WB
It's hump day so we can be real.
Wednesday, August 26, 2020, 07:38

I was looking over some 1911 internals and tinkering with my FN HP, considering the designs. To me the HP is a evolution of the 1911 design. I know that may be complete heresy but given the circumstances it has some validity. John Browning designed both, and both had some modifications not necessarily endorsed by the designer.

Everyone loves the 1911 and I do too. BUT is is a very old design and has been improved upon. When Browning transitioned to the HP he quickly dispensed with the slide barrel bushing and recoil spring plug cap. The 1911 has barrel, bushing, link, pin, integral locking lugs, recoil spring, guide, plug cap. So minus two parts for the HP, leaving (6) components for the simplified HP design. The HP does have a slide bushing but it's a press fit and not removable, and Browning simply closed the end of the slide so no spring cap. Browning did make considerable changes to the recoil spring guide and changed the locking lugs since the 9mm has less recoil forces.

Another big departure was Browning dispensing with the horseshoe type or stirrup type trigger actuation on the sear spring. It surrounds the mag well to push the spring behind it. The HP has the fire control parts moved to overhead in the slide. Innovative but I'm not so keen on that design. It's prone to fouling and installed on a very fast moving assembly that must be re-aligned at each shot. Other later designs like the Beretta use an external frame "trigger bar system". The 1911 seems to have a much better fire control system to me. Also the mandated mag disconnect Browning was forced to work with completely takes the trigger influence away unless the device is tripped. Removing it makes it dependent on a wimpy spring to maintain contact. (Don't get me started on HP spring systems - Browning actually died 8 yr. before the final design) Its one of those things you are better off being ignorantly blissful, and not exploring too much. It seems to work fine.

These are just a couple areas of critique on two fantastic and classic firearm designs. One from 1911 (109 yrs. ago) and 1935 (85 yrs. ago). I can point out the Emperor has no clothes since no one cares what I think anyway, who am I?

Modern semi autos, not mentioning modern injection molded thermo-poly components, are a wonderment of evolution and simplification. The Glock's appearance in the US around 1985 (35 yrs. ago) was an innovative gauntlet the full equal of the 1911's release so long ago. Devoid of almost all character and charm it was ingeniously simplified and an evolution of process. The barrel locking system has been reduced to basically two parts from eight on the 1911. It has a barrel with integral mono-block controlling the locking/link system into the slide opening. The underside of the barrel tilting and unlocking lug is more robust and refined. It basically dispenses with 5 extra parts no longer needed. The latest captive recoil spring systems are much easier to manage too and offer some advanced progressive springing. The actual fire control parts are even more refined in a "striker" fired system completely dispensing with a hammer spring, hammer, pin, sear, etc. Basically a modified firing pin and driving spring system held in check by the trigger.

This not only goes for Glocks but literally all systems who quickly copied their lead when the opportunity presented itself. The Taurus G series is only the latest. If you don't see they are innovative direct copies you are only fooling yourself. Literally all manufacturers did it on some level.

I love the 1911, it has heft, charm, history, and still works 109 years after it was released in the most cherished form. But the modern designs are an evolution of refinement and simplification, not necessarily driven by cheaper cost, but very critical design refinements. I think Mr. Browning would approve. The argument they are "better" is not a file I care to open, that is up to the enthusiast and owner's perspective. But lets not be stupid about the matter, making ourselves appear ignorant. In the most dramatic hypocritical fashion I play both sides, and relish that freedom. I love, use, and enjoy them all.