1911 .45 Magazines: 7, 8, Either?

[NVcurmudgeon]

For my ancinet nad reliable series 80 Gold Cup, will the newer eight round magazines work as well as the old seven shooter? Naturally I would be buying a name brand, not some piece of junk from some third world country that hates us.

[danski26]

Wilson 8 rounders are the best money can buy in my opinion.

[mtngunr]

My GCNM handled them well.....as far as I know, most 8rd mags use the proprietary CMC design follower, and that little flat spring finger can fatigue like any other short, thin flat spring, whereupon it might not even be a reliable 7-rounder.....just so you know.....

[wiljen]

I've used McCormick's mags in mine with good success - they are about the cheapest decent mag I've run across. I'm not contesting what has been said about Wilson Mags at all, but these run 40% the cost and function has been all I could ask for.

[Lloyd Smale]

ive got a pile of wilson 7 and 8s and theyve both worked equaly well.

[Phil]

I've used the McCormick mags for some years with complete success. Very happy with them.

Cheers,

Phil

[Patrick L]

7 or 8 rounds, it doesn't matter. A magazine from a quality manufacturer like Wilson, Chip McCormick, Ed Brown, Metalform, etc. will be reliable. Junk magazines will cause problems whether they are 7 or 8 shooters.

[redneckdan]

my 8rd power mags work great in every gun I've tried them in.

[dragonrider]

A mag of good quality wether 7 or 8 rounds and you gun won't know the difference.

[NVcurmudgeon]

Looks like all your good advice confirmed my instincts. Thank you all. Looking over Brownell's catalog, I think the eight round Mc Cormick will get the nod.

[robertbank]

The McCormick 8 rounders work great in all my 1911's. I would go with the Pro Mags. Cost a little more but the welds are just a tad neater and finish is just a tad nicer.

Take Care

Bob

[35remington]

Let me post a bit of a vehemently dissenting opinion.

I do not like the parallel lip, abrupt release point designs found on nearly every magazine extant any more. These are "featured" on the big name seven and eight shot magazines that go for too much money these days. Originally they were intended to feed shorter than standard length (less than 1.200") rounds. This they will do, but not with reassuring reliablity. This lip design is improper for the standard ball and ball equivalent (most hollowpoints, #68, lead roundnose) that is usually shot through 1911's.

The original 7 shot magazines had tapered feed lips for a reason. This allows the rear of the round to rise as it goes forward, positively locating the rim of the round under the extractor. Remember the 1911 feeds UP from below, like a 98 Mauser. The rising rear of the round also means the cartridge feeds straighter into the chamber. The "new" parallel feed lip design "throws" the cartridge upward when it hits the abrupt release point. Most of the time the extractor catches it. Occasionally, annoyingly, it doesn't. Then you have a misfeed that you're at a loss to explain. These magazines have done much to make the 1911 seem "unreliable" compared to, say, a Glock. They ain't. Everyone's using the wrong magazines most of the time.

Another problem with a lot of the eight shotters is when the magazine gets a little weak, the last round misfeeds. The smooth followers are a detriment here as well. They would have been better off to make the magazine a little longer rather than trying to squeeze extra spring in a standard length.

I'll make a bet. Give a proper 7 shot tapered lip magazine a try, and if it isn't more reliable than the "super" overpriced eight shotters I'll buy it from you. I finally got tired of the "unexplained" jams these 30 dollar wonders were responsible for.

I would do a reliability challenge with a Glock with a seven shot tapered lip. No way would I challenge one with an eight shot.

Save your money. The seven shot will make a 1911 that may be a little out of spec to run as well. Can't say that about an eight shot parallel lip.

Flame away, please, but give a proper seven shot a try. Most don't know what they're missing, or just exactly why eight shot parallel lip magazines are a bad thing.

[redneckdan]

where do you find a taper lip magazine nowa days?

[35remington]

Colt (make sure they are the real thing), which are a combination of tapered lips and sem-abrupt release point. The release point is not a bad thing per se, but the lack of tapered rear lips on the Wilson, McCormick, et. al magazines is.

