A serious question for 1911 lovers...

[WVsig]

The SIG P-220 design is arguably AS adaptable as the 1911. The P220 was the base gun upon which the whole SIG P-series was based, starting with the P-5/P-225 and going on up to the newer P-227 (a double-stack .45). That basic design started as a .45 and went in other directions, too. The SIG P226 X-5 and X-6, and P-220 X-5 are available in the standard calibers and offer exceptional accuracy, as well. I won't be surprised to see an "X-" version of the P-227, one of these days; if that happens, we'll probably see some P-series RACE GUNS in IPSC competition, too.

I do not think that the changes made to the P220 to create the other P series guns is the same as the adaptability of the 1911.

What you can do with a stock P220 is similar to a 1911. You can send it to Gray guns and have a new Barsto Barrel, new trigger, new sear, extractor, new sights and trigger job etc... Swap out the grips but it is still not as customizable as a 1911. Just not as many options.

Also I think this goes towards my other point. IPSC is not really a test of "mechanical" accuracy. IIRC most of the targets are close range with an occasional shot out to 50 meters. The guns used there are not chosen for mechanical accuracy but for shoot-ability and subjective ergonomics in order to achieve acceptable accuracy but more importantly being able to shoot quickly. It is a combination of accuracy & speed. Bullseye is a much better test of accuracy. IMHO

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by WVsig

I do not think that the changes made to the P220 to create the other P series guns is the same as the adaptability of the 1911.

Perhaps. I may have interpreted or used "adaptability" differently than you and tipoc use it.

The basic P-220 design was the basis for all of the P-series; that basic design seems quite adaptable -- but if you use the term "adaptable" to mean what can be done for any one gun, with easily available parts that may not always require an uber-talented gunsmith for their installation, maybe the P-series guns are not AS adaptable as 1911s.

On the other hand, the X-series of SIG guns are pretty impressive. I didn't realize they made a P-220 X-Five until just recently; I suspect that is a very accurate gun. Bruce Gray and Ernie Langdon seem to have a good understanding of what can be done with the P-series SIGs. I have a Gray Guns P-228, and a friend has several P-220s that were worked on by Ernie Langdon back when he was the "other" big SIG gunsmith. Those are very impressive guns. I'd say those guns were "adapted" very nicely, and the work done wasn't always major rebuild... they just had a few parts swapped out and some masterful tuning done to them.

Originally Posted by WVsig

Also I think this goes towards my other point. IPSC is not really a test of "mechanical" accuracy. IIRC most of the targets are close range with an occasional shot out to 50 meters. The guns used there are not chosen for mechanical accuracy but for shoot-ability and subjective ergonomics in order to achieve acceptable accuracy but more importantly being able to shoot quickly. It is a combination of accuracy & speed. Bullseye is a much better test of accuracy. IMHO

I think your comments above address the obvious differences between Bullseye and IPSC (or USPSA) fairly well. That said, I have a bunch of friends who are dyed-in-the-wool 1911 shooters, and they typically shoot at the same targets I do; and when they carry (and many of them do), its not in anticipation of shooting an adversary 50 yards (or 25 yards) away. They love their 1911s and their accuracy, and how they look and feel, but they are more likely to use those guns at much closer than "Bullseye" distances and do it firing from positions or using stances unlikely to be seen at a Bullseye match.

I wasn't really trying to hold up IPSC as a place where accuracy rules, but accuracy THERE does matter. While shootability and ergonomics matter in IPSC, those traits are two of the things that are frequently mentioned as 1911 strong points -- especially with NEW shooters. That's been mentioned several times in this discussion.

1911s are great, but some other guns may be just as good. Those other good guns, however, don't seem to have the cheering section advocating for them that 1911s have. Why that is hasn't really been addressed in this discussion. Maybe if they had better triggers?

[tipoc]

From Waly:

The received wisdom has long held that the 1911 is the brightest star in the handgun heavens. If that wisdom ever changes such that higher capacity is more important to shooters, that star may dim a bit.

