This should be of particular interest to Fuff, Jim Keenan, who know and understand... and to Jungle... who doesn't believe.
Recently I had occasion to address a return to battery problem on two pistols, owned by two different guys. One Loaded Springfield and one Colt Gunsite model. Both very nice guns, in fit and finish.
Both guns had slight spec issues, and I didn't want to get too invasive, since both were under warranty. One, I was able to get to run perfectly, with a slight hitch during a slidelock reload on the top round, and only if the slidestop was used to send the gun to battery. Slingshot provided reliable function.
The Springfield gave a hard "Ca-Chunk" on the go-to-battery until the third round was gone from the magazine.
Both owners were using the "best" 8-round magazines. One was made a little better by substituting proprietary 7-round followers and Wolff 8-round extra- power springs...but the top round still shoved the bullet back into the case... and sometimes would fail to go to battery on the top round. Other problems with the frame that aren't related to the functional problem kept me in the "Hands-Off" position until it was resolved by Springfield.
Interestingly, I produced a couple of the old, tapered-lip, late/gradual release USGI magazines... circa about 1940 or so... and tried them in the guns.
What a shock to hear the light "ka-chunk" in the Colt turn into a smooth "Schlap!" as it went to battery on all rounds... and the Springfield's hard KA-CHUNK!" turned into a light one... with no more bullet setback and no failures to go to battery. And they worked the same way with hollowpoints and lead SWC ammo...
Both guys asked if they could buy the magazines. I declined. The really good ones are gettin' scarce.
Goodness gracious... What are we to make of this?
May I ask if this the proprietary follower was a Tripp Super 7 follower? I have had lots of luck with taking Colt magazine bodies with the Metalform "M" stamping on the floor plate and using a Tripp Super 7 spring and follower conversion kit. I was able to get a friend's new SA GI running just by swapping the stock magazine for one of my Colt/Tripp magazines.
I am asking because I have no real USGI magazines and my prospects for getting some are slim. I do have dozens of the Metalform-made Colt magazines to which I can add the Tripp Super 7 kit.
Farscott... nope. By a happy coincidence, Metalform and Checkmate's 7-round mags made to Colt's specs actually provide the best of both worlds. Tapered lips that effect a more gradual release, and a timed release point that is more abrupt than the GI mag design, but still less so than the typical aftermarket wadcutter lips. Interestingly, some of the OEM magazines that come with Norinco pistols share that feature.
I'm hesitant to reveal the magazine brand in question for fear that yet another flame war will start over it, along with the usual: "Harrumph! My XYZ magazines have been flawless!"
I don't doubt that many have had good service from XYZ and ABC magazines. I just thought that this might be of interest.
Just so I understand this, the current style of wadcutter mag simply allows an "earlier" release so that shorter length ammo doesn't dive into the ramp too steep... downward. It does this by being picked up earlier by the extractor.
If the wadcutter is long enough, i.e. 1.250-1.26, it would not need an earlier "release" or early pickup from the extractor. I "assume" when they designed the new mags they were trying to feed, perhaps 185's... short ones?
Ball ammo works in the wadcutter since it's long enough not to dive too steeply and it's picked up by the extractor anyway. Not ideal is the point you are making given the original specs.
The 1911 design is flexable enough to work with a variety of mag lips, ramps, ammo, etc, just not with the "reliability" that it once was know for with the original specs.
45AUto... Not exactly. The magazines fed short-coupled 200-grain SWCs... 1.230 OAL... as slick as a button in pistols that wouldn't feed either SWC or hardball very well from the XYZ magazines... and several were tried.
Not even my favorite Metalforms did as well as the GI mags... though they did a little better than the XYZs.
The clew:
The old mags start the release a little earlier... release gradually as the round moves... and finish later. The new-style mags hold the round until the last second, and release early and abruptly.
Okay.
So, the transition from captured ammo to extractor is longer and "smoother", i.e. not abrupt, like the early released wadcutter mag.
Meaning the "jump" from mag controlled casing to extractor is more gentle, controlled... less violent. That's the "key" to working better... yes?
When hand cycling my SWC loads at 1.26 with a wad mag, I can't see the bullet dip at all. The release from the mag to the extractor is quite vigorous. It "appears" the release doesn't happen until the bullet nose is contacting the upper part of the chamber?
One of the problems of visualizing from "books and drawings" is they are often not drawn to scale for clarity I assume. Doing it with the gun gives you a different perspective. Not a lot of "room" in there.
Ah yes...
Should I deside to buy a Glock, SIG, Ruger or Beretta I will get a pistol made by... would you believe... Glock, SIG, Ruger or Beretta. On the other hand if I should opt for something on a 1911 platform it may come from a flock of clone makers who buy the parts from other suppliers, and none in the whole bunch seem to have a set of blueprints (or if they do they can't read them).
So Tuner ends up with two very expensive examples that are "loaded" with gadgets and cosmetics - but won't run. He finds that they have some minor "dimensional issues," and of course tricked-out magazines. So he tinkers a bit and switches to some magazine that were made 60 years ago - give or take - and presto! the guns start to run.
It will come as no shock to Tuner, but my pistols for the most part have magazines similar to the ones he has, and for the last 55 years or so they have been feeding just fine.
Now some of this has to do with the magazines themselves, and some of it has to do with things like run-up, slide velocity, and where the magazine has positioned the top remaining round when the breechface hits the base of the cartridge. This is why things like spring rates and follower shapes can make a difference. Also I hope someone noticed that Tuner didn't solve the problem of getting the slide into battery by using a recoil spring he made out of something removed from pick-up truck parked out in the back yard.
Browning's pistol used to work just fine - until the "new school" crowd went and made it over...
Quote:
Metalform and Checkmate's 7-round mags made to Colt's specs actually
provide the best of both worlds. Tapered lips that effect a more gradual
release, and a timed release point that is more abrupt than the GI mag design,
but still less so than the typical aftermarket wadcutter lips.
Tuner, good sir, should we take that to mean that the Colt factory 7 round mags from Metalform and Checkmate are the best option for those of us without access to GI mags like yours?
ugaarguy... I'd say that they're the best compromise. The one thing lacking is that they don't usually have the best springs, and often the follower angles are out of spec... but that's pretty easy to correct with bent sheet-metal followers.
If the gun is within spec... and the magazine spring is up to the task... and the follower angle is correct... the round doesn't dive steeply into the ramp before making the upward turn toward the chamber. It should dip, strike the ramp high, glance off and glide over the corner of the barrel ramp rather than hitting it and again glancing up. The over-the-corner glide is important to smooth feeding because it holds the barrel down in the bed instead of pushing it forward. When the barrel moves forward, it also moves up... increasing the angle that the round has to overcome during the horizontal breakover.
The tapered lip magazine promotes that occurrence because... as the round strikes the frame ramp and starts to angle up, it's moved forward far enough for the butt-end to start to move up, so that by the time the nose of the bullet starts to glide over the corner of the barrel ramp, the rim has also moved higher onto the breechface. The angle is shallower, so the breakover to horizontal is easier and smoother.
By the time the bullet ogive is on top of the barrel ramp, the barrel is trapped in the bed... the extractor has picked up the rim... and the case is nearly centered on the breechface. All that's left is for the round to finish straightening up in the chamber... and for the slide to strike the barrel hood, and move the barrel forward and up into battery.
The parallel lip, early/abrupt release holds the rim down until the last instant, and releases it during the angled transition. Works well for very short OAL SWC ammo... below 1.190 inch... but not at all for longer rounds from 1.200-1.260 inch, even though they work reasonably well with longer ammo in many guns... but not all the time in all the guns. Again... it does require that the springs are strong enough, and the followers are set at the correct angle to prevent nose-diving deep into the ramp.
In short... The tapered design works for the same reasons that the new "High Cartridge Presentation" magazines work. They lower the angle of entry into the chamber after striking the feed ramp. They just do it by a different method. Nothing new under the sun, it seems. Oftentimes, these wonderous, new inventions were already in place many years before the modern inventor was born. The problem lies in the fact that many have either forgotten...or they've been innundated for so long with the modern that they've neglected to consider why the old was done like it was. Simply not enough faith in the genius who gave us the gun. Think. If the early, abrupt release magazines had enhanced feed reliability... don't you think that he would implemented it long ago? I have no doubt that it didn't escape his attention, and was likely tried during the development process... "Just to see what would happen."
I not only heard and felt the dramatic difference in two different pistols... I now have witnesses to it who are also internet forum members. You can contact Rob1035 and browningwgm over at 1911.org to get their testimonies. The latter one is coming back tomorrow to let me finish up his tweak, even though the original problem of intermittent RTB is solved. Rob's is a machining problem within the frame, and I want Springfield to correct that before we go further.
Unfortunately, there are no GI mags for my 10mm or .38 Super. So far, I have had a problem child in each flavor. Finally got both working acceptably, and in the case of the 10mm, I discarded 1 Colt mag, but kept the other 3, while replacing the springs with Wolff.
Fortunately, both of my .45s run well with all of my .45 mags. I even have 2 9mm mags for the rare times when I slip the 9mm barrel in the .38 Super, and they both work well.
Then, there are the 3 mags I have for .40 S&W and 357 SIG. Guess I am lucky, because they seem to be working.
Everything is working now, guess I need a new hobby.
grendelbane wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no GI mags for my 10mm or .38 Super. So far, I
have had a problem child in each flavor.
Specifically... what are they doin' wrong? Reason I'm askin' is that I've taken the plunge on a couple of magazines... stepped a little ways outside of the envelope... and I may have the cure, depending on exactly what the glitch is.
Oh... and tapered lip mags are around for the Super. Problem is that they're old, scarce, and expensive. You might try one of Colt's and see what happens.
Quote:
Think. If the early, abrupt release magazines had enhanced feed
reliability... don't you think that he would implemented it long ago? I have
no doubt that it didn't escape his attention, and was likely tried during the
development process..."Just to see what would happen."
Sure he did. If anyone has doubts look at Browning/Colt's earlier 1903 Pocket Pistol and 1908 Vest Pocket pistol. But in these pistols he wasn't interested in having a controled feed, and in what became the model 1911 he was. The tapered magazine lips are an important part of that feature.
Anything and everything Browning did always had a reason, although today those reasons are often overlooked or ignored.
Yep, and yep. Just like the slightly less than 90 degree breechface on the 1911. It's part of the whole controlled feed concept... and part of why some guns just don't run right, no matter what. All those angles are there for a reason... breechface, feed ramp, barrel ramp, magazine lip taper and release point... and none of'em allow for much variation.
I would add that I think a lot of the "logic" and "testing" that Browning et al. used in designing the 1911 was not so much ignored as just plain forgotten.
My impression of the situation is very much like my company. I work for a huge oil company. I am still getting asked about projects I did and my predecessors did decades ago. Lots of information was passed via the lunchroom discussions or out in the field over a beer. What it taught me is documentation is everything, but in the short term right now I am the "corporate memory" for certain aspects of domestic operations. Just recently I was asked about a an area for a survey I acquired and the guys looking for it did not even realize we not only owned it, I designed it, acquired it and got it processed. They were thinking about acquiring it.
I am sure Browning and his team would think the same thing. They would look at some of problems we routinely have and go "Well of course that failed you changed this that and the other thing which we tested in 1909 and modified in 1910. Why do you think we bent that piece that way?"
Then they would walk off muttering things about amateurs playing in a professional business. Just like I did. It taught me a valuable lesson. Ask professionals, don't assume you understand and document everything!
You have a good point. There is a lot more interest in the mechanical side of the picture then the history involved.
That said, much of the development work on the 1911 design was well documented. You find it in the trial reports and letters between Colt and the Army officers at Springfield Armory. Also in Browning's patent applications. More information can be found by looking at the progression of prototypes and how they changed.
In my view the current manufacturers of 1911 platform pistols - as well as parts and accessories - aren't interested in past history, just current and future sales. They push features they think potential buyers will find "cool" and attractive without worrying about possible consequences. If this wasn't true you'd not find certain makers using MIM extractors. The fact that they do makes it obvious that they either don't understand how the extractor is supposed to work - or they don't care.
Most buyers on the other hand don't understand what makes the machine tick, and presume the gun they just bought is exactly like Browning and Colt designed it - and then are disappointed when the gun don't run. They also seem to think that you can put 8 rounds into a magazine designed to hold 7, and not have any unforeseen consequences. The fact of the matter is that sometimes they work (at least until the spring takes a set) and sometimes they don't.
All of this keeps Tuner busy, tweeking this or that, or writing long posts on various forums trying to explain what's going on and why. Meanwhile nobody ever asks, "why didn't it work right in the first place?" The 1911 pistol business is the only one I know of where the makers can turn out an inordinate number of lemons, and still have customers coming back and begging for more.
This is interesting. I would like to know the brand of these "best" magazines, as I have seen feeding problems dissolve after magazine swaps as well.
Anyone care to name names?
Good points.
In regards to the magazines the other "reason" is the books that people like me "read", they often state the newly designed mags are "better" and that's pretty much what is for sale anyway. I've been shooting 1911s for a long time now, but I'm not sure I've ever had a "GI" type mag or knew the difference to be honest... until I "read" about them and they were pretty well dismissed.
