'The 1911- Myths, Lies And Fallacies' - Patrick Sweeney

S

Sharps '74

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
In this period of Covid19 self isolation, many/most of us are not getting the range time we used to. So, to pass the time, I've been indulging in reloading, bullet casting and a lot of reading.

I have several back issues of "The Complete Book Of The 1911". In the Feb. 20/2007 issue there is an article by Patrick Sweeney entitled as per above. If you are a Glock fan, read no further unless you want to educate yourself. If you are a 1911 fan, I probably already have your attention.

He lists seven myths/lies/fallacies that have come to be regarded as "everyone knows" facts. I'm going to post one daily for discussion, starting with my favourite:

- "Heavy recoil springs increase feeding reliability"

"This one used to be oft-suggested in the old days. A standard recoil spring weight in a five inch 1911 in .45 ACP is 18 pounds. One noted gun writer was famous for routinely suggesting 20 and even 22 pound springs to increase feeding reliability. For Commander-size guns, 22 or 24.

So what's the problem? The 1911 is not gentle in feeding. The round crashed into the feed ramp and is forced upward into the chamber. There it gets whipped-sawed around the edge of the barrel feed ramp. At each stage it is hitting with significant force. Even superbly tuned 1911s beat their ammo into the chamber. If you increase the recoil spring, you risk bullet set back. Setting the bullet back in the case increases chamber pressure, decreases accuracy and simply asks for trouble.

But if you use too light a spring, you'll batter your 1911, won't you? Wrong again.

USPS/IPSC competition shooters often use recoil springs of light weight - sometimes even absurd weights. It is pretty common for a shooter to be running a 1911 using a 12 pound spring. Some go even lighter, those using compensated guns where the comp retards unlocking. I've heard of shooters running .38 Super Open guns with 10 pound springs.

Why aren't the guns battering? Because the 1911, like the 98 Mauser, is strong through design, not because it is made of exotic alloys. Can you shoot a 1911 without a recoil spring at all? I mentioned the idea to Ned Christiansen, only to find out he had already tried it. It seems half the time in my wild ideas, Ned has already been there.

The gun doesn't feed at all, since there's no spring to move the slide forward. But in LIMITED testing, it doesn't seem to hurt things. No bent slide, no battered surfaces.

Need I add at this point the obligatory warning? "Closed course, trained professional. DO NOT do this at home!" We've done it so you don't have to."


I installed a heavier recoil spring in my one of my wife's Ruger SR1911s to help soften recoil. Net result - she could barely pull back the slide and it didn't seem to soften recoil. I kept the factory spring in her 2nd 1911 that she uses for "Wild Bunch" in CAS and that she handles with aplomb.

The floor is open .....
 
I'm surprised that there have been no comments.

If that "myth" rocked you, wait till you see the other "myths" debunked.
 
Thanks Sharps '74. Looking forward to this 'series'.
I'll admit, I've replaced most of my 1911 springs with slightly heavier Wolff springs.
While I can't say I've seen a huge change in recoil I believe it's somewhat noticeable. Could that simply be a placebo effect??
 
It will slow the slide a bit and may feel softer.
Back in the day I use to shoot a lot of semi wad cutter lead with no feed problems.
But for a carry gun , no
I have always just used the standard springs, If it worked for J. Browning , good enough for me.
As far as the plastic gun guys not liking 1911's, I bet most never shot a good one.
I do like my 9mm Jericho steel just fine as well.
I have handled a lot of those Dominion Arms NP 27 commanders, when they where 300.oo new , great gun for the money.
 
People are putting a lot of rounds downrange these days, the wear on the mainsprings means either using one slightly stronger for longer life, or replacing them when they show signs of weakening. Bullet configuration can make a difference too, even if your feed ramps are polished/modified, blunt nosed ammo feed will cause spring weakening issues eventually.
 
Sharps '74 said:
I'm surprised that there have been no comments.

