El Chapo

If it doesn't fit dry, it isn't going to fit greased. Send that garbage back and follow the instructions of the people above, who told you what tools you'll need to repair your existing magazine tube.

In that case, you must not know any custom 1911 smiths used by any serious competitive shooter, because I can give you a laundry list of people who do so, and literally everyone who is winning (and probably everyone within the top 10-20) the Open/Limited/Limited Optics/Limited 10 nationals is using a gun with a 2 pound or less trigger from one of those people. In IDPA, the winners in the Carry Optics and ESP divisions are doing the same. Unless your "action" sport is something besides USPSA, IPSC, Steel Challenge, IDPA, and maybe some I'm forgetting, literally everyone who is winning is shooting something you didn't know existed until you made these posts in this thread. And many are using 15 pound mainsprings because they want the absolute lightest trigger, and the only way to get that is with perfect sear geometry, the right sear spring tuning, and the lightest mainspring their primers will tolerate. Maybe it was different 50 years ago or something, but these sports are incredibly competitive, and the winners will do anything to win, including using trigger pulls lighter than the gun that is in their hand, among other minor equipment advantages to have every competitive edge. And there is nothing wrong with that, as if the guns are kept clean, a 2 pound trigger is absolutely reliable in a 19/2011, it just needs to be in the hand of someone responsible enough to keep it that way.

The hammer's pressure on the sear is created by the mainspring. The friction between the sear and hammer is a function of a small amount of pressure from the sear spring and much more pressure from the hammer hooks on the sear. Lowering the energy stored in the mainspring absolutely reduces the amount of force it takes to trip the sear, as it's simple physics, less force from the mainspring = less friction, all else equal. You can observe this by installing a lighter mainspring in your gun and testing the trigger pull with a simple scale, which will confirm what I'm saying here for absolute certain. You will observe a lighter trigger pull with a lighter mainspring every time. Also, your claims about the underlying physics are not correct. The force on those surfaces is not only the sear spring, as the force of them mainspring, pushing up through the hammer strut to the hammer, supplies additional force between the sear and the hammer hooks. The sear spring is not the only source of force for that friction, in fact, it's minor compared to the comparatively massive energy stored in the mainspring. I don't know what a "trigger saddle" is either, but if you're talking about the trigger bow, the leaf of the sear spring that holds the sear has nothing really to do with that; the disconnector leg pushes the trigger bow forward when the shooter releases the trigger. Your claim about the hammer not moving when the trigger is pulled is also partially true, that depends on the sear/hammer relationship, and depending on the angle they meet, the trigger absolutely can move the trigger rearward when the trigger is pulled. Obviously that is not an ideal hammer and sear relationship, but depending on the angle of the hammer/sear junction, the sear can push the hammer backward further when the trigger is pulled if that angle is not cut correctly. 3.5 pounds is also about double what serious competitors are using. If a lighter trigger than that is desired, trigger pulls under 2 pounds are easily achieved, assuming the parts are fit correctly. I consider 3.5 pounds to be pretty heavy for a gun used in competition; the gun I shot two matches with last weekend is a 2.5 and many people prefer them lighter than that.

I doubt you'll have problems loading Titewad that light. A friend of mine loads for his 8 year old Buckaroo son, his loads are something like 9 grains of WST with 3/4 oz of shot and the pink wad. They are crazy light and will knock down the popper if he kid gets a good hit. 11-12 grains of Titewad will almost certainly do the job if you want light. They might even be lighter than 1000 fps. If your current loads are 1100, a grain lighter than that will probably achieve what you're looking for, 2 grains almost certainly so. Certainly there is a modest change in trigger pull from a lighter mainspring in a 1911 and that would generally translate to other guns. It's far less than changing the geometry of the sear/hammer relationship, but lighter springs for a lighter trigger pull are par for the course for almost any gun. The key when I do it is to go no lighter than 100% reliability allows for. Outside of CAS/WBAS, I don't like guns addicted to federal primers, so I don't run the lightest possible springs for guns that aren't manually operated like we use in these games.

Would it be approved or is it approved? Maybe they will change the rules, but until then, no it is not.

I think this is just an example of the lack of an Oxford comma rendering a sentence confusing. WBAS does not allow 1911s in any cartridge except God's, 45 Auto.

Those are all great news.

do share!!!

My 03A3 with the loads I described has basically zero recoil. What is the rifle, 9 pounds? A 185 grain bullet at 1600 fps is at beast a glorified .357 Magnum.

I'm using a Lee 185 grain bullet that is marketed for 303 British. I size it with the .310 Lee sizer and powdercoat/install gas check. This is it: https://bulletmatch.com/bullets/lee-c312-185-1r-90371

I load 18 grains of Alliant 2400 and a bullet, no filler. I've loaned the rifle to numerous people who won the matches shooting against me, so I can share that not only has it worked very well, it's worked very well at making me take 2nd place to my own friends with my own rifle.

Major power factor is 165 now in USPSA and IDPA but it wasn't always. The power factor was changed from 175 to 165 a while back (the internet says that occurred in 2000, hardly 40 years ago). IPSC doesn't have one power factor for everything and it isn't 165, it's 170 except for open, where it's 160 (except for divisions that are minor only, where there is no major). So if you thought the 165 was set in stone, it's far from that. So, I propose to all of you who want higher power factor for rifles: why not 195 for the 1911? Factory military ammunition has been 230 grains @ 850 for at least 100 years, aka, a pf of 195. 5 grains of bullseye and a 230 grain bullet was the standard even for our grandfathers. So why not? If we're obsessed with power factor, why not shoot what Browning and God intended?

The traditional 45 ACP is 195 power factor. Can we require that? FWIW: modern is not the "entry" to traditional. I will not be shooting traditional and I have no interest in it, primarily because I don't want to shoot with 1 hand, be banned from having a beavertail, and so on. But if I can shoot a 9mm 1911 in modern, I would be thrilled about that, just so I don't have to load another cartridge for WBAS vs. all my other handgun shooting sports.

We need chrono stages and a chrono procedure in the rulebook before any of that matters.

Well I can tell you this: I absolutely insist on never loading anything lighter than published starting loads and I've been doing this for ~20 years. I definitely wouldn't tell someone else to do something I would never do myself.