View Full Version : Were WWII 1911s reliable?
Eurodriver
12-21-16, 09:42
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other than sights, safety, and finish; how do current 70 series pistols stack up to a surplus colt 1911a1?
Without CNC machining, tolerances were broader for all parts back then. That meant a certain level of hand fitting was required if it were to work in suboptimal conditions. Any upper level armorer with experience could probably put together a parts gun that would work all day every day.
Keep in mind that heat treat for springs wasn't as tightly controlled either and access to higher level maintenance wasn't "on demand" in many cases. Overall, they were sloppy enough on tolerances that they'd work most of the time if properly kept free of debris and lubricated.
http://www.gunlab.net/wp-content/uploads/1911manufacture.pdf
Take this for what it is, but I had one grandfather who was in the Navy in WWI and another grandfather who was in WWII. The grandfather who was in WWI didn't say much about small arms, which may be because he was in the Navy and didn't see much action with small arms. He played with the big guns. However, my grandfather who fought in WWII was in the Army-Air Force and carried a 1911. (I've got pictures of him with it) He never used it in combat, but he told me most of the GI's he worked with, that had seen combat hated them and any chance they could get they would use the P.38's they took off German soldiers to use instead. I asked him why and he said the 1911's were unreliable.
Now on the flip side, I've talked to other veterans who said they loved their 1911's.
So I'm sure there were some who had 1911's that worked great for them and other's who did not. One wonders if it was the gun itself, lack of training on how to use the 1911 and care for it, or a little bit of both.
Straight Shooter
12-22-16, 08:57
Ive had the chance to fire many WW2 guns, and was issued a 1911 my first two years in the USMC. Even documented the firing of an 1911 made in 1917 that was carried, and "used" by the lady's uncle who was a Sgt. in the Army during WW2. He brought the gun home. This particular piece, a friend and I tore down, looked at it, re-assembled it. Now, this pistol had a G.I. mag that had been loaded with G.I. ammo for over 50 years. We filmed me firing this pistol with that mag, and another with modern White Box ammo. Both shot way low for some reason, but was still 100% with even the old mag/ammo.
All the other 1911's Ive used, reliability was not the issue, at all. Ive seen a few that were accurate even by todays standards, but mostly the ones we were issued were worn slap out and not accurate for shit. As for lack of training..YES..thats a huge issue. In the early eighties, pistol training in the Corps was...lacking, to say the least. Most techniques used now were a decades away from being invented. As I had owned a Series 70 for years prior to entering service, and was, and still am a huge fan of Col. Cooper...I was "up" on its use and how to run it. WAY ahead of everybody else.
Were I to ever use an old G.I. gun for personal SD..Id get one that was rebuilt and tight, put on aftermarket sights, re-spring it entirely with Wolff springs, and use new Wilson or Tripp mags, and put on aftermarket grips.
Ive had the chance to fire many WW2 guns, and was issued a 1911 my first two years in the USMC. Even documented the firing of an 1911 made in 1917 that was carried, and "used" by the lady's uncle who was a Sgt. in the Army during WW2. He brought the gun home. This particular piece, a friend and I tore down, looked at it, re-assembled it. Now, this pistol had a G.I. mag that had been loaded with G.I. ammo for over 50 years. We filmed me firing this pistol with that mag, and another with modern White Box ammo. Both shot way low for some reason, but was still 100% with even the old mag/ammo.
All the other 1911's Ive used, reliability was not the issue, at all. Ive seen a few that were accurate even by todays standards, but mostly the ones we were issued were worn slap out and not accurate for shit. As for lack of training..YES..thats a huge issue. In the early eighties, pistol training in the Corps was...lacking, to say the least. Most techniques used now were a decades away from being invented. As I had owned a Series 70 for years prior to entering service, and was, and still am a huge fan of Col. Cooper...I was "up" on its use and how to run it. WAY ahead of everybody else.
Were I to ever use an old G.I. gun for personal SD..Id get one that was rebuilt and tight, put on aftermarket sights, re-spring it entirely with Wolff springs, and use new Wilson or Tripp mags, and put on aftermarket grips.
I think that applies to any 60+ year old GI gun. I picked up a 43 Inland M1 Carbine and it was pitifully unreliable. Installed a Wolff spring kit for the whole gun (including mags) and it ran flawless. As you re-spring it, you also have a chance to clear out decades old lubricants that have long since turned to varnish. I used a lot of 0000 steel wool on that gun and the gunk removed was amazing.
Straight Shooter
12-22-16, 17:26
I think that applies to any 60+ year old GI gun. I picked up a 43 Inland M1 Carbine and it was pitifully unreliable. Installed a Wolff spring kit for the whole gun (including mags) and it ran flawless. As you re-spring it, you also have a chance to clear out decades old lubricants that have long since turned to varnish. I used a lot of 0000 steel wool on that gun and the gunk removed was amazing.
Agreed 100%...the cleaning is critical, there is 50-60 + year old gunk in these guns!
SeriousStudent
12-22-16, 19:15
http://www.gunlab.net/wp-content/uploads/1911manufacture.pdf
A fascinating read. Thank you for posting that.
BigBuckeye
12-23-16, 20:20
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.
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.
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.
My first 1911 was a 1943 production Remington Rand that was a beater in every sense of the word.....little finish left, minor pitting on the frame and slide, sounded like a rattle when you shook it. I paid $300 for it over 20 years ago. When I got it, the firing pin was broken ,so I changed that and the spring, and then I couldn't get through a full mag without a malfunction. I fully disassembled it, and the three mags it came with. Let every part soak in a bucket of fuel oil for a day, wiped it dry, reassembled it and the mags with new springs............and shot the piss out of for the next 20 years without very many malfunctions............except for when I used Remington UMC 230gr FMJ, for some reason it HATED that ammo. I don't know how many rounds it had through it before I got it, but I personally put two WW2 surplus spam cans of USGI ammo through it over the years (one brass case WW can, one steel case ECC can) a case of wolf, a case of winchester white box, untold #'s of misc mfg 50 rd boxes of 230gr ball ammo, and thousands of my own 230gr plated reloads. It was never a tack driver, but under 10 yards put them where they needed to be. It was my glove box, tractor cab, and walking around fixing fences gun for all those years....basically my EDC. I think those old GI 1911's would run and run............if they were taken care of, and, much like anything else, wouldn't if they were neglected. I could have very easily had a bad taste in my mouth from it, and with 1911's in general had I not rolled up my sleeves and dove into it, and if a dumb dirt farmer like me with a few basic things and enough knowledge of them to only be dangerous with could make it run, I think anyone could.
Speaking of that gun...... I am not a collector, and know these things were not going down in value, so I decided to retire it, and part ways with her before I broke it,lost it or something worse happened to it. I sold it 6 months ago with the 3 GI mags it came with for $1200. I was always happy with it (after the initial shake down), but I am also happy with what I got back out of it. Three guns have taken it's place. A S&W 9mm Shield as my EDC, a Ruger SR1911 as my range toy 1911, and a Rock Island GI 1911 as my farm gun. All three of those have been 100%, and it's nice to have some newer stuff that I don't feel guilty about beating on. My only other 1911 as of now (I will buy more) is a Colt 01911A1 WW2 replica I bought when they came out in the early 2000's because it was a close to a "new" Colt GI style pistol as my farm hand budget would ever allow.
The 1911's I used in the Marines from 1966-70 were all reliable. I'm getting old, but I don't remember any malfunctions. They were probably the same guns that my Dad used in WW II & they were probably old then.
None of them had any finish left, the slides were loose by todays standards & they weren't going to win any matches, but they always worked. We kept them clean & lubricated, but otherwise we treated them like crap. After a range day, or coming in from training, we'd all detail strip them, put all the parts in a bucket of dry cleaning fluid, scrub the parts with a toothbrush, a little oil & put them back together. And, no, we didn't keep our parts separate. Whatever extractor, barrel, mainspring housing, etc you picked out of the bucket, are the ones that went in your gun.
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.
Averageman
12-24-16, 08:45
I was an Assistant Armorer for a bit in the 1980's, before we got the M9's.
The reliability/accuracy was directly related to the care they got. We had a footlocker full of parts that were "off the books". I just went out to the range with them for qualification and began tagging guns that needed work. Staking rear sights on the range, removing problem magazines things like that made a lot of difference.
The smartest thing we had going for us was a First Sergeant who liked shooting, he made sure ever Platoon had at least one Assistant Armorer. That saved a lot of down time and it also gave motivated guys a leg up when it came for promotion.
A lot of those pistols were WWII weapons, So were some of the M2's we had.
Averageman
12-24-16, 08:46
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.
