Possibly the most innovative 1911 in years.

[1911Tuner]

Specs

The new pistol was built to Marine Corps specs. The features were what they wanted on a pistol that was to be carried into harm's way.

Marketing was never a consideration. Nor was any question of innovation.

They presented Colt with their specifications and Colt delivered.

 

[kraigwy]

Thinking back on some of the comments on this topic I decided to do a little experiment.

I have two 1911s, One is a Series 70 Gold Cup, the other is a USGI 1911a1 made in 1943, a Colt frame carrying a Union Switch & Single Company Slide.

So for "poops and grins" I decided to field strip both pistols and swap parts, several parts at different sessions.

Guess what, the parts are interchangeable, and both guns function with the other's parts, and both are fairly accurate, (meaning they both shoot better then I do".

Odd, isn't it.

Me thinks Mr. Browning knew what he was doing, who are we to change what he did and blame it on the Colt 1911 System.

 

[dayman]

Those of us who’ve been around the 1911 platform know it is a finicky gun that requires a dedicated end user and strict maintenance schedule if it is to be relied upon.

"Ridiculous!" exclaim the dedicated end users with a strict maintenance schedule

Don't get me wrong, I like 1911's, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that - in general - modern 1911's are more finicky, and require more expertise to maintain than the average modern service weapon. It's not "1911 bashing" to admit that the platform has a reputation (deserved or not) of hit or miss reliability, and to address it in the write up.

 

[TunnelRat]

The new pistol was built to Marine Corps specs. The features were what they wanted on a pistol that was to be carried into harm's way.

Marketing was never a consideration. Nor was any question of innovation.

I think what others are saying is that the marketing is on behalf of Colt as they now sell those limited number reserved for civilian sales. I have no doubt Colt provided to the Marines exactly what the Marines specified, that's how government contracts work or Colt would risk losing them, but in reading the articles describing those pistols to the general public there is a definite amount of marketing going on.

 

[Skans]

I can't find anything that says this new Colt is anything more than a run-of-the-mill 1911 with a not-so-sleek rail and painted finish. Am I missing something here?

 

[WVsig]

Marketing was never a consideration. Nor was any question of innovation.

It might not have been the initial intent but you can guarantee it is now part of the equation. As soon as Colt has production capacity these will be rolling off the line headed for the civilian market in rectangular blue colt boxes. Yam his doing his part to rev up the hype!!! Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[csmsss]

I'm not understanding what problems the dual recoil spring solves.

 

[polyphemus]

"I'm not understanding what problems the dual recoil spring solves."
Me neither,this below from Militarytimes.com:
"The modification was made to reduce stresses on the frame and slide and enable the pistol to complete the Corps’ required shooting schedule."
Who knew?This has very strange implications seeing as the prototypes were
fracturing right off the bat.Are these units safer to shoot than production
guns?Should Colt owners install that "enhancement" forthwith?
J.M.Browning might have had something to say about this particular piece.

 

[Fishbed77]

Am I mistaken, or did the first batch produced have frame cracking issues?

Not exactly.

A few test guns showed cracking in the area of the forward slide serrations when tested to destruction (i.e. - they were fired for thousands of rounds with no cleaning or lubrication, while filled filled with dirt, sand, and mud). One pistol developed a crack in the dust cover.

Of course, the intent of the MARSOC test was to break the test pistols, and this is where they broke first. Colt modified the design of the serrations and the accessory rail on the production guns.

http://soldiersystems.net/tag/marsoc/

As a side note, the serration design of the test guns was the same as that used on the Colt XSE and Rail Gun, and those pistols have never had any problems with cracking. It shows you just how tough the MARSOC destructive testing was.

 

[Bluestarlizzard]

I don't think I'd say no to one. I wouldn't pay $2500 for it though. That rail looks wacky.

To be honest, I kinda like the finish on it. Pretty color ( I generally prefer a matte finish on everything except wheelguns)

I'm with thedudeabides, I think colt could stand to do a modified set for the civilian market if the claims are true.

 

[RickB]

Should Colt owners install that "enhancement" forthwith?
J.M.Browning might have had something to say about this particular piece.

It apparently won't fit on any other gun. Not only is the guide rod itself non-standard, but the area in the frame that accommodates it is non-standard, too.

This has very strange implications seeing as the prototypes were
fracturing right off the bat.

An interet pic of cracked SLIDE does not necessarily indicate that prototypes were fracturing right off the bat. The pic that I saw apparently depicted a slide that had fired 6000 rounds, some of them after the recoil assembly had failed. A slide might be expected to crack under such conditions, and might warrant a redesign of the recoil system as a result.

 

[polyphemus]

March 1911.
Arny tests Colt against Savage Arms
6000+ rounds fired with no failures.
No cracks and no stupid double coils neither.

 

[tipoc]

March 1911.
Arny tests Colt against Savage Arms
6000+ rounds fired with no failures.
No cracks and no stupid double coils neither.

Well in this case we don't know how many rounds the Marines put through the guns during the early testing. If it was 6,000 or more. We also don't know the protocol for those tests, meaning how often were the guns cleaned, etc. We know the early testing was in essence on the stock Colt Rail Gun.

If someone can site a reliable source for information on that it would be interesting to read.

We do know that the slides cracked in the area where forward serrations were cut into the slide. The area that is discussed in Yam's report here...

The Marine Corps contract testing stipulated a pretty tough service cycle between maintenance intervals, and leaked photos from the early test guns showed cracks in the frame and slide. As a result of these early failures, the front cocking serrations on the slide were changed in spacing and moved forward. This reduced the stress points which were created when cutting near the sharp interior corner where the spring tunnel joins the body of the slide. This is a common area for cracking on a normal 1911 slide, and the testing protocol only exacerbated the issue. The dust cover on the frame was also thickened to improve durability. Both of these changes, while subtle, made enough of a difference that the gun was able to pass the selection process.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3134

From what I've read the Marines spec requires that the recoil spring be swapped out at 5000 rounds. They wanted a set up that they felt was reliable past this round count, given their experience. This seems to be the origin of their desire for the recoil spring set up.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

The discussion going on over here, where a rep from Colt is involved, may be helpful.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=419657

tipoc

 

[KyJim]

In Post 19, I observed that I could not see how the dual recoil spring would shoot softer. Physics is physics. Tim Lau verifies this after shooting the gun:

As an aside, some of my buddies who have shot the M45 report that the pistol shot softer than a standard 1911. I shot three types of ammunition through my M45 and Colt Rail Gun (with their respective recoil systems in place): Winchester “White Box” Q4170, Atlanta Arms 230gr ball, and Winchester Ranger RA45T. In my estimation, any difference in felt recoil was minimal at best as I couldn’t perceive any difference shooting any of the above three loads. Clearly the primary benefit of the system is the extended service life of the springs. Colt engineers have measured the M45 spring rates after over 8500 rounds fired and still found them within specifications.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3187.

The dual recoil spring possibly factored into the cracked frames reported in the test model at 6,000 rounds. Colt moved and slightly redesigned the forward cocking serrations and beefed up the slide a bit (but the gun still accepts a standard recoil spring setup). Mr. Lau mentioned in the same blog entry:

Back in the day, 22 lb recoil springs were installed in MEU(SOC) pistols which caused all sorts of long term problems, including broken barrel bushings. So while the system does work when dropped into an existing 1911, more testing is required before giving any full endorsement for putting the system in existing 1911 platforms.

Now, I know Mr. Lau is talking about more testing on the existing 1911 platform and not the new Marine platform, but I have to wonder why the Marines would want to "fix" a system that has been tested in combat for over a century. Their prior experiment of using 22 pound springs, instead of the normal 16 lb springs, did not turn out so well. Do this just to get some extra life out of a $5 spring (estimated bulk price)? Seriously, what am I missing?

 

[tipoc]

In an article that appeared in the April issue of Gun World the authors say...

This new 1911 had to pass an extreme USMC torture test of firing 8,000 rounds with minimal loss of recoil spring tension and the dual spring design was the way to make that happen.

http://www.gunworld.com/buyers-guides/guns/the-marines-new-sidearm-colt-m45-cqbp-part-1/

The implication here, and elsewhere I've read, is that the Marines did not see a standard 16 pd. recoil spring still maintaining it's strength after 8,000 rounds. So the spring in spring set up was devised as a way of maintaining the capacity of the spring over that round count without having to go to a stronger spring.

tipoc

 

[AZAK]

So the spring in spring set up was devised as a way of maintaining the capacity of the spring over that round count without having to go to a stronger spring.

While this may be the case, this dual spring set up is hardly an innovation for Colt.

Colt has been putting them in Delta Elites starting back about twenty-five years ago.

I guess that my Delta Elite was way ahead of its time!

 

[1911Tuner]

Market

It might not have been the initial intent but you can guarantee it is now part of the equation.

Sure it is. Colt is in business to make money. If they can sell another 10,000 units to people who want one just like the Marines have, they're gonna do it.

Springfield did the same thing with their GI Mil Spec. (Just like the one that Gramps carried ashore at Tarawa, etc.)

But the Marines' concept pistol had nothing to do with the civilian market until Colt decided to make it so.

 

[Old Stony]

The special teams in the military seem to be the only ones that can get the funding for new design firearms. I love the old 1911's and own a passel of different variations...along with a passel of newer designed handguns. To me the military took a step backward in purchasing the new colts. Granted there are many firearm proficient people in the services, but there are also many more modern pistols that are safer and more reliable for them. A match grade pistol relates to close tolerances that just doesn't relate to reliabilily under adverse conditions...as has been proven many times over by firearms such as the ak's. A pistol for the military is a back up weapon, rarely fired in combat and should be able to work full of sand or whatever with reasonable accuracy. Match grade accuracy is just not a requirement.
Special teams equipped with out of the box Sig-220's wouldn't be any less capable than with 1911's, have an easier weapon to maintain.....and dare I say a safer weapon with less chance of them shooting their own toes off?
I know, there are probably a bunch of old diehards out there steaming about the "safer weapon" statement. Training is good and some people take to it well, but a double action pistol removes some of the danger when a person is dealing in a stressful situation. There probably isn't an old police station in the country that hasn't had a hole shot in the floor at some time by a 1911....I can show you one in our local gun shop.

 

[RickB]

I say a safer weapon with less chance of them shooting their own toes off?

Maybe less chance of shooting the other guy's toe off, as well. While a "safe" gun is probably best for truck drivers and cooks, I suspect the guys who are actually shooting their pistols at people want to maximize their ability to hit things. I've shot a P220, a highly customized one at that, and wouldn't trade any of my 1911s for it.