Magazine Issues with Norinco 1911

[TGC]

Umm, let me try.

If I bought a $325 Norinco 1911 and its sharp edge hurt my girly hands, I rant and rant on CGN cause I 'm a cheap a$$ and I have the right to rant(even if it was a $99 pistol that didn't ship overnight)

If I bought a $1### Kimber 1911 and it broke, jam, can't shoot the barn door 15 yards away. I just shut up (so I can sell it on EE for $1###) and not going to advertise I'm an idiot.

Why so many people complaining about the Norinco guns?
Just like Ford, GM and Chrysler, Norinco are popular/affordable for MOST people, as long as the cheap price doesn't hurt the pride of the gun owner.

I always say hats the difference of a 100 dollar date and a 1000 dollar date, your broker is all

 

[Canuck44]

I'm just curious as to why someone would dump so much money into a gun. Is it for the pure fun of tinkering with it? 1911's are great for that, its no secret. Perhaps some believe that if they dump enough money into their guns that somehow their skills will improve without spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars and many hours actually practicing.

Because I can.

I'm not looking for answers so I can approve or disapprove of ones choices. I don't really care what you do with your money. I'm curious as to what motivates a person to spend such large amounts of money on a simple system. Your AR for example(USP) could be all business for 7k. I've got just under 3K into mine, but $2200 on a handgun???

Different toys for different boys

As for my firearms, they're setup for shooting people. Defensive shooting first. Oddly enough, they also work well for three gun matches as well. The NR's are great for varmints and big game as well.

Bulls**t. The chances of you being in a position to shoot people are slim and none and slim just left town. You have to be some kind of a nutbar to post on a public forum you have your guns set up to shoot people.

Take Care

Bob

 

[hannibal]

As I read this increasingly blasphemous thread, I keep hoping that Jeff Cooper will rise from the grave and slap TDC across the mouth for the sheer unadulterated s**t he is posting about the 1911.

Best post yet! Then he'd rail against all the tacticool stuff out there and wonder why men don't point, aim, shoot and repeat without the need for fashion.

 

[45alot]

TDC lots of current semi-auto pistols have external hammers,nothing wrong with that.Internal Extractors vs. External extracters i'll pick a well fitted internal extactor to the external any day,and bear in mind a internal one is less prone to dirt and debris thus,less chance of the ectactor failure or operation.Moving on to the thumb safety,i find it is very well placed and erogonomic,alot of people don't know this but the original prototypes (Very much finished design's)did not even have a thumb safety or grip safety's.Pretty sure i saw a couple of pictures of the one i'm describing on the "Louder than Words "forum. I wish my forum or computer skills were more "savy" as i would then post a link.Magazine capacity wise i think it is not inferior in any way as double stack mags were around back then already,not for the 1911 i know but Mr. Browning did not think it was needed to incorporate a doublestack design in what needed to be a SLIM WELL THOUGHT "FULLSIZE" SERVICE PISTOLS".The 1911 is not unreliable, it's just that most example's today are not handfitted like the design was intended NOT IMPLYING THIS WITH HIGH END BRANDS JUST LOW END.

 

[45alot]

Also i should ad that back in the day when the 1911 was manufactured Machine's were Ultra expensive,hand fitting and labour cheap.Now a'day machinery while still expensive (Much cheaper now)and hand fitting or labour being very expensive now,this is almost a complete "flip" of change,no wonder so many manufacture the 1911 pattern, but don't handfit it right.

 

[Canuck44]

45alot

FYI the original prototypes of what morphed into the 1911 had external extractors. It was the US Army that insisted the gun have an internal extractor. Both work and both are just as reliable. The internal design is much easier to replace though in most guns that I have seen.

Interestingly Sauve stayed with the external extractor while developing the Hi-Power from JMB's early designs for the pistol. (Note: JMB died 8 years before the Hi-Power's final design went to press).

Take Care

Bob

 

[45alot]

Also i should ad that back in the day when the 1911 was manufactured Machine's were Ultra expensive,hand fitting and labour cheap.Now a'day machinery while still expensive (Much cheaper now)and hand fitting or labour being very expensive now,this is almost a complete "flip" of change,no wonder so many manufacture the 1911 pattern, but don't handfit it right,hence a reliability problem because of lack of proper installation or fit.

 

[Canuck44]

45alot - Another view is the handfitting ws necessary because the gun manufacturers never had equipment capable of producing parts with close enough tolerances to eliminate the need for hand fitting each part.

Today with computer automated milling machines and investment casting techniques only minimal fitting if any is required.

One of the tests required by the Czech police for their P-01 pistol was to have a number of guns completely disassembled, all the parts mixed together and the guns re-assembled with no loss in accuracy and reliability. I dare say that would be impossible to do back around 1911.

