The 1911 is inaccurate? Hmmm... tell that to tall the IPSC champions over the years that used that very format.

Make Captain Planet buy 50 Nuke the Moon T's and kill 500 hippies with guns, like a real man would. He must then legally change his name to Commander Colt and destroy Green Peace. Then and only then may his death at the hands of Aquaman be quick and painless (and just to make sure Aquaman wins, the Punisher and Snake Eyes will be there to watch.)

One of the reasons the 1911 .45 got a bad rap for accuracy is that most of the pistols issued in Korea and Vietnam had been extensivly used throughout WWII and in training. They were damn fine when they were NEW. Run a few million rounds through one, and yeah accuracy will suffer. And I'm not entirely sure, but I think Patton's revolver was a .45. I don't think the .357 cartridge was around in 1940 (like I said, I fully claim that I could be wrong about that).

Actually, Patton had all 3; .45 Colt revolver, 1911, .357 magnum (developed by Smith & Wesson circa 1935), all with ivory grips.
http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap05.html
Anyway, anyone who says that the 1911 in inherently inaccurate needs to find a new hat to replace their ass. I'll take a DA .45 Colt revolver any day of the week (revolvers are simply more reliable and have a much better feel IMHO), but the 1911 is a fine design, a timeless classic like the Fender Stratocaster, the Porsche 911, and Unix (yes I am a nerd, thank you).
I like the .45 caliber too, Frank. I prefer a bullet that really hurts even if someone just THROWS it at you.

Well, I guess the remain 5% of copper in the penny has a bit of curse in it, cause I saw one upside down and thought "Oh, Frank said it's OK now" and picked it up, and shortly after stubbed my toe... Damn you Frank, if you can't be complete and blindly trusted, who can?

I'm gonna go with the Bob was trolling theory.

Else I'd have to call a fellow Texan an idiot.

And that ain't happenin'.

I reserve that honor for the Dixie Chicks. :)

The basic issue 1911 was not very accurate. This is partly because, as Grau says, they had a buttload of rounds put through them during thier tenure in the military. Also, their mission was to knock down someone very close to you, not print a 3 inch pattern at 50 yards. A standard issue 1911 needs extensive modifications to the slide, barrel and trigger (at a minimum) in order to be a target shooter.

Oh, you were both right, Patton carried both a Colt .45 and a S&W .357, as well as many other guns, including the 1911.

Rustmeister
(SFC, Ret)

Well, with my Kimber, I've one-shot hit a clay pigeon on the wing and a plate at 150 yards, so I think your friend must be one of those euro-pellet weenies trying to feel better about themselves.

We shoot solid steel targets on our combat-pistol range and you can hit a partial-head target on the run from 10 yards with those things - and the target KNOWS it got hit. Hit it with one of the euro-pellets and you're just not sure the gun even fired.

Orion

Flying midgets .... teehee

From all I have heard, the military version of the 1911, was inaccurate at times because of extensive use and a lack of maintenance at time. However, The 1911 made by Colt was much better than the ones made by subcontractor. Guns are like people each one and a distinct personality, multiply that by the millions upon millions made, you are bound to have a few bad apples. But the gun is not inherently bad, in fact most military versions were very good.

What Graumagus said. When a gun has several different handlers and hundreds of thousands of rounds shot through it, the accuracy sucks! You'd stand a better chance throwing it at the target than you would firing.

And yes, I am pre military and yes my first issue .45 sucked! After some bitching, I was issued another one and that one was much better although still not as good as a new one.

er...prior...not pre

The 1911 is a fine weapon. My father has the original one he carried when he was in the military (Purchased from the quartermaster for a whopping $57) and its as accurate as the day he was issued it. Granted, it's been through a few barrels and a goldcup goodie or two, but it's still a fine weapon.

I have one myself, as a deal came along I couldn't refuse, and I adore it. It's not as high tech as some of the other toys I have, but it sure breaks hippie face better than polymer guns!

In principle, though, a fast running midget should be able to fly.

