1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thought you guys might be interested to see this. This is one of the new Wilson sights installed without its base, directly to the slide. I really like these sights for a variety of reasons, chief among them the take-apart-ability, versus the BoMar. Also, the no-dovetail base version is pretty smoothe looking, easier to install too. I made the prototypes for Wilson Combat.

Anyway-- in this installation I just tossed out the base (well, OK, "out" being into the parts drawer). The sight body has a block attached to its front underside; it is lugged and siver-brazed in place. This gives a "downy" through which the new sight body pivot hole is reamed. Then essentially, the top of the slide is cut (with some corners broached out square) to accept the sight, and a pivot pin hole put in on location. The thing is also buried in the rear so that nothing like a strand of a coarse-woven sweater, can slip under it and screw up your draw/day. This also tends to give it fair amount of protection in a drop.

The last picture is the first one of these I did on my old "test bed" gun, ca. 1985. Not as neat, all the cuts are through. That's a Witchita sight, which I always liked, but they never caught on very well for 1911's. I think they are more robust than a BoMar, but my #1 these days would be the Wilson.











[This message has been edited by Ned Christiansen (edited 08-03-2001).]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,705 Posts
Interesting!! How about some full side profile shots & maybe the slide w/o the sight installed? I like the treatment of the slide between the ejection port & sight also. Details? Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,082 Posts
I like the sight installation. I have a Colt with one of the old Accros installed directly into the slide and one with a S&W K sight in the protected position. Yours is better. That 45 deg checkering on the back of the slide and the arcs behind the sight blade are really ugly, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
C'mon, Jim, don't candy coat it like that! Normally I go finer on the slide rear checkering, but this slide was to be used interchangeably with a compensated top end that I built in '91, and it was checkered this way, including the back of the ejector, so I hadda do it.

BBBBill, the rib you're seeing has been one of my standards since, well, 85 I guess, since it's on the old gun in the bottom pic. I don't do it on everything, but I do it when customers will let me! The top of the slide is relieved on each side, leaving a rib which I usually cross-serrate. These reliefs stop just ahead of the rear sight. Makes the slide flats a little narrower, then they ramp back up to original hight where the relief ramps out. I'll get you a side shot and a disassembled shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,082 Posts
Nothing personal, Ned; I just don't see the point of checkering the back of the slide at any angle or shaping a dummy rib on top, either. I'd rather spend your time and my money on things to make the gun shoot and handle better - like good sights. All I need for cosmetics is flat flats, regular contours, and even lines of transition, well finished. Old Colt standards, don'cha know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Neal, it looks great. Also low enough for a carry gun. I can see this style on both my Kimber Compact AND my Colt 1991( which I do not like to modify) How tall is your front sight???
Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Negative input is more valuable than positive, Jim, and I am certainly not taking offense (hey, JJ said my Conamyds are "butt ugly" and must be a joke, and I was not offended by that!). You are 100% correct in a utilitarian context. I do like to finish something out with nice (subjective) cosmetic touches when possible, though. After and only after the "real" stuff is there! If I said the checkering at the back of the slide was
for use as a meat tenerizer would that help
?

JRChilds, the front sight is a Trij. of .262. These are available in (as I recall, I'd have to measure what I have) .217, .235, .242 and .262.... something like that. This is the tallest one, or at least the tallest one I had.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Could the Wilson sight be mounted fully to the rear of the slide? I like the idea, but that sight needs to be back imo.

Good ideas, outside the box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Yes, it could be mounted all the way back, but I put them forward specifically so that there can be some slide metal behind the blade, both to protect it and to prevent any clothing from getting wedged under it. It is a little bit of a styling trade-off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,987 Posts
Know what?
I really like that, gnarly ass checkering and all! Looks like it could actually take a hit and still work!

Good for you...


------------------
>>>>>>>>>>g2<<<<<<<<<<

I Like The Shade Too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Ned, nice job but what about the durablity of the Wilson sight? I've seen a bunch of them fail.

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
JJ, I have not heard of any of them failing, but then that's the kind of thing that, if it happens here and there, a person might not hear. I'm very interested to know how many and how, since I think so highly of them and don't want to be wrong about it! I have used several of them, but of course it's only over the last 2-3 years and I don't know how many rounds any of these guns have fired, except to say that at least one of them gets used a lot. I know that if any that I have installed were to break I would get the call. Got any details?

The same deal was going around about Witchitas about 12 years ago, but I always thought the were pretty robust, and never had any first-hand or even second-hand info on them breaking-- just kind of a generalized rumor of, "they break", which I suspected at the time may have been started by a gunwriter saying he thought they were weak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
One of the other things I like about the Wilson's are that the rear blades are interchangeable. You can put a Pyramid on, a serrated, a dot, a tritium, and they swap fairly quick and easy as I recall.

Ned, I do like this install, very sharp "in the styling sense), and my BIG question, can this be done on guns with existing cuts? Also, what does this sight install run, in general terms?

For instance, my Kimber Stainless Target. I'd be guessing that you'd need to fill in the slide cuts, and then mill this out, but in a Stainless slide, how much of a pain and expense is that going to run?

I don't care for the checkering, and would also prefer to seat it further back.

If this is something that can be done with the Kimber, you just may be seeing it in your mailbox very soon...

Last question... Is the Wilson sight cut from bar stock, billet, or is it MIM?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Pics as requested above-- an overal profile, close-up of pocket for sight (too dark, sorry). Also, one that sorta shows the rib profile and how it blends out to original slide-top profile, between EJ port and rear sight. The top of the slide on either side of the rib is textured (not just blasted; more of a light stipple).

Questions answered-- this can't be done to a slide that already has a BoMar, Novak, Heinie or similar cut, and I would not really want to patch one in. Pretty much should be done on a slide with a GI or standard rear sight cut.

I was afraid somebody was going to ask how much. This ought to bring the thread to a screeching halt! I have not done many of these.... here's why-- this sight cut, including the mod to the sight, but not the sight, goes for $225. There is quite a bit of work into it, and honestly, $225 does not cover it. The underblock for the sight body is machined from scratch, lugged and brazed on, and trimmed. The cut in the slide has four corners that need to be broached out square.

Billet, barstock, or cast? I'm sure these are made from barstock, and it is something tough... not sure what, but they aren't made out of mild steel.






 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
Ned... It's easy to see thatthere is a WHOLE LOT of work involved, and I'd be guessing that $250 would be reasonable.

Quite honestly, if you could do this with a slide that had an existing "Bomar" cut, I'd be very interested... I hate the Adjustable that is on my Kimber Target.

As it is, I might even consider it for my Enhanced Commander. I have been considering a few options for that one, with the Enhanced Rib, and this might blend nicely on that one.

Amyway.... It's truly a unique install...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
Originally posted by Ned Christiansen:
Billet, barstock, or cast? I'm sure these are made from barstock, and it is something tough... not sure what, but they aren't made out of mild steel.
I know I asked, but a check of the Wilson Sight page provided this...
Each component part of the Wilson adjustable sight is precision CNC machined from solid bar stock gun steel then hardened to provide maximum durability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
That really is a nice piece of work. It looks like the most "bulletproof" installation of an adjustable rear sight possible.

The rest of the pistol isn't bad either.
Is that a squared trigger guard?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Yes,
that's a squared trigger guard, but my excuse is that this gun was first completed in '91 and that was done per the customer's spec....

But really, even though I stopped using them at about that time, I still like the looks of them!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
Yeah... I'd like to see more detailed pics of this "Mule" The Mag Funnel, and Mag Release look pretty interesting.

Likewise, the cross serrations on the front top section of the slide.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top