Take Care

Bob

 

[45alot]

Interesting i did not know that they first specified a external originaly,i'll take you word on that.As for reliability i highly suspect internal vs.external you would be right that they would both perform well,however i would maybe politely argue that the interal might be more protected from elements?

 

[45alot]

Computer and today's tolerences and machinery will not produce better working pistols(1911's). Point in case look at a Kimber compared to a Wilson , big difference in quality in fit that extra price you pay for wilson buy's you better quality parts and handfitting bottom line.

 

[NAA]

Interesting i did not know that they first specified a external originaly,i'll take you word on that.As for reliability i highly suspect internal vs.external you would be right that they would both perform well,however i would maybe politely argue that the interal might be more from elements?

Colt 1905 .45ACP, the first .45ACP pistiol, sported an external extractor.

Colt Model 1905 .45ACP

NAA.

 

[Canuck44]

Computer and today's tolerences and machinery will not produce better working pistols(1911's). Point in case look at a Kimber compared to a Wilson , big difference in quality in fit that extra price you pay for wilson buy's you better quality parts and handfitting bottom line.

Agreed if you are comparing a $1,100 Kimber to a $2,800 Wilson. Unfortunately most folks can't afford the Wilson so they are prepared to pay $800 - $1,400 for a pistol that isn't hand made or at least hand fitted for something that wil likely work for them just as well. Parts still break no matter how well they fit - proof of which maybe found in the fact gunsmithing isn't exactly a new trade on the block and Wilson maintains a service department.

Take Care

Bob

 

[45alot]

I simply agree withyou that the price on a wilson is to far out of reach and arguably like any other name they charge a premium for there name,so names like Kimber etc. are more buyer freindly.Look i'm not arguing with you guys on parts breakage but i suspect a M.I.M. part would break easier than the same barstock or other forged,barstock especially if it was missfitted improperly.And as far as customer service goes i know for a fact that theres good customer service that companies pride themselves in and that makes me more confidentas a buyer.But then just as quickly i have heard of companies that "Brag" about there customer service this i would beware of (How often are they replicating the same mistake or using gimmicks)i have kind of heard the latter for Para-ord.Also bear in mind Canuck 44 said that the army first specified an external extractor for the 1911 well that may or not be true.you NAA posted a picture of a 1905 not a 1911.Thanks for being cordial and polite with me a new ,member here this is how communicating should be done regardless if someone disagress,thanks again.HAPPY SHOOTING BEST REGARDS.

 

[tjhaile]

As I read this increasingly blasphemous thread, I keep hoping that Jeff Cooper will rise from the grave and slap TDC across the mouth for the sheer unadulterated s**t he is posting about the 1911.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Canuck44]

45alot - Just to be clear, no one is arguing with you. The 1911 pistol went through several iterations before it's final design was agreed upon. NAA could have posted several other pictures of JMB's designs that led to the 1911. There are prototypes of the pistol that show more features of the end product that is why I used the word "morphed" as I did. If you google "History of the 1911" or words to that effect you should be able to find pictures of the pistols &/or prototypes that led to the 1911 design.

The FN Hi-Power went through a similar process with the final design and a lot of the internal work completed well after JMB died. I believe the date of his last design was 1928 IIRC. After his death there were a couple of Sauve designs as prototypes before the Hi-Power finally was born as we know it. Incidently the Hi-Power first came out with an internal extractor and eventually moved to the external version in the 50's I believe. The external are thought to be less prone to breakage and don't rely on spring steel to work properly.

Take Care

Bob

 

[TDC]

I'm just curious as to why someone would dump so much money into a gun. Is it for the pure fun of tinkering with it? 1911's are great for that, its no secret. Perhaps some believe that if they dump enough money into their guns that somehow their skills will improve without spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars and many hours actually practicing.

Because I can.

I'm not looking for answers so I can approve or disapprove of ones choices. I don't really care what you do with your money. I'm curious as to what motivates a person to spend such large amounts of money on a simple system. Your AR for example(USP) could be all business for 7k. I've got just under 3K into mine, but $2200 on a handgun???

Different toys for different boys

As for my firearms, they're setup for shooting people. Defensive shooting first. Oddly enough, they also work well for three gun matches as well. The NR's are great for varmints and big game as well.

Bulls**t. The chances of you being in a position to shoot people are slim and none and slim just left town. You have to be some kind of a nutbar to post on a public forum you have your guns set up to shoot people.

Take Care

Bob

Your answer "because I can" is all the justification you need. I can't argue ones personal choice. I can argue that aside from posing or the need to tinker, investing such money serves no other purpose. Again, its your personal choice to do so and thats fine.

Obviously my choice in language is a little too advanced for some here. My firearms are setup to be simple and reliable. Firearms are intended for one primary role. That role is killing. Whether it be animal or man firearms are designed primarily for killing. My firearms are setup for their original role. That is, they're reliable, simple in operation and have modifications for such uses. The XS Big Dot sights are defensive based sights, hence the reason I run them. Regardless of whether or not your gear is setup for its primary role. All firearms are more than capable of being deployed in a recreational sense. A change in venue or change in target medium does not necessitate changing ones setup. Hits on target are hits on target be it cardboard or flesh. Some feel their firearms are strictly toys for playing games. I disagree and choose to setup my gear for dual roles. Defensive use first and playing second.

The potential for a defensive situation to arise is a very real possibility. To what degree depends on several factors but I admit its probably quite low. The same can be said for having your home burn down but we all have fire insurance.

What I find odd with your posts Bob is that you are heavily involved with IDPA. You know, the "sport" that was founded on the defensive use of a handgun. If the chances of using ones firearms are near zero as you indicate. Why are you so involved with IDPA? Do you truly respect the founding principles in which it is based or are you just a gamer??

TDC

 

[45alot]

However many design iterartions they made all im trying to say is the 1911 has always had a internal extr.Yes the model 1905 played a signifecent role in the evolution toward the 1911 in more than a couple way's,but let's be clear here NAA showed a picture of a 1905 not a 1911.A model 1905 is not a 1911,and a model1911 is not a 1905 .SIMULAR yes.I'm very clear on my 1911 history thanks.ALSO ON MY WAY TO BECOMING A CERTIFIED GUNSMITH,not yet i know,but for what it is worth.Happy shooting ,best regards.P.S. J.M.B did originaly design the 1911 and submitted it but they didn't like the fact it did not have a THUMB SAFETY AND GRIP SAFTEY hence he added those two features at there request .Alot of people also think 45 acp 230 gr was the original loading it was not,the first standard 45acp load J.M.B. made was 45ACP 200 GR that quickly changed and he made the 45 acp230 as a''Standard military load''

 

[TDC]

TDC lots of current semi-auto pistols have external hammers,nothing wrong with that.Internal Extractors vs. External extracters i'll pick a well fitted internal extactor to the external any day,and bear in mind a internal one is less prone to dirt and debris thus,less chance of the ectactor failure or operation.Moving on to the thumb safety,i find it is very well placed and erogonomic,alot of people don't know this but the original prototypes (Very much finished design's)did not even have a thumb safety or grip safety's.Pretty sure i saw a couple of pictures of the one i'm describing on the "Louder than Words "forum. I wish my forum or computer skills were more "savy" as i would then post a link.Magazine capacity wise i think it is not inferior in any way as double stack mags were around back then already,not for the 1911 i know but Mr. Browning did not think it was needed to incorporate a doublestack design in what needed to be a SLIM WELL THOUGHT "FULLSIZE" SERVICE PISTOLS".The 1911 is not unreliable, it's just that most example's today are not handfitted like the design was intended NOT IMPLYING THIS WITH HIGH END BRANDS JUST LOW END.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with external hammers. However external hammers are not necessary and serve no purpose being exposed. The magazine capacity is an issue. Seven or 8 rounds isn't much of an advantage over the revolvers of the time. Keep in mind the 1911 was born into an era where pistols were more a sign of rank than a practical tool to be used in combat. technology, society, and tactics have advanced a lot in nearly a 100 years. Concerning oneself with a slim frame/grip when designing a FULL SIZE pistol is counter productive. I do agree that the double stack 1911's available are significantly larger in the grip than their single stack counterparts. You can trace that right back to the 45ACP cartridge. The 45ACP is overrated. Shot placement is far more important than calibre being used and only hits count. To believe that 45ACP is most effective and that 7/8 round magazines are sufficient is nothing more than an attempt to justify running a 1911.

The inclusion of a positive safety is another example of unnecessary complication. The grip safety is sufficient and requires no extra thought or training to disengage or re-engage. Being that 1911's are single action only the fear of a negligent discharge is often the justification for the thumb safety.

TDC

 

[45alot]

Considering you have a 8rd mag and extra mags, one in the chamber cocked and locked and if your good at realoading i just can't seem to think there's a capicity issue (8RD + MAG CHANGE=17 ROUNDS DOWNRANGE CONSIDERING I CAN RELOAD EASILY UNDER 2 SECONDS i just don't see a lack of firepower or capicity here.I Would never trade this above decription for 17 ROUNDS OF 9mm OR 15 40S&W.Besides Accuracy and firepower ''HIT'' not neccesarily capicity.Also designing a slim full size is not counter productive as slim it should be if it is single stack.

 

[45alot]

Magazine capicity is cool i guess if you like the sideway's gangter spray and pray technique.As far as the 1911 being outdated the LAPD SWAT obviousily don't think so as well as host of other military/police units down south.THAT IN IT SELF SAY'S ALOT.