Does anybody have experience or opinions on the fitting and/or use of the EGW Long Ball Disconnect and their Hard Sear? I am especially interest in the fit to a new production Colt Series 70 keeping the full positive engagement hammer.
I haven't used the new disconnector yet but the sear is my go to part. I have used the BUL ball head MIM disconnector and find it fits my Springfield frames better than non ball type disconnectors. I would expect the EGW ball head disco to be an exceptional part. I can't help with specifics on the Colt frame but the ball tip could be sized specificaly for the frame dimension.
Well, it goes without saying that any trigger components will need to be fit to the individual gun, so there is no way of telling if it will be a (so called) "drop in" part if that is what you are looking for.
In new builds from Caspian/Foster and Fusion, I have found that the diameter of the head needed to be taken down some so it would fit in the disconnector hole. But, I think that's the point.
What this "ball" disconnector does, then, is take a Gov't Model's clearance between it and its frame hole of 0.009 to 0.016 inch (which would seem to allow plenty of room for crud to pass through and not interfere with reset) and reduce that clearance to practically nothing?
Right there below the breechface when the slide's back? One of the dirtiest places in a 1911?? Maybe I'm not seeing the "big picture" here, but this type of disconnector doesn't sound like a good idea - especially in a carry gun. To me at least.
Am I missing something?
The ball works really well and was first developed when the first NM guns where built. They would swage the hole down and cut a ball shape around the disconnector head.
Dirt doesn't go places it can't, the better the fit the less dirt can get in. The ball will go up and down freely in it's range of motion without slop or clicking. Both Kimber and Springfield use this style and the disconnector hole is slightly oversize, so using a std. one isn't wise. SVI makes one also.
Quote:
Well, it goes without saying that any trigger components will need to be
fit to the individual gun, so there is no way of telling if it will be a (so
called) "drop in" part if that is what you are looking for.
Yes! And that goes for non-trigger parts as well. Now, for an editorial opinion.
I have just added the ball head disconnector to my list of solutions waiting for a problem. If I recall correctly (ahem) the disconnector must have up and down motion as well as rotation. Up and down happens as the disconnector head moves in and out of the notch in the slide. Back and forth happens when pulling the trigger. So the part must have considerable freedom of movement in a number of directions. Fitting a disconnector ball into a socket in the frame has no effect on the accuracy or the reliability of the gun. HST, I suppose it can't hurt anything if it is installed correctly. As far as making for a smoother trigger pull by reducing friction at the disconnector head...are you really going to make that argument?
Early Kimbers were fitted with a ball disconnector. At that time I understand Kimber was using Chip McCormick parts for their 1911's. Due to dimensions of the frame and disconnector tunnel, a stock part will cause safety problems. On those frames, the best idea is to get the original McCormick part if available.
I don't believe there is any difference in friction contributing to a smoother pull. But there is a difference in unneeded movement of the head. As far as Springfield and Kimber goes, they both have oversize disconnector holes in the frame. Springfield will not sell theirs without installing it. Kimber will. CMC hasn't made or sold them for quite a while. The Bul part is cheap, but works. The EGW is a high quality part.
I had initially thought it would not be too difficult for any crud accumulating on top of the ball of this disconnector to eventually work it way between the ball and hole wall and prevent reset as the disconnector goes up & down with each firing:
PICTURE 404
Even though failure to reset doesn't now seem too likely after measuring the upward force on Petunia's disconnector at about 20oz, I'm with Lazarus' assessment of this gizmo - a solution waiting for a problem. Howsomever...
...if there was a ball bearing small enough for a standard-headed disconnector to go up & down inside that could be pressed into a counterbore in the hole, why... why... it'd be almost like a Briley bushing... and... and...
It's an old idea. Been in use for quite a while. If replacing a disconnector in a Kimber or Springfield there are two choices, use the one the frame was designed to use, or swage the hole and use a standard.
The one thing I have found with most everything EGW makes, is that they need fitting, and not just the occasional swipe of a file. All the EGW parts I have installed take quite a bit more time in fitting compared to other makers' parts.
Quote:
The one thing I have found with most everything EGW makes, is that they
need fitting, and not just the occasional swipe of a file. All the EGW parts I
have installed take quite a bit more time in fitting compared to other makers'
parts.
Yup, you're right about that. I could be wrong, but George Smith (EGW owner) I think created EGW to be the "Gunsmith's Gunsmith" (maybe that's the same as a "Man's man"?).
Just in case nobody has actually been to the site and read George's reasons...
http://egw-guns.com/store/index.php...products_id=464
Yep, if you want a generic part with a generic fit and generic warranty, buy from a generic dealer. The more expensive, the better.
Otherwise, it's like buying cheap gas in NJ - You get what you pay for, eh?
Thank you all for your ideas and opinions. The EGW Long Ball Disconnect is dimensioned for, I believe, the 70/80 Series Colt; so fit hopefully would be "replacement". The EGW Hard Sear, if used "as is" and not cut with a secondary engagement surface, should also fit. The problem of fit would seem to occur when the parts are modified to fit receivers from various manufactureres with slightly different dimensions and/or to conform to each fitters preferred sear engagement style. The EGW Long Ball Disconnect would seem to "float" on slide and sear spring contact without sear pin drag; and in theory give smooth action. Colt parts are fine; but this disconnect seemed to be well made and of a very interesting design.
Quote:
Got m'self so engrossed with the little ring around the head of this thing,
I totally forgot about the "long" part. I'd be tickled pink (!) if somebody
would tell me:
These dimensions from one example, not the build dimensions.
A .834"
B .482"
C 1.316"
Head diameter is .166"
I am with you Jon... I like these disconnectors. I don't advocate the blind adherence to the holy grail that only one specified lenght is correct for each and every gun.
It's the final fit that matters, as disconnector contact/clearance should be checked on every gun. The EGW part allows for this. The head radius does give a more consistant feel, and reduces random contact within the frame bore.
A little drafting no-no double dimensioning go-in-on there... plus .819 +/- .003 + .474 +/- .003 = 1.293 +/- .006
I've used the EGW ball head disconect on two bullseye guns- a Caspian frame and an Essex frame.
The ball head eliminated a "click" in the trigger pull on one (which was my reason for getting the EGW part - dreaded disconnector click...) and worked fine in the other.
I've got thousands of rounds of .22 rimfire with the ball head disconnect. The only fitting I had to do was polish the surfaces that mate with the trigger bow and sear spring. One required very slight polishing of the ball to slide freely in the frame.
Thanks to 1911Art for his experiences and to BigJon for the EGW Long Ball Disconnect's dimensions. It seems really long! Again my question is has anybody else fitted or used one - what are your observations? Is it smoother and does it make the trigger feel "alive"?
Not really as long as it seems as the dimensions given to compare to are on the short side by other standards. In fact are below minimum of some prints. But that's okay as if too long is easy to bring into a working length compared to, too short.
How the fit stacks up with the other parts is the answer.
Does the trigger feel ""alive"? Umm... haven't experienced that.
Thank you BigJon. By "alive" I mean floating on spring/sear engagement pressure and not dragging. At first, I thought of using the EGW Hard Sear; but now I am preferring the STI sear. This will be an extreme use gun fitted with a Wolf mil-spec sear spring and a 23 pound main spring. You are probably thinking - how can you feel anything with an about 6 pound trigger pull? Well, 6 pounds in a revolver is light! In a shoot-out the trigger is being jerked - it is a question of grip index and trigger control as to whether you pull your shoots or not. A smooth trigger pull is what is really important. I would like to hear your opinion and suggestions as I don't want to modify the gun for the parts; but am willing to modify the parts for the gun. On the road there is no access to shop tools and the gun must remain easily serviceable with mil-spec parts if something breaks.
No matter what, the disconnector doesn't float. It is in constant contact with the back of the trigger bow and the head is in contact with the frame hole. And after it resets it contacts the sear legs when the trigger is pulled. My opinion is stay with the EGW sear also. But once fitted it should be smooth and last as long as any of the parts.
...a Wolf mil-spec sear spring... I presume you are referring to the W.C. Wolff Co. sear spring #30201, they don't have one called mil-spec. Why 6#, why not the mil-spec. 8#? Good enough for horse back in 1911.
Now days everything has to be tactical and extreme. The 1911 was designed for the military and for that reason it is an extreme use gun. The gun has to keep ticking even if it is in the mud, and hasn't been cleaned after every shot. Is that what you are referring to?
