A couple of fascinating videos for 1911 fans

[35remington]

There's nothing like seeing how an autopistol really works, and specifically the 1911. Watch in the middle of Jerry Miculek's video on a classic 1925 1911 feeding ball in GI magazines, and see the feed cycle in slo-mo. Particularly, watch as how the barrel/slide are locked together until the bullet exits, and the motion of the cartridge as it feeds.

It is not often we get to see a 1911 during the complete firing cycle at such a slow speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp-HFVG_c4Q

And, watch a 1911 shot with perfect safety with no recoil spring at all being used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyis5h9MvUU

This rather completely refutes the idea held by some that the spring plays a role in when the gun unlocks. Pretty simply, the gun locks barrel to slide when fired and unlocks when the bullet leaves. The recoil spring plays no role in this.

[Bigslug]

But. . .but. . .but. . .everyone KNOWS you CAN'T shoot a 1911 effectively without beavertails. . .and guide rods. . .and big sights. . .and a really tight slide/frame fit. . .and a tuned trigger. . .

On the topic of the what ifs that would occur if you had a time machine, I have to wonder if you zapped Jerry Miculek back to 1912 and got him a job with Colt demonstrating 1911's with 2-handed technique, would anyone have even TRIED to design a different semi auto pistol since?

Georg Luger would probably schnitzel himself if he saw that.:mrgreen:

[Rick Hodges]

Miculek is incredible. He could probably make a 4' 2x4 look deadly. Damn.

[newton]

Nice videos. The first closeup is there at 7:13 into the video. Very nice look at how it feeds.

[btroj]

I am amazed at how long the slide remains to the rear. There is a definite dwell time there.

[newton]

What would be interesting is taking slomo video of the same gun with same ammo and one video of no spring, then another video with spring. That would show a lot I think.

I noticed the slide delay also, but what was also interesting is when the round hit the ramp there was a slight delay also before going up into the chamber.

[35remington]

There was no delay going into the chamber....rather, the round straightens as the slide goes forward and the rim is captured by the extractor. This looks like a delay but is not as the round is going up AND forward. The up motion causes an illusion of motionless. The round is still moving forward as the slide gives it no choice but to move forward. What you see is how the designer intended the 1911 to feed.

The long dwell time for rearward slide movement goes away in ultra short 1911 variants, the slide outruns the magazine spring and bolt over base misdeeds occur much more often.

In full size 1911's I've had BOB's with McCormick Shooting Stars with ball ammo, so even the long dwell time of 5 inch 1911's can be too short when 8 round magazines have weak springs.

JMB likely would have regarded 3 and 3.5 inch 1911's as a fool's carry piece.

[newton]

I meant to say there was a moment of delay for the round, not the slide. It is only because the slide coming forward 'bats' it forward, then the slight delay, then the slide contacts the round again, feeding it into the chamber. There is a notable gap, in between those two events, between the breech and rim. Not to mention you can see the round get tapped a couple times as the breech regains solid contact with it.

I would assume this is one of the good things about the bump on the follower being there?

[35remington]

The bump only works on the last round. The round is sliding atop another round until that point.

On the last round the bump prevents the round from escaping the feed lips when the slide hits the frame. Inertial insurance for full power rounds combined with a strong spring. Many eight round magazines have neither which is doubly bad.

[Piedmont]

It looked to me like the slide return was not smooth. It was a little jerky while the round was chambering and I don't think I was looking at the round, but the slide motion.

[Bullwolf]

Here's another slow motion video y'all may enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXZUMGRxPM4&feature=youtu.be&t=1m34s

Cutaway 1911 being fired, and feeding in slow motion.



- Bullwolf

[M-Tecs]

The cutaway is very interesting. Thanks

[Forrest r]

There's nothing like seeing how an autopistol really works, and specifically the 1911. Watch in the middle of Jerry Miculek's video on a classic 1925 1911 feeding ball in GI magazines, and see the feed cycle in slo-mo. Particularly, watch as how the barrel/slide are locked together until the bullet exits, and the motion of the cartridge as it feeds.

It is not often we get to see a 1911 during the complete firing cycle at such a slow speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp-HFVG_c4Q

And, watch a 1911 shot with perfect safety with no recoil spring at all being used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyis5h9MvUU

This rather completely refutes the idea held by some that the spring plays a role in when the gun unlocks. Pretty simply, the gun locks barrel to slide when fired and unlocks when the bullet leaves. The recoil spring plays no role in this.


