[Ranger4]

Can anyone confirm a true increase in accuracy? The discussion I had with Bill and C and L years ago has me still convinced that the only real tight fit needs to be at the front, barrel/bushing/ slide lockup. As he said, all of those are under the front sight. 99% of where the bullet goes at pistol distances, are where the front site points.

SO, at 25 yards can anyone prove that a tighter frame will decrease groups by say 1/2 inch? If we cannot prove it, why would we do it?

Serious question, not so much as a position. I just honestly do not know anyone that can prove results.

 

[Ranger4]

The fit at the rear of the barrel (upper and lower lugs) is at least as important as the the fit at the bushing.

In Jerry Kuhnhausen's Vol 1, it is estimated that a close bushing fit accounts for only 20 percent of the mechanical accuracy. The vertical and lateral fit at the rear of the barrel accounts for 40 percent.

Also, a good fit at the rear of the barrel can take up most all of any slide to frame play. This is because the barrel rear is fitted between slide and frame, not just to the slide. So you may gain very little from a tighter slide to frame fit. Plus the barrel tracks the slide, not the frame, as that's where the sights are.

-

I do not disagree with the theory but when one estimates 20% this or 40% that we have an opinion. In his case an educated opinion. I recall a time when all the experts said the first thing you do with a 1911, any 1911, is take it out of the box and throw away the barrel. Only a National Match or one made by somebody else was worth having. I fired Expert and got my little badge in the Army at that time, but frankly, I could not shoot the 1911 well enough for a change of barrel to make any difference for me. I got a little better over time.

And then I remember when they new 3 finger barrel bushings were the rage. The theory was the three fingers would somehow make the barrel more centered during fire or more stable or something to that effect. So every cool 1911 guy relplaced them in all of their guns. Then something weird happened, some of those little fingers started breaking. I was lucky, I was to slow to be cool and did not buy any, so no problem there,

And then there were those darn Nornincos. I bought one for $248. We paired it against a new $1,600 Kimber. And after about 5 groups we learned that with ball ammo the Chinese gun was shooting groups 1/2 the size of the new Kimber. We were pretty convinced that those special Chinese barrels was the trick, what else could it be? We would later learn that the secret was chrome, the Chinese just put chrome inside and out on the barrels. They fit tight and just slid through the bushing like grease on glass. And the Norincos got that reputation as being greats shooters, but the barrel was the only thing different from any other maker, we thought.

And then came those Rock Island Arms (RIA) made in the Philippines guns on worn out machinery that did not have good tolerances. That was a problem because they were massed produced yet were shooting like the old Gold Cups. I bought one of those too, about $300 as I recall. I still have it, I made it into a 400 Corbon. It actually was tight when new and tight now after decades of abuse.

And lately we have a dozen new brands that shoot remarkably well out of the box, mass manufactured guns. I have reported on a Taylors 10mm I bought based on a thread in this forum one year ago. That gun is as fine a 1911 as I have ever seen. Not one issue with 7 different loads so far, not one. Accuracy is chasing 1 inch. I do not have a Ransom Rest so not going to go there until I am sure. But it was a $429 gun, a Palmetto clearance gun. I made a big mistake, I should have bought 4 of them.

Slide fit and slide tightening have been a subject forever. It was that issue that caused me to approach Bill and ask him about my build and I was looking at his parts for sale at the time. His take was as I said, at the instant of firing, that bullet passed under the front sight which is pointed at the target. At that point, the bullet has already passed the lockup of the barrel, the trigger is all the way back and even wobbly loose grip screws do not matter. The only thing that matters is how tight that slide to bushing and bushing to barrel is.----Today, I suppose if you had a read mounted optic, and the slide was loose and wobbly then the sight picture might be a little different that a person holding the front sight on a target, and the looseness might tell a different story. But the point Bill made and I still think is probably correct, is that if everything else is pretty close, the most important is the front end. I understand other experts differ.

Let's keep in mind that the gun rolling off the line today one at a time or 100 at a time are much better than what we might encounter 20 years ago, so the timing of any article or book might be affected. If you are corrected a production issue today, it might be different that 20-30 years ago, the design does not change, but corrections to production guns might.

Here is a 2018 article on the issue. And a few comments he made.
How to Improve 1911 Pistol Accuracy: Get a New Barrel - Shooting Times

It is so rare as to be remarkable if a new 1911 pistol--regardless of who made it--does not feed and function right out of the box, and most shoot far better than the 5- to 6-inch groups of old.

There is also a lot of mythology associated with improving accuracy in the 1911 that is either marginal or downright fraudulent. Things like group grippers, guide rods, links, bushings, and duct tape are all claimed to improve accuracy. Some do for a while, but unless the major accuracy issues are addressed in some permanent form, more often than not, it's a waste of time and money .


The most important thing of all is that the barrel returns to the same place after every shot. If it does, rather pedestrian barrels will shoot well, and good ones will shine. There are three points to ponder.


