A serious question for 1911 lovers...

[Walt Sherrill]

This was an unintended consequence of it's design. It's not just the trigger. It's the ability to change easily, from a short to long trigger, from a flat to arched mainspring housing, from smooth to checkered grips, thick to thin grips, rounder to flatter stocks, to tighten the slide to frame fit, to install a fit bushing and much more. You can do some of this for less than $100. bucks and more, of course if you want. It used to be for decades that no other guns matched it's versatility.

What you say above is arguably true, but it's also true of many other guns, and things like bushings may or may not be needed with those guns, etc. While its true that you can can do SOME of this for less $100, a good bit of it will run more -- as it will for other guns.

I'm not trying to discount your comments above -- they are valid -- but I still think there's something else at play here -- as yet undefined or unaddressed.

 

[tipoc]

Are 1911s really more accurate, or have they just been around so long that most gunsmiths know all of the "secrets" to improving their performance when they come from the factory? Do 1911s have to be "tuned" to live up to their reputation? And when improved, are that THAT MUCH better than other tuned guns?

and...

What you say above is arguably true, but it's also true of many other guns, and things like bushings may or may not be needed with those guns, etc. While its true that you can can do SOME of this for less $100, a good bit of it will run more -- as it will for other guns.

I'm not trying to discount your comments above -- they are valid -- but I still think there's something else at play here -- as yet undefined or unaddressed.

But it was not true of "many other guns" until recently.

Maybe part of the discussion that's missing is time.

It seems you're asking two separate questions, maybe three. The first looks like; is an out of the box production 1911 more accurate than other pistols in the same price range. The answer to that is no. Not inherently. Some yes, some no.

The second seems to be is the trigger of a 1911 so much better that it makes the gun better to shoot? The answer to that is: You can shoot well without it but it also helps many shooters be better straight out the box, and tuned can be very good. Can you shoot other triggers as well? Of course. It's a trigger, not magic.

The third is what I'm not sure of. You seem to compress time or not see it. Things come wrapped in history and expectations. This is true of the 1911 more so than many others. There is an intangible. A piece of desire. A piece of U.S. history. An American gun. Captain America don't carry a Berretta or a G19.

Up till the 1980s the U.S. was a nation of revolver shooters. S&W only began making service caliber semis in the 1950s. Other than Colt when it came to semis what was there? Till the rise of the Wonder 9s, not much. They had to play catch up. They have.

1911s built a reputation over decades. One is that the trigger is, or can be superb. It can be.

But I think you do miss out on something else. or deny it. The trigger is only part of it.

Americans seem to really like messing around with ARs. Everybody and their Grandma has a favorite builder, makers have fan bases, fellas like mixing and matching. For many years the only hand gun that invited so much tinkering was the 1911. Way too much maybe. No handgun is as adaptable. None...period. That's an attraction.

45acp, 38 Super, 30 Luger, 9mm, 10mm, 9x23, 40 S&W, 357 Sig, 41 AE, 38 Spl., 38-45, 38 Casull, 41 Avenger, 400 Cor-Bon, 45 Super, 460 Rowland, 50 GI and there are more.

tipoc

 

[jimbob86]

1911 triggers....

You can shoot well without it but it also helps many shooters be better straight out the box, and tuned can be very good. Can you shoot other triggers as well? Of course. It's a trigger, not magic.

Give enough practice, most people can master any trigger, even a Sigma. The thing about the 1911 is that the learning curve is easier ..... newbs start hitting what they are aiming at sooner with the 1911...... while the Sigma guy is still trying to get on paper, and the M9 guy is figuring out the DA trigger pull vs the SA of the following shots, the the 1911 guy is moving on to developing muscle memory, bigger and better things .....

I still say the stock trigger on cheap filipino 1911 is easier for new shooter to get hits with than DA/SA and DAO guns costing 4-5x as much. Put both guns in a Ransom rest and the spendy one will out shoot the slag gun ..... but put it in a newb's hand, and he'll do better with the 1911: it's just easier to keep the sights aligned with that short, straight trigger pull.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

1911s built a reputation over decades. One is that the trigger is, or can be superb. It can be.

