(short) test of Detonics USA Combat Master - 1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise

Go Back   1911Forum > >


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2005, 03:02 PM
RickB's Avatar
RickB RickB is offline
1911 Aficionado
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Not Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 21,917
(short) test of Detonics USA Combat Master

I have an original Seattle address Combat Master from '79. I bought the gun, in unfired condition, in '99, and didn't put a whole lot of rounds through it until this Spring. I've been shooting it in monthly IDPA matches, about 1000 rounds total, and have really grown to like the gun, while accepting its limitations.
I had an opportunity to briefly examine a new Detonics USA (Pendergrass, GA) Combat Master, and put a few rounds through it. The gun came via an acquaintance who gets guns for testing from manufacturers, and both he, and another person who'd tested it, claimed it "didn't work".
Externally, the gun had an even, beadblast finish, with laminated "rosewood" grips. Cosmetically, the niggles included a large gap between the mainspring housing and the frame, on the right side, and a number of smaller gaps where the mainspring housing, frame and grip plate (non-functional grip safety) come together. Other than that, the gun looked good, especially at the rear, where the slide, frame, extractor and ejector can fit unevenly and look bad. No attempt had been made to dehorn the pistol, and there were many sharp edges on the slide and frame (more about this, later). The mainspring housing appears to be stainless, so the gun weighs a couple of ounces more than the original Combat Masters, which had rubber-covered, aluminum Pachmayr mainspring housings.
While I think the distinctive appearance of the Combat Master, with its forward-set rear sight is "cool", the gun would be more useful with the sight at the back of the slide. I'd like to see a Heinie rear, and a taller front sight to match. Likewise, the abbreviated frame tangs make the gun look very compact, but in a single action auto it's the cocked hammer that dictates how compact the gun really is, so why not at least a stubby "grip safety" tang to protect the hammer and improve handling? The Phoenix-based New Detonics of the late '80s addressed both these issues, so why now revert back to the classic, but less functional configuration of the Seattle/Bellevue guns?
I field-stripped the pistol, and the inside looked very good. No noticeable tool marks, and everything fit together smoothly. It did appear dry, and I wondered if that contributed to it's reported unreliability.
The next day, I took the gun, the supplied (Metalform marked) mags, and a box of my handloads - 150 of which my own gun had just gobbled up - and decided to see if the gun indeed did not work. After a squirt of Militech lube, I loaded up a mag, racked a round in the chamber, lined-up on a bush growing out of the 30 yards' distant berm, and fired a round. I was disappointed to see a stove-pipe jam. Upon further examination, it was obvious that the slide had dragged heavily on my thumb, and I attributed the malf to operator error. I've had this problem before, of both stove-pipes and failures to feed, caused by the slide rubbing my strong-hand thumb, and I've developed a "Combat Master Grip", with my strong thumb held slightly to the outside of my weak thumb, to prevent it. I grabbed the gun more carefully, and emptied the mag. POA/POI was pretty good, even at 30 yards. I loaded another mag, and though the gun again ran without problem, I simply could not get my thumb out of the way of the slide. Blood was now gushing out of the wound inflicted by the sharp cocking serrations, so I handed the gun to someone else. Six more rounds downrange without a blip. I loaded one more mag, and squeezed them off weak-handed, to see if the gun was running on the edge of reliability, as iffy springs or grip strength can reveal, but the gun ran fine. So, only 30 rounds, but a good showing.
After bandaging my thumb, it occurred to me just how much harder than my gun this new one kicks. I have no trouble keeping my gun on target for double-taps, but this new gun really bucked in my hand and upset my grip with each shot. My gun has the older 2-spring recoil system, and it's been fitted with an EGW firing pin stop, and perhaps these differences play a part.
I'd like to think that the gun I shot was a pre-production model, and that the cosmetic problems have been corrected on guns shipping to the public. I hope so, if Detonics hopes to make a dent in the $1000 pistol market. With the noted problems corrected, the new Combat Master would be a viable carry gun or "deep concealment" piece for those who value small size over light weight.
If you're not shooting you should be moving. If you're not moving you should be reloading. If you're not shooting, moving, or reloading, you should be taping or picking brass. - Z.C.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2005, 03:49 PM
Robert Hairless Robert Hairless is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,035
I'd hoped for better. Sigh. Thanks for the review. May your thumb recover quickly.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2005, 06:49 PM
Gary1911A1 Gary1911A1 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ohio for now.
Age: 68
Posts: 4,999
Good report and I'm certain your review is more valid than the one I just read in Handguns. Makes me glad I have an early one too. At the time I got mine the Detonics and the Star PD were the only small .45ACPs' on the market. I though I would like the Star better, but I soon sold it and keep the Detonics. A Police Officer I knew had one in 38 Super that was reportedly sweet to shoot. Maybe the new Detonics will get it right and make some in 38 Super.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-14-2005, 09:15 PM
Caspian_45 Caspian_45 is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17
Thanks for the report Rick.

I would love to get my hands on both a Detonics USA and an oringinal Combat Master MKVI. But alas, no money. Some day.

I think I'd like to try one of the new ones in .40 S&W.


BTW, The reason for the rear sight being pushed forward was to allow a hammer down carry. The sight wasn't in the way when you thumbed the hammer back. There's a unoffical Detoincs website somewhere that give a lot of the history on Detonics pistols.
Reply With Quote


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 04:09 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 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved