m1911a2
01-19-2008, 01:14 PM
Though it's been in continuous service for 87 years, the venerable Colt model 1911 in .45 auto is still the premier self-loading combat pistol. In fact, it dominates nearly every facet of handgunning, from the national matches at Camp Perry, to IPSC competition, to the hunting and boondocking field, to the Sands of Iwo Jima, and even the streets of Metro Manila!
!
And in its thus-far unparalleled tenure as a general-purpose service pistol it has seen a multitude of modifications and has seen use in virtually every kind of natural and tactical environment as well. Old Ugly (G.I’s of the WW II used to call their M1911) has been cussed and discussed more than any other handgun in history, and continues to ride an unprecedented wave of popularity shared by no other handgun. We're often told these days that the M1911 is an antique and an anachronism belonging to a by-gone age. Some say that its condition one (cocked and locked) mode of carry for imminent use is unsafe or politically incorrect and claim that it lacks mechanical reliability or is inaccurate. Others say that training to use it safely requires too much training and that such training isn't time or cost-effective in comparison to a double-action revolver or self-loader.
And yet in spite of its critics, the M1911 continues to be the preferred handgun of millions, be they
competitive shooters, police officers, personal defense oriented civilians or military personnel.
How can this be? What is it about the M1911 that the so fascinates so many people? And if it really is inaccurate or unsafe or unreliable, how can such a rapt fascination have ever occurred in the first place, much less continued to the legendary levels seen today? The answer is deceptively simple really. The M1911 isn't inaccurate, nor is it mechanically unreliable; nor
is that unsafe. What it is is simple; no more, no less. In its target configuration, it holds most of the
records at Camp Perry, the premier accuracy contest of all. And, in slightly altered target form, it remains the dominant pistol for all IPSC shooting, too. Obviously, were it inaccurate, this situation could not exist.
The culprit here is a bias and assumption. If we recover a rusty M1911 from the sand at Omaha Beach, clean it up and shoot it, it will generally keep all of its shots inside a ten or twelve-inch circle at 50 meters. To a target shooter, this won't do, but for a soldier, this is more accuracy than he can use. If we take a typical M1911, hold it in our hand and briskly shake it, we note that it rattles slightly, another characteristic generally assumed to cause less accuracy but such is untrue. I have an Armscor M1911 that rattles as described, but from a Ransom Rest with nearly any kind of 230-grain FMJ (ball) ammo, it prints three shots into one-inch at fifty meters, time after time. Is that accurate enough for you? It sure is for me! And this also shows that tight tolerances aren't the only issue to consider where accuracy is concerned.
What's really important is that the moving parts go back to the same place each time, even when fouling is present, not how tight everything is. This is why all service pistols seem a little loose-they need such tolerances to function in the widest possible variety of environments. In a bullseye match, we may get an alibi if our pistol malfunctions because it's too tight and doesn't function reliably, but when you life's on the line, there are no alibis. In short, one doesn't use a target pistol for self-defense in the real world; nor does he use a service pistol for an extreme accuracy contest like bullseye shooting. It all boils down to selecting the right tool for the job, not the other way around. So assuming that because a given M1911 rattles a bit, it's inaccurate is a serious error.
!
And in its thus-far unparalleled tenure as a general-purpose service pistol it has seen a multitude of modifications and has seen use in virtually every kind of natural and tactical environment as well. Old Ugly (G.I’s of the WW II used to call their M1911) has been cussed and discussed more than any other handgun in history, and continues to ride an unprecedented wave of popularity shared by no other handgun. We're often told these days that the M1911 is an antique and an anachronism belonging to a by-gone age. Some say that its condition one (cocked and locked) mode of carry for imminent use is unsafe or politically incorrect and claim that it lacks mechanical reliability or is inaccurate. Others say that training to use it safely requires too much training and that such training isn't time or cost-effective in comparison to a double-action revolver or self-loader.
And yet in spite of its critics, the M1911 continues to be the preferred handgun of millions, be they
competitive shooters, police officers, personal defense oriented civilians or military personnel.
How can this be? What is it about the M1911 that the so fascinates so many people? And if it really is inaccurate or unsafe or unreliable, how can such a rapt fascination have ever occurred in the first place, much less continued to the legendary levels seen today? The answer is deceptively simple really. The M1911 isn't inaccurate, nor is it mechanically unreliable; nor
is that unsafe. What it is is simple; no more, no less. In its target configuration, it holds most of the
records at Camp Perry, the premier accuracy contest of all. And, in slightly altered target form, it remains the dominant pistol for all IPSC shooting, too. Obviously, were it inaccurate, this situation could not exist.
The culprit here is a bias and assumption. If we recover a rusty M1911 from the sand at Omaha Beach, clean it up and shoot it, it will generally keep all of its shots inside a ten or twelve-inch circle at 50 meters. To a target shooter, this won't do, but for a soldier, this is more accuracy than he can use. If we take a typical M1911, hold it in our hand and briskly shake it, we note that it rattles slightly, another characteristic generally assumed to cause less accuracy but such is untrue. I have an Armscor M1911 that rattles as described, but from a Ransom Rest with nearly any kind of 230-grain FMJ (ball) ammo, it prints three shots into one-inch at fifty meters, time after time. Is that accurate enough for you? It sure is for me! And this also shows that tight tolerances aren't the only issue to consider where accuracy is concerned.
What's really important is that the moving parts go back to the same place each time, even when fouling is present, not how tight everything is. This is why all service pistols seem a little loose-they need such tolerances to function in the widest possible variety of environments. In a bullseye match, we may get an alibi if our pistol malfunctions because it's too tight and doesn't function reliably, but when you life's on the line, there are no alibis. In short, one doesn't use a target pistol for self-defense in the real world; nor does he use a service pistol for an extreme accuracy contest like bullseye shooting. It all boils down to selecting the right tool for the job, not the other way around. So assuming that because a given M1911 rattles a bit, it's inaccurate is a serious error.