Sorry, I thought I had heard that someone (the MC Times article is useful only for pictures ), not to mention that the Kimber ICQB was specifically requested to be "Series I" style, but I can't find any references to it definitely or definitely not being Series 70.  

~Augee

Thanks for the clarification buddy.  You saved me from making a big, expensive mistake.

The Quantico MCX has a black Colt Railgun at the gun counter.  Pretty nice piece.  Next time I'm in there, I'll see if it's a 70 or 80 series.

Springer loaded is a great pistol to start with, you won't need very many parts if you start with that. Check out my MEU(SOC).45 build from a Springer Loaded at http://www.readycitizen.com/meusoc-45-pistol and http://www.readycitizen.com/meusoc45-project.

You fucked that all up.

why did you go with the drop-in fit Ed Brown?

The original looked more MEU-SOC (IMHO) and fit better

no problem, I almost made the same mistake with the SCG Carry. Why Colt does such misleading things to their model numbers I just do not know

No worries - I've just been curious as to the exact specifications of Colt's entry.  Considering that none of the Marines' current pistols use Series 80 parts, and the Series 80 is reportedly more problematic in over-the-beach/surf zone environments, I'd expect Colt would omit the Series 80 firing pin safety.  On the other hand, it wouldn't shock me if Colt simply took an existing 01070RG, tweaked it with stainless parts, G10 grips and FDE finish, and submitted it - Series 80 parts and all...

I wanted to go with the memory groove over the original although it created the noticable gap. Its not cosmetically perfect but then again, most crafted MEU(SOC).45's weren't either. They just needed to be accurate and function well.

Here's a good side by side of my build and one of a recent produced MEU(SOC).45

http://www.readycitizen.com/gallery/meusoc45/meusoc-45.jpg  http://www.readycitizen.com/gallery/meusoc45/meusoc45v6.jpg

Dante, I looked at your page, and went through the pictures. Now, I'm not new to the 1911 by any stretch, but I am a little new to the finer details of trying to do my own work. By looking at the picture of your trigger, and reading the caption, are you implying that you lightened the trigger pull with the overtravel screw?



I'm really not happy with the 6# pull my Loaded has. Good for defense I suppose, but I'd like it at 4.5#.

Yeah, that's what I adjusted. The last time I measured the pull it it was slightly above 4.5 pounds.

Now i have both styles of grip safety, what does the "memory grove" do? I thought it either had the "bump/extension" or it didnt, and both of yours had the bump, but one had little groves.
What does that drop in do that the OEM didn't?

The grooves only let you feel the placement in your hand a little better, that's pretty much it. Since you want the hand placement on the pistol to be exactly the same every time, especially if you're drawing from a holster, the grooves provide an additional 'positional' feel for that placement. If you're wearing gloves when you're shooting, it's really a non factor since you can't feel the grooves anyway.

I am changing my build back to the 'non grooved' grip safety but wanted to see how the grooved grip safety felt. Believe it or not, we used to tape the grip safety down in the 90's so its really a moot point of whether its grooved or not, we had both versions out there. Plus I don't do very much quick draws anymore so I don't have to worry about getting my hand placement absolutely correct each and every time. The non grooved bump serves its purpose just fine.

ok, I guess I never noticed it.  I always index my hand on the pistol by gripping it high with the web of my hand stopping at the beavertail in the same place every time. I also shoot in gloves 90% of the time these days, but I don't know if my callused hands can feel the groves.

So long as you are consistent.



FWIW, the one 1911 I was having problems activating was my Kimber Desert Warrior, because of its memory bump grip safety. Once I changed it to a Colt Rat Tail (which matches the rest of my carry 1911s, as well as the safe queens, and any of the handful of not-MEUSOC M1911A1s that I carried and shot while on AD) the problem ceased. The difference in grip profile and feel was just enough to cause me to not properly and consistently grip it, a problem I've never had with any other 1911.





 

The grooves on the Ed Brown safety are for looks.  I don't know how anyone could feel those grooves with a firing grip.

The MEUSOC guns that Springfield built have a Wilson Combat grip safety.  Just like all the Springfield Customs.

Here a good photo from an original, earlier post from Augee that shows the grooves on the grip safety but I'm inclined to agree, the feeling between the two is tough if not impossible to differentiate.

Here is the start of mine.
Springfield Mil-Spec with NM number.

You should go back through your manuals and figure out what the overtravel screw does. That should not have changed the lbs of the trigger pull.

ETA: My copy so far.

Yeah, could have been I just got lucky. It could have always been at 4.5 pounds, I never measured before the adjustment.

Correct.  Those are Ed Brown grip safeties, on guns built by PWS.  Springfield Armory in Illinois uses Wilson's.

You need to check your overtravel to make sure you didn't cause the sear to be dragging on the hammer.

Anybody know what lanyard is commonly used?

Gemtech TRL was used with the ICQB, and probably these days with the MEU(SOC) .45s [M45].  

"Back in the day" I understand they were custom made with telephone cord, but plenty of existing purpose built solutions nowadays.

