Accuracy of WWII .45s

[dk-corriveau]

While doing some WWII research I found another first hand account of the .45 not being able to hit the broad side of a barn. I know that with my modern .45 I am pretty accurate and the gun is much more accurate than I am.

This complaint/claim is well known, but I was wondering if anyone out there has any theories on it. I believe that this piece of war time lore has taken a life of its own, but probably has some basis in truth. I have no research of any kind to support my two theories, but I propose the following:

1. That tolerances on GI .45s were generous to ensure operation in all conditions, thus resulting in sub-par accuracy.
2. The typical GI probably had significantly less time training with/using the .45 than he had with his other arms. As a result, their combat accuracy with the .45 was not as great as it could have been.

Any thoughts/theories?

 

[boofus]

I dunno, Sergeant York didn't have any problems with his 1911 in WW1. Maybe the other guy got a lemon?

 

[Old Fuff]

One time a friend of mine came up with a WW-2 1911A1 - either a Remington Rand or Ithaca - I forget which. It had been demilled by being cut with a torch through the front part of the slide, and then further back, running from the top of the slide down through the frame, just in back of the slide stop hole. The feed ramp area was nothing but slag.

I was challenged (with an offer of a hefty cash prize) to see if I could get it to shoot again. Nothing was said about hitting anything, and 5 shots was the agreed limit with USGI ball.

After detail stripping what was left I cut off what remained of the slide assembly with a milling machine. The slide rails and grooves were cleaned out with a file, as was the magazine well. The feed ramp was a lost cause.

The lockwork that was O.K. was retained. Everything else was replaced.

We then retired to a shooting range, where a target was posted at 25 yards. The target was backlit, and I could see sunlight coming through the frame and slide around the rails. To say the gun was loose would be a gross understatement.

I fired the required 5 rounds. There were no jams or malfunctions of any kind. As I remember the group on the target was reasonably centered, and about 3 to 4 inches.

Thereafter the pistol was placed in honorable retirement.

No, those USGI guns made during the war weren't accurate, not at all ...

And all of the G.I's that used them were master marksman ...

 

[1911Tuner]

Usgi

Inaccurate klunks?
Malfunctions abound?

I get a chuckle outta the Chairborne Rangers who say such things about our beloved ol' slabsides. Especially when I can let'em have their pick of any one or two of a dozen...WW1 and WW2 era pistols...and stand on my hind legs and bounce milk cartons with'em at 50 yards. OR...let'em watch in utter amazement while untouched/untuned guns feed hollowpoints like grease thru a goose...from era correct/original GI "Hardball Only" magazines. My 1919 Colt will feed 200-grain H&G semi-wadcutters from Metalform magazines like it was born for'em.

Yeah...Tickles me to no end.

 

[bpisler]

Years ago i was with a friend who
owned a 1911 made in 1917.We
could nail milk jugs at 25 yards
with no problems.This pistol was
all colt,no after market parts.
I think most shooters back then
just were not familar enough
with the 1911.

 

[english kanigit]

The one in my sig line gave a pretty decent performance. Dad could usually get about 3-4 inch groups at 25yds.
Personally, I have a hard time with GI sights.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think the reputation for lack of accuracy was due to two things:
Naive GIs told how hard the .45 kicks.
Well worn guns kept at the training ranges and shot a lot more and with less care than an actual issue weapon or personal piece.

 

[Onmilo]

Well, I don't know how well the guns shot back in 1944, I wasn't around then.

I was around in 1980 and repairing 1911s for the US Army. (45B20)

Even the most wore out, finish gone, rattle trap pistol would keep the bullets in a 5" circle at 25 meters and 10" circle at 50 meters.

That may not sound to good in print but that translates to minute of center mass in real life, plenty good for a combat pistol.

 

[walking arsenal]

Not bragging, but........


I was out shooting with a manager of a local gun shop the other day, he is considering hiring me so i took the trip as a wine and dine kind of thing.

Well he starts off about how pistols are only good to about 25 yards. Well off i go to the 100 yrd berm with an empty box of winchester white box 9mm. i come back to the firing line draw my springfield 1911 GI and say, "think it'll hit it?" the manager then says im full of it and theres no way. BANG! box goes down. I reholster, he buys me a soda.




Naw, i'm not gonna tell him.