Excellent thread with fantastic links!!!!

Glad to see you're doing good & keeping busy over the winter.

Myself, I can never get enough of Miculek's video's, heck thank you for this one, watched it several times. Everyone comes away with something different when they see/watch something and this is video is no different. After watching this Miculek's video several times something didn't look right with that 1911. It's supposed to be an original 1911 made in 1925, but something doesn't look right about that pistol. To me it looks like a 1911a1 frame with a early slide fitted to it. I don't know, maybe one of the 1911 experts on this website will watch that video and figure it out.

Anyway, the other thing that I found interesting in that video was the reason they changed from small to large primers. I always thought it was the arsenals that changed the primers. Something about being cost effective & passing the saving on with using the same tooling to make 45acp & 30-06 brass.

As far as if/when/how a 1911 slide unlocks is an excellent topic. There's a bunch of simple ways to prove/un-prove what a recoil spring affects with a 1911. The simplest/easiest way I know of is to:
Use an accurate 1911 as a test pistol, I'm not talking one of those "Hey look!!!! I hit a dirt clog @ 10 paces", pieces of junk Miculek was talking about when he said they had to make a bigger primer so that the extremely sloppy pistols could go bang.
Use an accurate 1911, preferably something that can but bullets relatively close together, something like this.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t242/forrestr-photo/38bull50ft_zps126936b2.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/forrestr-photo/media/38bull50ft_zps126936b2.jpg.html)

OK, accurate 1911, check
Then buy/load/whatever a box of p+ 1911 loads with a 200g bullet or heavier. Hot ammo, check.
Then get a couple of cheap pieces and parts, namely a 16#, 18# or a progressive spring, a 10# spring & a cheap bbl bushing. Fit the bbl bushing to your 1911 and make it so that there's 6/1000th's+ slop between the bbl and the bushing.

Take all this to the range and do some test targets @ 50ft using your favorite rest. Shoot 10-round targets for test targets.
Start with the tight & right 1911 with a progressive spring or a 18#/16# or whatever you normally use and shoot a 10-shot group with the p+ ammo.
Then change the spring to a 10# spring and shoot another 10-shot group.
Then put your favorite progressive/18#/16#/whatever spring back in along with the 6/1000th's+ slop bushing and shoot a 10-shot test group.

For some odd reason every time I've done this test I've found that it didn't matter if I used the 10# spring with the heavy p+ loads with the tight bbl bushing or a progressive/16# or 18# spring coupled with the sloppy bbl bushing. Both of those combos produced groups that opened up dramatically compared to the progressive (heavy spring)/tight bbl bushing combo.

Perhaps someone could duplicate this simple test and answer the simple questions:
Why would changing a 1911 recoil spring with heavy loads dramatically increase the group size?
Why would changing a 1911 bbl bushing to a sloppier one (but use a heavy/normal recoil spring) with heavy loads dramatically increase the group size.
And finely, if using a light recoil spring or sloppy bushing produces the same dramatic increase in group size. What do those 2 things have in common?
By dramatic I mean a 400%+ increase in groups size by simply changing a spring or a bbl bushing.

So please, by all means do some testing and let everyone know what your results were.

This is the main reason I went with the progressive springs myself. No more swapping/forgetting which spring is in the 1911. With the progressive springs it's called plug & play, simply put a mag in with whatever you want. 3.8g powder puff target loads of bullseye/185g swc in one mag & the some 230g swaged hp's with a p+ loads of 7.5g of powder pistol in the next mag. Just grip it and rip it!!!

Anyway,
Thank you very much for the excellent video's and idea's.

[35remington]

The heavier spring allows a more consistent return to battery as the energy of the moving parts returns the barrel/bushing/slide to the same relationship while the weaker return of a wimpy spring may not allow this. This surplus or more properly adequate spring energy going forward is more repeatable in returning things to the same place. Say, top/center of the bushing instead of side to side maybe.

It's not a substitute for closely fitted parts but it may be good enough for what it's for.

The only reason that some handloads shoot better than others in a 1911 must be that that particular load enables a more consistent return to battery somehow. At least, that's a big part of it, anyway.

