Myth: You need to lower and flare the ejection port on your G.I. 1911 for reliability.
Fact: Mostly, you need to lower and flare the ejection port on your G.I. 1911 if you reload so that case mouths don't get dinged during the ejection cycle. If you don't reload, you probably don't need to worry about it. If you're customizing a G.I. gun, though, and ever plan to sell it, you should have the port lowered and flared before refinishing because people expect to see a lowered and flared ejection port on a customized gun. They think it makes it more custom and reliable or something and will pay you more money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Out of curiosity, is there any reason not to flare and lower the ejection port, other than cost or faithfulness to JMB's original design? That is, does a flared and lowered ejection port cause any problems?
Only if you are routinely sleeping in mud or a fox hole would I not recommend lowering the ejection port.
Making the ejection port larger in any way, shape or form is going to allow more foreign material into the gun.
But having said that, if you are sleeping in a fox hole or the down-low in mud, I doubt if you're all that worried about reloading your brass.
All The Best,
Frank W. James
Canthros,
What Frank said. The question is almost quaint today anyway, since when most people say "I just bought a 1911", what they really mean is "I just bought a Kimber/Springfield Loaded/Para Whatever," and those all pretty much come with the port already lowered and flared. Because people expect that on a custom gun. I've never had or seen a reliability problem caused by an original-sized port. One possible caveat might be that it could only help if one was hell-bent on installing an over-long "combat" ejector.
Thanks for the response, both of you!
I reload and the dings aren't on every case and my sizing die takes most of them out anyway. I simply don't worry about them, so if you're as cavalier as I am about brass (most folks are just to persnikity) I'd say you don't even need it lowered if you reload.
But then, I'm probably doing it wrong as usual.
They think it makes it more custom and reliable or something and will pay you more money.
Not to mention lowerer and flarier, particularly in the area of the ejection port.
This is sort of the same thing where those giant spoilers on mom's honda will keep the trunk shut if you accidentally knee the release button in the sardine-can-sized cockpit, right?
'Course I don't really have room to throw stones about lowered ports and such...
"Combat ejectors," God give me wisdom... yet another solution in search of a problem... too many cooks... This is gonna go long... OK, I'm suitable for human companionship now.
I've heard folks I trust concur with Tam about ejection ports and sale-ability. No experience myself, I'm blessed with the personal resources that I can kind of follow Col. Cooper's (PBUH) idea that sale of my own personal firearms is akin to trafficking in human beings.
Over-long ejectors get me going. Gotta change the entire port geometry just to get an entire cartridge to eject - clearing a dud or other misfire. Fine - maybe - if you can raise your hand and get almost unlimited time to deal with a malfunction for no penalty...
Next, you can change the timing of the gun to require gunsmith changes to other springs and parts to make the action cycle properly.
All to get back to the point of where you won't ding the occasional piece of brass. Which I generally reload just fine, as Jose has found. And by my personal experience, you get more dinged brass if your recoil spring is too light or heavy for your ammo/ mags presentation of round/ geometry of feed ramp. ARRRGH, the 1911 is to a tuned whole!!!
On a historical note, JMB (PBUH) designed the 1911 for a client, mainly the U.S. Army.
Back up a minute, I do understand the mechanical engineering of the 1911's cycle. By jiggering with the geometry of the mag feed, ejector and port, you can change the trajectory of ejected brass on an X, Y bracket. That is, more horizontal or vertical.
Haven't done the archive work myself to know if the Horse Cavalry really did make JMB change the spent brass trajectory to a more vertical in consideration of the horse and cavalryman to the right of firer in formation.
But if that IS true, it's another case of all that is old is new again on one account. It's plumb rude to spit hot brass in the face - down the dress - of the person to your immediate right.
I want an Edgar Rice Burroughs Radium Pistol.
Flaring and lowering, huh?
You can do that with a Dremel, right? I'd use a rat-tail file, but then I'd have to pull the slide.
I want a Stanley G. Weinbaum flame pistol. The only sticking point is that it uses a black diamond for power.
I see you have the ejection port that goes "Ding!"
Nah--I am saving for one of Dr. Grordbort's Victorious Mongoose Oscillating aether rayguns...
Hasn't the U.S. military always been keen on reloading its cartridges? If the original 1911 design was too hard on the brass, I can't imagine why the armed forces would keep the ejection port unmodified, especially in light of the A1 revision in 1924. I'm not certain, but the fact that they didn't change the port tells me it must not have been a big deal.
Hasn't the U.S. military always been keen on reloading its cartridges?
uh, no.
Mulliga,
Not so much. However, they are keen on turning in all your brass when running a range stateside (more for accountability than anything else). But, since they only count turned in empties by weight, condition doesn't matter.
Post a Comment