WWII .45 autos and today

[BlueTrain]

The thread about a possible Ruger 1911-style .45 auto makes me wonder about something. Someone mentioned low end and high end and so on. So I was wondering where a WWII production .45 auto would fit on that scale by today's standards? Especially those not made by Colt.

No doubt it would be lower on the scale, since wartime production standards are usually lower or rougher than normal commercial production, at least as far as finish goes. Now here I am also not thinking of WWI production either, which I don't think had lower standards. I've never seen a new in the box wartime production .45 auto and by the time I reached a unit in the army with .45 autos, they were all older than I was, so that's nothing to go by. But from everything I read here, they worked better than anything since. I suppose they had different objectives in mind when they had them made.

One could ask the same thing about current production Colt Government models and I assume they are square in the middle of the scale and the standard against which all others are measured. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[lamarw]

The Govt. 45's (M1911's) would of had to pass inspection acceptance testing even if it was only random sampling of lots. Therefore there was some quality control to assure the gun met the Government requirements. All the guns for the military were bought by a single agency within the Army for use by all the services. They were "build to print" weapons. This is also true of all the ammunition purchased for the Services with the Army as the procurring activity.

That aside, the M1911 in my opinion is a relic so to speak. It is heavier, less accurate, and has a lower capacity than modern day pistols in .45 ACP. Although, I will not dismiss the desire by many of us to have an original for our collection as a memorabillia piece.

I personally have no desire for a copy so to speak of current day reproduction M1911's. I understand there are some high quality guns in this category.

 

[kraigwy]

As issued 1911a1s tended to rattle when you shook them. But they tended to work.

I've seen nothing in todays guns that would equal the USGI 1911a1s. The Series 70 Colts come the closest.

I carried one in SE Asia. I've crawled on my hands and knees through tunnels and rice patties with a 1911A1, They didn't care, they still worked while dripping mud and slime.

When I was shooting for the NG we had two types of matches, Composite (Standard Bullseye with Match Pistols), and Combat, (with arms room 1911a1 on silhouette targets). Just about all the 1911a1s would keep the rounds inside the 9 ring of a B-27 target at 50 yards.

The sights are a little hard to get onto, smoking them helped. Though they rattled, it wasn't that bad. Most wouldn't when locked up. Take an old rattling 1911a1, rack the slide, drop the hammer (empty of course) and keep pressure on the trigger after the hammer falls, try wiggling the chamber and barrel at the end. They don't move much. They seem to rattle while feeding but when locked up to fire, they tighten up.

I have two slides for mine, one I put on high profile sights, one I kept original. Mine was made in 1944.

Does it shoot like my Gold Cup??? Nope
Does it shoot each and every time???? You bet you life, I did.

I shot a two gun match a couple weeks ago, using my 1911a1 and M1 Carbine. It never hiccuped, It was accurate enough for the short ranges we were shooting, (mostly under 25 yards).

If for some weird reason I was to go back into combat as an infantryman I wouldn't hesitate to take a 1911a1.

 

[Zhillsauditor]

Just to hijack the thread a bit, a friend of mine was thinking about getting a WW2 1911. Where would one go to for a WW2 1911 with some kind of provenance.

 

[plumbernater]

The old rattle battles are a fine weapon. If you want it to shoot there are parts galore out there. WW2 1911 are expencive now though, to many collectors. I personally think a gun was made to shoot. Oh yes it rattles because they work. My grandpaw and uncles and many others out there bet their lives on them and even after the war. Ive seen in my time a many of them carried by my kin folk in peace time, that carried them in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

 

[Captain Nice]

Here is my 1911A1 built by Remington Rand in Syracuse, New York in early 1943 along with its arch enemy P38 built by the Mauser factory in 1944. They both have the typical war time rough finish. Tool marks are visible all over both guns; however slide to frame fit on both guns is tight. Remington Rand had some problems when thy first started manufacture but those problems were quickly resolved and they produced some of the finest examples of 1911A1’s. My understanding is they produced more than any other manufacturer during the war, even Colt. I do fire them from time to time and they are both excellent shooters. For the most part, the former antagonists lay side by side in peace in my gun box.

 

[AKsRul.e]

"Someone mentioned low end and high end and so on. So I was wondering where a WWII production .45 auto would fit on that scale by today's standards? Especially those not made by Colt.

No doubt it would be lower on the scale, since wartime production standards are usually lower or rougher than normal commercial production, at least as far as finish goes. Now here I am also not thinking of WWI production either, which I don't think had lower standards. "
-----

Don't confuse "standards" with Quality and Function.
There is a HUGE difference between redesigning parts to be a bit cheaper, and using a less cometicly pleasing finish as opposed to making a "sloppy"
product.

All WWII 1911s had to pass the same inspections regardless of which co. made them.

Indeed , some of the most desired collecter pieces were made by Ithaca-
Remington Rand and others besides Colt.

Many shooters feel that the old warhorses are better made than commercial Colts made today.

 

[plumbernater]

remington is making the 1911 again and they look nice.

 

[RickB]

The military pistols were completely milled from forgings, and as noted, thoroughly inspected and gauged before acceptance. A gun made to those standards today would probably cost $3000. The Colt WWI reproductions are probably the closest thing to the old military pistols, in terms of materials, manufacturing methods, finish, etc. I read a joke about how current manufacturers can't seem to maintain consistent quality because there's no wartime urgency; you'd think they could make better guns when they're cranking out 20,000 a year than when they made 20,000 a week?

 

[mavracer]

It depends to which "standard" you are refering if it's quality then both new Colts and WW2 USGI rank among the best. If it's standard as in configuration well USGI is about as standard as it gets.while a Rock Island Tactical may have all the bells and whistles the quality of materials is not up to real USGI standards.

