Arms Locker

Arms Locker (https://armslocker.com/forums.php)
-   Curio and Relic (https://armslocker.com/forumdisplay.php?f=687)
-   -   .45's at CMP (https://armslocker.com/showthread.php?t=60026)

Terry G 12-02-2016 11:34 AM

.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.

John in AR 12-02-2016 12:27 PM

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.

Terry G 12-02-2016 12:52 PM

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.

John in AR 12-02-2016 01:43 PM

[QUOTE=Terry G;269162]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. [/quote]
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=Terry G;269162]...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.[/QUOTE]
:laugh: That's probably a good thing. They'd be a bugger to double-tap.

BigBassMan 12-02-2016 02:17 PM

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?

ethereal 12-03-2016 07:07 PM

[QUOTE=Terry G;269162]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Garand 12-04-2016 08:21 AM

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.

Terry G 12-04-2016 11:42 AM

[QUOTE=Garand;269233]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.[/QUOTE] 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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 AM.

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.