Sidearms & Scatterguns 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

[HPLLC]

I have a crappy Rock Island 1911 that I bought because it came with a 16x1mm RH threaded, Jarvis bull barrel replaced hammer and sear, and nice 3.5lb trigger (some gunsmith worked on this gun) for $425.

It is a good gun for $425, but the barrel is sloppy (side to side play in the hood obviously suggests that the barrel feet aren't sitting on the slide stop pin).

I've thought about getting a Pachmayr or Lippard wide link installed, (which could potentially help) <Though I have no experience with either of these parts. This gun is really a cheap crappy gun, and that costs $150. <frame mod and part.

I've seen the Kart easy fit match barrels that have barrel fitting bumps on the top of the hood that the end user is supposed to file to fit.

This makes sense because this is the only way, short of a fresh oversized barrel custom cut for the gun, to really ensure that the barrel feet contact the slide stop pin for solid lockup.

Adding these would require welding bumps for filing to fit onto a $316 barrel,<span style="font-weight: bold"> or installing loctited set screws into a comparatively relatively worthless slide.

Is there a reason why set screws would be a horrible solution to the poor barrel fit problem? I'm wondering because they sound like a really easy way to fit the gun so that fit is correct and the barrel slop is removed. </span>

I can see them being ugly, but it seems they would functionally do what the fitting bumps on the Kart easy fit barrel do.

I really like things that work, and in a 1911 that means a gun that shoots accurately. If it costs a pair of allen screws to get my cheap crappy gun shooting significantly better, I'd be happy about that. Then maybe I could spend the $150 saved on a pair of sights that aren't low quality parts made to vaguely resemble Novak sights.

What I'd rather not do is put a lot of money into a pistol that will never be worth much more than $500.

 

[Just Jim]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

I've seen several methods for inducing the barrel to set lower in the slide and make contact with the slide stop. All of them share the same problem, in that you are reducing the already very minimal barrel lug engagement with the slide. Not a good idea!

So how poorly does this gun shoot as is? Not throwing stones, but I learned early on that MOST pistol shooters can't hold up to the grouping ability of their gun, rather than the pistol not shooting up to the users ability.

Just a couple thoughts to ponder...

Cheers... Jim

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Just Jim</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've seen several methods for inducing the barrel to set lower in the slide and make contact with the slide stop. All of them share the same problem, in that you are reducing the already very minimal barrel lug engagement with the slide. Not a good idea!

So how poorly does this gun shoot as is? Not throwing stones, but I learned early on that MOST pistol shooters can't hold up to the grouping ability of their gun, rather than the pistol not shooting up to the users ability.

Just a couple thoughts to ponder...

Cheers... Jim

</div></div>
The gun doesn't shoot awful- it shoots a lot like a typical beat up and 40 year used, government issue 1911 (will probably mechanically hold 5-6" at 25 yds.) This of course makes it about as fun to shoot as a shotgun because when I add my probably 3" human accuracy that group is 8-9" at 25.

I wouldn't be surprised if the barrel could hold 3/4" at 50 yards. Poor mechanical fit is the major source of inaccuracy in this pistol. The problem with traditional accuracy work, is that it costs probably $500 and the gun once fitted would probably be worth $600 so that would be a bad investment.

 

[Downzero]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

For the record, you will have to fit the hood on a Kart barrel as well.

 

[c ward]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

Are you able to push the barrel down or just side to side ? Downward at the chamber is what your talking about with the lugs not contacting the slide stop pin . Side to side is the barrel hood fit .

Don't know if you can still get them but the Dwyer ( sic? ) group gripper was designed to tighten the barrel fit without replacing it . Wilson bought the rights and was the last source IIRC .

 

[ShtrRdy]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

How about welding up the Barrel Feet and fitting them to the slide stop?

 

[Just Jim]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

Griffin-

Good response, "About as much fun as shooting a shotgun." I hear you on that!

Everybody used to weld up the lower barrel lugs, but you can warp them. I have a friend who has done a few of them. The result is not pretty, but they do shoot better after his tender ministrations.

I once gave thought to drilling and fitting a pair of hard dowel pins, one on each side, to take up that vertical slop. Have to admit that plan rose out of the fact that I'm a crappy welder.

Good luck to you on your project...

Cheers... Jim

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

The hood fit isn't in play if the barrel is riding the slide stop pin, because the slide stop pin will dictate where the barrel can be.

I bought the gun with the barrel already in it, and the hood wasn't fit very well by whoever dropped it in. I could push the barrel to the side in back, and wobble the front of the barrel around in the front of the slide, and I could cock the pistol upside down and push on the hood and get the barrel to move maybe .010"? The barrel feet were not cut- they were as stock from Jarvis.

