An Issue of Weight on the 1911
Authors Note: Don’t forget to read the article on the “Combat NCO Revisited” found in the article listing to the right of your screen. References made to the NCO Model pistol here for those not familar can come up to speed on that by seeing and reading this article….
This copy covers a number of areas that concern a lot of people. And that is an issue of gun weight. Recently I responded to an email/article with a little dissertation on gun design wherein the issue of weight was part of the topic. The understanding of the relationship of a guns weight relative to recoil is important and before a gun is designed a certain criteria must be met mentally FIRST before one begins. For those interested in Colt Model 1911’s or Sniper rifles, this commentary might have value for you. I extracted some text from that conversation for you to read.
Quoting from Karl Lippard correspondence to a retired Marine Corps General on the subject and various Marines in copy:
“On the business of guns the issue of weight to caliber ratio I have come up with has been foremost in mind when designing a Shotgun, Rifle or pistol. All are based on criteria of application of course. That equation is the basis of thought before any gun design is even considered. (I guess in the Space Program is where it began. “We are going to the moon and this is all the space and weight we can give you. Make it happen.”) But the analogy to understanding would be like this. You and I would agree that a .22 should not weight 20 pounds. We would also say that 1 pound might be too light. So what would that correct weight be? And the answer would be: a “comfort level that the rifle could be used effectively.” So if we extrapolate that to a 1911 Combat NCO as example we know that the pistol should weigh (and is) 3.7 pounds (2.14 unloaded) this to offset a projectile of 830 grains at 802 fps. This is 7 ounces MORE than the M1911 specifications and 2 inches longer than the 8.593 inches specified. But, the original Colt M1911 was not made to an equation but a similar weight and barrel length of a Single Action Colt. Therefore if one has the equation for a pistol, shotgun or rifle and apply that to a given caliber, there the effects of different applications can be discussed before a design is begun. We know for example that a Commander length weapon has some disadvantages because of its length sure. But, the comfort level goes down as recoil is increased and a host of other issues that are obvious. But if the pistol being short has a use criteria of defense at the defense range of 7 feet… and not used often, then the added inaccuracy and recoil associated are generally not a factor. There-fore Commander, okay. And also it can be seen that a .38, .32 etc. need not be as heavy a pistol either BUT, that a .500 S&W we will need to do something to bring that caliber back into the ratio of comfort/weight/velocity/mass, in line. The “how much” is in the equation.
So now that we are all on the same equation basis and we look at a loaded .308 at 10 pounds we can see that is about right. But the comfort level being 8.5- 8.8 can we just cut weight out of it to get there? No. But we can make the rifle gas operated semi automatic and reduce it can’t we? And we can maybe use Karl’s compensation design of opposing forces can’t we. And now we have our weight of 8.5 on the rifle. But if we used sabots we can drop it further to 5 pounds? Ahhhh. And if we change the way barrels are lined to reduce friction can we drop it to 3.5? Sure we can and the cost goes right down with it too. Ahhhh!”
Well, as you were not in the conversation and don’t know really what we were talking about specifically I think you can understand the jest. Math says the M9 pistol is NOT a useful platform for the purpose intended. (Neither was the Walther P39 from which it came) The criterion should be designing guns for an intended purpose using a formula for effective use. The Model 1911 in .45acp DOES meet the criteria for military application and needs only a few upgrades to be serviceable for another 100 years……And we have the Patent Pending on those modifications. Every other weapon in the military has been changed, enhanced, and or upgraded except the M1911 pistol. Why is that? And they picked a 9mm M9 to replace it? I thought we learned something in the Philippines about the .38 calibers?
And that also says the M40 Sniper Rifle in use today is entirely wrong as well. Why would I design a weapon for any hand held purpose over 20 pounds? Oh, and have the Marine carry another rifle to defend himself and drag the M40 in a bag! The man who sold that plan to the military can sell sand in Arabia!!!
What we re-learn all this again in Iraq? Please. Oh we are not? So why are we reading this now?
“Marine Corps, Army want long-range sniper rifle”
By Matthew Cox - Staff Writer
Posted : Wednesday May 21, 2008 10:37:29 EDT
DALLAS — The Army and the Marine Corps both want a new, long-range sniper rifle, designed to kill enemy out to 1,800 meters.