I'll have to try one of those metalform mags as Tuner detailed.
Perhaps Metalform should consider the original GI type mag. I'd bet there is more people now than ever shooting hardball type bullets, due to the economy brands.
Too many choices in mags IMHO.
Old Fuff makes a very good point about us accepting lemons in the form of 1911's.
The 1911 format has been so "sold" to the shooting fraternity that we just accept failure as part of the game. The game is marketing as we all can now get a 1911 in virtually every major manufacturer.
Lets step back and analyze the situation for just a sec. Go to any magazine rack and look at the pictures. Most will be of some form of custom or stock 1911. Now read the articles and note that very rarely do they talk about significant shooting with the gun. Mostly 50 maybe 100 rnds fired and then any problems or bulkiness is attributed to being new.
I admit it. I succumbed to the 1911 game and have Baer's and a single Razorback. Of my 4 1911's only the Razorback has been back to the shop thus I have had good luck with my Baer's but I bought them only for the range and I paid a lot of money for each one to work and be accurate. They only have Baer magazines and they work.
BUT!
I go to the range, I watch folks have problems routinely with their Springer/Smith/SIG/Colt/ETC/ETC. They have jams, failures to eject, can't hit the broadside of a barn etc yet they extol the virtues of the 1911 because that is what is supposed to happen. This is even with factory ammo and not reloads.
So where does that leave us?
Basically I see it that the common manufacturers have realized they can just let the 1911's go out the door with no QC/QA because the public will do that for them and also that the average shooter does not put enough rounds down the gun to ever even tell if there is a problem. Thus we have poorly designed magazines, MIM extractors, 8 rnd mags when properly made 7 rounder would last a lifetime.
Sorry to rant a bit, but it seemed like the thing to do.
Welcome to the club...
Fuff... I do believe that Peter understands.
The "Inherently Finicky" 1911 has been known for that for so long, that it's simply accepted as fact... but there was a time that this wasn't the case.
Problem is, that many don't remember it as it was in its heyday. Like a world champion prizefighter well past his prime. When he comes out of retirement to take on the young squirt who THINKS he's a tough guy... and gets his clock cleaned... everybody thinks that the old champ never really was any good and that he couldn't have beaten the new kid on his best day... when in reality, the kid wouldn't have lasted three rounds when the older fighter was 25 years old.
Now, whenever somebody buys a new Colt/Springer/Kimber/Whatever..they rave about 200 rounds or 300 rounds without a malfunction... as long as it's clean and well-oiled, of course... and gripped just so... and fired with Brand X ammunition... and... ad nauseum. I know that there are a good many good ones around that just run like a sewin' machine... but there are too many that don't... and the factory-supplied magazine is often at the root of it.
Steve posted:
Good thread, I fully understand all this about the 1911, the mags and load
the gun was designed to run.
Which reminds me of another widely accepted bit of lore... That the 1911 was designed to function with hardball, and is only reliable with hardball unless extensively modified. I've disproven that one with several unaltered USGI and old commercial Colt pistols... demonstrating that they'll not only feed and function with modern hollowpoints and semi-wadcutters... but they'll do it from the old "Hardball Only" magazines... the ones with the tapered lips and late release. Many people have been shocked to see the guns eat'em up... and anyone who wants to see it need only come visit. My pistols aren't rare exceptions, but pretty much the norm for original, matched assemblies. Mixed part guns may or may not do it... and given the military's practice of disassembling 2 or 3 dozen at a time... tossing the parts into a chemical bath... and reassembling with no regard as to what slide, barrel, bushing, etc. went with what frame... Well... sometimes it gets lost in the translation.
Non-mixed guns will do it at a rate of about 95% or better.
I own a 7 year old Colt that was very reliable at least up until 30,000 rounds.
One of those "production guns" that made you wonder what all the fuss is about 1911s... again up until a higher round count.
Not being a manufacturing guy, I guess my question would be, since "they" can build reliable 1911s at production retails, what would it cost to insure the quality control on a repeatable basis? If the answer is "semi-custom" "standards" of production then the 1911 market would probably decrease by 80- 90%. Assuming 1911 customers wouldn't buy a less quality 1911...! They do, of course, but just for discussions sake.
The Baer couldn't be more reliable than the Colt I have, but I would expect it to be much more durable, accurate, etc for double the price. Take Baer out of the market and you are close to the $2,000 range for other "semi-custom 1911s... minimum.
What do they do to provide a reliable 1911 out of the box in a consistent fashion in that $700-$800 range?
45Auto wrote:
I own a 7 year old Colt that was very reliable at least up until 30,000
rounds.
What did the gun start doing after working for that long?
The bottom barrel lug cracked, started to pull away from the chamber. You helped me with information on what to do awhile ago.
Also, the series 80 plunger jambed up, causing the FP to stick forward, case jamb which knocked off the slide stop "nub". Ha! Everything fixed and the gun is just as reliable, 10,000 rounds later. Same extractor by the way. Tensioned once in it's life... just for the heck of it.
I would expect a proper "handfit" barrel not to crack and therefore, higher cost.
But I suspect the 30,000 rounds would satisfy 95% of 1911 (all handguns) owners... meaning they wouldn't shoot that many through one gun anyway.
The other Colt I have experienced barrel fit problems also, causing broken slidestops and a barrel link. This one was made in the mid to late 70's. I don't think that period was the "high point" for Colt judging from the fit. Problems started much earlier also, in the 10-15,000 range. "Reliable working/feeding" gun though!
Both "production fit" barrels.
A box stock factory gun is one thing. One tuned by a competent 1911 smith is another.
In the case of the latter, the gun should run with ANY quality ammo fed via ANY quality magazines. Yes, this includes 8rd mags.
I'm not willing to sacrifice a 15% increase in ammo on board due to poor factory workmanship. Nor am I willing to limit myself or my customers to a specific brand/configuration of magazine.
I'm not trying to be contrary here. I highly value Tuner's skill and experience.
But... there is more than one way to skin a cat!
Raja wrote:
there is more than one way to skin a cat!
'Course they is, but for them that ain't got the bucks or the time or a spare gun whilst the primary is bein' tweaked... it's a good alternative route.
I am not trying to be contrary either - really I'm not
There is difference in Quality and Name Brands. Just like there is a difference in "Smiths" and "parts changers".
We are on the same page.
Tuner, I found a cigar box box of WWII mags... today at a swap meet. I got four that look like they have never been instered in a pistol. (they were all in this condition). They are marked L,R or S on the top lip of the base and C- S and C-R on the bottom of the base of two.
From these pics can you confirm they are WWII originals? I look forward to trying them out for the reasons stated in your original post in this thread.
