1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > Hardware & Accessories > Gunsmithing & Troubleshooting


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2003, 03:04 PM
Corey Corey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 30
Q re: Jarvis .22 conversion function




I've been debating the Jarvis .22 conversion versus the Wilson unit (which I believe is made my Ciener?).

I'd prefer the Jarvis unit because the slide locks to the rear on an empty mag, but I have the following questions about the conversion.

1. Is a stock mainspring okay for this unit, or do I need to install a different spring in my frame? (If I need to install a lighter spring, I will no longer be interested in this unit as the "parent gun" must remain stock and functional.)

2. How durable is the slide stop notch in the frame? I read on one thread here that someone saw a Jarvis unit and the slide stop notch showed evidence of battering as it was deformed. Long term durability is an issue for me.

3. Will either of these conversion units have any detrimental effect on the frame of the parent gun? I'll be using the frame from my Wilson 1996A2. I don't know if an aluminum versus steel slide is of any consequence in this regard.

4. I've done all the possible searches on these conversions (without finding answers to the above questions), but if anyone would care to add further comments or recommendations between these two conversion I'd appreciate it.

5. Are the Colt Ace magazines (Jarvis) widely available? Is Jarvis manufacturing them new, or would I have to rely on used mags in the market? Mag price and function is also an important consideration.

Final thing -- I hope I stuck this in the appropriate forum.

Thanks,

Corey

EDITED to add #5.

Last edited by Corey; 11-17-2003 at 03:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2003, 10:48 PM
RetiredRod's Avatar
RetiredRod RetiredRod is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 8,575
PM sent.

RR
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2003, 10:58 PM
Corey Corey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 30
RR:

You're PM was full.

I'll keep it in mind.

Thanks,

Corey

-- Oh, and I wanted to add that I'm looking at the Wilson over the Ciener/Kimber because the Wilson offers the same sights (minus the tritium) as my 1996A2. Commonality for training, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2003, 11:10 PM
RetiredRod's Avatar
RetiredRod RetiredRod is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 8,575
Corey,

Thanks. PM mailbox is available now.

Rod.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-01-2003, 03:53 PM
justdavid justdavid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Steel City
Posts: 264
RR,

I came across this while beginning a search on the Jarvis conversion units; is there any possibility you could send me that same message? I have a Ciener and like it okay but I've been thinking about replacing it with a Jarvis, and Corey's list of questions is actually better than the list I would have come up with... Thanks.


D.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2003, 08:07 AM
RetiredRod's Avatar
RetiredRod RetiredRod is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 8,575
d,

Sorry, my above posts were a little misleading. I have no information about the Jarvis unit. I have a Wilson unit that I was wanting to sell, and was telling Corey about it.

Sorry about that.

Rod.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2003, 12:21 PM
PrayNspray PrayNspray is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Kalifornia
Age: 67
Posts: 17
Questions about .22 conversions

I didn't see any references to the Marvel conversion. You might want to take a look at that one. Best accuracy and warrenty of all of them, I believe. It's used almost exclusively by the Bullseye competitors, as it's accuracy at fifty yards is legendary. Their customer service (Mr. Marvel himself. Personally!) is excellent.
We like it because it allows us to fire the centerfire and rimfire courses with the "same" firearm. No change of springs, as the entire top end comes off as a unit, and is replaced by the Marvel. Conversion takes less than a minute! I've not seen or heard any problems with slide-stop notch battering on these. They can be had w/fixed or adj. sights, as well as compensated, and even no sights for scoped pistols.
Worth a look, at least!
__________________
"Arms discourage and keep the invaders and plunderers in awe, and preserve order in the world. Horrid mischief would ensue, were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them"
Thomas Paine 1775
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-05-2003, 03:24 PM
justdavid justdavid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Steel City
Posts: 264
Rod,

No problem.


D.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-05-2003, 05:40 PM
VaughnT VaughnT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NWSC
Posts: 967
The Jarvis unit, being aluminum, will be battered by the slide stop. That's physics. The question you have to ask is, how important is that lock-back feature compared to overall longevity? Will you be firing bricks weekly or just an occassional plink every now and then? The more you shoot, the faster the wear on the slide stop notch.

Personally, I love the idea of a Wilson conversion with their all-aluminum magazines. Failure to lock back isn't a serious issue because I could use that feature to perform drills. Only Wilson's attitude is stopping me from the purchase.

The Marvel unit is near legendary in every respect and that's the way I'm leaning. The only caveat is the magazines, the construction of which I have no information on. One person told me they were steel, but are they billet or folded? How available are they? Do they drop free?

Of them all, I'm heading towards the Marvel unit. Doubt I'll be sorry.
__________________
When reason fails...

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-12-2004, 11:52 AM
Chris Ives Chris Ives is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Age: 60
Posts: 7
Jarvis conversions

The "American Rifleman" had an article several years ago comparing several conversion units. They said that the Jarvis having a steel, reciprocating slide (actually a partial slide like the CZ Cadet or, I'm told, the S&W 41s) so the slide will lock back when the magazine runs dry.
There is an excerpt on Jarvis' website.
I've been looking at them myself.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-12-2004, 12:33 PM
Corey Corey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 30
Does anyone have any information on items 1 and 5?

1. Is a stock mainspring okay for this unit, or do I need to install a different spring in my frame? (If I need to install a lighter spring, I will no longer be interested in this unit as the "parent gun" must remain stock and functional.)

5. Are the Colt Ace magazines (Jarvis) widely available? Is Jarvis manufacturing them new, or would I have to rely on used mags in the market? Mag price and function is also an important consideration.

Thanks,

Corey
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-12-2004, 03:54 PM
Chris Ives Chris Ives is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Age: 60
Posts: 7
According to the "Rifleman" piece, no spring changes in the frame were required. Colt "Ace" mag availability comes and goes. I had a Colt Ace--as some earlier observed they can be accurate when clean, but don't like lead projectiles--and it locked back fine, and required nothing other than slipping it on the frame and reinserting its slidestop.
Forrest (advertises in "Shotgun News" seems to have the Ace mags. Jarvis sells them, I believe. I see them at most every Valley Forge Gun Show (SE Pennsylvania), for example. The good news is you probably won't need as many as you do for a carry piece and probably won't leave them loaded up and have a need to rotate them, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-15-2004, 07:19 PM
wintermute76 wintermute76 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hibbing MN
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaughnT
The Jarvis unit, being aluminum, will be battered by the slide stop. That's physics. The question you have to ask is, how important is that lock-back feature compared to overall longevity? Will you be firing bricks weekly or just an occassional plink every now and then? The more you shoot, the faster the wear on the slide stop notch.

Of them all, I'm heading towards the Marvel unit. Doubt I'll be sorry.
I always heard that the Jarvis was a steel slide. Battering would really be a metallurgy issue.

Personally, I"m looking at a Marvel unit 2 myself. I had a Ceiner before and it never would work right.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-15-2004, 07:42 PM
LHB1 LHB1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,258
Corey,
I have a Marvel Unit 1 about which I have posted previously. After 750 round breakin, it functions great. Initially friction from conversion unit rails slowed the slide enough to cause malfunctions and misfeeding. There is no slide battering on Marvel units because neither of them have the hold open function. Marvel deliberately omits this function due to using aluminum for slides. It is my understanding that Ciener/Wilson/Kimber also omit this function.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB
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 11:12 PM.


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.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved