Taylor Freelance extensions nosedive

[gameragodzilla]

Hi, guys, I recently picked up a Para-Ordnance P14-45 because I like the idea of a double stack 1911. I'm nowhere near good enough to be a competitive shooter, but nevertheless the guys here seem to be the most knowledgeable on the topic so I'm gonna create an account to get some technical help here.

 

So I bought some Mec Gar P14-45 mags with anti-friction coating that are 14 round capacities, but I wanted a bit more so I bought some Taylor Freelance RIA extensions which I thought would work given the RIA double stack 1911s use the same style of frame. However, when I added them, while they did increase the capacity to 17 rounds which I liked, the top few rounds will always be out of alignment and nosedive when I attempt to load them. I lost 5 or so rounds of my Winchester Ranger T ammo to severe bullet setback due to that. All attempt of me or even my gunsmith fiddling around with them couldn't get them to be reliable, so I've downgraded back to the 14 round capacities for now.

 

So the question is: Is there anyone here who knows why that's happening? The second to last round is supposed to support the top round so it feeds correctly, which is fine anytime I load 14 rounds or below, but as soon as I attempt to go further with the extensions, they just go out of alignment. Even banging on the magazine several times still doesn't work well. And on top of that, if these Taylor Freelance extensions don't work, are there any other aftermarket ones I can use? I hear good things about Grams Engineering kits, but they're out of stock. I know support for this pistol hasn't been around for years now and I'm way late into the game, but I'd still like to get something if need be to increase these capacities. Having 17 rounds of .45ACP is nice for me.

[RangerTrace]

I don't know what you mean by "out of line", but in my experience with the 2011 platform, any time I have a weak magazine spring, the first few rounds of a full magazine tend to nose dive on the feed ramp.  So, I've gotten in the habit of putting ISMI springs in all my mags which "can" cause me to lose a round of capacity, but I'd rather have 16 rounds of 100% reliability than 98% reliability and 17 rounds.  You might consider trading for a .40 to get you a few more rounds......

[caspian guy]

2 hours ago, RangerTrace said:

I don't know what you mean by "out of line", but in my experience with the 2011 platform, any time I have a weak magazine spring, the first few rounds of a full magazine tend to nose dive on the feed ramp.  So, I've gotten in the habit of putting ISMI springs in all my mags which "can" cause me to lose a round of capacity, but I'd rather have 16 rounds of 100% reliability than 98% reliability and 17 rounds.  You might consider trading for a .40 to get you a few more rounds......

+1 with that setup I want all the mag spring pressure I can get.  Not sure if MBX makes mags for those or not but I might give that a look too.

Edited April 25, 2022 by caspian guy

[gameragodzilla]

6 hours ago, RangerTrace said:

I don't know what you mean by "out of line", but in my experience with the 2011 platform, any time I have a weak magazine spring, the first few rounds of a full magazine tend to nose dive on the feed ramp.  So, I've gotten in the habit of putting ISMI springs in all my mags which "can" cause me to lose a round of capacity, but I'd rather have 16 rounds of 100% reliability than 98% reliability and 17 rounds.  You might consider trading for a .40 to get you a few more rounds......

Basically, in a double stack magazine, the second round should be relatively high in order to support the topmost round when feeding. It doesn’t do that and therefore the topmost round will always nosedive. I thought it would be springs as well so I bought some Wolff +10% springs when I bought the extensions, but they didn’t seem to help at all. I included a couple pictures showing where the second round is in the magazine with the extension vs. where it should be once I went back to standard capacity.

 

As for getting a .40, well, as I said, I’m not getting this for competition as I’m nowhere near good enough, and I already own a .40 P320. I wanted this pistol just as an updated, modernized 1911 with higher capacity, and the extended mag to go with it.