Real G.I, which can be found at gun shows. These may need some tuning if they release too late (they are intended for ball) but the nice thing about GI magazines is that they lend themselves to tuning. They should release in the vicinity of the dimple. Many GI magazines are fine as is, but check to be sure.

[robertbank]

I agree with you 98% and when I have my first jam with my 8 round McCormicks I will agree with you 100%. So too my 10 rounders. Must admit they are being used in my Norincos and my Para both types known for their reliability out of the box.

As for the GI mags most I have found were on the cheap side designed to be loaded and shot through and discarded. Oh they will last longer than that to be sure but when was the Army ever concerned about re-using anything that could be discarded and left behind?

For those who have not run into the Chinese knockoffs watch for the fake Colt mags for $5.00. Guy on Ebay goes by Reddogg sells the fakes as originals. Junk pure junk. HIs have the "Colt" Colt on them as well as the name printed on the base.

Take Care

Bob

[35remington]

So tell me why they can't combine the quality of some of the McCormick, et. al with a reliable design? Why not, if a reliable eight shot is needed, make the magazine a little longer? You wouldn't need a slam pad then. Why not use the proper tapered lip design? Are they trying to discredit the 1911? Mebbe a Glock Conspiracy?

The aftermarket big names are seriously in need of modification. And yeah, there are some cheap knockoffs of good magazines. Just takes a bit of looking.

I've had brand new McCormick mags fail. The Power Mags are pretty good, but eventually they will jam your gun too.

The new designs are a jammo-matic embarrassment. Magazines should be getting better in both strong construction and reliability. They've got it only half right.

[danski26]

35 remington.......you are the first person that i have ever heard bad mouth the McCormick, Wilson ect mags.

I will take you up on your challenge. Spring is springing in my neck of the woods and i have thousands of ball45 at my disposal. I will start a thread once i get a round count up with my springfield 45 "with 8rnd wilson mags" and we shall see how many before it jams. These mags are 8 years old along with the pistol and have proved to be reliable.

Don't get me wrong....i'm not saying colt mags are un-reliable, I'm only saying my wilsons are reliable.

To steal a line from ken elmore "colt factory armorer instructor" it's pepsi challenge time.

[Phil]

I've used the tapered lip OLD Colt mags, tapered lip GI mags, and the less expensive McCormick's (don't like the long bumper on the expensive jobs) for quite a while and have had NO, ZERO, NADA problems with either. Never had to tweak any of the mags and they have all given me 100% reliability.

About 99% of the ammunition I've fired in these guns (all M1911 types) has been with the Lyman 452460 bullet and Bullseye or 231 and again, I've experienced ZERO malfunctions. Most of the failures I've seen at ranges have been with sloppily loaded ammunition or mags that have been dropped and bent, guns that have been improperly or not lubed.

Got my first M1911 from the DCM in the mid to late 50's and have been shooting them since. One of my favorite types to shoot.

Cheers,

Phil

[robertbank]

Well we should all agree Colt doesn't make Colt mags. Once that rumour is put aside we can rumble on.

Take Care

Bo

[Dale53]

I have had good results with the 8 rd Wilson, but my mag of choice is and has been the ORIGINAL GI magazine. I felt so strongly about it, that I swapped a brand new Series 70 Colt 1911 for a .50 caliber ammo can of new GI Magazines once. I sold enough to more than pay for the pistol, and had enough for a lifetime supply for me.

20,000 rounds later, I knew that I had made a good choice:Fire: :Fire: .

Dale53

[35remington]

Danski, I am not surprised you haven't heard much about it. But then, many haven't. These same people are often the ones that don't consider the 1911 a reliable design because of "unexplained" misfeeds. I would suggest that you hang around the 1911 community-normal, everyday Joes-and you'll hear different. There are many complaints about guns that don't run with the high dollar designs. It is not at all uncommon, but the unfortunate part is that the 1911 design is often blamed when the magazine is the problem.

