1911 design question

[tous]

Why was the 1911 (and the precursors) designed with a barrel bushing?

From both a design and manufacturing perspective, the barrel bushing requires not just making another part, but complicated machining and fitting of three parts.

I've been a-thankin' on it and can suggest some plausible speculation, none of which really satisfy.

The slides were cast and in that era Browning didn't believe a cast part could hold acceptable tolerances. This doesn't seem right as by the early 20th century they had been manufacturing precision parts for steam engines for nearly 40 years. Plus, if they could cast a bushing with good enough tolerances, why not the slide?

Browning was concerned about excess slide wear caused by the moving barrel. This seems reasonable. Previous pistols, even the early self-loading models, had fixed barrels that didn't wear on another part during the loading cycle. It seems reasonable that replacing a worn bushing would be easier than replacing a worn slide. However, I have to think that Browning tested his design with and without a barrel bushing. I wonder if the bushingless example, if it indeed existed, had excess slide wear.

The only other explanation that occurs is that the bushing is there because Browning wanted it there. It was an arbitray design decision.

Sadly, Mr. Browning is not around to answer the question.

Any thoughts?

Thank you. <c>b

[BillK@tcmhmrs.o]

A bushing allows for easy assembly of the slide to frame and to hold in the recoil spring and spring cap. To make the tilting barrel design work there has to be some movement of the slide and barrel and this makes the bushing integral. Alternatives may have been more complicated and required the use of tools to take the gun down. It was and is designed to take apart for field cleaning without hand tools, and the lip on the magazine base is used to unscrew the grip screws. Don't forget also that he had used bushings in his earlier designs, such as on the 1903 and 1905 guns. He knew it worked,and just added to the design knowledge base. Good engineering has a simplicity to it and I'm one that believes that there are no superfluous parts in his design. An argument that many embellishments such as extended levers and guide rods etc detract rather than add to the reliability of this design have been made.

[Jim Watson]

Hard to read the mind of somebody who is:
a. dead, and
b. smarter than me,
but I figure that he used the barrel bushing for multiple reasons, the obvious ones to my eye being:
1. To provide support and centering for the barrel as the slide recoils. Modern mutants without bushings let the barrel flop around with nothing holding it in place but the link pin as the slide comes back.
2. To provide for no-tools field stripping of a barrel made to enter and exit the front of the slide. I figure he did THAT to maximize barrel breech diameter over locking lugs and chamber.

But I think you guys have some misconceptions.

I have never heard it claimed that the slide or bushing were castings. In those days name brand guns were made out of drop forgings. Nowadays our castings are better and perhaps our standards lower.

Few of Mr Browning's precursor designs used barrel bushings, although some did and he was certainly comfortable with the idea. Early versions of the 1903 .32 had bushings but were soon revised to a bushingless barrel with complex muzzle contour similar to the likewise bushingless 1900, 1902, and 1903 .38s and the 1905 .45. He did not incorporate a barrel bushing again until 1909 when he changed from the precise but complex and not real stout twin link design to the single link tipping barrel. The upper assembly of that prototype is not much different to the way the 1911 turned out.

[tous]

Thank you, gentlemen. All good stuff. ^c

[Holiday]

While we may consider the barrel bushing a weak point in the design today, remember that hind sight is 20/20. At the time, the barrel bushing was thought a good idea because of the previously pointed out reasons. Also, and maybe most importantly, the bushing is easy to replace in case of damage or wear. Browning designed most of his autos with the military in mind and wanted them to be easily repaired. Think about it, the 1911 is one of the most gunsmithable and repairable designs out there. Even the grip screws have replaceable bushings! With nothing more than a punch you can tear down a 1911 COMPLETELY to its component parts. That's one reason it has endured for so long.

[RonC]

That is one of the reasons I call the Hi Power "the Browning done right."

[Drjones]

What other sort of design would you suggest that doesn't require a bushing?

A Bull Barrel, like the TRP Operator?

http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/pistols/PC9105LLarge.jpg

That thing is a HUGE PITA to field strip.

I like it, but probably wouldn't want it as my primary sidearm because it is so difficult to work on.

[quantico]

Remember that Browning built many guns for the military... the bushing allowed easy barrel replacement along with the ability to restore accuracy to a gun with many rounds... field stripping also is easily accomplished without tools... I think the man was just an awesome designer and engineer... I think his design is still sound today..

[RonC]

According to a Hi Power web site, the FN Model of 1935 (civilian version called Browning Hi Power,) was/is the largest volume production sidearm ever. It was Browning's last design. (Production volume was helped by the Nazis stealing the factory and mass producing for their own use in WWII after FN refused to cooperate.)

The M1935 does not use a replaceable barrel bushing in the same sense as the 1911. Nor does it use a barrel link, but rather a cammed ramp arrangement that lives on in every locked barrel/slide semi-auto that I know of, including Glock.

[SMSTRICK]

Try the Briley Spherical bushing,...It's GROOVEY !....^7

Here's a personally dun, pimp gun.

[quantico]

Originally posted by SMSTRICK

Here's a personally dun, pimp gun.


does it come with a felt hat ???? and two tone shoes ???:)

[toolman_556]

My guess is that it was considered easier to produce bushings of various sizes to allow better fitup and easier rebuilding than it was to try and maintain both the slide size and barrel size. Also this was one of the first automatics of its type, and I am sure its naysayers were concerned about wearing out the expensive to manufacture slide too quickly. The bushing was probably considered an expendable piece that was later decided to be optional, but only after millions of rounds had gone downrange. The original military test in 1909 was, I believe, ONLY 5000 rounds, but I have no hard reference to that besides an obscure memory of reading this somewhere on the net.

[auto45]

I've always thought the bushing was a good design feature and wondered why other styles don't have it.

Easy and cheap way to improve accuracy. ;)

[tous]

Thank you again, folks. All good stuff. <c>b

I wonder if the bean counters of the day sat in a meeting and bleated, "And additional part to manufacture? ;P And ... MILL! ^4 Please tell us this won't require ... fitting? ~fnt~ "

Again, thank you for your replies.