I use a 16 lb and a small radius stop for everything. Light loads down to 775 FPS with a 200 still function OK but don't eject far shoot well and easy on the gun.

I didn't get a good look at the frame because his hand covered it but an A1 frame has a longer grip safety tang, a bit different hammer and a frame relief bevel behind the trigger guard.

[35remington]

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the video Bullwolf posted is using a SWC (straight) feed lip magazine in the gun. Note how the rear of the round fails to rise as it goes forward, the relatively steep feed angle. Since the round didn't dip much into the frame ramp going forward it is likely one of the last few rounds in the magazine.

[Forrest r]

I didn't get a good look at the frame because his hand covered it but an A1 frame has a longer grip safety tang, a bit different hammer and a frame relief bevel behind the trigger guard.

I really wasn't paying attention to the 1911 until it got towards the end of the video (excellent video by the way) when he was talking about the 1911 biting his thumb (around 10:35 in the video). He's holding the 1911 by the muzzle end of it and pointing to the hammer area of the 1911. It dawned on me after watching the video for the 3rd time that there isn't a flat main spring housing on the frame next to where he's pointing. From there I froze the video @ 10:35 to get a good look at it and not only does the frame have the newer main spring housing it has the frame relief behind the trigger guard.

Anyway,
Great stuff, thank you for posting/commenting on the 1911's.

[Bigslug]

It dawned on me after watching the video for the 3rd time that there isn't a flat main spring housing on the frame next to where he's pointing. From there I froze the video @ 10:35 to get a good look at it and not only does the frame have the newer main spring housing it has the frame relief behind the trigger guard.

The 1911-A1 specs of which you speak were adopted by Uncle Sam in 1924, and they were added to Commercial production the following year.

[35remington]

If that was the one he was using he shouldn't suffer from hammer bite as the safety tang is longer and the hammer spur shorter on the A1 which eliminates hammer bite. Maybe something was not as it was claimed.

[MtGun44]

Yes, I also noticed it had straight feed lips because the rear of the round does not rise up
and then the nose hits to roof of the chamber, popping it up. NOT a proper feeding motion,
but the gun is forgiving enough to still work with this incorrect mag lip geometry and less
than wonderful feeding kinematics.

This is referring to the cutaway gun video.

Bill

[35remington]

Yes, the design works so well with magazines it was not designed to work with that many claim to have no problems with magazines that have known flaws. JMB gave the design a lot of "window" to work well. It's better when magazines are as the designer intended as that's the most reliable configuration.

If Patrick Sweeny used the correct magazines he would have never said the 1911 "works the round hard in feeding." Nonstandard magazines do just that as the cutaway video showed.

[Thundermaker]

A 1911 will wear out faster with too light a recoil spring. If you don't believe me, go shoot hardball in a colt gold cup national match with the stock spring and see how long it takes before the slide rattles on the frame. It won't take long. Ask me how I know. I've also noticed that auto pistols start shooting rediculously low when the recoil springs become weak. A proper weight spring makes recoil smoother too. I think the original specs called for a 14# spring.

As for light springs being dangerous, if the slide came back with enough force to snap the rear of the slide off and kill you, nobody would be able to hold on to it under recoil anyway. You can hold the slide forward pretty easily when you fire the thing.

Here's an interesting tidbit, courtesy of a ww2 armorer I've had the pleasure of conversing with. What we now call a recoil spring was originally called a "slide return spring".

[Forrest r]

The 1911-A1 specs of which you speak were adopted by Uncle Sam in 1924, and they were added to Commercial production the following year.

Thank you for the reply, as remington35 pointed out, he shouldn't have gotten the hammer bite.

My understanding is that they started doing the mods in 1923 & they ended in 1925. The main reason for the mods were to make the 1911 more user friendly for people with shorter hands. Hence the 1st 5 mods to take place:
Shorter trigger
Cuttouts behind trigger in frame
arched mainspring housing
Longer safety spur
Shorter hammer spur

After that the other mods were secondary like the sight changes, ect.

I understand that this could of been built in the middle of the change over period. But some of the other pieces and parts just don't look right. I'm sure people here have allot more knowledge of the early 1911's than I do, I've only owned 10 or 12 or them and that was years (20years) ago. It just looks like a commercial parts gun to me.

