Browning's legacy: The inaccurate autoloader.

[Harold Mayo]

I would like to also thank Tamara for adding nothing to the technical side of the conversation, but quick with the put-downs. What is a moderator, anyway?

But if she was agreeing with you, it would be a different story...correct?

No offense intended, but she's merely stating her opinions. I'm sure that if someone started calling you names or violating forum policy, she'd jump right on them.

The purpose of this forum is not necessarily to pat each other on the back and provide a conservative support group but to advance and test ideas and to share information.

Handy, what you are seeing is NOT, contrary to what you might believe, a bunch of people taking an opportunity to jump on you. It is a bunch of people who happen to disagree with your initial posting. You actually have several good points and have generated debate. THAT result is what this forum wants and needs. With no debate there is really no point.

Just because you didn't receive support doesn't mean that that you're wrong, either...it means that commonly-held "wisdom" on the subject is against you on this. You might very well see your ideas prove out in years to come...one never knows.

 

[Pendragon]

find a *need* and fill it...

Gerald, it's what I honestly believe. The 1911 was a good gun, but we should move on. Endearance to the old design is keeping us back. The firearms industry is one of the least innovative, backwards groups. They're just starting to use titanium! It's been used in bicycles since the mid-70s!

Well, I work in the "hi-tech" industry and I own a cutting edge computer (er, it was a few months ago at least).

Our modern age has created a thirst in people for "advancement" and the next big thing. The thinking often seems to be that if something is old, it should be updated and upgraded.

In the computer world, this is very appropriate. Newer designs do more work and use less energy and create less heat.

I have a computer here that is seven years old. The thing is nigh unuseable by todays standards. However, I would point out that it can still do everything it could do when it was brand new.

It's performance has not degraded over time, rather, our expectations and needs have changed over time and older machines simply cannot keep up with current expectations.

Now, I have me a really nice Valtro 1911 pattern gun and if you have been paying attention, I talk it up every chance I get. I would say that I have never been happier with any product in my life - except perhaps with my TiVo...

The thing is, guns were made for shooting and handguns were made for shooting - usually for shooting people at short ranges.

Not much has changed in the 93 years the 1911 has been with us. Some folks still need shootin' and the 1911 gets 'em shot today just as well as it did in 1911.

These days we have better materials and we have seen that a well made 1911 is more than likely going to outlast the owner. Some people have made little changes here and there and you can get them with way more options now - but they all work pretty much the same.

Thats the way I like it. I like the nostalgia - the reason this gun is still around is that it works. It has worked for a long time and it does what it does with remarkable efficiency.

Have you ever used brand new computer technology? Ugh. Sure, its faster and shinier and often cheaper - but more often than not, it is less reliable.

I know this well because I am a product tester. I help find the bugs in new technology. Believe me - there is a lot.

Most of the bugs in - say a printer - do not show up when you just try and print a picture or an email. No, you find the bugs when you do weird things - unusual things, often after you do weird things many many times.

Even then, many bugs are not found until a product is released into the market and people try things we did not have time to try.

This can get people pretty worked up when they are just printing paper documents.


If you make your superior design, it may work. It may be better in every way.

I will not buy it.

I do not want to find the bugs that you miss. I do not want to wonder if I will find the bugs you missed.

As long as the technical requirements for gettin' someone shot remain the same as they were in 1911, then my 1911 gun is not obsolete and is in no need of an upgrade.

I wish you the best.

 

[TaxPhd]

"The 1911 was a good gun, but we should move on. Endearance to the old design is keeping us back."

It is easy to speculate on the superiority of the fixed barrel/blowback design. But it is purely speculation. Mountains of empirical evidence support the superiority of the C/B design. If a different design were better, it would be winning. It isn't. And in the world of professional shooters, where sponsorships, endorsements, training fees, etc. add up to real money, the top guys are always looking for the best (Tamara's reference to the short-lived trend towards the CZ-75 in IPSC in the early 90's is spot-on). So far, that has been the 1911.

Theoretical conjecture will NEVER beat empirics, no matter how shrill one is in their rantings to the contrary.

 

[Delmar]

in other words, one test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions!
I for one am not married to my 1911A1's, not to mention being a poor boy, so if someone can come out with a weapon system which costs like a Lorcin and has the accuracy of a High Standard in a 45ACP, I will buy it. As it stands now, I have a Series 80 with nearly 100,000 rounds through it and on the original barrel, and I get satisfactory groups with it. Would like to see the locking system on this fixed barrel improvement and how durable its going to be. America is the land of the better mouse trap, and if you have one, quit squawking and put it on the market-you will have no trouble selling it.