If that "myth" rocked you, wait till you see the other "myths" debunked.
Click to expand...
It may have something to do with the dubious nature of the claims that you are making. LIMITED testing? What does that even mean? How many rounds through a 1911 without a recoil spring with no adverse effects? The 1911 may be a strong design but it's not bulletproof (as Colt found out after it chambered the gun in 10 mm).

I also seriously doubt that increasing the recoil spring weight by a coupe of pounds is going to cause bullet setback. I've never heard of that happening.
 
Last edited:
Nobody put more rounds down range back in the day when the 1911 was THE gun in the IPSC world!

If you wanted to get into "A" class and stay there, you were burning up 300-500 rds a week. More if prepping for a national or international match.

That put a lot of wear and tear on both shooter and gun, so we tried recoil buffers, heavier springs, long ejectors, etc., etc. In the end, most of us went back to pretty much stock springs, relying on good triggers and embellishments like checkered front straps and 6" ported barrels. Then the comp guns came out and things changed yet again.

The long ejectors caused a few ADs (so we heard) when an ejected rd on the "Unload & Show Clear" came into contact with the primer of a rd and detonated, so they fell into disfavour and every one stopped using Federal primers.

Before I converted to the 1911, I shot into "A" class with a pair of Browning 9mm Hi-Powers. After I sold them, one of them broke the cross bar(?) in the frame that cams the barrel down. I know of one other such incident which makes a statement about how many rds we put down range.
 
Last edited:
capp325 said:
It may have something to do with the dubious nature of the claims that you are making. LIMITED testing? What does that even mean? How many rounds though a 1911 without a recoil spring with no adverse effects? The 1911 may be a strong design but it's not bulletproof (as Colt found after it chambered the gun in 10 mm).

I also seriously doubt that increasing the recoil spring weight by a coupe of pounds is going to cause bullet setback. I've never heard of that happening.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the post .... don't shoot the messenger.

I'm not making ANY claims. The author of the article is. I presume that the word "LIMITED" means exactly what it says - sufficient rds to prove the point.

When taper crimp dies first came out, bullet set back was not unheard of. People had to learn how much crimp to apply. I've noticed set back in dummy rds that had been cycled numerous times. One of the gun magazines ran an article on bullet set back a few years ago, so the problem still persists. They cycled numerous brands of factory ammo through guns and experienced the problem.

A friend shooting a Colt 9mm Comander blew the grip panels and the bottom off a magazine. He was adamant that he had blocked checked before seating bullets and he did not own a progressive reloader. The post mortem concluded that he might have suffered bullet set back, causing a drastic increase in pressure.
 
Sharps '74 said:
Go back and read the post .... don't shoot the messenger.

I'm not making ANY claims. The author of the article is. I presume that the word "LIMITED" means exactly what it says - sufficient rds to prove the point.

When taper crimp dies first came out, bullet set back was not unheard of. People had to learn how much crimp to apply. I've noticed set back in dummy rds that had been cycled numerous times. One of the gun magazines ran an article on bullet set back a few years ago, so the problem still persists. They cycled numerous brands of factory ammo through guns and experienced the problem.

A friend shooting a Colt 9mm Comander blew the grip panels and the bottom off a magazine. He was adamant that he had blocked checked before seating bullets and he did not own a progressive reloader. The post mortem concluded that he might have suffered bullet set back, causing a drastic increase in pressure.
Click to expand...
Anytime someone has a kaboom, it happens with reloads. 99.9999999% of the time. You can have a kaboom with factory ammo, but that's extremely rare. Chances are, your friend messed up, no matter what he says.

Again, it would be nice to see some evidence showing that a slightly heavier recoil spring contributes to bullet setback. That's not to say that bullet setback cannot happen. It can, for a variety of reasons, but not because someone replaces a 18 lb spring with a 20 lb one. Unless there is actual evidence of that happening, that theory can be put squarely in the "myth" category.
 
Spring weight needs to be catered to the load and gun you are using. A well put together 1911 should operate reliably with a wide variety of spring weights. For me I find the load I am going to run and then try a variety of spring weights. The spring I choose is determined by the feel of the gun and where my sights land after I shoot the gun.

