I decided to write this post after having looked over the drawings of the 1911 pistol. According to the parts listing on the exploded view page, plus the magazine components, I count sixty components total in the original design.
Going over the parts page by page, and looking at the complexity of some of the parts, I have to retract my previous statement about the comparison of the 1911 to most modern pistols. The statement I made said that I thought the 1911 was a simpler design, with fewer parts and less machining to produce. That may not be the case, depending on the manufacturer and the manufacturing process chosen. If castings and forgings are used versus machining billets, then the statement holds I believe. If however, machining from solids is chosen, then the production costs, required machinery, tooling, and skilled machinists necessary to produce the parts becomes very costly and complex.
The tolerances called for in the drawings require very skilled machinists, set-up personnel, and quality machines to produce and hold within those limits. Today's computer controlled machines would have little difficulty producing the parts well within the tolerance limits, but the quantity of different machined parts in the 1911 design makes it inherently more complex than a composite framed competitor such as a Glock.
I will delve further into this as time goes on. I may have to purchase a Glock, M&P, or Beretta and dissect the design for a proper perspective on composite frame designs. I can tell you my CZ 75B is by far more complex than Browning's 1911 Government Model. The CZ shares similar functions with the 1911, and it is a wonderful handgun, accurate, ergonomic, and well crafted. It just has a lot more parts than JMB'S combat pistol. The CZ seems to make my point about the relative simplicity of the 1911. Then again, the CZ 75B has a single-action or double-action trigger group. That's oranges to nectarines. Yep, time to go get a plastic pistol and see what's shakin'...
Gaff
Monday, May 13, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
One of My 1911's
Since I started this post about John Moses Browning's classic 1911 Combat Pistol, I thought I might as well show one of mine that I have done a bit of handiwork to. The biggest change I made was to customize the Hogue grips I purchased. I wanted to increase their "grippiness" (is that a word? NO!).
To accomplish this, I checkered the inside of a simple triangle pattern on each grip half. In addition, I inlet a small personalized disc into each side of the grip. The Hogue is a split grip (two halves), and attaches with the standard 1911 grip fasteners in place of the factory grips.
The 1911 pistol is without a doubt, one of the most modified and customized pistols in the world today. It is also one of the most recognizable. There are many, many manufacturers of the design from all parts of the globe. For the most part, main parts of the pistol are interchangeable from manufacturer to manufacturer. This is due to the drawings of JMB's original design being in the public domain. However, it does not guarantee that all parts are exchangeable, will necessarily fit your particular 1911, or for that matter, function properly.
Modern manufacturing practices allow drawings to be directly input into Computer Numerically Controlled Machines (CNC) and the machines can then produce the part using that drawing's information. Tolerances of the finished parts are a different matter all together. Tolerances become a manufacturing decision, how tightly the parts will be held to the original specifications is a bottom line thing. It's all about time, and money (cost). Back in JMB's day, 1911 originals were machined and then hand fitted by craftsmen, the best of the best craftsmen. Come to think of it, tolerances and or lack thereof, could be an entire new post.
Checkering is by far, not a hobby for folks with a short attention span. It requires fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, and laser focus at times. Come to think of it, most of the time really. Mistakes are not easily hidden from a discerning eye. However, it is a most satisfying carving accomplishment. It looks wonderful, and is functional. Pretty cool for a form of art. Functionality, that is.
I have not yet attempted engraving. Now that, I reckon, would be a magnitude above checkering in the concentration and motor skills departments. Wood is a bit forgiving, stainless steel, not so much.
Here it is...My full size (5 Inch) Ruger SR-1911 with my modified grips.
& My Ruger SR1911 Talo Edition Navy SEAL Special Edition 1 of 500
Do the right thing!
Gaff
To accomplish this, I checkered the inside of a simple triangle pattern on each grip half. In addition, I inlet a small personalized disc into each side of the grip. The Hogue is a split grip (two halves), and attaches with the standard 1911 grip fasteners in place of the factory grips.
The 1911 pistol is without a doubt, one of the most modified and customized pistols in the world today. It is also one of the most recognizable. There are many, many manufacturers of the design from all parts of the globe. For the most part, main parts of the pistol are interchangeable from manufacturer to manufacturer. This is due to the drawings of JMB's original design being in the public domain. However, it does not guarantee that all parts are exchangeable, will necessarily fit your particular 1911, or for that matter, function properly.
Modern manufacturing practices allow drawings to be directly input into Computer Numerically Controlled Machines (CNC) and the machines can then produce the part using that drawing's information. Tolerances of the finished parts are a different matter all together. Tolerances become a manufacturing decision, how tightly the parts will be held to the original specifications is a bottom line thing. It's all about time, and money (cost). Back in JMB's day, 1911 originals were machined and then hand fitted by craftsmen, the best of the best craftsmen. Come to think of it, tolerances and or lack thereof, could be an entire new post.
Checkering is by far, not a hobby for folks with a short attention span. It requires fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, and laser focus at times. Come to think of it, most of the time really. Mistakes are not easily hidden from a discerning eye. However, it is a most satisfying carving accomplishment. It looks wonderful, and is functional. Pretty cool for a form of art. Functionality, that is.
