1911 question

[Colinb913]

First of all let me fore warn you all that I am posting this off my cell phone. So it may be a bear to read.

So I have a pending trade offer on my xds. A guy wants to trade me his springfield micro 1911. His gun is in great condition and I love the idea of a trade.

Here's the issue. He told me "when he manually works the slide and there is a round in the chamber the extractor pulls the round back, but doesn't throw the shell out of the chamber.

I did the same action with my xds and it doesn't either.

He said he has never shot the gun before so he doesn't know if this is a issue or not. Neither do I.

He lives out towards Louisville and no where near a gun range for me to test the gun before we deal. So INGO I ask you.

Is this normal behavior for a 1911 and would you complete the trade?

 

[rockhopper46038]

A vigorous racking of the slide should eject the shell well away from the firearm.

 

[ModernGunner]

Question, Colin: are you talking about manually loading a round into the chamber (just dropping it into the barrel), or loading it into a magazine, rack & load, then racking again to eject?

If you're talking about the 'normal' procedure of loading via a magazine, I know of no autos that don't throw out the round. Certainly, all of mine do so. Though, I don't own a Springfield 1911 nor an XDs, so I suppose it could be something peculiar to Springfield.

If you're talking about opening the breech, then just dropping a round in, then I have seen a few autos on which the extractor won't engage the round when loading by that method and thus won't throw it out and away from the firearm when the slide is racked. Haven't tried that particular method on mine, to be honest.

 

[Colinb913]

I clarified with the seller. He loads a round in the mag. Racks the slide so the weapon is in condition 1.

He then pulls the slide back slowly and it pulls the shell back as it should but doesn't flick it out of the chamber.

My xds mimics this behavior exactly. I asked him to "put a little ass" behind it if he tried again and see if it spits the shell out that way.

 

[ModernGunner]

Ah, okay. I've never tried racking the slide back very slowly. Honestly, never thought to even try it as, AFAIK, as the gun is designed that whole operation tends to happen... shall we say, fast? LOL.

 

[halfmileharry]

IF you pull it back slowly it's not going to flip 'em out. I just tried 3 of my 1911s including my new Wilson and all act the same.
IF you pull the slide back quickly they'll throw the shells pretty good. Even full rounds will fly well.

 

[Colinb913]

Sounds great. I will see what he says when he tries it again.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Yes, a slow retraction of the slide won't eject the shell. There's no kinetic energy to do so.

 

[billt]

This is a very common issue with chopped 1911 pistols. If you're going to run a 1911, go with a full sized model. That's the way Browning designed it.

[video=youtube;2P0edDYdqXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P0edDYdqXU[/video]

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

I don't see the above video as pertinent to the thread, in that no semi is going to eject while racked slowly and the video is basically an anti 1911 format piece of propaganda. 1911's used in combat situations, which would include nothing happening slowly.
As far as what the video does address...... I have experienced 0 FTF or FTE issues with my Kimber first gen. stainless Ultra Carry. I am however, aware of the issues concerning short barreled 1911's and the timing issues potential to them, so I won't say for sure that what is stated concerning the short guns is completely inaccurate. I will suggest taking notice of the relative slow speed at which the fellow in question racks that short gun to clear an empty. It also seemed to me that he was using factory or similar mags? I wonder how well that pistol may have worked with some quality Wilsons? I'm talking the actual modernized Wilson mags with the domed follower, not the higher quality original style ones offered. I also have a bit of an issue with the blanket statement concerning ALL 1911s. I have to wonder what his training course consists of? It seems unlikely that NO 1911, EVER, managed to complete a course of training. Personally, I don't think many who know the 1911 well would bother to put up their money with this guy just to prove him wrong, but I doubt it would make one of his videos if they did. That said, I guess I'll have to look into those classes a little more closely to see, if I can, what sort of issues his class brings out.
Stupid, I guess, to say no offense intended if this fellow is a member here, or the friend of a member. I will say, however, that one should consider my comments as they were intended. My personal experience and an issue I have with propaganda of ANY sort. In other words, "Give me all the facts, not just those the fit your agenda".
Jim

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

The extractor is not the problem; it's pulling the round out of the chamber. The ejector is just a little metal stub in the lower left (as you fire) at the back of the receiver. When the slide flies back during fire, the casing will hit that stub hard enough to bounce off and out. If you're pulling back slowly, you'll just sort of bump into it without enough energy to bounce the bullet out. If you pull it vigorously enough, it will eject, but still pretty anemically.

