I already owned all the tools. I only needed to buy allen screws.
-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
DIY 1911 accuracy job.
- Thread starter Griffin Armament
- Start date
I already owned all the tools. I only needed to buy allen screws.
If I met John Browning today, I'd probably ask him what he was thinking when he toleranced the 1911 so broadly. It's a great design, but the gun just doesn't perform nearly as well as it could if the parts fit together the way they were intended to. And their optimal function is absolutely tolerance critical.
If he saw the bumps on a Kart Easy fit match barrel, he'd probably add them to his print so that future guns could be more easily made that fit properly and shot accurately.
People would not be seeing Glock as an improvement were it not for the fact that the Glock system greatly simplifies fitting the parts tightly so the guns shoot well (square surfaces make so much sense where round lugs are a close tolerance manufacturing nightmare). The only thing wrong with the 1911 is that most guns the consumer can buy aren't snugly fit from the factory.
Last edited:
I appreciate your post. I've shot 1911's for over a decade and owned maybe 15 of them. To me it was a simple problem of a cheap beater 1911 with sloppy fit tempting me to spend $400 on accuracy work that would have been worth no more than $200 the moment it left the custom shop [due to the rock island base gun (cast frame etc)]. That simply wouldn't be a good investment.
This way I saved money. I think later this week if I can get to a range, I'll be able to prove that the gun shoots well for a change. I have a set of sights inbound from fusion firearms and I hope I receive them in a timely manner to make that possible.
To me a $400 1911 is worth a little more than scrap metal, so I didn't see this as defacing the mona lisa. If I wanted a quality gun, I would have had to reach deeper into my wallet. I had .45ACP sound suppressors and this gun had a suppressor threaded barrel, and I'd sold my suppressor threaded gun. So I bought it for $425. It made sense, but then after shooting it, I really wanted it to shoot better. It was just sloppier than I like a 1911 to be, and the Jarvis barrel is without a doubt capable of putting a bullet where it is pointed, so the limiting factor is mechanical fit of the barrel.
If people want to get into defacing the mona lisa- they should be looking at the roll mark on the side of the slide. It's hideous. These RIA's are cosmetically ugly guns. The front sight isn't Novak (it's a Novak dovetail with a non std .015" deeper cut) <Who at RIA thought this was a good idea? Why?
The customer can't get a quality brand name drop in sight to replace the cheap OEM that aren't even square (angled with surfaces that aren't flat). They have to take a file and remove .015" from the top of the slide to make clearance for actual Novak cut sights which are basically industry standard. That's the best solution I found in 8 hours on the internet searching for solutions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 7,040
- Reaction score
- 9,530
The Kart barrel kit is under 2 bills. Has the hood humps and an oversized bushing...................
If it also had .578x28 threads, then I could buy one to fit, and still use a sound suppressor on it. That was the original reason for this pistol (it was $425 used with the Jarvis .578x28 bull barrel and upgrade hammer/sear combo.)
I've always thought the EZ fit barrel was a great concept, and I've seen nothing but glowing reviews. I think gun tests and the National Rifleman both tested the barrels with sub 2" 25 yard groups. I've always been interested in trying one, but the right opportunity hasn't presented itself.
I do think the bushingless barrel is a bad idea. I like the concept of a sacrifical bushing that is replaceable when worn, but converting this barrel to take a bushing is probably not realistic.
Mr. Browning designed the 1911 as a battle pistol hence the loose tolerances. Mud, dirt, sand, or blood can find their way into any weapon system. The most important thing for battle gun is it must work, always no matter the environmental conditions. Printing small groups on paper was not the design of the creator. However, many a smith has found ways to massage the 1911 for utmost accuracy unparalleled to most pistol designs. Accuracy and reliability is still somewhat a compromise.
A Glock IMO does not have tight target type of tolerances. Watch slow motion video of the frame flexing during firing, measure the rails and slide rail slots. Original chambers were really opened up to allow enhanced feeding which was fine until .40 S&W hit the scene and guns started to blow up. Its polymer frame does not lend itself well to extreme target accuracy. Empress me by enhancing a Glock with bull’s-eye target accuracy but that's not what Glocks were designed to do. I have been contemplating this myself for a few months now.
