Hi all,

I went to the gun show also, but only came away with visions of 45's bouncing around in my head.

There is at least one person with a Para Warthog on this list. Can you offer some feedback on this weapon.

While I am enamored with the small size, I'm concerned about the shootability of the weapon with my pinky finger dangling with nothing to hang on to. Is this an issue for you? I'm not large handed (but many would say I'm heavy handed... )

It seems one can get extended mags for this gun - for those special occassions! What is available in capacity numbers and do the mags feed worth a crap, concidering "a 1911 is not ment to have a double stack mag" or so I've heard.

I'm not really familar with the 1911 style safety features. When the slide lock is engaged - does this prevent the hammer from falling? I understand the grip safety.

Thanks for any feed back

Mostly-

I was surprised actually at how good a purchase you can actually get on the grip of this gun. Haven't shot one though. I'm sure there will be one at Bill's next week for demo.

I have the 45 cal Warthog. I initially had problems with my magazines feeding correctly. I replaced the springs with Wolff springs and most of the problems were corrected. I still need to keep my Warthog well cleaned and oiled for it to function properly. Hope this input helps.

JW

Hmmm, Not good but not surprising from "glocktalk"...

Well, Para will be at Bill's this weekend, so I can try out the Warthog along with a like sized Springfield, Kimber, and the HK.

Thanks for the feedback

Mostly-

Well I had an opportunity to shoot the WartHog.

For its size, it shoots pretty well, very controllable.

A bit odd to handle (but this may be my lack of 1911 knowledge) to release the slide one must have the grip grasped firmly to depress the safety. After about the second mag I figured out to use my non firing hand to release the slide. Odd though as I can reach the release on my 229.

I was impressed that I didn't have any FTFs the first time I shot it. But on the second checkout I encountered two problems.
1 - The slide lock engaged in the middle of a mag. To be honest - this may have been my fault, if I bumped the lock at "just" the right time... I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt...
2 - On true FTF.
I spoke to the rep about this and he indicated that running 230 grain ball ammo through a ultra compact like the WartHog will cause problems in anybodys ultra compact. He suggested I try some 180 grains. I may have to stop and pick up some 180 grain hollow points tomorrow and try it again after the B-day party planning lunch.

I like that one can take a mag from one of their larger double stacks and insert it into the WartHog. So one could carry as a 10+1 and have 2 - 14 round mags on your belt. Best of both worlds - small carry, with lots of capacity.

I also ran a 13 round mag thought a Springfield XD 4" in 45... My this gun shoots nicely! Tight grouping! But allas, I was looking for something SMALLER then my 229... And I have a thing about the hammerless autos (they make me nervous). Yeah, I know it has a chamber loaded and cocked indicater, but still.

If I was looking for a first carry piece, the $500 XD would have come home with me!, but in that I'm looking for a smaller gun which makes BIGGER holes one seems to have to come up with much more money! Over $800 seems pretty rich for a carry weapon of questionable feeding (maybe after I win the lottery on Sat. I can pick it up!)

Mostly-

Mostly,

The slide stop problem can be overcome by drilling a small dimple in the end of the slide stop. Not too deep or you will defeat the last round hold open.

The salesman was giving you a line, rather that say his product doesn't work quite correctly. Any gun that will not fire the ammunition it was originally designed for has a defect. It just happens that the 1911 ones are easily fixable.

How did the other FTF manifest itself?
The reason for pretty much every possible malfunction has been found in the 1911's almost 100 year history, and a fix for this FTF is probably available, usually for small $$

The round did not fully chamber on the 2nd FTF. It stopped at an angle with the bullet part of the shell up against the top of the camber.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't limp wristing as I was TRYING to limp wrist it prior to this happening on an earlier mag to see if I could duplicate not being able to make my Sig stove pipe. I had stopped this experiment, and was just looking for holes in the target.

Mostly-

From a previous post ....



Although the grip on this gun does not allows space for the small finger, it feels and functions amazingly well. I have fired hundreds of rounds through it. I stated with a shooting glove because I was concerned about blistering. After two hundred rounds, I removed the glove without any adverse affect. For a double stack handgun, it conceals extremely well.

