.45's at CMP - Arms Locker
Arms Locker Gun Forum
Go Back   Arms Locker > Gun Forums > Curio and Relic


Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By BigBassMan
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2016, 11:34 AM   #1
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,987
.45's at CMP

The rumor mill has stated that the Government is going to release an undisclosed number of .45's for sale through CMP. Price, also rumored, is going to be around $1,000.00. Frankly, you have got to be kidding. First off, when's the last time CMP offered a handgun for sale? Like, never? Also, I carried one of these re-furbed .45's way back when and I was lucky to keep the 7 shot's on a man sized target at 50 feet. Do you really want to pay a Grand for a handgun that rattles like a shovel full of gravel in a tin bucket? You would want a "piece of history" pretty bad for a deal like this.
 
Remove Ads
Old 12-02-2016, 12:27 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 5,177
Unable to keep them on the paper at 50 would definitely be unacceptable, but generally speaking I'd rather have a loose & sloppy 1911 than a tightly-fitted one. Tight, high-dollar 1911's tend imo to have too many functional (more like NON-functional) issues.

Give me a sloppy mil-spec or even mil-surp 1911 and I'm happy. Try to SELL me one for a thousand dollars and I may ask someone to take drug test; that's just stupid.
 
Old 12-02-2016, 12:52 PM   #3
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,987
Well, there's loose as in working all the time and loose as in can't hit anything with it. As for tight fitting (or TOO tight tolerances), Les Baier and Kimber come to mind. I tried both an was underwhelmed by malfunctions and the advice of both manufacturer's to "Shoot four or five hundred rounds so the gun would break in." My old Colt Series '70 never needed a break in, nor did my Glock 21. No, I can't shoot the eye out of a gnat at 100 yards with the Colt or the Glock, but I rarely am in a gunfight with Gnat's.
 
 
Old 12-02-2016, 01:43 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 5,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry G View Post
Well, there's loose as in working all the time and loose as in can't hit anything with it. As for tight fitting (or TOO tight tolerances), Les Baier and Kimber come to mind.
Exactly; that's what I meant to convey. My 35-year-old Detonics sounds like a baby rattle if you shake it, but it just runs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry G View Post
...No, I can't shoot the eye out of a gnat at 100 yards with the Colt or the Glock, but I rarely am in a gunfight with Gnat's.
That's probably a good thing. They'd be a bugger to double-tap.
 
Old 12-02-2016, 02:17 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: North

Posts: 1,609
Thought only Melvin shot little critters! Will hardball stop a gnat or will it fly off an have to be finished off with a boot?
gripper and Garand like this.
 
Old 12-03-2016, 07:07 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Somewhere

Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry G View Post
Well, there's loose as in working all the time and loose as in can't hit anything with it. As for tight fitting (or TOO tight tolerances), Les Baier and Kimber come to mind. I tried both an was underwhelmed by malfunctions and the advice of both manufacturer's to "Shoot four or five hundred rounds so the gun would break in." My old Colt Series '70 never needed a break in, nor did my Glock 21. No, I can't shoot the eye out of a gnat at 100 yards with the Colt or the Glock, but I rarely am in a gunfight with Gnat's.
Tight fitting and tight tolerances are entirely unrelated. You can have a .005 gap in fit and a +/- .0002 tolerance on both parts. Many precision slip fit parts in aerospace have an .001 gap and +.0003 more material over nominal on both parts giving you a couple tenths of a gap with a maxed out stack. Anything reciprocating on a rail type feature with more than a thou or two nominal and you're going to end up galling or wearing something somewhere in a way no grain structure can handle at its typical properties and killing the lifespan of the components meeting print of whatever it is, gun or not.

Pretty much anything camming in most autoloading reliable weapons today comes into .00005 (precision ground both relevant features on both parts) - .0005 after stack analysis.

The AKM, 47, and 74 really aren't specified loosely in tolerance or gap if you look at the prints either. We just get out of spec and worn guns and kits on our shores.

There's nothing on a 1911 (original), A1, or the MEUSOC that's particularly loose in terms of gap or tolerance.

Last edited by ethereal; 12-03-2016 at 07:35 PM.
 
Old 12-04-2016, 08:21 AM   #7
Registered User
 Garand's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: Canadian Badlands

Posts: 8,858
Terry, I have an original "Canadian Contract", 1914 manufactured Colt Commercial Model with 98% finish, that cost me $4,000.00 (cdn) and there is no rattle to it at all.
 
Old 12-04-2016, 11:42 AM   #8
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand View Post
Terry, I have an original "Canadian Contract", 1914 manufactured Colt Commercial Model with 98% finish, that cost me $4,000.00 (cdn) and there is no rattle to it at all.
You must have wanted it bad. Unfired, I would presume. The WWII era 1911A1's we trained with and were issued in the late sixties had been around the re-furbishing block a few times and hadn't been treated well at all. Same thing with the M-1 Garands, Carbines, and M-3 sub-machine that were issued to the ARVN.
 
Reply

  Arms Locker > Gun Forums > Curio and Relic


Thread Tools
Display Modes






Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.