 

EDIT: As for an MBX magazine, that's also a question I wanted to ask. I found this: https://mbxextreme.com/index.php?page=141_45ACPmag

 

Which is very pricey. However, I'm willing to pay for it if I can get 18 rounds and a reliable, proper slide lock with this. However, this one is listed as STI/SVI rather than Para, and the Para/RIA mags listed on MBX's website only are for 9mm and .40. Does anyone know if this mag works for a Para P14-45?

 

EDIT 2: Blegh, MBX customer support got back to me saying that the STI mags wouldn't fit in a Para frame. Can anyone confirm if this is true? Well, I hear great things about Grams Engineering who could get 18 rounds in the extensions, but does anyone have something?

Edited April 25, 2022 by gameragodzilla

[ChuckS]

2 hours ago, gameragodzilla said:

Basically, in a double stack magazine, the second round should be relatively high in order to support the topmost round when feeding. It doesn’t do that and therefore the topmost round will always nosedive. I thought it would be springs as well so I bought some Wolff +10% springs when I bought the extensions, but they didn’t seem to help at all. I included a couple pictures showing where the second round is in the magazine with the extension vs. where it should be once I went back to standard capacity.

 

As for getting a .40, well, as I said, I’m not getting this for competition as I’m nowhere near good enough, and I already own a .40 P320. I wanted this pistol just as an updated, modernized 1911 with higher capacity, and the extended mag to go with it.

 

EDIT: As for an MBX magazine, that's also a question I wanted to ask. I found this: https://mbxextreme.com/index.php?page=141_45ACPmag

 

Which is very pricey. However, I'm willing to pay for it if I can get 18 rounds and a reliable, proper slide lock with this. However, this one is listed as STI/SVI rather than Para, and the Para/RIA mags listed on MBX's website only are for 9mm and .40. Does anyone know if this mag works for a Para P14-45?

 

EDIT 2: Blegh, MBX customer support got back to me saying that the STI mags wouldn't fit in a Para frame. Can anyone confirm if this is true? Well, I hear great things about Grams Engineering who could get 18 rounds in the extensions, but does anyone have something?

A few things:

 

1) I used to run STI tubes in my Para open guns. They "fit" fine. The only difference was location of the mag catch hole. The STI would sit about 1/8" lower. There used to be a built up mag catch for Para available that would hold the magazine higher. The more narrow taper of the STI tube may require the mag catch to sit a bit deeper in the frame. I had mine modified to sit deeper.  The gun might work with unmodified tubes if the feed geometry is good. Which brings us up to ...

 

2) The stacking of the rounds in the transition area is controlled by the tube spacing of the taper. If it is wrong, the mags will likely be unreliable. That taper needs to be correct if you want the mags to be 100%

 

3) The Grams Para basepads have been out of production for years and I really doubt that they will ever be produced. I did have some luck with Arredondo but my go to basepads on Para tubes were Dawson which are also out of production. 

 

4) Para used to sell mags with some sort of coating. The only way I got them to 100% was to remove the coating and get the tubes hard chromed. They worked for years with zero corrosion. I did have a few of their blued tubes which were fine as is.

[gameragodzilla]

30 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

A few things:

 

1) I used to run STI tubes in my Para open guns. They "fit" fine. The only difference was location of the mag catch hole. The STI would sit about 1/8" lower. There used to be a built up mag catch for Para available that would hold the magazine higher. The more narrow taper of the STI tube may require the mag catch to sit a bit deeper in the frame. I had mine modified to sit deeper.  The gun might work with unmodified tubes if the feed geometry is good. Which brings us up to ...

 

2) The stacking of the rounds in the transition area is controlled by the tube spacing of the taper. If it is wrong, the mags will likely be unreliable. That taper needs to be correct if you want the mags to be 100%

 

3) The Grams Para basepads have been out of production for years and I really doubt that they will ever be produced. I did have some luck with Arredondo but my go to basepads on Para tubes were Dawson which are also out of production. 

 

4) Para used to sell mags with some sort of coating. The only way I got them to 100% was to remove the coating and get the tubes hard chromed. They worked for years with zero corrosion. I did have a few of their blued tubes which were fine as is.

