Kuhnhausen

Well... I bit the bullet last week and popped for Kuhnhausen's Shop Manuals (1and 2)... and I'm a little underwhelmed. The information is good, as near as I can tell, but I guess I was expecting a combination of the Holy Grail and the Dead Sea Scrolls or somethin'...

There are a couple of points that I'm not entirely in agreement with, but the main thing is that the way some of it is written is a little unclear. I understand it, but someone who was just getting started with the 1911 would be scratchin' his head...

Volume 2 has some very good drawings and provides dimensions that can be put to good use, and careful study would give a lot of insight as to how the pistol works.

I would think to a guy as advanced as you Kuhnhausen would be Old Hat but I found it quite helpful in understanding some of the finer points of Ole Slabsides guts and workings. However, I will be the first to agree that Ole Mr. Kuhnhausen could use a good editor to get his prose in understandable language. A good writer (meaning CLEAR) he is not. Also, Mr. Jim Keenan has often asserted and I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Kuhnhausen's understanding of the operations of the pistol as fired do not jibe with reality. He thinks (IIRC) the bbl does not move until ye olde bullet leaves the muzzle. I fail to observe the same phenomenon meself.

Yes, I still say he doesn't know how the darn gun works! But I still find the books useful. In most areas, there is little he can teach me, except for some of the production tools that I could never justify buying since I was not a dedicated 1911 smith.

The main use I have found lately for the books is when some guy on here or the 1911 forum asks the diameter of the safety spring plunger or some other esoteric bit of knowledge that few of us can really answer off the top of the old head.

It's kind of odd that you brought this up.

I've got both books and I have a little trouble following along with them.

However,I was thinking today that the info you've posted here could be organised into a good how to book.(I haven't had any trouble following them btw)

Rather than publishing it in paper form,it could be made into an ebook and sold on cd or dvd.

Quote:
There are a couple of points that I'm not entirely in agreement with, but the main thing is that the way some of it is written is a little unclear.

Oh, good. It's not me.

Now you know why we've exchanged so much email.

I have the same problem with all the "You, Too, Can Build Your Own House!" books put out by people who should really know better than to try to explain why hip rafters are laid out using 17 to someone who doesn't know a 2x4 from an albino kangaroo until the 'roo moves.

Unfortunately, there's nothing else out there, so we struggle along, and send you email.

I've got vol.2 only, I thought vol.1 was discontinued , oh well, no matter, I've got all of Grampa Tuners Texts .

Ya'll have made my day too! I picked up Vol.2 first just because that was all that was available at the time and went thru what I could absorb but had an awful lot of questions. I picked up Vol.1 at the next gun show and after perusing it realized they call them vol.1 & vol.2 for a reason. DUH! Vol.2 assumes you have already read Vol.1 . Many of my questions were answered but many more were left unanswered.Then I found you guys and it's slowly coming together.

I've been thru the Kuhnhausen's, Simpson's , Wilson's and Hallock's books but I've gotten more from your entries here than anything else. If that book ever comes about I'll take three. Thanks.

I have read both of Kuhnhausen's 1911 manuals and I agree with the above posts. The first did give me some information and guidance, but some of the text is really hard to follow. The second manual is nice, but I was disappointed in that it was mostly dimensional drawings and added little to the techniques of the first book.

Keep in mind most of the now classic gunsmithing books have a lot of rehashing in them as there usually isn't more than a couple of ways of doing something right.

As for rehashing,if it was easier to understand and was both well written and well edited as opposed to something while full of technical details but hard to follow,it would sell.

One of my favorite gunsmith writers is the late Ralph T. Walker.

He put it into terms that were more easily understood without leaving out the important stuff.

So please consider writing up all this stuff.Half of it is probably already here on this forum!

I may be able to put you in touch with someone who has the ebook software to publish it if need be.

For me, the notes on adjusting the trigger pull, alone, were worth the price.

Volume 2

Well whaddaya know bout that? I was perusin' thru Book 2 over a leisurely cuppa turbo coffee late this mornin', studyin' up on some of those excellent mechanical drawin's... when I came to the extractor part. Lo and Bee-Hold... Jerry says that in the event of the tolerances stackin' up between extractor and its channel and puttin' the extractor in a bind so that it can't cam open to let a round in... that you're supposed to reduce the center dog knot a little to give it some room to move.

Now..I gotta figger that either this Kuhnhausen feller is sharper'n I thought... or he just flat stole my idea! Who woulda thunkit? Ta think of all the flak I took over at that other forum for suggestin' such a thing, and right there it was all along in the .45 bible!

Just in case any of them naysayers are lurkin' around watchin'...