ZBill... They are. C-R is a Colt subcontract filled by Risdon Manufacturing Company in Naugatuck, Connecticut. C-S is from Scovill in Waterbury Connecticut. On the off-chance that they don't work out for you, I'll buy them all, if they're in decent shape. They may need fresh springs.
Just noticed the L,R, or S part of the post.
L is a M.S. Little contract. C-L is an M.S. Little subcontract for Colt.
R is Risdon, with C-R a Risdon subcontract
S is a Scovill, and C-S is a Scovill subcontractor.
If the bottom is unmarked, Colt made it.
Tuner, thanks for the information, here are the followers and feed lips. They look unused to me. I'll call on Monday to see if he has some left for you. Springs feel fine to me. Bill
I noticed the USMC now specifies Wilson Mags for the issue 1911s that have been worked up for Recon. Quite a few of the finest Smiths in the country make the same recommendation. I guess we all missed the boat with the GI leftovers.
Might want to let those boys up at Quantico know that you have the real answer and they are just chasing their tail. Uncle Sugar has a bunch of the old ones in the warehouse, but those silly gunsmiths up there just insist on something else.
Maybe they don't believe either.
Wouldn't be the first time that Uncle made a bad call...
Don't forget that small Army group that shoots over a million rounds a year through their 1911s. It seems they made the same mistake and also use Wilsons. I guess none of them know much about magazine design. They do seem to know what works though.
The Army? OH! You mean the same folks who took it on themselves to change the powder in the M193 round from an extruded IMR powder to a ball powder with its high calcium content... without consulting with the designer of the weapon... thus creating heavier fouling of the gas systems and chambers, leading to several dead and wounded people in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967. The same people who stated in the field manuals that the M16 rifles were self-cleaning, and required only mimimal maintenance in the field?
Then... unable and unwilling to admit that they'd screwed the pooch, they took steps to correct the "problem" by retrofitting the rifles with chrome- lined chambers and ordering upper receivers with a forward assist... and cancelling orders for the bad old barrels and receivers and reordering the fine, new ones... and ordered the printing of little comic books instructing the troops on how to properly clean their weapons...all at a great cost to the taxpayers and to the men who died over their decision... and they did all of this because the bad, old ammunition would only average 3200 fps and they demanded 3250. That's right. Their vast knowledge and wisdom in weapons design cost a billion+ dollars... and got an untold number of people killed and wounded... because of 50_feet_per_second. Brilliant!
I have unquestioning faith and confidence in everything that the military think-tank comes up with. Yessir buddy!
Now... The point of this thread was not to convince anyone of anything. It was only a report on what I had observed several times over the years, and finally was able to offer two collaborating witnesses... which is now up to three, if you'd take the time to shoot'em a PM and ask. #3 goes by the username nc_gunguy.
It's nice to meet someone who never makes a mistake.
On the other hand, the collective wisdom of many highly experienced users both inside and outside the Military is hard to ignore.
Whatever works best is the rule, not a few anecdotal examples.
Everybody makes mistakes. Me... You... Everybody. But I think that if my decision had the lives of young men in a war zone hanging in the balance, that I'd at least consult with the designer of the weapon before making a critical change during the campaign, and listen carefully to what he had to say. (Actually, I believe that they did, and ignored Stoner's warnings... but that's another story.)
But it's not the first lethal blunder that they made with vital equipment.
Let's look at the Reising submachine gun. The little trick that they handed the Marines... largely unproven... for their Solomon hop war games. Now, there was a stroke of brilliance if there ever was one. Let's not even mention the wisdom of wooden decked aircraft carriers. Surely they had heard rumors of Japanese dive-bombers. Sheer genius.
Now, then... One... more... time.
This thread was started in order to report an occurrence... you may call it a phenomenon if you choose... that I've seen happen a number of times over the years. Not to try and convince anyone of anything. Just an observation, like the header says. I especially won't try to convince you, jungle mah fren... because you have your mind made up, and I've found that folks who have reached that pinnacle rarely have any meaningful learning experiences beyond that point.
I firmly agree with the wisdom that if the pistol is correctly built and tweaked, that it should function with any good-quality magazine. I've done it. I also know that some people don't have the wherewithal to ship and insure an entry-level pistol to a smith... both ways... and wait for 6-8 weeks to get their competently smithed gun back. It's nothing more than information and a suggestion to try a different magazine design to see if it'll work. You'd be surprised at how often it has worked... and still does, going on the last three that I've had my grimy little fingers in. Worked so well that two of the owners offered me a ridiculous amount of money for a few of my Scovills and General Shavers. But, I digress. The main point was... and is... information that some may find helpful at some point. You seem to have a problem with that, and it's almost like you've taken it personally. My mention of your name was purely in jest.
Nothing personal at all, I just wanted to point out that your observations are valid, but they aren't in agreement with the observations of many others who also spend a lot of time with the 1911.
I understand your preference for the original design, and agree it works well most of the time.
I also understand one can make the same observation about more recent designs. It's obvious they work well with many users.
Many may not have the ability to find the original style mags. There are certainly plenty of bad copies.
Whatever you decide to use, make sure it works. What you believe in from a design standpoint becomes unimportant unless it works.
owen's post #47 rings true.
Observations:
-I have some o-l-d Wilson-Rogers mags for 1911. These were a gift or I won them, don't matter, these have worked, and IMO so much much better than the current Wilson Mag. Fact is, if I may be so blunt, I don't do anything Wilson anymore. It is not the same Wilson company it once was. Just my personal take, and I live in the same state as Wilson.
-1911s are "messed with" more than many other pistol designs. You never hear of anyone messing with a Sig 220, and fiddlin' with mags. Nobody messes with after market Glock Mags. Factory mags work, they were designed to do so. It is the after market or "can't stand to have something stock - gotta mess with it" bunch that messes up.
-There is hardly anything some man cannot make cheaper and sell for less. Those that buy based on price alone- are this man's prey. - John Ruskin
Meaning, folks wanted something for less, and they got it. Along with all the other headaches that come with it.
Folks taught mfgs how to treat them - "we will accept less quality for less money", and the mfgs, said "hey, we got by with this, let us see if we can get by with something else". And the folks bought into it.
-Marketing. I subscribe to the thinking of Trout & Ries on Marketing. The old fashioned way of doing things.
Today, Marketing is about getting your wallet. 90% of the fishing lures on the market are for catching fisher-person's wallets - not fish.
I find it very suspect, factory mags for all sorts of guns, for w-a-y too many years - work. I do not care if a old Beretta Minx, a Gov't Model of 1911 with USGI 7 rd mags, a Browning Vest Pocket .25 Auto, Ruger MkI's ... then add the new guns from Keltec P-11 (mags by MecGar) to Marlin .22 rifles - dang mags work.
