
How a Handgun Works: 1911 .45 - bkyan
http://animagraffs.com/how-a-handgun-works-1911-45/
======
sandworm
There are some slight errors in the animation. Details, but those are
important when talking about classics.

Better animation:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6SmlOEzNBs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6SmlOEzNBs)

Watch the barrel. In the OP the entire barrel floats up and down slightly.
That's incorrect. The breech end of the barrel moves up and down, the other
end not so much. This is important because the angle between the barrel and
the next round doesn't change in the former. Check the vid at about 3:24,
after the assembly, to see what I'm talking about.

Also:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKRMcTlbWTs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKRMcTlbWTs)

And the recoil animation is wrong. The gun in the OP is recoiling while the
bullet is still in the barrel. That's logical, but in reality recoil only gets
going after the bullet is away. Once it's out of the way the remaining
propellants really accelerate, causing the bulk of the recoil. That's why
recoil doesn't impact accuracy. Flinching in anticipation of recoil is another
matter.

Watch this gun at 00:10 and note it doesn't move until the bullet is long
gone.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9Eos9bJDk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9Eos9bJDk)

Proper 1911 recoil animation:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3IFJXxyEs&list=PL1469B47BB...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H3IFJXxyEs&list=PL1469B47BBD916A46)

------
ghshephard
Somewhat related to another thread today - if I was creating a series of
knowledge resources that would describe how to rebuild the world's technology
from scratch, in addition to the detailed blueprints, and background
descriptions - I'd also have a series of animagraffs included with each one -
these animations tell a very complex story very quickly.

~~~
justin66
> I'd also have a series of animagraffs included with each one - these
> animations tell a very complex story very quickly.

If this is typical of animagraffs, it might be a really weak starting point.

Someone went to all the trouble of making drawings, animations, and written
copy without even explaining the difference between blowback and locked breach
operation. Someone taking in all that text and looking at the drawings might
have some serious delusions of understanding. In the case of a pistol it's
especially weird: it really is simple enough that it seems like you could
explain how it works using these methods.

This kind of problem deserves its own word. I suggest we call it
_pseudodetail._

~~~
icegreentea
Agreed. For the benefit of those who don't know, blowback and locked breached
operations are the two primary operating methods of semi-auto pistol actions.
In a blowback action, the recoil spring and mass of slide is sufficient to
keep the breech closed until after the bullet as left the barrel. It's
important to wait for the bullet to leave, so that pressure can sufficiently
decrease, you else you might get all sorts of nasty stuff - like the casing
bursting and possibly damaging the weapon and/or the shooter.

Blowback is appropriate for lower power rounds. As power increases, the mass
of slide and stiffness of spring must increase, and at some point may become
impractical. So for locked breech actions, some other mechanism is used to
lock the breech closed until after the bullet as left the barrel.

In the case of the 1911, is the combination of the locking lugs and and the
pivoting link. The locking lugs lock the barrel into the slide, so that when
fired the barrel and slide initially travel together rearwards. The pivoting
link (that thing behind the recoil spring) allows the entire barrel to drop
down as it travels backwards. As it drops, the lugs disengage with the slide,
allowing the slide the continue to the rear and open the breech. All of this
is calculated so that the pressure is safe when this occurs.

There are a variety of ways to do locked breech. The 1911's action (tilting
barrel) is particularly influential.

~~~
rdl
I assume reading John Moses Browning (PBUH) patents would be enough to
actually re-create the 1911 and Hi-Power and thus essentially all modern
semiautomatics, with a basic level of machine shop skill.

OTOH, if you were trying to recreate firearms in a "world has ended"
situation, an open bolt SMG like the Sten would probably be your first choice.

Firearms, especially pistols, would be pretty far down on the list of
technologies I'd want to recreate -- irrigation, communication, and direct
production technologies seem a lot more important.

~~~
icegreentea
I wouldn't quite go that far with the patents. I just looked at the 1911
patent, and it basically describes a dimensionally parameterized 1911 (which
is in itself really cool). Parts and lengths are given in qualitative terms.

For a 1911 design for example, the actual patent and patent drawings would not
quite be enough give you the dimensions nor location of the swinging link. It
would take either quite a bit of tinkering, or sitting around and mathing (or
both) to figure it out. Certainly not impossible, but I think the effort
required goes a bit beyond your intention when you said 'basic level of
machine shop skill'.

