Auto Ordnance 1911PKZSE - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Auto Ordnance 1911PKZSE

This is a discussion on Auto Ordnance 1911PKZSE within the Handguns forums, part of the Gun Forum category; Originally Posted by WaM14gunner You know that the Springfield Mil Spec has no 80's safety right? Yes but they look nothing like "Mil Spec" issue ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Handguns

14Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old April 6th, 2017, 03:28 AM   #16
Lifer
 
XUSNORDIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Other M14 Forum...
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaM14gunner View Post
You know that the Springfield Mil Spec has no 80's safety right?
Yes but they look nothing like "Mil Spec" issue 1911s

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
Springfield doesn't use any 80 series anything..... And that is just the way JMB intended it.
Exactly.......

XUSNORDIE is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 6th, 2017, 08:41 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,544

Awards Showcase

Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by XUSNORDIE View Post
Yes but they look nothing like "Mil Spec" issue 1911s...
Well that depends, and I can think of three areas that are not right and maybe a fourth? Two of witch hard too spot unless you are really anal...

The Mil-spec's slide has angled rear slide serrations where as the real deal slide serrations were vertical. Drake a vendor for hard slide replacements, also used angled rear slide serrations. The Non USGI looking thumb safety, and its been so long sense I've seen a stock WW repo I don't remember it they got it right?

All SAI 1911's unless using the dove tail front sight, use a med sized sight tennon in the slide. This is unseen and the only time you would see it is if it failed and flew out, not all too uncommon with the 1911. SAI tried too add some beef in this area but it still happens every once in a while.

And last on the list, the rear tangs are not at the same angle as a USGI frame is with the Std. grip safety. That's the reason why you should too use a .220 radius grip safety if your going too run with a high ride beaver tail....

Thanks from High Hat and Rich D
Phil McGrath is offline  
Old April 6th, 2017, 02:57 PM   #18
Lifer
 
XUSNORDIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Other M14 Forum...
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
Well that depends, and I can think of three areas that are not right and maybe a fourth? Two of witch hard too spot unless you are really anal...

The Mil-spec's slide has angled rear slide serrations where as the real deal slide serrations were vertical. Drake a vendor for hard slide replacements, also used angled rear slide serrations. The Non USGI looking thumb safety, and its been so long sense I've seen a stock WW repo I don't remember it they got it right?

All SAI 1911's unless using the dove tail front sight, use a med sized sight tennon in the slide. This is unseen and the only time you would see it is if it failed and flew out, not all too uncommon with the 1911. SAI tried too add some beef in this area but it still happens every once in a while.

And last on the list, the rear tangs are not at the same angle as a USGI frame is with the Std. grip safety. That's the reason why you should too use a .220 radius grip safety if your going too run with a high ride beaver tail....
That.......and the sights are totally not like issue.....too tall and rear and the front is just plain retarded looking. They throw the whole look off.....

I'm anal as hell Phil....; ) I think the Auto-Ordie 1911BKO is as close as it gets....looking wise.....and I have a decent list of which I nit picked on that!........starting with that damn 80 series crapola....; )

XUSNORDIE is offline  
 
Old April 6th, 2017, 03:03 PM   #19
Old Salt
 
WaM14gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by XUSNORDIE View Post
That.......and the sights are totally not like issue.....too tall and rear and the front is just plain retarded looking. They throw the whole look off.....

I'm anal as hell Phil....; ) I think the Auto-Ordie 1911BKO is as close as it gets....looking wise.....and I have a decent list of which I nit picked on that!........starting with that damn 80 series crapola....; )
Did you look at the Inland series pistols? Not sure about the safety stuff on them but they make a nice looking "GI" pistol. Main drawback I noted was that its about $150 or so more than the AO. Inland also has some neat looking M1 Carbine variants.

WaM14gunner is online now  
Old April 6th, 2017, 03:18 PM   #20
Lifer
 
XUSNORDIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Other M14 Forum...
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaM14gunner View Post
Did you look at the Inland series pistols? Not sure about the safety stuff on them but they make a nice looking "GI" pistol. Main drawback I noted was that its about $150 or so more than the AO. Inland also has some neat looking M1 Carbine variants.

Yup.....I like them.....they have series 80 BS also.......and the cheapest I could find was a tad over $600.........I paid $420 for the AO.....

I am either going to buy two more AO BKO's or one Inland end of Summer.

XUSNORDIE is offline  
Old April 6th, 2017, 04:48 PM   #21
Lifer
 
M14E2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
Springfield doesn't use any 80 series anything..... And that is just the way JMB intended it.

Hmmm , John Moses didn't intend the thumb safety , it was added by Colt at the insistence of the Army Board.

Therefore , he couldn't have intended "cocked and locked" either.