 

[Handy]

I don't think it is a truism that good designs sell themselves.

AR-10 rifle. Created to compete in the T44 trials with the M14 and Fal. Adopted by Sudan, only.

AR-18 rifle. Simpler, cheaper and more reliable than the M16. Adopted by a very few small countries and Irish terrorists.

Stoner 63 weapon system. Used by no one but the Seals (and no, I'm not going to PROVE the Seals used them). The Marines tried to adopt it as a service rifle and it was also one of the losers in the M249 SAW trials.

FN FNC. "The perfect .223 assualt rifle." Adopted by one or two Scandanavian countries.

Galil. The other "perfect .223 assualt rifle". Front line issue in S. Africa, only.

Browning BDM. An all steel hicap wondernine that weighed less than similar alloy framed guns. Has the SMALLEST grip of any 9mm HiCap pistol. Produced for 2 or 3 years.

S&W M547. A 9mm with an extractor design that works on rimmed or rimless cases without moonclips. Based on the Philips and Rogers Medusa cylinder which will chamber and fire any 9mm/.38 family cartridge. Both are dust.

Anything in 10mm. Magnum like performance and 15 round capacity. Excellent accuracy and good feeding case shape. Available only in custom single stack 1911's, Glock and Tanfoglio.

9X23. Similar to above.


The gun industry is littered with discarded good ideas. Those are just the least radical ones I could think of in 5 minutes.

 

[Delmar]

Handy, you would have little problem getting people right on this board to test your weapon, provided it was properly proofed. Word spreads fast about new, successful designs without a whole lot of advertising-look at Kimbers. By the time I saw a decent ad on them, they were selling like crazy already.
Get it into some well known and respected gun writers hands (boy-that narrowed the field!) and let him wring it out for the print media.
Better yet, convince somebody like Chuck Taylor or the good Colonel that you have a viable product and if they agree, that alone is a powerful endorsement.
As to what you listed as casualties of the trade, the AR-10 was a political casualty, and wasn't fully developed until later on-caliber change, you know.

AR-18. Broke a lot of parts and could not compete without a major manufacturer selling to the military. Pretty much lost to the
AR-15 because it was already established, and we all know how much the government likes to admit its mistakes. (My medical discharge for wounds received is an "act of God".)

The Stoner is alleged to be a great weapons system, and for special forces, likely is, but the gov't in its infinite wisdom decided on something more soldier proof for the average GI. IIRC, some units of the Texas National Guard were issued the Stoner.

FNC=expensive

Galil-Not sure what happened there, but the IDF seems to issue a lot more M-16's than the big G anymore, or at least it seems that way when watching the latest out of Palestine occupied territory.

BDM-Quality control issues which was a shame-nice pistol.

M547-why would people flock to a 9MM wheelgun when 38's and 357's are all over the place? The powerglide transmission was a sturdy little dude but it did not go over well with the Corvette crowd.

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

Okay, you wanted to talk technical...

AR-10 rifle. Created to compete in the T44 trials with the M14 and Fal. Adopted by Sudan, only.

...and Portugal. Perfected just in time for the move to .223.

AR-18 rifle. Simpler, cheaper and more reliable than the M16. Adopted by a very few small countries and Irish terrorists.

Crudely made. External reciprocating bolt handle eats fingers, causes jams when shooting from LH barricades. Shares flimsy reciever problems with Beretta AR-70 (a well-placed boot can total the gun).

Stoner 63 weapon system. Used by no one but the Seals (and no, I'm not going to PROVE the Seals used them). The Marines tried to adopt it as a service rifle and it was also one of the losers in the M249 SAW trials.

Decent gun, but "modular factor" not worth price difference and increased complication.

FN FNC. "The perfect .223 assualt rifle." Adopted by one or two Scandanavian countries.

Weighs a metric ton.

Galil. The other "perfect .223 assualt rifle". Front line issue in S. Africa, only.

Also weighs a metric ton, plus has only 1/3rd of the crappy ergos of the Kalashnikov. "Substitute standard" in the country they were invented in, for heaven's sake...

Browning BDM. An all steel hicap wondernine that weighed less than similar alloy framed guns. Has the SMALLEST grip of any 9mm HiCap pistol. Produced for 2 or 3 years.