Another fallacy is that tightening the slide does wonders. Actually this is probably the least important part because if the barrel is properly fitted, it will take up much of the slide play. The only time slide fit is a big deal is in the few microseconds that the bullet is going down the barrel. As long as the barrel is locked up and stays that way long enough for the bullet to get gone, the rest doesn't matter.

One question that comes up all the time is who makes the best barrels. I have been able to test quite a few in a fixture that allows only the barrel to be tested independent of the gun. I have concluded that there really is not very much difference between a World War II GI barrel and one of today's finest match barrels.

I've tested barrels made by the most common rifling processes--button, broach, and ECM (electro-chemical machining)--and can detect no superior manufacturing method.

Of course, I'm talking about CNC machining that can do with one or two machines almost all the work needed to make a 1911. This has given us more accurate and reliable pistols than we've ever seen before.

And he goes on with trying different barrels and finding not much difference in accuracy. My point is this fairly recent article suggest frame tightening is a waste of time. He does say that the fit of the barrel at the rear is critical which I agree. However, I have never seen one that was so bad that a tight lock up at the front of the gun would not result is excellent accuracy. The OPs post was about tightening a frame. My thought was the OP was looking for a benefit to improve the accuracy of his own gun. And my comment about my discussions with C and S was simply that doing so would probably not help accuracy at all, that the front lockup was the best place to do that.

And then at post #2 a link was given on the same topic, and here is a comment from that link:

Fitting a slide will have little effect on practical accuracy, but it should be the first step in an accurizing package when a match-grade barrel is fitted and maximum long range precision is required.

Anyway, I do not disagree with the barrel needing to be within design specs but simply that frame tightening is not the thing to do if accuracy is the problem. And my question then is can anyone prove that you get 20% more accuracy from frame tightening, or 40% more from the fit or the rear of the barrel? I am just wondering if they have done step by step testing to prove that, or is that just their guess based on working on guns 40 years ago?

That's all I was asking.

 

[Ranger4]

Be aware that squeezing the slide to tighten the rails can be a risky proposition as they sometimes crack, especially at the left rear corner where it's unsupported.

One of my most accurate 1911s is a Colt Series 80 made during their "bad" years with a slide so loose the pistol doubles as a baby rattle. With the right ammo it still shoots under 2" at 25 yards with its factory barrel. Tightening the slide/frame only serves two purposes: One, to squeeze that last little bit of accuracy out of a match-grade pistol, and two, because so many owners simply hate having a 1911 with any perceptible slop anywhere.

Some people cringe when fingernails are scrapped across glass....I cringe when I think about a perfectly good slide sitting in a vice and some guy thinking it needs just a little more squeeze..

For some looseness issues there are other solutions. Cere Kote and chrome and paint on polymers can add thickness and be matched in color and texture. Chrome thickness can vary depending on how it's applied, but is typically .003 - .005 in commercial applications, although thicknesses up to .020 are possible I am told.

So, if you have a gun that shoots 2 inches, and nickel or chrome plate the barrel and barrel bushing you have tightened up the slack at the point of the gun where the bullet exits. So, according to Bill at Cylinder and Slide, accuracy should improve. Enough to matter? You have to do it to know. Or replace barrel and or bushing to accomplish the same thing, but again, you only know if you do it.

If you have a gun that shoots 2 inches and has a little looseness, I call that a carry gun.

 

[Ranger4]

The accuracy contribution percentages are just estimates. It's important to note that they are based on match grade accurizing of ordnance spec guns, which could be quite loose in any of the areas that matter. I look at the accuracy contribution percentages as simply showing which are more important, and which are less. Slide to frame fit was placed at just 15 percent, so less important than bushing fit or barrel lug fit at 20 and 40 percent respectively.

Ordnance spec guns (and many modern guns) do not fit the upper barrel lugs. The barrel lug recesses are clearance for the slide lugs. The barrel does not stop vertically aganst the slide, but is stopped by the link. After being thrown forward and upward into battery, the barrel on these guns can be pressed downward at the ejection port. There was also lateral movement of the barrel, both within the slide and along the slide stop pin. So the play at the rear of the barrel could be considerable. This would account for the high barrel lug fit contribution, 20 percent vertical plus 20 percent lateral.

The barrel bushing fit contribution could be less than the barrel lug fit due to the linkup angle. A good part of the bushing clearance is taken up when the barrel tilts up in battery. A barrel to bushing clearance of .003" can be completely taken up when the barrel is linked up in battery. However, barrel lug clearances at the rear of the barrel still remain while in battery. Those are not taken up.

-

I think that is a good explanation. My point was Bill was simply pointing out that my slide fit at the rear of the gun was not a big deal, and he emphasized the need for the barrel/bushing/slide being tight as the reason my loose gun shot so well. Any looseness bugs me.

Yesterday I fitted one of those fixed barrel compensators on a 400 Corbon project gun. The gun has shot quite well for a dozen years or more. It was a cheap barrel with a Wilson bushing that I sand down for a tight fit and all these years later it is still tight enough. Through years of use it has become a glassy smooth fit.

The new one, a cheapie has the barrel, bushing, and compensator welded in place, and it does not come off. The bushing barrel fit is far too loose for my liking. I immediately decided to send it back but changed my mind when I went to fit it. The outer dimension of the bushing was properly too small. It took a bunch of work to get it into the gun. Now, with it in the gun, the lock up seems just fine. Only shooting will tell the tale. I have no clue if this barrel is correct at the rear.

I am not a big fan of compensators, however, I have a condition called SLAC wrist and already had carpel tunnel surgery on that hand. I will lose another 30% of my grip. So, I am looking for anything to lower the recoil. Thiis gun is a project and play gun. I have 10mms, and 45s and 38 Super and even a 40 SW barrel when I want to carry a 1911. So, if this one should lose a little accuracy, not a lot of sleep is lost. I have always loaded it to the max until recently because I enjoyed that 600-700 fpe in a 1911 platform. When I went to take out the old barrel, I noticed that the shock buff had crumbled. I normally replace them before that happens, live and learn.

With respect to the lockup of the barrel bushing and front end of the system. For years it was common to buy a matched barrel and bushing, pre-fit by the maker. And there are times when people buy several bushings and fit the closest one to their gun. Seems like a waste of money in my book, in search of perfection. So, I again have this thought. If you have a gun that locks up fine at the bushing, is it possible to coat that bushing and or barrel and improve the fit?

What about a paint=on product. The idea is something like Duracoat or others maybe with the PFE? For example:

SO, my curiosity is this. Is there any product out there that could be sprayed on and cured in an oven that would increase the thickness of the barrel bushing or barrel or both that will withstand thousands of rounds of firing?

If there is such products, then we could take our old loose guns and tune them up with a spray can. Am I nuts or is this possible? It seems to work in other applications, I just have no information if it would work in guns.???

It seems like there are coatings like this used on the bolt carrier groups of ARs to make them more durable and easy to clean. Thoughts?

 

[Ranger4]

The accuracy contribution percentages are just estimates. It's important to note that they are based on match grade accurizing of ordnance spec guns, which could be quite loose in any of the areas that matter. I look at the accuracy contribution percentages as simply showing which are more important, and which are less. Slide to frame fit was placed at just 15 percent, so less important than bushing fit or barrel lug fit at 20 and 40 percent respectively.

Ordnance spec guns (and many modern guns) do not fit the upper barrel lugs. The barrel lug recesses are clearance for the slide lugs. The barrel does not stop vertically aganst the slide, but is stopped by the link. After being thrown forward and upward into battery, the barrel on these guns can be pressed downward at the ejection port. There was also lateral movement of the barrel, both within the slide and along the slide stop pin. So the play at the rear of the barrel could be considerable. This would account for the high barrel lug fit contribution, 20 percent vertical plus 20 percent lateral.

The barrel bushing fit contribution could be less than the barrel lug fit due to the linkup angle. A good part of the bushing clearance is taken up when the barrel tilts up in battery. A barrel to bushing clearance of .003" can be completely taken up when the barrel is linked up in battery. However, barrel lug clearances at the rear of the barrel still remain while in battery. Those are not taken up.

-

I remembered a video with Bill Wilson and Massad Ayoob about any things you could do to make your 1911 better. In that video Bill just talks about polishing the feed ramp, changing sights and things like that. He also makes the same point that Bill at Cylinder and Slide did with me, that is, a loose slide has very little to do with accuracy but the lockup at the barrel bushing is what makes the gun accurate. I found that video. The loose slide front lockup issue is about 5:15 on the video.


Bing Videos

 

[Ranger4]

It's not always about pure precision of groups. If I build a pistol up with 1000 bucks of parts on top of a 500 base pistol, and make it look good and run good, I don't want a rattle trap. It's about the feel of precision and quality. It's worth it to me.

Wilson, Les, NHC, DW, Rogers, Chambers, Mag, plus a hundred others here aren't building and selling rattletraps.

That was exactly my felling when I asked Bill at cylinder and slide about it. My build was tight everywhere but a small area the last couple inches at the grip. That tiny little gap was causing me emotional problems that gun shot about 1-1.5 inch groups at 25 with any cheap ammo. I was like Monk obsessed about it.

After he explained that the bullet goes where the front sight tells it to go, and only the tightness at the slide/barrel/bushing intersection mattered. Since it shot so well I was chasing a phobia,not improving a gun

And that is exactly Bill Wilson said in the video I posted above.

So while it maybe psychological nobody would pay $3K or more for a gun that isn't tight all over. I am still that way. I know small amount of looseness mechanically is better for reliability, I get the science. That said, I do not even want loose Cresent wrench in my tool box.

My money and evening any gun pistol or revolver, if it isn't near perfect, then I will pass,unless it is something I can easily like endshake in a wheel gun.

Just a matter of choice.