't turn it into a seven shot, reliability wise.

The bump on the Tripp follower is considered to be in the wrong place. It would have been better closer to the middle so it had more room to work. The Tripp does have good springs.

When you take a gun's magazines that were fine at seven shots and try to cheat another round in there, all kinds of problems occur. This describes the 1911 in a lot of instances. If newer design automatics have magazines that allow more spring length in a flush fit (means a longer grip) then they may get away with more shots, but compare the magazine length to a 1911's of the same capacity and see for yourself. Not all are this way.

[btroj]

How often do we really need that extra round? For other than some of the shooting sports are they necessary? Don't tell me for home defense, the military was fine with 7 rounds and we are not going to have a war in our homes. I hope.
7 rounds is plenty for me.

[MtGun44]

Worse than the spring coils issue is the 'short tailed collapsing follower' design. The original
Devel 8 rd mags used a follower that literally collapsed and helped come up with room for
an extra round. Combine this with a necessary very short alignment tail on the back of the
follower and you have somewhat iffy function. The followers on many are not very well
controlled and can move out of position much more easily than a normal follower.
Some of the current crop of 8 rd mags are slightly to moderately longer than 7 rd mags and
even a tiny length increase helps a lot in giving room for a more normal follower and less
radically cramped spring.

That said, I have a number of 8 rd mags that are at least 99.99% reliable, plenty good
enough for competition. However, I gave up on them for CCW, it just isn't worth the
tiny risk.

Bill

[scrapcan]

Once again lots of great info in this thread on 1911 magazines. 35Remington has offered lots great info to me and to our forum. I also think MtGun44 has contributed to the several threads on this topic.

I personally want to thank both for again sharing great info.

[ColColt]

Once again lots of great info in this thread on 1911 magazines. 35Remington has offered lots great info to me and to our forum. I also think MtGun44 has contributed to the several threads on this topic.

I personally want to thank both for again sharing great info.

A hearty amen to that. I took apart two CM mags-one a 7 and the other an 8 rounder. The 7 round mag has 12 coils tightly wound together whereby the 8 round mag has 9 with the coils spaced further apart. They were close to the same overall length but three more shorter spaced coils for the 7 round mag. I think this is what 35remington was talking about. Putting seven rounds in that 7 round mag sure is tight, though. For that matter, so is getting eight in the 8 round mag. This is why I always used 7 rounds in an 8 round mag plus you're taking a lot of stress of the springs by not loading the mag fully.

[35remington]

Underloading the magazine by one round won't save the spring from taking a set eventually, nor does it turn an eight round mag into a seven round. The spring is still substantially less powerful than a seven round spring in a seven round magazine when it must feed that last round, which is where all the jamming occurs.

The seven round magazine, with proper springs (most especially Wolff 11 lb. type) has enough reserve compressibility left that loading it to a full seven rounds will do it no harm.

It was designed this way so the passage of time would not affect reliability. All those stories about magazines that worked perfectly after being loaded for 40 years are about seven round magazines, as they were the only kind available 40 years ago.

Have at it. Let the seven round spring take a set by loading it fully and leaving it that way for awhile. Leave it loaded frequently. The set it will take is part of its operating window and is expected. The set an eight round flush fit spring takes often makes an already too weak spring worse, and the hell of it is that you cannot predict exactly when the strength will go from "poor" to "poorer." Just figure that it will go to "poorer" when you really don't need it to.

And look into the small radius stop. More insurance against misfeeding is good.

[MtGun44]

You all are very welcome. I am happy to share what I have learned over the years fiddling
with 1911s a LOT since about 1980. Lots of different issues and I have assisted a lot of
new IPSC shooters get their loads and mags working properly. I have tried a few of almost
every kind of mag out there and have slowly learned what works, and to some extent I think
I often understand why - but I am still learning.
35 rem has added a good chunk to my knowledge of magazines, also.

Also, you will NEVER go wrong trying to use a John Browning design the way he intended it
to work, plus thinking through exactly what he had in mind. Most of the time when someone
"improves" a JB design, it is questionable whether it is a real improvement.

Bill

[ColColt]

Looking at all this makes me wonder if I dint blast my old SA 45 from years ago. I bought it in 1982 best I recall and had some work don't one it like having the ejection port lowered and flared, throat opened and polished, new beaver tail safety, etc. All those good things you do with a standard GI 45.

I couldn't get it to ever shoot 100 rounds reliable with SWC's. There would always be a couple out of 100 that would fail to feed. I even sent it to Les Baer before he got as famous as today and it still wouldn't shoot reliably. I gave up and sold it. In retrospect, I wonder now if my problem wasn't n the magazines I used. I had been told by an IPSC shooter to be sure to crimp the cases to about .468 and use Shooting Star magazines. I bought four of those along with a couple of Pachmayr's. That's what I used back then and wonder if I didn't prematurely blaspheme Springfield Armory and their 45's.