I use the TRL for applications where pistol retention lanyards are needed/desired.  

~Augee

Augee is correct, back in the day it was telephone cord with a typical issued lanyard clip on the end to attach to the pistol. The ones currently used are supposed have to have the requirement of a quick release (not sure if they are issued or just individually purchased). I have heard it was due to the helicopter accident off of the SoCal coast in the late 90's but there are a lot of current photos showing the phone cords still.

What would be the most correct flat checkered mainspring housing with a lanyard loop that I could buy readily without paying an arm an a leg for? I'm finally going to start my MEUSOC clone and this thread will be home for a while.

This is the one I used. It looks great and slides right in.
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=12739/avs%7CMake_3=1911/avs%7CManufacturer_1=SMITH%20zzxzz%20ALEXANDER/Product/1911-AUTO-LANYARD-LOOP-MAINSPRING-HOUSING
Item # 849-000-005

For now, the lanyard loop MSH is the one thing that I'm not going to put on. I don't want the added bulk on my EDC. Perhaps I'll put one on later, if I chose another 1911 to carry.

For pure function, the Guncrafters MSH is a much better option, if you aren't as concerned with making a pure clone.
Having used both styles of lanyard compatible MSHs , and the USGI MSH's loop pinching palm skin when seating WC magazines that have the low profile steel base pads, I went to Guncrafters.



 


 

^^^Excellent choice, I have those on almost all my 1911s.

Ah, but the "issue" Wilson 47 magazine has a standard (not low profile) floorplate.  

I suspect about the only real reason for the "standard" lanyard loop on these pistols is the fact that the originals were USGI "arched" mainspring housings that were ground flat and re-serrated.  It already came with the lanyward loop, so why change it?  The Wilson floorplates clear it anyways.  

They haven't been changed because there's been "no reason to."  

~Augee

They may also have found a stash of USGI WWI-era flat MSHs in a gov't warehouse, and serrated those.
 

M45 selection update - close to a decision...

Marine Corps Times:  Corps to decide on new .45 caliber pistol

all the military times are notorious for inaccurate info,although this article seems more factual than most (during my time getting army times during my tenure of service I think they announced a replacement for the m16 series rifle/carbine about 4 times!)
what I have never been able to grasp and is mentioned in the article- no one ever seems to complain about the performance of the mp5 in 9mm  but everyone decries the use of a 9mm handgun due to lack of power-? the sub gun still is a short barreled gun not developing a significantly greater amount of power tahn a pistol in the same caliber. Multiple hits are multiple hits wether from a sub gun or a pistol.

Longer sight radius and thus more accurate fire than a pistol, and it's a full auto so you can put a burst from a 30 round magazine into the target that much faster.  The reason the MEU(SOC) came into being was a sidearm to MP5 equipped assaulters.

This OP came up in a conversation last night locally in a friends garage while working on his 1911 as adult, LEO son looked on. Specs of Meusoc pistols were mentioned and where to find King parts. As many know, King 1911 parts are no longer made.

When asked what I thought MEUSOC specs were. My reply is,'  there is no set of specs," arguably.

Then discussion turns to about 7 different specifications.

These are specifications used based on parts available to armourer at the time. Rogue4 did an op some time back about debunking the modern military rifle myths. A lot of people got upset, including some military who started a witch hunt in MIL section here questioning his MIL status. That's just how personal some get wrapped into MIL gun legend.

That Op and those who dogged Rogue4 ate shit before it was over in MIL forum.
As explained to me a lot of guys in Rogue's unit equipped their rifles as they pleased with what was available in the arms room. As do most units.

MEUSOC and AMU armourers used what was available at the time. Not all had same parts available at same time from one unit to the other.

Dave Berryhill knows more about the subject than anyone I know, http://www.berryhillguns.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2

I have never served or been in an armoury, so everything I've stated is subject to my understanding.


One thing I know for certain having examined pistols built by AMU armourers. It's not so much parts used as it was truing each part up, insuring reliability and accuracy.

Parts used isn't as pertinent to MEUSOC legend as making your parts true. Anything less than 100 % function from a MEUSOC clone would be in my opinion, less than acceptable.

When the MP-5 was used (not so much anymore) I remember hearing/reading that some units used hotter 9mm ammo to feed it.  That's why some early M9s launched slide completely off the gun during recoil.

ZZZ

ICQB?

Are they going with the pachmayer grip for sure? I feel the PAC grips are too thick.... Does hogue make a thinner rubber grip?

Really?  I just called the number on King's website and it went to a voicemail calling itself American Gunworks.  I always used King's # 201 - Combat Thumb Safety and was planning on putting them on at least four more guns.  Do you know where I can find these or if American Gunworks even has any in their inventory and if not where I can find them? I left a message but not real confident I'll get a call back.

Springfield Armory makes 1911's for the Marines? Had no clue!

Without commenting on the whole Rogue4 thread, I'll say it is, and always has been silly to assume that weapons don't get changed by the end-users once the unit takes possession of it.

That being said, 1911smith, I both agree and disagree with you about the MEU(SOC) .45.

As the OP, while I do have and like to build clones of military weapons, and will always try to help those who want to build clones in selecting commonly seen parts and configurations, for me, my clone building itself came out of an appreciation for and desire to study the history of military weapon systems.

Given the fact that SOF has tended to "lead the way" on small arms development, it's been professionally interesting to me to closely watch the development of SOF weapon systems, and see how and why certain things are done, and how they might apply to military weapon systems.  

I'm also a big fan of the 1911 (duh, who isn't?  ) and I started this thread to track the development of the MEU(SOC) .45 (M45 CQCP) and its configuration over the years.  The "Variant" designations, as I've said before, are mine.  I "came up" with them just as a way to distinguish changes in configuration.  

I agree with you that the MEU(SOC) .45 "spec" is continually evolving, and largely based on whatever is available.  However, I will disagree with you that there are not "specs."  Multiple specs, dating from different periods of the weapon's development have been posted here that originate from PWS.  

AMU did not have anything to do with the MEU(SOC) .45, and PWS is not building these as individual competition guns or accurized guns for individual shooters.  For all intents and purposes, the MEU(SOC) .45 is a production gun.  A small production gun made in extremely limited numbers, but a production gun nonetheless.  

Because it's never been an "official" weapon system - the name "MEU(SOC) .45" and "M45 CQCP" are equally spurious, neither name has ever been "official," it doesn't have to go through the same riggamarole as other weapon systems do to change the spec.  Nevertheless, specs have existed over the years for the pistol, specs that responded to changes in the availability of parts on the market, like the change between the King's Ambi-safety to the Ed Brown.  

Looking at photographs of MEU(SOC) .45s, there is definitely consistency between them, though, as you mentioned (and WRT to the Rogue4 thread) anything that individual end-users can change often ends up getting changed, and sometimes say an early variant of the pistol needs to be repaired, and the repair uses "new spec" parts.  Nevertheless, there's a high degree of continuity in the pistols.  

One of the big complaints about the MEU(SOC) .45 was that individual units could *not* do maintenance on them.  ONLY PWS in Quantico maintains them.  This complicates things because if a pistol goes down during a deployment, it's "supposedly" down and out for the count.  That is why they used to be, and still might be issued on a basis of two per user, one as a primary, and one as a spare.  

What this does mean, however, is that though a couple of folks and units here or there might do their own corrective work on a deadlined pistol, generally speaking, the issue of "they built them with whatever spare parts were available to that specific unit" is untrue.  Only PWS builds them, and only PWS maintains them.  Could and end user, say you or me, that knew enough about 1911s just order their own stuff from Brownells and pull some technically unauthorized maintenance?  Sure.  But that's like saying that you can't say that the KAC M4 RAS is not the "spec" rail system for the M4, because someone might put a DD Omega on their issued rifle.  

PWS has a specific spec, and generally adheres to it.  Pistols requiring replacement parts get whatever the "current" spec part is, thus my desire to dig into the history of the pistol, and determine what the "spec" parts were at what point in time.  

Had your post been about M1911s and M1911A1s used by Army Special Forces and other SOF units over the years, it would be more true to fact.  But the MEU(SOC) .45 is a very unique animal by virtue of the the very unique organization of PWS controlling it.

I certainly do agree with you, however, about the MEU(SOC) .45 being more a function of the skilled armorers truing and tuning the parts to more than just the sum of the parts used.  But I don't think anyone has suggested that the parts are more important than the reliability.  

~Augee

The MEU SOC replacement is titled the CQBP, it has been in the works on and off since 1999.  However over the years no proposed replacement pistol has been able to meet Key Performance Parameters.   There have been 14 companies that have submitted COTS 1911 guns and none have been able to meet the live fire endurance requirements, all of them breaking prior to meeting the requirement.  

In 2006, the requirement was put on hold by than PP&O LtGen Dunford when the MEU Maritime Special Purpose Force requirement went away, at that time using MFP11 money MARSOC was going to field Special Operations pistols, which may or may not be 1911 based.  Starting in 09, the requirement for VBSS came back and the desire for a 1911 was again started, this was the CQBP.

Which manufacturers and what were the failures? It would be interesting to know if it was parts or realiability that they failed on, and the documentation to go with it.

The PPTs don't list the manufactures, but has close up photos of the cracks.  The photos are too close to see who makes the guns, but they are in the frames and barrel lugs.

One of things that has made the selection so long a process is no one can provide what amounts to leap ahead weapon.  The Marines can buy off the shelf something similar to what we have today.  But even those PWS built guns normally are non-serviceable by the end of 1-2 deployment cycles. One of the documents I read was the results of data call from PP&O to the OPFOR from 06 and III MEF reported having 30 PWS built guns, 21 deadlined and 14 of the 21 were non-repairable

Do you recall what was causing the deadlines?

The TZ ammo doesn't help for one.