DIY 1911 accuracy job.

[Red Cent]

I understand that the task for the link is to pull down the barrel after the slide begins to cycle. However, specs differ and most all will have a bit of stress on the links. There is little stress downward on the lugs or link when firing.
I see in mind's eye a deep lug recess in the slide and a normal lug height on the barrel. Not logical to adjust and minimize lockup for sake of a little accuracy. I guess.

 

[Jim Watson]

The system shown by the OP was patented by Cash Gustin; applied for 1966, issued 1968.
That was before Fred Kart and Irv Stone got into the barrel business and essentially all conventional accurizing was by the weld and refit method.
Gustin provided an alternative that required only a drill press and some measurements. Not up to a Clark but probably a worthwhile improvement, especially if paired with a fitted bushing.

I would want to check the locking lug engagement depth after the screws were adjusted to tighten the fit, but otherwise, it should be ok except for those horrified by the appearance of two extra screws on an inexpensive second hand pistol.

See the Gustin patent no 3380346 at: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ByNRAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1968&lpg=PA1968&dq=patent+3380346&source=web&ots=R5pQKs8PaF&sig=vv407Rh7ZCk2zKMYnW5Ge6L85r0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=patent%203380346&f=false

 

[Griffin Armament]

Mr. Browning designed the 1911 as a battle pistol hence the loose tolerances. Mud, dirt, sand, or blood can find their way into any weapon system.

A Glock IMO does not have tight target type of tolerances.

The loose tolerances probably had a lot more to do with a desire to make the first military pistol with fully interchangeable parts, and also the manufacturing tolerances typical in production environments at that time.

The Glock 19 Gen 4 I have I measured two key areas of - one was the length of the ejection port to the length of the front to rear lug part of the barrel that fills this gap. That measurement was 1.219" <Slot, the barrel ? 1.217" (.002" of tolerance where 1911's are allowed ~.008").

The rear lug width? .395" It's slot? .393" to = tolerance of again .002".

The Glock doesn't have target type tolerances (which in bullseye would mean probably .0005"), but it certainly is ~4 times tighter than typical tolerances in a production 1911 system built to the original prints.

 

[Griffin Armament]

The system shown by the OP was patented by Cash Gustin; applied for 1966, issued 1968.
That was before Fred Kart and Irv Stone got into the barrel business and essentially all conventional accurizing was by the weld and refit method.
Gustin provided an alternative that required only a drill press and some measurements. Not up to a Clark but probably a worthwhile improvement, especially if paired with a fitted bushing.

I would want to check the locking lug engagement depth after the screws were adjusted to tighten the fit, but otherwise, it should be ok except for those horrified by the appearance of two extra screws on an inexpensive second hand pistol.

See the Gustin patent no 3380346 at: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ByNRAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1968&lpg=PA1968&dq=patent+3380346&source=web&ots=R5pQKs8PaF&sig=vv407Rh7ZCk2zKMYnW5Ge6L85r0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=patent%203380346&f=false

Thanks for the first post!! Excellent.

That was pretty remarkable finding it already patented. I'm surprised this idea hasn't seen any use. I took a look at the patent and realize the only difference between what I did and this patent, is that I added my screws in the recess between the two lugs in the slide, not through the forward lug.

I didn't want to reduce the strength of the lugs, and didn't want the screws to interact with the barrel during the slide cycle (which would accelerate their wear), but do see one advantage to more forward placement. This should afford more leverage to push the barrel down in front and in this way might be slightly superior as it pertains to removing play. Another potential advantage would of course be that the screws would not need to be ground on top to make them fit flush because there is more depth of the hole. This would aesthetically look better.

 

[dwaywego]

The system shown by the OP was patented by Cash Gustin; applied for 1966, issued 1968.
That was before Fred Kart and Irv Stone got into the barrel business and essentially all conventional accurizing was by the weld and refit method.
Gustin provided an alternative that required only a drill press and some measurements. Not up to a Clark but probably a worthwhile improvement, especially if paired with a fitted bushing.

I would want to check the locking lug engagement depth after the screws were adjusted to tighten the fit, but otherwise, it should be ok except for those horrified by the appearance of two extra screws on an inexpensive second hand pistol.

See the Gustin patent no 3380346 at: http://www.google.com/patents?id=ByNRAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1968&lpg=PA1968&dq=patent+3380346&source=web&ots=R5pQKs8PaF&sig=vv407Rh7ZCk2zKMYnW5Ge6L85r0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=patent%203380346&f=false

Excellent research on that info, cool to see that there was actually a patent for this.

 

[Old_School]

Actually, I vaguely remember seeing an article on this years ago. I'm thinking it was Charles Petty in the American Rifleman.

 

[land_surveyor]

you might try this too

 

[land_surveyor]

If I met John Browning today, I'd probably ask him what he was thinking when he toleranced the 1911 so broadly. It's a great design, but the gun just doesn't perform nearly as well as it could if the parts fit together the way they were intended to. And their optimal function is absolutely tolerance critical.

it was 1911 not 2012. his tolerances were achievable with the available tooling and at a moderate price. the weapon was designed built for the battlefield, not a 25 yard benchrest competition.

 

[Griffin Armament]

it was 1911 not 2012. his tolerances were achievable with the available tooling and at a moderate price. the weapon was designed built for the battlefield, not a 25 yard benchrest competition.

Unfortunately times change, and if the 1911 is to remain competitive, it needs to outperform the standards of 100 years ago.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Unfortunately times change, and if the 1911 is to remain competitive, it needs to outperform the standards of 100 years ago.

It has since the invention of CAM/CNC and better tooling. The 1911 design is still competitive 100 years later on today’s equipment. The tolerances are where they need to be on most 1911's mass produced today.

Fortunately times do change and for mass production tolerances it has been for the good of everyone.