I didn't want to believe the 30 dollar magazines I was buying weren't the best design either. After all, they cost a lot of money for a reason, right? I am suggesting the magazines you are using could be better. Much better. Why do we believe that magazines that differ from the original design can have some feeding innovation that increases reliability? Money has something to do with it, certainly. I know I believed it at one time. No longer, especially having seen the reliability of the original design magazines in many different 1911's in all states of repair, from National Guard clunkers to Les Baer. No eight rounder, nor any seven rounder with parallel rear feed lips can make that claim.

Your favored Wilsons, in claiming "straighter feeding with a higher top round in the magazine" give up the positive control that results when the cartridge is fed UP from below into the extractor hook-which is what occurs with a tapered lip design. At some point in the feeding cycle the Wilson magazine essentially launches the round into space, with the hope the breechface/extractor catches it. Sometimes it does, sometimes it don't. Hopefully your extractors are still holding tension so far. Try this magazine in many different 1911's, as I have, and get back to me.

In a gun with close tolerances, you can get away with this type of magazine for quite some time. In your run of the mill 1911, not hardly.

How many times have you heard from 1911 bashers-usually the Glock crowd-who say, "I've never had good luck in getting a reliable 1911. I can't see buying a gun that you have to spend a lot of money on to run perfectly. Why not buy something that works reliably for much less money, right out of the box?" (The Glock, of course).

This has a lot to do with the magazines we are now saddled with, and the tragedy is that the less experienced or first time 1911 users not only think their guns are less reliable than they really are, but that the high dollar magazines they've blown so much money on are the best way to get any 1911 to run right. Bass ackwards, definitely.

This seems to play into the hands of the 1911 customization crowd-and I'll bet there's more money spent to "reliability upgrade" the 1911 than any gun out there. If the Wilson or McCormick doesn't feed flawlessly, there must be something wrong with the barrel ramp/feed ramp/spring/spring guide/ammo......Well, you get the idea.

Very shortly the gunsmith returns a 1911 with all the "upgrades" to reliability-and in most instances the whole feeding problem could have been addressed with the magazines the gun was DESIGNED to run with in the first place-the seven shot, tapered lip originals. No hefty gunsmith fees needed. And that "upgraded" 1911 with its closer tolerances would be even more reliable if it were holding original design magazines. Fixing the whole gun to make it run makes about as much sense as replacing the engine when the muffler's got a hole in it.

Just like the Glock, the 1911 was designed to be reliable with the mass produced parts that are available. The original seven shot design was the best way to make that happen.

Now, if we could make an extended eight shot magazine that had the tapered feed lips and flat dimpled follower, with the strong steel construction like a McCormick Powermag, then we'd really have something. A reliable eight shot.

Until then, keep looking.

[bobthenailer]

i have 10, 45acp 8 round mags and 4 , 10 round wilson mags and 5 , 38 super 10 round wilson mags all have worked perfect in all of my guns over the last 20 years

[Lloyd Smale]

ive used wilsons in competion and for general shooting and probably put at least a 1000 rounds a month through 1911s and have never had a problem with on or a misfeed i could atribute to a magazine.

[35remington]

Congratulations. You have good guns. This has a lot more to do with the 1911's you own than the magazines you are using.

Your guns are reliable in spite of your magazines, not because of them.

For those many who have problems with their 1911's reliability, try:

1) Cartridges of a length/ogive design that the 1911 was designed to feed. Generally, ball should be around 1.265" or so, as should lead bullet reloads that duplicate ball. H&G pattern, from 1.240-1.260" OAL. For hollowpoints, look for duplication of the ball ogive. Stay away from short OAL semiwadcutters. Many hollowpoints are now designed to take the 1911's preferences in shape and length into account. When used with proper equipment, this is the key to maximum reliability from a 1911.

2) Original design magazines.

I hear many complaints of feed reliability in 1911's. Usually, the magazine is the culprit.

This information is hard for many to swallow. It is offered in this forum so that those less informed may try an inexpensive solution to feed problem woes rather than spending money on reliability upgrades that are not needed.

Running a 1911 like it was designed to run is never a bad idea.

