What has been done to the 1911 to ruin it??

[mes228]

First I'll say I really like the 1911 and have owned several . Including custom made ones and currently own a Springfield with work costing approx. $3,000 with the work done by Clark Custom (top 100 Gunsmiths). Here's the problem I have. I read a re-print booklet entitled "Manual of the Automatic Pistol Caliber .45 Model 1911 General Headquarters American Expeditionary Force 1918".

On page 12 it shows the accuracy they obtained from a stock Military 1911 with standard ball ammo. The chart stipulates the data is from 10 rounds fired from a barrel rest. In 1918 the 1911 would fire ten rounds at 25 yards into .855 inch. And at 50 yards 1.356 inches and at 75 yards 2.244 inches. These figures are the "radius" of the groups. So I think that would double the size of the groups the way I measure them. Still, that's one heck of an accurate .45 with ball ammo, and a stock military arm. Kinda makes today's .45's look like slackers and really makes custom gunsmiths accurizing work a mystery. For several hundred dollars extra in accurizing work you can purchase a .45 that will shoot 1 1/2 to 2-3 inches at 50 yds. with specified target ammo and exclude "flyer's". In 1918 a standard .45 would pretty much shoot that with ball ammo. Makes you wonder about all the improvements that have been made. My question is what has changed to result in today's .45's?? Seems to me the standard "hand fitted" 1918 .45 is the equivalent of a high end custom today. I guess there were more gunsmiths then and less automatic machinery.

 

[AngusPodgorney]

The chart stipulates the data is from 10 rounds fired from a barrel rest.

Just what exactly, do they mean by a barrel rest?

 

[mes228]

1911

They have two charts/tables in the booklet. One chart is off hand, I don't recall the exact accuracy but it was exceptional. Also they fired 21 rounds into a 5" group at 25 yards off hand in 12 seconds. Firing started with gun empty, with man shooting across a table with extra loaded magazines lying on table. The other is just labeled "with rest supporting barrel". Today some people can do that shooting if the gun is capable. What struck me was that's a standard military 1911 with ball ammo. This post I'm quoting info from memory (I read it yesterday). The info in my first post is exact as I copied it from the book and put it in my bill fold as I thought it extraordinary.

 

[rellascout]

You are correct that it all comes down to human craftsmen vs machines. The main difference between the 1911's of old and the production runs of today is that the 1911 was designed and originally produced requiring a lot of hand fitting. Labor was cheap and there was no machinery to built CNC and MIM parts.

Each 1911 was fitted and produced by hand with a great deal of the final fit and finish done by individual craftsmen.

This is no longer the case. Mass production is the name of the game. All the pistols now run down a line with as man parts mass produced and finished prior to assembly. Only a minimum of hand fitting is done on production pistols.

If you want a true hand fitted pistol you must go to people like Baer, Wilson, Hawk Hawk, Clark or your favorite semi-custom maker or smith. This cost $$$$ Labor is no longer cheap.

Todays economy of scale make hand fitting impossible on production pistols.

 

[tulsamal]

Labor is no longer cheap.

I would say labor costs are close to being the same. A skilled machinist made good money back then and they make good money today. In the 1920's, gasoline was about ten gold cents a gallon. It's about ten gold cents today.

The "value" of labor or the "value" of gasoline hasn't changed. It's the value of the paper money that changes.

"Regular working Joes" in 1918 couldn't afford to buy a new Colt 1911. Don't be fooled by the price you see in old catalogs. You have to consider how long somebody had to work to earn that much money!

Gregg

 

[Croc]

IIRC those groups demonstrate the accuracy of the barrel only. When you put the barrel into the slide you get some play, and when the slide assembly is put on the receiver even more play is added. It adds up and lessens accuracy.

Todays gunsmiths get the big bucks for removing the play in factory fitted parts, yet leaving just enough so that the pistol still functions.

Croc (Current refugee from THR)

 

[SilverState]

Since you read it in a booklet, it must be true, right?

I had this discussion with my mother not too long ago. And no, I am not a child, I have a wife and son. But getting back to my conversation with my mother. We were talking about a subject, and she tells me that she read so forth and so on. I said I knew for a fact that what she read was incorrect. She said "but it is in the book, so it must be true...they can't just print things that aren't true". Unfortunately, they can and do.

Nothing against 1911s, I have several. I prefer the semi-customs to the GI versions. I shoot tighter groups with the semi-customs. But if someone prefers a GI 1911, have at it. It's like going to the track and racing a modern twin turbo car against a 350 small block car, they each have their advantages.

 

[Kermit]

I have become a big fan of the 1911 over the last few years...primarily Colts & IMO, the one "thing" they could have easily done w/o are the front slide serrations

 

[JohnKSa]

Croc's right. That's testing ONLY the barrel for accuracy using a special fixture. It has very little to do with the accuracy of the entire pistol.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

No, that was not just the barrel-it was the gun. They never were inaccurate, except perhaps some of the guns that had lots of use.
Bill

 

[JohnKSa]

No, that was not just the barrel-it was the gun.

10 shot 3" groups at 50 yards with stock military issue handguns?

Something doesn't add up...

