[Corey]

The topic says it all. What are they? Tight match or a looser spec? I'm hoping they don't impede reliability at all.
TIA

 

[JohnnyO]

I can't answer your first two questions. I do have 2 Wilson pistols and both have been 100% reliable so far.

 

[John Lawson]

A standard chambering reamer fits into their chambers; draw your own conclusion.

 

[Guest]

Even tough I don't care for the newer pistols they always seem to work, I don't know if the chamber is too tight?
If they work does it matter?

 

[Corey]

I don't believe I've had any problems with my pistol that are related to the chamber. Just like to know the specs of my pistol.

Thanks.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have a couple of Wilson barrels, not in Wilson guns but locally fitted in a Colt and in a Caspian buildup. One was ok to start, the other was very accurate but not too reliable. FLG ran a standard Clymer reamer in and said he had never seen so much metal come out of a supposedly factory chambered barrel. It is now reliable and still accurate, just not with the same loads. I have the American Rifleman Handloading manual with chamber drawings. The .45 standard and match chambers are the same, down to the thousanth.
Is this a misprint or are the specs really the same and makers trying to gain accuracy at the expense of reliability with *undersize* chambers?

 

[John Lawson]

Who is FLG? This tells us NOTHING. What portion of the chamber was the metal removed from?
Was the reamer used checked against a factory chamber (Colt, for example)to establish that it was not oversized?
Was the barrel manufacturer contacted to make a comment?
Was the gunsmith turning the chambering reamer by hand or power?
Is there a possibility that the pilot was slightly undersized, causing an eccentric turning and consequently metal removal?
Technical questions deserve technical answers! Generic answers are not taken too seriously.
And, finally, is this a universal complaint, or do the dimensions of these chambers vary by time frame?
As it happens, I have a Clymer reamer, which I found is not especially faithful to SAAMI drawings...at least, not as close as JGS reamers costing a few dollars more.
Has anyone else noticed a large removal of metal when running a Clymer reamer into a Wilson chamber?

 

[Dane Burns]

Has anyone else noticed a large removal of metal when running a Clymer reamer into a Wilson chamber?

Not a one John, with Clymer or JGS reamers. The barrels are made by Storm Lake and seem to be just fine to me, accurate as well.

The balony about tight chambers is usually a poor ramp, throat, rollover or extractor fit IMO. John, what is your thought on it?

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, pardon me for protruding, Mr Lawson. I am not a gunsmith, and cannot speak as to brands and dimensions of reamers, technique of insertion, or point of contact. I am merely the Paying Customer, and therefore of little importance. However, I can report that gun no. 1 with Wilson barrel A was and is reliable in feed and function. Gun no. 2 with Wilson barrel B was not, displaying failures to feed, extract and eject with the same ammunition as the other. My local gunsmith refined barrel ramp and rollover extensively before resorting to reaming the chamber. Nothing helped until he did ream the chamber. Then it commenced to work properly. I am sorry I cannot offer more than this single anecdote from the user's viewpoint, but I am confident that at least one Wilson barrel did come out with a non-standard chamber. I recall that Wilson barrel B was installed in gun no. 2 some good number of months before barrel A was bought for gun no. 1. Further details are lacking, I've had those guns since about 1990.

Say, I think I'll get my 1982 vintage Sight Shop special out of the back of the gun case and see how it compares with some of the newer 1911 derivatives.

 

[John Lawson]

A lot of things have drifted under the bridge since 1982. Shooter sophistication has increaased, barrel accuracy has increased, bullet availability has increased. Sights have been improved. And, hopefully, gunsmiths have not sat on their laurels, but have learned new techniques and improved their knowledge of shooter physiology. I didn't recognize you, so I assumed you were a gunsmith. One thousand pardons!
Dane: The most prolific cause for claims of tight chambering seems to come from ammunition anomolies. Most shooters haven't the faintest idea how to check their ammo. First,check the chamber with reamer headspace gauges to make certain it is within SAAMI specs. Then you need a "cartridge headspace gauge" from Midway, or other supplier. If the round drops in and reads between the extremes, it is a beginning. Then an RCBS case checker is used to "spin" the round to determine whether it is concentric. Amazing how many bases are not at 90 degreees to the case sidewalls. (Obviously, this condition will jam a case into the side of the chamber when the slide goes into battery, simulating a "tight chamber.")
Then you pull a bullet with your centrifugal puller and place it on a V block. As you rotate the bullet in the V, you check for out of roundness with a vernier height gauge or dial gauge. Oval bullets (all too common) will force the case walls outward at the extremes, simulating a "tight chamber" condition.(You cannot check for out of roundness with a two point contact; you need three points, as the v block and gauge.)
And, not all slide breech faces end up at a 90 degree angle to the chamber walls. Some people insist on using links that are too long, again forcing the case into a point on the chamber wall, simulating a tight chamber condition. So, there is more going on here than meets the eye.
And, any pistol from 1982 can be stripped to the frame and slide, provided it has not been fitted with obsolete sights, rebuilt with modern aftermarket parts and fitted up so that it will outshoot most anything that comes onto the line against it. If you look backward carefully, you will see some revolutionary new ideas taking form about every 10 years. I can't account for the fact other than saying that more aftermarket producers have taken an interest in solving the problems of shooters and gunsmiths. Even in the early 80's the number of aftermarket parts was very limited, but we did our best. We still do our best with what we can obtain. But, today, we (meaning pistolsmiths today)can take almost any pistol and make it a modern, reliable, accurate shooter. Witnes the 1927 Argentine pistols that have been rebuilt. Also, ask GYP_C about the rebuild I did on his chronically malfunctioning Colt in 48 hours.
If you have problems with a pistol, reason out the problems and possible solutions. Jumping to conclusions often results in worsening the problems. And, you don't have to be a gunsmith to solve firearms problems.One of Kuhnhausen's manuals helps. A good book on handloading also goes a long way. You would be astounded at how many problems can be solved by using different ammunition.

 

[Dane Burns]

I recall that Wilson barrel B was installed in gun no. 2 some good number of months before barrel A was bought for gun no. 1. Further details are lacking, I've had those guns since about 1990.

OK, that seems reasonable. I don't know who make the Wilson barrels then but a short chambered one was not unexpected 10 years ago from Wilson. I recieved 2 with no rifling what so ever. Things have changed a great deal in ten years.

Say, I think I'll get my 1982 vintage Sight Shop special out of the back of the gun case and see how it compares with some of the newer 1911 derivatives.

I would like to hear you thoughts on that comparison. Or at least hear about the gun. Any pictures?

 

[John Lawson]

eMailed Jim and he will range test his '82 next week and report. I reminded him of the load I always used to test: 200 gr. H&G 68 swc ahead of 7.7 gr. Unique. Barrel was slightly throated to accommodate the front ring of the bullet, giving uniform positioning despite case length variations.
If anybody is interested in the ancient history of pistolsmithing, I dug into the back of my pistol case and found a 1911 slide from my 1918 issue pistol that I bought in 1950 and carried throughout the Korean war. In 1954, I mounted a J frame (kit gun) rear sight and a shop made ramp front that was silver soldered to the slide, since no low mount adjustable sights were available for carry guns. It served me well for many years until I updated the pistol for a friend in the late '90's. I'll post photos, but only if you all are interested in this ancient history. Wouldn't want to bore you with old timer stories like some people do (Hee, hee, hee!)

 

[Steve Morrison]

Please do post, John.

Believe it or not, I know of at least 2 of us young whippersnappers (Dane and I) who are interested in and have respect for the old timers. :smile:

 

[Jim Watson]

I would like to hear you thoughts on that comparison. Or at least hear about the gun. Any pictures?
[/quote]

I could take some with my bottom of the line digicam. If I knew how to post them here.

Meanwhile, it is a 1951 GM, bought used and sent to John L in '80 or '81. It has a S&W K-revolver sight in the "protected position" and a short ramp front, a long aluminum trigger, and a nice rust blue. Arched MSH and Coltwood (plastic) grips. Barrel is a Mk IV Series 70 turned to take a snug solid bushing but not tight at breech. Trigger pull is a smooth creep 4.25 lb, said by J.L. to be more durable than a crisp trigger. It has the lightest 1911 mainspring I have ever seen, but still fires ok, and a heavy recoil spring. I'll take it to the range after I get back from this weekend's class which I will run with the CZ75 I am shooting in IDPA this season.

 

[John Lawson]

Jim:
I can't find the worksheet on your pistol...perhaps looking in the wrong year. It probably has several titanium parts, since this would account for a light hammer spring.
If you get to see this photo, please note the differences between the way I mounted a K rear and the way Armond Swenson mounted them.
This pistol was NOT specifically designed for "double taps", but for a very secure sear lock on the hammer at all stages of release. Not the "Gold Cup" resease that later became universal. While made in the 80's, it is '60's technology. The slide I am going to show is '50's technology.
Remember, back then we had to silver solder a piece of ground steel into the grip safety to make what we called a "spade grip" safety.
Aftermarket parts were not as readily available.
The reason that Jim's pistol reverted back 20 years wasn't that I did not keep up with the times. A photo of one of my '60's pistols was published that aroused interest in what, at the time, was considered a "classic" upgrade of the 1911.
And, my, haven't we come a long way in our engineering since the '50's?
Or, is it that I've just lived too long?
I'll show the old slide next to a Gold Cup carry pistol I completely custom built for myself last year to depict a half century of progress in pistolsmithing.

 

[Jim Watson]

I took my '82 Sight Shop GM out to fire my Independence Day fireworks. It shot my usual reload (200 gr SWC + 5.0 gr 700X = 900 fps) 100% reliably and as accurately as I could hold. I was shooting other stuff and did not bother to get out the Ransom rest, but it was the most accurate of the four guns I had with me. Or maybe I was just trying harder. It may not be the latest and greatest, but it is serviceable. I would only change a few features on a new order. The serrated ramp front sight grays out pretty badly in the sun. Modern Kydex holsters will clear any reasonable post sight and that is what I would get. Tritium on a carry gun of course. I do not see a
need for an adjustable sight on a carry/IDPA/IPSC gun. Drift and file for good ammo and don't play with loads. I do not see the point of milling in an odd dovetail fixed rear sight, either. Sorry, Mr. Heinie, but a King, MGW, or one of the standard dovetail Novaks is fine for the original purpose of aiming the gun. I would want a beavertail on a new gun that was going to be shot a lot, even though I have standard grip safeties on this and a couple other older guns and don't get hammer bite.
Conversations with my local man lead me to believe that big factory parts - slide, frame, barrel - and most good aftermarket parts are better than ever, but the cast, MIM, and roughly machined internals the factories are using these days are pretty spotty. Techniques and knowhow have come a ways, too. My '66 Pachmayr is dead accurate but was made way tighter than anything you see now to accomplish it. FLG said the hammer & sear were just plain weird. Good pull, but prone to follow, they are now changed out.