[robertbank]

How come when a gun runs for 20 years without a failure using Wilson mags it is a great gun but when any gun jams it always is a poorly designed mag. Frankly I think you are blowing smoke.

The 1911 design is an excellent design but an old one. I would suggest that less than a handful of manufactureres maintain dimensions close to the original yet the mags are suposed to work in all of them?

A Sig 226 is a Sig 226 and the mags are made for the gun. So to a CZ 75B.

A 1911 Colt maybe close to the original dimensions and it may not, so too Kimber, Para and STI. If the reliably problems of the 1911 were only attributed to mags life would be good. Of my 1911's that I own only the Norincos have run without some problem or another. Truth be known they likely are the closest to the original design than any of the current manufacturers and they certainly are made with reliability in mind.

Take Care

Bob

[bart55]

I have as many McCormack mags as origional GI mags and also a few colt mags I have had no malfunctions at all with any of these.This is over the course of fourty years my only malfunctions were with cheap import mags and of course the extended mags I bought when I was a kid ,watched too many episodes of man from UNCLE. But I can see the reasoning behind 35 rem statements. I usually buy GI mags and have had no problems

[35remington]

Blowing smoke? Hardly.

My shooting has encompassed box stock 1911's, National Guard Armory 1911's when I used to shoot there as well as modern customs. I used to help the guys out at the armory with my faddish wadcutter mags. When they got short target 185's in some lots, I loaned them my wadcutter magazines. These would feed these 185's when their issue G.I. magazines didn't. Not one hundred percent. These guns were rough, understand. The sergeant would show up with the guns chained (big chain too) through the trigger guards and they were dented to hell and gray. But they ran good with military magazines-just not with short bullets. I shot my own handloads through a lot of these beaters. With the military magazines in these out of spec guns, they ran just fine with all except short SWC. I'm sure the sergeant mixed parts on these guns many, many times, so some most likely were very mismatched. They rattled like hell, but they ran. He wasn't much of a gun guy and when they'd need cleaning he'd just dump the parts from several different guns together while cleaning them. I daresay the badly mismatched parts-Ithaca, Colt, Remington-had at least as much or more variation and slop than what you find today. Probably more.

Yes, a good 1911 magazine should work in all of the 1911 variations. If it works in the maximum variation, out of spec guns very well, reckon the reliability factor in a well made gun. I'm not willing to increase the chance my gun will misfunction just to get one more round.

I should not lose sight of my goal here, which is to get people at least thinking about how some magazine specifications should be changed.

[Lee]

NOT to hijack the thread, but if any of you are ever in NEOHIO, I'll take you to a spot where you can have all the magazines you can find. There's 3rd party Ruger MKII's, there's 3rd party AR15 20 rounders, there's 3rd party SA M1A 20 rounders. "Vintage" is what e-bay would call them. After I threw them away, I had no more problems feeding my toys, using original manufacturer mags(Ruger, BushMaster, SA). I learned the embarrassingly hard way that not all mags are created equal.
35remington has a very valid point to be made...............................Lee:wink:

[KYCaster]

Oh, pleeeeeeeasssse don't tell my 1911's that they can't function with Wilson and McCormick magazines. If they start believing that, I may never get through another match without a malfunction.:roll:

In the heat of competition, we very seldom take the time to properly diagnose problems, so quite often a malfunction remains "unexplained". But, I can't recall ever tracing the cause of a malfunction to the shape of the feed lips on Wilson/McCormick/Shooting Star magazines.

Uhmmmmm, let me qualify that last sentence.[smilie=1: I'm talking about CURRENT PRODUCTION magazines. McCormick had problems with early lots of mags manufactured by Shooting Star, but IMO, what they make now are among the best available. I have had more problems with Mil. Spec. mags.

For ten round mags. you can't beat McCormick. Wilson's ten rounders function just fine, but the tab welded to the front of the mag. that limits how far it goes in the gun, has a nasty habit of breaking off at the most inoppertune time. Send it back and you'll get a new one (no charge), but that's small consolation when you're trying to clear the jam under pressure.