Tomorrow I'm taking the SW1911SC out for another run at the range. I'm taking a CM 7-round GI mag, one of their 8-round mags, a Tripp Cobra mag and a Wilson ETM. We'll see what develops. I have about 50 230 gr FMJ loaded with 8.2 gr of HS-6, another 50 of the 200gr #68 SWC's with 6 gr of Universal, and a box of Speer's 230 gr GDHP's. Should be interesting. I had wanted to swap the springs in the CM mags for the 11 pound Wolff springs but they haven't gotten here yet. I also ordered some of the XP mag springs from CM but they haven't either so, I'll have to use what's in the mags for now.

[35remington]

Shooting Stars?

Oh, my.

Utterly, positively the worst thing for shooting standard power loads were the Shooting Stars I had. It may be they are the same now as they were then, as I haven't bought any since the 90's and would not again if nothing has or had been changed. That's why I cannot and will not recommend them for anything.

Shooting Stars have the wimpiest magazine springs possible in them......much worse than Power Mag springs, and the same crappy follower as in the Power Mag. The spring is so weak, and may be still, that last round misfeeds would occur on the second to last or last shot on every other magazine with loads that were anything above the wimpiest velocity levels in my guns.

These should have been magazines advertised for "puff" loads only (funny how those selling them never said a whisper about this) and for an IPSC shooter to recommend these in any way, shape, or form borders on a crime. Especially in that era with a 175+ power factor.

One of the worst magazines available for standard 45 ACP loads. For self defense use you would be better advised to hand your assailant your gun than rely on these.

A very bad magazine. Very bad to the point of being one of the most unreliable magazines made, ever.

Take the spring out of one and take a look at it. Absolutely the most challenged spring, in terms of the very least spring possible, that can be placed in a 1911 magazine.

Good luck with your magazine testing. I hope you find some combinations that work.

[MtGun44]

I have one Shooting Star salvaged from a friend that was tossing it. A new spring and it
works OK for practice, would not trust for competition, let alone CCW. These are the decendant
of the original 8 rd mags, Devels. IME, most Devels would work pretty well with H&G 68s, but they
were thin and even with the nice rounded cut in the back, they all eventually crack. Collapsing
follow was marginal but usually worked good enough for competition, but lockback was VERY iffy.

THE best follower design for lockback is the wonderful 3D Metalform, which the plastic Wilson follower
is an OK copy, but slightly inferior in lock back.

You will find that with many guns all of the other mags will work well with the Ball and H&G 68 loads,
but the GDs may require the GI mags for smooth feeding. Do some slow, sensitive-feel hand cycling
with each combo before shooting. You will feel the difference in some of the comboes. The high speed
motion of the slide covers up marginal, binding, sloppy and inconsistent feeding in many cases.

Bill

[btroj]

S how much of the work that is "required" for a 1911 to feed properly is actually due to magazine issues? I have seen so much about needing the extractor polished and beveled in the right places, the need for a mirror finish on the feed ramp, and so on.
I wonder of much of this isn't actually done to try to correct what may actually be a magazine related issue.
I certainly not an expert on the 1911, just wondering out loud.

[MtGun44]

All modern production 1911s have proper throating to work fine with most ammo and
appropriate mags. The only guns today that need throating work are pure old original
military barrels which have a VERY narrow feed ramp, maybe .2-.25" wide with all the
rest of the rear surface of the barrel square. These will catch the SWC shoulder on the
square lower sides of the barrel. if you mimic a modern wide throat ('ramp') on one of these
barrels they will feed long nosed SWCs like H&G 68, round nosed boolits and any of
the FMJ ball (including FMJ TC types) just perfectly. Short nosed SWCs are by far the
most problematic ammo. Spending a lot of time on mirror finish on the frame feed
ramp is OK, but not usually a critical issue. Can't hurt - EXCEPT for aluminum frame
guns. DO NOT polish the frame feed ramp on an aluminum frame because it has
a VERY thin hard anodize coating which will protect it from wear, but can be polished
or filed through. Same thing for AR uppers and lowers.

Cracked mags (top rear corners), weak springs, sprung lips from too thin or too soft
materials are common issues. Most guns will do very well with a good Metalform,
Wilson, Tripp mag. I personally like Metalform mags , the 747 model very well. These
started out as the old 5 round Laka target mags, and have always had a superior
follower design. As stated previously, GI type mags with good springs will almost
always work very well with any of the long JHPs, FMJ rn and H&G 68 type of long nosed
SWCs.

Most guns will feed FMJ RN factory perfectly, and MANY will do the same with the majority
of the new design longer nosed HPs like Gold Dots, Golden Sabers, Win White Box HPs.
But trying different mags is an important thing if you have feeding issues with factory ammo.

If the feeding is your ammo, and it feeds factory well - then you need to modify your
reloading processes to make the ammo comform more correctly to what the gun needs.

LOA, taper crimp amount, boolit shape, etc. are all critical issues.

If you load H&G 68s to 1.250 LOA with a moderate TC you will be about 90-95% assured
of proper functioning. By this I mean 100% functioning in 90-95% of guns.'

One final mention - many modern barrels have VERY tight match chambers and short, tight
match throats. This is good to obtain the last smidgen of accuracy but can lead to feeding
issues in some situations with some ammo. A more 'normal' chamber and throat are a lot
smarter for a CCW gun which is not expected to shoot into 2.5" or better at 50 yds. For a
self defense gun, 3" at 25 yds is just fine. Reliability of function is more important than
the finest possible accuracy.

Bill

[ColColt]

I still have those shooting Stars but they've been put out of commission. As I mentioned, I sold that SA due to the feed problems I had and now I feel I judged it too harshly but it's too late now...long ago.

I took the SW1911SC to the range today and tried out three different magazines with several different loads mentioned earlier. I had about 100 rounds of SWC's, a 50 box of GDHP's and homemade 230 gr FMJ and some 230 gr Ranger T's

It seemed like all the magazines fed whatever I put in them whether it was the 200 gr SWC's or the GDHP's. After about 130 rounds I was nearly out so, after firing all the GD's, I had shot maybe 20 of the Ranger T ammo and had about four left. I put those in the CM GI mag and on the next to the last round it did the exact same thing the GD's had done last time and in the same position-rim low on the breech face and nose of the boolit jammed right into the edge of the barrel hood. It was so much like the last jam I didn't even take a photo of it as it was a carbon copy of the last jam.(post #1)

I was disappointed as I thought the CM GI mag would feed hardball and hollow points with equal reliability. I didn't have the Wolff 11 pound springs to put in it as they hadn't arrived as hoped before the range trip nor did the XP springs from CM. I don't know if this would have mattered or not as it seemed ironic that this jam this morning was an exact duplicate of the one last time in a Wilson 47D mag. Any ideas?

[35remington]

What's the overall length of the ammo that caused the jam with the GI's? Was this unfired ammo that had not shortened from frequent chambering and ejection? If the jam is of approximately the same positioning as before, then you've got some other avenues you need to explore. With the shorter rounded ogive hollowpoints I myself like the hybrids, but I don't know that comment is narrowing down the right issue in this regard.

Lots of things to run down.

If the cartridge is released too late, it will jam at an angle between the feed lips and the chamber while the rim is still within the magazine. Other things on the gun affect this like frame ramp angle.

Describe for me, if you would, the apparent strength of the spring in the standard 7 round Checkmate versus the Wilson. Just depress the follower and give me a "guesstimate." Same? More? Noticeably more?

If the round is still within the feed lips it's not a necessarily a spring issue but some things may have been less than evident earlier.

Is the bottom of the breechface against the rim, or the case's extractor groove? It's important to distinguish between the two to diagnose.

I also need to get an idea just how the round is glancing off the frame's feed ramp. Does the barrel, when the slide is removed, have the requisite gap between the barrel ramp and frame ramp when the barrel is fully aftward and down in the frame bed?

Are there any low contact points on the barrel's ramp? The strikes should be fairly high. If the gun is shot enough the powder residue will have "tracks" in it from where the bullet is striking the barrel ramp. The barrel ramp is a clearance, not a feedway, so any strikes on the barrel ramp should be relatively high only, not low.

The frame ramp strikes climb up the ramp as the magazine empties. The last one or two strikes as the magazine empties are the highest on the frame ramp/barrel ramp juncture and have the most potential to strike the barrel ramp directly. This isn't a good thing if they strike it low.

What weight recoil spring are you running in this pistol? Shok Buff present?

Please remind me; this is a full size pistol, is it not?

Trying to narrow down the possibilities.

[ColColt]

What's the overall length of the ammo that caused the jam with the GI's? Was this unfired ammo that had not shortened from frequent chambering and ejection? If the jam is of approximately the same positioning as before, then you've got some other avenues you need to explore. With the shorter rounded ogive hollowpoints I myself like the hybrids, but I don't know that comment is narrowing down the right issue in this regard.

The OAL is right at 1.205" for the Ranger T's that caused this jam...about the same as the Speer GDHP. This was new factory ammo that had not been chambered before...right out of the box.

Lots of things to run down.

If the cartridge is released too late, it will jam at an angle between the feed lips and the chamber while the rim is still within the magazine. Other things on the gun affect this like frame ramp angle.

Describe for me, if you would, the apparent strength of the spring in the standard 7 round Checkmate versus the Wilson. Just depress the follower and give me a "guesstimate." Same? More? Noticeably more?

The springs in the Wilson's before I replaced them and caused the first incident were somewhat weaker than the CM's. I haven't tried them since the new spring replacement as I didn't take them with me today. The GI mag I was using when the jam occured weren't all that strong. Compared to the New springs I put in the Wilson's they are weaker but the problem today was with the CM GI with standard spring.

If the round is still within the feed lips it's not a necessarily a spring issue but some things may have been less than evident earlier.

Is the bottom of the breechface against the rim, or the case's extractor groove? It's important to distinguish between the two to diagnose.

The bottom of the breech face was just barely against the top of the rim. Another few thousands and it probably would have been a "stand up jam". The case rim never made it under the extractor. The bottom photo I posted in post #1 pretty much is the way it looked today as then but I had to stage that pic after I got home as I didn't have a camera with me at the range and that's why you won't see the breech face actually making contact with the rim but, that's the exact angle it jammed at as it did today.


I also need to get an idea just how the round is glancing off the frame's feed ramp. Does the barrel, when the slide is removed, have the requisite gap between the barrel ramp and frame ramp when the barrel is fully aftward and down in the frame bed?

