1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > 1911 Manufacturers > Colt


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-08-2002, 06:15 PM
Brent Chambers Brent Chambers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 962
Another great Colt review from Gun Tests?




I was looking in on the Kimber area of the pistolsmith.com forum and read an interesting thread about a "new" safety Kimber is using on their Eclipse pistols which has caused some debate.

One of the contributors to the thread mentions that in the January 2002 Gun Tests they compared a Commander size Colt, Springfield Armory and Kimber and rated the Colt the best of the lot.

I don't take this magazine- do any of you and have you read it? I have friends who get it (which is how I caught their glowing Defender review) but they have not received the January issue yet.

Thanks-

Brent
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-08-2002, 07:36 PM
Templar333 Templar333 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NoVA
Posts: 252
Brent, you got me all excited about this Commander thing that I had to go and subscribe to Gun Tests! I just couldn't wait to hear what they had to say about the XSE LW Commander ('cos I have one ) Anyway, since I got the article, I felt it was my duty to share with the Colt cult Fire away....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lightweight Commander 1911s: Powerful .45 ACP Packages

We think Colt’s interpretation of the Commander-size handguns leads the way in this test, and Springfield offers a welcome Compact alternative. But pass on Kimber’s Pro Carry Type II.


This Colt model one-upped the others with a capacity of 8+1, thanks to the follower that compresses when the eighth round is loaded. However, only one mag was supplied with the Colt and the other pistols came with two.We recently queried a number of custom gunsmiths to learn what they recommend as a reliable, easy to pack, powerful carry gun. A popular answer was an Officer’s frame with a Commander length slide, a combination which marries a longer slide (to make the pistol more reliable) with a shorter grip frame (to make it easier to conceal). Perhaps it was this reasoning that prompted Springfield Armory to introduce its new Compact pistol, which for all intents and purposes has replaced the Champion Lightweight (a true Commander-sized pistol).

Springfield’s latest evolution of the 1911 pistol retails for $782, a price range which formerly was reserved for expensive imports like SIGs. Today, however, we see a lot of $750 to $950 MSRPs on superior production pistols, moreso, it seems, on concealable, lightweight 1911s.

In fact, it didn’t take too much effort to find other products to match the Springfield Compact against, but we settled on two new lightweight 1911s with 4-inch barrels, commonly referred to as Commander length pistols. Colt’s Manufacturing sells its $950 Commander with upgrades such as wood grips and adjustable trigger. These and other niceties are now so common anything less is typically marketed as GI-grade. Kimber’s Pro Carry II, $845, has even more (formerly) custom features, and it is distinguished by an internal safety system that has not been used in a long time. The Schwartz system is a firing-pin block controlled by the grip safety. It is particularly notable because Kimber is betting the farm on this design, re-introducing all its Type-II models with the Schwartz system installed. But how well does it work? We found out.

Range Session
Before firing the guns, we locked back the slide of each pistol and applied Breakfree CLP oil to the exposed barrel and guide rod, rails and plunger (see Colt and Kimber) and let the slide forward. We then used Breakfree liberally at the sides of the hammer and atop the barrel hood. We commenced our break-in with Winchester’s 230- and 185-grain jacketed ammunition, firing standing unsupported at a variety of distances. We had acquired the Kimber and the Colt’s pistols first, and each one fired a minimum of 150 rounds in this session without fail. The Springfield arrived much closer to deadline, and we pressed it into the benchrest session with barely a few clips under its belt. After the benchrest session, we stripped, inspected, cleaned, and lubricated each pistol.

From the bench we used sandbags and placed our targets 25 yards downrange holding at 6 o’clock on a 5.5-inch bull. Five five-shot groups were measured center to center and recorded. An Oehler 35P Chronograph was used to compute velocity and related calculations.