If you were stuck in your position, an optimist in human nature would pick
something like a break-open shotgun. Not useless for self defense, but really
useful for hunting - which you presumably would have to do for a bit while
bootstrapping civilization again. If you weren't so optimistic... oh ya,
totally an open bolt SMG.

~~~
justin66
In a situation where resources were constrained, the traditional lever-action
rifle would be an excellent choice. Simple and reliable design with few parts,
tolerances aren't so important, can be made to work with centerfire or rimfire
ammo.

~~~
hga
Isn't a bolt action a _lot_ simpler? And a lot easier to make strong?

I've never thought of lever action rifles as having a complexity worth the
gains, I prefer going down to the bolt action or up to a semi-auto. Which, for
that matter, can be fairly simple for lighter rounds, in fact, you have to add
complexity to keep many (all??) of the designs from being full auto.

~~~
justin66
> Isn't a bolt action a _lot_ simpler?

Parts count of a bolt action is a bit smaller, but that's potentially
deceptive. I'm pretty sure the tolerances are actually much tighter with a
bolt action. If that isn't a problem, yeah, it's down to whatever gun can be
cheaply produced in volume. (I'm sympathetic to the idea that a stamped-
receiver semiauto might be a good idea as well)

My opinion here is influenced by the way lever-actions gained so much
popularity in warfare and the old West even though bolt-actions were an older
design.

> And a lot easier to make strong?

I imagine that's a function of metallurgy in either case. The grizzly-killing
lever-action .45-70s in existence today are 140-year old designs scaled up
with better materials.

~~~
rdl
Similarly with revolvers; way easier to make a semiauto pistol and depot-level
maintain it than even to just fix the timing on a double action revolver.

~~~
justin66
Very true, and that's a good example for another reason. Bolt actions and
revolvers have that nasty property of rotation in the action (in conjunction
with close tolerances!) that somehow cosmically invites jamming. A lever
action is more of a simple push-pull kind of thing.

Revolvers have hung onto their reputation for superior reliability with some
people but there's so much that can go wrong, and so much that's pretty
difficult to fix. In contrast you can build a semiauto that can be taken
completely apart without any special tools or knowledge.

------
trevordev
High caliber post. I'm curious about the manufacturing process and rate of
firing error. There were a lot of moving parts and it would seem difficult to
ensure that the gun won't get jammed or have other issues.

~~~
exelius
You are right to be concerned about such things -- the 1911 is notorious for
jamming frequently. Specifically the ejector mechanism; if the gun is not held
steady after firing, the spent cartridge tends to get jammed between the
barrel and the slide. This is even more common among people with small hands
since they don't have the leverage to handle the recoil of a relatively beefy
.45 cartridge.

This is the primary reason why the army replaced the 1911 with the Baretta M9,
a 9mm pistol with much less recoil and a larger magazine size. The M9 is much
less prone to jamming for a number of reasons, but the bullet is much lighter
and has significantly less stopping power. A .45 round will generally put
someone on their ass even if it doesn't kill them from kinetic energy alone;
the same can't be said for a 9mm.

~~~
speeder
I always thought that guns jamming was for things getting stuck in the barrel
or failing to fire.

After watching this site I noticed that jam is... mechanical issues, SPECIALLY
with the slide, on this weapon, I believed this weapon had a special semi-auto
mechanism, that is, that something ensured the slide would slide back, after
seeing it slides back purely from recoil I concluded two things:

One, it is a hell of a recoil... (otherwise the slide would not slide back).

Two, it only works if you don't let the gun go backwards, if you shoot, and
allow it to go back, the energy of the recoil will be spent by your body, not
the slide, thus the slide won't slide, thus you will have to slide manually...
Making it very non-semi-auto.

Also I noticed the ejector also rely on some small machined parts (like the
one that hold the cartridge rim), and thus if not made properly will probably
fail (the slide will go back but the cartridge won't go back with it, this
probably would be the sort of jam that is an actual jam, you would need to
push the cartridge out with another object).

And the amount of springs I am seeing around, mean cyclic fatigue failure of
the metal probably causes a couple of issues, I think that a frequently fired
gun probably more than cleaning also might require frequent change of springs.

~~~
exelius
All of these are concerns, to be sure.

There is a reason cartridges are made of brass: it's hard, but it's softer
than the steel that the gun is made of. So wear and tear on the ejector
mechanism is lessened. Same with the bullet, which is a softer metal than the
barrel.