But I think you do miss out on something else. or deny it. The trigger is only part of it.

Americans seem to really like messing around with ARs. Everybody and their Grandma has a favorite builder, makers have fan bases, fellas like mixing and matching. For many years the only hand gun that invited so much tinkering was the 1911. Way too much maybe. No handgun is as adaptable. None...period. That's an attraction..

I haven't ignored the role of history in all of this, and I agree that TIME has played a role in the 1911's success. It was, for most folks, the only semi-auto .45 option available for decades. That "uniqueness" made it the only game in town for some folks and many people are slow to change their predispositions.

I don't know that the urge of some folks to fix up or modify their ARs is as evident in the 1911 market -- as darned few of the folks I know who shoot 1911s are really into home gunsmithing. They all seem to know the local or regional gunsmiths who are best at working on 1911s. If most were home gunsmith doing their own modifications, I think there'd be a lot fewer 1911 gunsmiths in the U.S.

The SIG P-220 design is arguably AS adaptable as the 1911. The P220 was the base gun upon which the whole SIG P-series was based, starting with the P-5/P-225 and going on up to the newer P-227 (a double-stack .45). That basic design started as a .45 and went in other directions, too. The SIG P226 X-5 and X-6, and P-220 X-5 are available in the standard calibers and offer exceptional accuracy, as well. I won't be surprised to see an "X-" version of the P-227, one of these days; if that happens, we'll probably see some P-series RACE GUNS in IPSC competition, too.

Could an enhanced DA/SA or SA P220 or P227 ever do as well as an improved 1911 in Bullseye? I don't know, but I suspect it COULD. The X-five Sigs are remarkably accurate and they do make a P-220 X-Five. Could they do it as inexpensively as with a 1911s? Probably not.

I think the standard “good” but potentially marvelous 1911 trigger plays a far bigger role in that gun's continued popularity than most folks realize. But your point -- that you can improve the gun with a moderate outlay of money is certainly a factor. Maybe those two factors are the bulk of the answer?

The received wisdom has long held that the 1911 is the brightest star in the handgun heavens. If that wisdom ever changes such that higher capacity is more important to shooters, that star may dim a bit.

 

[WVsig]

Walt Sherrill it seems like you are begging the question here. You started this discussion already knowing what you believe to be the answer. That is fine but then it seems you really did not ask the questions honestly.

Every reply you have given to the answer that people have provide seems to deflect and distract back to your original conclusion which you had already arrived at prior to your inquiry.

Are 1911s innately more accurate, or do they simply, because of the great triggers, just lure people into tweaking them more.

People have replied that the trigger goes a long way to making the 1911 an accurate gun in wide range of hands from new shooters to experienced combat and gun game champions. The trigger along with the inherent mechanical accuracy of the gun make the 1911 what it is. You seem to be fixated on the trigger which is where you are really begging the question.

I think that due to your circular reasoning you are attempting to separate the two in a way that is not valid. Let me attempt to illustrate.

First you have not defined what you consider the definition of accuracy or "an accurate handgun". I think that point is missing if you are really interested really asking the question. I personally breakdown accuracy into 2 categories. Mechanical accuracy and then in my hands accuracy. For me these are the only 2 relevant definitions. YMMV

I believe that the true test of mechanical accuracy is 50 yards. As it has been pointed out it is the range Camp Perry has been using to demonstrate accurate pistol shooting for over 100 years. It is a great reference point to compare one pistol to another. Say a Les Baer to a Sig P210. Slap them in a rest or shoot them off a bag with a steady hand and collect the data.

For me personally the data is pretty meaningless. I can't shoot targets at 50 yards with any proficiency. I don't like shooting off of rests so it means nothing to me beyond an interesting point of objective comparison.

Now "in my hands accuracy" is another matter all together. This is how accurate is a particular gun in my hands shooting the way I like to shoot. For me this is standing 2 handed grip shooting at 10, 15 & 25 yards respectively. For me this "accuracy" is all about my interaction with the gun. It is subjective. There are many guns that I love that I simply do not shoot as well as others due to hand size or sight configuration or other factors like trigger.

This is the one that matters to me. So I have to ask which one are we talking about when we are talking about 1911s. It seems like you are mixing the 2 at times in this discussion.

I will await your thoughts before commenting further.

 

[WVsig]

The SIG P-220 design is arguably AS adaptable as the 1911. The P220 was the base gun upon which the whole SIG P-series was based, starting with the P-5/P-225 and going on up to the newer P-227 (a double-stack .45). That basic design started as a .45 and went in other directions, too. The SIG P226 X-5 and X-6, and P-220 X-5 are available in the standard calibers and offer exceptional accuracy, as well. I won't be surprised to see an "X-" version of the P-227, one of these days; if that happens, we'll probably see some P-series RACE GUNS in IPSC competition, too.

I do not think that the changes made to the P220 to create the other P series guns is the same as the adaptability of the 1911.

What you can do with a stock P220 is similar to a 1911. You can send it to Gray guns and have a new Barsto Barrel, new trigger, new sear, extractor, new sights and trigger job etc... Swap out the grips but it is still not as customizable as a 1911. Just not as many options.

Also I think this goes towards my other point. IPSC is not really a test of "mechanical" accuracy. IIRC most of the targets are close range with an occasional shot out to 50 meters. The guns used there are not chosen for mechanical accuracy but for shoot-ability and subjective ergonomics in order to achieve acceptable accuracy but more importantly being able to shoot quickly. It is a combination of accuracy & speed. Bullseye is a much better test of accuracy. IMHO

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I do not think that the changes made to the P220 to create the other P series guns is the same as the adaptability of the 1911.

Perhaps. I may have interpreted or used "adaptability" differently than you and tipoc use it.

The basic P-220 design was the basis for all of the P-series; that basic design seems quite adaptable -- but if you use the term "adaptable" to mean what can be done for any one gun, with easily available parts that may not always require an uber-talented gunsmith for their installation, maybe the P-series guns are not AS adaptable as 1911s.

On the other hand, the X-series of SIG guns are pretty impressive. I didn't realize they made a P-220 X-Five until just recently; I suspect that is a very accurate gun. Bruce Gray and Ernie Langdon seem to have a good understanding of what can be done with the P-series SIGs. I have a Gray Guns P-228, and a friend has several P-220s that were worked on by Ernie Langdon back when he was the "other" big SIG gunsmith. Those are very impressive guns. I'd say those guns were "adapted" very nicely, and the work done wasn't always major rebuild... they just had a few parts swapped out and some masterful tuning done to them.

Also I think this goes towards my other point. IPSC is not really a test of "mechanical" accuracy. IIRC most of the targets are close range with an occasional shot out to 50 meters. The guns used there are not chosen for mechanical accuracy but for shoot-ability and subjective ergonomics in order to achieve acceptable accuracy but more importantly being able to shoot quickly. It is a combination of accuracy & speed. Bullseye is a much better test of accuracy. IMHO

I think your comments above address the obvious differences between Bullseye and IPSC (or USPSA) fairly well. That said, I have a bunch of friends who are dyed-in-the-wool 1911 shooters, and they typically shoot at the same targets I do; and when they carry (and many of them do), its not in anticipation of shooting an adversary 50 yards (or 25 yards) away. They love their 1911s and their accuracy, and how they look and feel, but they are more likely to use those guns at much closer than "Bullseye" distances and do it firing from positions or using stances unlikely to be seen at a Bullseye match.

I wasn't really trying to hold up IPSC as a place where accuracy rules, but accuracy THERE does matter. While shootability and ergonomics matter in IPSC, those traits are two of the things that are frequently mentioned as 1911 strong points -- especially with NEW shooters. That's been mentioned several times in this discussion.

1911s are great, but some other guns may be just as good. Those other good guns, however, don't seem to have the cheering section advocating for them that 1911s have. Why that is hasn't really been addressed in this discussion. Maybe if they had better triggers?

