This topic might be beyond your experience level.Now your just asking silly questions.
Because it's a 1911, not a Glock!
- Thread starter Laketime
- Start date
This topic might be beyond your experience level.Now your just asking silly questions.
Guess who makes Kimpro mags.... Checkmate!
Glock and 1911s are both handguns but they are different animals designed in different eras using different techniques.
1911s were designed when manual hand labor was cheaper than machine labor. The finishing work of a 1911 pistol was done by hand because it was cheaper. A 1911 needed to be broken in so that the parts could seat because of the way they were made. This is why guns like Wilson Combat and Les Baer need this break in period today. More hand fitting needs more break in time.
As the gun has evolved more and parts are finished on CNC machines, more cast and more MIM parts are used which require almost no fitting. They are built to run right out of the box more than the older guns. Most production 1911s these days run right out of the box or they should at least. They still require more hands on time then the current crop of tactical plastic. This is one of the reasons they are more expensive unless you have a cheap labor pool like the Philippines.
Glocks on the other hand were designed and build in the time of injection molding, CNC machining, precision casting and MIM. They were built to run using precision manufacturing taking out the human factor in their manufacturing. They require no fitting. They were designed this way because machine labor is now cheaper than human labor. They are made to run out of the box.
If you have grown up in the world of tactical plastic the concept of break in period does not apply IMHO. You test for function. You test to make sure it will feed your hollow points of choice if it is a defensive gun but for the most part the gun will be the same at round 1 as it is at 1000. There might be some smoothing out of parts but it is minimal compared to older designs like the 1911.
So don't be so hard on the young guys and gals. They have a different mentality because they have learned to shoot in a different world than those who have come before them.....
Last edited:
Guess who makes Kimpro mags.... Checkmate!
Based on Chip McCormick's design.
A matter of degree, I'd say; proper machining/fitting for correct, reliable function should certainly happen at the factory, but the kind of smoothing I'm talking about happens after hundreds (or a couple thousand) rounds and is too protracted and minute to be expected from a factory production firearm.
Guess who makes Kimpro mags.... Checkmate!
Glock and 1911s are both handguns but they are different animals designed in different eras using different techniques.
1911s were designed when manual hand labor was cheaper than machine labor. The finishing work of a 1911 pistol was done by hand because it was cheaper. A 1911 needed to be broken in so that the parts could seat because of the way they were made. This is why guns like Wilson Combat and Les Baer need this break in period today. More hand fitting needs more break in time.
As the gun has evolved more and parts are finished on CNC machines, more cast and more MIM parts are used which require almost no fitting. They are built to run right out of the box more than the older guns. Most production 1911s these days run right out of the box or they should at least. They still require more hands on time then the current crop of tactical plastic. This is one of the reasons they are more expensive unless you have a cheap labor pool like the Philippines.
Glocks on the other hand were designed and build in the time of injection molding, CNC machining, precision casting and MIM. They were built to run using precision manufacturing taking out the human factor in their manufacturing. They require no fitting. They were designed this way because machine labor is now cheaper than human labor. They are made to run out of the box.
If you have grown up in the world of tactical plastic the concept of break in period does not apply IMHO. You test for function. You test to make sure it will feed your hollow points of choice if it is a defensive gun but for the most part the gun will be the same at round 1 as it is at 1000. There might be some smoothing out of parts but it is minimal compared to older designs like the 1911.
So don't be so hard on the young guys and gals. They have a different mentality because they have learned to shoot in a different world than those who have come before them.....
And this has been the entire point of this thread.Its a 1911 ,not a Glock.I would not expect an assault shotgun or AR15 to react similar to a Browning over and under,or a Winchester 30/30 lever action.
Thanks, ChattanoogaPhil. Interesting. At least they have the decency to tell you why a break-in is needed.
But there is no such thing in a 1911 as contact surfaces "seating." Even they put "seat" in quotes.
The need for a break-in is a factory defect.
Here's what the owners manual for my S&W PC 1911 says about break-in:
""
Here's what my Sig 1911 owners manual says about break-in:
""
My Colts manuals:
""
Fusion:
""
Para:
300 rounds.
I was on the front line of the Quality Revolution 30 years ago. Juran, Deming, Six Sigma, etc. I worked in manufacturing/manufacturing support for nearly 40 years. I repeat: The requirement of a break-in period for a 1911 is a quality defect. I don't care if it is Wilson - they need to get it right before shipping. They are not meeting modern manufacturing standards.
