TR Trigger Job - Page 7 - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-29-2016, 06:01 AM
JamieC JamieC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 556
I just finished doing my first trigger job using the TR jig. Nice break, no creep, (had a little before), the pull weight is about the same as when I started, from what I've read, I expected it to be a bit less. Question, how much effect does the relief or break-away cut have on the trigger pull? I just put a light edge break on it. As an aside, I definitely need better eyes, magnification, something, LOL. I have a lighted magnifier light, it was probably comical watching me, reading glasses, magnified light, magnifying glass trying to get a good look at what the sear looked like. Seems easy when looking at the quality pics posted on here! BTW, I measured 5lbs trigger pull.
  #152  
Old 01-29-2016, 10:36 AM
cavelamb cavelamb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 2,298
Okay, ya done fine so far cleaning up the release.
The rest of the job is done adjusting the sear and disconnector spring.
That's where the pull weight is determined.
__________________
-
"This is also why Christ did not wield the sword...
although He sanctions the sword, He did not make use of it,
for it serves no purpose in His kingdom, in which there are
none but the upright." - Martin Luther, 1523 -
  #153  
Old 03-01-2016, 08:41 PM
Jarhead0311 Jarhead0311 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 193
I wish I was better at working on 1911s. I am new to them so I am learning. You guys do so much great work, thank you for sharing your knowledge.
__________________
Semper Fi
USMC Veteran, NRA Life Member
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
 
  #154  
Old 03-01-2016, 09:40 PM
NoExpert NoExpert is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,718
A tiny dab of this on the sear and hammer engagement points will go a long way:

http://www.brownells.com/gun-cleanin...-prod1147.aspx
__________________
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

― Albert Einstein
  #155  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:57 AM
JamieC JamieC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 556
Hmm, might have to look into some of that...once I finish the small tub of moly paste I have, (and have had for 15+ years).
  #156  
Old 03-08-2016, 06:09 PM
josebd josebd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 156
Why couldnt you do the relief cut with the jig?
  #157  
Old 03-11-2016, 12:20 PM
CWarner CWarner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,979
[QUOTE=NoExpert;5830798]The government hammer calls for the hooks to be at 86° to the "deck" (hammer sear engagement surface). Hammers being made today vary in their "offset in relation to the pin "hole" (sic) all the way from government spec to the hook area being rotated clockwise as much as 12° from that relationship. For example, the Wilson Value Line hammer hooks are rotated about 7° (as closely as I can measure) clockwise from government hammers.




The 86 degree number is the degree difference between the hammer hook tips and the sear face when engaged. This angle is the result of the hook offset from centerline of the pinhole. This angle increases in relation to the distance away from the centerline. The hooks in GI form are cut at 90 degrees and always have been. Per original design this allows only the hammer hook tips to engage the sear. Its a common misinterpretation of the original drawings.

CW
  #158  
Old 03-12-2016, 08:32 AM
NoExpert NoExpert is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
The hooks in GI form are cut at 90 degrees and always have been.
I would appreciate it if you would help me see that. Every blueprint I have seen of the 1911 government hammer shows the following dimensions:



The angle between the deck and the inner surface of the hooks appears to me to be 53°15' + 32°45' = 86°.

I am certainly "NoExpert" when it comes to reading blueprints, so this is a learning opportunity. Where am I going wrong?
__________________
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

― Albert Einstein
  #159  
Old 03-12-2016, 10:07 AM
log man log man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Riverside County, CA
Posts: 12,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExpert View Post
I would appreciate it if you would help me see that. Every blueprint I have seen of the 1911 government hammer shows the following dimensions:



The angle between the deck and the inner surface of the hooks appears to me to be 53°15' + 32°45' = 86°.

I am certainly "NoExpert" when it comes to reading blueprints, so this is a learning opportunity. Where am I going wrong?
I agree that this drawing does appear to show the very aggressive hammer hook face at 86º, to the deck position. I have never actually seen one however, all I have found when stoning was 90º. I haven't played with the 1911 long enough, or actually had access to a vintage example. S70 Colt is as vintage as I have had experience with. And wasn't new, so?

What is confusing is your cleaned up drawing that you created, and posted. The hammer hook face to deck is labeled as 86º, but in fact by the dimensions, the hook face is clearly 90º??



53.25º+32.75º+4º=90º

LOG
__________________
Warning, do not remove any material from your pistol or any of it's parts if you do not know the result and it's consequences!
1911Pro! Resident RKI.......it gun....gun dangerous...


  #160  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:06 AM
NoExpert NoExpert is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
but in fact by the dimensions, the hook face is clearly 90º??
If you look closely, you will see that that drawing has an additional 4° angle added to the 32.75° and the 53.25° angles. The .088" dimension in my drawing is to the TOP of the hammer hooks, not to the bottom. The dimension to the BOTTOM of the hammer hooks in my drawing would be .090" if I had included it. I saw no purpose in it and it would have cluttered the drawing. The .090" dimension is shown in the drawing below of a government hammer with the hooks cut to .020" height and 90° to the "deck":



I was really asking Chuck Warner if I understood his comment:

Quote:
Its a common misinterpretation of the original drawings.
correctly, would he help me see where I was misinterpreting. I have wrestled with the blueprint drawings for years and have made several mistakes in interpreting that others have been kind enough to help me understand.
__________________
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

― Albert Einstein
  #161  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:28 AM
log man log man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Riverside County, CA
Posts: 12,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExpert View Post
If you look closely, you will see that that drawing has an additional 4° angle added to the 32.75° and the 53.25° angles. The .088" dimension in my drawing is to the TOP of the hammer hooks, not to the bottom. The dimension to the BOTTOM of the hammer hooks in my drawing would be .090" if I had included it. I saw no purpose in it and it would have cluttered the drawing. The .090" dimension is shown in the drawing below of a government hammer with the hooks cut to .020" height and 90° to the "deck":



I was really asking Chuck Warner if I understood his comment:


correctly, would he help me see where I was misinterpreting. I have wrestled with the blueprint drawings for years and have made several mistakes in interpreting that others have been kind enough to help me understand.
??? Of course I saw the 4º as shown at the bottom of my post the addition of 53.25º+32.75º+4º clearly equals 90º. Just as 53°15' + 32°45' = 86°.

If one relates as you believe then why doesn't the other?


I see the reason for the years of wrestling and confusion. Please refrain from posting anything else on my thread, I am the OP.

On another note the TR sear works well.

LOG
__________________
Warning, do not remove any material from your pistol or any of it's parts if you do not know the result and it's consequences!
1911Pro! Resident RKI.......it gun....gun dangerous...



Last edited by log man; 03-12-2016 at 11:46 AM.
  #162  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:46 AM
NoExpert NoExpert is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
If one relates as you believe then why doesn't the other?
I do not understand your question.

The clip of the blueprint drawing I posted to Chuck with my question has nothing to do with my drawing that you posted in your question to me. The blueprint drawing does not show any line perpendicular to the "deck" and running through the center of the hammer pin hole, nor does any other blueprint drawing I have ever seen of a government hammer. For my own purposes, I created a drawing that does have a line perpendicular to the "deck" and running through the hammer pin hole center.

If, as you say:

Quote:
I see the reason for the years of wrestling and confusion.
I would like to tell me what that reason is. Telling me that you know and reason without stating the reason is not very helpful to me.
__________________
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

― Albert Einstein
  #163  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:56 AM
CWarner CWarner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,979
I have not answered because of lack of time and ability to produce the drawing that supports my statement.

Let me ask you this from a different direction.
Why would anyone have special cutters made just for hammer hooks? This was a simple GI pistol in its original form. Sometimes we cannot see the Forrest for the trees.
I will do my best to dig up the supporting evidence as soon as possible.

CW
  #164  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:00 PM
log man log man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Riverside County, CA
Posts: 12,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoExpert View Post
I do not understand your question.

The clip of the blueprint drawing I posted to Chuck with my question has nothing to do with my drawing that you posted in your question to me. The blueprint drawing does not show any line perpendicular to the "deck" and running through the center of the hammer pin hole, nor does any other blueprint drawing I have ever seen of a government hammer. For my own purposes, I created a drawing that does have a line perpendicular to the "deck" and running through the hammer pin hole center.

If, as you say:



I would like to tell me what that reason is. Telling me that you know and reason without stating the reason is not very helpful to me.
That is correct the original shown, shows a line 86º to the deck and the reason you surmise that the hook face is also 86º to the deck.

Neither would the answer.

LOG
__________________
Warning, do not remove any material from your pistol or any of it's parts if you do not know the result and it's consequences!
1911Pro! Resident RKI.......it gun....gun dangerous...


  #165  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:03 PM
log man log man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Riverside County, CA
Posts: 12,642
In the interest of the purpose of this thread, the TR jig, and sear. I ask, as the OP, that no further distracting topics be interjected into my thread. Thank you.

LOG
__________________
Warning, do not remove any material from your pistol or any of it's parts if you do not know the result and it's consequences!
1911Pro! Resident RKI.......it gun....gun dangerous...


  #166  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:06 PM
jkhouw1 jkhouw1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: .
Posts: 878
All the mil-spec plans i've seen have the hammer hooks at 86 degrees.

Even Kuhnhausen states the original milspec for combat and similar use was "under 90 degrees" and that for match use it is changed to exactly 90.

Kunhhausen even says
Quote:
"Warning: the 90 degree sear ledge angle in 1A isn't recommended. It was developed by match armorers for paper target match use intended for shooters 100% familiar with the characteristics of finely tuned match target pistols"
EDIT -sorry was typing while LOG was posting request to get back on target.

Last edited by jkhouw1; 03-12-2016 at 12:08 PM.
  #167  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:11 PM
NoExpert NoExpert is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
Why would anyone have special cutters made just for hammer hooks? This was a simple GI pistol in its original form.
Absolutely agree, Chuck. I have asked that very question of people with more knowledgeable than me since I became aware of the 86° shown in the blueprint drawings. I have never received an answer other than two guesses.

One guess was that it provided armorers an easy way to adjust trigger pull (there is a notation in the blueprints about adjusting the top corner of the hooks for desired trigger pill).

The other guess was that, since an angle there of more than 90° was considered "unsafe", the 84° angle allowed for wear over time.
__________________
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

― Albert Einstein
  #168  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:19 PM
log man log man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Riverside County, CA
Posts: 12,642
Moderators! I the OP, ask that all posts beginning with #111 be erased and this informative sticky/thread be locked.

LOG
__________________
Warning, do not remove any material from your pistol or any of it's parts if you do not know the result and it's consequences!
1911Pro! Resident RKI.......it gun....gun dangerous...


  #169  
Old 03-12-2016, 02:25 PM
RetiredRod's Avatar
RetiredRod RetiredRod is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 12,271
Thread locked per OP's request.
__________________


NRA Life Member
  #170  
Old 03-12-2016, 04:40 PM
Noklue3's Avatar
Noklue3 Noklue3 is offline
Retired Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by log man View Post
Moderators! I the OP, ask that all posts beginning with #111 be erased and this informative sticky/thread be locked.

LOG
No. You do not dictate what post are allowed on this forum. The thread is locked. Let it go.

Art
__________________
Semper Fi 1968-1972
Goodnight Chesty Puller, where ever you are !
Closed Thread

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 09:27 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 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved