Okay, lots of threads in the past about 8-round 1911 magazines, and how they are generally not as dependable as their 7-round brethren. What I haven't seen yet is an in-depth technical discussion on how to make 8-round magazines work reliably.
I've seen 1911s that work perfectly with 8-round magazines, so I know that it can be done.
It has to do with the shape of the follower and the spring that's used. 8 rounders can be as reliable as 7 rounders,if they were designed for it from the start. Simply hacking off the bottom of the follower and putting in another spring usually doesn't work so well.
Just because it works is no guarantee that it's working correctly...
I've had very good luck with Wilson 8 round mags, they won't run forever without attention though unlike the good quality 7 round mags. You will need to keep an eye on the spring and follower and replace as needed. Over the years Wilson and others have improved the springs and followers to the point of near parity with 7 rounders.
I have used a Mec-Gar 10rd, several Wilson 10rd, several CMC Shooting Star 8 rd, and several of these (similar to an 8rd CMC powermag). All work fine with the LSWC ammo I normally shoot. The factory mag (Springfield 1911A1 8rd) looked identical to the Shooting Star mags except it was stainless (including the shooting star logo on the follower). They just work. I don't own (or see the need to buy) any 7 rd 1911 mags. If the pistol was only reliable with 7rd 1911 mags, I'd fix, modify, or replace the pistol.
tsk...*sigh*
Quote:
If the pistol was only reliable with 7rd 1911 mags, I'd fix, modify, or
replace the pistol.
Spend a hundred+ bucks "modifying" or get rid of a perfectly good pistol... over one extra round?
I won't even allow an 8-round magazine on the same bench with one of mine.
The downside is that I never get to practice malfunction drills. Life's fulla tradeoffs, I guess...
Quote:
If the pistol was only reliable with 7rd 1911 mags, I'd fix, modify, or
replace the pistol.
Not my quote, but it might as well have been.
I've seen enough 1911s run perfectly with 8-rd. magazines to think that all 1911s should be able to run with them. It was actually your input that I was most looking for, Tuner, but not if the sum total is, "Use 7-round mags." Not what I want. I have my reasons for wanting that extra round. If it costs $100+, that's money well spent in my book.
So, again, what should I do to insure reliability with 8-round magazines?
Does the gun not work with 8-round magazines now?
My IDPA guns do just fine with them. The first sign of failure is the skimpy Wilson magazine springs not lifting the slide stop. So when one quits slide stopping reliably it is still feeding OK but is time to replace the spring.
I still carry with a 7-rounder, though.
After having problems with 8 rd Wilson 47Ds in my Baer, I switched to Tripp Cobra mags. They've worked flawlessly for over 6K now of strictly 200 grn HG #68 SWCs. I really like them.
They have a longer tube body, and a heavier spring. Check out:
http://www.trippresearch.com/tech/tech.htm
For some technical info.
Hmmm, never had a problem with either MecGar 8 rounders or Wilson 47D mags in either my Sistema or my Colt Combat Commander. Never had a problem using the Wilson Officer's Model 7 rounders in my Springfield Ultra Compact.
Guess that I am just lucky.
I don't at present own a 1911, although I am shopping for one. This is intended to be a strictly theoretical/technical discussion.
I have tens of thousands of rounds through my CMC PowerMags, both 8 and 10 round mags, without a hitch.
For me the key was to buy CMC PowerMags or Wilson 47D's and throw the Wilson spring out to be replaced with a Wolf +10%.
Quote:
Spend a hundred+ bucks "modifying" or get rid of a perfectly good pistol...
over one extra round?
I won't even allow an 8-round magazine on the same bench with one of mine.
The downside is that I never get to practice malfunction drills. Life's fulla tradeoffs, I guess...
If it's marginal on that 8th round, I consider it to be marginal on the other 7 also. I have (and will) loaded premium defense ammo for personal protection in those same 8 (and 10) round mags that work flawlessly on the range. The only jams I've ever had with the pistol was in the first few hundred rounds when I was learning to reload 45 ACP. There were 5 or so rounds that wouldn't fit into the chamber so I don't fault the pistol for not feeding them. I fault me for not taper crimping properly.