 

[tipoc]

From Waly:

The received wisdom has long held that the 1911 is the brightest star in the handgun heavens. If that wisdom ever changes such that higher capacity is more important to shooters, that star may dim a bit.

Walt you've been around long enough to know that that ship has sailed, the star dimmed years back. The 1911 is no longer the standard service sidearm of any major army or law enforcement organization in the U.S. or anywhere else that I'm aware of. (I leave aside the MEUSOC, SWAT units, etc.) In the U.S. it is still a top seller but has many rivals and some guns that are better when it comes to capacity, lighter to carry, shoot as well in competition, have fewer parts, have droves of loyal followers, etc.

I can name you several guns that I've shot and owned that are as accurate, as ergonomic, as suitable for defensive work as any 1911 I own. You can do the same and have here in this thread. Still, people want to own one. They keep selling, both new and old guns.

This thread itself is a reminder that they are still the gun against which others are judged. Even the Glock (with legions of adherents). 1911s earned a legendary status over decades. They are no longer the "brightest star in the handgun heavens", if they ever were and if anyone thought of them that way. Glock sells more guns, the M&P is popular, H&Ks have a cult-like status among some, CZs do well, etc. All good guns and as capable as the 1911. Not all fit the hand or the eye as well.

tipoc

 

[KyJim]

Getting back to the original question:

Are 1911s innately more accurate, or do they simply, because of the great triggers, just lure people into tweaking them more.

I'm not a tweaker. I would only consider doing three things to a 1911 I purchase: change sights, change grips, and get trigger work. Frankly, I have seldom done anything but change grips in my 1911s. There are so many configurations out there, you can buy just about anything you want straight from the manufacturer (at least the important stuff). It is also normally cheaper to do it that way.

I suspect people tweak them more just because there are a lot of aftermarket parts and accessories for them and some folks have to take a wrench, dremel, screwdriver, or hammer to just about everything they buy.

 

[WVsig]

I think your comments above address the obvious differences between Bullseye and IPSC (or USPSA) fairly well. That said, I have a bunch of friends who are dyed-in-the-wool 1911 shooters, and they typically shoot at the same targets I do; and when they carry (and many of them do), its not in anticipation of shooting an adversary 50 yards (or 25 yards) away. They love their 1911s and their accuracy, and how they look and feel, but they are more likely to use those guns at much closer than "Bullseye" distances and do it firing from positions or using stances unlikely to be seen at a Bullseye match.

I agree with what you are saying here but I think that they are using accurate with the little "a", which is accurate in my hands, not accurate with the big "A" mechanically accurate. Too many shooters IMHO use the terms interchangeably.

In the end the mechanical accuracy of most gun even down to budget shooters is greater than most people can shoot. As you move up the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The difference between a gun that will consistently shoot 2" groups at 50 yards instead of 2" groups at 25 is going to cost you in the range of 200% to 300% more. The gain is small compared to the price tag.

Again which is why I asked what are you referring to when you talk about accuracy. At 10 yards you should be able to keep solid groups with just about any 45 ACP if you are a decent shooter. So I personally do not consider claims about a guns accuracy at these ranges to mean anything more than I shoot the gun well.

When one is talking about the accuracy of a gun IMHO this is not what one should be talking about. When talking about how accurate a gun is it should be in terms of object mechanical accuracy not subjective in my hands accuracy.

I wasn't really trying to hold up IPSC as a place where accuracy rules, but accuracy THERE does matter. While shootability and ergonomics matter in IPSC, those traits are two of the things that are frequently mentioned as 1911 strong points -- especially with NEW shooters. That's been mentioned several times in this discussion.

1911s are great, but some other guns may be just as good. Those other good guns, however, don't seem to have the cheering section advocating for them that 1911s have. Why that is hasn't really been addressed in this discussion. Maybe if they had better triggers?

When you have lowered the bar to 10 yards to define accurate then I agree there are many guns which will be just as good as the 1911. As I said most 45s in the hands of decent shooter can achieve that. The difference is that my Sig P228 or even Sig P226 which would cost the same $$$ as my Dan Wesson CBOB is not going to shoot the same groups at 25 yards. Even if I have Bruce Gray tune it the Sig will not shoot the same groups and if I take the same $$ I would give to Bruce and put it into the CBOB the difference will increase.