I agree it's a BS line and I doubt that COL or recoil impulse differs meaningfully enough between 185s and 230s to matter, and it's not like 185 HPs have a smoother nose profile than ball, either.

Although I think it's a stretch to say that tiny 1911s were "originally designed" for 230gr ball; 1911s were "originally designed" to fire this ammo out of 5" barrels on full-size frames. I don't think anyone actually designed tiny 1911s to fire anything, they just shrunk the gun, which has to have weird impacts on the physics of recoil, etc.



I think there's a lot of 1911s that nobody ever figures out how to fix, at least when you constrain "fix" to replacing simple parts (springs, slide stops, mags) or basic fitting of major parts (barrels, slide/frame, etc).

Just the other day someone on the 10mmtalk forum posted about never fixing on a Dan Wesson CBOB (10mm, I think) because it wouldn't stop prematurely locking open despite money spent with a 1911 smith well-known for building competition 1911s.

If you have similar problems with the 180s, you could look at the extractor tension, recoil spring, mag feed lips and the finish of the breechface, I would typically expect to find a combination of these problems causing the kind of FTF.

PM me if you want to talk about it.

Mobo,

The 1911 was adapted for the 10mm cartridge, the cartridge case is longer than the original .45. This causes some problems that can sometimes be overcome by changing the ogive shape for the bullet.
As a cartridge enters the chamber of an autoloader, it flexes normally not enough to cause any problems. If you measure the case mouth of a 10mm round and cycle it into a 1911 then extract it and re-measure, you will find that the casemouth has stretched. When this stretching happens due to the bullet moving, the recoil impulse is interrupted and problems follow. If you want more info, PM me.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2346000#post2346000
My experience with my Warthog .45 shown at the above link has been good. After 150 rounds the recoil spring assembly broke. Para sent me a replacement in days, no questions asked. I've shot 850 rounds through it since then without a malfunction and it has become my main carry pistol.

The fingergrip extensions I installed on the magazines allow for a full grip, and make it surprisingly easy to shoot well.

Jeff

I've never heard of that before. I guess I have a hard time seeing a case mouth flex from chambering, especially one with a copper-jacketed bullet in it. It seems like there wouldn't be nearly enough force from the chambering action to deform the case.

A quickie search for 'cartridge flex' on Google doesn't return anything; can you suggest some references? It sounds intriguing.

Mobo,

This is personal experience, from setting up Comp 1911s in 10mm after IPSC said they would require .40 and minimum caliber for major (it never happened but it created a lot of interest in the 10)
If you take micrometer measurements of most cartridges before and after chambering, you will notice a 1 or 2 thou difference. This is not normally enough of a variation to be noticed, (but if you do chamber the same round often, you will notice that the bullet becomes loose in the casemouth). The Bren10 was designed with a slightly larger dimension frontstrap to backstrap to allow for the longer cartridge. Brens work well with almost all commercial loadings.
The 1911, being smaller in this dimension has less room for the cartridge to exit the mag and enter the chamber. This causes the ogive of the bullet to bump against the hood of the barrel while the whole cartridge is at a more oblique angle than that of the .45. This higher angle causes the bullet to be pushed against the lower edge of the case causing deformation of the casemouth.
To successfully setup a 1911 to feed 10mm reliably we shortened the feedlips of the magazine and throat the chamber slightly. It is also important that the side pressure of the extractor is not too high at maximum deflection, as this causes extra drag on the case head further reducing the effectiveness of the recoil impulse. Other factors that I have seen include the use of .45 slides (in the early days, even the Delta used a .45 slide when a .40 slide is not available), a 38super slide can be easily modified for the 10/40 alleviating the problem. I have also found that progressive recoil springs gave the most reliable return impulse to the slide ensuring reliable chambering. Colt actually developed a pair of springs twisted together to produce the correct return impulse, but they would break regularly so no one wanted them for a comp gun. Badly cut bottom lugs and incorrect or stretched links are also sources of 1911 malfunctions and using the 10mm cartridge makes everything more critical.

That’s all the trade secrets I’m “giving” away today, try some experimentation and measurement, you will be surprised at the results.