Like Chris, I've seen many 1911 single-stack pistols that just work so well at matches and practice that they're boringly reliable. That's using 8 and 10 round mags with people who don't spend alot of time cleaning pistols. (USPSA shooters) Add a few drops of CLP and shoot it another 500-1000 rounds happens often unless it's before an important match. I'm not that competitive, but it certainly isn't because of pistol or ammo reliability.
To me, most 7 round mags are cheap mil-surplus or cheap copies of military mags that have the feed lips angled for FMJ only. I avoid those mags at all cost and will not allow them to be given to me even for free. I have no use for them since I rarely shoot FMJ. It's mostly LSWCs and a few JHPs.
The one thing going for my (mostly) stock pistol is the ramp/throat was nicely polished/smooth from the factory. I've seen gunsmith pictures of how a throat/ramp job should look and they could have used my stock barrel for the picture.
For me, reliability comes down to good ammo, good mags, and a good pistol. I have all 3 and they work well together. I'm hoping the next 20K rounds will be as good as the last 10K.
trippresearch.com
Their conversion kits are the cat's meow for 1911A1's who don't like regular 8 round mags.
All of the 7rd factory mags I've used (Kimber and Springfield) have had terrible feeding issues. I bought some CMC 8rd mags and they've run flawlessly for years. It's funny how some people swear by 7 rounders, some by 8, some people say that no 10 rounders on the planet will work reliably...
In my case, I'll take a functioning mag with an extra round over a nonfunctioning mag with one less round that's "supposed" to work better.
I have a couple of McCormicks that I just use as 7+1 mags.
On these particular ones, the follower and spring is a bit stiff, and high, so I never insert them without the slide locked back.
Okay, as a new 1911 owner, it is a Charles Daly Empire SS 5in, I have 2 8 round mags that came with my pistol. Would it be "safe" to say, that in keeping with the original 1911 design, 7 round mags, feeding ball ammo, would be/"should be" the most reliable? (And yes I acknowledge that many people have experience/knowledge of 8 round mags working just fine).
Tuner obviously prefers 7 round mags. Based on experience (no doubt) and belief in the original design?
Jim Watson, am curious why you carry with 7 round mags instead of 8?
My Magcar mags weren't very reliable thru the first 100 rounds I have fired. I just took them apart and cleaned them. Ugh. "dried/sticky" oil residue throughout. Not anymore!
I did field strip and oil the pistol before the range trip. AND field stripped and cleaned it afterwards. I was hitting paper, all but 2 times out of 100, but was consistently "low". about 7 O'clock. Have realized my grip was not optimal, will work on that. Don't think I was "limp wristing"... Will report back after tomorrow's range session.
Because the 8-round mutant magazines are adequately reliable for competiton, but I still consider the 7s to be more reliable in feeding and with more spring reserve for long periods loaded.
I have never experienced any problems whatsoever from the 8 round chip McCormick mags I've been using. A couple of them are 8 or 9 years old.
The way I get 8-round magazines to work reliably? I put them in the gun and shoot.
Tens of thousands of rounds of .45 ACP through different 1911's using 8-round magazines over the years and never have I experienced them not working except many years ago with some Wilsons. Threw them out for CMC/Shooting Star and have never had a problem. I even use a couple of Wilson mags now and have had no problems. I'm not even sure that I own any 7-round magazines. If I do, they're buried somewhere.
Perhaps the reason that people have problems is that they're screwing with the magazines too much?
I won't even use a 7-round magazine. Kinda like how I threw out or gave away all of my 10-rd hi-power magazines...
Never had any problems related to 7 round vs. 8 round magazines, just the rare problem magazine.
CMC 8 rounders have worked fine in both mine and other 1911s, not impressed with Wilson magazines.
I have left both 7 and 8 round magazines loaded for years without problems, and so have a few other folks I know.