I owned one. Neat concept, but they don't call it the "Breaks Down, Mainly" for nothing.

S&W M547. A 9mm with an extractor design that works on rimmed or rimless cases without moonclips. Based on the Philips and Rogers Medusa cylinder which will chamber and fire any 9mm/.38 family cartridge. Both are dust.

You forgot "an excessively complex extractor design that doubles your chances of spent shells getting hung up while achieving a much higher rate of small parts breakage".

Anything in 10mm. Magnum like performance and 15 round capacity. Excellent accuracy and good feeding case shape. Available only in custom single stack 1911's, Glock and Tanfoglio.

As big a 10mm fan as I am (did you buy a .38-40/.40S&W Vaquero just so you could convert it to 10mm?), even I have to admit that .40 S&W does 80% of what 10mm does and does it in a 9mm-sized platform.

9X23. Similar to above.

Another cool cartridge that was largely rendered irrelevant by the arrival of .40 S&W. Worst come to worst, what does 9x23 do that .38 Super +P doesn't?


Look, Handy, I dig the funky and different and "high tech" as much as you do: I own/have owned a P7, a Mauser HSc, a Mateba, a gas-seal revolver, a Titanium Centennial in .44, SP-89s, SITES Spectres (DA buzzgun with decocker and 4-column mag! Obviously superior! ) however do you really, honestly think, deep down in your heart of hearts, that the only reason that older designs or mechanisms linger on is because of nostalgia?

 

[Handy]

I think it's alot of things. I think tradition and experience are up there.


In terms of peoples attitudes, did you ever notice that the P7 cult always talk soully about the weapon's capabilities and engineering. Yet the people that don't like P7s say the cult is just into snob appeal. Which is it? Are we snobs, or smart insiders? Personally, I don't have anyone to brag to. I would carry that gun into hell.


In one of your posts you said that the Bullseye crew would do anything to win, but in another called them very conservative. I imagine the switch to 1911's for bullseye occurred about the time you could get Army surplus guns for $20. Gunsmithing didn't cost much either as most of the top bullseye shooters of yore were gunsmiths. Now, it's just tradition. Why would you use .45 acp either? 9mm 1911s are just as accurate and can be made to recoil less. Maybe that's a scoring thing. In IPSC, Tanfoglio pistols were tried, VERY successfully-Nationals was won with one. So if tradition isn't at work, why did they get away from a winning system?

Also, Browning lock up guns can be made with a lathe and a mill with basic measuring devices. Gun manufactorers didn't move past that level of production until quite recently. HK did much earlier, but is also one of the youngest big gun makers. I don't know if anyone but HK was really set up to make something like a P9S until now.

This has turned into a bit of P9S thing, due to the scarcity of any of these guns and the venom some bring to the P7. I seem to be in minority thinking a roller delayed system might make for a durable, reliable handgun. Yet no one seems to have a hard time thinking it's a good way to make an infantry rifle or submachine gun. Why is the MP5 the best subgun and the P9S a silly pistol?

All I'm basically proposing is making handguns more similar to automatic rifles. You'll note this is less stupid than suggesting we make rifles with Browning tilting barrels.

There is nothing outright "wrong" with a Sig, 1911, BHP. They definitely work for their intended mission. Yet people keep pushing them for higher levels of accuracy, as if they did care about the best accuracy.

Given the scarcity of the kind of pistols I'm talking about, why should a competitor take the chance on something rare? They're concerned about replaceable parts and customization. Since a 1911 can be made to any level of accuracy, it makes sense for the competition crowd to stick with what it knows. And the police and Army aren't asking for better, so where does this fictional demand for the better mousetrap come from?

 

[Dobe]

Handy,
I was on your side when you were talking about being innovative, but I think that it is going a bit far. You were right about the bulleye pistols. A .45 will cut a bigger hole than a 9mm, and that in itself is an edge.

So, what will it take for the current JMB design to be replaced. A system will need to offer something better than what is being offered now.

1. It must be more accurate, not just a little, but noticalbly within the context of the competition and/or
2. It must produce less noticable recoil and
3. It must do all of this with at least the same malfunction rate, and close to the same cost.

The following is an example of supply and demand, and has nothing to do with a new action, but does depict how changes occur within the shooting industry.

