Flat vs Arched mainspring housing

protoolman said:

1911 tuner, thanks for the bit of history! Interesting stuff. NowI know my new thing for today.

Click to expand...

Happy to do it.

To expand a little further...

The 1902 was little more than a slightly tweaked Model 1900, both in .38 Auto caliber...which originally was a bit hotter than the .38 Super that came along in 1929. The pistols were fairly fragile, and the recoil forces were unwrapping them in short order...so the cartridge was "softened" up by dropping its ballistics to 130/1050 fps.

The 1905 was the first .45 Auto caliber, and it consisted of a 200-grain jacketed RN at an advertised 900 fps, but chrono testing of an old lot of ammunition averaged around 885. I had a limited number of rounds to test, so that may not have been representative...or it may have been due to age.

By 1907, the Army Ordnance Board settled on a heavier bullet after penetration tests on cattle and pigs didn't meet their requirements for stopping a horse...and it was 234 grains at 800 fps nominally. Shortly after, it became 230 at 830 +/-25 fps.

And then, the same problem that they had with the lack of durability of the older guns with the original .38 Auto ammunition came back with the .45s....and it became apparent that a complete redesign was in order, and the Model 1909 was the result.

My stubby fingers appreciate a flat MSH, short trigger, and slim grips.

Snake45 said:

RCP1936 said:

What was the reason for the military making the change
Anybody know

Click to expand...

Allegedly, to improve the "pointing angle," back when that kind of thing was deemed important.

Click to expand...

Back when the 1911 was designed, that kind of thing was immensely important. It was designed for mounted cavalry to use from the back of a moving horse against an enemy that was also likely to be on horseback and even if standing on the ground...not inclined to stand still for very long.

Add that to the lack of training in the use of the pistol in combat, and instinctive firing from point-shoulder or a little below that level...which is the body's natural inclination when under threat at close quarters...and the pistol's pointing characteristics were very important and very carefully considered.

Later...even with the more angled grip...it was discovered that men under stress were still firing low...the change to the mainspring housing was implemented to reposition the pistol in the shooter's hand, along with the shorter trigger to offset the tendency to push the gun to the shooter's left.

Arched mainspring housing and short trigger as designed on the 1911A1.

Feels and points best in my hands. (And I prefer a traditional round Commander hammer on Gov't and Commander 1911s)

The market ain't dictating which mainspring housing I should buy. I own both. I've shot PLENTY of both.

My hands got huge over a lot of years of pulling wrenches and squeezing channel locks. Extra meat on my hands makes for a longer reach to the trigger. A flat mainspring housing shortens up this distance a little bit, and I do believe a get a more square pull on the trigger.

WAYNO.