Drop a loaded mag on the feed lips however, and you might have problems.
Being a latecomer to the 1911, I didn't know 8-rounders were a serious problem. I have a '99 Kimber Stainless Gold Match and 4 McCormick stainless 8- rounders - 3 of them the plain Shooting Star model - and I've never had a problem. After 12,000+ rounds should I change the springs or something? And one of the three was used. If it ain't broke, etc?
Quote:
I didn't know 8-rounders were a serious problem
It's an easy thing to miss...
Since they're not...
I realize the plural of "anecdote" isn't "evidence". But I also am in the group who exclusively uses 8 rounders and have never had a mag induced malf. I even converted my only 7 rd. Colt mag with, well, I forget which kit I ordered from Brownell's but knowing me it was the cheaper of the options, and it runs fine too.
Old physics said bumblebees can't fly, new physics re-examined the problem since the pesky buggers kept doing it. Could it just be the newer, purpose- designed mags, followers and springs have for the most part eliminated potential problems?
Cause I'm not seeing them.
I've seen a number of statements to include the eight round magazine less reliable than the seven. Truth is, I do not see the proof in the pudding. I have a collection of 1911s of which several have eight round mags and not one problem has risen from that fact. Being logical, I can't assume that just because I haven't experienced the failures with them - that others have not.
It's not as if an 8-rounder will make you pistol explode or something. It'll probably work just fine most of the time. The real point of this is that they *may* cause intermittant issues that would likely have been avoided if you'd used the magazines that JMB desined for the pistol and that have been proven (thru billions and billions of rounds served, to paraphrase McD's) to work when needed. AnthonyRSS has given y'all the links to peruse the details to your little hearts' contentment - you can choose to read 'em or you can choose not to. Your call.
I don't need one more round in the pistol in exchange for the possibility of giving Mr. Murphy a chance to show up. It just ain't worth it to me. YMMV.
I'm thinkin' Mr. Murphy has as much of a chance of visiting you if you're using 7-rd magazines as he does if you're using 8-rd magazines. Using 7-rd mags is no guarantee of reliability.
The dimple on the follower of the seven round mags is pointed at as proof of God's hand in the design. It may indeed be needed with the original tapered lip design, but in newer types the parallel feed lips serve just as well to provide a limit to movement of that last round.
Jungle sez:
It may indeed be needed with the original tapered lip design, but in newer
types the parallel feed lips serve just as well to provide a limit to movement
of that last round.
Actually, that's backward mah fren. Along with the "new" design parallel feed lips, comes a release that is too early and too abrupt... and the dimple works to help time the release and prevent the last round's doing a little trick known as "Jumping the Follower." The tapered lips start releasing earlier... release more gradually... and finish later, which makes the dimple a bit less critical.
The problem isn't as prevalent with reduced-velocity wadcutter, or "Softball" ammunition used by slow-fire bullseye competitors, because of reduced slam- bang cycle with underpowered ammo and attendant reduction in inertial forces involved. Step up to full-spec hardball, and it all changes. Step further up into the +P category, and it changes again.
A Disclaimer:
This is not, nor has it ever been, intended to imply that nobody has a gun or two that functions perfectly with 8-round magazines and slick-topped followers. I know that many do. I know of too many that have had nothing but trouble with the same magazines that some swear by... and the remedy was to hand'em a few of my magazines. 500 rounds without a burp later... and they were believers.
Finally... Just like your car will run pretty well with the ignition timing out of whack, most 1911s will do okay with a few things awry... but just because it runs is no guarantee that it's runnin' properly... and if it's not, another problem will usually show up sooner or later. Me? I like 50,000 rounds on an extractor and 125,000+ rounds without a single malfunction.
No... Using a 7-round, dimpled follower magazine isn't a guarantee of 100% reliability. Nothing can guarantee that, because any machine can fail to function at any given time, without warning. All we can do is reduce the odds of a failure to the best of our abilities and go. 40+ years with the 1911 and its variants has proven to me that the extended-capacity magazines just aren't as reliable across the board in a given gun as the standard magazines are...not by a long shot... and I was playing with the idea several years before the first commercial 8-round magazines hit the market.
