Were WWII 1911s reliable?

[Eurodriver]

It seems one needs to spends quite a few dollars to get a 1911 these days that isn't a plain jam o matic or at best something you can't trust your life to.

Obviously 1911s of the 1940s were mass produced side arms without the custom fitting most good 1911s get today.

Did they work well? If so, how? Was it the lack of hollow point ammo?

What about in mud and dirt?

[JohnK84]

I'll bite.

Based on my readings, I don't think it's "obvious" that there wasn't custom fitting. I think it is quite the opposite and maybe industry professionals that can chime in. It is my understanding that the 1911 of yesteryear was a pistol that was fit to EXACT specifications to allow for one extractor to be swapped with another, slide stop pin, and so on. If they were not fit to exacting specifications, that wouldn't work, right? I mean, I cannot (conceivably) take my extractor out of my Professional and toss it into my Wilson and expect to have the results without someone looking at it or verifying. You're talking two different pistols with two different build philosophies and potentially different tolerances. During the WWI/WWII, I believe the build philosophy was the same across the board - build a reliable side-arm, chambered in .45, that can withstand 6,000 rounds, go through a gauntlet of environmental factors, and allow for parts interchangeability. Did they work well... the design is still here, isn't it? I am sure that a tremendous amount of servicemen relied on and trusted their lives to them and returned to their families.

[Slater]

WW2-era slides were only heat treated in critical areas, so I would imagine that any modern 1911 would have better long-term durability in that area.

[Dump1567]

I think it was Hilton Yam that had a great quote about how labor use to be cheap and technology was expensive. Now it's the opposite. That's why modern hand fitted 1911 are expensive these days.

In the old days, parts were hand fitted, all contract 1911's had to have interchangeable parts with each other, and than had to go through inspection and be stamped. During WWII, several manufactures went through growing pains getting there 1911's up to govt. specs.

I've never read of any horror stories of failures. I have heard of accuracy issues, but this was after thousands of rounds and after being in service for several years. I still managed to qualify expert during basic in the late 80's with my WWII rattle trap.

And WWI/WWII 1911's are still in service today with some units, which is a testament to there reliability.

[Bugs]

Yes, the war time 1911s and 1911A1s were reliable. They wouldn't have developed the reputation they did, nor would they still be in use, had they not worked across the board. They were designed to function under adverse conditions utilizing standardized magazines and ball ammo. Reports of "reliability" problems often come from using magazines and ammunition that haven't been matched to the weapon, and in this case, that means hollow point and +P ammunition.

Post war developments - the Modern Technique, for example, and ballistically improved ammunition - are what hastened platform upgrades. Those guns needed to 1. Feed and cycle more varied ammunition of various designs and power levels. 2. Improve ergonomics to keep up with the revised manual of arms, specifically with greater emphasis on speed, accuracy, and manipulation. And so we ended up with better sights and fire control parts, enlarged ejection ports and polished feed ramps, plus a greater variety of springs, magazines, and parts that are bigger/faster/"bulletproof".

My prewar gun still runs fine on hardball ammo and seven round mags, and I carry it both afield and concealed, at times. It is a bit tricky to shoot well at intermediate range, under time pressure. I have to hold it a bit lower and endure using the base of my thumb to wipe off the safety. But for a down and dirty, stake my life on it pistol, it still works, for what it is.

Edit: sidearm doctrine, manual of arms, and training was rudimentary back then. It's pertinent to the discussion.

[qsy]

Every 1911 that I handled (late 60's-70's) was absolutely reliable. To be honest, I can't recall a malfunction while qualifying. There were probably not a lot of shots from a .45 in anger, they spent most of their service in a holster or at the range.
I picked up a USGI 1911A1 in the early 70's. It has run everything I have put thru it including my "learning"" efforts at reloading. The Colt records for the frame show a 1918 manufacture, APO NY. It is a typical arms room mix of parts, at some point it was upgraded to a 1911A1. It also runs well with an Ace Conversion, .45ACP wasn't always as cheap as it is now.
With ball ammo and GI mags, as reliable as any pistol I've seen.

[BigBuckeye]

I am not near my bookshelf but I have a VERY good book on this topic...I believe it is "weapons of the US Military during WWII" or something close to that. The book is fist hand accounts of soldiers from WWII speaking solely on their weapons. Long story short....pretty much 100% of the comments on the 1911 were of it being loved and the .45 of being a sledgehammer. By the way..,no surprise....everyone loved the Garand too.

[T2C]

It seems one needs to spends quite a few dollars to get a 1911 these days that isn't a plain jam o matic or at best something you can't trust your life to.

Obviously 1911s of the 1940s were mass produced side arms without the custom fitting most good 1911s get today.

Did they work well? If so, how? Was it the lack of hollow point ammo?

What about in mud and dirt?

It must be pure dumb luck, but I've purchased a few 1911's over the past 30 years that were not "jam o matics" and I shoot the daylights out of them. I carry a P938 (quasi 1911 clone) during the summer months and a full size 1911 during the heavy clothing months with confidence they will work if needed. A properly built 1911 will feed HP ammunition without issue.

The new polymer pistols are very reliable, but there is nothing like a 1911 IMHO.

[DirectTo]

The new polymer pistols are very reliable, but there is nothing like a 1911 IMHO.

The 1911 is a fine gun without a doubt, but they can't really be compared to modern polymer wonder guns. Two different platforms designed at two very different times. A well designed 1911 should have no problem with modern JHP ammo and be more than capable as a defensive weapon, but just about anything is going to weigh less on the hip and offer more capacity, even in .45 ACP. In the grand scheme of things, anything aside from a gamer gun should be reliable and powerful enough with modern ammo to serve defensively after a initial shakedown. Anything beyond that is just preference.

[T2C]

The 1911 is a fine gun without a doubt, but they can't really be compared to modern polymer wonder guns. Two different platforms designed at two very different times. A well designed 1911 should have no problem with modern JHP ammo and be more than capable as a defensive weapon, but just about anything is going to weigh less on the hip and offer more capacity, even in .45 ACP. In the grand scheme of things, anything aside from a gamer gun should be reliable and powerful enough with modern ammo to serve defensively after a initial shakedown. Anything beyond that is just preference.

I won't dispute the polymer handguns are better service pistols for the rank and file, they definitely are. Magazine capacity is a huge advantage over a single stack 1911. I own a few Glocks that I shoot regularly and I think they are fine pistols. I still shoot better El Presidente scores using a 1911 with factory 230g fmj than I do shooting a Glock 34 with reloads barely making minor power factor. I guess it's a matter of what you cut your teeth on when you started shooting semi-automatics.