1911 design outlives 1911a1
 

Notice that all higher end 1911s are flat backstrap and long trigger? And the a1 style is not very common? So, why is this? What was the a1 rationale in the first place? Just wondering?

To me what makes the a1 is the relief cuts on the frame. The trigger and mainspring housing can easily be swapped, while frame modifications are permanent. Almost all 1911s built today have the relief cuts, except for Colts 1911 WWI reproduction.

From http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/1911#Information

After World War I, the military modified the M1911 design to optimize it for combat, adding a slightly larger ejection port, shortening the trigger, extending the grip safety tang to help prevent "slide bite", and adding an arched mainspring housing to allow the gun to better fit in the user's hand. The new firearm was called the Colt M1911A1.

How does a short trigger "optimize" it, and What im saying is the flat back/long trigger seem the most prevalent model, which i prefer.

The short trigger allows for users of all sizes to handle to gun. Which in the military is going to be very common.

I prefer a medium trigger. All my current 1911s have the flat mainspring. My Springfield mil-spec which finally shipped today has the arched, so I'll now be able to see if makes a difference.

Neither has outlived the other, the 1911 platform and all of the features that have been a part of it at one time or another have just soldiered on, some more than others. I agree with the frame cut thing, and really all 1911s today are neither traditional 1911s or 1911A1s, save for some like the Springfield GI which tries to be but still isn't totally original A1 spec, albeit closer to that than anything else. All modern 1911s have design details from one or both designs and modern modifications of their own. The 1911A1 was a military gun, with Government and Commercial models being available to the public, like the M9 is to the 92FS.

The two parts you're concerned about are the trigger and housing. I've read or heard somewhere that the long trigger had rough edges along with the reach being longer, so the Army wanted a shorter and smoother trigger for more ease of use. The housing is kind of weird, since I know a lot of people who do prefer the flat housing, but back in the day, most handguns and revolvers had rounder butts or angles that dug into the bottom portion of your hand, and so they must have wanted that feeling in the A1, though that is just my conjecture. I prefer the arched housing since it's more aesthetically pleasing and it feels good in my hand when I hold it. Same with the short trigger.

Well, I own both an original 1911 and a couple of M1911A1s, and I have to say that for me the A1s point much better with the short trigger and arched backstrap - and that the extended tang really does help with hammer bite. I love the looks of an original pre-1924 1911, but for actual use it's the A1 all the way.

Oh yeah, the longer grip tang is something that's outlived the short counterpart, though a lot go so far as to have the super long upswept tang. Then to accommodate that they install the modern commander type hammers. You know, it's almost as if modern commercial production 1911s are in a class of their own.

I actually don't like the upswept tang. I find it makes it harder to lower the hammer one-handed.

This is a a pretty good video on why the A1 changes came about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3ISB...&feature=feedu


After shooting my Springer Mil-Spec, I don't mind the arch mainspring. I also found that with the short trigger, the relief cuts on the frame are nice to have.

I want a original 1911a1 for collectability some day, something a little off brand, like ithaca or remington rand.

For duty, I love the modern novak wearing beavertail safety equipped long trigger flat back lowered and flared guns. I know a lot of people own 1911s for the nostalgia, but for me I just shoot the excellent triggers well. And grip fits like i was born with one in my hand. I wont buy a colt either, dont like their business practices and there guns cost way too much for what you get, ffanboys just hype them saying there the original, like that means anything. For the prices they charge a springfield or smith and wesson will have more features, tighter fit and more bang for your buck.

Of course don't mention Colt in that. (I wouldn't mind an Ithaca.) I wish Colt would start back doing WWII reproductions, they did a few years ago I guess before they started doing WWI repros. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=216597641
With a newer reproduction you're able to get one with the old school look and better steel. Better fit too.
While two of mine wear Novak's, I think Heine's are the better way to go. They may not be "snag free" I much rather have sights that allow for one hand clearing.

Also I think most of us know you hate Colt, no need to keep repeating it over and over again.

Ive never tried heines but always heard they are nice. Im just really used to the three dot pattern.

Of course for a collectible Id prefer a singer or union switch and signal, but im a realist. I know i wont be able to find or afford one.