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

First, to Colinb913, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I do believe, however, that your question has been answered, bit if you want personal opinion.... I would probably rather have the Springfield. I've handled a couple of XDS's and have no real problem with them, I just like the Springfield a bit more, aesthetically.
second, I just did a little looking around and very quickly discovered two things. Rob Pincus no doubt is a good shot and knows self defense. He is also a die hard Glockster who doesn't let fact stand in his way. To the latter I say, to each his own. I wouldn't own a Glock, but have no doubts as to their positive points. I simply prefer a bit more metal. Once again, for aesthetic purposes.
I would also be willing to bet that I could take a simple, somewhat loose fitting, 1911, and rip through his course time and again. The only real potential I see for failure is heat related. Most modern race guns have very tight tolerances. The old school, "rattle a bit", combat guns with the appropriate lube would tend to create less and react less to, heat.

 

[churchmouse]

First, to Colinb913, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I do believe, however, that your question has been answered, bit if you want personal opinion.... I would probably rather have the Springfield. I've handled a couple of XDS's and have no real problem with them, I just like the Springfield a bit more, aesthetically.
second, I just did a little looking around and very quickly discovered two things. Rob Pincus no doubt is a good shot and knows self defense. He is also a die hard Glockster who doesn't let fact stand in his way. To the latter I say, to each his own. I wouldn't own a Glock, but have no doubts as to their positive points. I simply prefer a bit more metal. Once again, for aesthetic purposes.
I would also be willing to bet that I could take a simple, somewhat loose fitting, 1911, and rip through his course time and again. The only real potential I see for failure is heat related. Most modern race guns have very tight tolerances. The old school, "rattle a bit", combat guns with the appropriate lube would tend to create less and react less to, heat.

''

I have my uncles 1911 service pistil he carried in Korea and in the Nam. It is the gun I learned to shoot when I was 12. That was 1962. The gun is a rattle trap. He always said it never, ever let him down. It has some serious history.
We still run it on special occasions and it is not the absolute most accurate 1911 I own but it does run. It needs to be re-sprung (is that a real word...) but I will not alter it in any way.

OP....I am not a fan of chopped down 1911's either.

 

[45fan]

This is a very common issue with chopped 1911 pistols. If you're going to run a 1911, go with a full sized model. That's the way Browning designed it.

[video=youtube;2P0edDYdqXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P0edDYdqXU[/video]

While my personal favorite 1911 is a Government size, I do own an officers model, and have had it for several years now without having any issue as far as function of the pistol is concerned. While the geometry is a good bit tighter in the little guns, all it takes is a bit of attention to detail, and proper maintenance to ensure a reliable pistol. The short 1911 is a compromise, and if the operator isnt willing to invest the time and energy into keeping it up, perhaps the best solution is to just go with a Glock, and not worry themselves with it, as even the full size 1911 does require a bit more attention than many of these newer designs on the market today.

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

I think re-sprung is or should be a real word, so here's to old Will Shakespeare. The rattle trap is a discussion I've had several times with the older, and far superior, gunsmith/friend of mine. His stand on the subject is that he'd rather have one that's loose fitting, preferably with a shot out bore. The theory being that it will always fire, and if the round keyholes a bit on the way in, so much the better. At the range the gun was intended for. I prefer a bit more accuracy, but understand where he's coming from completely.

 

[palerider0485]

i really like the video billt posted, and i agree with it, short barrel 1911's suck, ive shot many of them with bad results, i would keep your xds.

 

[JimfromTrafalgar]

IMO, school's still out on how well the XDS's work after years of wear and tear. Since most of these compact 45's don't get a ton of actual use anyway, it still seems a matter of personal preference. Still have any of those small 1911's laying around?

 

[churchmouse]

I think re-sprung is or should be a real word, so here's to old Will Shakespeare. The rattle trap is a discussion I've had several times with the older, and far superior, gunsmith/friend of mine. His stand on the subject is that he'd rather have one that's loose fitting, preferably with a shot out bore. The theory being that it will always fire, and if the round keyholes a bit on the way in, so much the better. At the range the gun was intended for. I prefer a bit more accuracy, but understand where he's coming from completely.

I tend to tighten up my 1911's as well. Not to the point of resistance but mainly in lock up and bushing fit. The slides on most of the newer offerings are fairly well fit. It is the 1st thing I check. 2nd is hammer/trigger fit and feel. I recently picked up a new range officer that felt a lot like my loaded that has been through the Springer custom shop. Trigger pulled off just a bit over 5# but that was an easy enough fix.

Officers models are OK with us. We have had several. It is the chopped down Micro-Carry pieces I am not a fan of.

 

[SERparacord]

Anything with a barrel shorter than 4.25" is not a 1911. Thanks for reading.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I have a compact 4" Bill Wilson Carry. It has been 100% reliable. That's as short as I'm personally comfortable going with the 1911, but this article may be interesting to you. The timing and recoil impulse of a short 1911 are different from a Government (or Commander) model.http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/1911/a-reliable-compact-1911-by-bill-wilson/