Yes, it looks like about 1/32".

Are there any low contact points on the barrel's ramp? The strikes should be fairly high. If the gun is shot enough the powder residue will have "tracks" in it from where the bullet is striking the barrel ramp. The barrel ramp is a clearance, not a feedway, so any strikes on the barrel ramp should be relatively high only, not low.

The frame ramp strikes climb up the ramp as the magazine empties. The last one or two strikes as the magazine empties are the highest on the frame ramp/barrel ramp juncture and have the most potential to strike the barrel ramp directly. This isn't a good thing if they strike it low.

What weight recoil spring are you running in this pistol? Shok Buff present?

I'm not sure what S&W uses for their spring-perhaps 16 or 18# but, that's just a guess since it's a Commander sized pistol. No shok buffs at all.

Please remind me; this is a full size pistol, is it not?

No, Commander size with 4.25 inch barrel

Trying to narrow down the possibilities.

You've done an admirable job at this, 35, and I can't tell you how appreciated it is. I had gotten this pistol for carry but it's not 100% yet after expending about a total of 300 rounds. The only two jams I've had have been with hollow points...Ranger T today and GDHP's last time.

[35remington]

Col, I enjoy a challenge and it irritates me when something doesn't work right. I've also experienced my share of problematic feeding, but usually it was solvable, and I don't see why we can't give this the good old college try.

We've got something to work with with this additional info. There's Commander "sized" pistols at 4 inch and 4.25 inch, with Colt sticking to the longer 4.25 inch length and a lot of other manufacturers running the 4 inch length to not be, I guess, a Colt Commander length.

I'm not that familiar with the SW variant of the shorter 1911. It really is a 4.25?

Now we've got a track record of two identical jams with two different but somewhat similar hollow points.

We can't blame it on a buff, which shouldn't be in a shorter than standard 1911 anyway.

The cartridge isn't even the slightest bit under the extractor, which means it isn't the extractor.

If the lower breechface edge is not in the extraction groove rather than the rim, and the rim is up on the breechface to a noticeable amount but not under the extractor, the slide isn't outrunning the magazine. If it is in the extraction groove or the breech barely has the rim touching the lower edge, the slide is outrunning the magazine, which can happen at random regardless of bullet used but has something to do with load power sometimes. If it's on the edge it might be an issue. The rim should be clearly on the bottom of the breechface as the slide returns forward with no ambiguity.

So this is an avenue that's important to run down. Since the shortened 1911 variants have less slide travel past the magwell before the slide returns, there's less time for the magazine to raise the cartridge before the slide starts to pick it up.

Combine a pistol with a recoil spring that's a bit too strong and a less than powerful magazine spring, and problems could occur.

Usually the shortened 1911 variants, especially Commander length, are a little to somewhat oversprung, and too much spring and a light slide makes it easy for the slide to outrun the magazine spring. The light slide accelerates more quickly than a standard weight slide, especially with a heavy spring.

A way to cure this is to reduce the recoil spring somewhat, up the magazine spring somewhat, and fiddle around with the firing pin stop to adjust the speed with which the slide it hits the frame abutment and therefore the amount it "rebounds" off the frame. A lighter frame impact combined with a less energetic spring to move the slide forward more slowly gives the magazine more time to move the round up, and a stronger magazine spring moves the round into position quicker.

That's how you'd chase this one down, anyway. The critical point is the exact position of the rim on the breechface. If it's nearly off of it, or very, very low, or in the extractor groove to some degree, then I'm barking up the right tree. If not, well, time to try something else.

The fact that the self defense HP's, even if standard pressure, are more energetic and cause a harder frame abutment strike (and quicker rebound) than regular generic ball ammo. Again, if the issue is what I think it is. Most of the self defense HP's I've tried are in the 900 fps and over category. Even the standard HP's of non Plus P are fast

The heck of it is that the self defense HP's are not cheap, and to shoot enough of these to prove out the theories may take some money.

Here I'm going to request we cheapen things up a bit. I want to know......can you load some bullets of cheaper cost, like the HG 68 copies, the various true 2 radius ogives like the Lee TL230-2R? What I'm after is to separate the feedability of the HP's from the gun issues.

What I mean is this; if the slide's outrunning the magazine, it should also happen with other types of bullets (besides these HP's) of the same weight loaded to the same velocity. So we don't have to break the bank with buck a shot rounds trying to run down the problem. We just need to duplicate their energy.

We need to see if the gun yaks in the same way with good feeding rounds of lower cost. I don't know about you, but a gun doesn't get my self defense blessing unless I've shot it quite a bit, and it's time to shoot your gun quite a bit with something dissimilar, yet as powerful, to see if the same thing happens.

Heck, shooting a 1911 isn't that great a cross to bear, and the shooting will be especially worthwhile in this case.

Are these Plus P? The Gold Dots and Rangers, I mean.

Is the pistol steel or aluminum framed?

[ColColt]

The SW1911SC is a 4.25" pistol with an alloy(Scandium, S&W calls it) frame.Below is a pic of it.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF3813a.jpg

When the jam occurred it seems from recollection as I looked at it that the upper part of the rim was at the lowest part of the breech face putting the hollow point jammed up int the edge of the barrel hood.