If you want that kind of accuracy guarantee today it will cost you well over $1000 in the form of a Les Baer custom 1911.

 

[mes228]

1911

That was the point of my starting this topic. In 1918 a standard Military 1911 seems to have been as accurate as a top tier custom is today. The booklet does not indicate that the pistol was in a machine rest or was just the barrel. The booklet is a reprint of Army literature for the soldiers in the 1st World War deployment to Europe. Probably available at any gun show. That's where I found it. If you do find it check out page 12.

 

[AngusPodgorney]

I'm not buying it. As I asked before, just what exactly is a barrel rest?

 

[Merkaba]

...

maybe this is the kind of barrel rest they are referring to.

 

[RickB]

G.I. pistols were not likely capable of shooting 4" groups at 50 yards with hardball. If you add up the allowable tolerances in barrel-to-bushing fit, bushing-to-slide fit, barrel-to-frame fit, etc., there's little chance. The total tolerances on those fits would have been perhaps .004" at the muzzle, and another .004" at the lower lug/slidestop pin, and similar in the slide-to-frame fit, and that can't add up to 4" accuracy at 50 yards. The G.I. manuals also have accuracy standards for pistols, and while I don't have my manuals handy, I'll bet the 50 yard accuracy standard was more like 8". The early Colts were built more carefully than late-war guns, and were tighter and more accurate than WWII era guns, but they weren't match pistols.

 

[kcshooter]

The chart stipulates the data is from 10 rounds fired from a barrel rest. In 1918 the 1911 would fire ten rounds at 25 yards into .855 inch. And at 50 yards 1.356 inches and at 75 yards 2.244 inches.

No, that was not just the barrel-it was the gun. They never were inaccurate, except perhaps some of the guns that had lots of use.

Just not buying that one. There's just no way that figure is out of an assembled military issue 1911. Under 1.5" at 50yds? Under 2.25" at 75yds? Too much reading, not enough thinking.

Something doesn't add up...

+1

 

[mes228]

1911

Those figures are the radius of the group. I think you would double that figure for the way I measure groups. Todays high end .45's will shoot that. My Clark Springfield will shoot that. I'm not saying thats the gospel of the 1911 in 1918.
I found it remarkable enough to post it here. Don't know the answer, however I think the military could measure a group in 1918. Perhaps it's fanciful, but if it's fact, there's been no improvement in the 1911 in 89 years. Makes me respect
the original design and builders. As an aside, I have been told that there's been no advance in accuracy, or anything else in over 100 years in firearms. There have been advances in metalurgy, rate of fire, and ammo. Mostly rate of fire. But not in the arms themselves. This may be an example of what he was talking about.

 

[badbob]

On page 12 it shows the accuracy they obtained from a stock Military 1911 with standard ball ammo. The chart stipulates the data is from 10 rounds fired from a barrel rest. In 1918 the 1911 would fire ten rounds at 25 yards into .855 inch. And at 50 yards 1.356 inches and at 75 yards 2.244 inches. These figures are the "radius" of the groups.

I find the term "radius" troubling. A .855R (radius) at 25 yd, would be a 1.71 diam. circle , a1.356R at 50 yds., would be a 2.712 diam. circle, a 2.244R at 75 yds., would be a 4.488 diam circle.

Considering the gun is fired from a rest, believable except for the "ball ammo" part, IMHO. Maybe they had better ammo then? Certainly better than the ball I've been getting!

badbob

 

[BlueTrain]

I guess I'm an average working Joe (I'm at work now, in fact) and that's why I can't afford a real Colt .45 automatic. Oh, I've owned a few over the last 25 years, just about one of every major variation up until recently. Never had a Combat Commander or a Gold Cup but I've had an Officer's ACP, a lightweight Commander (my favorite), a stainless 1991A1 (the most practical all-round) and so on. Never had a second-hand issue .45.

I also have a West Point textbook from the 1920's on Ordnance, which also covers small arms and a 1917 NCO manual. I don't think either one mentions accuracty at 50 or 100 yards for pistols. But here is something else that doesn't add up: It has to be somewhat loose fitted for reliability but somewhat tight for accuracy. I know a tight gun loosens up quickly enough to become reliable but nevertheless, it makes you wonder. I did well to keep everything on the paper at 25 yards but that was shooting one handed, which is the point of a one-hand gun anyway. You need the other hand for the reins or the cigar.

It's worth a little research. I recall that gun magazines in the late 1950's often had articles about various police departments and some of the larger ones evidently used homemade pistol (revolvers, of course) rests to test their handloads. They also had articles about reloading operations for keeping down the costs of training on the range. Do you suppose any still do that?

 

[Walter]

In my opinion, too many people lionizing the 1911 as the "end-all, be-all"
handgun. The 1911 is a good handgun, I own 3 of them, and currently carry
one every day as a CCW.
But in the last few years, the 1911 has somehow become the Holy Grail of
handguns. I don't get it. It is a GREAT pistol, but it has its flaws and
failures just like any other piece of machinery.
I think it must be just a fad. Maybe next year the "cool" handgun will be
the Colt Single Action Army .45.
I hope so, I wouldn't mind packing that one for a while. It is a
"Really Kewl Gun"!!!

Walter