1. I see. Though I wonder if there would be any higher mag catches still available for the Para given how old it is. Why did MBX say the tube was too wide to fit inside the frame, though?

 

2. I get that, but I'm baffled why the taper works perfectly fine with the normal baseplate (and it even works fine once the rounds in the magazine drops down to 14 even with the extension) but suddenly doesn't work properly with the extension and fully loaded. Seems like the tube itself is fine, it's somehow the way the extension interacts with the rest of the magazine.

 

3. That sucks. How good are the Arredondo extensions? I still see some in stock on MidwayUSA, but I don't know how good they are. Are there anyone here who would be willing to sell me some used Grams or Dawson basepads? Anything to get me to 17 or 18 rounds of .45ACP would be nice.

 

4. Hmm, I'm using Mec Gar mags with their own "anti-friction" coating, which I thought should've been a benefit. Are you saying the coating could also be causing issues with round hangups? Though again, it seems like the issue doesn't exist so long as I load only 14 rounds or below. 

 

Blegh, so there's really no options available now? Granted, I did order some RP45 mags off Numrich as I heard those mags, at least the tubes, are compatible with the Para Ordnance frame, and I can at least get 15 rounds there. But I want 17 or 18 in an extended mag if possible.

[ChuckS]

Since the cases roll on the mag walls and not ribs, like the 40 tubes, adding 2-3 rounds may just add enough weight and friction to to make a marginal setup fail. Even with tubes that were tuned by Grams were still "sensitive". I eventually converted to .40  

 

It has been a long time but I seem to recall the Arredondo's pads offered one less round than the Grams. I think they worked though.

 

The guy who was making the mag catch was Canyon Creek but I have heard he has shut his doors. Any gunsmith should be able to weld some material on a metal mag catch. If I remember correctly, the factory catches were plastic. 

 

This was my mag catch mod for the slim taper of the STI tubes:

And, of course, the Ed Brown part is out of production.

 

And, I just remembered this: Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, STI made "for Para" tubes that put the notch were Para wanted. You may want to put out an APB for such things. 

[gameragodzilla]

4 hours ago, ChuckS said:

Since the cases roll on the mag walls and not ribs, like the 40 tubes, adding 2-3 rounds may just add enough weight and friction to to make a marginal setup fail. Even with tubes that were tuned by Grams were still "sensitive". I eventually converted to .40  

 

It has been a long time but I seem to recall the Arredondo's pads offered one less round than the Grams. I think they worked though.

 

The guy who was making the mag catch was Canyon Creek but I have heard he has shut his doors. Any gunsmith should be able to weld some material on a metal mag catch. If I remember correctly, the factory catches were plastic. 

 

This was my mag catch mod for the slim taper of the STI tubes:

And, of course, the Ed Brown part is out of production.

 

And, I just remembered this: Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, STI made "for Para" tubes that put the notch were Para wanted. You may want to put out an APB for such things. 

Ah, so the mags were designed to work with 14 rounds and not beyond? In that case, why did people have success with extensions before? I guess Mec Gar mags aren't up to the quality of other mags used? In that case, what mags do work? Do you think the RP45 mags would function better? Since those are 15 rounders, I wonder if the Arredondo extensions could then give a full 17 as well without problems, but I still worry about nosediving.

 

Either way, it just seems like I picked the wrong time to make this kind of gun. That's what happens when I grow up with old 80's action movies and WW2 games as a kid, making me very interested in 1911s in .45ACP, but still being a young guy in my 20's so by the time I became old and rich enough to afford this stuff, they were all long out of production. But I just wonder if anyone here has the knowledge needed for me to at least modify these things custom by a gunsmith to get them working. You think modifying the mag catch to take STI mags is the best way to go?