Walt you've been around long enough to know that that ship has sailed, the star dimmed years back. The 1911 is no longer the standard service sidearm of any major army or law enforcement organization in the U.S. or anywhere else that I'm aware of. (I leave aside the MEUSOC, SWAT units, etc.) In the U.S. it is still a top seller but has many rivals and some guns that are better when it comes to capacity, lighter to carry, shoot as well in competition, have fewer parts, have droves of loyal followers, etc.

I can name you several guns that I've shot and owned that are as accurate, as ergonomic, as suitable for defensive work as any 1911 I own. You can do the same and have here in this thread. Still, people want to own one. They keep selling, both new and old guns.

This thread itself is a reminder that they are still the gun against which others are judged. Even the Glock (with legions of adherents). 1911s earned a legendary status over decades. They are no longer the "brightest star in the handgun heavens", if they ever were and if anyone thought of them that way. Glock sells more guns, the M&P is popular, H&Ks have a cult-like status among some, CZs do well, etc. All good guns and as capable as the 1911. Not all fit the hand or the eye as well.

tipoc

[KyJim]

Getting back to the original question:

Are 1911s innately more accurate, or do they simply, because of the great triggers, just lure people into tweaking them more.

I'm not a tweaker. I would only consider doing three things to a 1911 I purchase: change sights, change grips, and get trigger work. Frankly, I have seldom done anything but change grips in my 1911s. There are so many configurations out there, you can buy just about anything you want straight from the manufacturer (at least the important stuff). It is also normally cheaper to do it that way.

I suspect people tweak them more just because there are a lot of aftermarket parts and accessories for them and some folks have to take a wrench, dremel, screwdriver, or hammer to just about everything they buy.

[WVsig]

I think your comments above address the obvious differences between Bullseye and IPSC (or USPSA) fairly well. That said, I have a bunch of friends who are dyed-in-the-wool 1911 shooters, and they typically shoot at the same targets I do; and when they carry (and many of them do), its not in anticipation of shooting an adversary 50 yards (or 25 yards) away. They love their 1911s and their accuracy, and how they look and feel, but they are more likely to use those guns at much closer than "Bullseye" distances and do it firing from positions or using stances unlikely to be seen at a Bullseye match.

I agree with what you are saying here but I think that they are using accurate with the little "a", which is accurate in my hands, not accurate with the big "A" mechanically accurate. Too many shooters IMHO use the terms interchangeably.

In the end the mechanical accuracy of most gun even down to budget shooters is greater than most people can shoot. As you move up the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The difference between a gun that will consistently shoot 2" groups at 50 yards instead of 2" groups at 25 is going to cost you in the range of 200% to 300% more. The gain is small compared to the price tag.

Again which is why I asked what are you referring to when you talk about accuracy. At 10 yards you should be able to keep solid groups with just about any 45 ACP if you are a decent shooter. So I personally do not consider claims about a guns accuracy at these ranges to mean anything more than I shoot the gun well.

When one is talking about the accuracy of a gun IMHO this is not what one should be talking about. When talking about how accurate a gun is it should be in terms of object mechanical accuracy not subjective in my hands accuracy.

I wasn't really trying to hold up IPSC as a place where accuracy rules, but accuracy THERE does matter. While shootability and ergonomics matter in IPSC, those traits are two of the things that are frequently mentioned as 1911 strong points -- especially with NEW shooters. That's been mentioned several times in this discussion.

1911s are great, but some other guns may be just as good. Those other good guns, however, don't seem to have the cheering section advocating for them that 1911s have. Why that is hasn't really been addressed in this discussion. Maybe if they had better triggers?

When you have lowered the bar to 10 yards to define accurate then I agree there are many guns which will be just as good as the 1911. As I said most 45s in the hands of decent shooter can achieve that. The difference is that my Sig P228 or even Sig P226 which would cost the same $$$ as my Dan Wesson CBOB is not going to shoot the same groups at 25 yards. Even if I have Bruce Gray tune it the Sig will not shoot the same groups and if I take the same $$ I would give to Bruce and put it into the CBOB the difference will increase.