 

[James K]

Going by what I read on these sites about problems with "modern" 1911 type pistols, I have no doubt the WWII M1911A1 GI pistols were the best. Made to the highest standards of the time, subjected to rigid inspection, made by people who knew their friend's or relative's lives would depend on them, they were made right.

Today, the makers know they are making "big boy's toys" and really don't care if the guns work or not. "Guarantees" and sweet-talking young ladies in customer service don't make up for a "to hell with the customer" attitude on the part of many makers.

Gun site questions like "is a 1911 ever reliable?" and "why can't they make a 1911 that works?" indicate something seriously wrong with today's clone makers. Of course, if you buy a gun "for pretty", all two tone this and that, or camo painted, with artistic slide serrations and sculptured everything, you don't really care if it works, only that it will look nice in your coffin.

I have a friend, now back home safe, who had what might be called a fairly high risk occupation - guarding President Kharzai in Afghanistan. His handgun? A 1943 Remington-Rand M1911A1. He knew it would work if he needed it.

Jim

 

[plumbernater]

The 1911 has served this country well for along time before it was replaced, and if Im not mistaken I think it still holds the record for most consecutive rounds fired with out a jamb in the military trails to qualify for a military side arm. Im not sure but I want to think it was 5000 maybe 6000 . Its been a while since I read about this. But all this says something about the guns of the time and the way they were built.

 

[James K]

Not really pertinent, but when I bought a Norinco (the closest new gun to a WWII GI then available), I was told all about "Commie junk." So I decided to keep a log. The gun went 6000 rounds with no failure of any kind. None. So I decided to not clean it. It went another 2520 rounds without a failure and finally short cycled. I cleaned it and it has now gone another 500 rounds without a failure.

I also have WWII guns that have been very reliable, but I did not keep logs and also used them in various experiments and with handloads, which were not fair tests.

Jim

 

[Dfariswheel]

Remington is making the 1911 again and they look nice.

Remington Arms never made 1911 pistols.
The Remington 1911 was actually made by the Remington Rand company. Remington Rand was best known for their typewriters and other business machines.

In any case, the new Remington 1911 isn't actually made by Remington. They're simply assembling guns from parts made by someone else.

As for the USGI versus commercial guns of today, ascetically the USGI guns were not polished and nicely blued.
Mechanically, the USGI guns were made from all forged and milled steel parts, no castings, and had loose enough tolerances to insure the gun would fire each time even under dirty combat conditions.
The guns were made to very high government standards or they were not accepted into service.
The emphasis then was a strong, reliable combat weapon. Accuracy was merely one factor.

Todays guns are made from many cast and MIM parts, and the makers are attempting to include all the bells and whistles modern commercial buyers want.
As a consequence, they have to sift quality in some areas to keep costs and consumer price down to a competitive price against all the other makers.
The guns are made to no particular standard and the guns can be sold even if they aren't reliable.
Todays guns are made with an emphasis on accuracy since the customer's first step is to shoot it on the range for accuracy.
Attempting to make an accurate gun with all the accessories AND still be reliable is difficult to do competitively, and the overall gun suffers.
Too many of todays buyers don't seem to know what they want.
On the one hand they tell themselves they want a combat gun, but unless the accuracy is top notch they bitterly complain.
If the reliability is less then 100% they bitterly complain more.
In short, people just don't know if they really want a combat gun, a target pistol, or a range toy.
They demand all three and the guns simply can't deliver at a reasonable cost.

The USGI 1911 was a people shooter and that's it.

 

[10-96]

... and it has Series 80 guts.

 

[HisSoldier]

That aside, the M1911 in my opinion is a relic so to speak. It is heavier, less accurate,

Less accurate? You need to shoot some of mine. And weight isn't all bad, it tames recoil and makes a long afternoon of shooting more pleasant.

Todays guns are made from many cast and MIM parts

Not the good ones.

Gun site questions like "is a 1911 ever reliable?" and "why can't they make a 1911 that works?" indicate something seriously wrong with today's clone makers.

There could be something to that, but I'm convinced that a lot of the internet talk about the unreliability of 1911's is exaggeration, there's something about the venue.

 

[plumbernater]

I have a colt series 80 that I have replaced the extractor and the ejector on her and she shoots just as good as the day she was new. If I or anyone else misses with her Its our fault not the gun. and did I mention shes stock. I have a taurus pt1911 and shes more accurate and never a problem. Oh yes the colts been shot enough that she rattles now and never shot sweeter.

 

[James K]

"Remington Arms never made 1911 pistols."

Not true; Remington Arms-UMC did make 21,513 M1911 (not M1911A1) pistols under an Army contract in 1918-1919. They are well made and highly desireable collectors items.

Remington-Rand, a separate company (which was initially formed from the spinoff of Remington's typewriter business), made M1911A1 pistols during WWII.

So the modern Remington Arms, as successor to Remington Arms-UMC, can claim that they made M1911 pistols, but not M1911A1 pistols.

Jim

 

[Slopemeno]

Don't kid yourself. They were not perfect. I have an Ithaca slide that's made from the softest metal known to man...

 

[Chesster]

This old refinished RR warhorse and my Colt original 70 series are my two favorites among the production 1911A1s. I have several good shooters such as the Norinco (better quality than I expected from China), SA GI, RIA Standard (the best bang for the buck if you are on a tight budget), and the AO WWII. But the former pair are still tops in my book. I have a Colt 1991A1 which is OK. I have a High Standard that I have never shot and am told it was made by the same folks who made the RIA. I've never owned one but from the one's I've handled of the old Auto Ordnance Co. were only fair to fairly shoddy.