 

EDIT: Alright, I’m desperate enough now. I know ProMag can’t make a magazine to save their life, but are their magazines salvageable enough that if I purchase one of the 20 rounders they make, I can have a gunsmith tweak it to make it reliable? Or is that just a waste of time and money?

 

EDIT 2: Okay, I'm noticing something weird here, maybe someone can explain it. Out of curiosity, I attempted to use the Taylor Freelance extensions on my RIA 10mm 1911 (so .40 caliber. heh). The standard magazine actually worked pretty well, as I could load a full 20 rounds and it still didn't nosedive, and I could even slow load into my gun fine (though the spring didn't have enough power to push up the slide lock properly, and even using the spare Wolff springs I had lying around didn't work either, so maybe need some tuning there). However, I had another magazine that was actually one of those Mec Gar anti-friction P14-45 mags with the feed lips modified for 10mm, since I had a difficult time finding OEM mags for sale at the time. That one actually caused a nosedive. 

 

The only difference I could tell between the two different mags were the coating, and the fact that the OEM 10mm mag had some ribs going down the full length of the mag tube body while the modified Mec Gar magazine was smooth. Do you guys think that could be the culprit? What is the difference between the two mag tube designs?

Edited April 25, 2022 by gameragodzilla

[rtl]

Been a while since I ran one of these but I think SPS still offers a 16 round mag for 45 ACP Para from their online store. I ran several of their mags in 9mm for years without any problems. 
https://spsshop.es/en/tienda/magazines/mg-to-fit-para-ord/mgha140-140mm-hi-cap-mag-alu-pad-to-fit-para-ord/
YMMV

RTL

Edited April 27, 2022 by rtl

[gameragodzilla]

3 minutes ago, rtl said:

Been a while since I ran one of these but I think SPS still offers a 16 round mag for 45 ACP Para from their online store. I ran several of their mags in 9mm for years without any problems. 
https://spsshop.es/en/tienda/magazines/mg-to-fit-para-ord/mgha140-140mm-hi-cap-mag-alu-pad-to-fit-para-ord/
YMMV

RTL

Oh nice! I wonder if these could be modified to take 17, though, if at all possible. Also, I see the price is in Euros. Do they ship to the US?

[rtl]

11 minutes ago, gameragodzilla said:

Oh nice! I wonder if these could be modified to take 17, though, if at all possible. Also, I see the price is in Euros. Do they ship to the US?

They used to ship no problem. Took a while for orders to show up, usually around a month. You might be able to shave the follower and get 17 in there but effect on reliability might not be worth it. 
RTL

[promtcy]

I've been using SPS mags for a P18.9 and a P16.40 for years. They fit and work perfect. At the time you could buy the tubes and the springs with followers for around $70 U.S. Then I put TTI 7G basepads for STI/SVI on them to fit the USPSA gauge. So I got perfect fitting reliable mags for around $110 each. rtl's experience with shipping is about the same as mine. I think it took 2 1/2 to 3 weeks. Be aware that many credit card companies will automatically block anything from Spain so you may have to call your CC company either before or after and then have SPS run it again. They are used to it but it will add a couple days for emails to go back and forth, etc. 

 

I highly doubt you'll get 17 in the mag. 

 

Yikes, SPS have increased the shipping quite a bit. Looks to be about $141 with shipping for one mag. If you are ordering two or more the shipping stays the same so that makes it more affordable at $115 per mag. 

 

Another option is SVI/Infinity. $135 a mag though, not sure about shipping. I think Travis Tomasie used to run them in his Limited gun. You'd have to contact them about fit and capacity. SVI 140

 

You could also try making the feed lips wider and see if that cures your nosediving. The recommended way is to use what are called "Chain Pliers". There are other ways to do it though and some mags are softer than others. For what it's worth I've never had to readjust the feed lips on my SPS mags even though they get dropped on the ground constantly. 

[ChuckS]

FWIW, all I ran in my 9mm STI were SPS tubes. Set up by Grams, I got 30 rounds reloadable in the 170's. Beven like working with the SPS tubes because you could actually tune the tubes and they would not try to crack like SV tubes. This was some years ago so the world may be different but if SPS offers an off-the-shelf solution, go for it!

 

[gameragodzilla]

3 hours ago, rtl said:

They used to ship no problem. Took a while for orders to show up, usually around a month. You might be able to shave the follower and get 17 in there but effect on reliability might not be worth it. 
RTL

Gotcha. Just a shame it's only 16 as the Grams kit seems to get 18 but those aren't around anymore.

2 hours ago, promtcy said:

I've been using SPS mags for a P18.9 and a P16.40 for years. They fit and work perfect. At the time you could buy the tubes and the springs with followers for around $70 U.S. Then I put TTI 7G basepads for STI/SVI on them to fit the USPSA gauge. So I got perfect fitting reliable mags for around $110 each. rtl's experience with shipping is about the same as mine. I think it took 2 1/2 to 3 weeks. Be aware that many credit card companies will automatically block anything from Spain so you may have to call your CC company either before or after and then have SPS run it again. They are used to it but it will add a couple days for emails to go back and forth, etc. 

 

I highly doubt you'll get 17 in the mag. 

 

Yikes, SPS have increased the shipping quite a bit. Looks to be about $141 with shipping for one mag. If you are ordering two or more the shipping stays the same so that makes it more affordable at $115 per mag. 

 

Another option is SVI/Infinity. $135 a mag though, not sure about shipping. I think Travis Tomasie used to run them in his Limited gun. You'd have to contact them about fit and capacity. SVI 140

 

You could also try making the feed lips wider and see if that cures your nosediving. The recommended way is to use what are called "Chain Pliers". There are other ways to do it though and some mags are softer than others. For what it's worth I've never had to readjust the feed lips on my SPS mags even though they get dropped on the ground constantly. 

As I said above, I did ask MBX if their STI/SVI mags work (which are 18 round .45ACP) but they said it is too wide and wouldn't fit in a Para Ordnance frame. So I've heard contradictory statements on whether they work or not, or whether they work with just a change on the mag catch or magazine themselves. Could I potentially get a .40 MBX mag for the Para and tune the feedlips there to fit .45ACP or would that not work?

2 hours ago, ChuckS said:

FWIW, all I ran in my 9mm STI were SPS tubes. Set up by Grams, I got 30 rounds reloadable in the 170's. Beven like working with the SPS tubes because you could actually tune the tubes and they would not try to crack like SV tubes. This was some years ago so the world may be different but if SPS offers an off-the-shelf solution, go for it!

 

Nice, I'll definitely keep the SPS tubes in mind if I can't get any higher capacity ones. I'm just curious why the MBX mags for the STI/SVI or the Grams Engineering kits can get 18 rounds but the SBS mags only get 16 rounds. Different internal profile? You all will have to be patient with me, I have no idea how any of these things work so basic stuff you guys probably all know already, I'm totally ignorant of.

 

Thanks for all the responses!

[caspian guy]

1 hour ago, gameragodzilla said:

Gotcha. Just a shame it's only 16 as the Grams kit seems to get 18 but those aren't around anymore.

As I said above, I did ask MBX if their STI/SVI mags work (which are 18 round .45ACP) but they said it is too wide and wouldn't fit in a Para Ordnance frame. So I've heard contradictory statements on whether they work or not, or whether they work with just a change on the mag catch or magazine themselves. Could I potentially get a .40 MBX mag for the Para and tune the feedlips there to fit .45ACP or would that not work?

Nice, I'll definitely keep the SPS tubes in mind if I can't get any higher capacity ones. I'm just curious why the MBX mags for the STI/SVI or the Grams Engineering kits can get 18 rounds but the SBS mags only get 16 rounds. Different internal profile? You all will have to be patient with me, I have no idea how any of these things work so basic stuff you guys probably all know already, I'm totally ignorant of.

 

Thanks for all the responses!