Last, we fired extensively at a Bianchi plate rack (six 8-inch plates at a distance of 10 yards). In the end, we ran about the same amount of rounds (250 to 300) through each gun. Here’s what we liked and didn’t like about each gun:

to be cont'd.....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-08-2002, 07:37 PM
Templar333 Templar333 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NoVA
Posts: 252
Part II of article

Springfield Armory Compact PX9503L, $782
In planning this evaluation we originally slated Springfield’s Champion, a pistol which is a true Commander-sized 1911 in both slide and frame dimensions. By the time we got around to performing the actual test, we learned that the Champion model (number PX9242L) was being phased out in favor of the Compact, which differs by having a shorter length of the grip for better concealment. This is not to be confused with another upcoming model, the Micro Compact (PX9801L), which is a thoroughly upgraded lightweight pistol about 10 percent shorter than Springfield Armory’s Ultra Compact series.

The PX9503L replaces all other Commander-length lightweight pistols in the Springfield Armory catalog. They have a shorter grip frame, resulting in one fewer round. (Two six-round magazines are supplied.) It was a very handsome pistol, sporting a black Parkerized finish. Contrasts were supplied by the aluminum trigger and fully checkered wood grips. Other features included a skeletonized hammer, lined mainspring housing, and an Ed Brown Memory Groove grip safety. This pistol is also the only one we tested with a fully supported chamber and ramped barrel, a relief in the barrel hood that serves as a loaded-chamber indicator, and a key-operated internal locking system that freezes the mainspring with the hammer in the down position. This also effectively locks the slide. The sights are Novak design with Trijicon brand tritium night sights. Also, Springfield has gone to the trouble of dovetailing and pinning the front sight in place. The Springfield Armory Compact is the least expensive pistol in our trio, arguably the best looking, and its sight package alone is worth at least $150. We would have to say this model represents the best value of the three.

The issue of reduced capacity can be handled using extra-capacity magazines. There are number of seven- and even eight-shot magazines available aftermarket specifically for the shorter Officer’s model frame. We tested four different extra-capacity magazines from Wilson Combat, (800) 955-4856, and the Compact worked with all of them. We also tested the Metalform seven-round magazine for the Officer’s model as well (available from Brownells, (641) 623-4000. It worked flawlessly, but we didn’t like the way it blended visually with the Compact’s frame. Instead, we liked the seven-round Wilson Combat model number 47OX, ($27.95). It looks the most natural in place and has a removable basepad for cleaning and replacing the spring when necessary.

We were impressed with the Springfield Armory Compact because it was the only pistol of the three that fired every round without malfunction. Plus, it achieved this record of reliability with aftermarket, extra-capacity magazines that old guard shooters tend to mistrust.

All three guns field-strip differently. For the Compact, no tools or pins are needed for disassembly. The shooter pulls the slide back to align the link pin, pushes it out to the left, and slides the entire top end off the frame. Then he pushes the half-length guide rod to compress the recoil spring enough to free it from the feet of the barrel.

After removing the guide rod and spring, the barrel is free to unlock and be removed from the slide. This same system is used on the Ultra Compact series. In our long-term test of the V10 we purchased in December 1999, (see GT February 2000) we have found this design is hard on the life of the recoil spring over an extended period. Each time we removed or installed the top end, there is always the risk of chinking the recoil spring. A sloppy disassembly of the gun is more of a threat to the life of the spring than is hard use, in our view.

On the accuracy chart ,the Compact finished last, albeit with an average of 3.0 inches for all groups fired. While the Springfield averaged 2.5 inches or less firing the 230-grain FMJ rounds, we suffered a wider variation when it came to the lighter, faster cartridges. We credit this to a basic characteristic of the gun.

Despite being only marginally lighter than either the Kimber or the Colt, with less sight radius to match, the Compact felt substantially lighter when firing. This challenges the shooter’s ability to maintain a consistent grip. A lighter grip will cause the gun to print higher, a heavier grip lower. Traditional wisdom regarding shorter pistols has always been that higher slide velocity (i.e. hotter rounds with lighter bullet weights) will ensure greater reliability. We did not find this to be true on these pistols, and if the heavier, slower moving 230-grain bullet proves more consistent, we’d choose it for this pistol exclusively.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-08-2002, 07:39 PM
Templar333 Templar333 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NoVA
Posts: 252
Part III of the Article......my favourite part

Colt’s Lightweight Commander Model 04860XSE, $950

The Colt’s features a 4.25-inch barrel in a stainless-steel slide with cocking serrations fore and aft. The ejection port has been lowered and flared, but it has also been relieved on the forward right hand side so much that a portion of the barrel ahead of the chamber hood is visible. This is unusual.

The sides of the slide are flat and coated with shiny nickel, but the top of the slide is matte to reduce glare.

Upgrades from standard models include an aluminum adjustable trigger, skeletonized hammer, and custom wood grips with checkering and Allen head screws. The frame is alloy with a dull matte finish. This model was the largest pistol in our test, but it is also the only one with the front strap undercut at the trigger guard to lower the boreline in the shooter’s hand. The cost of this gun is high in our estimation, considering the sights are nothing special. They seem to be three-dot sights like those found on the basic 1991A1 Government model we tested in July 2000. The rear blade is drift adjustable for windage only. The front sight is pinned in place, but with a sloppy job of soldering underneath.

Compared to the $610 1991A1 we previously tested, this gun, shooting similar ammunition such as the 230-grain FMJ round, significantly bettered the older Government model by almost an inch and a half. Obviously, some of the extra cost results from handfitting the alloy frame and steel slide. Also, this lightweight Commander runs on a full-length guide rod. Likewise, in this test the Colt was the accuracy champ with Winchester’s 185-grain FMJ rounds. In fact, the Colt’s performance was tops overall with a smallest five-shot group of 1.4 inches and an average group size of only 1.7 inches. Speer 200-grain Gold Dot Hollowpoints and the 230-grain FMJ rounds produced average groups of 2.5 and 2.4 inches respectively. Actually, we were satisfied with the accuracy of all the pistols in this test, but it was obvious to our staff that the Colt required the least amount of work to shoot well.

Each of our test pistols were supplied with flush-fitting magazines, but this Colt model one-upped the others with a capacity of 8+1, thanks to the follower that compresses when the eighth round is loaded. However, only one mag was supplied with the Colt, whereas the other pistols came with two.

Another area in which the Colt came in first was maintenance. Though the Springfield required no tools for field stripping, the Kimber required a retaining pin and the Colt a bushing wrench. But even with a full-length guide rod to deal with, disassembling the Commander was simple and did not require a fresh jar of elbow grease or new manicure afterward. Actually, all we needed to take the Colt apart was a way to depress the retainer underneath the muzzle. Once pushed inward, the bushing moves easily aside (clockwise) and the cap and spring may be removed. All that remains is to align the slide with the relief for removing the link pin and the top end slides off. Rotating the bushing counter-clockwise to about 4 o’clock releases the bushing and the guide rod. The barrel may then be removed.

The barrel is not ramped. In fact, there is nothing fancy about the design of this pistol. With the exception of the full-length guide rod, this is standard 1911 design well executed. Thus, in terms of reliability, we only suffered malfunctions when the pistol needed cleaning and lubrication. Also, we did think the trigger could be smoothed a bit more, but we didn’t feel inordinately hampered by the connection of the trigger to the firing-pin blocking mechanism. This has been a source of complaint in the past for those seeking a really crisp trigger break.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-08-2002, 07:41 PM
Templar333 Templar333 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NoVA
Posts: 252
Fini...

Kimber STS Pro Carry II KR16555, $845

Though not as loaded as the Springfield, the STS Pro Carry II offers a two-tone matte finish and a snag-resistant contoured rear sight lined to reduce glare. We do not prefer rubber grips, but the supplied panels are not soft or grabby, two characteristics that can hinder effective presentation and interfere with control. The mainspring housing on the rear of the grip is checkered, the hammer relieved, and the trigger adjustable for overtravel. There’s a full-length guide rod, and lockup is achieved at the muzzle end without a bushing.