I have custom 1911s and have owned custom Bruce Gray guns. All of the Gray guns are gone the 1911s stay... but really that just means "in my hands the 1911 is more accurate" but I also believe that the basic platform when it is executed properly is also mechanically more accurate. Not by much... but still more accurate. The other issue I think that is lost is that very few modern 1911s are made in the way that JMB intended.

In the end it really does not matter because we should all shoot what we enjoy and what we shoot well and not stress the rest. In the end accuracy for most of us beyond "combat accuracy" is a moot point.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

This thread itself is a reminder that they are still the gun against which others are judged.

That's true -- and probably the reason they get as much attention as they do.

This discussion has been more thoughtful than many, with good input from a number of participants. It's nice to see that sort of non-emotional discussion; too often these forum discussions seem like a battle of hormones and emotions.

I agree with what you are saying here but I think that they are using accurate with the little "a", which is accurate in my hands, not accurate with the big "A" mechanically accurate. Too many shooters IMHO use the terms interchangeably.

We agree. I think many folks use the terms "accuracy" and "precision" interchangeably. Precision is the term I've seen used to describe a gun's ability to send bullets to the same place each time (from a Ransom Rest, for example) -- what some call "mechanical" accuracy. The term accuracy is more often used to describe the gun's ability to send bullets where the shooter wants them sent. Even a very good shooter using a gun that's not "mechanically accurate" isn't likely to have good results -- but he or she might do better than a poor shooter.

As you describe it above, but using my terms, you might say that the 1911 has the potential to be more precise than most other guns, but some folks may shoot other guns just as accurately. For you, the 1911 works best. Nothing to argue about there.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a P-210-6 that was very accurate. (I've seen proof targets from other P-210s with sub 1" groups at 50 meters.) I wonder what might have happened had SIG tried that same basic design in .45? It would have been SA, too, and probably could have held 7-8 rounds, as well. That would have been an interesting gun.

 

[tipoc]

1911s are great, but some other guns may be just as good. Those other good guns, however, don't seem to have the cheering section advocating for them that 1911s have. Why that is hasn't really been addressed in this discussion. Maybe if they had better triggers?

There are other guns around that are "just as good" at most things folks use handguns for, at the least for those that prefer them. "Just as good" at what? is a legitimate question as well. That maybe is another discussion.

Glocks. The fanbase for the Austrian semis is international and enthusiastic. Much more so than fans of the 1911. The fanbase there is famous for it's aggressive enthusiasm.

There are websites for HK, Sig, CZ, S&W, Ruger and others. Each with many followers.

The fan base for 1911s is multi-generational and varied in it's interests maybe more so than the others. It may vary more. From serious collectors of Colts civilian and military, to those interested in military guns only, to those who collect the builds of well known pistolsmiths, to competitors, to action shooters, to whose who participate in "Wild Bunch" competitions, to "combat" shooters to those that like the weight and heft of the gun, to those who see high end 1911s as status pieces, etc. All together that's a lot of folks and very varied interests. They don't all speak with one voice in one place.

Gun magazines play a role in promoting the 1911 as well. Most major gun manufacturers make a 1911, or their version of one. There is a large aftermarket sector of the industry. Gun magazines serve the industry. When guns sell they advertise. Articles and reviews appear. Ichiro Nagata takes pictures that makes you want to buy one. He could take a pic of an old spark plug and I'd wanna buy it.

The same magazines promote other guns as well. Gun mags are to the industry what car mags are to the auto industry or Bride mags are to the wedding industry. They promote. Cosmo has articles about the "best orgasm" in every issue. Gun mags about the "best holsters for concealed carry".

Anyway don't let the "aura" of the 1911 bother you. Either you like it or not. You can be indifferent as well. But the old gun has earned it's place at the table and is still keeping pace. And it isn't just the trigger.

tipoc