I have no trouble with the 8 rounders either, but I "believe" I have the right combination of the ammo, spring weight, mag quality, etc that allows feed reliability using the 8 rounders.
But, I don't doubt for a second that the 7 rounder will feed properly longer, without the level of care of a 8 rounder, with a wider variety of ammo and guns. It's the "safe" bet no doubt.
One clear disadvantage, IMHO, with the 8 rounders is reloading a mag when the slide is not locked back. On mine, you really have to "whack" the mag in to seat properly... lot's of spring tension! I can see potential malfunctions on reloads by not seating properly. The 7 rounder is a breeze.
Tuner: How about some of the "newer" 8 rounders that have a longer length tube which allows more "room" for 8. I wonder is that helps the "issue" of jamming 8 into a 7 round tube... in theory or practically? I believe the Novak, Tripp mag uses longer tubes.
45Auto asked:
How about some of the "newer" 8 rounders that have a longer length tube
which allows more "room" for 8. I wonder is that helps the "issue" of jamming
8 into a 7 round tube... in theory or practically? I believe the Novak, Tripp
mag uses longer tubes.
Yes. The problem with the flush-fit 8 rounders is mainly in the shortened follower and spring. I was able to use standard 7-round followers and Wolff 11-pound springs to turn a few delinquent McCormick 10-round magazines into 9- rounders that behaved like perfect gentlemen. Novak/Tripp got ahead of the curve when they came to understand the problems associated with trying to stuff 8 rounds into a space designed for 7, and addressed it by extending the available space.
The dimple issue is mainly with the last round... and so it is with the folded, shortened Devel-type followers. The short leg allows the follower to rock too far forward during last round feed, contributing to nose-dives and failure to lock the slide when the gun is empty. If we go on the assumption that...on the street, rather than during a game stage... the outcome will usually be decided well before the last round comes up... the positive control of that last round offered by the dimple is probably moot.
Which brings us to a point that I've been pushing for a long time... If the slide locks on empty, you have a stoppage, pure and simple. No matter that it's a designed-in stoppage. It's still a stoppage, and very likely will be a surprise when it comes. That takes time to react to... time to "clear"... and time to get the gun back into the fight. In short, if the gun locks empty, you may well be screwed, because when the game is real... time is precious. A 10th of a second can determine who goes home and who gets a toe tag. Better for you to decide when to reload than to let the gun decide.
Tapered lips will vary release point with variations in cartridge/rim diameter. Parallel lips will time release by the length of the parallel section despite diameter variance.
Tapered lips hold the cartridge at one point along its length, parallel lips hold the cartridge for the length of the parallel section.
It matters not, Grasshopper. The parallel lip/timed release magazines were designed for wadcutters at target-level velocities. In the early days of the AMU, standard magazines were modified... now they've become the standard. They release the round too early and too abruptly. With full-powered ammo, the last round will still jump the follower if the spring isn't quite up to par and the dimple is missing.
Can anyone name a modern pistol design of high quality that utilizes magazines with a tapered lip design or dimple?
quote:
Can anyone name a modern pistol design of high quality that utilizes
magazines with a tapered lip design or dimple?
Yep. Metalform and Checkmate... available on special order. Both also utilize a modified timed release so that the customer can have the best of both worlds. Metalform will also make to order magazines with the standard "Hardball" taper. Gradual feed for hardball and hardball-shaped hollowpoints... Timed for wadcutters and short or truncated cone hollowpoints. (Older Hydra-Shok and PMC Starfire.)
Just a sidenote... If the gun is right, timed-release lips aren't necessary for most modern hollowpoints and the #68 H&G SWC. I have several unaltered USGI pistols that'll eat'em like they were tuned for'em. Members within driving distance can come see, just about any old time. I'm usually here.