Para closing:
Remington Arms to close Pineville facility; 65 jobs affected | The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer
LOL... That is the point 1911 manufacturing techniques do not equal modern IMHO. The way Les Baer makes a 1911 is not completely modern. It is a mix of the old school with some modern techniques without losing the spirit of JMB and the time he designed the 1911 in. You cannot compare it to 2015 manufacturing. That is one of the reasons the modern interpretation of the JMB blueprint runs into so much trouble. IMHO
Listing 1911s that use modern CNC machining, MIM and Cast parts as not needing a break in period speaks exactly to what others have said. The more modern your manufacturing techniques the less hand fitting and break in is required. The other thing about production 1911s is that the tolerances are higher. Parts are not oversized and fitted by a machinist.
The other point I will make is that the higher end 1911s I have owned that stated they "needed" a break in period ran 100% from day 1 just like the production 1911s I own. The difference is none of my production 1911s can keep a group like my hand fitted ones.
My Baer can keep under 3" at 50 yards if you can do your part or the ransom rest does its part.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Bill Wilson sells $5,000 1911s. Im pretty sure his customers aren't looking for him to duplicate the standards of Smith, Colt or Sig.
Curiously enough, the only gun I own that called for a specific break in procedure is my 2002 Kimber Pro Tactical II SpecIal Edition (precursor to the Tactical Pro series). It's the best shooting gun I own. Worked perfect out of the box too.
A factory gun I intend to carry is going to get a few hundreds rounds through it at the range no matter what before I carry it. Although I did skimp a bit with my LCP.
And if I'm fortunate enough to someday own a defective Wilson Combat I'll be thrilled to put 500rds through it at the range.
Curiously enough, the only gun I own that called for a specific break in procedure is my 2002 Kimber Pro Tactical II SpecIal Edition (precursor to the Tactical Pro series). It's the best shooting gun I own. Worked perfect out of the box too.
A factory gun I intend to carry is going to get a few hundreds rounds through it at the range no matter what before I carry it. Although I did skimp a bit with my LCP.
And if I'm fortunate enough to someday own a defective Wilson Combat I'll be thrilled to put 500rds through it at the range.
Last edited:
This may come as a surprise to you and even catch you off guard a little.Some of us consumers prefer hand made over cookie cutting CNC machining processes that someone followed the directions and entered the program into.
Again, it depends on what kind of break-in is being discussed: break-in that further burnishes and seats a functioning, reliable firearm is normal and isn't a factory defect; break-in that's supposed to make the firearm function properly or reliably is a factory defect and isn't break-in at all, it's user supplied quality control (and lousy).
It seems the logical conclusion of your position is that every firearm ever made is defective because they all "smooth out" from use -- 1911, Glock, and S&W revolver alike.
Now this ^^^^^^^ makes sense.
Just like an old pair of sneakers or boots. A little uncomfortable at first, but when they got broke in, you fell in love.
And your wife had to hit you over the head with them just so she could throw them away when they were wore out.
When I bought my Series 70 Colt Government Model new in 1974 I
don't recall the owner's manual saying anything about a break-in
period. But it was far from reliable out of the box. It jammed
repeatedly with plain hardball. The problem was that the spring collet
barrel bushing was a tight fit on the barrel and the gun would hang up
just short of going into battery. This seemed to be a very common
problem with these guns. I read somewhere, American Rifleman
maybe, the solution was to wear-in the barrel-bushing surfaces. I sat
and watched TV and worked the slide back and forth many hundreds
of times. It also fed RN cast bullet handloads much more reliably after
I polished the feedramp and barrel throat. This "throating" of stock
guns was accepted as being necessary. There were reports of some
guns that suffered breakage of the collet bushing. My recollection of
those days is that it was a given that any stock .45 acp 1911 would
not function with anything but hardball without work. Buyers accepted
the situation back then. Not today. I like my 1911 for what it is but
there are many autos available today that are far better for SD carry.
don't recall the owner's manual saying anything about a break-in
period. But it was far from reliable out of the box. It jammed
repeatedly with plain hardball. The problem was that the spring collet
barrel bushing was a tight fit on the barrel and the gun would hang up
just short of going into battery. This seemed to be a very common
problem with these guns. I read somewhere, American Rifleman
maybe, the solution was to wear-in the barrel-bushing surfaces. I sat
and watched TV and worked the slide back and forth many hundreds
of times. It also fed RN cast bullet handloads much more reliably after
I polished the feedramp and barrel throat. This "throating" of stock
guns was accepted as being necessary. There were reports of some
guns that suffered breakage of the collet bushing. My recollection of
those days is that it was a given that any stock .45 acp 1911 would
not function with anything but hardball without work. Buyers accepted
the situation back then. Not today. I like my 1911 for what it is but
there are many autos available today that are far better for SD carry.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
