In 1990 I was issued an M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol that had been manufactured by Remington Rand during WWII. Though a stout and reliable firearm, my Colt had one limitation.
Its accuracy.
To put it mildly, I was surprised the bullets ever hit the ground. At 25m I had a shot group of around 2 feet.
Now, I was (and still am) by no means an expert on firearms, and stories abound regarding the inaccuracy issues of the M1911A1, but the one thing I did know was the .45 was, and still is, used extensively in pistol competitions, so I knew the weapon design was not the issue, nor was the ammunition, but I was at a loss as to why I literally couldnt hit the target right in front of me.
This went on for a year or so until we got a new Platoon Leader in our company who also happened to be something of a shade-tree gunsmith and a Colt collector. What he said was, no the weapons arent bad, and the ammunition, while not match grade, wasnt the cause, but rather, the Armys level of tolerance in key components. Bottom line, all my troubles centered on the barrel and barrel bushing. Upon further inspection it was noted that when fully seated (slide all the way forward) my barrel was still capable of movement, a LOT of movement, as was explained to me, which obviously was having an effect on my accuracy. Unfortunately, as the LT explained, that slop was still within Army tolerance, so technically there was nothing to be done.
Well, the next day what should appear but a Brownells catalogue, listing all the parts I would need to fix my .45. I purchased a barrel, barrel bushing, barrel link and pin (as well as a plastic deadfall hammer and some lapping compound to fit the barrel and bushing to the slide) and then spent the next field problem hammering the slide back and forth the fit them.
The results, however, were immediate and satisfying. My shot groups had collapsed to about 5 (good I thought, considering I was still shooting a stock slide and receiver.) The Lt., on the other hand, was shooting VERY good groups, but then hed gone the extra step to get a complete fitted slide assembly, to include adjustable rear sight; after qualifying hed just remove his slide, re-attach the Army issue one, and turn the .45 back into the arms room (which would explain why folk who checked his .45 out to qualify with didnt do so well.)
Anyway, that small investment on my part not only dispelled all those accuracy issues surrounding the .45, but also improved the quality of my shooting.
The 1911 is a fine piece to carry. I cant afford one right now, but it is very high on my list of stuff to get.
i’m not really savvy on military accounting, but are field modifications such as the aftermarket parts noted above able to be “expensed” or at least tax-deductable? knowing there are many such manufacturing tolerance problems even within stringent MILSPEC requirements, i would hope that the soldiers in the field should be able to get some reimbursement for the personalization in their kit that makes them more effective and surviveable.
Only the best for our fighting men in uniform.
Pisses me off that we’ll spend billions on high tech weapons systems and send soldiers off to battle with inaccurate firearms that could be improved with a few dollars worth of parts.*
I understand that these training weapons were not necessarily the ones that would be carried into combat, but you can’t really learn how to shoot well if your training weapon is inaccurate.
Hopefully this anecdote no longer represents military thinking.
*(Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for battlefield superiority through high tech weapons systems, just not at the expense of bread-and-butter systems for the guys on the ground. Especially considering how relatively cheap those bread-and-butter systems are in comparison.)
Good Morning Folks,
Same problem, same solution, different war. I was issued a Rand M-1911 in 1966 before shipment to Vietnam. When I went to the range at Ft. Meade to qualify I couldn’t hit a 25meter target although I was quite use to the weapon. The solution was on my pre deployment leave was a visit to a war surplus store where I aquired some replacement barrels and other parts. Problem solved.
I also got enought barrels and parts for the rest the platoon. Back then new barrels Gov’t contract issue could be bought in there sealed packages for about $.75 each. Total bill was less the $20.00.
It turns out that the last Gov’t. contract for M-1911’s was in 1942 and those weapons saw service in WWII and Korea by the time of Vietnam. Now you can add a couple more wars.
ALLONS,
Byron
My first 45 was a 1918 Colt mfg that my mother bought for me in 1968 when I was 14. My oldest son now owns it. It shot better than the 5 foot group, but with a few mods it has greatly improved. Full length guide rod with 18 1/2 lb recoil spring, aluminum match trigger, new 19 lb mainspring, stainless firing pin and new fp spring. The rest is still stock.
I built my current 1911 out of a GI slide and Essex frame. All internal parts are stainless and I hand-fitted the barrel bushing and link pin. Also lowered the ejection port and hand fitted the slide to frame & tuned the ejector. For liability purposes a gunsmith did the trigger job. It out-shoots my SIG 220 all day long.
The article makes an excellent point about quality control. So much of the procurement debates is about design and quantity. And, of course, the prototypes that the brass and Pentagon guys get to consider in the early stages of the process are of excellent quality.
But, a second rate design with superior workmanship often outrates the best design with shoddy construction.
That LT is a smart one. I wish wonder is the AF will let me do that?
Let’s not discount the fact that the 1911 in GI guise is a very old design, there are modern designs for .45s that are vastly cheaper to produce, have far fewer parts and are capable of equal or better than a tuned GI-spec 1911.
my Springfield XD in .45ACP (made in Croatia) holds 10 rounds, is famously durable and reliable for HALF the price of even a lower-end accurized 1911. I love the 1911s for their triggers and good ergonomics but it’s time we started looking at other guns for a replacement.
My sentiments are split between matching Takeo’s and thinking that one should leave well enough alone. I’ve never been satisfied with the M9, partly because of the wimpy ammunition and partly because I’m a poor shot with it. I agree with the multitude who think discarding the .45 for 9mm was a mistake. I’m still waiting for the DoD to get with the program on coming up with a replacement.
My license plate: “M1911 45″
It’s my favorite firearm. Period. We even just got my girlfriend a .22 1911 from Kimber.
I get some great thumbs up for the license plate on occasion.
With the bounty of aftermarket parts available, there is no reason to carry an inaccurate or unreliable 1911. Good commercial magazines are other items that are much better than GI issue. If you’re packing a .45, it might make sense to pony up for a couple.
I had always heard that the old 1911 were purposefully “sloppy” for practical reasons of interchangeability and durability similar to the AK-47
I have a US Army Remington Rand built in 1943 and out shot every modern 45 acp in the match. You can bet that my life can depend on this fine weapon. But an opinion is like an asshole everyone has one. Some assholes have more negitive opinions. AS we say in war have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!
I WORK FOR A LOCAL SHERIFF OFFICE AND WE CAME ACROSS A DUPLICATE SERIAL NUMBER REM RAND 45 AND A COLT THAT SUPPOSEDLY THE ORGINAL WAS DESTROYED BUT WE HAVE THE WEAPON. AS FAR AS THE MILITARY IS CONCERNED, IT’S DESTROYED BY SHOWED UP AGAIN 20YEARS AFTER IT WAS DESTROYED. MAN, TALK ABOUT DURABILITY!!!!!!
What year was my M1911 A1.45 with serial # 1457740 made?
Was left a R-R 1911 by my uncle to his “favorite” nephew. Same story… a tighter bushing took a “rattler” with dubious accuracy to pistol that my local range officer embarrassed me with. Had S&W 59’s and a few others.. alway enjoyed (and respected) the 1911 and the late Sgt. who left it to me.