Responding is Karl Lippard again:
“For sure there are two of us here that can shoot and shoot at the distance required. The first criterion in 1987 was a Russian Anti-tank Commander rifle to shoot tank commanders before they closed up at 1,250 yards. (No offense here to the Russians. This was a defense application) Funny, the rifle caliber case we used is the one I use now. A .423 WR. (Standard length action) It used a .416 projectile. Now of course for civilian use I use a .434 bullet for elephant (some call them tanks) and Sabot those also to .358 at over 6,000 pfs. I intend to play (with my new bullets) at over 10,000 fps which will reduce my recoil and fly farther than anything conventionally made today. I think I can say without testing that we can do this distance accurately right now AND, with a 9 pound rifle. Let me play a little with my new barrels and new designed Sabot and we can go 3,000 meters plus plus. As no one has been there, (not with my type bullets, barrels and sabots) I do not know its maximum range. My bullets levitate in air that lets them fly faster and farther than any bullets ever made. It is so simple it is stupid really.
So I guess when I can get to it we’ll see. BUT, if someone really wants to make a rifle like this, show me the money. Doing it is really nothing. When the target was going to the moon THAT was a challenge!
If they (the military) want a semi-auto rifle it can be designed and produced in one year from nice, nasty or scary version depending on how far one wants to go. Like the Stealth, I prefer scary. I say go there while you have the chance. AND, I can draw all three versions of these weapons in ? say, 30 minutes.”
Really now 30 minutes?
Actually yes. We did that at Joseph Brazier offices before a General Grade Officer and staff from criteria given. We think a fine Marine Corps Sniper and an issue rifle too that exceeds all criteria given in conversation. For IF a weapon designer cannot draw a concept to meet a criterion, without preparation, before your face,…..in less than 30 minutes, then he isn’t worth his salt and you have got the wrong man.
The “wheel” as example has been around for what ? thousands of years? Have never discarded it have we? In fact we are “in LOVE with the wheel.” So much so in fact that it has been advanced and revised in design many times. But, when it comes to say a pistol, the Colt 1911 A1 the military has changed nothing to make it more accurate, improve it sights, extend its life or reduce its recoil since 1911!! Since 1895 to my criteria above. Why is that? I can say with authority that over 100,000 M1911’s out of service can be put back on the line for $7.00 each and be accurate. In fact they have the parts I sent for that purpose right now…….That designs exist that can further upgrade a M1911 to a A3 and A4 to surpass military needs for 100 years at 1/3rd of the cost of a M9……AND, even a housewife can shoot it accurately. (Did someone say, “Combat NCO” model A2? Hello? How many patents or patents pending on that 1911? Seven. SEVEN!!! And not one modification on the Military 1911 A1 since 1911? What? What’s wrong with this picture?) That a new military rifle design is available to suit our needs for 100 years…..Designed and can be made in the USA by the way, not some foreign land that bleeds American’s of jobs. So what IS THE PROBLEM? The problem my friends is US.
The United States has made it so difficult to make and produce firearms in the USA that just about all guns are foreign made today except maybe Colt and those are copied, made in Brazil, have a shinny finish and mostly are junk inside. The US eats baby food and hands it troop’s guns they used to give to Indians. They rely on foreign powers to feed them guns without criteria; build ships, aircraft, missiles, computers and electronics and nearly everything else overseas bleeding our economy and manufacturing white collar workers. (H&K produces 60% of all military weapons in the USA. In Austria.)
So your question I would guess IS, “Can your (Joseph Brazier/Karl Lippard) M1911 Combat NCO be made for less than $1,000.00? Can you make quality rifles, pistol and shotguns to compete with other government subsidized imports?
My answer to that is yes. But not making them by hand one at a time.
We possess in America all the tools and designs “in the can” so to speak to crush the imports……….My question is, “When are American’s going to take their production back?”
I answer, “When American’s are tired of this outflow of technology and jobs to other countries they will eventually stand up and say so.”
And when is that?
It is when you finish this article and have what it takes to pick up the phone or write an email to the Senate. We hired men up there to manage our country resources. And if by chance they don’t know HOW to fix that probem, have them call me. They know my number and I will be happy to explain…… for the hundredth time. There is no pork in offshore manufacturing. Take the pork off production here and we can compete and America benefits.
America benefits 4 to 1 over a foreign bid. Why? Because our economy keeps the money here. Our government keeps the taxes here. The technology is kept here. The revenue to buy houses, cars; the challenge to education to produce engineers and blue collar workers would remain here. The standard of living would be supported and the outflow of dollars for imported goods brought back into balance. Bring the value of the dollar back in our hands and not the Federal Reserve. So if this is what you want, take it back. Take America back today before it is bled out completely.
My name is Karl Lippard and I approve this message. (Smile)