All the folk who have talked about the Miltary 1911 are correct. I got out as a captain after having been an XO in two units that had armories and as any of the old timers could tell you. A brand new M1911 off the factory line from Colt was great. However, after a fwe million (not thousand) rounds you get barrel wear, slide wear, and assorted other things which induce inaccuracy. Add to this that most hadn guns we use ourselves are well cared for. Ask any former miltary how well anything gets taken care of when not under actual usage - i.e. a gun not in war time - and you will be told about the phrase rode hard and put up wet. People abused these fine pieces of art for literally scores of years before they gained a reputation as being POSes. A good armorer could often work miracles on these even after decades of abuse. they should not be maligned, but the end result of the neglect of these weapons should also be accepted.

An accurized M1911 is as accurate as any handgun but be very carefull accurizing one that you might bet your life on.
The military stock M1911 is built loose going in, right out of the factory ON PURPOSE. Far more important than nice tight groups on the fifty yard line is making a loud noise when you mash on that little curved dingus that comes out the bottom of the gun. It must go BANG! every time. It must do so just after a soldier dives into a mud filled shell hole and discovers a bad guy in it taking cover from the same artillery. It must go BANG! just after a Marine makes a Tarawa-like quarter mile hike through neck deep salt water when the landing craft hangs on a coral reef.
Those nice, tight raceguns that are so popular with the IPSC would be filling trash cans if those pretty boys included actual mud, blood, sand, dust and salt water in their competition.
Yeah, the military .45s were inaccurate by design. The sloppy fit that made them sound like a baby's rattle when shook made them unable to keep a nice tight group, shooting onehanded in the old NRA position. It also made them function when the shootin' iron was covered in mud, blood or sand. I've fired them covered in all three.

I always qualified expert with it. Even when I was a Second Lieutenant. I don't know what Bob's problem was. Just line it up and shoot the fucking thing. V/R MAJ M

I can't add too much other than that between my Junior and Senior years I taught freshmen (or plebes) how to shoot the .45 at the U.S. Naval Academy. I had no previous training or experience other than being taught how to shoot when I was a plebe myself and our 1 week summer instructor course. If memory serves, after about 6 hours and maybe 100 rounds, I could get most of the midshipmen to hit a target 10 inches in diameter (chest size) at 25 yards on slow fire (5 rounds/20 seconds). As an instructor I got much more practice (and much more familiarity with the care and cleaning of the weapon) and could rapid fire (5 rounds/10 seconds ) a clip into a 5 inch diameter target at the same distance one handed. We had over a thousand plebes shoot with about a dozen weapons over 4 weeks time and while we did have checkfires, they were due more to bad ammo than jammed weapons. And these weapons weren't new either. At worst you would correct for the sights by adjusting your aim. Grouping the shots was never a problem.
We also got to test fire several models of 9 mm. While they were certainly gentler on the arm, they weren't nearly as cool. Most rounds expended in battle are for supression purposes anyway and nothing does that like the roar of a .45. In a wooded environment you can rarely get a clean line more than 25 yards away and if you need more than that in other situations then your riflemen haven't done their job.

Operator error is the reason for most claims of .45 inaccuracy. I've fired hundreds of military issue 1911A1s, and have never found one which wouldn't fire well enough to qualify Expert on a US Army range. Even the ones worn almost into smoothbores will do well enough for that.

If it's good enough to qualify Expert, it's good enough for combat. All praise to John Moses Browning!

Rummy carries a 1911. If it is good enough for him, it is good enough for me.

MensaMan

Bob Kingsbery... hmmm.

That's a strange name for a girl.

igewehr is right on.

I was in the Army during the transition from the .45 to the 9mm. The 1911 was more than adequate..especially for shooting through metal (car doors), wood (door frames), etc. The 9mm ain't so hot in that area.

Most of us that we went to Desert Storm in my unit, were trying to trade our 9mm for .45s. I ended up buying a Colt Combat Commander to bring along. It served me very, very well.

If your .45 is inaccurate, you must suck as a marksman or a scrounger.

I love this gun, shoots like a real solid.!!