Unfortunately, defense ammo is pretty high...something like $30/box of 50 for the GDHP ammo. I've ran through a box and a half so far. I think you can get the boolit from Midway if I'm not mistaken and that may be the cheaper route for me and use something like 8.2 gr of HS-6 to simulate the velocity of the factory round-or close enough. That would be a lot cheaper.

I don't have a mold for the TL230-2R. The only 45 mold I have is for the #68 from Miha. Everything else is by Hornady(230 gr FMJ or their flat nose FMJ) or factory Ranger T and the GD's. I've reloaded the 230 gr FMJ and 200 gr SWC rounds with zero failures. The onl two boolits that have given problems is the factory Winchester Ranger T and Speer GDHP. Neither the Speer or Ranger T is +P. I don't use those and especially in the alloy frame pistol.

In the back of my mind I'm wondering if the extractor may have too much tension causing the cartridge to not ride up enough since the rim never makes it under the extractor hook. I've noticed several pieces of brass I retrieved that had some pretty good nicks inside the rim. Just thinking out loud. When I put a fully loaded 230 gr hardball round under the extractor to check tension, you can shake the daylights out of the slide, turn it upside down and every other way and the cartridge won't fall out. The problem with an external extractor like in the S&W, there's no way I know of that a layman can adjust it like in a Colt style extractor.

[MtGun44]

I've not had this kind of jam (which I call a roof jam, since the bullet is jammed into the roof
of the chamber) in a long time. As I understand it, the early release mags were designed to
solve this particular issue with short nosed target SWCs. I sounds like the nose is too short
to guide the bullet downward into the chamber with the rim still in the mag lips.

My Colt Commander just loves 230 GDs and GI mags, far smoother than with early release
types. I have used the handloaded GDs to validate my feeding due to the extreme cost of
the factory ammo.

I would slowly hand cycle the slide to feed the rounds and see if you can see or feel what
is happening. I tend to think that your gun is saying it needs early release mags for the
Ranger T.

Bill

[ColColt]

I've got a Commander coming in next week and will be curious if the GI mags I have for it will cause this same problem. They're all different and what works for one may or may not work in another. I've been that route many times. I'm going to order some 230 gr GD's and load 100 of them and use the quicker release mags I have and see what happened. I did use those today as well as the GI mags and had no feed problem with them until I used the CM GI mag. I felt sure they would work since they work in your commander I figured since mine was a Commander size 1911 they'd work for mine as well. That's basically why I bought them. They work fine using ball ammo with no problems at all.

I didn't shoot many of the Ranger T ammo today but enough to see that they don't like being put in GI mags. Perhaps both they and the GD's will work better with the hybrid lips moreso than with the GI mag. Unfortunately, I don't think you can order the same boolit for the Ranger T as for the GD's. Winchester don't package them for components I don't believe, and due to the expense, you can't shoot just a lot of them.

[35remington]

If it's not the breechface thing, then MtGn has a point with his release idea, and that's why I mentioned the hybrid tapered lip magazines in the first part of my second to last post.

"With the shorter rounded ogive hollowpoints I myself like the hybrids,...."

and my other comment in the next paragraph,

"If the cartridge is released too late, it will jam at an angle between the feed lips and the chamber while the rim is still within the magazine."

The GI's are the completely 100 percent controlled round feed magazines because they don't ever let anything go quickly, but rather gradually and with a slight drag at the end of the release which favors a longer overall length round with a rounded ogive that can pivot on the chamber roof. This means rounds like the Golden Saber HP's, 230 ball and the HG 68.

When rounds approach 1.200" then it's starting to get to be a stretch to expect GI's to work, and if the round does not break over at the proper time it will look like what you describe with the comment that the breechface will have absolutely, positively picked up the back of the rim correctly.

It's the breakover that's the issue.

Interestingly when following this idea, Wilsons are actually somewhat later releasing than other magazines like McCormicks. Which may also account for your failure with them. Compare side by side and you'll see that this is true; while Wilsons are straight lipped, they release a little later than a tapered lip hybrid and noticeable later than a McCormick.

Have any hybrid tapered lip? Time to give them a try. They are more universal in terms of accepting a shorter OAL, and they also preserve the Browning feed principles by releasing the round's rim near the extractor, but with a very slightly sooner more abrupt release that is more OAL forgiving. The breakover is more forgiving than a GI with varied OAL and they will work with a bit blunter bullet as well IME. Remember my earlier comment in the thread that they work just fine with the RCBS 230 Cowboy loaded to 1.200-1.208"? Now there's a blunt bullet with a fatter than standard ogive if there ever was one. My GI's will jam similarly to what you've experienced about 1 time per 500 shots with them, confirming the release is a bit too late and too gradual with the somewhat nonstandard RCBS Cowboy.

Not the magazine's fault, just that of the zeeb loading the pistol with blunt, short ammo. Tapered lip hybrids fixed that.

That's what I'd do next (use tapered lip hybrids) and MtGn will concur, I bet. At least we've got something for you to try next.

