Colt 1905 .45ACP vs. Other Big Frame pre-1911 Colt Autos

[kwill]

JC,

I agree with you about grip angle. I use a flat MSH and don't shoot Glocks.

[Oyeboten]

Oyeboten, I never said the parallelogram linkage did not work. Actually, to me, the design is more "pure" than the tilt barrel designs, but the extra parts certainly create more areas to fail. I said the design progressed away from that more costly and complicated breech lock method. If the design were so superior, it would be in common use today. It is not. In addition, the slide retention bar is clearly a weak design feature of the Model 1900 et seq that was rightly abandoned.

Oh...I apologise, I was writing in haste, and, should have thought more before putting the finger to the Keyboard...

But, yes, the Retention Key, or, the Nose of the Slide where it is located...if firing Ammunition which is too powerful for the Arm as-it-is, then, that areas can end up getting some harsh pounding, or, the Slide Nose can crack there by the Key.

But, it is not clear to me just how much more powerful one could go, Ammunition wise, by installing a stouter recvoil Spring, before reachin the limits of that.

I see NO relationship at all (other than the name and a self-loading mechanism) between the blowback, fixed barrel Model M, and the Model of 1911. As rhmc24 points out, the Model of 1911 has roots in the Model 1900 et seq. The progression went through the Model (Contract) 1907, Model 1909 and Model 1910, NOT through the Model M. Bady has a detailed description of the development of the Model of 1911 that will help explain it all.

May be...or yes, they are differing kinds of function if somewhat similar in appearence. I was just noting what appears to be a resemblance, especially between the earlier Model M with it's Barrel Bushing, and, overall lay out of form, of the Slide and Frame...to, the eventual, M1911. Lots more in common there, than to the Rarallel Rule ones.

[Mike Faires]

Robert,
i have found every conversation with you illuminating and illustrutive, you are a master of restoration and a fountain of knowledge. It is always a pleasure to hear from you and even more so to visit.

[s&w ucla]

I got my first 1905 several years ago and of course loaded rounds (200gr LSWC target loads) to shoot it. Grip angle was what stood out, how the pistol pointed low. Then I had the thought, wasn't this designed for cavalry troops on horseback, where you would need to point lower. Perfect angle to shoot from the mounted position at someone on the ground. I recently went to the Browning museum and looked in awe at the prototypes! What a true genius JMB was.

[twaits]

I agree with JC on the superior grip design of the 1911 (non arched) and the early automatics. To me my Pocket Hammers feel better in my hand than any other pistols I own. They point so naturally and shoot wonderfully. I think the double link on these "parallel ruler" Colts also contributes to their excellent accuracy.
If someone gave me a Glock I would be selling it the same day and buying something 100 years older

[MtnSpur]

To me my Pocket Hammers feel better in my hand than any other pistols I own. They point so naturally and shoot wonderfully. I think the double link on these "parallel ruler" Colts also contributes to their excellent accuracy.

The fit and feel are absolute and couldn't agree more.

If someone gave me a Glock I would be selling it the same day and buying something 100 years older

Anybody that knows me wouldn't be foolish enough to waste $$, time nor the effort to give me one

[smkummer]

No doubt you are familiar with the Thompson/Lagarde (sp?) findings and the then look for a suitable weapon. It is interesting that the military usage of the 45 Colt and then adaption of the 45 S&W round of which had a 230 grain bullet and less charge was the same ballistics as what was finally determined for the 45 acp.