FROM RIO BENSON, BENSON CONSULTING, LLP,
ON THE PREPARATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS
To qualify my efforts in the development of this drawing package: As a Machine and Mechanical Designer, I’ve been
preparing drawings to DOD-100/1000 and ASME/ANSI Y14 standards, for a living, for more than a half century. I am also
a shooter and a firearms enthusiast with sporting experience since my mid-teens and significant military firearms
experience from my late teens to my late-twenties. I am also an avid fan of John M. Browning and the “original” M1911.
Historically, when the drawings for John M. Browning’s Colt M1911 were first created, there was little in the way of
‘consensus’ standards to guide the designers and manufacturers of the day in either drawing format or in DOD
documentation of materials and finishes. For the most part, these were added, hit or miss, in later drawing revisions.
Furthermore, due to the original design’s flawless practicality and it’s amazing longevity, the government’s involvement,
and the fact that in the ensuing 100-plus years of production the M1911 design has been officially fabricated by several
different manufacturers, the drawings have gone through many, many revisions and redraws in order to accommodate
all these various interests. These ‘mandated by committee’ redraws and revisions were not always made by the most
competent of designers, and strict document control was virtually non-existent at the time. All of this has led to an
exceedingly sad state of credibility, legibility, and even the availability of legitimate M1911 drawings today.
Granted, the M1911 is still being produced by a multitude of manufacturers, but obviously not to the original drawings.
The current manufacturers have their own documentation, including their own modifications and production
improvements. Because of their competitiveness, there is little chance any of these current manufacturers will publish
or furnish any part of their documentation, since they might be giving away some of their trade secrets. Of course, we
must assume that none of these manufacturers have ever heard of “reverse engineering” [LOL].
With that being said, I have noticed numerous requests for M1911 drawings over the years, and now having the time,
the knowledge, and the means, I decided to model the M1911 in 3D, using SolidWorks 2009, and then create updated
drawings from those models. My source for the original[?] drawings came, free of charge, from the internet. As a
drawing set for the M1911 these were better than nothing, but they were full of misinterpretations, errors, omissions,
in addition to being very difficult to read. Unfortunately, that was all that was available.
Due to the poor legibility of the reduced drawing sizes, original drafting quality, and reproducibility of the source
documents, and also of the collective questionable veracity of revision status, a number of assumptions and even
interpolations had to be made in the creation of the subject documentation package. While every attempt was made
regarding the maintenance of technical correctness and completeness, I (Rio Benson), or Benson Consulting, LLP, cannot
warrant or guarantee the package’s accuracy or suitability for manufacture, and recommend its use be limited to only
that of a source of interesting and historical information. This package is furnished free of charge, and the user must
assume any and all liability in any connection with its use. The laws regarding intellectual property apply here. This
documentation may be published and distributed freely as a complete package, without charge, provided nothing is
altered in any way. Furthermore, this writing is an integral part of the package and must accompany it in any of its
published forms. By the way, this package prints best on a tabloid (11 x 17 inch) printer, color or no. Only two sizes of
drawing format were used, B (11 x 17) and D (22 x 34). The advantage of the D size is less format per drawing area. The
D size printed on a tabloid sheet results in a half-size reproduction (half-size is not half a sheet; do your math) that is still
quite legible for all but the legally blind.
All of the SolidWorks 2009 models and drawings created for this package are available from me, at
BensonConsulting@earthlink.net, for a small fee to help cover my expenses in materials, equipment, and time. While I
will gladly assist anyone wishing it, technically, I am not in the habit of doing anyone’s work for them without some form
of compensation.
The approach to the updated modeling and redrawing contained in this package was as follows:
1. Wherever possible, ‘turn-of-the-century’ machine shop methodology and technology was used in determining
the design intent of the original documentation.
2. Otherwise, no attempt was made to arbitrarily change any dimensions or tolerances, however costly they would
be to reproduce. There were, however, a few instances where the “original” dimensions were geometrically
impractical to fabricate or were incorrect, thus dictating a change. Furthermore, the application of current
drafting standards required some additional changes. Overall, and as an added benefit, the changes made
should make the drawings more legible, logical, and easier to read.
3. Manufacturing technology in materials, heat treatment, and finishes have changed considerably in the past
several years, thereby making virtually all of the “original” drawing notes obsolete. In fact most of the
standards and specifications originally referred to have been obsoleted or superseded. As a result the remaining
drawing notes, referring primarily to materials, heat treatment, and finish, have been standardized and updated
to what is currently available and more practical from a manufacturing standpoint in this package.
4. Some of the newer methods in drafting technology, such as Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing, and
particularly that of True-Position Dimensioning, have been purposefully avoided in this effort. These were not
available for the original design, nor were they necessary. The use of these practices becomes economically
feasible only in high volume production applications where the technical expertise is available, and the purchase
and deployment of expensive Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM) and costly templates and gages can be
justified. Seldom, if ever, are the tried and true bilateral tolerancing methods of the past insufficient to
manufacture excellent parts. Case-in-point, the decades old M1911-A1 design, itself, using no Geometric
Tolerancing, has had a success and longevity that is unmatched throughout all industry. Go figure! [BG]
5. No attempt was made to make these drawings DOD compliant. The driving intent here was to illustrate
dimensional accuracy and functionality of the overall design. Markings, references to inspection of surface
hardness, and other superfluous military requirements were omitted. The optional alternative designs were
generally used since they represent improved or simplified fabrication methods.
In the creation of this documentation package, a number of issues became quite obvious and apparent: To begin with, it
is doubtful the multitude of the very complex and intricate features found on the many parts of the M1911-A1 were
present, or even necessary, in John M. Browning’s original design before Colt and the government got hold of it. This
sort of complexity was just not his style, and moreover, is probably the result of too many cooks stirring the soup. The
result is a firearm that is simply too expensive to fabricate for today’s consumer market, without radical simplification.
Hence, resulting “copies” of the M1911-A1 are now being produced by many very expert manufacturers, that when
disassembled and measured would bear little resemblance to what is described in this package. For my money and in
my opinion, the modern “copies” are usually better weapons than the so-called “original”, and are probably closer to
what John Browning originally intended.
Rio Benson, Benson Consulting, LLP
©
2010
To Next Page
Loading...