MtGn, what OAL do you load the Gold Dots to? Might explain the differences in feeding between your results with GI's and ColColt's.

[ColColt]

I have a couple of Wilson mags that came with my other SW 1911 and compared them to a CM hybrid mag and the CM mag has a somewhat later release than the Wilson, which has the shortest release point of the mags I have. Actually the Tripp Cobra and the CM Hybrid have nearly the same release point-only slightly different tapers.

My head is spinning...think I'll go hit the rack and mull this over a bit.

[35remington]

I don't think I misstated it, for the reason that I've got every magazine type mentioned before me, and with a little searching I can find my Wilson ETM's.

Know this.....the hybrid is earlier releasing than the GI, which is only a little later.

The Tripps are substantially later releasing than the hybrids and have pretty much no taper whatsoever, while the taper of the hybrid Checkmate is much more pronounced. I have Checkmates from our original group buy as well as some purchased this year that represent about a five or six year span of production all the way up the the "D" dimple shaped followers. I'll show pictures, side by side, with the rounds just before their release points in the magazine lips. It's a pretty obvious difference.

The Wilsons will be later than the hybrid Checkmates as well.

Talk to you tomorrow.

The good thing is there's plenty of avenues to try, and variations in feeding.

[ColColt]

Looking at the new ETM I bought about two weeks back but have not tried yet and putting it side by side, the CM Hybrid, looking down at the top to view the lips, the ETM has a shorter release point than the Hybrid. Of course, they have parallel lips as well with the familiar dished polymer follower.

L-R is the Tripp, Wilson ETM(middle) and CM Hybrid 7 round mag.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF4233a.jpg

[35remington]

Try it with a cartridge in place rather than looking at it.. The Checkmate hybrid cannot and will not release until the rim goes over the dimple. The angularity of the round also differs in feeding, which might turn the trick.

[ColColt]

Something of interest today. The Wolff 11 pound springs I ordered came today. Those suckers are twice the length of the CM magazines!! That should be plenty strong for sure. I haven't put them in yet as I may need a press.:) I'm sure they'll fit the GI mags or the Hybrids as it states they're for the Gov't model, Gold Cup, Commander and Officer's Model.

[35remington]

They are for any seven shot magazine with the folded, dimpled follower.

Can't yet find my ETM's, but by all means compare the cartridges and their release point in the various magazines. Tripps have a much later release point.

[MtGun44]

I tend to think that you need the hybrid type. With the early release straight lips the round
is kept low and flat and jams on the ramp. With the GI lips, the nose rises, as does the rear,
but the rear is still held low, leaving the nose to hit the roof - but the nose is too short, so it
reaches the roof too late, which means too steep and you get a roof jam.

With hybrid, the rounds will rise a bit over the early release straight lips, hopefully getting the
nose above the ramp, and letting the base rise a bit, but then releasing the rear earlier to
let the whole round pop up and forward.

Bill

[MtGun44]

I just thought of another solution.

Locate a box of Win white box 230 JHPs. These are VERY close to FMJ ball shape and
dimensions, and I have tested them a number of times in wet newsprint and they are very
reliable expanders and extremely close to the GDots in performance. I use them as an
alternate self defense ammo and consider them about 95% as good as the best out there,
which I think is the 230 GDot. I'll predict that with the GI mag and the Win 230 JHP you
will see good feeding. You really won't lose anything much on terminal performance and
the Win white box is far cheaper - I think a box of 50 is about $30 wholesale, so maybe
$40 retail. If you can find them at Walmart, they'd be cheap. Amazing times that I think
that 80 cents per round is "cheap"!!! You can probably get the component bullet from Win
also.

Bill

[ColColt]

Thanks for those suggestions, Bill. I'm bound and determined unless the great hollow point fairy says otherwise, to make the GD's work if possible. I think the first time I had that problem could have been the magazine/spring. Since then I've put a stronger spring in that particular mag as I have others. I've changed out the standard spring in both the GI and Hybrid mags from CM and I didn't check to see if the Tripp mag would work with the GD or not...that's next on my agenda along with the new springs in the CM.

Now, when that Commander arrives this week I get to go through all this again.

This has nothing to do with the subject but on my mind. I've spent the best part of today trying to retrieve my lost emails and it's been a real chore. I was on the phone with several techs at Comcast for hours yesterday and again today. I couldn't send/receive and all my emails were gone. They finally got to the problem but it seems my emails (200+) are gone forever. Tonight, I am not a happy camper. I don't know if it was Comcast fault by deleting them from the server or something I did. Oh, well......

[MtGun44]

Good luck. Now you have some basis for selecting the different mag types and watching what
happens with different rounds with each.
Sorry to hear about the e-mail loss. I keep mine on my computer, pull them off the ISP's
machine to mine.

Bill

[ColColt]

CM sent me three of their XP springs today and they look nearly identical to the 11# ones I bought from Wolff. Id say either would work great and definitely a bit of an improvement over the stock springs in the 7 rnd mags.

The Colt Commander came in today and of course, chomping at the bits to try it out but, I haven't picked it up yet. I'll have to mull it over awhile, clean and oil it, look some more and then take it for an outing.

I still think Comcast has my emails on their server but didn't want to expend the time looking for them. I'll back them up from now on if I have to put them on a flash card.

[ColColt]

One thing I did discover tonight. The CM Hybrid mag and the Wilson ETM will hand feed much smoother than the other mags I have to include the CM GI and standard Wilson 47D. There was a definite "hitch" with those two. The 47D mag was the one I had the jam with in the first place. I don't know what the difference is between the ETM and the 47D as they look alike to me-same release point and follower but it does feed smoother than the 47D.

[MtGun44]

I presume you are hand feeding ammo and that is how you found the 'hitch'.
Hand feeding and FEELING the feeding process is what got me started on this whole deal
of studying mag behaviors. For MY Commander, it needs GI mags to feed Gold Dots smooth
as glass, they are really rough with early release straight lipped mags and less so with
hybrids.

No two guns are exactly alike, really. Different people have been messing with JB's 1911 design
and magazine design for a long time, sometimes they are doing good, sometimes not. Like I said,
now you can feel what is going on and work on fixing it.

Once again I will say, that my Commander never actually jammed, but it just did not feel right when
hand cycling ammo through the gun until I went back to GI mags. You can get away with a lot, really,
but making it feel the smoothest has to be a good thing for reliability.

Bill

[ColColt]

Yes, that's how I felt the hitch. I've also noticed a definite hitch in the SW1911SC without any magazine in it at all. As you pull the slide back and let it go forward slowly it's like when the slide hits the disconnector, there's a definite feeling of slight resistance-almost like the disconnector is too high. My Commander came yesterday and I tried the same thing with it and it was smooth as silk. I'll have to work on what's causing that in the SW.

You would think by now after 100 years they'd be nothing left to discover about the 1911 and all magazines would be perfect for it but; then where would would the gun rag writers talk about?:)

Not that no one has seen a Commander before but this is the one that I picked up yesterday...haven't even shot it yet.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x220/ColColt/Misc%20Stuff/_DEF4235a.jpg

[MtGun44]

The sights and grips are different from the one on my hip in a Sparks Versamax 2 right now.
Good solid gun, will put all of them in one ragged hole at 12 yds when practicing. And with
GI mags, they feed just perfectly slick.

Are you sure the hitch isn't in the lugs as they cam up the barrel? Many guns are fitted
VERY tightly on the slide stop and this can cause that sort of a hitch until they wear in.

Bill

[ColColt]

The VMII is a sweet holster and one that Brownell's keeps in stock so, there's no waiting 5-6 months for one.

Hitch may be the wrong word in this case. It's sort of a sight hesitation like it has to overcome something when the slide is pulled all the way back and you just begin to release it-maybe a quarter inch or less. I'm sure it's probably just me and noting to worry about. I compared it to the Commander and they both feel about the same.

I wish I knew a method for measuring recoil spring strength as the one in the SW feels a lot stronger than the one in the Commander although they're both basically Commander pistols. Part of that could be the serrations on the Colt are traditional and easy to grasp and hold onto while the SW with the fish scale griping area seems foreign to me and I can't see to get the same grip as with the Colt.

[fecmech]

I wish I knew a method for measuring recoil spring strength as the one in the SW feels a lot stronger than the one in the Commander although they're both basically Commander pistols.

Drill a hole big enough for the barrel in a block of wood and set it on a scale. Push the gun against the block of wood till it almost locks back and read the scale. Do the same with the other gun and see if they're the same.

[MtGun44]

Sounds like a pretty good way to get an objective value.

I'm fugal, so I used the Exec Companion for 6 months until the VM2 was done, and
now I have a Watch Six on order - should be done this month. I have used a LOT
of different brands of holsters and am really sold on the quality and designs from
Milt Sparks.

Bill

[drklynoon]

Wow guys. I wish I had read this thread a couple months ago. I have been battling my kimber and SWC all summer long. I ended up short seating them almost to factory OAL. This has been working. I only tried my Kimber mag. I just looked at my other mag that is a shooting star BTW and can see why I was having such trouble. Now to buy some extra mags and do some experimenting.

[ColColt]

Drill a hole big enough for the barrel in a block of wood and set it on a scale. Push the gun against the block of wood till it almost locks back and read the scale. Do the same with the other gun and see if they're the same.

Sounds like this would work fine. Thanks for the tip.

Bill, I've watched the video on Brownell's about the CQC-S and it looks promising for OWB carry. That's another quality holster by Alessi.

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/vid=1065/pid=40313/psize=24/Product/CQC-S-HOLSTERS

[btroj]

I had never heard of the slow cycling without a recoil spring installed. Quite interesting to see how things all work together.
With my CM mags with the hybrid lips and a Mihec HG 68 bullet it was interesting. By the time the round is released from the magazine the rim is slipping under the extractor hook and the bullet is already heading into the chamber pretty much straight on.
I don't own other mags except the ones that came with the gun and they look very similar to the CM hybrids I bought.

Quite an eye opening thing to see. Also makes it even more of an amazing design.

[ColColt]

I read an interesting article on another forum by a fellow named 1911tuner who talks in great depth about recoil springs. He indicated, among many others, that the 1911 will work without any recoil spring at all. I had never seen that before. He also indicated a Commander will run well with a 14 or 16# spring instead of the factory standard 18 or 20# and goes into great detail as to why. It's quite a read if anyone is interested.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=623243

[MtGun44]

btroj,

Yes - it was interesting a few years ago when I started watching exactly what was going
on and tried some different mag design. I was really struck by the brilliance when I realized
something that I had NEVER read in many dozens of articles about the 1911 - that with
the original design feed lips and ball ammo this is a controlled round feed gun. The hybrid
and H&G 68 both work well because they are very close to the same functionally. This is
the brilliance of the hybrid design - it lets the round rise up far enough to get under the
extractor, yet still releases early enough to assist the short rounds in feeding.

I have looked at some of my first 1911 mags, ones sold with my Gold Cup in 1980 and they
are hybrid design mags and work well.

By the way - take a minute and PULL THE FIRING PIN OUT while you are playing around to
avoid loud noises in the basement and a lot of swearing. Or worse.

Bill

[btroj]

I wasn't using love rounds! I have a few dummy rounds I made up. This is what I do with the few small primer pocket cases I have picked up. Using love rounds would make me very nervous.
I also was amazed at how it is a controlled round feed design. Absolutely brilliant!

[ColColt]

Love rounds?

[btroj]

Love, live, whatever. Don't you have rounds you love? The live ones I love, the dummy rounds I don't. Hence, low rounds! See, I learned from politicians how to spin something so it might even make sense when it really doesn't.

what it really means is that I can't type real well on my iPad and I am notorious for not proof reading what I type before submitting a reply.

[ColColt]

Just teasing. I thought it was a typo but then I saw it twice and thought this must be something new.:razz: I have guns I love but ammo? Well, maybe the old Flyng Ashtray. Yep, you'd make a good Democrat, btroj.[smilie=l:

[btroj]

I would make a good Democrat? Ouch, that is gonna leave a mark.

I have never tried any hollowpoints in my 1911. Don't have any olds for one and I am way too cheap to pay what they want for factory ammo. Heck, even a box of Hornady bullets is over 20 bucks per 100. I don't usually buy many jacketed or much factory ammo so I was shocked when I went and looked. I wonder how some of the morons I see at the indoor range can afford all the ammo they buy. Someon those guys are shooting 50 to 100 bucks in an hour or two.

This has been a very interesting thread. I have learned much. We are lucky to have some folks here who really understand how these dang pistols are supposed to function.

[ColColt]

A box of hollow points such as the GDHP or Winchester's Ranger T will cost you about $28-32 for a box of 50. Some places will charge that for a box of 20-pays to shop around. They're not cheap and if you plan on shooting much of them to verify they'll feed properly in a pistol used for defense purposes you'd best shoot enough to prove that. To me, that's no less than a minimum of two boxes(100) and preferably 200. You don't want surprises when you need them most. I'm not an advocate of using FMJ boolits for defense and especially if you're carrying that in your CCW. Misses are made during stress and it's our responsibility to know where that boolit is going.

The FMJ is notorious for over penetration and the ricochet potential is great. On the battlefield it doesn't matter but, if you're in the local convenient store or department store and things go haywire suddenly and you miss, someone 20 feet away could be the recipient of your intents. Mas Ayoob accounts in many articles I've read about how even officers were killed by an over penetrating 230 gr FMJ as have innocent bystanders. This is why I wouldn't use them other than for target practice and gun functioning. Hornady sells them relatively cheap for 100 so I load my own or if I get lazy reloading, I go to Wally World and buy a couple boxes of Winchester white boxes. Factory ammo from Winchester, Speer and Federal are anything but cheap but if you want to use a good dependable hollow point for defense, you have no recourse but to shoot enough to warrant using them in you chosen pistol. Just my take on FMJ vs hollow points. Most all the time I use the H&G 68 but for a pistol(s) I plan on using as a home defense weapon or carry purposes, I make sure the ammo/magazine I intend on using will walk nicely together.

[MtGun44]

White box Winchester (not Talon or Ranger) or the ordinary Rem 230 JHP (not Golden Saber)
sell for about $29 per 50 at gun shows. These two are exactly the same shape as military
ball, but with a 3/16" hole in the top, which does relatively little for the feeding shape.

Another way to go for JHPs is to buy the Win 230 JHP as a component and load your own
to match military Ball bullet contour.

Bill

[ColColt]

Just to resurrect this thread, I was wondering if anyone has tried the Tripp 7 round magazines? I had bought a few and also discovered some while back I also have two 8 round Tripp mags. I found it's all but impossible to get the follower out of the 7 round mag in order to replace the spring with the Wolff 11# spring. The witness holes are staggered so you can't put a nail or small punch from one side to the other to compress the spring to get the follower out like you can most all 8 round mags.

If you put an Allen wrench in one of the lower holes(short end) to compress it and try to remove the follower, the spring pops back up. There must be a secret to this but I haven't figured it out yet. I don't know for sure that the Wolff spring will work as they're pretty long...about 8-9 inches or if they'll work with the Tripp Hybrid follower. Anyone tried this?