Colt Ace frame/Marvel conversion?

piasashooter · Post by **piasashooter** » Fri May 13, 2011 1:00 am

Hi, I was wondering if a Marvel Unit 1 will work on a Colt Ace frame. The Colt Ace I have was left to me from my Grandfather, it is not a service model Ace, the serial number 96xx, matches a production date of 1939, I believe. Since I have the 1911 already, I wanted to try a Marvel to see how I like it. If I decide I like it more than my Ruger, then I would find a dedicated frame for it. All replies are appreciated.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri May 13, 2011 6:57 am

Does your pre-war frame have the fixed barrel or the free-floating conversion? The Ace frames are still identical to the government model frame and the Marvel conversion will fit on it. Later on Colt made centerfire conversion units to use on the Ace frames. I shot an "SM" prefixed 1911 in competition for many years on my service team.

R,
Bullseye

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Fri May 13, 2011 12:17 pm

Might be useful, I noticed the other day that Midway lists Colt mags for the Colt Ace conversion, for $65! And the only two reviews are both negative.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/de ... ber=557131

piasashooter · Post by **piasashooter** » Fri May 13, 2011 3:26 pm

I think it is the fixed barrel, it is one piece, and does not have the removable floating chamber, if that is what you were wanting to know.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri May 13, 2011 5:20 pm

Yes, but the barrel should be capable of coming out of the frame via the slide stop. The stop holds it in a fixed position within the frame. With the barrel removed the frame is identical to any other 1911 frame. You may need to add an ejector but the holes are in the frame for it.

R,
Bullseye

piasashooter · Post by **piasashooter** » Sat May 14, 2011 2:58 am

Yes, the barrel can be removed via the slide stop, looking back at your post, I now realize what you meant. Sorry, not to familiar with 1911's, just Rugers. I see the holes you mentioned for the ejector, is there any fitting involved with installing one?

Post by **Bullseye** » Sat May 14, 2011 9:49 am

There can be a little minor fitting. The biggest thing fitting-wise is seating the new ejector flush with the frame and usually needing to drill the front leg for the hold-down crosspin. I use a 1/16" twist drill and carefully drill the leg using the pinhole as a guide.

R,
Bullseye

piasashooter · Post by **piasashooter** » Thu May 19, 2011 3:38 am

OK, thanks for all the help.

piasashooter · Post by **piasashooter** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:27 pm

I shot my Ace recently, and it really got me thinking about getting a Marvel again. I don't really want to use the Ace frame, but am kind of overwhelmed about buying a frame, and all the parts. Unless I could find a good deal on a complete gun to use, building a dedicated frame seems like the way to go. I would like to keep the cost of the complete frame under $450, not including labor for fitting, is this possible?, things sure add up quick. I want to do this right, but don't want to waste money on higher priced parts, if they are not needed. Thanks, all replies are welcome.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:15 am

You can use any inexpensive lower for the host. Essex Arms is temporarily out of production but Iver Johnson has blue GI lowers for around $275, you can build on that. http://www.iverjohnsonarms.com/29301.html

I've had some feeding issues with the Colt Ace mags and the Marvel Units but Kimber's polymer 1911 .22 mags work well with the Marvel conversions.

R,
Bullseye

stork · Post by **stork** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:40 am

Bullseye,
When you were shooting the Ace conversion, how was the accuracy.

the only feedback I ever see was that they were suitable for plinking and practice, never anything from one who has actually used them in BE competition.

TIA
Stork

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:36 pm

The Ace conversions were on par with "issue" GI 1911s accuracy-wise. Not a "match" quality .22 pistol by any means. The Marvel conversions are very accurate but they are real finicky. I've had to tune several of them to feed and detonate reliably. Still I see the Colt Ace magazines as the weak point. Their all metal but the Marvel is real particular about positioning in the feed lips. I've had issues with overrides where the back of the rounds are pushed downwards into the mag instead of being stripped forward by the slide. Lots of tweaking on the feed lips to get them just right.

R,
Bullseye

Tony S45 · Post by **Tony S45** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:47 pm

Sorry I'm late to this party; however, for general information , if I may:

Numerous members of our gun club have used various 22lr upper conversions for 1911s. One way to help a nose-down feeding problem is to install a higher 1911 mag catch. EGW (EGWguns.com) sells a mag catch with a higher (only .020 higher than stock) catch shelf but it solves a conversion-won't-feed-problem immediately.

I have purchased a few items from EGW over the years and must say that all parts were of the highest quality.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:43 am

The slide on Marvel Unit 1 target conversions does not lock back and the slide catch doesn't interfere with cartridge feeding operations. I have modified some magazines using an aluminum stop (hold open) block, much like the ones I posted for Mark I pistols, for use in the Marvel conversions as a slide hold open device.

R,
Bullseye

stork · Post by **stork** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:46 am

Not to hijack the thread, but a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to try 6 of the GSG 1911/22 magazines in my Marvel conversion. I have two Ace mags that have served me very well and have been 100% reliable, but I was thinking of picking up a spare just in case.

I had the chance to run 6 of the GSG mags through mine and to my surprise every one of them ran like a clock. Not one malfunction (as long as you don't count the several duds I got using Remington SV).

Needless to say I was impressed. From a visual standpoint, they do not appear to be as well made as the Ace mags. But I had absolutely no problems with them from a functional standpoint, and that's what I needed to know. If they weren't going to be dependable, I didn't need them.

I'm planning on picking up a couple.

FWIW