Let's look at what is happening in the handgun world right now. People are flocking to CZ 75's in droves, because of two things. Price and quality. It is a great gun for the cost. But what if CZ's had started their price at the same as BHP's? CZ's would have had to have been a much better pistol in order to attract customers. That doesn't mean that CZ's aren't a quality handgun. It just means that one has to be offered more than one currently has in order to accept a change. It is the same way that Ruger entered the market.

I am saying this to explain that it is more than just nostalgia. A new design must offer something that we are not getting now.

Remember the Browing A-5. Gas-Guns replaced that wonderful gun, but for a valid reason...Less recoil for one, and with a reliable gun too. It did not happen over night, but it happened.

I am all for improvements, but they must offer something other than a change for the sake of change.

 

[Blackhawk]

Very well said in an excellent essay, Pendragon!

I need new computer software and hardware to meet newer requirements. However, as you point out, the requirements for shooting BGs hasn't changed so volunteering to debug new hardware to meet those requirements isn't all that smart....

Even so, I'm anxious to wring out two new pocket pistols -- the KT P3AT and the Rohrbaugh R-9 -- even though I have plenty of hardware that meets my requirements to my total satisfaction. Can't help it being an early adopter, techno-junkie, and all that stuff.

I would buy Handy's new pistol if all other things were meritorious.

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

In one of your posts you said that the Bullseye crew would do anything to win, but in another called them very conservative.

Well, they are conservative, in that there's a developed system that's winning. No one wants to risk losing by sticking a toe into untested waters, unless it shows a significant advantage from the get-go... When I start thinking "Why don't these [whatever type] competition shooters use [my favorite piece of gear]?", I stop to think "Do I really think I'm on to something that these guys who shoot for a living have missed?"...

I imagine the switch to 1911's for bullseye occurred about the time you could get Army surplus guns for $20. Gunsmithing didn't cost much either as most of the top bullseye shooters of yore were gunsmiths. Now, it's just tradition. Why would you use .45 acp either? 9mm 1911s are just as accurate and can be made to recoil less.

Well, there are certain bullseye classes that require .45ACP. Even if service caliber classes didn't, a .45 a) cuts a bigger hole in the target, and b) happens to be a very "inherently accurate" caliber.

Maybe that's a scoring thing. In IPSC, Tanfoglio pistols were tried, VERY successfully-Nationals was won with one. So if tradition isn't at work, why did they get away from a winning system?

Uh, because, with the rise of the STI/SVI doublestack 1911 they started getting smoked again? The CZs big advantage in IPSC was capacity. With the common availability of double-stack 1911s, this went away.

 

[Correia]

Those darn stodgy competitors, so entrenched in tradition, always refusing to change. Lets think for a second: Porting, C-Mores, Holosights, compensators, 24 shot pistol magazines, 9x21, 9x25, 400 Corbon, 40 Super, polymer 1911s, IPSC CZs, ramped barrels, linkless barrels, extended irons, huge mag wells, extended everything, gas 1911s, bull barrels, bushingless barrels, speed holsters, and pink SVIs with Hello Kitty emblems in the grip.

Here is the thing about competitors. (talking more IPSC than IDPA since IDPA has restrictive equipment rules) If you build something that will enable them to win they will buy it. If it gives them an edge they will buy it. If it is more, better, or faster then they will buy it.

If the P9 or P7 offered more then IPSC shooters would use it. It has nothing to do with tradition. These guys are out there shooting in Lycra bike shorts and running shoes. IPSC shooters play to win. They don't get bonus style points for having a traditional gun.

Look Handy, I'm a wannabe gun inventor myself. I understand your frustration. I've got a couple of designs that I know will never be built in a million years because there wouldn't be sufficient demand for them. I know that because I'm trying to be realistic. It has nothing to do with tradition, I just know that those designs aren't going to offer enough of a draw.

I've got a couple of other designs that I think do offer something though. I've spent a bunch of my own hard earned money building one this year. I think this one will sell. Why? Because it fills a niche. You know what though, the actual gun looks nothing like my original drawings. Those were easy. Building the damn thing is hard.

If you can build an action that bests the 1911 then do it. If it is really better then it will do fine. (provided your marketing/business skills don't suck, but that is a whole different topic). If the action is more accurate, recoils less, is just as reliable, and doesn't cost more to make then it should be a winner.

But here is the thing. You can't come along and say to somebody, your **** sucks, my ***** is way better. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy, you have to PROVE it. You have to SELL it.