The issue with trying to use a 40 mag for 45 is that the indentations on the side of the mag bodies that control how the rounds stack in the magazine are likely to make the inside of the mag body too narrow for 45. (in addition to the feed lip dimensions which you could tune.)

[gameragodzilla]

11 minutes ago, caspian guy said:

The issue with trying to use a 40 mag for 45 is that the indentations on the side of the mag bodies that control how the rounds stack in the magazine are likely to make the inside of the mag body too narrow for 45. (in addition to the feed lip dimensions which you could tune.)

That would explain why the 10mm 1911's magazine I have has indentations while the .45ACP mags don't seem to. Do those indentations affect how rounds are stacked in the mag, too? I said before that I noticed there not being any nosedive issues with the Taylor Freelance extensions on my 10mm 1911 OEM mag but did have that issue with the modified Mec Gar mag for 10mm. Both mags are perfectly reliable without the extension. Again, pardon my ignorance.

[caspian guy]

16 minutes ago, gameragodzilla said:

That would explain why the 10mm 1911's magazine I have has indentations while the .45ACP mags don't seem to. Do those indentations affect how rounds are stacked in the mag, too? I said before that I noticed there not being any nosedive issues with the Taylor Freelance extensions on my 10mm 1911 OEM mag but did have that issue with the modified Mec Gar mag for 10mm. Both mags are perfectly reliable without the extension. Again, pardon my ignorance.

It's more pronounced in double stack mags but it matters in single stack mags as well to some extent.

 

Something else you have to watch for when you put extensions on mags is the transition between the mag extension and the mag body (dimensional mismatch.) Depending on the spring and follower and how far (if at all) the rounds go into the extension the transition can cause drag/sticking.

[gameragodzilla]

22 minutes ago, caspian guy said:

It's more pronounced in double stack mags but it matters in single stack mags as well to some extent.

 

Something else you have to watch for when you put extensions on mags is the transition between the mag extension and the mag body (dimensional mismatch.) Depending on the spring and follower and how far (if at all) the rounds go into the extension the transition can cause drag/sticking.

Ah, so it's more the follower and spring that could be the issue? Do you think my current woes with the Mec Gar mags and Taylor Freelance extensions could be fixed with a different follower?

[caspian guy]

15 minutes ago, gameragodzilla said:

Ah, so it's more the follower and spring that could be the issue? Do you think my current woes with the Mec Gar mags and Taylor Freelance extensions could be fixed with a different follower?

Possible but also possible the extension and the bottom of the mag tube don't line up and you'd have to blend them...

 

How do the mags work with the extension and only load them to 14 rounds?

[gameragodzilla]

2 hours ago, caspian guy said:

Possible but also possible the extension and the bottom of the mag tube don't line up and you'd have to blend them...

 

How do the mags work with the extension and only load them to 14 rounds?

They work fine when loaded with 14 rounds, though I don’t necessarily think it’s the extensions having issues as it didn’t have nose dive issues with the OEM 10mm 1911 magazines. Springs weren’t strong enough to lock the slide back, so I’d have to replace those, but the extension worked there. Maybe the mag body has issues?

[gameragodzilla]

Just want to give an update that my RP45 mags came in today and they seem to be the right tube size, and when I tested these with the Taylor Freelance extensions, the rounds didn't nosedive when I loaded them, so it seems like it was the Mec Gar mag body that was the issue. However, I say "seem" because the RP45 mags don't actually lock into my P14-45, so I assume some modifications are needed. Anyone know what modifications should be done? How much material should be shaved off the mag catch hole to work right?

[gameragodzilla]

Want to provide an update that the RP45 mags worked perfectly fine. And there's also no nosediving issues with the RP45 mags with the Taylor Freelance extensions. So it seems like the problem was the Mec Gar magazines not working properly beyond 14 rounds. Now I know. I'm just updating here in case anyone in the future sees this and is having similar problems. Thanks for all the help, everyone.