And there was the sort of similar "Schwartz Safety" back in the 30's.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1910 protype.jpg (68.6 KB, 2 views)

Thanks from Phil McGrath and Rich D
M14E2 is offline  
Old April 6th, 2017, 05:00 PM   #22
Lifer
 
XUSNORDIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Other M14 Forum...
Posts: 2,902
I was waiting for you to pipe in Brother Ordie.......; )

I'll never disagree with you regarding 1911's ......but no matter what JMB intended/designed.....GI issue was GI issue and that's what I want in my GI replicas....nothing else, only what I had then.

In my fancy pants 1911's it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Hell, I ran into one of my high school GF's a few years back.....she still looked very doable.....however, she had a boob job.....that killed it for me. Sometimes ya just want the plain no frills ride with all original parts and no "enhancements" like back in the day.....save that enhancement crap for the younger chicks, er, I mean new pistols......; )

Thanks from High Hat and ray55classic
XUSNORDIE is offline  
Old April 6th, 2017, 06:35 PM   #23
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,544

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by M14E2 View Post
Hmmm , John Moses didn't intend the thumb safety , it was added by Colt at the insistence of the Army Board.

Therefore , he couldn't have intended "cocked and locked" either.




And there was the sort of similar "Schwartz Safety" back in the 30's.

I will concede Cocked and Locked, but Schwartz wasn't JMB and his safety came along how many years after the design was finalized and in production?

Phil McGrath is offline  
Old April 7th, 2017, 01:43 PM   #24
Lifer
 
M14E2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,287
For better or worse , and no way diminishing his genius or place in firearms history , a lot of things are blindly credited to JMB that he had little to do with , or had just a share of the credit. I'm sure others at Colt , where he was employed at the time , had some say and sway in the final product. The thumb safety being foremost. The 1905 had no thumb safety , the 1907 USMC had a grip safety added. The 1910 looked very close to what we now know as the 1911 , but sans thumb lock. Grip panels were slightly different too.

And the P-35 aka Browning Hi-Power had little from him other than the barrel ramp & lock-up , which was meant to get around the swinging link , whose patent was bought from Browning and now owned by Colt. He did in fact have to work around several design 1911 points he patented while working for Colt , before he went to work for FN. Books on the HP show prototypes at the time of his death , and they are barely recognizable.
Dieudonné Saive deserves far more credit than he gets.

Thanks from Rich D
M14E2 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2017, 02:24 PM   #25
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
High Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 9,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
I will concede Cocked and Locked, but Schwartz wasn't JMB and his safety came along how many years after the design was finalized and in production?
The Schwartz safety was designed in 1937 or 1938 I believe. The Army killed it because they didn't want to keep two sets of parts for their service pistol.

So the original JMB design meant you carried the 1911 with an empty chamber?

High Hat is offline  
Old April 7th, 2017, 03:16 PM   #26
Lifer
 
M14E2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by XUSNORDIE View Post
That.......and the sights are totally not like issue.....too tall and rear and the front is just plain retarded looking. They throw the whole look off.....

I'm anal as hell Phil....; ) I think the Auto-Ordie 1911BKO is as close as it gets....looking wise.....and I have a decent list of which I nit picked on that!........starting with that damn 80 series crapola....; )

If only they used the same simple manufacturer slide markings like Singer , Ithaca and Remington Rand , it would look a heck of a lot better.

AUTO ORDNANCE CO.
WORCESTER MASS
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ithaca1911.jpg (56.5 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg singer1911.jpg (11.8 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg rrslide.jpg (16.6 KB, 1 views)

Thanks from XUSNORDIE
M14E2 is offline  
Old April 7th, 2017, 04:13 PM   #27
Lifer
 
XUSNORDIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Other M14 Forum...
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Hat View Post
The Schwartz safety was designed in 1937 or 1938 I believe. The Army killed it because they didn't want to keep two sets of parts for their service pistol.

So the original JMB design meant you carried the 1911 with an empty chamber?
Don't know what JMB had in mind......but the issued 1911's I issued and carried in 80's/90's were mainly carried con 2.....threat con level depicted con 1, or depending on situation, con 1 was authorized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M14E2 View Post
If only they used the same simple manufacturer slide markings like Singer , Ithaca and Remington Rand , it would look a heck of a lot better.

AUTO ORDNANCE CO.
WORCESTER MASS
Agreed.....hate all the damn scribble on slides.......AO is ok (aside from US Army BUT even the 1911's I carried in the USN had it....ughhhhh, and yes I know why).......Inland is a decent replica but that damn scribble......

XUSNORDIE is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Handguns

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Auto Ordnance Mod. 1927A1 Pistol Semi Auto Instructor Handguns 6 September 15th, 2016 06:01 AM
Is My Barrel/Trigger assembly USGI? Scroggz308 The M14 33 March 20th, 2016 04:22 PM
Auto Ordnance Thompson 45ACP 1911 Handguns from $424 wikiarms WikiArms.com 0 October 4th, 2015 06:11 AM
Is this a Devine M14 re: 1971 A.R Sales Co. Mark IV? cnpiso Devine M1A 6 November 21st, 2012 09:37 PM
SPF AUTO ORDNANCE THOMPSON Semi Auto. Jake8738 SPF 3 October 9th, 2012 04:30 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List