Pistol Smith Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Lately, I've been developing an affinity to serrated arched mainsprings -- purely cosmetic reasons (I also prefer slides without front cocking serrations).

Anyone have pros or cons on arched vs flat (does one point better for you, ect)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
When the 1911 was reconfigured 1911A1, the AMSH was one of the changes. This allowed the pistol to point more naturally.Putting a FMSH on will raise the point of aim of the pistol; changes grip angle.

The short trigger was installed at thsi time too to make the pistol fit "most" people. Remember we are talking about a COMBAT HANDGUN, not a competition pistol.

For whatever reason it is vogue to put FMSH and long triggers on 1911s. The Long trigger allows for a more tactile finger response--placing the first pad of the finger on the trigger. Supposedly it allows for more accurate shooting, but it throws the natural point of aim off in this pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Definitely arched for me. The arched housing fits the shap of my hand better as I grasp the gun. With a flat housing, I had trouble engaging the grip safety with a proper grip when doing fast draws. The arched housing somehow helps my hand to find the proper place and helps me to engag the grip safety.
The wedge is not the same. The heel of the wedge shape digs into my hand too much and cause real problems in prolonged shooting like in a class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
abn...
Your postion stating that the arched mainspring housing making the gun point more naturally is purely subjective. Maybe it does do that for you. For me its just the opposite.

I've tried em both but found that the flat works MUCH better for me. The arched mainspring housing makes the gun feel more Glocklike to ME.

Each to his own...Thank God its a modular gun rather than that "molded fit for all sizes" tupperware crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I prefer the arched housing, too. It is probably as much due to familiarity, as anything else. I think a gun with the arched housing also looks better. Other than my stock M1911, all of my guns have arched housings. I've always thought it very interesting (ironic?) that the two most obvious "improvements" made to the 1911, that resulted in the 1911A1 (trigger length and mainspring housing shape), are almost universally shunned by modern 1911 manufacturers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
On 2001-08-30 16:21, RickB wrote:
I've always thought it very interesting (ironic?) that the two most obvious "improvements" made to the 1911, that resulted in the 1911A1 (trigger length and mainspring housing shape), are almost universally shunned by modern 1911 manufacturers.
Ain't it cool? :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
The choice for me is simple. With a flat MSH my wrist is straight. With the arched, my wrist is cocked like it is with an S&W revolver. I assume this is due to the size and shape of my hand. It is much easier to shoot a 1911 when my wrist is straight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
I guess I'm with Neil and Ed. Another vote for flat -- though I've no real problem with the arched housings.

I just grew accustomed to flat when I was re-introduced to the commercial 1911 (after several years of working with A1s in the Army). I prefer the slightly trimmer profile of a flat MSH, and my point of aim seems to be more natural. I really don't see how you can lose either way, but given my choice, I'd stay with flat.

Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I used to have arched on my 1911's. When I had my full house STI built I put a wedge on it. After handling it for just a short time I switched over to wedge mainspring housing on all my other pistols. The wedge really points better for me. Especially the ones that have dot sights on them. :wink:

_________________
LOVE THEM 1911s


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 38 Super Man on 2001-09-03 10:59 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
LW, it wasn't my decision, but of the Dept of the Army, when they went from the 1911 to the 1911A1. The Ordnance Section found it worked better with the AMSH for MOST soldiers. The short trigger allowed for better combat shooting by placing the first joint not the finger tip on the trigger.

Granted all of the short triggers, FMSHs, etc are now made for personal choice. The Military made the decisions it did based on the masses, not the individual.

Speaking as someone who has shot 1911s from 1913 dated models to the highest tech wizbangs, with AMSH, FMSH, short/medium/long triggers, 1.5lb trigger to Colts wonderful 8+ trigger pull; I can state one thing if you put the front sight on target bullet hits there. As for all the other crap shooters hang on 1911 style pistols, for the most part it is and turns a weapon into a toy.

A good 1911 needs good fixed sights-adjustables tend to break at the worst time, decent trigger-anything around 5lbs will yield comabt accuracy, no sharp edges, a tactical style thuimb safety-ambi if you are a lefty, and for better recoil management/help stop hammer bite a beavertail. Most barrels shoot better than the average shooter so the factory barrel is generally good enough; save the money practice more. All of those extended slide stop levers, mag wells, extended mag releases, carry comped OMs and Commanders, tungsten guide rods, FLGRs do nothing to improve the function of the 1911.

Must be that damn government training, and having studied under Chuck Taylor and at Gunsite. KISS and it works better. I have lived on the edge and personal 1911 has an AMSH S&A magwell; not for my blinding reloads or even to assist them---they just look good, besides most magazines have a pad on them these days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
On 2001-09-03 15:09, abnranger wrote:
LW, it wasn't my decision, but of the Dept of the Army, when they went from the 1911 to the 1911A1. The Ordnance Section found it worked better with the AMSH for MOST soldiers. The short trigger allowed for better combat shooting by placing the first joint not the finger tip on the trigger.

Granted all of the short triggers, FMSHs, etc are now made for personal choice. The Military made the decisions it did based on the masses, not the individual.
abnranger: I know who made the decision to change the MSH. I don't dispute that. I do dispute that it makes the gun point more naturally. Its a subjective thing. I stand by my statement that it makes the gun feel more Glockish IMO. And yes, I know that is subjective as well. But isn't it funny that many pistolsmiths offer services to grind off the hump on Glocks to more duplicate a 1911 feel?? :smile:

I have also been around the "G", mil and civil, to know that rarely are decisions made based upon what is best for the masses. Usually, the decision is based on what the Procurement Officer likes or doesn't like. People in the high places LOVE to put their stamps on things. :wink:
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top