1911 Afterthought

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