I ordered a bushing wrench and a spare magazine, when I got the magazine I noticed somethings were different between it and the other. The one-with-the-gun had no writing on the sides and small-ish holes (3.70mmm) in the magazine body – just the base-plate was engraved/stamped.

The new one had writing that was laser-etched (or whatev) with numbers on each side, and the follower looked curiously familiar – and the base-plate was un-marked – but spot-welded.

The follower is identical to the Kimber KimPro magazines I have, down to the Patent#, but the Ed Brown body has slightly smaller holes (3.92mm) than the Kimber (5.02mmm)…

About NotClauswitz

The semi-sprawling adventures of a culturally hegemonic former flat-lander and anti-idiotarian individualist, fleeing the toxic cultural smug emitted by self-satisfied lotus-eating low-land Tesla-driving floppy-hat wearing lizadroid-Leftbat Califorganic eco-tofuistas ~

17 thoughts on “

  1. The ones I buy are “P/N 47D
    8 rd Standard .350″ Base Pad”.
    Never had any trouble at all using them in my Kimber Custom TLE-II. Just clean them regularly, and they'll probably last forever.

    Like

  2. Thanks for all the info regarding 7- and 8-rounders.
    One more question: A couple of folks gave glowing reviews of magazines from Wilson Combat. When I look it up, however, Wilson has several types. I can figure out the difference between base pad materials, but what's the difference between their “Elite Tactical Magazine,” their “Service Magazine” and their standard magazines?
    More to the point, which are the ones to buy, and why?

    Like

  3. Hole spacing for the bumper-pads I'm getting is 11.5mm with the calipers buried in the holes – for the Ed Brown(s), Tripp Research, and the Kimber bases.
    The Tripp Research magazine has a follower similar to as you describe.

    Brownells is always hard for me to search!

    Like

  4. DirtCrashr:

    what is the hole spacing on the base?

    His website merely says “standard spacing”, whatever the hell that means. (can't mean the mag makers agreed to a common dimension during the past decade or two, could it?)

    I'm having trouble trying to search Brownells. ISP problems, I think.

    Like

  5. John:
    To add a round, the 1911 mag has to allow the top of the follower to travel lower, by approx .465″.

    That means the follower is shorter, the spring stacks shorter, or a combination.

    Plus, the spring has to be a bit stronger, since it is dealing with about 14% greater weight, not counting any weight change of the follower.

    I suspect Browning was conservative in not going for 8 rds capacity, due to the available spring tech of 100 yrs ago.

    Unfortunately, because everything but the body gets redesigned (and maybe even that, keep an eye on feed-lip shapes), reliability becomes your most important concern.
    (Which is true no matter what part you are changing-always keep this in mind!)

    BTW, if you have any doubts on the reliability of any 1911 mag, find an Officers Model (3.5″ barrel), or smaller version, and run it through. The slide velocity is much higher, so any inadequacies in feeding will show up sooner.

    My personal preference in +1 mags was the MagPack brand, but they seem to have disappeared a few years back. They used a molded, cartridge hugging (dished in), plastic follower with a custom Wolff spring. I stopped tracking after 8k rounds between my steel and alum frame Officers. 100% reliable. Never a FTF. They were available as rebuild kits, or full mags. I was using original 6 rnd Colt mag bodies, but have one full size Wilson Combat type, which may have been their default mag. No problems with it, but not much use of it.

    I consider them to be the benchmark that all others have to meet. It's possible they were the first out with the +1 design. After more than twenty years, I don't remember.

    Oh, and with the follower being plastic, you didn't have to worry about dinging the feed ramp!

    Like

  6. OK, so if I have to get new magazines, how about an opinion on 7-round vs. 8-round mags? There's gotta be a downside… but what is it?

    Like

  7. OK, so if I have to get new magazines, how about an opinion on 7-round vs. 8-round mags? There's gotta be a downside… but what is it?

    Like

  8. HAH!
    That's exactly why I don't use the “stock” Kimber magazines. As CHEEP as they look, they can't function 100%, and an FTF is the last thing I'd need at 3am when there's a goblin in the house!

    Like

  9. I have some plain old Colt recent magazines (and a flowing script Kimber) that are excellent for the tap-rack-and-bang drill – each is guaranteed to have a FTF at some point. WWII Colt-contract ones from Risdon, Little, & Scoville don't do that, but collectors want a HUGE premium for them.

    Like

  10. +1 for Wilson Combat!
    The only Kimber magazines I have are the ones that came with the gun, and they're pretty CHEEP looking.
    They seem to work OK, but I like the pad on the bottom of the Wilson mags for those “Tap-Rack-Flip” drills.

    Like

  11. Uh, any negative feedback on plain old Colt magazines?
    That's the only kind of 1911 magazines I've got, but I wouldn't want to have something that's passe or un-hip!

    Like

  12. They look suspiciously like CMC “Shooting Star” mags. I've noticed Colt mags are extremely similar. I suspect CMC is making/licensing them all and branding as requested. Proven reliable design.

    Like

Comments are closed.