And yes, the .45 specifically has a hell of a recoil, though the weight of the
slide has a lot to do with it as well. Just remember your basic physics: if
you're ejecting a 20g projectile at 1200fps, the 600g slide is going to travel
backwards at 40 fps (which is still very fast).

Cyclic fatigue is also a thing; which is why you make sure to keep your
springs lubricated and replace them periodically. A gun is a machine that must
be maintained properly, like any other.

~~~
Zancarius
> And yes, the .45 specifically has a hell of a recoil, though the weight of
> the slide has a lot to do with it as well. Just remember your basic physics:
> if you're ejecting a 20g projectile at 1200fps, the 600g slide is going to
> travel backwards at 40 fps (which is still very fast).

The 1911 I believe was designed around a ~230 grain projectile (15 grams) that
fired at about 850ft/s. There are some 185gr. rounds on the market today that
do advertise the 1150-ish ft/s. velocity, but I find in practice that the feel
isn't markedly different.

Along those lines, it's important to note that "felt recoil" is perceived
somewhat differently to different people (grip strength, hand size, body
type), and some people are simply _more_ sensitive to recoil than others. Case
in point: I don't find the 1911's recoil to be particularly notable; some
think it kicks like a mule. If you're firing heavier projectiles, it'll feel
like more of a push than a snap, but it's definitely not unpleasant (the
impulse of the recoil is just as important). The 185gr. rounds tend to be a
bit snappier (shorter, faster recoil), but still manageable. I'd classify
"hell of a recoil" as anything from .44 magnum on up, and there's plenty of
large, really ugly calibers out there that are probably _very_ unpleasant to
shoot (500S&W comes to mind). The .45ACP is definitely not one unless you're
shooting it from a much smaller gun.

Since we're on the topic of felt recoil and considering it is also a function
of the weight of the gun, I'd much rather shoot a 1911 than some of the tiny
.380 autos on the market like the Ruger LCP [1]. If it's unpleasant to shoot,
you're not as likely to practice with it. Even the smaller calibers can hurt
if the gun is light enough. :)

[1]
[http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/models.html](http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/models.html)

~~~
exelius
You're right about my numbers being off - I was killing time on a long flight
and it's been a while since I've shot a .45 (mostly because I have small
hands.) But the general principle remains: the slide shoots backwards with
equal force to the projectile.

And yeah, any sort of magnum cartridge (.357, .44, .50) is a beast because it
has double the powder load. The .50 S&W in particular, as you mentioned, has
so much recoil that it's prone to double-firing (S&W even recommends that you
only load 1 round at a time). But among standard handgun cartridges, I still
think the .45 kicks a lot more than say, a 9mm. It's also _just_ big enough
that you can't really stagger the rounds in a magazine without making it
super-wide; hence why a standard 1911 holds 8 (7+1) rounds and 9mm pistols of
the same weight can hold 15+. I find a modern .45 like the USP (12 rounds) to
be uncomfortably wide for me to hold; though a Glock 17 (9mm, 17 round mag) is
fine. That definitely makes the recoil feel worse.

~~~
Zancarius
> You're right about my numbers being off - I was killing time on a long
> flight and it's been a while since I've shot a .45 (mostly because I have
> small hands.) But the general principle remains: the slide shoots backwards
> with equal force to the projectile.

Eh, it doesn't really matter, IMO!

Realistically, no matter what the math might say, _felt recoil_ is still a
subjective spectrum (within reason, obviously too much force is going to
hurt), because two people can fire the same gun and have different reactions.

Although, you definitely wouldn't catch me with a .500S&W ;) There comes a
point when it's _too much gun_ to be enjoyable.

My father had a .454 Casull once. He sold it because he could only go through
a couple cylinders before a blister would wear on his hand through _gloves_.
I've since borrowed his philosophy: If a gun hurts a bit too much to be fun,
there's no point owning it!

------
jonstokes
For people interested in these sorts of animated wireframes of guns in action,
there's a great app for that: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gun-
disassembly-2/id43507342...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gun-
disassembly-2/id435073422?mt=12)

I have no connection to the app or developers, FYI. I found it very useful
when learning how to disassemble and reassemble my Ruger Mark III.

I'm pretty sure there's either a desktop version of this, or there's a clone
of it for the desktop. Either, way, highly recommended if you're a gun person.

------
josteink
I find it fascinating that more than a century ago, people were able to
visualize, protype and execute these kind of complex, intertwined mechanical
designs.

I like 1911 style guns and my next gun will probably be such a model.

~~~
Zancarius
John Moses Browning played a substantial part in a number of different
firearms (and other firearm-related things). I'm sure you're probably already
aware of this, but those who are browsing the comments might not. The man was
a genius.

For instance:

.50 BMG = Browning Machine Gun; the round and the M2 machine gun.

The Browning Hi-Power.

The .380 auto is sometimes referred to as the 9mm Browning. Probably obvious
why...

Heck, I should just stop listing these off, because there's way too many
things JMB took part in. I'll leave this [1] link instead. It's also worth
mentioning that you could _probably_ credit Browning indirectly for a number
of other designs currently in use that either borrow directly from his work or
are inspired by it, including most modern automatic pistols (yes, even Glock).

> I like 1911 style guns and my next gun will probably be such a model.

I'd definitely suggest it. Sure, it's not as "elegant" as some of the polymer
frames out there these days, but it's still a workhorse. There's something
about the older designs that are remarkable feats of engineering for their
day, to say nothing of the incredible history behind them that seems
attractive to be a small part of by way of ownership.

That said, owning both a 1911 and a Glock, I'll admit that I can't really pin
a favorite. I like both for different reasons. While I doubt I'll buy another
1911 (I won't rule out a conversion kit, though...) since I have my eyes on
other Glock models (and possibly another brand of polymer), it's a design
that's almost timeless. Mine's an SR1911 (model 6700) with rosewood grips, and
it's _sexy_. But loads of other manufacturers are making some _great_ looking
1911s at all different price points. It would almost seem sacrilegious to have
a gun collection _without_ a 1911. :)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning#Cartridges](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning#Cartridges)
(and the "firearms" section below that).

~~~
remarkEon
_That said, owning both a 1911 and a Glock, I 'll admit that I can't really
pin a favorite._

Very true. I think a lot of the appreciation I have for the 1911 comes from
its history. I learned to shoot with a 9mm, but honestly the "adjustment"
people talk about to a .40 or .45 is negligible. I will say that when I have
all the pieces laid out, I do like looking at the Glock (23) on the table a
bit more.

~~~
mrbill
I've got a G17, a G19, and the SR1911CMD as of yesterday - and I'm already
thinking about selling the G17 to pick up an Officers-size compact Armscor/RIA
1911 to tinker with.

~~~
Zancarius
Heck, I would. If your hands aren't so large the G19 feels _too_ small,
there's almost no point having both the G17 and G19 unless you like collecting
Glocks. (I'm biased: I like the size of the G19 more, so take that as you
will!)

I will probably get myself a G17 in the future (maybe), but probably not
before I get a Glock chambered for .45ACP.

Given your comments, I'm starting to wonder if one can't have _too_ many
1911s... ;)

------
pconner
The word "clip" was briefly mentioned in this article. I never understood the
"don't call 'magazines' 'clips'" fanaticism among gun enthusiasts. It seems to
be a pretty common colloquialism for "magazine" in popular culture now.

~~~
exelius
The biggest difference is that a clip need not remain in the weapon to fire
it. A magazine has an active feed mechanism (I.e. a spring) that forces the
ammunition into the breach of the weapon.

Almost no modern weapons use clips; the last popular one was the M1 Garand
(standard issue US infantry rifle in WW2).

It's a more than a semantic difference because there are some weapons that are
capable of accepting both magazines and clips. Though such weapons are rare
and I can't think of a modern example, there is a good reason for being picky.

~~~
stan_rogers
5.56mm and 7.62mm (both NATO) in stripper clips are still standard issue
formats used for reloading non-disposable magazines, and weapons that allow
clip reloading of an installed magazine are not rare on the ground. The Garand
was only unusual in that the clip was inserted into the weapon and not removed
prior to firing.

------
jMyles
Awesome! Do you have one for a striker-fired pistol?

------
michaelbuddy
The animation is too fast for me to really see what's going on on all sides.

------
wyc
Wow, these are great! How do you make them?

~~~
Shivetya
I agree, I am going to be stuck on this site a bit today from what I can tell.

------
exabrial
1911 == favorite pistol ever

