Page 1 of 1

The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 19:42:23
by OakRidgeStars
Larry sets the record straight.


Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:46:46
by Chasbo00
Most people don't shoot a pistol well. That's as true today as it was during WW2, and it's not the gun.

The good news is this is fixable if one is interested in doing so.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:16:04
by HighExpert
There is also the problem of the term "accurate". I don't feel a group of 6-7" at 20 yes qualifies as "accurate". I have several custom 1911s that shoot 1.5" at 50yds. I have two out of the box Glocks that will stay inside 3" at 25 yes. Is the gun shooting well enough to solve a problem at 20 yes? Yeah, I guess. Accurate? No.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:58:43
by Chasbo00
HighExpert wrote:There is also the problem of the term "accurate". I don't feel a group of 6-7" at 20 yes qualifies as "accurate". I have several custom 1911s that shoot 1.5" at 50yds. I have two out of the box Glocks that will stay inside 3" at 25 yes. Is the gun shooting well enough to solve a problem at 20 yes? Yeah, I guess. Accurate? No.


You are right of course regarding accuracy; it's a relative thing. I suspect you are/were a bullseye shooter. Most folks, excluding competition shooters, can't shoot a 12 inch group at 20 yards even with an accurized bullseye gun having a light trigger.

A sub 2" capability gun at 50 yds. is what you need if you are shooting bullseye to win. But, a 1911 that can do that will likely have operating issues if it shoots a lot of rounds in a short time such as required by action pistol shooting or some combat situations. The gun heats up and thermal expansion plays havoc with those tightly fitted parts. A combat service pistol needs to be reliable under these type conditions.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:41:09
by grumpyMSG
HighExpert wrote:There is also the problem of the term "accurate". I don't feel a group of 6-7" at 20 yes qualifies as "accurate". I have several custom 1911s that shoot 1.5" at 50yds. I have two out of the box Glocks that will stay inside 3" at 25 yes. Is the gun shooting well enough to solve a problem at 20 yes? Yeah, I guess. Accurate? No.


I respect Larry Vickers' opinion and enjoy it when he actually tests "conventional wisdom". Comparing a WWII Remington Rand to a custom tuned 1911 or a Glock is pretty pointless. John Browning designed a combat pistol with slop and clearances that would allow it to function in poor conditions. Larry and friend demonstrated that a 70 year old pistol could still hit the vital organs of a man sized target at a reasonable distance. Now I realize that there have been multiple parts replaced on that pistol along the way, but I would venture the guess that your custom 1911's shot groups will grow in size by the time they are that old and I have some serious doubts about how many Glocks will last that long.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:13:54
by WRW
The comment was made that merely changing the sights would considerably change the performance of the WWII firearm. It would have been nice if they had demonstrated that improvement.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:11:58
by M1A4ME
The 1911A1's we had in our armory where all WW2 guns. Remingtons, Ithacas, Union Switch & Signal, Singers, etc.

If you grabbed one firmly in you hand and shook it, it rattled like a coffee can with nuts/bolts in it.

I had no problems knocking down pop ups at 50 meters with the one I got out of the arms room.

What size groups would it shoot? I don't know, it hit the man sized targets just fine.

So many people get hung up on "match guns" when they can't really make good use of it anyway.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:34:30
by HighExpert
I was not comparing modern 1911s with WWII arms. I was commenting on the use of the word accuracy. I see it used all the time in the ads for modern weapons. The word, in its modern context, means virtually nothing. It is like "awesome". You definition and mine may differ considerably. I would prefer it be spelled out IE. Ransom rest, 25yds. White box hardball, 2" group for 5 rounds. Now I know what the gun will do. Otherwise, how good was the shooter? What is the group size? What was the ammo used?

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:08:11
by WRW
The word used was "inaccuracy". The one time I heard the word "accuracy" used, it was quantified as "accurate enough for battle" and target use provided proof of that assertion.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:52:26
by dorminWS
WRW wrote:The comment was made that merely changing the sights would considerably change the performance of the WWII firearm. It would have been nice if they had demonstrated that improvement.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why demonstrate the obvious? Even as a 1911 fan, I'll tell you in a heartbeat that the GI 1911 sights suck.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:50:37
by WRW
dorminWS wrote:
WRW wrote:The comment was made that merely changing the sights would considerably change the performance of the WWII firearm. It would have been nice if they had demonstrated that improvement.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why demonstrate the obvious? Even as a 1911 fan, I'll tell you in a heartbeat that the GI 1911 sights suck.


Yeah, I've looked down those sights. When making a point, though, it is nice to demonstrate a proof of said point.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] Image

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 12:54:02
by screwedbygoogle
The 1911 has always been capable of combat accuracy!

Just not match accuracy!

I thought those two were pretty sharp. When they have nothing to say I suppose they get rather dull.

What's next? A beauty contest for glocks.

I had better get out my tiny Glock bikinis and send their evening gowns to the cleaners.

Barbie won't miss them for one day.

Message sent from my stupid phone (Samsung) and delayed by US Cellular

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:43:16
by dusterdude
My springfield 1911 was a great shooting gun,i miss that thing everyday [DISAPPOINTED FACE]

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:02:26
by battledrill4
Yeah, comparing an original to the insanity that I saw some of the D-boys carrying around in Afghanistan is a little silly. But those things were unbelievable nonetheless.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 17:26:00
by bali
I"ve seen quite a few that would not group 10" at 25 yds. Back in the day, many bores had been ruined by not cleaning after firing corrosive priming.

Re: The myth of wartime 1911 inaccuracy

PostPosted: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 17:28:39
by bali
realistically, if you are being shot-at and all you have is a handgun, with no ear-protection, no cover, and nothing upon which to brace the gun, you're going to miss the entire man with half of your shots at a mere 10 yds, and most will do that badly at 5 yds. Most will miss the chest, most of the time, at 10 FEET. It wont matter that your pistol groups 1" at 25 yds, believe it. it wont matter if all it will group is 10" at 25 yds, cause that's all the better anyone's ever proven that they can do, while actually under fire. it's always one lucky hit, or multiple misses prove that the hit was a lucky one! :-)