I wasn't speaking of new magazines for the 1911 design, but of magazine design in newer pistols. Tapered lips and dimples are not used in the P-35 or any more modern pistol design that I can recall. Just wondered if anyone knew of a firearm using such a magazine design in any other instance.
It would seem that if tapered lip dimpled follower magazines worked best, then other makers would have jumped on the idea and used it in other designs. Haven't seen any evidence of this.
Oh! Okay. I thought the discussion was about 8-round 1911 magazines.
The others don't concern me. I ain't a GlockTuner or a SigTuner or a P35Tuner. Always kinda been a specialist. Well... I do a little work on Smith & Wesson wheelguns... but that's another forum.
Speakin' of P-35s... Notice that 9mm caliber 1911-pattern magazines don't have the dimple? It's all about the recoil impulse/inertia thing...
I've got a dozen Metalform (Colt magazine contractor) 9mm 1911 magazines with the flat follower and the dimple. They don't have tapered lips.I guess we could say all generalizations are wrong.
Aren't you just a lttle curious about the reason almost every modern rifle or pistol magazine uses parallel lips and no dimple? I am, but I can't say I know the answer.
quote:
I've got a dozen Metalform(Colt magazine contractor) 9mm 1911 magazines
with the flat follower and the dimple. They don't have tapered lips.I guess we
could say all generalizations are wrong.
Interesting... They used to do that with the .38 Super mags, but not the 9mm... I guess until recently, when the bottom line dictated that saving a quarter per mag by specifying soft springs was a good idea. You can get by without either as long as the ammo shoots soft enough... or maybe Colt discovered something when the +P+ 9mm ammo hit the market. I'm also not much of a 9mm 1911 fan, and consequently have very little to do with'em... so I guess things change a lot in that venue.
quote:
Aren't you just a lttle curious about the reason almost every modern rifle
or pistol magazine uses parallel lips and no dimple? I am, but I can't say I
know the answer.
Not at all. Doublestack pistols don't interest me much, and box magazines in gas-operated rifles are a whole different animal. Bolt-actions too, since they don't operate during recoil. This is apples to oranges though. Controlled feed vs push feed... Angles of entry differ... Length of cycle... timing, etc.
This much I do know... I've "fixed" literally dozens of magazine-related malfunctions... involving mostly 8-round Wundermags... by simply handing the gun owner a few of my magazines and having him try again. Enough to satisfy me that the magazines are the problem and enough to convince me that I don't want one in a defensive pistol that rides on MY belt.
Remember the old wheelgun men who scoffed at autopistols by saying: "Six for sure is better than seven maybe..." ...even though revolvers malfunction too. It's not about guarantees, because there just ain't any. All we can do is to try to stack the deck in our favor and hope for the best by using what works the best on average... on a given day... in a given pistol.
If the day comes that somebody can design an 8-round, flush-fit magazine that works as well as the old standards... in a given pistol... I'll be among the first to put in my order.
As a final note, consider three things.
One is purely physics. One extra round means that the spring has to lift an extra 3/4 ounce or so on each cycle... and it has to do it on time. A heavier spring would help... but there's a limit to that because when the magazine is full, there's extra drag on the slide from the round under it.
Two... Punching that silly little dimple requires time and an investment in tooling... which costs money. If it could have been eliminated without problems, it would have been eliminated 90 years ago.
Three... The gun was designed and intended for war... where one extra round would possibly be a lifesaver for some. If that extra round could have been incorporated successfully... it would have been done a long time before it was done. I don't believe for a minute that nobody in those days was sharp enough to notice that the magazine could be modified to hold an extra round by simply shortening the spring and follower...and I believe that it was probably attempted and failed... just like my early experiments did.
Does anyone have some pics of the mag in the gun?
And some pics of the mag?
I always wondered why the dimple was placed on the follower halfway up the body of the cartridge and not in the area of the extractor groove.
I have seen lots of 1911s start perking when those surplus mags were replaced with Wilsons or other controlled release style mags. It may have something to do with Hardball vs. the shorter OAL of the hollow points now in common use.