So the barrel wasn't horribly sloppy but it was sloppy.

While I was working on it I tightened the slide to frame fit with a brass hammer to get the vertical slop out of the slide. The frame is pretty soft IMO, a good rap with a brass hammer would move the slide rails a couple thousandths closer together so after snugging them up, a couple dozen cycles of the slide and it's relatively smooth and snug fitting. I don't have slide fitting bars but I wasn't trying to make a bullseye gun- just to get the gun to stop rattling.

I went ahead and tried drilling it. The metal was very hard. I had to pull out a carbide center drill to get the holes started. Tapping them was pretty scary with an 8-32 tap making clicking sounds every 1/6 turn. But it worked out.

Once the screws were in and snugged up, the barrel instantly was rock solid. I had a long allen wrench and was doing maybe 5 degrees of adjustment at a time to get from where the slide wouldn't open, to where the slide would open with just a little resistance on closing.

Now the barrel is rock solid and there is no slop at the front end because it is pulled down in front when in battery- sort of like a Glock barrel.

I haven't shot it but I bet it will shoot one hole groups at 25 now. There is no movement in the gun.

 

[ShtrRdy]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

You might want to measure the barrel to slide engagement before you shoot it.

 

[jwSubMOA]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ShtrRdy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might want to measure the barrel to slide engagement before you shoot it. </div></div>

And not put your face inline with the slide. I've had quite a few of these and while they aren't Colts they arent a POS. I hope you get years of enjoyment from it but I'd be leery of shooting it much after you drilled those holes.

 

[buffybuster]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

By putting the setscrews there, you're reduced the lug engagement. That's an invitation to eventually rounding off those lugs.

IMO what you should have done is the exact opposite: raised the barrel and built up the bottom feet.

Good Luck and Be Safe.

 

[aloreman]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

wtf

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By putting the setscrews there, you're reduced the lug engagement. That's an invitation to eventually rounding off those lugs.

IMO what you should have done is the exact opposite: raised the barrel and built up the bottom feet.

Good Luck and Be Safe. </div></div>

This is an exaggeration of what is actually going on. I have .010" of engagement reduction for a gun that locks up correctly.

The part that people fail to understand is that the barrel without the allen screws could fire with just as little lug engagement as it does now. It was just randomly slopping around and firing with whatever engagement it had at the moment the trigger was pulled. The lack of tight fit was allowing the barrel to rotate every time the trigger was pulled, and that was probably beating the gun to death. Force is ok, momentum, weight, and impact is bad. Now it operates the same way every time. All that changed is that the barrel isn't sloppy now and can't rotate or move around in battery.

I'm not going to worry about the gun blowing up because it won't. The Jarvis barrel has pretty beefy lugs on it, and they are about 90% engaged. The problem with this pistol is probably that the lugs in the slide are cut deeper than the print which is why the Jarvis barrel didn't drop in tight.

I've had three RIA's and the slides are bigger than the printed tolerance where the bushings fit, and they are oversize at the slide stop pin hole, so oversize slide lug recesses are most likely present. This makes the guns easy to fall together at the factory, but sloppy and inaccurate compared to the potential of the 1911 design.

It would be different if I'd reduced the barrel lug engagement by .080" but .010" really isn't substantial. Now that the barrel is tight in back, it doesn't slop around in front either- also good IMO.

I've read the gunblast reviews and am pretty sure Armscorp has sent some real ringers to review people, because I've seen all the 1.5"-2" 25 yard group reviews by the gun writers, but I've also owned custom pistols that do shoot 1.5" groups at 25 yards, and can say none of my 3 RIA's shot anything like them stock out of the box.

The 1.5" gun you squeeze the trigger and the bullet like a laser goes where you wanted it. The RIA you squeeze the trigger and.. well not so much.

This one should shoot better now.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ShtrRdy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might want to measure the barrel to slide engagement before you shoot it. </div></div>

I could see it through the holes. The barrel lugs were about .010" to maybe .015" short of bottoming in their recesses in the slide (where I put the allen screws). That of course allowed the barrel to move around and rotate in back, and move around up front (because the slide is slightly bigger than the bull barrel OD).

The 1911 was printed a long time ago, when CNC didn't exist, and I vaguely recall noticing that tolerances were .006-.008" in that area (locking lugs and barrel hood). These of course were considered ideal tolerances and per surface so the combined possibility for .015" to exist inside the print was probably possible. I'm sure there has been a whole pile of cheap shit 1911's outside the tolerances, and probably a lot of military guns too.

Compare that to a modern design like glock where you might have .002" of tolerance per surface in a similar area. The modern guns shoot better because the tolerances are tighter.

 

[Redcreek1]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

Good God man, what have you done to that 1911?

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RedCreek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good God man, what have you done to that 1911? </div></div>

IMO- This was a fitting alternative to expensive accuracy work given the $425 purchase price of this pistol. If the guns came from the factory like this, people wouldn't have to accurize them.

I've sent a few pistols to gunsmiths for custom work and the problem I have with that is investing $4 for $1-$2 of resell value, and then being unable to use the pistol for months or even years. One of my custom 1911's was a 3.5 year $3500 horror story. This cost $0.46 and I didn't have to be without the pistol for a minute.

 

[JMC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

So are there any accuracy improvements from this?

Also if you are pushing the back for the barrel downward would that not cause the point of impact to rise also? My Springfield show way low before but after having Springfield Custom Shop do some work including fitting a Nowlin Barrel it shoots where the sights are now.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So are there any accuracy improvements from this?

Also if you are pushing the back for the barrel downward would that not cause the point of impact to rise also? My Springfield show way low before but after having Springfield Custom Shop do some work including fitting a Nowlin Barrel it shoots where the sights are now. </div></div>

The gun didn't shoot point of aim to begin with. I can't recall if it was low or high off the top of my head, but you are correct it should change POI. I'm buying new sights that are adjustable so I don't have to shoot it and use a calculator to figure out what combination of sights will get me close.

I haven't shot the gun but when I get a chance I'll post results.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=ByNRAAA...346&f=false

Remarkably- a poster on outdoorstrader brought to my attention that my set screw idea was patented in 1968!!! The patent is expired, but demonstrates that someone felt it was a good idea, and that the patent office recognized it as an invention. Cool. haha

I had no idea. I simply thought it made sense and gave it a shot. It appears to work well.

 

[tomthebaker]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

I probably would have purchased a "gunsmith-fit" or rather, oversized Barsto barrel, and fit it myself. Granted I am no gunsmith, but going slow with hand tools and a book I could do it. I have seen Barsto's take up all kinds of slop, and give new life to many 1911s.

Before you choke on the $200, remember you could likely save the barrel for another project and sell the gun without it someday.

 

[Asiparks]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Remarkably- a poster on outdoorstrader brought to my attention that my set screw idea was patented in 1968!!! The patent is expired, but demonstrates that someone felt it was a good idea, and that the patent office recognized it as an invention. Cool. haha

I had no idea. I simply thought it made sense and gave it a shot. It appears to work well.
</div></div>

And, remarkably, it doesn't seem to have caught on....

Whilst admiring your adventurous spirit, I'm afraid I'm with the others here, you are reducing the barrels engagement with the slide, maybe not catastrophically, maybe not immediately, but it's a bad methodology. Especially as you're just guesstimating the potentially reduced engagement by looking through the screw holes...

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: asiparks</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Remarkably- a poster on outdoorstrader brought to my attention that my set screw idea was patented in 1968!!! The patent is expired, but demonstrates that someone felt it was a good idea, and that the patent office recognized it as an invention. Cool. haha

I had no idea. I simply thought it made sense and gave it a shot. It appears to work well.
</div></div>

And, remarkably, it doesn't seem to have caught on....

Whilst admiring your adventurous spirit, I'm afraid I'm with the others here, you are reducing the barrels engagement with the slide, maybe not catastrophically, maybe not immediately, but it's a bad methodology. Especially as you're just guesstimating the potentially reduced engagement by looking through the screw holes...

</div></div>
I could see your point on bad methodology. But I'm sure it wasn't more than .015" of space between the top of the lug recess and the barrel lugs. The holes were .135" diameter and the slide was only about .1" thick there, so I was looking at the space between the parts almost sideways through the hole (not down a hole trying to guess depth). If there was significant space I'd have measured it and made a determination on whether I should just ditch the slide or go ahead.

It's safe, albeit ugly... but the gun was already ugly being a rock island with the great big roll mark on the side, so no big loss.

When considering safety, Tripp Research's cutaway 1911 firing sequence video comes to mind.

http://www.trippresearch.com/tech/video.html

That one is missing half a slide over the lugs and safely firing. Obviously from an engineering standpoint there is more lug surface area than there needs to be.

 

[Downzero]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

While it is true that pushing the barrel down reduces lug engagement, it is not true that the only way to verify sufficient lockup is to look through the screw holes.

This is definitely not how I would have solved that problem, although I'm not sure how successful welding up the feet of the barrel would have been. It also might have been difficult to make it even enough to get proper lower lug engagement without welding it and then milling it, and considering the fact that I have an EZ fit barrel in my own 1911, I don't really have too much room to talk, however, I would make sure that the set screws are flat on the bottom and that they are hard enough so they don't wear funny.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it is true that pushing the barrel down reduces lug engagement, it is not true that the only way to verify sufficient lockup is to look through the screw holes.

This is definitely not how I would have solved that problem, although I'm not sure how successful welding up the feet of the barrel would have been. It also might have been difficult to make it even enough to get proper lower lug engagement without welding it and then milling it, and considering the fact that I have an EZ fit barrel in my own 1911, I don't really have too much room to talk, however, I would make sure that the set screws are flat on the bottom and that they are hard enough so they don't wear funny. </div></div>

I have a depth micrometer but I don't think the pins would fit in a .135" hole. I didn't suggest there aren't probably a dozen ways to measure the tolerance. I just didn't feel the need to measure it. If I'd looked in and seen a large gap I'd probably have worked harder to measure it.

Like you said, if you have an easy fit barrel, you're using the same reduced engagement concept to provide lockup in your pistol. The major difference there is that you can easily measure the amount of reduced engagement with a caliper by measuring the height of the fitting pads on your barrel.

 

[was21]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

I did one just as you have done 20 or so years ago.
It only has about 20-30K rounds through it so far so I can't speak to longevity! HA!

What it did for me was that in just "taking up the slack" NOT decreasing the lug engagement , that the first round 'flyers' were eliminated... also proved out to be a sub 3" 50 yd. pistol.

Some savvy guys a few years before me had already proved that it works.

One thing that i did was to solder/weld over the heads and refinish...no see um.

Don't worry on the naysayers.

FWIW

 

[HPLLC]

Re: 1911 lockup or the lack thereof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: was21</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did one just as you have done 20 or so years ago.
It only has about 20-30K rounds through it so far so I can't speak to longevity! HA!

What it did for me was that in just "taking up the slack" NOT decreasing the lug engagement , that the first round 'flyers' were eliminated... also proved out to be a sub 3" 50 yd. pistol.

Some savvy guys a few years before me had already proved that it works.

One thing that i did was to solder/weld over the heads and refinish...no see um.

Don't worry on the naysayers.

FWIW </div></div>

Seems like my results pretty well paralleled yours. I think a gun with a bushing is going to work out just a touch better, but this gun currently locks up tight in front (despite the lack of a tight fit up there), based on the tight lockup in back. In this respect in mechanical theory it's locking up like a Glock barrel- despite a larger slide ID.


So I went out and tested the RIA 1911 with the Briley reverse plug.

I also had a Springfield Super Tuned 1911 there that had been back to the custom shop for a full accuracy refit with a Bar-Sto Barrel. The SA gun has a .198 slide stop and I tried a .199 guage pin and it won't cycle with the .001" larger pin, the bushing requires a wrench to remove, but is .001" larger on the ID than the barrel OD. I would bet that gun would shoot 1.5" or better at 25 yards simply from the perspective of the mechanical tolerance being near zero.

That SA gun I used as a comparison platform because I didn't have a bench rest.

At ~10 yards I shot ~1.5" 5 shot groups two handed isocelese standing with both guns back to back at the start of the session. The RIA group was slightly smaller than the SA group. The SA gun's previous owner had the front sight thinned down to about .075" thick, and that with a std Novak rear may not be the best sight picture for me. The RIA gun had a C&S strong front sight .125" thick so that was a pretty square sight picture with minimal light at the aperture.

I shot one more 5 round group with the RIA gun and it measured .830" center to center with 3 rounds in one hole and 2 in the other. The 5 round groups all included the first cycled round so neither of these guns have first round fliers.

Both guns had ~2.75lb triggers, but the RIA gun has a cleaner pull and better components, so really the SA gun could benefit from a replacement hammer and sear (as I don't have jigs to rework these parts, and frankly the parts on my SA gun look pretty cheap.

It was raining so there wasn't a lot of time to dick around with the guns.

The RIA ran 100% unsuppressed. My Suppressor is a non boostered 5.6 ounce unit, and with it, the gun failed to eject a couple times with me shooting one handed. I think this is a combination of limpER wristing (one handed), the 18.5lb recoil spring, the tight fit, and the extractor tension. My brother ran 8 rounds two handed and got one failure to eject - still indicative of a need for some adjustment to get full suppressor compatibility, but this is normal for non-recoil boostered suppressors.

I tested the SA super tuned extractor vs mine in the RIA and I could shake a case free of the SA slide pretty easily. The RIA was about impossible to shake a cartridge free of. So I reduced that tension somewhat, though probably only about 1/2 way to the Springfield matching tension at this point and haven't been able to re-shoot.

My feeling was that if I had a lighter recoil spring (16lb), I would probably get more rearward slide velocity and that should solve the suppressor ejection issue.