I was at a LAV class last weekend. He was sanding down all of the Potbelly hammer struts. I see where it was rubbing on the leaf spring. But can someone tell me what the actual good vs bad of this really is?
The strut rubbing on the sear spring is bad since it unloads some of the spring tension.
Quote:
The strut rubbing on the sear spring is bad since it unloads some of the
spring tension.
Actually, it INCREASES the pressure on the center leaf.
But what is the result?
Quote:
But what is the result?
A harder trigger pull that seems hard to adjust.
Quote:
Actually, it INCREASES the pressure on the center leaf
Could it not do both (unload and / or increase pressure) depending where contact was being made?)
CS0019 - 1911 TM Hammer Strut
The only hammer strut on the market that is correctly designed for all applications. This hammer strut has the correct shape to prevent the hammer strut from rubbing on the sear spring causing the unloading of the sear spring tension. The TM strut is also slightly longer to allow a stronger hammer impact to the firing pin. The TM strut will provide a stronger hammer strike and faster lock time due to more main spring compression. Some fitting may be required.
The only thing I got is that its thick enough not to wobble around? Heck, its an ad... maybe a misprint?
I have yet to see one catch the sear leaf...
Quote:
A harder trigger pull that seems hard to adjust.
You are referring to the leaf-spring method of trigger adjustment?
I have pistols with 3.5# trigger pulls that are so smooth, I swear I hear angelic harp springs after I pull the trigger.
So... if one isn't going to use the leaf spring method of trigger-pull adjustment, why have it?
Does a custom smith look at a potbelly strut and view it as a defect that needs to be fixed?
If one has a potbelly, and sands it down to parallel, does the end user experience and difference in trigger pull?
If its rubbing the spring, it makes a harder trigger pull. If its not hitting the spring or grip safety, no affect on trigger pull
Quote:
So... if one isn't going to use the leaf spring method of trigger-pull
adjustment, why have it?
Odd statements here, the sear spring is how the trigger pull weight is adjusted after the sear and hammer is fitted and the pull feel is to your liking, the rest is the sear spring. Are you actually asking why have a sear spring?
Quote:
If one has a potbelly, and sands it down to parallel, does the end user
experience and difference in trigger pull?
And why would you sand it parallel?
I answered in regards to what if it does hit. They rarely do, and the sear spring can be shaped to clear if there is a problem.
There is (or was, I have not, nor will I ever try another to see if they've been changed) a hammer strut produced by a major player that would interfere with the sear spring... every time. In one gun it would bear so hard that it would freeze the disconnector with the trigger back and the over travel properly adjusted.
Greyson,
What method do you suscribe to if you don't advocate using the sear spring to
adjust the trigger pull weight?
Some hammers have the strut pin hole located in a different location than the original 1911 to allow for a lighter trigger pull. In my experience some of these hammers used along with a pot belly strut will cause the strut to bear against the middle leg of the sear spring as the trigger moves back. This can cause hammer fall even with the spring adjusted correctly. With the grip safety removed you can watch the trigger action and see if the strut is contacted by the sear spring.
Quote:
Some hammers have the strut pin hole located in a different location than
the original 1911 to allow for a lighter trigger pull. In my experience some
of these hammers used along with a pot belly strut will cause the strut to
bear against the middle leg of the sear spring as the trigger moves back. This
can cause hammer fall even with the spring adjusted correctly. With the grip
safety removed you can watch the trigger action and see if the strut is
contacted by the sear spring.
I assumed that part to be a given, and took the post as referring to the sear leaf of the spring.
Mr. Carter, the hole location you refer to was to allow the hammer to cock easier, for softer loads, and I believe started with the Colt Gold Cup.
The corresponding loss in mainspring pressure may have lightened the mainspring weight and correspondingly lightened the trigger, but my experience has been that the difference has been negligible.
Bob, I think I know those parts!
As I was building up my GI and the frame stripped I noticed that the strut bar and disconnector/middle leaf(?) had a little rub spot on each.
what ones are considered potbelly struts? i didnt know there was a difference in them.
Ed Browns have struts that rub on the sear spring. Mine had it, and some others I've seen on here had it. Not so bad that it impeded function though.
Quote:
With the grip safety removed you can watch the trigger action and see if
the strut is contacted by the sear spring.
Another way to see if there is rubbing between the strut and disconnector leaf.
Remove the slide/barrel assembly.
Lower the hammer gently into the fired position.
Look down into the magazine well from the top, with light from below.
Use a normal firing grip, pull and hold trigger to rear.
The disconnector leaf will go towards the rear.
Use your other hand to rotate the hammer fully back and forth.
If the disconnector leaf is flexed by the hammer strut you will definitely
see it.
The strut is the only thing moving in that situation.
Then you can re-arch the center leaf as needed.
I don't recall seeing one rub the actual sear leaf.
That is another good way to check for strut rubbing.
I used the word "sear spring" too generically I guess, I did not mean to imply that the strut would rub on the sear leaf of the sear spring. I should have said the disconnector or middle leaf of the sear spring as not to confuse anyone. I have never seen a strut rub the sear leaf part of a sear spring either.
LAV was having students take his pistols down and looking at the leaf springs. If you had a small "rub" mark on your leaf spring (center leaf), your strut was rubbing. A la a pot-belly strut. You can look at the profile of the strut and see if the lines are parallel or not. If not, it's a pot-belly. Hence, it gets a little thicker.
LAV was stating that all Ed Browns have a pot-belly strut.
But here is the rub (get it? Haha!), I never really understood what the issue was. If I understood LAV correctly, he said the pot-belly strut is a original JMB design. ((Note: I am not one of those JMB originalists so let's not go there. )) But it wasn't clear to me besides the "rub" what the issue was.
As a matter of fact, I wasn't make certain that I didn't want it to rub. Thinking maybe it it helped keep the leaf-spring in place? I really don't know.
I had LAV sand mine down, but I don't think I could tell a difference in the trigger pull or function.
As for my trigger-job comments, sorry for the confusion. There is some stuff I am very comfortable doing on a 1911. Fitting triggers, tuning and filing extractors, and fitting bushings. I never go near the trigger-pull. Always been extremely happy with my Ed Brown triggers. But I always heard that bending on the leaf-spring was a "cheap" or non-standard way or adjusting trigger pull. I always figured a "real trigger job" was from modifying the sear/hammer engagement angles. Again, I never go there. So I am basically talking out of my arse.
I just am curious what the consensus is on this? Is the pot-belly a JMB original design? Does it make a difference? Or is it one of those "It can make a difference" kind of things?
I was just left scratching my head and not really buying into the mod. I just don't understand it. Some of the other stuff he does, I can see his logic. But it is more for pistols made with different makes of parts and tolerances.
No need to address me formally. I was kidding with Bob, he's a neighbor I haven't seen in a long time.
I think you are correct, that pin location was started with the Gold Cup, in fact I remember very well when the first (experimental not current production) "Gold Cup style" Commander hammers came in at Wilson Combat. I don't know about Colts reason for the pin relocation, I am sure the custom hammers I'm familiar with were done that way to try and make it easier to get very light trigger pull weights. As you know those hammers "go over center" in a manner that the hammer is bearing against the sear with less pressure compared to a standard hammer with the same mainspring.
Well stated.
Kurmudgeon mentions what I was thinking and you cleared it up concisely.
You'd be surprised how many people would have been looking for the magic part after reading that.
As for the strut, I will continue to call it a hammer strut and assume pot belly is just a condition and not a type.
And don't neglect the other side of the strut. I've seen more than a few that would rub on the inside of the beavertail when the hammer cycled. You'd feel something weird in the palm of your hand and when you investigate, you see the contact between strut and beavertail. I've always relieved the beavertail as it seemed to have more material available to give up.
I also agree with Chuck concerning the quoted ad copy about C&S's hammer strut. I can't see much way for a strut to contact the center leaf and reduce (which is what I assume "unload" means) the pressure of that leaf. Those marketing blurbs are often times written by someone who is not a real expert in the subject matter being touted.
I couldn't agree more with John and have also experienced the rubbing of the beaver tail grip safety. I always suspected that the extreme shaped ones called "pot belly" here, where of that shape due to being a cast or MIM part and needed the extra strength.
Quote:
I couldn't agree more with John and have also experienced the rubbing of
the beaver tail grip safety. I always suspected that the extreme shaped ones
called "pot belly" here, where of that shape due to being a cast or MIM part
and needed the extra strength.
The Ed Brown strut is not MIM. Not sure about the Springfields in the class with it. But your comment confuses me. I was under the impression when Larry Vickers was talking about it, that it was a carry over from JMB's original design. But then me make a side comment about how some of the original "design thought" of JMB has been lost over the ages. Just repeating what he said.
So... if it's not rubbing the GS, the rubbing on the leaf-spring is no big deal? And were the original 1911s designed to rub?
Quote:
I couldn't agree more with John and have also experienced the rubbing of
the beaver tail grip safety. I always suspected that the extreme shaped ones
called "pot belly" here, where of that shape due to being a cast or MIM part
and needed the extra strength.
Second question. By reading your statement, it is your opinion that a strut that isn't parallel side to side doesn't necessarily qualify as a pot-belly strut? Your statement being that and "extreme shaped" strut has such a designation.
Am I correct in that reading?
Ideally, the strut shouldn't rub the sear spring or the GS.
Perhaps what Mr. Vickers was stating is that not all 1911 parts are being made (today) to JMB's original blueprints/specs. Yes, there are some poor quality made parts out there and they can cause problems.
No offense but you do realize LV is a member of the APG and knows the 1911 platform very well?
Quote:
The Ed Brown strut is not MIM.
Every Ed Brown hammer strut I have handled is most certainly MIM.
The original strut design that is available from prints does have non- parallel sides front to back and believe it to be for strength purposes, but not to the extreme that we have seen with the cast/MIM struts. Neither was designed to rub nor should they rub. Ever... never rub... no rub. Got carried away.
Excuse me gentlemen, I may be wrong here (I probably am) but isn't that why the new Colt springs have that dish-cut between the center and grip-safety leafs? To negate the rubbing of the strut?
Quote:
Excuse me gentlemen, I may be wrong here(I probably am) but isn't that why
the new Colt springs have that dish-cut between the center and grip-safety
leafs? To negate the rubbing of the strut?
You are right, you are wrong. The leaf lightening cuts are not centered and the strut is so... no.
Quote:
Hokay Log, thanks. I was trying to figure it out and that made sense. What
advantage is there to making the leafs weaker by cutting off some of their
mass? I would think you'd have to adjust alot more if they're weaker.
They are more flexible and can still apply pressure through the range of travel when lightened to the desired pull. Heavier ones will not adjust to lighten the pull easily. It's important when adjusting for a light pull that the sear spring is in constant contact and maintain tension. The Colt sear spring does this very well, and why C&S and EGW includes it in their trigger kits.
Quote:
Perhaps what Mr. Vickers was stating is that not all 1911 parts are being
made (today) to JMB's original blueprints/specs. Yes, there are some poor
quality made parts out there and they can cause problems.
Nope. He was pretty down on the technology of circa nineteen hundred and eleven. He was very down on the 1911 as a whole, specifically.
None of that is a surprise.
Quote:
The original strut design that is available from prints does have non-
parallel sides front to back and believe it to be for strength purposes, but
not to the extreme that we have seen with the cast/MIM struts. Neither was
designed to rub nor should they rub. Ever... never rub... no rub. Got carried
away.
Now we are getting somewhere.