I understand the concept and if done on a 1911 of low value may be a viable cheap method to reduce slop in the lug area. If done on a nice 1911 it will ruin its value. There are other ways to accomplish your goal. Krebbs (sp?) make clip on shims for the lugs, kart makes a match grade barrel/bushing with the feet on the lugs to be filed to fit. Old school was to weld a bit of metal to the lugs then carefully remove metal until a tight hard fit lockup was achieved. I would advocate messing with a barrel that can cheaply be replaced rather than a slide which cannot especially an expensive one. Your method just doesn't look great.
I think of the above the Kart barrel kit makes the most sense and it's around $200 for a match barrel/bushing that you fit the hood, lug buttons and bushing. The kit allows the lower barrel lugs to make equal solid contact on the slide release.
The only redeeming feature your method offers over any others is perhaps the ability to easily adjust lug tolerances. Whether that's needed I don't know. Maybe when switching slide stops? I would have liked to seen fixed rest testing before and after with several varieties of ammo.
Please post your results and let individuals make their own decisions.
P.S. Thank Mr. Browning for the Hi-Power's link less barrel design, Glock borrowed it as did most other current pistol manufactures. He always tried to do more with less. Less moving parts, less parts to break down.
A Glock IMO does not have tight target type of tolerances. Watch slow motion video of the frame flexing during firing, measure the rails and slide rail slots. Original chambers were really opened up to allow enhanced feeding which was fine until .40 S&W hit the scene and guns started to blow up. Its polymer frame does not lend itself well to extreme target accuracy. Empress me by enhancing a Glock with bull’s-eye target accuracy but that's not what Glocks were designed to do. I have been contemplating this myself for a few months now.
I understand the concept and if done on a 1911 of low value may be a viable cheap method to reduce slop in the lug area. If done on a nice 1911 it will ruin its value. There are other ways to accomplish your goal. Krebbs (sp?) make clip on shims for the lugs, kart makes a match grade barrel/bushing with the feet on the lugs to be filed to fit. Old school was to weld a bit of metal to the lugs then carefully remove metal until a tight hard fit lockup was achieved. I would advocate messing with a barrel that can cheaply be replaced rather than a slide which cannot especially an expensive one. Your method just doesn't look great.
I think of the above the Kart barrel kit makes the most sense and it's around $200 for a match barrel/bushing that you fit the hood, lug buttons and bushing. The kit allows the lower barrel lugs to make equal solid contact on the slide release.
The only redeeming feature your method offers over any others is perhaps the ability to easily adjust lug tolerances. Whether that's needed I don't know. Maybe when switching slide stops? I would have liked to seen fixed rest testing before and after with several varieties of ammo.
Please post your results and let individuals make their own decisions.
P.S. Thank Mr. Browning for the Hi-Power's link less barrel design, Glock borrowed it as did most other current pistol manufactures. He always tried to do more with less. Less moving parts, less parts to break down.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 0
Got a question. The fit on a slide/barrel can be critical but the critical area would be width, not particular depth. I am aware of the shims and other measures to "fit" barrels along with the different size (length) links. If you are ajusting the depth of the lockup, are you not running the chance of rounding lug edges and/or causing too little surface interface? Why not use different links and take down the barrel lugs accordingly This would ensure total lockup.
Seems to me the screws are simply doing away with the bad fit from the top. As you probably know, the test of a good fit is pressing down on the hood while the slide is in battery. Do the screws do away with the slop?
Seems to me the screws are simply doing away with the bad fit from the top. As you probably know, the test of a good fit is pressing down on the hood while the slide is in battery. Do the screws do away with the slop?
the 1911 was Not designed to lockup on the link.. it should lock up on the lower lugs.. Really the link plays a much more important part in the "link down "cycle (immediately after firing). The long links like the old #13 link deal were not the way to go for real accuracy. the Kart Ez fit is a pretty good compromise for a fitted barrel but, if you can manage it, the Kart Gunsmith fit is a bit better. It has oversized top and lower lugs and is harder to fit right I always loved Kart barrels for lead bullets and BarSto for jacketed but truth be told Colt makes a very fine barrel.
Last edited:
