See my XD isn't that pretty, but I've only stovepiped it once and I that was playing with some homeloads.... It eats any factory ammo though, Oh and I can go 16+1! Try that with your damn 1911

Hey tabby, I'll see your Det CM (looks to be a Mk VI like mine?) and raise you a Mk I.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8062/detssm.jpg

I hate those Pachmayrs. Already replaced them with duplicates of the micarta stocks I have on the VI.

I do commend you on the bobtail. Here's mine. Ironically mostly Ed Brown and damned good fit & finish for about 1/3 the price of yours.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5076/dscn0913ct4.jpg

Oh, and this is my favorite "artsy-fartsy" photo.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2249/img2730wt3.jpg

Internal or external extractor?

Here's my Springfield.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291712471.jpg

Ambidexterous safeties scare the shyte out of me. I see no place for them on a carry gun - they are outright dangerous when carrying in condition one. Another concession to "cool" as defined by the competitive shooting crowd. Why, if Brian Enos has one on his race gun, I must need one on my carry gun, right? Wrong. Granted, it will do no harm on a "range gun" meant to do no more than impress folks on the firing line, but they have no place on a gun that a guy will be carrying. I get the impression most of these are never intended for that duty, though.

I agree... Safeties have no place on carry guns.... ;):D

:rolleyes: I'm a lefty. Without an ambi safety I can't operate a 1911 properly (that is, carried in condition 1). I know some lefties that have trained themselves to operate the left-side safety (that is, a non-ambi) with their trigger finger but I am not physically able to do that.

How exactly is it dangerous on a 1911? Especially when one considers that the grip safety must be depressed and THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED even when the thumb safety is disengaged?

You can't mention a WWII Rand without bringing to mind the Switch and Signal.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291735836.jpg

Jeff, I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

The .45's modeled after the WWII Colts have crappy little sights, heavy trigger, non beaver tail safety, poor slide to fit frame, non extended safety. The WWII Colts were built loosely so that they would work under combat conditions. They also sacrificed accuracy. Now in your typical self-defense situation where the target is probably less than 15 feet from you that is just fine and any reliable .45 will fit the bill.

However the higher end .45's, to be more accurate, have higher tolerances in barrel to bushing fit and in the slide rails. My Springfield TRP when new was really difficult to rack the slide back. After a couple of hundred rounds it really smoothed out. Had a couple of stove pipes in the first hundred rounds, but no problems after that. Difference in accuracy is amazing. At 10 meters I can shoot out the bulls eye with the TRP from a standard standing position. With my Colt Systema, at 10 meters, the rounds fall in a 6" circle.

1980s Gold Cup, 25 yards, 15 shots in 45 seconds. 25+ year old hand loads.
25 years+ since any competition shooting.
I think the old 1911s shoot pretty well. JMHO

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291739066.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291739095.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291739121.jpg

The wild one we'll chalk up to "destractions". :)
V
V
V
V
V


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291739376.jpg

I'll give you the "crappy little sights" and loose slides, but none of the rest makes any difference. My point is, that too many guns these days are built far too tight, sacrificing reliability for mechanical accuracy. They add all of the extended safeties, ambidexterous safeties, extended mag and slide releases, way too sharp checkering, beavertails and bobbed hammers, etc. It all drives the cost up, and makes the gun less suitable as a carry piece. Great "range guns", which is fine, but not so great "usin' guns".

Henry's Gold Cup above is a great example of a fine "usin' gun", as is tab's old Colt in the first post. It achieves pretty darn impressive accuracy without resorting to an overly tight fit, and functions just fine without all the foofaraw so common on these guns today. There are tricks to making these guns shoot, beyond scrunching the slide down so tight on the frame and lapping the barrel bushing to be damn near a press fit on the end of the barrel. These are amateur hack approaches. These amateur hacks then festoon these guns with every piece of bling the big kids use in the "practical" matches so they can attract the unwary buyer.

Henry's example above shows what really counts. That, and it demonstrates the old adage that "it's the Indian, not the arrow". Too many guys think they can "buy" that kind of skill. They have convinced themselves they can't shoot like that because they need a "better" gun. And there is no shortage of folks willing to sell them one...

Jeff, I think you and I are on the same sheet of music. If a pistol won't fire 100% all the time, it is no good as a carry weapon no matter how accurate it is. But if we didn't like pretty things that were expensive, but didn't always work, we wouldn't be owning Porsches or Ducatis would we? :D

It comes down to whether the gun was built for the intended use or not. A good smith will ask all the right questions and build the gun accordingly. If he's not doing that, then he's not much more than a parts assembler.

A bit of a side rant about the 'custom guns' on the market these days from the likes of Wilson, Brown, and others. If you're buying one off the shelf (that's like all the others in that run), is it truly a custom? Did the guy building the gun know whether you were going to carry the gun or shoot it in an IDPA match? Trust that you're paying for a custom, just the same.

Anywho, I've gone through about a dozen 1911 pattern guns (including double stacks) over the years, most of which passed through the hands of one or more smiths. They have all been dead reliable for their purpose. And that's just it, the guy building the gun knew exactly what the purpose of the gun was going to be. So, when I had my Colt CCO built, the barrel, bushing, and slide were not fit to the same tolerances as my match guns.

Bottom line is that a 1911 is somewhat like a Porsche. It's not really for those that aren't going to take an interest in how they work. The user needs to know whether this combination of ammo, spring, magazine, etc. is going to work. If that doesn't happen, then said user should buy a Glock.

And I never carry (or shoot a match with) a clean 1911 unless I have no other choice. Hell, I never cleaned my limited guns until they hit 500-600 rounds.

And a gratuitous photo of the CCO I had built by EGW.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291746542.jpg

You can find this "bling" mentality in all of the shooting sports, with the possible exception of some Olympic venues.

From IPSC shoots to sporting clays, the direction is to festoon the weapon with as many "features" as possible. Think of all the "tactical" crap people hang on their handguns and long-arms. None of which is actually required to do the job if you develop your skills.

I see more crap work on fine shotguns than I can stand. Interchangeable chokes, various sighting devices, back boring, porting, the list goes on and on.

All quite unnecessary and expensive. What improvements could be obtained by real practice and proper instruction/fitting? They'll never know because they are broke and dependent mentally on the next "improvement".

I have built many a handgun with improved action and accuracy, but if it is meant for self defense then the simpler the better. Improved sights are one area where most people feel that money is well spent which is a very inexpensive job.

My own 1911 has a short beaver-tail (due to a mangled thumb joint), a smooth trigger, better sights and a non corrosive finish. That is it. 100% reliable and as accurate as any 100% reliable defensive handgun. It does a 2-3 inch group fom a rest at 25 yards with any ammunition I have tried.

As a fellow lefty I have to agree with Blue on this one. They are basically compulsory for a Southpaw. Remember the "normal" safety on a 1911 is already exposed on the outside for lefty carry. Putting another on the "inside" shouldn't scare you, and is certainly no more dangerous IMO. While I will concede that the big wide-paddle "combat" versions (single or ambi) have absolutely no place on a carry gun. I will also agree that i see no real reason for them on a righty's carry gun.
+1

I was wondering what that shiny bit on the side was.

I've never used the safety on a 1911. It looks a bit, umm, agricultural, to me. At the range the RO yells "load and make ready", then "attention" and you drop the slide release, then the target turns around and you let rip. Five shots in six seconds at 25 yards - lots of fun.

Place setting for nine.......
 

All Colts, some .22s, some .38s, some 357s and one .38 Super!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291749772.jpg

It has a internal extractor. I've read about the problems Kimber had with the external, on some gun forums they're saying to change out the extractor and clip with a with a Wilson Combat, I really love the 1911 but....:( also I've noticed : the gun seems "tight" when I rack it back, I've tried oil, it hasn't been shot very much didn't want to damage it... then just put it away. This thread has revived my interest

My understanding is that Kimber will replace any external extractor slide with an internal one at no cost.

This doesn't change/help the fact that Kimber is letting a lot of lemons out of the shop these days.