Thanks Sharps 74 for posting this. I remember reading this article when it came out. Patrick Sweeney is one of my favourite gun magazine authors.
 
I use Wolff 18.5# recoil springs in my 1911's in "God's Caliber" and 22# in my 10mm. To my knowledge I've never had a malfunction with factory ammo or properly assembled handloads with my guns in 10's of thousands of rounds. I'm currently building a 5" in .38 Super, just because I've never had one before - we'll see how that works out...
 
capp325 said:
Anytime someone has a kaboom, it happens with reloads. 99.9999999% of the time. You can have a kaboom with factory ammo, but that's extremely rare. Chances are, your friend messed up, no matter what he says.

Again, it would be nice to see some evidence showing that a slightly heavier recoil spring contributes to bullet setback. That's not to say that bullet setback cannot happen. It can, for a variety of reasons, but not because someone replaces a 18 lb spring with a 20 lb one. Unless there is actual evidence of that happening, that theory can be put squarely in the "myth" category.
Click to expand...

Want some evidence? Most of us have some time on our hands of late, so why not conduct a LIMITED test yourself?

Load some dummies to correct OAL and repeatedly chamber them. Then measure the OAL. If you can do it safely, do the same with some factory loads. Get back to us with the results.

Just because it hasn't happened to you yet doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. I'm going to see if I can find the article about bullet set back on the net.
 
Sweeney is an arrogant hack, who quite honestly doesnt have a good grasp of many of the subject matters he writes about. He passes himself off as an extremely experienced gun guy and he is not. Be warned and be cautious when reading any of his articles.
 
Light Infantry said:
Sweeney is an arrogant hack, who quite honestly doesnt have a good grasp of many of the subject matters he writes about. He passes himself off as an extremely experienced gun guy and he is not. Be warned and be cautious when reading any of his articles.[/QUOT

And your credentials/experience/background for pronouncing your judgement on Sweeney? Perhaps you have a future as a firearms magazine writer. He was reporting the results of actual testing he was part of, not an armchair opinion.


Stick around. I'm sure you're going to really enjoy the further "myth busting" .....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bingo! I googled "bullet set back" and got several hits.

Yes, it can and does happen with factory ammo as well as reloads. It requires a lack of adequate crimp in reloads (due to mixed brass and a change of bullet type) and multiple rechambering of both factory and reloads for it to manifest itself.

It causes a spike in chamber pressure but is generally NOT thought to cause a safety concern in pistols with supported chambers.
 
Sharps '74 said:
Light Infantry said:
Sweeney is an arrogant hack, who quite honestly doesnt have a good grasp of many of the subject matters he writes about. He passes himself off as an extremely experienced gun guy and he is not. Be warned and be cautious when reading any of his articles.[/QUOT

And your credentials/experience/background for pronouncing your judgement on Sweeney? He was reporting the results of actual testing he was part of, not an armchair opinion.

Stick around. I'm sure you're going to really enjoy the further "myth busting" .....
Click to expand...

I'm intelligent and can sort though bs that this guy writes? i stopped reading his articles after it became apparent he was full of himself. Ya know..kinda like yourself.

What is your issue? 16 posts in, and you bxxched out 2 posters, myself included because we made comments you didn't agree with. You need to step away from the keyboard for awhile.

BTW its best to take your time and use the quote function properly. Or were you just in a frothing rush to be angry?
Click to expand...
 
Sharps '74 said:
Want some evidence? Most of us have some time on our hands of late, so why not conduct a LIMITED test yourself?
Click to expand...
Since this is your idea and your claims, perhaps you should be the one conducting this “experiment”. Same gun, two recoil springs of different weight, 10,000 rounds. Cycle 5,000 rounds with each of the springs, use a micrometer to measure the amount of setback, and report on the differences. Until then, stop spreading nonsense and fake news.
 
Since I am no expert on the 1911 series of HG's and would love to rock one in the future, are there any manufacturers/models that have ambi slide catch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom