And why?
They don’t appeal to me, I prefer the classic look.
For some stuff, they cant be beat. Like bowling pin competitions. Or generally shooting heavy loads as fast as possible with as low a splits as possible. They can, but don’t have to, make disassemble a little more painful.
They really come into their own with 10mm 1911s. The 10mm needs all the extra mass (to delay unlocking) as much as possible. The Tactical Elite/Predator is the best 10mm platform going.
For a defensive 1911 in 45 or 38S, the utility is debatable. It weighs more, but will make followup shots measurably faster and noticeably reduce muzzle flip.
Do they impact reliability in any way?
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: It depends. The 1911 was designed around a specific energy and momentum generated by the cartridge. In the 45, in the original configuration, with the original load, with the original mags - you will not find a more reliable pistol, Glocks included. Accuracy sucks, triggers suck, and the gun is heavy for holding only 8 pellets. Though, if 45ACP is the cartridge requirement, and it needs to fit most hands, the double stack polymer pistols don’t really hold that many more pellets (10). But it’s still got a nice, solid heft to it that sucks to carry, but is nice when shooting full power ball along with being nicely balanced for a good pistol-whipping (
). All that said, deviations from 230gs at aroud 850fps cause problems. If you go to, say a 9mm (without lightening the slide and altering the bbl timing), then you are exploring the outer envelope of reliability. Jet pilots refer to a similar area as the “Coffin Corner” - they are teetering between stall speed (indicated airspeed) and Mach1. Add additional mass to the barrel, and the envelope is pushed even further away from the sweet spot. Alternatively, if you are rocking 180g bullets at 1350fps, you have exactly the opposite problem. Instead of not having enough “butt” to move the slide, you now are have too much energy, or at least a surplus of energy. Adding mass here is a benefit - as opposed to the 9mm. In the extreme, the 10mm can outrun the magazine. Adding mass, while not doing as much as altering the locking geometry (such as changing the slide stop location a la Bolan), significantly slows unlocking. And adding that mass directly to the barrel is the most effective place to do so. In other words, the Tactical Elite and Predator are, IMHO, the best 10mm platforms. And this is directly transferable to guys who like +P 45s. In a regular 5" 45, there is no reliability impact. You’re close enough to the sweet spot to not impact things very much.
The best way to think of the 45 is not as some mystical entity, rather a machine. A machine with very defined (if not understood by the kitchen table gunsmiths) set of operating parameters and, in the original caliber and configuration, very wide margins of error. Wider, in fact, than most people realize. After all, what other design can you have range in caliber from 9mm to 38S to 45 to 10mm all with little more than changing barrels (and breechfaces), and a couple springs? However, doing little more than that will erode your margin of error in the caliber extremes. This is an inherent, and very large, advantage to the 1911/P35 designs. Cocking the hammer allows for energy/momentum attenuation, in both cartridge energy directions, over striker fired pistols and even some hammer fired pistols.
Hope this helps.
For me it depends on the size of the gun. Smaller sized 1911’s can probably benefit (marginally) from a bushing less barrel in the aspect that the are more forgiving during slide cycle.
As for full sized 5" guns, I see no benefit over a standard bushing barrel. Plus long term, replacing a bushing on a “loose” gun, even though fitting will generally be required and recommended, is much easier than trying to tighten up a bushing less set up.
From a reliability standpoint I have never seen them enhance or take anything away from anything so I can’t comment on that one.
Would a bushingless design help out a Commander style gun in .45 ACP due to the Commander slide having less mass/weight?
Blriehl, thanks for that post. I’ll have to re-read it a few times, but there’s some good information in there.
Eliminating the bushing eliminates a potential failure mode.
As originally designed, the bushing is the stop for the recoil spring plug. It is a critical link between the recoil spring and the slide. If the bushing comes apart, there is nothing to keep the recoil spring captured. Seen that twice; in other people’s weapons.
I wanted to retain the bushing/barrel configuration but I didn’t want the bushing to be the go-between, transmitting force from the recoil spring to the slide.
I use a reverse plug that protrudes beyond the front of the slide; enough to retain the bushing (prevents rotation only) without bearing against the bushing.
This is my reason for favoring a bushing design.
I understand from a 1911 gunsmith that the bushing is made from a softer steel than the barrel or slide, and is specifically intended to wear out instead of the barrel or slide wearing out. So, when the gun starts to loosen up too much, just replace the bushing.
I think they’re ugly.
I think that Commander length guns still with in the realm of not really needing a bushing less setup. When I think bushing less and short I am normally thinking about the 3.5" to 3" inch barrel range. This to me is where the coned barrel starts to show its benefit, but as a rule I personally stay away from the smaller 1911’s since there is a lot more to getting them to run reliably than just the barrel setup.
Wildcat brings up a good point about bushing failure. I too have seen this happen on both standard and “other” setups. With the standard setup it was a pretty quick fix for the most part, but with the reverse plug set up it tied the gun up pretty badly. Now that may have more to do with how the part failed more than it being a bad design so I would not put a lot of weight in that one instance.