Originally Posted by tulsamal
But you avoided my basic fact. If you were a gun designer today and you were creating a brand new handgun with a fresh sheet of paper AND your primary requirement was accuracy... would you give it a 1911 action? With a lockup that has to drop out of the slide and a bushing up front? I highly doubt it!
I didn't avoid anything. I'll even break down your assertions and provide my formed opinion why lamens' terms. Main reason is I'm not very articulate. Smaller reason is most of what's left of an audience to read my dissertation will probably fall asleep.
1. "I agree, but I don't think one of those reasons is because the design is somehow inherently accurate."
Have you read up on why so many gunsmiths use the 1911 platform for their choice of competition? Some reasons, I admit, are due to their popularity. But do you really think if a shooter is serious about precision target shooting they'd compromise by choosing a "popular" firearm?
2. "With a lockup that has to drop out of the slide and a bushing up front? I highly doubt it!"
You can say the same about the firearm of your choice with a second rate trigger. Human factor will ALWAYS have to be taken into account if trying to choose what's the most accurate firearm. Prove your point all you want by taking the human element out of the equation by using a Ransom rest. But when it's time to compete, no one is using a Ransom. Therefore, you have to take into account what design is best for the shooter. The trigger is the single, most important variable to consider when looking for accuracy when combining the human element and the gun itself.
The design of the slide and bushing doesn't matter if fitted correctly. The bullet is long gone before the barrel drops out of lockup. And, yes, many renowned gunsmiths haven't blinked an eye on this setup. Wilson Combat, Les Baer (known to be really tight on his tolerances), Ed Brown, and others prove that alone.
I've ran into armorers for the military. This is strictly what they've told me so I understand this point can easily be dismissed since it's heresay. What they told me was for general servicing of firearms, bringing them back into serviceable condition doesn't equate to repairing them back to exact original spec. If it functioned safely and was reasonably within tolerances to put back into service for a set standard timeframe, it's good to go. With that, I tend to think the 1911s you're using as reference isn't exactly a valid argument of why 1911s aren't one of the top choices.
One more thing, tulsamal: Thank you for your service.