Jungle stated:
I have seen lots of 1911s start perking when those surplus mags were
replaced with Wilsons or other controlled release style mags. It may have
something to do with Hardball vs. the shorter OAL of the hollow points now in
common use.
Very possibly because the surplus magazines had badly worn springs and/or bent or worn followers. Bent... meaning at the wrong angle. I'm afraid that the guys doin' the scut work at the armories weren't very gentle with anything... including magazine teardown for cleaning. I've returned a good many surplus magazines to perfect function by just changing the springs, and occasionally setting the follower angles to spec. My stock GI pistols will feed most hollowpoints and SWCs from the original "Hardball Only" magazines. Again...Come see, if you're ever in the area.
I've got a few dozen Colt contract magazines... Metalform and Checkmate. Stay on the thread, and I'll have Kelie charge up her digital camera and make a picture to post here so you can compare the lip designs side-by-side with a commercial magazine... probably a McCormick. I'll include one Metalform and one Checkmate. I had a Mec-Gar Colt contract mag, but gave it away some time ago. Mec-Gars are stamped "G" on the baseplates... and there are some bogus "G" contract magazines floating around... so beware.
all talk and no pictures
Gee just a couple of pictures would sure be nice.
If you're wondering whether the 8-rounders fit flush... yes. Most have a slam pad that protrudes below the grip frame a little... some more than others... but the mag tubes are the same length as the 7-round units.
Since everybody is chiming in with how fantasic their eight-round magazines work for many thousands of rounds, let me add that I think eight-round 1911 magazines are the work of the devil, they flat out do not work for me or in the guns I've used them in, and I believe most designs of them are flawed.
Thanks, that was what I was curious about.
I heard that someone found a magazine in the attic that had been loaded for 50 years, took it and fired it, functioned perfectly. GI issue. 7 round.
Why take a chance for one extra round, the GI issue and GI 1911 A1 were very efficient.
I'm with Tuner 100% on this.
I have found that there is no reason for me to own different kinds of mags for different 1911s. I have found 8-round mags to not function properly in ALL THREE of my sub-5" guns. In the 5" guns, this is a not the case, but why would I do that to myself? I have a 4" Champion that runs about 50% with 8 rounders Wilson, Tripp, Novak, Colt, Mec-Gar, Metalform, whatever. I have a Commander that shows me the same results, and an officer's model that is the same way. So, if seven round mags fix ALL the feed problems in those guns, why would I have any other mags? (besides the six round mags for the OM) If I'm at the range, or more importantly at a training school, and I have a firing pin break, or a slide stop shear off, and I have to switch guns, why would I want different magazines, too? Sounds like a pain in the tail to me. So, seven round, flush-fitting, flat metal follower magazines for me, if you please. They worked for more than 80 years in the military, and they work for me.
Keep your eight rounders. I'll trade peace of mind for that one round any day.
Tinnerman said:
I heard that someone found a magazine in the attic that had been loaded for
50 years, took it and fired it, functioned perfectly. GI issue. 7 round.
That may have been the one I described... except it was 62 years, and stored in a pistol that had also been cocked and locked for the whole time... and it functioned perfectly. Still does. The gun belongs to my step-father.
Ya'll stand by... Magazine pictures in progress. Havin' a little trouble gettin' a clear enough picture to show the differences in the feed lip geometry.
Shown here are three magazines. The one on the right is a Metalform Colt contract magazine that came with my NRM Government Model. The one on the left is a Checkmate that came with one of my early 1991A1s... both made by the vendors to Colt's specifications. The center mag is a recent production Metalform.
Note the tapered lips and late release points on the outer two, while the one in the center has parallel lips and an early, abrupt release... A wadcutter magazine. I use the center type on the range because it works well with the 225-grain truncated flat point cast bullets... seated short... that make up 95% of my shooting.