Starting with 1911's made switching to a Glock a learning curve for a bit.
theorangecat
12-24-16, 09:42
I grew up with a bunch of WWII and Korea vet uncles (my dad was also a Korean War vet, as was my F-I-L), and I can't recall one bad word about 1911A1 reliability. The ETO vets could have used whatever pistols the Germans had no more use for, but they considered the P.08 and P.38 to be better souvenirs than fighting handguns, and the Pacific vets apparently didn't consider any pistols they found laying around to be worth picking up. I know that two of my uncles* who were in France/Belgium/Germany from June of 1944 were careful not to have enemy weapons on them if there was any chance of being captured, and the one who was a very busy second scout in 2/47 never had the opportunity to lug around much in the line of German weapons anyway (let alone hold onto them).
(These same uncles did, however, end up using the various small .32 pistols that were floating around Europe in abundance, because they could be stowed in a pocket and were "last ditch" handguns. They carried such pistols around - mostly after V-E Day - until the PTB cracked down on the practice.)
Now the M1 Carbine and the "grease gun"… I did hear complaints about those. Surprisingly - to me anyway - two of my relatives carried a Thompson by preference, and a third would frequently substitute a Thompson for his carbine.
toc
*One of these men stayed in the Army Reserve until he retired as a LtCol in the late 1960s, and he was of the opinion that the 1911s were pretty loosely fitted as a rule. He thought that made them less accurate but more reliable, which I think was a widespread idea in those days.
toc
All the standard 1911A1's used until the m9 replaced them were ww2 or older guns. The military did not buy any 1911A1's after 1945. Sure some special ops units or odd one off small amounts of tricked out 45's have been procured for special units or purposes, but the youngest standard issue 1911A1 was born in 1945
All the standard 1911A1's used until the m9 replaced them were ww2 or older guns. The military did not buy any 1911A1's after 1945. Sure some special ops units or odd one off small amounts of tricked out 45's have been procured for special units or purposes, but the youngest standard issue 1911A1 was born in 1945
That explains a few things. The first 1911 I fired at Little Creek looked like it had been fired on a daily basis since 1945.
Also keep in mind pistols are fired very little in combat and a pistol might get carried for a year in combat and shoot less than 50 rounds in that time. Not much of a test. In over two years of deployments I shot less than 100 rounds out of my beretta including pre deployment training. When you use original design 7 round magazines in good condition and hardball ammo the design is pretty reliable. Where the 1911 starts to have problems is when shooters start tinkering try higher capacity magazines and hollow point ammo, all of which were non issues for the gi guns
My Christmas present from my folks in 1960 was a Remington Rand .45. It was a DCM gun; they paid the previous owner $25 for it. Needless to say, the best Christmas I ever had. In those days I could get a box of 50 steel cased hardball ammo for $2. Don't remember any failures with it in those long-gone days. It's still 100% stock, long retired, but I take it out once a year. I'd have no problem going to war with the old buster.
Didn't shoot my eye out, either.
Starting with 1911's made switching to a Glock a learning curve for a bit.
When I was first issued a LE service pistol, unfortunately it was not a Glock. It was a Model 39 Smith & Wesson. And yes it was a steep learning curve.
The Kuhnhausen books get in to this. Part of it is hollow points which the original didn't take in to consideration.
Another issue according to Kuhnhausen is that the original parts had to meet tolerances and required minimal, if any, fitting while commercial parts available at the time of publication were all over the place in terms of QC.
The books even mention service match pistols using in spec parts from the snugger ends of the tolerances instead of being a purely hand fit through out pistol.
Nightvisionary
01-19-17, 04:13
I went through the Marine Corps Security Force School in 1989 not long after Col. Cooper developed the 1911 based portion of the training for the school. I put thousands of rounds through 1911A1 pistols manufactured in the 1940's. I cannot recall anything other than very infrequent issues, mainly shooter induced stovepipes, and those guns got used. Years later while attending a state law enforcement training academy a friend was using a Kimber 1911. That pistol was accurate but it gave him so many problems he almost didn't qualify. My $369 RIA 1911A1 has been pretty much dead nuts reliable just like the WW2 guns. Go figure.
Alvin York had one that worked pretty good.
Averageman
01-23-17, 11:18
I used to work for a guy that owned a gas station and I usually took over from 6:30 till closing nights after school.
He was a WWII vet and kept his 1911 when he came home. We went to Church together and he placed a lot of trust in me because I had that 1911 of his every night until I closed the place.
We took it out and he let me shoot a magazine or two out of it. It was dead nuts reliable, but not very accurate. If you could keep them all on a paper plate at ten yards you were doing pretty good.
Later when I was in the Military, I found that to be true with most of them. You could swap some worn parts around and tighten them up a bit, but they were not target pistols by any means.