Early in our shooting, the Kimber displayed a disturbing characteristic—the activation of the grip safety was crucial in the gun’s operation, but well beyond just making the gun go bang.

This was apparent when we examined the amount of travel of the Kimber’s safety from rest to fully closed. We measured this “length of compression” on each pistol using a jig and a caliper, learning the Colt grip safety had an overall movement of 0.1 inch, but a compression of just 0.05 inch was all that was needed to deactivate the safety and release the hammer. The grip safety of the Springfield had a total movement of compression of 0.14 inch, and the hammer was not released until it had traveled 0.13 inch (nearly closed). The distance traveled overall by the Kimber grip safety measured 0.13 inch, but the trigger would release after the grip safety had been closed only 0.08 inch. The trouble with the Kimber was that the weight of the trigger varied with how much the grip safety was compressed. At the point of trigger release (0.08 inch), the trigger pull measured 5.5 pounds. But when we closed the grip safety completely and held on tight, we were rewarded with a 4.0-pound trigger, the lightest in the test. (We did find a variation in the Colt’s trigger pull of one-quarter pound; the Springfield didn’t vary.)

We think this variation in trigger pull weight is due to the Schwartz system. The firing pin is only allowed to move when the grip safety is compressed. Inside the slide is a yoke that captures the firing pin at rest. This yoke is raised when the grip safety is compressed, freeing the firing pin. With the top end off, it is easy to see the direct action of the push rod next to the disconnector atop the rear of the frame.

Press the grip safety and it moves up. Release it and it falls via gravity back into the frame. The Schwartz system has been around for a long time, but has it not been used extensively mainly because of cost. But in our experience, there were other complications.

By the end of our test we were experiencing failures to return to battery with the Pro Carry II. Even without the gun loaded we could produce a situation wherein the slide would fail to close by approximately one-eighth inch. This was not a matter of lubrication or recoil spring rate, in our opinion. Without touching the grip safety, we could work the slide freely to the rear and close it completely. With the grip safety held down tightly, the slide would also close, but most often with noticeable difficulty. But virtually any change in pressure at the grip safety, even if it were compressed enough to allow the hammer to fall, would result in a failure to return to battery. Certainly a change in grip pressure is likely to happen during recoil, which is what we theorize was the cause of the malfunctions we experienced. We inspected the rod that contacts the plunger to release the firing pin and also inspected the plunger. We cannot comment on the efficiency of the push rod and how it operates, but we can make these observations about the plunger.

The plunger is angled, or ramped, to allow the push rod to slide into position. The leading edge appeared to be slightly burred, so this could have caused interference. Or perhaps the angle of the mating surface needs to be changed. Compared to the plunger in the Colt pistol, the spring load on the Kimber’s plunger is extremely hard. Possibly a lighter detent is called for on the plunger. Either way, we wouldn’t want to carry a pistol that demands an absolutely perfect grip for operation. Accuracy from the STS Pro Carry II was very nearly on par with the Colt. We managed to shoot groups of less than 2.5 inches with each different cartridge. Overall averages were 2.3 inches for the Kimber and 2.2 inches for the Colt, largely on the basis of the Colt’s performance with the 185-grain rounds. The accuracy data collected for the Kimber was taken with the grip safety taped shut so we could take advantage of its best available trigger.

We also noticed that shooters with meatier hands liked the Kimber more than those with flatter or bonier hands. In fact the thinner palmed group complained of discomfort inside the thumb of the strong hand.