The tapered lips and late release point goes back to the mid-70s with Colt... while others opted for the parallel/early release. Here is the best of both designs. Gradual, controlled release, with a timed release point for other- than-hardball ammo. I have to at least consider the possibility that Colt knows a little somethin' about the pistol that they've been buildin' for nearly a century.
Tuner, am I having optical delusions here or is that parallel lip mag holding the nose of the bullet quite a bit lower? I don't remember that being the case but I was wrong once before...
I am going to have to go dig around in my junk and see what it looks like.
Your opticals are fine, mah fren. The parallel lips do hold the round at a slightly lower angle. Wadcutters are typcally seated to a shorter AOL than ball... even the H&G #68 feeds best at about 1.230 inch. The trick to getting wadcutters to feed is to release'em earlier to get the butt-end up on the breechface before the cycle deforms the soft bullet nose against the feed ramp and barrel ramp/throat... but the round still has to strike the feed ramp to maintain proper controlled feed. If they angled up a little more, the short OAL often causes problems as the round noses up into the top of the chamber. The trick was to start it a little straighter and release it just as it hit the ramp.
This lip geometry works well with hollowpoints that have truncated cone ogives like the old-style Hydra Shok, or huge cavities... like the infamous Speer Lawman 200-grain load. The tapered, gradual/late release works well with ball and hollowpoints with ball-like ogives. Winchester Ranger Talons... Winchester 230 HP... and Remington Golden Sabers fit that category. They also do pretty well with 200-grain H&G #68s if they seated out to about 1.245 inch... but not all chambers will accept the shoulder seated out that far without finish reaming to eliminate taper near the stop shoulder.
Thank you kindly Johnny. I dug a bit but didn't find magazines in good enough condition to look at it close enough to draw a conclusion here on my end.
What do you think about this, I load EVERYTHING to the same profile as good ball ammo, meaning I set my seat die with good ball and then seat all different bullets with that setting. It sure made a difference on my end, curious to hear your opinion on it. Thanks, Howard.
HSmith:
What do you think about this, I load EVERYTHING to the same profile as good
ball ammo, meaning I set my seat die with good ball and then seat all
different bullets with that setting. It sure made a difference on my end,
curious to hear your opinion on it.
Yep. Though the OAL isn't quite as important as the ogive geometry, it helps to stick to minimum lengths of 1.210-1.220 inch for hollowpoints. The wadcutter magazines do well with truncated cone seated to 1.200-1.220.
Unless they've changed designs since I last bought, Hornady uses this design.
It might be interesting to note that many of the older guys who built and tuned the softball guns for wadcutters would remove the dimple from the follower to make the last round feed smoother, which did help with guns shooting wadcutters loaded down to 650 fps, or less... and the light recoil springs necessary for those loads. They could get away with it because of the low recoil and reduced inertial forces... but things went haywire if full-spec hardball was fired using the same magazines and standard recoil spring rates.
I learned about that dimple the hard way several years ago when I set up a pistol for a friend for his father's arthritic hands... and told him that all he needed to do to shoot hardball was to change the recoil spring and the firing pin stop. I gave him a couple of my standard magazines, and all his problems went away. It ran fine with low-level wadcutters... 200-grain bullet loaded to 600 fps... but not with 230/850 unless he used standard magazines.
By the way... All three magazines pictured were drawn from my batch of range mags... and all are 100% functional.
Thank you for the info. You have the same opinion that I do, and I suspect we both found out the hard way
I have range mags, trash mags, and competition mags. My trash mags are mags that have had a problem at one time or another in a known reliable gun, my range mags are beaters consisting of mostly genuine GI contract 7 rounders in decent condition and CMC 8 and 10 rounders in decent condition. Competition mags are almost all CMC 8 and 10 rounders with the odd Wilson thrown in after a spring change. When I get a little low on range mags I will tune up some of the trash mags and get them back in shape, most of them have just been stomped on a couple times too many and it doesn't take a lot to get them going again.
Luckily for me, all of the singlestack guns that live here are pretty tolerant of different magazines and run well with several different types of magazines.