I have not yet attempted engraving. Now that, I reckon, would be a magnitude above checkering in the concentration and motor skills departments. Wood is a bit forgiving, stainless steel, not so much.
Here it is...My full size (5 Inch) Ruger SR-1911 with my modified grips.
& My Ruger SR1911 Talo Edition Navy SEAL Special Edition 1 of 500
Gaff
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Browning Insult
I moved this entry from my other Blog about encoders because it was just way-too off topic...
The following has nothing to do with optical encoders, far from it, but it does deal with another of my interests. I might go as far as to call it a passion. Modern firearms.
Somehow I got pulled into an on-line discussion about semi-automatic pistol designs. Specifically, the .45 caliber 1911 Combat Pistol. The reason I was sucked in...well, the discussion got a bit ugly at one point with severe criticism of the 1911, its reliability, its "old" design, etc. Here is an excerpt of one of the comments:
"The 1911 is, at its core, a dogshit design. I’d never trust my life to one of those crapfests, no matter how ‘tuned’."
Being an admirer of John Moses Browning, I had to jump in with both "guns a blazin'". My response was the following:
"100+ years ago, a genius named John Moses Browning gave the US Army what it was asking for. A reliable combat pistol with one shot knock down power. In order to “pass the test” the pistol needed to fire 6,000 rounds continuously, only stopping to eject and insert magazines. It did just that flawlessly.
As far as the design being less than good…I might suggest that when any other combat pistol gets 100+ years of experience under its belt, then the design comparisons can be drawn.
Mr. Browning does have a couple of designs that seem to be classics. Take the MA-2 .50 cal. Heavy Machine gun. Is that a piece of shit design too? Or, his .30 Cal Light Machine Gun, which I believe still holds the sustained fire record of around 48 minutes at 600 rounds a minute. Nearly 29,000 bullets sent downrange. The only reason it stopped then, was it ran out of bullets in the pre-made bandoleer.
Are there better semi-auto pistols available in the marketplace today? Undoubtedly. However, I would posit that their designs are more complex, require more machining, and contain more components than JMB’s “classic” 1911."
O.K., so I should not have gotten sucked in. It's too late now. Why did I come to the defense of a design that needs no defense? The man that designed it had a sixth grade education. Yet, he holds more firearm patents than any person living or dead.
In my slightly less than humble opinion, when the .45 ACP, 1911 pistol is manufactured as it was in John Moses Browning's day, by craftsmen, machinists, and armorers that are the "best of the best", and used with ammunition it was designed to fire, there is no better, more lethal, more ergonomic, more reliable hand held firearm on the planet. Again, that is just my opinion. Which, I have come to accept, carries very little weight...I'm jiggy with that.
Until next time, or not.
Gaff
The following has nothing to do with optical encoders, far from it, but it does deal with another of my interests. I might go as far as to call it a passion. Modern firearms.
Somehow I got pulled into an on-line discussion about semi-automatic pistol designs. Specifically, the .45 caliber 1911 Combat Pistol. The reason I was sucked in...well, the discussion got a bit ugly at one point with severe criticism of the 1911, its reliability, its "old" design, etc. Here is an excerpt of one of the comments:
"The 1911 is, at its core, a dogshit design. I’d never trust my life to one of those crapfests, no matter how ‘tuned’."
Being an admirer of John Moses Browning, I had to jump in with both "guns a blazin'". My response was the following:
"100+ years ago, a genius named John Moses Browning gave the US Army what it was asking for. A reliable combat pistol with one shot knock down power. In order to “pass the test” the pistol needed to fire 6,000 rounds continuously, only stopping to eject and insert magazines. It did just that flawlessly.
As far as the design being less than good…I might suggest that when any other combat pistol gets 100+ years of experience under its belt, then the design comparisons can be drawn.
Mr. Browning does have a couple of designs that seem to be classics. Take the MA-2 .50 cal. Heavy Machine gun. Is that a piece of shit design too? Or, his .30 Cal Light Machine Gun, which I believe still holds the sustained fire record of around 48 minutes at 600 rounds a minute. Nearly 29,000 bullets sent downrange. The only reason it stopped then, was it ran out of bullets in the pre-made bandoleer.
Are there better semi-auto pistols available in the marketplace today? Undoubtedly. However, I would posit that their designs are more complex, require more machining, and contain more components than JMB’s “classic” 1911."
O.K., so I should not have gotten sucked in. It's too late now. Why did I come to the defense of a design that needs no defense? The man that designed it had a sixth grade education. Yet, he holds more firearm patents than any person living or dead.
In my slightly less than humble opinion, when the .45 ACP, 1911 pistol is manufactured as it was in John Moses Browning's day, by craftsmen, machinists, and armorers that are the "best of the best", and used with ammunition it was designed to fire, there is no better, more lethal, more ergonomic, more reliable hand held firearm on the planet. Again, that is just my opinion. Which, I have come to accept, carries very little weight...I'm jiggy with that.
Until next time, or not.
Gaff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)