Good luck.

 

[Pendragon]

Thanks Blackhawk.

Now to be fair, I would have to say that if Handys pistol made it to market, I would actually conider getting one.

However, it would have to be markedly superior to my 1911 for me to consider it.

Now - I would consider carrying a P-32 or a new Rorbach (sp?) because those guns are TINY.

If someone made a full sized gun in .45 (sorry, 9mm is great, but I am not interested) then it would have to have better ergonomics, a better trigger, be easier to maintain, cost less and look better than my 1911.

I will not say its impossible, but thats a tall order.

Oddly, I think the looks factor would be the most difficult part of the whole exercise.

I like the look of the 1911 - it is conservative, it has history and shooters know what one is and knowledgeable shooters can look at my Valtro and instantly know that it is something special.

Also - there is the magic of Mr. Jardine, his incredible experience and craftsmanship. Throw in the fact that anyone can make a 1911 but your gun will be patented and only you and your licensees can make it and the order is even taller.

You can make a million of them in a modern factory and yet, they will still be mas produced utilitarian guns. The Valtro is a work of art and is better than it needs to be in looks and finish.

Will your gun give me the same pride of ownership?

People are extremely complex creatures - we purchase products not because they are the best from a technical point of view, but often we consider just as much whether our products measure up to a lot of our more emotional expectations.

Even my fancy computer - I put it in a nice brushed aluminum case, I hand painted the bezel to a matching silver color, I took several hours to carefully route every wire and cable to maximize airflow, etc. It has the specs, the looks and the craftsman ship (such that it is) that I require. I got a friend who has a similar system and his is in a plane jane beige box with sloppy cables - he does not care about the same things I care about.

One thing I would suggest is that you stop criticising people for their tastes. I like American cars and in another forum, I got a lot of criticism for not buying an Acura or a Subaru or whatever. There is simply no accounting for taste

Interestingly, a lot of their arguments were that the car I bought (Mustang GT) was "out dated" and that I should have bought a more modern design: "big bore engines are stupid because they generate their power with brute force instead of the elegant technology of our fancy V6 engines!"

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

I buy what I like.

 

[Handy]

I didn't criticize anyone's "tastes". I said that I believed there may be a better way to make a pistol, but didn't say "Glock is stupid" or "1911s are ugly and don't work". The fact that people chose to read this thread as anything involving tastes likely has something to do with the emotion they attach to the subject, rather than my language.

You'll find lots of rude stuff in this thread, most of it directed at me.

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

No, you said "Browning's legacy: [is] the innacurate autoloader".

A bunch of posters called you on it. (I'm looking at a 1911 right now that shoots 1.25" groups @ 25yds with factory JHPs, which is better than my P7M8 will do...)

Now, you cry "foul".



Personally, I thik you're missing an essential point: To wit, are there some better ways to deliver microgroups from a pistol? Why, yes, there are; you don't see free pistol competitors trading their Hammerlis and Pardinis for 1911s, do you? Is that the be-all and end-all of pistol design, without any design trade-offs? Maybe not...

 

[Pendragon]

I didn't criticize anyone's "tastes". I said that I believed there may be a better way to make a pistol, but didn't say "Glock is stupid" or "1911s are ugly and don't work".

Well sir, the problem is that the definition of "better" is completely subjective. You came in criticising one of the most beloved gun designers and designs in history:

It is commonly held, and usually true, that revolvers are more accurate than semiautos. But this is not the case BECAUSE of the revolver design. It's actually the fault of the common recoil design of 95% of combat type handguns, starting with John Brownings designs.

You also make some statements that could charitably be described as inaccurate:

On Browning and most other recoil pistols, the bore is "floating" in it's slide or frame clearances; nothing is fixed. The ability of the barrel to re-seat is fought by breachface friction, extractor tension and fouling.

But the 1911's success has stymied all efforts to get BACK to the accuracy that should be found in every autoloader. The fixed barrel Desert Eagle shoots tighter groups than the revolvers it borrows ammuntion from.

Then, our collective loony detectors start humming:

In summary, the autoloader "community" has saddled itself with sub par accuracy for the sake of nostalgia. A recoil action that encloses the barrel in a slide is an immediate disadvantage. There are lots of ways of producting simplified, truly accurate auto actions if we would only demand them.