For disassembly, removing the top end requires you to pull back the slide and align the link pin with the notch in the slide. As is standard, the pin exits to the left and the top end, including barrel, guide rod, and recoil spring, slide forward off the frame as a unit. To remove the barrel, one must push the guide rod forward, compressing the recoil spring far enough to expose a small hole in the rod. Here is inserted a piece of wire to capture the spring (not supplied). All that is needed is a piece of paper clip bent to a right angle. With this done, the guide rod is removed to the rear and the barrel is free to unlock and exit through the front of the slide.

Gun Tests Recommends
Colt Lightweight Commander 04860XSE, $950. Our Pick. At this price we think this pistol should come with better sights, but the Colt delivers what the Commander was designed to offer; that is, the advantages of a full-size 1911 without the full-size weight and profile.

Springfield Armory Compact PX9503L, $782. Buy It. We’re not afraid of choosing to shoot one fewer round or using extra-capacity magazines. This is a good value, and it shoots well with carefully chosen ammunition.

Kimber STS Pro Carry II KR16555, $845. Don’t Buy. While Kimber is in the process of changing its entire line to Type II Schwartz system pistols, we are not convinced of the total reliability of this design. We feel the Type I series was more consistent.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-09-2002, 08:30 AM
Double Naught Spy Double Naught Spy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Horn Hill, Texas
Posts: 3,474
I think Guns Tests is a fine rag, but sometimes they make comparisons that just don't make sense.

Did the colt come out ahead? Sure? But why? In part it was because it was the much more expensive Colt XSE model, not just some standard lightweight commander. Okay, so it is $200 more than the Springfield.

One thing the reviewers really liked was the extra round capability. Okay, here is a poor comparison. They are comparing a regular commander against Springfield's version of the concealed carry officer's model. Yes, they both have the same basic slide length and are light weight, but that does not quite make them the same gun at all. If they switched the criteria to better concealability instead of extra rounds, then the Springfield would be the obvious choice.

You have to wonder if the need for extra rounds in the Colt was due to the poor sights or malfunctions. That of course assumes the Gun Tests firings were all that representative and my guess is that they were not since the guns are not broken in before the testing. It does not surprise me that there were problems with the Colt. My guess is that they probably passed after break-in.

And you have to admit, the mil-spec sights on the Colt generally are not all that great compared to what is offered by Springfield or Kimber. The reviewers thought the Colt should come with better sights and they are right, it should. If they could have put their hands on a Colt XS, not XSE, it would have come with better sights, but Colt was unable to sustain the XS model in production.

Gun Tests is a neat little review rag, but you have to understand the advantages and disadvantages of their review system. Unlike some car magazine, you aren't going to get the Kimber 10,000 round update review. The buy the guns, put them through some shooting, and write them up. End of evaluation story. Unfortunately, few of us ever shoot our guns for a total less than 500 rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-09-2002, 11:51 AM
geegee geegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Texas
Posts: 977
Templar-thanks for taking the time to post the reviews. geegee
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-09-2002, 04:35 PM
GCT00427 GCT00427 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 1,231
Yes. Thank You for giving us this information. I know it was time consuming and I personally appreciate you doing it. Very interesting reading.


Chuck
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-09-2002, 06:51 PM
Brent Chambers Brent Chambers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 962
An informed group such as this could probably work our way through several cases of beer before we finished establishing what the ideal way to test a handgun would be.

Gun Tests certainly does a better job than the bulk of what else is out there, despite some things we all might change (such as the above mentioned long-term test).

One thing is certain: Gun Tests is the only magazine which has taken notice of something most people that contribute to this forum already know- Colt is building some great handguns right now and deserve some good press. Yes, the may lack some of the options that their competitors have. However, reliability and accuracy show up quickly in a short-term test, as does fit and finish. For two issues in a row the folks at Gun Tests have made these statements about Colt, which is something I for one am very pleased to be reading.