Could of it been a reworked military 1911??? Absolutely!!! It was common for people to buy them and then grind/sand all the military markings off them and then reblue them.

But what I see:
No military marks on frame ='s 1926 of newer commercial model.
Straight lanyard hook ='s WWII era
Serrated trigger(diamonds) vs smooth and straight line ='s WWII era

[Doc Highwall]

forrest r, what bullet did you use in the picture in post #13.

[35remington]

The AI modification should have made hammer bite much less of a problem for people with fat, fleshy or large hands as well because you'd have to have real "fatty" hands for the flesh to flow past the extended tang of the A1 grip safety. The shorter hammer spur also played its role.

[Forrest r]

Mihec's #68 clone, doesn't matter if their the swc's or the hp swc's, they chew bug holes.

A picture of a typical early (1920's/early 30's/a1) military 1911, note the hammer length/position compared to the grip safety.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t242/forrestr-photo/early1911_zps6a482b49.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/forrestr-photo/media/early1911_zps6a482b49.jpg.html)

It extremely hard to get hammer bite after the a1 mods, also has the early angled lanyard.

Anyway, none of this takes away from the excellent video you posted Remington35.

Thundermaker, it's funny that you mention slide fit as an important part of a 1911 accuracy. You're statement of "the slide rattles on the frame" goes strait to the heart of what I've been saying.

There's 2 different contentions/ideas/theory's about when a 1911's bbl moves:
The bbl moves after the bullet exits the bbl.
The bbl moves before the bullet exits the bbl.

I'm of the opinion that the bbl moves/bbl link drops before the bullet leaves the bbl. So what does the slide fit have to do with any of this??? The slide fit is something that is measurable. The bbl/bbl bushing fit is also something that is measurable. Any time you can measure something, you can figure out the maximum dispersion/deflection/angle. If anyone read remington35's post #14, they'll find that what he says is huge!!! His consistent return to battery/bbl position in the bbl bushing statement due to a heavy enough spring is spot on.

In my post #13 I asked people to do a simple test. Every time I've done/tried that test or anyone I've ever seen do the same test came up with pretty much the same results. A 400% increase in group size @ 50ft. I'm going from a 2" group to 8"/8"+ group just by changing the recoil spring. (The last time I herd about anyone duplicating this experiment was on 12-12-14 on the 1911 forum/guy with a les baer went from chewing the x-ring out of a target & a mere 10yds to all over the place & high/ All shots HIGH is also hugh!!!!).

A picture of some p+ test loads shot from the same 1911 that did the same groups pictured in post #13, same 1911/same shooter/same recoil spring.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t242/forrestr-photo/45acpchrony_zps82e18452.jpg (http://s162.photobucket.com/user/forrestr-photo/media/45acpchrony_zps82e18452.jpg.html)

I was testing some swaged hp's I made with what I call loose cores (loose cores ='s lead cores that weren't swaged tightly to the jacket). Anyway this same 1911 that can shoot bugholes with light target loads @ 50ft tends to do/average 2" groups @ 50ft with p+ loads. This load was easily doing the normal 2" group until I got the low flier.

These tests/groups fall right in line with what remington35 said happens with any 1911, a consistent return to battery. But it also shows not only how a strong spring can control a group size, it shows when the spring can't control the group size also. The main players; Light target loads, heavy p+ loads, movement.

As per post #13's target, it's clear that the 1911 is controlled enough to be consistent. I rely on remington35 statement in post #14 as fact, the is definitely consistency in that 10-shot group. The p+ group pictured above might not be as good/eye candy like the group posted in #13 but it still follows exactly what remington35 says happens in post #14 & is still consistent. Well, the 3rd player in the equation is movement and mechanical movement can be measured.

I've always used a rough scale of for every 5" of bbl length 1/1000th of movement ='s 1 moa. I know it's not perfect & I'm sure someone will gladly put a post with the correct #'s.

So if I have 1/1000th of play/slop in my bbl/bbl bushing fit and 2/1000th play/slop in my frame/slide fit. That ='s 3/1000th's total of mechanical movement or 1/2" @ 50ft. There's no controlling the 1/2" movement, one shot high/one shot low/a 4 points of the compass.

