Terrible as it seems, I frequent a few other boards in my usual lurking manner. Invariably, I read that when it comes to the 1911, the mags are the source of most feed problems. I've seen heated discussions over each individual's magic mag recipe (mag body/spring/follower).
I don't see this type of discussion or those types of comments generally made here. I am wondering why?
Specifically, Tuner I don't hear you bemoan the use of less expensive mags (notice I did not say cheap) or automatically suggest the "change your mags " solution to every problem.
Perhaps a small discussion (o.k., clinic) on mags might be edifying and illuminating to some.
That's a flame war waitin' for somebody to strike a match.
My recipe for reliable magazines is a Metalform 7-rounder with standard flat followr with the little dimple on top and Wolff 11-pound springs. You can order that combination directly from Metalform, but ya gotta tell'em to upgrade to the Wolff springs. Nominal extra cost, but cheaper than buyin' the springs and replacing the stock Metalform springs with'em. Money well spent.
Once in a while, the Metalform followers need a little tweak as delivered... about one in 10... but that's not major surgery. Ken Hallock's little paperback has a template that shows the correct angle. 12 bucks from Brownells... Do NOT take his advice to file the dimple off the followers.
If you arrange a group buy for the Metalforms, you can get a huge price break per unit... about half the cost of a single magazine. Got 5 friends who want a few good mags? If you can get an order together for 40 or more, you're golden. You may even decide to tack on a buck or two per mag and get yours for what it costs to ship'em... $7.50 the last I heard.
McCormicks
They come in two flavors... Which one?
I have used the Powermags by McC with success.
8 rds with removable bases, these don't have the dimple btw. # 14131
I prefer the Match Grade of McC. Same upgrade quaility of the Powermags over the Shoting Stars - in a fixed base , though again 8 rds. # 14110 w/o base #14111 with base.
Now maybe it is just me, but the fixed base version w/o a base pad runs in any gun I have put it in. Folks at range, gun trouble...this one works more often with their ammo... I have no idea why the same darn mag with removable base sometimes won't... they look the same, they measure the same...
Gremlins... gotta be
Personally...
I agree with Tuner's choice of mag, with dimple, the old Colt mags or USGI.
Gimmee a fixed base, 7 rd mag. Heck I like the blue ones... classic character, and for some reason the older ones didn't seem to split... blue steel and metallurgy I guess?
All of em
(Actually the 14110)
Two flavors... Three toppings.
Shooting Star... Metalform/w Split-type Devel followers and wimpy springs.
Powermag... Manufacturer unknown... an upgraded Shooting Star with Wolff +5% spring and removeable base
14110... Manufacturer unknown... basically a Powermag without the pad.
All have the Devel followers... All have the potential to cause last-round feeding problems and broken extractors because of the followers... All have potential to cause lock on empty problems because of the follower, but more often noticed with the Shooting Star because of the low-powered springs.
"Some guns work okay with'em... Some don't. Eight-round magazines are a lot like using a .243 on deer. Sooner or later, one will do less than you need at a time when you least expect it." (Wish I'd said that.)
I just happen to have used guns that are stock and run. I almost think if I could shove a BHP mag in the darn things they would run.
Again, I prefer the Metalforms as Tuner suggests, the old Colts and USGI's.
I aquired other mags, (given as gifts, "if you can fix it you can have it"...) with different folks with different guns I was able to get someone back up and runnning. McCormicks fell my way when a double order came in for a guy to use in the Marlin... I had a tote of mags for the range... I may not have the firearm... I had mags though. Folks actually will show up without a mag...
The McCormick "14" series magazines are by far the best of the 8-rounders IMO. I've tested the two basic varieties and found that they came up a little short, though... and it's all centered around the missing dimple. That silly little dimple.
It's there for a very good reason, and removing it... either by redesign or with a file... negates the reason that it was put there, and reincarnates the problems that were present before it was incorporated into the design.
Sometimes the problems are immediately apparent, and sometimes they don't show up for some time. When the extractor hook breaks, we tend to write it off as a bad extractor, when the problem actually began elsewhere. When the tension goes south, we cuss about the finicky 1911 internal extractor, and redesign the gun to take an external extractor... but I repeat myself. There's another thread buried around here somewhere that covers all these points in detail. It will make sense to some and not for others... much the same as some people will see a factory-imposed redline on a tachometer and understand why, while others will ignore it and plant their foot on the loud pedal and hold it there for a while just to see how fast they can go.... and then wonder why one of their rod bearings spun and killed the crankshaft. "Crappy bearings!" Of course...