Kimber has enjoyed a golden run in which they seemingly could get away with anything. The things I've been reading about in the various Kimber forums lately, as well as observations at IPSC and IDPA matches would seem to indicate that like all companies, Colt included, Kimber makes errors in judgement and occasionally releases a product that might not be 100%. This is not a dig on Kimber, but reality. Again, I'm glad to see someone is bold enough to print this. Most mainstream gun magazines would not.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a Colt loyalist- but the writers at Gun Tests are not (I used to get this magazine and have some back issues that rated some Colt products well, and some in which the Colt came in dead last) and they are calling a spade a spade, and again I'm thrilled to hear it.

Brent
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-10-2002, 01:07 AM
Col. Colt Col. Colt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,476
No surprises here - the Colts we have been getting for the last year or two have been exceptionallly satisfactory pistols. I believe the Defender also won a "Subcompact .45 Shootout" in Gun Tests recently. Colt is back, and if you read the current issue of G&A's "Handguns" magazine you will learn a lot about what has been happening and why Colt is again the preeminent 1911 production pistol in the world. If they get their financing package together for 2002, you will be hearing a lot more from Hartford, soon.

I have to chuckle when I hear this mention of "breakin malfunctions" on brand new Colts. The public was falsely convinced (due to ignorance) that a tight frame to slide fit was a positive attribute by Kimber and Springfield's OVERTIGHT 1911 pistols. "Match tight" guns belong in a range bag, not in the dusty,dirty real world. The Colts of six months ago had perfect barrel to slide fit - which gave them excellent 2.5"-3" 25 yard groups with complete reliability. (Better if fired by hand - the Ransom Rest does not give as accurate results as firing by hand if there is any play in a weapon's frame/slide fit.)

But the gunshop Commandos only test of quality was "how many gee-gaws does this one have" and "oh, I can wiggle the slide, this one is not as good." Dumb guys. So Colt has "snugged up" their guns to meet these misinformed "market expectations". Result - Now I expect we will have the occasional "break-in complaint" we have seen in the other brands for years! Don't blame Colt - they are now giving the market what the market said they wanted - even when Colt knew better than anyone else how to build a reliable 1911.

Any way you slice it, the the Colt testgun was the most accurate. And it is interesting that they found the new Series II Kimber's "Swartz Safety Copy" can cause a pound and a half fluctuation in trigger pull. So buy the Colt, expect a breakin period at the start, and clean and lube more often during it.

Warmly, Col. Colt

"Beware of Counterfeits & Patent Infringements"
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-11-2002, 12:39 AM
Andy Andy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,712
Gun Tests is the same rag that took a bastard file to a Les Baer Premier II's barrel hood because it was "too tight" to rack the slide back or press-check. They also whined that the Bomar target sight had some sharp edges... I don't give them the time of day.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-11-2002, 08:17 AM
CastleBravo CastleBravo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,985
I have to rate Gun Tests as dumb (nickel on the flats of the XSE? ) but honest.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-11-2002, 09:21 AM
Andy Andy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,712
O.K., CastleBravo, do you mean to say that they're, "honestly Dumb?"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-11-2002, 12:04 PM
Col. Colt Col. Colt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,476
My friends, the Les Bauer guns ARE TOO TIGHT. (And they have lots of company from some individual Kimbers, Springfields, etc.) They make great match pistols, if you are willing to struggle through the first 500-1000 rounds to "wear them in" to correct tolerances. You think John Moses Browning would have found a gun that was unreliable for the first 500rounds an acceptable product? For what? To go from 2.5" groups to 1.5" groups? I think the "racegun" mentality is fine - on the range. But to pretend it will protect you better on the street than a new $579 Government model is just blowing smoke.

As such, many Bauers, Wilsons and other "semi-custom" pistols are frustrating for anyone who expects the gun to work out of the box. And for most of us, they are a waste of money better spent on more ammo, reloading gear, better leather, etc.

GunTests is oriented toward the more normal consumer of production, over the counter firearms. And like that typical consumer, they like things to work immediately - not after 1000 rounds.