You then cap it all off by implying that somehow we are all suffering under the tyranny of the inaccurate auto loader and that a solution is available if only we were not so dense:

The Brownings, Sig and Glocks are all decent enough guns, but basically handicapped in regards to accuracy. If you could have your cake AND eat it, why wouldn't you?

You definately posted your thread with an antagonistic "my ideas vs the world" stance. If you were looking for measured response. why not start off on a different foot and say "guys, I know most guns work well enough, but I have some ideas to make an inexpensive auto pistol with truly amazing accuracy!"

Where are the threads here and on TFL lamenting the deplorable state of auto loader accuracy? Where are the accounts of people who would have fared better in a gun fight if only they had a gun with more accuracy?

As I have said, you may well be right, but what matters is - will the public agree with your assertions that auto pistols are not accurate enough and flock to your new design so we can all enter a new golden age of auto pistol accuracy?

I would say you got an up hill fight.

 

[tetchaje1]

Tamara...

Note to self: Never get into a bench-race with Tamara...

 

[Handy]

Tamara,

Why would you mention your 1.25" 1911 in a thread about production combat pistols? You're talking about stock gun with adequate fouling clearance, reliable enough for field use, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. Is it a Singer your pappy brought back?

Pendragon,

I'm not sure what the problem with any of my quotes were up there. Particularly referring to Browning barrels floating. Not only do they move in several planes when cycling, but to be combat reliable they have to have clearances for fouling. That's why there is a difference between a combat 1911, an IPSC 1911 and a bullseye gun.

Has anyone here ever heard of a military handing out 1911s with oversize lugs, welded hood and long link? (And no, the MEUSOC gun is loose enough to both function and rattle. I've handled a new one.)

As soon as anyone talks about accuracy, everyone pulls out their pin guns and acts like its the perfect thing for a war. A tip: If it works better with grease on the rails, its probably not a combat pistol.

The P9S has gone to war, and it will shoot 1" at 25 yards. It is also the only pistol I've shot that I could hold 8" at 100 yards with combat sights.

I'm not sure what was loony about saying that a DE is more accurate than most revolvers, either. Clear that one up?

I too have a tuned 1911 that is VERY accurate. It jams. Over the years I've also owned or fired Glocks, P7, P9S, Brownings, P5, Sigs, Berettas, Rugers. I've qualified Expert 6 out of 6 times: once with the M9, 3 times with the M11 and once each with a P7 and P9S. The last two are both the most accurate duty pistols I've seen, they are also the only guns which have never jammed or even hesitated. My conclusions are based on experience, not hopes or wishes. I attempted to design a gun not because I like another one, but because I fully believe a fixed barrel is an easy upgrade.

The suggestion that one should spend $500 on a pistol and another $300 to get it to shoot like (but be less reliable than) an HK I purchased for $650 is laughable.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Why would you mention your 1.25" 1911 in a thread about production combat pistols? You're talking about stock gun with adequate fouling clearance, reliable enough for field use, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. Is it a Singer your pappy brought back?

Nope, it's a Springfield Professional...you know, the production 1911 considered reliable and "combat" enough to be FBI HRT issue.

 

[Handy]

The HRT wanted a match pistol, the HRT got a match pistol. I don't recall in their specs any sand or mud reliability tests.

I don't think surrounding a bank on a sunny day is necessarily a "combat condition". They don't even have to pack their own lunch to the "hot zone".

 

[Tamara]

Handy,

I don't recall in their specs any sand or mud reliability tests.

I'd suspect it'd do as well in those as a P7 or P9. Shall we find out? You bring the P9, I'll bring the P7...

 

[Pendragon]

Why would you mention your 1.25" 1911 in a thread about production combat pistols? You're talking about stock gun with adequate fouling clearance, reliable enough for field use, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought it up. Is it a Singer your pappy brought back?

Handy, are you a gun smith? I ask that in all sincerity.

I am not a good enough shot to prove it, but my Valtro is guaranteed to shoot 1" @ 25yards. I have heard of examples shooting measurably better than that.

It also has never jammed and is now nearly 1000 rounds without being cleaned.

Mr. Jardine told me that reliability and accuracy are not mutually exclusive in 1911s and from what I have seen so far, I believe him.

As for the barrel "floating", mine does not move or float when it is in battery. When it unlocks and begins the recoil cycle, the bullet has long since left the barrel. There is zero "slop" in the barrel link and the slide release pin - unlike my Colt which had some 10 degrees of free pivot (when the slide release pin was in the barrel link).