Take your stripped frame and stick the disconnector into its tunnel. Move it around, up and down, back and forth. Can you tell me that this part can cause a rough or heavy trigger pull? Of course, the disconnector is only connected to the sear when it sits in its highest position. The actual fit of the disconnector head in the tunnel is irrelevant.
As far as the sear goes I challenge anyone to tell me who made it based only on how the gun shoots. Any good quality sear will work fine. If the goal is reliability, then you will have a generous hook depth and sufficient sear face contact to prevent battering and distortion of the metal parts. It is the 1- 1/2 pound trigger pull guy with .016" (or below) hammer hooks who will test the limits of the materials. Think pounds per square inch of material in bearing. A trigger engagement built for reliability will be safe and reliable 10 years from now, whereas a super light target trigger might have to be replaced once or twice a year due to metal battering. Every builder gets to juggle these variables and trade-offs. There is no single correct solution.
Quote:
Take your stripped frame and stick the disconnector into its tunnel. Move
it around, up and down, back and forth. Can you tell me that this part can
cause a rough or heavy trigger pull? Of course, the disconnector is only
connected to the sear when it sits in its highest position. The actual fit of
the disconnector head in the tunnel is irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Hardly, a loose head fit will adversely affect reset.
The disconnector can cause a creepy clicky feeling.
The disconnector is not in contact with the sear until you pull the trigger through pre-travel.
Quote:
...a loose head fit will adversely affect reset.
If so, then IMHO each & every 1911 produced by or for the Army must have put each & every GI bearing one in harm's way with its specified head-hole looseness of 0.009" to 0.016"!
Oh, okay, so it doesn't matter. Try a stock disconnector in a Springfield or Kimber and the loose fit will cause problems. If the head moves too much it can't reset unless the pre-travel is compensating for the extra slop. As specified it isn't too loose as it opens and closes the tolerances as it moves front to back. This excessive looseness must be taken up every time the trigger is pulled. But it doesn't matter.
Wonder what good swagging the disconnector hole in the frame is good for or who even thought of it if the fit is irrelevant. Of course it is relevant.
Quote:
Try a stock disconnector in a Springfield or Kimber and the loose fit will
cause problems.
Such may be the case for Springfield and Kimber built guns - I don't know. My reference was to all those made long ago for issue to our military. Those are the only ones for which specifications are available to the general public, and I've got a strong hunch that reliable disconnector reset is kind of important in a combat weapon.
I've absolutely no idea what specifications Springfield & Kimber use in their versions of the M1911A1. And if they won't work with an Ordnance disconnector - well, I guess they won't!
As you pointed out the min. to max. on the frame hole and head when the heads axis and hole axis are in line is .009"-.016", and that will work fine. Not excellent, but reliable. So those are parameters that must be respected, go under the min. and the head will bind as it swings in it's arc of use, go over and reset problems will result. The point is it matters.
The beauty of the ball head that was first used in the 30's is the ball, once fitted has very little clearance and functions very smoothly during trigger pull and reset. True so can a std. when fitted with in more narrow clearances than the min. - max. it's all good.
Thanks BigJon. I agree with your opinion that the EGW Long Ball Disconnect combined with the EGW Hard Sear will give me the smooth trigger pull I am looking for. Colt is fitting the new Series 70 with a reduced power "skeleton" sear spring as opposed to the W.C.Wolf sear spring which I believe is to 1911- A1 spec. The difference is a 1.5 pound lighter trigger pull. Therefore, fitting the Wolf sear spring should raise the Colt's nominal 5 pound trigger pull to about 6.5 pounds. the EGW Hard Sear and Colt hammer, fitted without reducing their engagement surfaces, would probably lower this figure. There is nothing wrong with the Colt sear or disconnect. The EGW parts should make the trigger pull smoother; if not, the Colt parts go back in. The 1911-A1 is an extreme duty gun as opposed to todays's trend in target/carry guns. By using the new Colt Series 70 as a basis and changing some of its springs and with a few internal components we are just modernizing the original concept. Sort of sharpening the ax if you prefer.
Sear springs are bent in a pretty close to usable configuration, but they do need attention, if wanting other than what they give you out of the bag. For trigger pulls mid 3s and less the Colt spring is the best out there, for more the Wolff (Wolff) two effs, is a good choice, but the actual pull weight will need to be adjusted as with different parts, different results occur.