The opinions that are now offered about 1911's being unreliable sort of make me laugh. I have shot plenty of rounds out of USGI 1911A1 pistols and I have never had a single issue as long as the ammo was USGI ball ammo and the magazine were USGI magazines. GI 1911 pistols do not always work well with all types of ammo - they sometimes have failures to feed when using JHP's and wadcutters. Modern 1911 pistols are also frequently fit tighter than USGI 1911 pistols and, if fit too tight, there can be reliability issues - at least until they "break in". One leading manufacturer instructs owners to shoot 250 rds through their new pistols in order to break them in. That's a sure sign that some of their pistols are fit too tight. For the most part, modern 1911's do shoot JHP's and wadcutter ammo more reliably than USGI 1911 pistols. They often have barrel feed ramps that are more forgiving than the original GI feed ramps when using ammo with blunt projectiles. It also helps that most manufacturers supply magazines with hybrid feed lips which do make the pistol more reliable when using JHP's and wadcutters.
I've fired at least 20 original GI .45 autos and have talked to scores of WW2 veterans about their weapons. I never heard of nor saw one that malfunctioned. Of course ammo was all hardball. After WW2 and Korea most ex GIs comments were that they could not hit anything with them, they kicked too much, and were too heavy. Marksmanship training was substandard and required all firing done with one hand. Hobbyists loved them, and they were cheap. The NRA sold trainloads to members at low cost. They were vastly unpopular with cops. Ammo was expensive unless it was bootlegged from military bases. That was a common event. Really common.
Three uncles carried them throughout WW2. One started off in N. Africa, went through the Italian Campaign, Normandy, Bastonge, and finally ended up in Germany at the war's end. Another uncle made the big jumps with the 101, and their brother--a China Marine--carried one at Tarawa and a few other places. During Korea he at age 40 made the landing at Inchon with a .45 on his belt. According to them, their .45 automatics were carried chamber empty and remained in their holsters for the entire war. The uncles in the Army had no use for their pistols and preferred their Thompsons. The Marine thought the .45 auto was a good weapon but did not want one after he retired.
We need to "get over the romance" of the 1911. Own them and love them like an M1 Garand... but they're the brick phone of the combat pistol.
After WW2 and Korea most ex GIs comments were that they could not hit anything with them, they kicked too much, and were too heavy.
That's certainly the truth - except for the very few guys that were already accomplished handgunners.
We need to "get over the romance" of the 1911. Own them and love them like an M1 Garand... but they're the brick phone of the combat pistol.
I beg to differ. Some of the best combat shooters in the nation still carry 1911's. There has not been a single pistol ever built that can best the trigger of a 1911 and to shoot a pistol well, you must master trigger control. That is much easier with a 1911.
With substandard ( by any measure!) pistol training it doesn't much matter what pistol you issue complaints of inaccuracy and lack of effectiveness will continue. If troops are sufficiently trained to operate the pistol, any pistol will be fine
I am a 1911 enthusiast so I have been around a couple. Several years ago the brother of a guy I went to church with asked me if I could take a look at his dad's 1911, a Remington Rand, circa 1942. The frame was in great shape, but as it had not been cleaned or lubed in many years, it took some effort to disassemble. But I got it apart, cleaned it, lubed it, inspected all the parts, took it to the range, popped in a Wilson mag, and away I fired. 250 rounds of 230 grain ball ammo later, not a single issue, and a good group at 15 yards. The MEUSOC 1911s I was familiar with in the early 90s had frames that went back to the 40s and 50s. So yeah, properly maintained, they were/are reliable.
Gentlemen, Just a word of warning when shooting old 1911 pistols - make sure the recoil spring is in good shape. I'm sure that Chuckman did that when he inspected the old RR 1911A1. If the spring is less than 6" in length uncompressed, replace it before firing the pistol.
Gentlemen, Just a word of warning when shooting old 1911 pistols - make sure the recoil spring is in good shape. I'm sure that Chuckman did that when he inspected the old RR 1911A1. If the spring is less than 6" in length uncompressed, replace it before firing the pistol.
Yes, most definitely. All guns should have out-of-spec parts replaced per PM regs. If you do that, and the frames are generally serviceable, then there is reason a WWII-era 1911 won't run like a raped ape.