For eight rounders, I have Wilsons because when I got them eighteen years ago or so, they were more reliable than anything else available. If I were starting out now, I'd get McCormicks. There is no noticable difference in function or quality, but the base pads on the Wilsons develop cracks and need to be replaced occasionally. (seven bucks for a package of three from Brownell's) And.....when it's time to replace the springs, the only spring that will fit the Wilson mag. is a Wilson spring.

Seven rounders......Uhhhhh......I know one came with the Springfield I got recently, but I don't know where it is now.:confused:

HTH...Enjoy
Jerry

[35remington]

So the malfunctions are occurring for you, I see.

Be advised that new pattern magazines cause many variations of feed malfunctions that range from nosedives to having the round being caught nose up between the chamber and slide. Especially on the last shot in the magazine. And, if by your admission you're doing a taprackbang perhaps some slower range time to diagnose the problem would be in order.

If this is happening for others I would suggest they give the original design a try.

Sorry I'm so adamant about this, but the problems inherent in the new designs really need mentioning. They could be better.

Planting some seeds of doubt about them is my intent here, and this I have done. So this doesn't keep degenerating into something more acrimonious, I'll bow out.

[Dale53]

35remington;
I, for one, thank you for the information. Never too smart to learn[smilie=1:.

Dale53

[KYCaster]

So the malfunctions are occurring for you, I see.
UHHHH.......Who are you talkin' to? Me? Did I say I'm having mag related malfunctions?

Be advised that new pattern magazines cause many variations of feed malfunctions that range from nosedives to having the round being caught nose up between the chamber and slide. Both these conditions are most often caused by WEAK MAG SPRINGS, not by faulty mag design. Especially on the last shot in the magazine. And, if by your admission you're doing a taprackbang perhaps some slower range time to diagnose the problem would be in order. I reread the entire thread.....nobody mentioned taprackbang till you brought it up. Taprackbang is the proper drill when you FAIL TO PROPERLY SEAT THE MAG.

If this is happening for others I would suggest they give the original design a try.And for those who have problems with their mil. surp. mags, what do you suggest?

Sorry I'm so adamant about this, but the problems inherent in the new designs really need mentioning. They could be better.So, are you saying that the mil. spec. mags don't have any inherent design problems? I suppose you've never seen stress cracks on the back of the GI mags where the feed lips meet the body of the mag? I suppose you've never seen the top round pop out of a GI mag when you seat it in the gun because the feed lips have spread out til they won't properly hold the round? I suppose you've never seen the front tab of the base plate bent up so far you can't seat the mag in the gun?......These conditions are all the result of metals too thin, improper alloy and/or improper heat treat. These conditions have been VERY COMMON in the GI mags that I've had experience with and have been almost nonexistent in the aftermarked mags I've seen.

Planting some seeds of doubt about them is my intent here, and this I have done. So this doesn't keep degenerating into something more acrimonious, I'll bow out.


Like I said earlier, Please don't tell my magazines they can't function, they might get a complex or something.

Jerry

[BD]

I'm sure we've all had slightly different experiences. Am I the only one who's had as many revolver reliabillity issues as 1911 issues? I originally bought some wilsons due to the many problems I had with the original mil spec mags I grew up with. None of them are perfect. Those milspecs might have been decent when new, but they had real problems by the time they were in my hands. In my experience the Wilsons have worked 100% until the lips start to spread, that occurred after running about 50,000 rounds through the four 8 rounders. I have some 10 rounders and they seem about the same. The only really bad buy I made was some Tripp research 10 rounders. They fed perfect, but theyt were just a tad too tall in the rear and broke my ejector off in the middle of a match.
I've spent some time at various action pistol matches over the years and I've seen some failures. One common one used to be the top round popping up out of a milspec mag during a slide lock reload. I've seen a fair number of bottom plates blow off of those as well. I couldn't tell you if they were fakes or the real ones. It's all about knowing what you're running and making sure it's good to go before you step up to the line. The gun I keep for "social purposes" is loaded with new Wilson 8 rounders, so I suppose they get my vote in the end.
BD