Target pistols certainly should be tight - and live in range bags. Real pistols should have real world tolerances, and ride in holsters. The bad news is that these unrealistic new "standards" infect everyone. Even Colt has "snugged up" their current production, although it remains to be seen how much is too much in a production handgun. Like using MIM parts to remain price competitive, some trends even drag the good guys along to meet ignorant "market perceptions" as to price and "quality". A quality gun is one that works from day one and does it for 80 years - like my 1920 Colt Commercial.

My apologies to those other brand partisans who like to visit here just to knock Colt - who are offended by the very idea that Colt can still deliver a superior firearm. But you'd better get used to it - you'll be hearing it a lot more in the future. Particularly here - on the Colt Forum.

Warmly and without malice, as always, Col. Colt

"Beware of Counterfeits & Patent Infringements"

PS - I notice that no one here jumped on the obvious - that the Kimber flunked due to serious MALFUNCTIONS of it's copycat Swartz safety. Maybe Colt had a reason for not using the Swartz system and designing the Series 80 lockwork instead ..... cc

Last edited by Col. Colt; 01-11-2002 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-11-2002, 12:39 PM
Gun Nut's Avatar
Gun Nut Gun Nut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally posted by Col. Colt
[...]
As such, many Bauers, Wilsons and other "semi-custom" pistols are frustrating for anyone who expects the gun to work out of the box. And for most of us, they are a waste of money better spent on more ammo, reloading gear, better leather, etc.
[...]
PS - I notice that no one here jumped on the obvious - that the Kimber flunked due to serious MALFUNCTIONS of it's copycat Swartz safety. Maybe Colt had a reason for not using the Swartz system and designing the Series 80 lockwork instead ..... cc
Col Colt,

Baers are known everywhere for being way too tight to function until you put 1000 rounds through them, but that is the ONLY "semi-custom" pistol maker that has that distinction. Wilson guns are quite the opposite. I haven't seen or felt one of their many models that wasn't anything but a smooth, precise, confidence inspiring piece of machinery.

Now, as far as Kimber and Swartz goes, I was a huge Kimber fan *UNTIL* the II series with the Swartz system. IMHO, if I am going to have a firing pin safety, the Colt series 80 is a better system. I agree with you that Kimber is asking for it moving to this system.

The Swartz system really doesn't add any safety functionality to the average shooter because it is based off the grip safety. Well, the grip safety already does its job by locking the sear unless it is depressed. So what value add does the Swartz system add? Really very little, if at all. It really only prevents the firing pin from moving forward in a gun drop scenario from a relatively high height. And while I have no data to support it, I would take an educated guess that the momentum from dropping a pistol at a height so that its landing on its muzzle would cause the firing pin to cause a discharge, would actually engage the grip safety also. It only takes about .1" travel to engage your average grip safety. I think the Swartz system in itself is a farce, which is probably why Colt never used it. Kimber is using it as a means to deal with the states screwing with the 2nd Amendment. The Swartz system is a "Lawyer Part" plain and simple.

The Series 80 safety actually adds some value as a system. It not only prevents against discharge from a drop, but also prevents against discharge from a sear failure. Given that you actually would have the thumb safety engaged, unless you were in the process of firing the weapon, there is no way momentum from a gun drop could move the trigger, therefore engaging the Series 80 safety. This could be considered much less of a "laywer part" and much easier a real safety.

Also, in a CCW situation, the Series 80 safety adds much more value in preventing a ND as compared to the Swartz system. If I am grabbing for my pistol in my pants, I most certainly will be engaging the grip safety, however I would be keeping my finger off the trigger following basic safety rules. Yet, in the very unlikely event that when I am pulling my gun and something gets snagged, and there is a hammer/sear parts failure, I at least still have the Series 80 safety active. With the Swartz system, it is not.

Yeah, its all a stretch. Yeah it will probably never happen. But at least I can find some sort of miniscule justification for a Series 80 safety, which I can find none at all for Swartz.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved