What's wrong with plastic mainspring housings?

S

sharpsrifle

New member
Hi all

OK.

I've seen it posted here and on other boards, more times than I can recall.
The plastic mainspring housings are derided by just about everyone.

Why?

Have any of you ever experienced any kind of failure with a plastic mainspring housing?
Have any of you actually seen (not merely heard about) one fail?

Consider this:
1)The most common (often times only) rust spot on older blued 1911's is the housing. Reason? Sweat and dirt off the palm of your hands get trapped in the grooves. Even more so with checkering.

2)Since the finish is part of the base material, the blue or nickel doesn't get worn off.

3)Plastic housings maintain there lubricity, without oozing lube out as they sit in your holster, or in the safe.

4) They do reduce weight, though marginally.

5) There is never any guessing with plastic parts, when assessing damage. It is either broken or it is servicable. Metal parts are
sometimes put back in service because they, "look OK", yet fail in service.

I realize that many folks don't like them, "just because", and that's OK.
But what, exactly, is "wrong" with them?

Let's explore this subject and see where it leads us.



------------------
Regards, Sharps.
 
S

Steve Smith

New member
It would be like buying a Rolls Royce that had "faux wood paneling" instead of beautiful wood...it's cheap and ugly.

------------------
"Those who cannot understand safe design nor fine trigger mechanics need not consider the 1911, for them, the Glock is a fine weapon, since it has neither!"---by Me.
 
S

sharpsrifle

New member
Frontsight.

I posted this question on 2 other boards, and got essentially the same reply: It doesn't look right. I made comparisons between Harley Davidson motorcycle and 1911 fans. I won't bother rewriting it here. (go to gunspot.com or shooterstalk.com)
And the argument comes down to: "Functionality be damned. It's got to look right".

I too, prefer the look of metal housings to the plastic ones. I see nothing wrong with that.
But, many of the "A. Take gun from box. B. Change the following parts...", crowd act like plastic housings are just a failure waiting to happen. And I wonder where that came from.

------------------
Regards, Sharps.
 
M

Mort

New member
Well, here you have 1911 buffs, who take pride in the fact that their pistols are still made of metal.

Same folks that deride 'glass fenders on a Deuce. Like you all said, aesthetics.
 
O

oberkommando

New member
Sharps Im the answer to your prayers, have seen one with crack completly through it, and yes this was NIB Colt 80 series. Dont know if and when it would fail but didnt want to find out. Just do the right thing and use stainless or TIN coating if rust is concern. Plastic is fine for them foreign guns but has no place on a real gun.hehe

If it aint an 11 it anit ***T!
 
B

Big George

New member
Sharps, Much of this stuff is like the criticism of the polymer trigger on the older Kimbers. Those of us who own these guns love that trigger, the pistolsmiths love them, they can be seen on many expensive custom 1911A1s. The McCormick triggers and mainspring housings seem to do fine for most shooters.

Personally, I was saddened to see the polymer trigger disappear from the Kimbers.

[This message has been edited by Big George (edited December 18, 1999).]
 
S

sharpsrifle

New member
Frontsight- 1 vote for looks

Mort-1 vote for umm, tradition?

Oberkommando (very cool handle)-1 vote for defective / inferior part. BTW I went stainless years ago.

Big George-I agree.
Curiously enough, 10 or 12 years ago, I worked at Calcote Custom in Alexandria, LA. as an apprentice to Mr. Charlie Calcote. One of the finest "unknown" gunsmiths in the country.
The McCormick triggers were all the rage then. EVERYONE wanted one installed. Latest fashion you know.
In this case, fashion was correct.
They were/are good triggers.
They were easy to fit PROPERLY, and they were very light.
The first feature was a nice convience.
The second was an absolute necessity with the ultra-light triggers that we were starting to put on raceguns then.
Personally, I think they look better than the aluminum units that have developed wear and rub marks on their sides.

------------------
Regards, Sharps.


[This message has been edited by sharpsrifle (edited December 18, 1999).]
 
A

Ariel 1

New member
I simply toss them in the spare parts and replace them with S & A mag wells.

It would be like keeping the factory sigths on a Glock.

They work but why not get something better if it is inexpensive and easy to replace.

------------------
"If enlightening beings practice mundane tolerance and thus do not stop evil people, allowing them to increase in evil and destroy true teaching, then these enlightening beings are actually devils, not enlightening beings"

Huisi
Tantai master
 
S

sharpsrifle

New member
Ariel 1.
Not quite the same...
Glock sights wear down very fast when used with a holster.
Plastic is clearly not durable enough for the job.
Since you are after the advantages gained by the mag well, then the change to the MSH is incidental.
Again, how is the metal MSH better?

------------------
Regards, Sharps.
 
4

4V50 Gary

Staff
You've raised a good point Sharpsrifle. Functionally, they're durable, enjoy a high degree of lubricity and don't wear out. About the only advantage the metal MSH has would be added weight (reduced recoil). Here, it is so insignificant that it isn't worth the effort. I suppose, like others have said, it's a matter of tradition, values, and personal taste.



------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
S

Steve Smith

New member
Ah, Ha! I have another viable reason for metal MSH's. I carry a full-weight 1911, nothing plastic here at all. What is that 39 oz? IF I run out of the 22 rounds I carry, OR IF I decide to use non-lethal force, I have a big hammer (most Craftsmans are 16-22 oz) right in my holster, and I will use it! Why lighten your last line of defense? Do I really think I'm on TV and I'm going to whack someone with my gun? Not really, but it IS an option, and since you asked for reasons, that's one right there. So put me down for: 1 vote for looks/tradition and 1 vote for whack-a-bility. Did I really say that?
 
F

fal308

Staff Alumnus
While on the weight issue. The extra weight is where it would do the most good. Down low where it helps steady the weapon, not up high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top