MecGar. Just how many factory guns come with Mags made by MecGar, and they work everytime? Lots.
Metalform is another company that "has it right". On the 1911 mag - that one set up they have, as close to USGI with the dimple follower - works.
Now all these after-market mags, especially the 'gee whiz' factor ones with higher capacities and fuzzy dice hanging off them - don't work. If they do, not for long, and cannot be fixed most times if need.
Wallet flushes and Gee Whiz factors, just not my style.
Then again I still believe the hickory axe handle is better than these new composite ones, so what do I know?
Outstanding! I was afraid that it was about to go ballistic.
The problem is that many have a problem accepting that a man born in the middle of the 19th century knew more about his pistol than anyone alive today... and he did.
I was one of those who couldn't accept it for a time. Having had a few successful jaunts into design engineering... mostly tool design... some for me and some for others... I did my level best to make a few "improvements" on the pistol. Little things, mostly. I soon learned that the farther away I got, the nastier things became, and that the closer I returned to ol' John Moses' parameters, the better it got. When I finally admitted defeat, I discovered that the 1911 pistol was probably the most reliable sidearm on the screen, bar none. (Yes... That includes Glocks, etc.) It didn't matter whether I used ball, hollowpoint, or SWC ammo either... which lays waste to the notion that they only function with ball unless they're extensively reworked. *harumph* Sheepdip.
It was also about the time that I figured out just how critical the magazine was... after a brief stint into creating a workable 8-round magazine that was as reliable as the old GIs were. Yep. I was all over that extra round as early as 1975. Full-length guide rods and fancy recoil systems and lightened hammers, too. They all worked... after a fashion... but they either failed to meet my requirements, or they didn't add anything other than gadgetry and extra work/frustration in maintaining the gun... so I gave in and gave up. JMB really did have the answer... at least for a "Heartbreaker and a Widowmaker" and those are really my only focus. I look at target pistols and "gamers" as not too far removed from toys. Love to shoot 'em and play with 'em, but wouldn't carry one on a bet.
Jungle? You still hijackin' my thread?
Go back and read the original post, lad. It's a report on an observation that I've made a few dozen times over the years. I only reported it because I now have three information super highway participants who have also seen it, and will bear witness... if you'd just take the time to go and ask.
But... solely for the sake of redundancy, I'll write it one more time.
It's a suggestion to the folks who have neither the money to send a delinquent pistol to a good smith... nor the time to wait for the 6-8 week turnaround. There is a logic in all this that seems to have escaped you.
Is it cheaper and easier to have the gun professionally reworked... or is it cheaper and easier to just buy a few magazines that WILL work? I see that suggestion all the time on the errornet. Is it only when I make it that it becomes a problem... or does it just seem to be that way?
The offer I made stands. Whenever you come to... Charlotte, I believe you mentioned... you are invited to come and observe for yourself.
No hijack intended, just reporting my observations.
I have seen quite a few pistols work just fine when supplied with quality mags of whatever type. So, just for the sake of those who missed it, if your pistol has a mag problem, most any quality mag will fix it. If it is more than a mag problem it won't.
If you want the best mags for your pistol, they won't be coming out of the surplus bin. I agree with what you are saying, it just seems that the choice of mag you hold in the highest esteem gets very little play among those who use pistols to protect lives.
Run what you like, you'll not hear nary a peep from me.
quote:
If you want the best mags for your pistol, they won't be coming out of the
surplus bin.
An opinion that isn't shared by all. Maybe you just haven't tried good, undamaged GI magazines. Harder to find than they once were... but they're out there. You're welcome to come try a few.
Thanks for the generous offer Tuner, but I have nice bunch of the correct and crisp GI mags, I just don't favor them. This doesn't mean I'll be giving them away though.
Not many people want a pistol used on a regular and heavy basis to be tied to a somewhat rare (and becoming rarer) and difficult to obtain source of magazines. Sorry I don't agree with you in this instance. Most of what you say is perfectly reasonable.
I will say it again for you lad, if it won't work with an easily available Wilson, CMC or Metalform, you've got problems that aren't really mag related.
quote: I will say it again for you lad, if it won't work with an easily available Wilson, CMC or Metalform, you've got problems that aren't really mag related.
Oh... I don't have a problem with'em. I just don't trust'em. Well... except for 7-round Metalforms, as long as they've got a Wolff spring in'em. Those work fine.
Just for raw data...
I have several 1911 variant pistols.
A 1918 made GI 1911, slide marked Remington -UMC (not sure about the frame). This pistol was turned into a 'hardball gun' at some point by an unknown mechanic. I obtained it after it was shot loose to some degree and replaced the high adjustable sights with something on the order of National Match (fixed) high sights.
A Colt Series 70 Mark IV. Replaced the collet bushing and replaced the original sights with MMC fixed sights.
A Colt Series 70 Mark IV hardball gun prepared by the late Don Nygord.
Another Colt Series 70 Mark IV hardball gun prepared by an unknown mechanic.
A Colt Commercial pre-Series 70, built into a wadcutter target pistol by Jimmy Clark of Shreveport, LA. It has since been altered by the addition of one of those skeletonized hammers.
A Colt LW Commander.
All these pistols are in .45 ACP. For ammunition I shoot factory hardball or my reloaded equivilent, Federal Hydra-Shok (230 grain), or a practise load of 200 grain lead and a dose of fast powder to operate the slide. The Clark gun shoots only 200 lead SWC and 3.4 grains of Clays. These may not sound adventurous, but they work for my purposes.
All guns work (cycle and function) well with Metalform magazines. I do have a few other magazines, including what I think are GI surplus (ranging from nice and clean to ratty and beat up). I have one Wilson combat with bumper pad. All the magazines work to one level or other. The Metalforms are clearly the superior magazines of those in my possession.
In the past, I've had very good service from surplus GI magazines. However, they (those I have) are getting old and used from some years of 'combat' matches.
I will be buying more Metalform magazines.
Well, now that I've finely returned to Arizona and got my computer up and running I'll throw my two-cents worth in.
GENUINE USGI magazine are not, and never were sub-standard. Uncle Sam made the drawings and material specifications. Those standards were enforced by on- site government inspectors overseeing what was going on at the contractor's factory. This was true regardless of what component (or the whole gun) was being made. The highest standards went in effect about the time of the Korean War, and remained until the Beretta M-9 was adopted. I don't believe any of the current crop of 1911 magazines are subjected to this kind of quality control, and some show it.
Unfortunately, there are tons of counterfeit military magazines on the market being represented as the real thing, and in truth they are far from it.
The original USGI/Colt Commercial magazine had tapered lips. This allowed the release point to be adjusted if necessary by reforming the lips. Most, if not all of the current aftermarket magazines have short lips that predetermine where the cartridge will be released, with little option as to changing it. This may be good or bad, but it doesn’t leave much in the way of options.
The magazine was designed to hold 7 rounds, while not overstressing the spring, and to feed all rounds, including the last one, to correctly position the cartridge during the slide’s run-up.
As has been noted, the follower has that little, but necessary dimple. And if necessary it can be slightly reformed to adjust the feeding angle.
All of this is not to say that certain aftermarket magazines won’t work. It appears that some do and some don’t. But none of them has the kind of proven track record accorded to the original one.
Users can choose whatever magazine(s) they want, and if they feel comfortable with them - well then that's fine. I personally, like Tuner, will stick to that which has been proven to work during my long lifetime of shooting.
And in reflection I don't think I ever met a good pistol that couldn't be reduced to a jam-o-matic by simply inserting a bad magazine.
As it stands, I have over a hundred Metalform magazines... with the wadcutter feed lips. 7 round/standard flat follower/Wolff springs. They work.
Without the Wolff springs, they're a bit more "iffy" in a few unaltered guns. The only issue that I have with Metalform's standard followers is that they're a little too soft. Much prefer tempered steel followers... but I'll settle for what they offer, since they rarely have to be replaced.
Wish I could get lucky enough to find a couple hundred unused GI followers...
I found a couple of 1911 magazines in an antique store today and am curious what they are. I could not find anything in the few reference books I have. They appear to be GI magazines with the following markings on the baseplates:
19200-
ASSY 5508694
MFR. 1M291
Any idea what I have?
Probably early Vietnam-era contract mags supplied by Checkmate Industries.
(Pretty sure that's what the CAGE code resolves to.) Good magazines... unless they're bogus... but the springs may need to be changed.
http://www.checkmateindustries.com/
Tuner, looks like Checkmate is selling your mags here.
Anthony... Thanks for the link. Wonder if they've got the old-style tapered feed lips, or if they went to the early-release type. Guess I need to give'em a call.
I have been shooting 1911s for 59 plus years and was given my first one 51 years ago a US Army 1914 Colt. I still have it and it still is a reliable shooter. Over the years I have owned many different ones. My collection gets for ever larger especioally the last 10 years. I agree the original ones if undamaged and with springs that are up to spec work just fine in "original" type 1911s. Needles to say they do not work in my Open custom 2011 STI. True undamaged original magazines are hard to find. Many after market mags have different specs in my view just as some currently manufactured "1911s do not quite have original specs. You do not have to spend a lot of money for the highest end mags which mightnot work in your pistol.
Tuner - If you are going to the shot show I would like to meet you and buy you linch.
Dean wrote:
I agree the original ones if undamaged and with springs that are up to spec
work just fine in "original" type 1911s. True undamaged original magazines are
hard to find.
Yes they are scarce these days. I just came into 10 brand new/unused, pristine WW2-era magazines. A mixture of Risdon, MS Little, and Scovill.
They all work in all my pistols... old and new alike... and I can detect little difference in the strength of the springs and 11-pound Wolff springs once the Wolffs have been used for a few cycles and taken a set. In fact... all my USGI magazines work fine in all my pistols... and I have nearly four dozen.
The unaltered GIs, dating from 1912 to 1945 will gobble hardball and lead SWC with equal relish, and they do it from the old "Hardball Only" magazines.
Hacker... as it happens... I've just aquired another Norinco since you were here. Lightly used, and doesn't appear to have the bad barrel/lug damage issues that some have. Tim is lustin' after this one, so he can shoot the soup outta his other one and keep one in good shape. Since he's a pretty good fella... and because I already have 10 of the things... I'll let him take it soon.
Quote:
Many after market mags have different specs in my view just as some
currently manufactured "1911s do not quite have original specs.
Very true, both dimensionally, and in material specifications. They are also the ones that generate the most complaints about not being reliable, have functioning problems, etc.
I'll bet if we had a set of blueprints for Glocks, Sig's, Rugers, H&K, etc. that have good performance reputations we'd find they were made to print, including magazines.
You know what they say about too many cooks in the kitchen...
Quote:
Probably early Vietnam-era contract mags supplied by Checkmate
Industries.
BUT, they did not have the tapered lips, they had the short lips. This made me a bit concerned about the reliability of his descriptions. And I never would have picked up on this except for this thread.
Hmmmm. Not early Vietnam era mags. Not sure when they changed over to the timed-release design.
Quick Q: I'm looking at buying some mags with...
19200
ASSY 5508694
MFR 30745
....stamped on the bottom. Would you know if these are USGI and from what year?
I have purchased 4 mags off the internet. Cheapo's and I am getting what I expected, they came with the new springs and followers but they are crap also. My Kimber magazine is awesome along with the chip mckormic mags I have.
FPrice... WW2 USGI magazines didn't have CAGE codes on the bottom. They had small letters denoting the manufacturer stamped on the toe of the baseplate on the top, and they wouldn't have had the short, wadcutter-style feed lips anyway.
Mister2... I can't find my CAGE list, so... Anyway... I'm not sure when the feed lip design changed on government contract magazines. Early Vietnam-era mags had tapered lips, and there were some bogus GI magazines floating around the shows. I bought a couple of'em with WC lips... aware that they were fakes... and they seem to work okay after installing Wolff springs, but aren't of quite the same quality as the real things. Not as heavy, nor as bend/ding- resistant. No problems with'em as far as function goes, but they're assigned to range-only duties. They've held up for over a year, but I have 72 magazines for the range, so each one doesn't come under that much use.
I hope I haven't confused the issue. There were several separate 1911 magazines for sale where I bought these. What I saw first were some individual magazines (two), both labeled as "WWII-era" 1911 magazines. Both had the WC (?) lips, not the tapered variety that seem to be early goverment style. Neither had any markings on the bottom, although one had some "residue" which seemed to me to be the remains of a magazine bump pad which had been glued on and then removed. I decided that these were probably not WWII and were definitely not worth the asking price ($15 each).
Ah! Okay Frosty. You probably did the right thing. Sounds like a boxful 'o' junk. Some of the magazines may have been pretty good, or even completely functional... but once I see evidence of slam pads and such, or the vendor not knowing (or outright lying about) the difference between WW2 USGI mags and later contract or bogus USGI mags... I tend to let 'em lay right where they are unless I can get 'em for about 5 dollars per dozen.
Call Checkmate..... they have GI spec mags with tapered lips and dimpled followers. You have to ask specifically for those features... I have samples on the way for testing
The website doesn't give a price list. What are they gettin' for those magazines? Like I need more magazines...
I don't actually have any of the new Checkmate magazines... yet. However, I did request info from the Checkmate website.
If they turn out to be all that Will hopes they are, any interest in a group buy? I could use some new quality magazines for carry.
Not that I don't like my Chip McCormicks, they just sometimes have problems feeding certain hollowpoints as the first round out.
Geez. Hope I'm not drifting off topic here, but I really don't understand why modern manufacturing companys can't reproduce today what was once being massed produced way back during WWII.
Is it that hard to make magazines according to the original specs? Is it way too costly? Why must we scrounge for left over surplus mags if we want to get ones that are true to the original desing? I can't believe that in today's 1911 saturated market there is no company that offers magazines made according to the original.
With that being said, I own only one 1911 and tree mags. It's a 1946 Colt GM, and with it came two mags, one with the letter "S" on the baseplate tab and another mag that has the number "32 062" on the bottom of the baseplate, which is not welded but held in place by two pins. I assume that the first is a WWII Scoville, I don't have a clue as to what the second is (Any experts care to help care to help?). The third mag I bought a couple of years ago and is a Wolff, I think it is made by Metalform(?). All three work great, and my pistol runs flawlessly.
I wonder why Wolff decided to drop their old line of mags, since they work so well. They now offer new ones, which I have never tried.
Blakenzy wrote:
Geez. Hope I'm not drifting off topic here, but I really don't understand
why modern manufacturing companys can't reproduce today what was once being
massed produced way back during WWII.
Not off-topic at all. Of course they can make'em. There's just not a market for an obsolete design that'll only work with hardball...
A little history may be helpful.
Back in the early days, bullseye shooters were given a little help with the design of the Hensley&Gibbs #68 200-grain SWC bullet. It was accurate and cheap, once the shooter amortized the cost of his bullet molds and related equipment, and it helped with scoring due to the shoulder that cut a clean, round hole in the target instead of tearing through as hardball tends to do.
Sometimes it was hard to tell if the next higher scoring ring was cut when a shot edged right on the line. The SWC was easier to judge. It either cut the line, and gave the shooter the higher point... or it didn't.
The Bullseye competitors also discovered that many pistols wouldn't feed with the SWC unless the magazine was modified to release the round earlier, and the development of the present-day timed-release magazine began.
Along comes IPSC competition, and there was a major power floor, in which the ammunition had to meet certain velocity and energy levels... usually determined by a ballistic pendulum that had to be moved a certain distance in order for the shooter to qualify for the higher point afforded by major power factor... or be bumped into minor power with its reduced scoring for a given hit.
So, the shooters... in order to keep recoil as low as possible... handloaded their ammo to just make major... though sometimes they were so close, that variations put them into minor anyway. With IPSC competition and the tendency of the shooters to fudge on their ammo a bit, also came the desire to have more rounds in the magazine... since one extra round could make or break a stage if the stage could be completed without losing time reloading... or afford a faster reload on a hot chamber if the shooter was adept at counting rounds.
The trouble came with the necessarily shorter and lighter magazine springs that didn't cause much trouble with the reduced power levels of the ammo... but often did with the full-power hardball, and the hotter +p offerings.
Along comes a new bullet with an even shorter nose than the #68... which worked well with the modified magazines, and often even the unaltered hardball mags. The shorter nose placed more weight at full bullet diameter, making the bullet a bit more accurate... and it allowed the weight to be dropped to 185 grains and still provide enough weight at the bullet diameter to maintain accuracy... AND... the lighter bullet brought the recoil impulse down a bit below the 200-grain pill with the ammo still able to make major.
Problem was, that the short, stubby bullet was a real bear to get to feed in the tapered-lip, late release magazines... even the ones that were altered to provide an earlier release.
Enter the parallel-lip/early,abrupt release design. With a little work, the guns would function reliably with the new magazine and the short bullets... and then the world changed with the growing trend toward hollowpoint ammo... and I give credit to the old 200-grain Speer Lawman round... or the blame, whichever it may be... for the complete changeover to the wadcutter magazine.
Affectionately known as the "Flying Ashtray" the speer bullet was a stubby .45 caliber bullet with a huge hollow cavity in the nose. So short that it gave a lot of trouble in many guns with the GI mags and the hybrid that Colt developed, with its tapered lips coupled with a timed release that was a little earlier and more abrupt than the GIs... but later and less abrupt than the wadcutter design. The Flyin' Ashtray still didn't do too well... so somebody tried straightening the feed lips and timing it to release earlier and very abruptly... and it worked in most pistols, though certainly not all. The Speer ammo became the standard, and the catch-phrase "If it'll feed the Flyin' Ashtray, it'll feed anything"... and that was pretty much true.
Only problem was, that the new magazine design gave trouble in some pistols when ammo OTHER than the short wadcutter bullet or the Speer lawman round was used. Mainly because of cartridge overall length, but sometimes bullet shape was also a player. In such pistols, a return to the "hybrid" or even the old GI "Hardball" magazines was usually the cure... and that still stands.
Depending on the gun's particular specs... and this doesn't include all guns and all magazines... the wadcutter magazines fall short unless the guns are precisely tweaked to work with those magazines. Sometimes the amateur gets lucky and makes the right moves... and sometimes he makes the problem worse. Most often, it's the latter, judging by the high number of pistols that I used to get that had been "Ramped and Throated" by various means... most often the ubiquitous and dreaded Dremel.
In a high percentage of the guns that I see nowadays that have feed issues... especially on the top couple of rounds... simply using a tapered/late-release magazine completely cures the problem, or at least makes it somuch better than the rest of it is taken care of with minor tuning without invasive surgery or the now-standard practice of mirror polishing the feed ramp.
Pistols that have what is considered by many to be insufficiently deep feed ramps.. .I think the accepted minimum is about .400 or so from the top of the rail... function perfectly with ramps as shallow as .300 inch or even less, provided that the ramp angle is correct. I have a 1919 USGI Colt that is unaltered and completely stock in every way. Its feed ramp is a mere .290 deep, yet it will feed and function perfectly with hollowpoints and even the 200-grain H&G #68, and it;ll do it from the original GI magazines. It feeds so smoothly that it almost sounds and feels like it's goint to battery on an empty chamber. The same holds true for ALL of my USGI pistols... WW1 and WW2 era... as well as a stock 1225 Commercial Colt. None of the feed ramps are more than .320 inch deep, and none have anything even approaching a mirror finish.
I also have two Colt Commander pistols... one is a steel-framed version built in the early 70s, and the other is a mid-90s production LW Commander. Both feed roughly with the wadcutter magazines... even using hardball. Both feed smoothly with "GI Hardball" or Colt "hybrid" magazines... no matter what type of ammunition is used. Ramp polishing isn't an option. One is alloy and the other is Satin Nickel. Ramp inserts are labor intensive, and expensive... since I don't have easy access to a mill these days... so the clear choice was simply to use the "obsolete" magazines, rather than to insist on using a design that was trendy or because I just had to have 8 rounds in the mag.
I have dozens of the wadcutter magazines, and they work perfectly in my beaters and in most of my carry guns. In some of the others... they don't. So, I keep another few dozen of the magazines on hand that they do work with. FWIW, I carry the GIs or the hybrids in ALL of my carry guns, even though they do okay with the wadcutter mags, even though they work.
Stickler for reliability that I am, I want to stack the deck in my favor as much as possible.
Although I shoot the 200 SWC and find the wadcutter mags to be very good in my pistolas anyway, I'd bet there would be a good market for the GI mag.
The 230 is very popular even in competition now, and the "influx" of cheaper, so to speak, factory ball ammo over the last ten years probably has lessened the SWC sales for non-bullseye shooters. That's a "guess", not fact.
But, I'd try a GI mag if they had them for sale. I don't do "frankenmags" so they need the right spring, don't fall apart, proper specs, right follower, etc. All those "little things" consumers want when they buy things.
Previous poster Will Fennel mentioned mags with tapered feed lips enroute for testing.
What were the results?
Tuner, have you any information of these 'repro' mags from Checkmate?
Salty... The four that I have are all excellent, and feed hollowpoints as smoothly as ball in my USGI pistols as well as all the others. They're made to Colt's specs, and appear to have springs equal to Wolff's 11-pound "Extra Power" numbers. Zero failures to function.
Check-Mate is gearing up for a run, and reports are that they'll be ready by mid-April. They will also manufacture to standard USGI specs if the demand is sufficient. Prices have got Metalform beat by about 2 dollars across the board, with a better follower design to boot... but they require a 50-count order to do the mega-discount.
Stay tuned. These are some really good magazines.
Funny how fast this tapered-lip, late/gradual release magazine demo caught on. All it took was for a few guys to actually see and feel the difference in smoothness and... in a few instances... have a balky pistol go from "Iffy" to "Never Miss" with no more than a magazine change... without resorting to trick, often expensive mags. They bear witness to the fact that Colt may just know a few little things about their pistol. All I know is that some of the facial expressions have been priceless. They've walked in skeptical... and left amazed that such a little thing could make such a huge difference.
Just warms my ol' heart.
Professor, the factory rep has indicated that the prices per magazine with a 50+ order will be in the $8.50 range for carbon and $10.50 for stainless, with the same pricing for true USGI-spec magazines...likely available in carbon only.
Don't have a part number yet, but contacting the company and asking for the Colt spec 7-round, tapered-lip magazines will get the right ones. E-mail:
sales@checkmateindustries.com
Disclaimer:
I have no financial interest in referring anyone to Check-Mate, nor do I have a special deal in the offing for doing so. Just passin' the word along for good quality, functional magazines made to Colt's specifications.
Hey Tuner, would you care to categorize some of the popular mags so I'll know what you're talking about? (I only have one 1911 and one brand of mags and I shoot my 1911 a fair amount, but I don't know anything about how it works)
As far as the taper and late/early release are concerned, which of the following magazines fit which category? Chip McCormick, Wilson Combat, the mags that come with the Springfield "mil-spec" or "GI", etc.?
Hi taliv. Hard to know the players without a program.
In the center, you have the early/abrupt release magazine with parallel feed lips. On the sides are the "hybrids" that have tapered lips, but a definite release point. You'll notice that it's a bit later and less abrupt than the center magazine.
USGI "hardball" magazines don't provide a timed release point, and the taper extends much further. They release gradually, with a little drag on the rim as the round comes up. Some require a little adjustment to provide the optimum release point in some pistols, but they lend themselves well to that adjustment. I like to see the final release just forward of the dimple, with a very light drag on the rim, and use a gauge with a .473 inch rim to set that up.
The hybrid... the design that incorporates the tapered lips of the USGI and the timed release point offers the best of both designs. This isn't to say that the early/abrup design is not good. They work well in too many pistols to make that statement... including most of mine... but they do sometimes give problems that are neatly solved with the late/gradual release designs.
Here are the differences. I also have a picture of a hybrid beside a USGI mag that's had the lips adjusted for a slightly earlier release that show in the next post.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of the hybrid and the "hardball" magazine.
You'll notice the similarity in the tapered area, and that the release point of the GI magazine is slightly forward of the hybrid's, making it a bit later and even less abrupt... but earlier and more abrupt that a full hardball magazine.
I've never had any feeding problems, but I do consistently get stovepipe ejection issues with the lead when I over-grease the slide and shoot more than 200 rounds (that's about where it gets dirty enough). (I can shoot >600 rnds of jacketed with no malfs)
Part of the reason for the above is that as you've probably already guessed my launch platform is one of those compact models with the truck shocks for springs. When I shoot the light 200g SWC loads (mean velocity 724 fps) I have to replace my normal spring with one I've shortened by two links.
So... do you think it would be possible to use a weaker spring if I acquire a tapered mag (or taper my feed lips with a pair of pliers) and seat both those bullets below 1.190"?
taliv wondered:
so... do you think it would be possible to use a weaker spring if I acquire
a tapered mag (or taper my feed lips with a pair of pliers) and seat both
those bullets below 1.190"?
No. The magazine doesn't have anything to do with ejection or short recoil due to unbalanced spring load and power factor.
And forget trying to turn your parallel, early/abrupt release mag lips into tapered, late/gradual release. Most guns that are within spec do fine with the early/abrupt release magazines. Some others do okay, but can have smoother feeding with the tapered variety. Some few that don't work well with the "Wadcutter" magazines can be turned completely around and feed flawlessly with the tapered hybrids and the USGI magazines without having to resort to expensive professional attention.
If your gun feeds and chambers with a pronounced "Ka-Chunk" sound and feel... or if you get moderate to severe bullet setback... both on the top 2-3 rounds... the tapered/late/gradual release may be just what the doctor ordered.
I measured a round then chambered it several times and then remeasured. I'm not getting any setback. I also don't get a ka-chunk at all. The sound is fairly smooth.
For your listening pleasure, I've attached an audio recording of me chambering a round using slingshot with a brief pause between the pull and release.
So I guess my gun is just one of the ones that work fine with the parallel early/abrupt mags. I was just hoping there was something I could do that would let me use a lighter spring.
taliv wrote:
I was just hoping there was something I could do that would let me use a
lighter spring
Light springs don't cause short recoil and failures to eject. Springs that are too heavy for the ammunition power level do that.