I've used 8-rounders (Wilson's) for years. Most of my 1911's are fantastically reliable at the range, some aren't so reliable. I've mostly ignored the 7v8 arguments over the years...
This conversation has me thinking.
1911Tuner, if I were to go out and purchase some 7-rounders today to do some testing, what brand/model do you recommend? Would be for all JHP use (defensive ammo and my reloads with plated JHP bullets for target shooting).
I have to agree that Colt knows the 1911 design well.
Correct me if I'm wrong here(as I'm sure you will) but they seem to have been supplying parallel lip type magazines with their pistols for quite a while now.
No other maker of single stack current design pistols that I have been able to discover uses the tapered lip dimple type magazine. I think both types work well if built properly, but certain configurations of hollwpoint defensive ammunition will often favor the parallel lips.
Jungle said:
...they seem to have been supplying parallel lip type magazines with their
pistols for quite a while now.
The last two Colts I bought was in '01 about a month before the WTC attack.
A 5-inch NRM that was supplied with the Metalform in the picture.... tapered/late-release. A stainless Commander SXE came with an 8-round Metalform with the parallel/early-release design. Basically a higher-end McCormick Shooting Star with the horsie, but sans bumper pad or the holes to mount one. I decided to give it a chance to prove itself, and it worked well for about 500 rounds before the last-round failures started. Bolt Over Base... Last round loose with slide locked... Last round chambered ahead of the extractor failure to go to battery. Next to last round ejecting/chambering the last round. In other words... the full gamut... and it began suddenly. (No failures with any of my other magazines...and I have well over a hundred.) A spring replacement helped, but didn't cure it. Spring and follower replacement did. It went away with the pistol when I couldn't stand the front slide grasping grooves any longer. The new owner... a former neighbor... isn't unhappy with his 8 round mag that now only holds 7. At last report, it still works.
The one that came with the NRM hasn't failed yet. I replaced the spring with an 11-pound Wolff about two years ago when I started noticing a few gouges on the rims from the rounds trying to chamber ahead of the extractor.
No further problems with it, and it's used 2-3 times a week... every week.
You may draw your own conclusions. I did several years ago.
Interesting. This had me going back to look at a few lots of USGI mags that I have. The lot from the early seventies has the tapered lips and late release, and the lot from 1991 has parallel lips and the early release.
Idle musing - I wonder why the USGI magazine specs changed, given that they only need to feed hardball...
rbernie... I wasn't aware of any contract magazines made that recently. Are you sure they're real GI contract? I've run into several gun show vendors selling bogus GI magazines... complete with markings on the baseplate. Some are pretty good quality. Others are awful.
Look guys... The whole point of my argument is just this:
Parallel/early release magazines are wadcutter magazines. They're purpose- designed, and... if well executed... perform well in their intended role. Tapered, late/gradual release magazines are more efficient at maintaining control of the round with normal, full-powered ammo... and the gun is built around the principle of controlled feed... and if the feeding round gets loose even for a split second, the chance of a reliable feed/return to battery drops. Try Ned Christiansen's mind thing of visualizing yourself as a millimeter tall, watching it all happen in slow motion, and you'll start to understand why this is.
I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong, or correct anybody, or cause any hard feelings. I'm only trying to explain how things work. I understand that many of you have had good luck with 8-round wadcutter magazines. That'll happen. I also know that some guns don't do well with that design... but work like Timex watches with just a mag change. Using standard 7-round magazines aren't a guarantee that your pistol will do the same, but they will provide the best chances of reliability in a given pistol over the long haul.
Again... My observations aren't based on one or two... or even a dozen pistols and magazines. It comes from several hundred of each over the span of 40+ years of dancin' with these things. Never been involved with a lot of custom work, and very little bullseye-type accuracy upgrading. My main focus... 98% of what I do... has been troubleshooting and addressing functional problems with these pistols. i.e. Figuring out why it won't run, and correcting the problem. That's pretty much all I've done, with the occasional excursion into other aspects of the trade.