I didn't know that was esoteric knowledge; it is a normal part of fitting an extractor. Tuner knows this, but for anyone who does not, just remember that the 1911 type internal extractor IS A SPRING. It has to flex and it has to have tension. The originals were made by machining heavy spring steel wire, then heating, drawing and tempering. But spring steel costs money, and the process is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Most of the troubles with 1911 type extractors today are due to the fact that the wrong materials are used. Common bar stock will not make a good spring, no matter what you do to it. Cast or MIM extractors are even worse; they lose tension rapidly and tend to break.

Is it just me? The extractor seems like one of the odder design/materials choices in an otherwise brilliant design suite.

Nope... In days of yore it was common for a part to be its own spring. The Mauser-type extractor is an example... Go have a look at a Ruger M-77 bolt rifle to see it still workin'. Other examples are out there.

It's not so much having the extractor be its own spring -- that isn't so uncommon. What seems funny is designing a part that seems to need so darned much machining to perform a simple task. But I guess you could say more or less the same thing about a Mauser-style extractor vs. the extractor on a push-feed bolt rifle. And, now that I think about it, I think I know one of the prime reasons that many rifle designs use the latter type.

Ahh... JNewell, you just touched on another of my favorite subjects.

Push-feed bolt-action rifles are fine if sporting use is the intended role, but in the beginning, bolt-action rifles were state of the art weapons developed...like so many other designs... for the killing of men on the battlefield. As such, the bolts would be snapped hard and fast as the fight grew more furious and ranges got closer. A failure to extract was something that you didn't want to happen, not even once.

The controlled feed of the Mauser and its clones was also a safeguard against a round getting ahead of the bolt during the feed, and the shooter not realizing that there was round in the chamber, double-stroking the rifle, and getting a ka-boom as the spire pointed bullet nailed the primer in the unsupported chambered round when the rifleman slammed the bolt home. A battlefield is chock full of Murphy opportunities. Basically, the controlled feed system is simply more reliable under harsh conditions and mad moments that prevail on a battlefield.

So, it my quarry is Pronghorn or Whitetail... varmint or bullseye, the push- feed rifle will serve as well as any. If the role of my bolt-rifle is getting me out of a killing field or going in the brush after a wounded bear, I'll opt for the Mauser system every time.

Food fer thinkin'...No more, no less.

The trouble with Kuhnhausen's manuals [Mauser, Rem 11-87, and Garrand] is that there is information there, burried in scatter brained organization.

Some people are better than others at rooting out the information.

I am personally already scatter brained, so me and a Kuhnhausen manual is scatterbrained squared.

Tuner, brining the question of design and materials choices back to selfloading pistols in general and the 1911 in particular... and with the stipulation that I agree with everything you've said re: the 1911 extractor...

is it clear that the original JMB design was the best choice, at least in terms of efficient manufacturing?

Could we not have replaced it fully with a design like the SIG P22x pistols (for example)? Make the extractor out of bar stock...no tempering issues... easier shape to machine... use a simpler coil spring to actuate the extractor? Wouldn't function be unchanged? And wouldn't reliability be improved? I'm not an engineer... just thinking out loud here.

Could we not have replaced it fully with a design like the SIG P22x pistols (for example)? Make the extractor out of bar stock...no tempering issues...easier shape to machine...use a simpler coil spring to actuate the extractor? Wouldn't function be unchanged? And wouldn't reliability be improved? I'm not an engineer...just thinking out loud here.

Surely, and as has been observed, a spring-loaded external works very well...until one has to be removed and serviced under adverse condtions. I have enough problem keepin' up with tiny springs and pins on the bench, much less in a muddy shell-hole, which was where the original 1911 was intended to go. Much simpler to maintain in the field, and without tiools. The pistol's parts were its tools, right down to the cartridge rim fitting the grip screw slots.

The 1911 was designed for military service. Law enforcement wasn't in the plans, nor even the civilian market. Military service meant that it had to be kept as simple as possible. The problem with the pistol is that it's been around for so long, that many shooters have lost sight of exactly what its role was, and under what conditions. It's the epitome' of complex simplicity, and if original design paramaters are closely adhered to, as reliable as a rock.

Good, but here's the follow-up. For 1911 extractors today, we have all kinds of scales and jigs and tools to fit, adjust and trim. Is this because they are made out of the wrong material, or -- if we had ones made to JMB's original specs -- would they not be required???

For 1911 extractors today, we have all kinds of scales and jigs and tools to fit, adjust and trim. Is this because they are made out of the wrong material, or -- if we had ones made to JMB's original specs -- would they not be required?

We have those scales and jigs, etc. because somebody figured that they could make money from the sales of such things. Basic fitting is required in most cases, no matter what the material, but that can be done without special tools or fixtures. The two main advantages of correct spring tempered 1090 alloy over 4340 is that the former is more durable, and it doesn't need to be retensioned nearly as often, if at all. One pistol that I was personally involved with had been left in condition one for over 60 years. Not only did it function perfectly, but the extractor tension was still right on the money.