John Browning really did know what he was doing, in spite of the fact that people have been trying to outsmart him for nearly a century... without conspicuous success. Much of the reputation for unreliability in the 1911 design is directly related to these "improvements"... but it wasn't always so. Build it to spec and stick to the design parameters, and you won't likely have a problem. Dink around with it very much, and you likely will have problems.
Engineer's Law:
Whenever something about a design is changed, be prepared to change three other things to compensate for the "improvement". There's just no such thing as a free lunch.
But... rather than get into yet another whizz match and a 3-page debate on the same old subject, I'll simply say... Buy'em and use'em if ya like'em, ladies and laddies. We'll be standin' by for when the gun stops workin' or somethin' breaks.
I did not nor do I wish to start a flame war.
My question was serious. There isn't a big discussion here generally about 1911 mags. I found that really interesting.
Is it that folks here have found mag recipes that work. Or is it that other places overemphasize the mag deal.
Tuner, on other boards people almost revile the stock mags. Some don't even give them a try when they buy a new gun; just toss 'em and get their pet brand or combination of brands.
I also have a suspicion that mags get blamed because the gun isn't set up to work right due to other mods that are made. "Can't be all those expensive parts I just put on, must be those cheap G.I. mags).
I've had bad mags (USA mags anybody?) but I've also run mags that other people wouldn't look at. I tend to believe that as long as the feed lips aren't messed up and a better spring is used that mags will work.
Sorry if I started flame war; that's not my intent. It's also why lurking is generally safer
Not a problem, Bemo... A good flame war once in a while clears the air. Stop lurkin' and jump in up to your neck!
The biggest problem with stock magazines... and most of'em are contracted from Metalform... is with the springs. If the bean-counters would stop tryin' to save a buck per spring, and listen to the enginneers, they could solve about 3/4ths of the warranty returns marked: "Feeding problems".
My recipe for reliable magazine function has worked for me for several years, and I also noticed that my extractors never need further attention once they're tensioned and tuned... other than periodic cleaning.... as long as I don't count MIM extractors, which is fuel for another flame war.
Even those pieces of garbage seem to do much better when the right magazine is used.
My statements on the 8-round magazines isn't coming from personal opinion or anything against a particular marketer... It's the result of thousands of rounds downrange with the magazines in question. Not just one magazine in one pistol, either. Flukes can occur in either direction. Average performance and/or trend is what I look for, and I'll go to great lengths to prove or disprove a theory... mine included.
Want good magazines? Use what Browning designed, or something as close as you can get to it. Whenever one thing changes, other things change along with it.
No argument with any of the above, but I've never had any problems with old GI mags. Some of the "Brand X" junk has taken major tweaking with needle-nose pliers, though--and some are useless.
What I've found interesting is the trouble-free "running" of home-made eight- rounders, cutting a slot in the bottom of the mag, trimming the follower and cutting a "Z" out of the spring. The springs are soft, sure, but I've never had a feeding problem. These won't kick the empty-mag retaining feature, of course, and they require a pad on the bottom.
The number of "fancy" magazines I own can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and most of those were given to me to be tested. Some worked and some didn't. The ones that didn't I fixed.
I don't know that these new aftermarket magazines are bad, but I have noticed that they are generally more expensive - and not necessary.
I do agree that there is no faster way to tie up the gun then to use junk magazines, but then "junk anything" isn't a good idea.
Chip is a pal of mine and I only use CMC Magazines because they work for me. I really don't care what other people use and like because it is their life that they base their choice on and I know what my life is worth to me. I insist that all of my 1911's go bang everytime I pull the trigger until I am out of ammo. CMC's allow that to happen. In 20 years and many thousands of rounds down range I have never had a probelm with his mags. I have re-sprung them from time to time before they had a chance to fail. This is just being prudent and CYA.
I'm split as far as mags are concerned.
I tried Wilson 47ds, had some issues with them, and I like the mag body and the follower, but they kept chewing up my brass on the last round.
I've had some McCormacks go to slide lock early.
The only magazines that have never failed is Kimber stainless and blued mags.
I hate their mag body and really hate the follower, but they are the most reliable for my Kimber TLE.
So the Kimber 8 rounders I have been using in my Sistema are technically McC's, I have no problems with them and all 6 work. But then again I just use either hardball or handloaded lead roundnose.