I have custom 1911s and have owned custom Bruce Gray guns. All of the Gray guns are gone the 1911s stay... but really that just means "in my hands the 1911 is more accurate" but I also believe that the basic platform when it is executed properly is also mechanically more accurate. Not by much... but still more accurate. The other issue I think that is lost is that very few modern 1911s are made in the way that JMB intended.

In the end it really does not matter because we should all shoot what we enjoy and what we shoot well and not stress the rest. In the end accuracy for most of us beyond "combat accuracy" is a moot point.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by tipoc

This thread itself is a reminder that they are still the gun against which others are judged.

That's true -- and probably the reason they get as much attention as they do.

This discussion has been more thoughtful than many, with good input from a number of participants. It's nice to see that sort of non-emotional discussion; too often these forum discussions seem like a battle of hormones and emotions.

Originally Posted by WVsig

I agree with what you are saying here but I think that they are using accurate with the little "a", which is accurate in my hands, not accurate with the big "A" mechanically accurate. Too many shooters IMHO use the terms interchangeably.

We agree. I think many folks use the terms "accuracy" and "precision" interchangeably. Precision is the term I've seen used to describe a gun's ability to send bullets to the same place each time (from a Ransom Rest, for example) -- what some call "mechanical" accuracy. The term accuracy is more often used to describe the gun's ability to send bullets where the shooter wants them sent. Even a very good shooter using a gun that's not "mechanically accurate" isn't likely to have good results -- but he or she might do better than a poor shooter.

As you describe it above, but using my terms, you might say that the 1911 has the potential to be more precise than most other guns, but some folks may shoot other guns just as accurately. For you, the 1911 works best. Nothing to argue about there.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a P-210-6 that was very accurate. (I've seen proof targets from other P-210s with sub 1" groups at 50 meters.) I wonder what might have happened had SIG tried that same basic design in .45? It would have been SA, too, and probably could have held 7-8 rounds, as well. That would have been an interesting gun.

[tipoc]

1911s are great, but some other guns may be just as good. Those other good guns, however, don't seem to have the cheering section advocating for them that 1911s have. Why that is hasn't really been addressed in this discussion. Maybe if they had better triggers?

There are other guns around that are "just as good" at most things folks use handguns for, at the least for those that prefer them. "Just as good" at what? is a legitimate question as well. That maybe is another discussion.

Glocks. The fanbase for the Austrian semis is international and enthusiastic. Much more so than fans of the 1911. The fanbase there is famous for it's aggressive enthusiasm.

There are websites for HK, Sig, CZ, S&W, Ruger and others. Each with many followers.

The fan base for 1911s is multi-generational and varied in it's interests maybe more so than the others. It may vary more. From serious collectors of Colts civilian and military, to those interested in military guns only, to those who collect the builds of well known pistolsmiths, to competitors, to action shooters, to whose who participate in "Wild Bunch" competitions, to "combat" shooters to those that like the weight and heft of the gun, to those who see high end 1911s as status pieces, etc. All together that's a lot of folks and very varied interests. They don't all speak with one voice in one place.

Gun magazines play a role in promoting the 1911 as well. Most major gun manufacturers make a 1911, or their version of one. There is a large aftermarket sector of the industry. Gun magazines serve the industry. When guns sell they advertise. Articles and reviews appear. Ichiro Nagata takes pictures that makes you want to buy one. He could take a pic of an old spark plug and I'd wanna buy it.

The same magazines promote other guns as well. Gun mags are to the industry what car mags are to the auto industry or Bride mags are to the wedding industry. They promote. Cosmo has articles about the "best orgasm" in every issue. Gun mags about the "best holsters for concealed carry".

Anyway don't let the "aura" of the 1911 bother you. Either you like it or not. You can be indifferent as well. But the old gun has earned it's place at the table and is still keeping pace. And it isn't just the trigger.

tipoc