At the end of the day there is still something else going on that is causing the larger groups/cone of fire. If I take the chronograph #'s and punch them into a ballistics calculator with my high & low extreme spreads @ 50ft I come up with I should be getting 1/2" groups (outside to outside measurement/no deduction for bullet size) but I keep getting around 1 1/4" groups. Is it me the shooter and that's all I can do or is it that there's some movement in the slop of the fit of the parts of my 1911 that the heavy spring in remington35's post can't control/overcome.

The heavy p+ loads/groups I keep testing end up in the same area, 2" groups. A ballistics calculator puts them in the 1/2" range also but I keep getting bigger groups with the p+ loads than I do with the light target loads. I don't believe it's me because I can get bugholes with target loads. So why aren't these p+ loads doing the same as the target loads???

I believe it's because the heavy spring can't control the heavier loads and the movement/slop in the parts of the 1911 are showing up.

So what does all of this have to do with with when a bullet exits a bbl????

I'm getting 2" groups @ 50ft with a 1911/spring combo.
I have 3/1000th's of play slope in the bbl/bbl bushing and slide frame fit.
By simply changing to an extremely light target spring (10#), my groups open up to 8" @ 50ft.
1 moa ='s .16" of movement @ 50ft.

If it's true that the bbl doesn't move until the bullet leaves the bbl that means the the bbl stays locked in the slide. If the bbl stays locked in the slide then only movements that can affect the groups size is the fit of the bbl/bbl bushing because both of them are in the slide and the slide fit to the frame. Hence, 3/1000th's of play slop movement that move to any of the 4 points of the compass, the longest distance being opposite movements to each other or 3/1000th's x 2 ='s 6/1000th's of total play/slop/movement. 6/1000th's movement @ 50 ft ='s 1" of total movement.

1" + .451" bullet+ ballistic calculator's .1" ='s 1.551"

I'm getting 2" groups not 1.551" groups, no big deal. But what does bother me is when I switch springs and I get 8" groups with the same 1911/load combo I just used the group before to get 2" groups. The only difference was a simple recoil spring change.

So, if the recoil spring doesn't matter and if the bbl doesn't move until after the bullets leaves it, then where did the extra 36moa of movement come from????

36moa ='s 36/1000th's

The slide can only move so far, the bbl can only move so far in the bbl bushing. 3/1000th's of total slop x 2 or 6/1000ths max

It's my contention is that the extra/un-accounted for extra 6" of groups size/36moa,36/1000's of 1911 parts movement is from the bbl link moving/dropping the bbl while the bullet is still in the bbl. The bbl can't move the extra 36/1000th's in the bbl bushing. The slide can't move the extra 36/1000th's on the frame. The bbl controls where the bullet goes.

I've seen this happen time and time again happen with quality 1911's and actually read about it quite a bit on the internet.


I'd appreciate it if someone could go over the #'s or give their take/ideas on why so much movement.

Something to think about:
Why would 1 of the premier 1911 builders in the country only give a 1 1/2" @ 50yd gaurantee only if the user used the 1911 with a frame mounted scope?

[35remington]

The barrel does not unlock from the slide lugs nor does the link tug on the barrel until the bullet is gone. This point is well known. It cannot be debated as it is completely and irrefutably settled for all time. JMB did not screw up and mistime his gun to work when it could not work. We have to give him more credit than that. Barrel unlock timing was solved and the gun has been correctly functional for over 100 years now.

Everything else is open to speculation, but that point is not. It's simply not arguable.

Since the barrel can assume any number of pre firing positions prior to pulling the trigger in a loose (or even tight) fitment to the gun given that return to battery is variable, and may vary even more with spring strength variations, that cause has to be investigated first. This variable return to battery involves the barrel all along its length, front to back and side to side as well as up/down. Not just on the front end but on the rear end as well.

Try figuring dispersion with the front of the barrel, say, all the way to the right and the rear all the way to the left. Or the front up and the rear down. A sloppy return to battery can see the rear of the barrel in a less than consistent vertical/horizontal lockup as well, especially vertical.

Run the numbers on that and see what you get.

I haven't seen a 4X increase in group size from changing springs. I've seen a change, yeah, but not that much.

Bullets and loads increase dispersion, and the bullet may not exit the gun cleanly. It could be an unbalanced bullet as well for all I know.....bad lot of bullets. If the bullets have loose cores as you mention, the center of balance could be off and these may be responsible for the bad grouping more so than the gun's change in spring strength.

Only with a frame mounted scope because the aiming device has its dispersion increased when mounted on the slide, and its dispersion potentially adds to the barrel/slide dispersion and points in a different direction from shot to shot. The frame is a fixed position and is the gun mount. Mounted there the scope points in the same direction from shot to shot and is not influenced by variable lockup.

I've helped as much as I can about the link tugging on the barrel thing. It doesn't happen, and the change in spring rates isn't enough to cause the link to pull on the barrel in one instance (and the other spring not to do so) before the bullet leaves. Slide inertia and weight is primarily responsible for this timing as the barrel/slide moves backwards only fractionally before the bullet leaves. The difference in spring resistance over this short distance of early slide movement between a 10 and an 18 isn't much.....because the springs are both way below their rated compression when they are fully extended.

In other words, the springs don't have much to do with it because both aren't pushing on the slide as remotely close to as hard as when they approach full compression. Given this feeble preload, the difference between a 10 and 18 pound spring isn't enough to cause the link to start tugging on the barrel. As stated, unlock timing is not at all affected by spring weight.

If you want to keep postulating about it, look up some resources that have to do with 1911 unlock timing. If theories contradict what is known about how the pistol works and how springs work, then the theory ought to be reexamined.

[Forrest r]

The barrel does not unlock from the slide lugs nor does the link tug on the barrel until the bullet is gone. This point is well known. It cannot be debated as it is completely and irrefutably settled for all time. JMB did not screw up and mistime his gun to work when it could not work. We have to give him more credit than that. Barrel unlock timing was solved and the gun has been correctly functional for over 100 years now.

Everything else is open to speculation, but that point is not. It's simply not arguable.

Since the barrel can assume any number of pre firing positions prior to pulling the trigger in a loose (or even tight) fitment to the gun given that return to battery is variable, and may vary even more with spring strength variations, that cause has to be investigated first. This variable return to battery involves the barrel all along its length, front to back and side to side as well as up/down. Not just on the front end but on the rear end as well.

Try figuring dispersion with the front of the barrel, say, all the way to the right and the rear all the way to the left. Or the front up and the rear down. A sloppy return to battery can see the rear of the barrel in a less than consistent vertical/horizontal lockup as well, especially vertical.

Run the numbers on that and see what you get.

I haven't seen a 4X increase in group size from changing springs. I've seen a change, yeah, but not that much.

Bullets and loads increase dispersion, and the bullet may not exit the gun cleanly. It could be an unbalanced bullet as well for all I know.....bad lot of bullets. If the bullets have loose cores as you mention, the center of balance could be off and these may be responsible for the bad grouping more so than the gun's change in spring strength.

Only with a frame mounted scope because the aiming device has its dispersion increased when mounted on the slide, and its dispersion potentially adds to the barrel/slide dispersion and points in a different direction from shot to shot. The frame is a fixed position and is the gun mount. Mounted there the scope points in the same direction from shot to shot and is not influenced by variable lockup.

I've helped as much as I can about the link tugging on the barrel thing. It doesn't happen, and the change in spring rates isn't enough to cause the link to pull on the barrel in one instance (and the other spring not to do so) before the bullet leaves. Slide inertia and weight is primarily responsible for this timing as the barrel/slide moves backwards only fractionally before the bullet leaves. The difference in spring resistance over this short distance of early slide movement between a 10 and an 18 isn't much.....because the springs are both way below their rated compression when they are fully extended.

In other words, the springs don't have much to do with it because both aren't pushing on the slide as remotely close to as hard as when they approach full compression. Given this feeble preload, the difference between a 10 and 18 pound spring isn't enough to cause the link to start tugging on the barrel. As stated, unlock timing is not at all affected by spring weight.

If you want to keep postulating about it, look up some resources that have to do with 1911 unlock timing. If theories contradict what is known about how the pistol works and how springs work, then the theory ought to be reexamined.

Thank you for taking the time to help answer what I put out there. I don't do too much testing along these lines and don't really recommend any else do so or there tight 1911 will end up with a couple of new rattles.:groner:

[35remington]

Yeah, but it's interesting trying different things and I sure can't fault the spirit of experimentation. It's not like you were gonna blow yourself up or anything.