Awww Cap'n... You're takin it too personally... Chip's magazines are excellent, and much better IMO than Wilson's... The main issue is with those Devel followers. If he could come up with a redesign that would keep the things stable enough to punch a dimple in'em, they'd put the watchmaker slap outta the magazine bidness.
At the present, I don't completely trust ANY 8-round magazine... Seen too much that causes me to hesitate to carry one in a defensive gun. The games are a different matter. A stoppage there is a blown stage at worst, and a minor annoyance at best. I've got 7 pistols that I shoot on a regular basis. All are boringly reliable with good 7-round magazines, but aren't consistenly reliable with any of a dozen Powermags that I've tried in'em.
Admittedly, the malfunctions are very few, with a good many being failure to lock the slide on empty... which is something that I don't rely on or put much stock in anyway... but feed failures occur just often enough to cause me to disregard them for carry. I'm much more concerned with dead reliability than the off-chance that I'll even need that one extra round in the bottom of the tube. Just one more of those Murphy" things that I try to eliminate. Like you say... "If it doesn't work when you need it, you probably won't need it ever again."
Whenever I see the word "Match" on an accessory other than something that's designed to enhance accuracy, words like "Toy" and "Game" pop into my mind... Just like when I see "Tactical" I think "Marketing Ploy."
I should have mentioned that I only carry 7 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber for a couple of reasons. I like to have some where to put the eighth round when I off load the gun and I do not want that pressure on the disconnector rail of the full 8 in the magazine. I think you could mess up a first shot by having too much pressure in that rail from down below but have nothing to back that up with except an ancient thought process called "Common Sense". I have no problem with the Devel Patent Follower that Chip uses and perhaps that is why. I liked the 8 rounders when I was shooting IPSC and PPC matches as the 9 round factor could be a nice thing on some stages and if my 1911 malfunctioned, it would not get me killed. I also carried 16 rounds in two mags when I was a LEO on my duty belt in case I got in a gunfight with 25 guys and didn't want to pull my back up. ( just woofin) I like the power mags, too, if you want a little more pressure on your rounds.I use his 10 rounders in the Marlin Carbine with great success, also. I am not much for spending money on stuff that is iffy when I have something that works just fine. Chip started Kimber, you know, with Jerico Precision years ago. The very first ones at the Shot Show back then were Caspians.
Well, I guess I am going to be the outcast. I have 6 Mec-Gar magazines, 2 in .38 Super, 2 in .40 S&W, and 2 in 10mm. They seem to work quite well.
I have one Wilson .38 Super, and 3 Wilson 47d .45 mags. Likewise, they seem to work quite well.
I really have no complaints about my old Colt magazines. They are not that old, but do date back to the late 70's and early 80's.
Then I have a mystery mag. Not sure who made it, but it does work.
OH! for you collectors, I have a genuine Randall stainless steel magazine. It cracked after about a 100 rounds.
I've been using Metalforms with the humped follower. I get 'em for $13 at the local gunshop. They work great.
It seems to be the case again that Old Fuff and I are on the same wave length. I use nothing but WWII GI magazines* and have zero trouble with any round that looks anything like GI ball. But then, I know how to tell a real GI magazine from the junk that some gun show dealers sell as "surplus." And I know how to tell a worn out or broken magazine (and there are a few GI mags like that out there).
Plus those GI mags are still cheaper than the super-duper, no work, mags being sold by the big names in clone guns. I can still buy WWII mags, good ones, for around $10 each, less if a bit rusty, and who cares about a little rust? Why pay $30 and up for unreliable junk with bad springs, crappy followers, and soft feed lips** when I can buy the best there ever was for a third of that?
* Except for a couple of ten-round Ed Brown mags for pin shooting.
I like the original, tapered-lip GI mags too, and I've got a bunch of'em... but I also use Metalform and OEM Colt mags... 7 round with a little bump on the follower please... and as long as the springs aren't worn out, they work.
The main problem with many of the aftermarket gamer mags is that they release the round too early and too abruptly. (Basically, they're designed with semi- wadcutters loaded to sub-standard velocities... and for that, they work very well... but those rounds and those guns are meant to win target matches with... not gunfights. A jam in a game doesn't get one shot full of holes.) The GI design starts the release a little earlier, but finishes it later... and the release is more gradual... which is conducive to maintaining control of the round until the empty case is kicked clear of the port... and the Colt- Browning pistol is a controlled-feed design. Smooth-topped followers and wimpy springs don't aid in reliable control from the first round to the last.
The bump, I would hope, needs no further explanation.