Now if you want to argue that a good percentage of 1911 guns are not made well enough to be highly reliable and accurate, then we might agree.

The main criteria for selection of the HRT has been manufacturing capacity. Baer had the contract originally, but lost it as they were unable to stay on schedule. Springfield has had troubles keeping up as well.

Lastly, if you are not sure what is wrong with what I quoted you on, then I am not sure what to say to you. You seem to be fixated on improving an aspect of handguns that does not seem to need much improving right now. You also seem unaware of the factors that drive people to purchase a given weapon or the value of anything beyond a specific specification. You have insulted a true icon and most people who like the icon, take offense. You have essentially told a large group of people that they like certain guns for their nostalgia when in reality, that is just a huge, baseless assumption on your part.

Insight, finesse, diplomacy, tact, empathy, and respect.

Any guess as to what these words have in common?

 

[Hal]

The Brownings, Sig and Glocks are all decent enough guns, but basically handicapped in regards to accuracy.

Much as I hate to admit it,,,,both of my box stock Browning High Powers fit that statement to a T.

My ~ $99.00 POS, fixed barrel FIE .380 will outshoot either of them. And, any of my Smith revolvers will outshoot the POS FIE.
My Kimbers close to matching the FIE, but still aren't in the same league as the Smiths. My Colt Commander will match the Smiths at ~ 3 times the cost. 'bout the only 1911 pattern I've seen that exceeds the Smiths was a Colt Gold Cup w/~ $2000.00 into it over and above the base price.

Sig-- Don't own one, but I saw some guy shooting a 220 one day @ 50 feet that was staying right up there with me.

Glock-- Again, don't own one, but saw a guy shooting a 30 that was running it just a bit ahead of me one day.

Oh well. I luv em anyhow.

 

[BigG]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet but I will paraphrase one of our more esteemed members by saying comparing a named model pistol (HK P9) to a "1911" is not a fair comparison on its face as the C/B pistol has been cloned and manufactured across the known universe and produced from eveything from superior steel to recycled beer cans and by hand filing out of scrap metal to cast, forged, and what have you.

This practice of calling anything and everything that follows the 1911 pattern a "1911" is akin to 50 years from now if Glocks were cloned, calling anything that followed the design a Glock.

I will put my unmodified Colt Gold Cups up against anything you want to name (in its price range ~ $1,000) as far as bullseye match accuracy is concerned but when you compare just any gun that looks like a Colt you are unfairly maligning a pretty good piece of machinery.

Handy: one critique, your first sentence of the original post claims that it's generally recognized the revolver is more accurate than the auto. This is far from the truth. Col. Charles Askins won his 500+ shooting awards using mostly autoloaders once he realized that with a revo, you had to get SIX chambers to line up exactly the same with the bore whilst an auto having an integral chamber does not have that limitation. I posted a thread about the centerfire handgun he used in National Matches called .221 Askins a while back. This goes back to the 1930s.

Handy, if you draw up your design, I would get Owen to check it out after signing the nondisclosure agreement. If your idea is workable, maybe you have designed the better mousetrap. Now, it's time to get it built!

 

[Byron Quick]

Handy,

First, I would like to address your characterization of the FBI surrounding a bank as somehow not being a combat situation. Friend, any situation where I can get my butt shot off is a combat situation...even if I am in a five star dining room eating filet mignon. People engage in combat who are not military and where the combat is not at war levels. Get used to it. (Oh, yeah-just as an aside, out of all the military weapons used in the past 100 years, ALL of the military pistols could have been disposed of without appreciably affecting the casualty figures of ANY of the wars fought. Militarily speaking, the pistol is an afterthought...something to keep officers from feeling undressed.)

I own 1911's, Glocks, Brownings, Smith & Wesson revolvers, Ruger revolvers and automatics among others. I can shoot well enough to kill what I want with all of them. I carry the 1911.

And not because it's the most accurate of what I own. Personally, I'm more accurate with my Glock 29 than I am with either the Springfield Loaded or the Kimber Gold Match. But I shoot minute of death with ALL of them and the 1911's ride on my hip more comfortably. The fact that the Glock 29's groups are somewhat tighter than the 1911's is immaterial...to me. And I'm the one who's got to carry it.

Tell you what. I'm always looking for a reason to buy another gun. Produce the one you are rhapsodizing about. Do a quality job of it. Make it look pretty. I'll probably buy one...but I might not carry it.