I'm used to them too, but my RIA has XS sights and my P220 has two dot, I can use them just as good as three dots.

I've seen the Colt WWII reproductions on sale before, and yes, Colt is absolutely stupid for not producing them still. They would fly off the shelves, and I'd sure as hell buy one.

Anyhow, and I've said this before and I'll say it again, you can't hate a 40's Colt because of how they are in the 2000s and the 2010s. Otherwise, you should hate SIG, Smith & Wesson and Ruger to an extent, on the same basis, and I know you don't. Besides, they made the first guns, and while I believe "if it ain't a Colt, it's a copy" is a douchey thing to say, those who say it are at least right.

Oh yeah, Predator, you have a P220, huh? Would you be interested in an extra magazine? My friend gave me all these mags and ammo to sell, and one of the items happens to be a 7 round .45 P220 magazine, stamped SIG SAUER, phopshate coated (weird finish option, this one is the only one I've seen with phosphate as opposed to bluing or stainless steel). Send me a PM if you're interested, I have pics and I won't charge the crazy amount the internet or your local gun store will for the current production mag.

You damn right. I thought they only made the WWI repro, then I saw a WWII. Maybe they will in the future.
Here's a thread on it. I need to update my user page. But I've been lazy.
http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1131
I'll send you a PM.

I wouldnt trust a 40s colt for defense, and I wouldnt mess up a collectible by adding modern stuff.

If I had a WWII Colt and shot it without issue, I'd trust it, that goes with any gun. If you're going to soup it up with modern accoutrements, necessary or unnecessary as they may be, then no, don't use and old one, for the love of God. I have seen so many franken70s on Gunbroker, it makes me sick that I can't afford to take one off the market in the hopes of saving it from one of these people who may want to put a layzor and massive target sights on them. Granted the owner can do whatever he wants to his/her gun, I still find it in very bad taste to customize original 70s, of which there are a limited amount. If one keeps their custom, it's fine (for them at least), but if things go south, no one is going to buy it if there is irreparable work done to it (like the frame being drilled and tapped or the dovetail cut being enlarged).

ww2 era guns are ok....until you use hollowpoints, which is the only thing I'd use. Ethically I dont want overpenetration, realistically I want to stop a threat as quickly as possible.

So they say. I won't know until I've tried it myself, and if it does happen to be a jamomatic, every smith ever knows how to throat a 1911 barrel and polish a feed ramp, and I'm comfortable using ball ammo otherwise.

old sights sucked too......i feel like im beating a dead horse though, im just one of those guys who enjoys new features.

We both are, but that's cbeause you restate the same points that any tacticool guy would, and I can't help but yank your chain for it. : D

I'm also one who doesn't mind old gun features, so I'm always compelled to argue the other end of the spectrum in an argument when tacticoolness founded on the sake of being tacticool, possibly among other things, comes up.

Im not tacticool, just practi-cool, like, I cant really see GI sights well, Beveled magazine wells help make reload faster, 8 round mags hold an extra shot, lowered and flared ejection ports increase ejection and extraction, Beavertails are comfy and help with a high grip, a extended safety is easier to move under stress. thing is, I couldnt see doing any of these mods to a GI gun, it ruins the classic look and collectability value. Dont like rails though. my grip doesnt really allow or the useof a mounted light, and theres so few holsters for lights.

I agree that modifying an original in an irreversible way is heresy, but that's just me personally. Owners can do whatever they want to their guns (sadly, heheh), but on the other hand, there's no real prestige in owning a modern one that may or may not be more functional. You can have functionality or that prestige, but you can't have both, at least not without butchering an older gun.

I personally can do without about everything you've said being put on a 1911 (even the sights, I know, it's crazy), which is why I'm still stuck on an original Series 70, though I will concede 100 percent that beveled magazine wells are better than regular ones IMHO.

A sign of progress:cool:

Gotta say though a regular beveled well is good, Id only want a smith and alexander type on a competition gun.

Not really "progress", I've felt that way for a long time, just from experience. It's one of few permanent modifications that I personally see as justifiable and a functional improvement.

It was sarcasm:o
Way harder online than in person