I want to point out that the last batch of GI 45's was made in 1945 so by the time the military dropped the 1911, all were well worn despite many having been redone at arsenals or by other armorers in the chain. I agree that its time has passed for general issue but admit to being a 1911 apologist just as I am a 870 apologist. I step in to defend the 870 even though recently made ones have slipped. I defend the .45 auto because I understand its strengths and weaknesses. When asked, I urge new shooters not to buy one as a first handgun. The millions around without a firing pin block are subject to discharge if dropped. When lowering the hammer with thumb on a live round, a slip might cause discharge. I would demonstrate the latter using a primed empty. Also with the same setup and using an old Hunter holster without a strap between slide and hammer, I would show how going through a barbed wire fence with a loaded chamber could result in discharge. The fence catches the hammer and releases it before the half-cock notch is reached. Bang. Of course those with the firing pin block don't have this problem. Another reason that I don't recommend 1911s to new or casual shooters is that many appear not to listen or be able to follow instruction. The 1911 in the hands of the untrained is more dangerous than some others, or I should say it poses more risks.
Averageman
02-11-17, 17:41
I want to point out that the last batch of GI 45's was made in 1945 so by the time the military dropped the 1911, all were well worn despite many having been redone at arsenals or by other armorers in the chain. I agree that its time has passed for general issue but admit to being a 1911 apologist just as I am a 870 apologist. I step in to defend the 870 even though recently made ones have slipped. I defend the .45 auto because I understand its strengths and weaknesses. When asked, I urge new shooters not to buy one as a first handgun. The millions around without a firing pin block are subject to discharge if dropped. When lowering the hammer with thumb on a live round, a slip might cause discharge. I would demonstrate the latter using a primed empty. Also with the same setup and using an old Hunter holster without a strap between slide and hammer, I would show how going through a barbed wire fence with a loaded chamber could result in discharge. The fence catches the hammer and releases it before the half-cock notch is reached. Bang. Of course those with the firing pin block don't have this problem. Another reason that I don't recommend 1911s to new or casual shooters is that many appear not to listen or be able to follow instruction. The 1911 in the hands of the untrained is more dangerous than some others, or I should say it poses more risks.
One might say a gun of another era that was built for people of another era.
I want to point out that the last batch of GI 45's was made in 1945 so by the time the military dropped the 1911, all were well worn despite many having been redone at arsenals or by other armorers in the chain.
When asked, I urge new shooters not to buy one as a first handgun. The 1911 in the hands of the untrained is more dangerous than some others, or I should say it poses more risks.
While many were well worn by the mid 80's, there were some that were still in very good shape. I saw some arsenal rebuilt pistols in that timeframe that were very decent pistols. Unfortunately, that was not uniformly the case.
I agree that a 1911 is not a beginner's handgun. I've often stated that they are best used by professionals - not new guys.
PapaFoxtrot
02-11-17, 19:22
Not a WWII anecdote, but from WWI, McBride said in A Rifleman Went to War:
"I still believe the Colt .45 Automatic is the king of them all.
"Those of us who were fortunate enough to be armed with the .45 Colt Automatic found it to be a sufficient and dependable arm in every respect. Let me repeat that I have never had a failure to function properly while in action nor did I ever hear or know of any such failure occuring with any of my associates or acquaintances.
"After I came back from the battlefield I commenced to hear of a great many instances in which the gun supposedly gave trouble, but these were invariably told by persons not in the army or whose line of duty was such as to preclude their ever having actually participated in real fighting, or even front-line service for that matter."
"As to reliability – dependability in an emergency - there was little choice between the revolver and the automatic. Both types would function properly with the same degree of care. It is possible that there were instances of an automatic “jamming” now and then, but I personally never had it happen to me during the war, nor did I see or hear of any instance of it happening.
"I unhesitatingly chose the automatic for actual use in war. To my mind, the great advantage of the automatic lies in the ease and rapidity with which it can be reloaded - especially in the dark. Anyone who doubts this can easily satisfy himself by trying to hurriedly reload a revolver in the dark, with a crowd of roughnecks milling all around and trying to hit someone with clubs, knives and fists. Or, if this seems too rough just get some friend to jostle you about or run into you while trying it…
”Close up” work is the only place that the pistol figures in warfare… and the longest range at which I fired at these individuals was never more than 10 feet. But brother, those were seven badly needed shots.
"But there is no doubt in my mind that the mere possession of a reliable pistol - and the knowledge how to use it, is a tower of strength for the soldier who goes up against any enemy. He may never use it, may never have a chance to use it, but it sure does give you a lot of confidence to know that you have the old “gat” handy, in case you do happen to bump into some wild eyed individual coming at you with a bayonet…
"The main thing in considering any military pistol is the matter of dependability. Will it work in all kinds of weather? In mud - in sand - in water? Well, we all know what tests were applied during the two or three years before our Ordnance officers finally approve the Colt. Two solid years of real, practical use, in service in the Islands and in the tests for what you might call durability in which all the others there were only two, which shall not be named by me fell by the wayside while the old Colt, refusing to quit, finally wore out the time and patience of the members and board and had to leave it with an unfinished run of some 10,000 rounds without stoppage or malfunction. I was present at that last test, and that may have had something to do with my attitude toward the ugly brute.
"Still, I can say that my experience in France, as well as that of others of my acquaintance, only tended towards verifying the findings and opinion of our Ordnance board. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be armed with the .45 Colt Automatic found it to be a sufficient and dependable arm in every respect. Let me repeat that I’ve never had a failure to function properly while in action, nor did I ever hear or know of any such failure occurring with any of my associates or acquaintances. After I came back from the battlefield I commenced to hear of a great many instances in which the gun supposedly gave trouble, but these are invariably told by persons not in the Army or whose line of duty was such as to preclude their ever having actually participated in real fighting, or even front-line service for that matter.
"I did not consider the automatic pistol to need any special care or attention to keep it in serviceable condition. We had trouble enough with all our firearms for that matter and any rifle, machine gun, revolver, or pistol had to be looked to daily to keep the mud and dirt out of its action and bore. If anything, our handguns were a bit easier to keep in proper shape than the others, because they remained in a holster or inside pocket of a tunic and were not laid down on the ground or exposed to the elements very often. Any military firearm requires daily attention and care to keep it in proper readiness for instant use, and neither pistol nor revolver is any exception to this standing rule."
.................
A great McBride quote about combat pistols, about his experience around 100 years ago: "I don't want this thing often, but when I do I want it damn bad.
And my own grandfather, Army WWI, greatly admired the 1911.
Not WWII, but one needs only to look at WWI to see the love for the 1911. Only CPLs and above were issued pistols, but you can see pictures of American patrols where everyone is packing a pistol. That means soldiers were taking pains to acquire the weapon based on the perceived need for one. Combat usage was likely higher than normal because of the practicality of a pistol over a rifle for certain operations, such as OPs, Trench raids, and for runners/Officers. Sidearms made a lot of sense for Doughboys to carry, and the 1911's reputation was born in the Trenches and forests of the Great War.
In the military currently as then it is not
Unusual also for there to be a "pool" of weapons issued out for specific missions. While World War One pistol use was much higher than in other conflicts, it could very well be there was a batch of pistols issued out for a specific mission then on return were placed back in unit custody until needed again. As I mentioned before in the context of being relatively new low round count pistols running new production hardball ammo in also pretty fresh 7 round magazines, the 1911 was reliable. At that point in time there were only 3 makers of the 1911 ( Colt Springfield and Remington UMC) and drawings and dimensions were very standard. Same for the 5 companies that made them in WW2. Where the 1911 has gone downhill is the efforts to "modernize" it with parts of greatly varied dimensions and having it be capable of feeding all sorts of ammo. Can this be done effectively? Of course but not all manufacturers manage to get it right consistently.
Where the 1911 has gone downhill is the efforts to "modernize" it with parts of greatly varied dimensions and having it be capable of feeding all sorts of ammo. Can this be done effectively? Of course but not all manufacturers manage to get it right consistently.
That's the truth.
travistheone
03-17-17, 12:26
my 1945 1911 runs just about anything I put in it. Ithica.
Trench warfare no doubt made handguns desirable, especially the 1911 carried by a guy armed with a bolt action rifle.
In the military currently as then it is not
Unusual also for there to be a "pool" of weapons issued out for specific missions. While World War One pistol use was much higher than in other conflicts, it could very well be there was a batch of pistols issued out for a specific mission then on return were placed back in unit custody until needed again. As I mentioned before in the context of being relatively new low round count pistols running new production hardball ammo in also pretty fresh 7 round magazines, the 1911 was reliable. At that point in time there were only 3 makers of the 1911 ( Colt Springfield and Remington UMC) and drawings and dimensions were very standard. Same for the 5 companies that made them in WW2. Where the 1911 has gone downhill is the efforts to "modernize" it with parts of greatly varied dimensions and having it be capable of feeding all sorts of ammo. Can this be done effectively? Of course but not all manufacturers manage to get it right consistently.
"Modern" extractors are the definition of this. There is no single part more important than a properly dimensioned and tensioned extractor locked in place by a properly fit firing pin stop.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.