 

[Tman]

I had the opportunity to run into a gentlemen who let me shoot is Kimber (I think it was a custom target II or gold match) and his WWII colt. His father used it in WWII, his uncle used it in Korea, and he used it in Vietnam (what a great history!). Found out I could shoot the WWII colt much more accurately than the Kimber. The only major component changed was the hammer.

 

[M2 Carbine]

In the early 60's I bought a brand new 1911A1 (Remington) from the government, through the NRA for $17.

There was one of those, the 1911 is inaccurate junk, guys at work bad mouthing the 1911.
I said I'll tell you what, you name the stakes and I'll bet my 45 will put 5 out of seven shots in a big coffee can at 100 yards.

That afternoon when I got home I tried it (100 yard range in the back yard).
Sure enough, 5 of 7 in a coffee can size black piece of paper, sitting on the ground with the gun between my knees.

Next day I took the target to work and told the know it all, put your money where your mouth is. He said I hadn't shot from 100 yards but wouldn't bet.

At the time I was a helicopter instructor at the Army flight school.
The guy told my students, your instructor is full of ****.

It just so happens one of my students had received a Silver Star in Vietnam.
He was a door gunner on a small chopper that was shot down, crashing upside down and pinning the pilot in the chopper and jamming the door gun .
The student only had a 1911A1 and a can of ammo.

I read his Silver Star citation.
In short, before they were rescued, he killed a LOT (don't remember the figure) of VC with the 45. The measured distance was 7 yards to 97 yards.

After the know it all learned that, he decided he didn't want to wager.


2nd story.

We pilots were scheduled for 45 range time. I asked if I could use my personal 45.
When shooting, the Officer beside me was hitting all over the target and cussing the worn old out 45.
I said, Here use my pistol and I'll shoot yours.
The "old worn out" Army 45 put them in the black and the other Officer still hit all over the target with my accurate 1911.

 

[Maddock]

About twenty years ago an acquaintance allowed me to shoot the 1911a1 that was passed down to him by his father when he took it to the range for it’s annual outing on his late father’s birthday. A Remington-Rand, produced in early 1943 and carried through a year and a half in the southwest Pacific and a year in Korea. Original GI magazines, mixed WWII and Korean vintage ball and 230gr. LRN handloads. The finish was well less than 50% (New Guinea is a bit tough), and the pistol rattled like a bucket of bolts. The results: function - 100% (about 250 rds) accuracy (40 yds from roll-over prone) – 8” with Ball 10” with LRN (the rifling and throat were severely eroded).
I think that the greatest detriment to practical accuracy were the small sights. The trigger was adequate (about 5 ½-6 pounds, but that’s just a guess, with a bit of creep and overtravel), and nothing bit if I didn’t shoot with a high thumb.

 

[Freeze N]

My 1943 Reminton Rand is in superb shape, and functions flawlessly. It is not near as accurate as my Kimbers are, but is not unacceptible. It is totally stock, and has the original Military holster. My dad who was in WW II, says the ones he shot did not have the best accuracy. I love too shoot it anyway, they are special guns.

 

[subknave]

1911 accuracy

My personal experience has been that a LOT depends on the individual weapon. When I was on security duty with the Navy we were issued the 1911 and later switched to the Beretta 9mm. At the range the same person could have a difference of 10 to 20 points just by switching guns and after getting the Berettas almost everyones score went up at least 10 points. I believe it is more a case of the pistols being redone again and again some shot a lot some hardly at all. The berettas being all new pistols helped tighten up everyones groups. I bought a 1991A1 and could hit just about anything I amed at out to 50yards with no problem. With most of these pistols I think the design is very accurate and the problems come in with wear and continous refurbishment gradually letting small errors creep in which become magnified in inexpert hands.

 

[dk-corriveau]

Back to the point

Ok folks, you sold me that it wasn't the guns, but why does this myth exist and what was its origins?

 

[Onmilo]

For the same reason people complain about the Beretta M9 today.
People will bitch about everything and anything, especially if the item isn't what they wanted or expected.

 

[DMK]

I've got an Argentine 1927 Sistema built in '52 and is an exact duplicate in every way to those great 1911A1 Colts, Remingtons, Singers, etc.

I know the gun is accurate. I've let people shoot it and it shoots well. I can't shoot it nearly was well as my newer 1911s though. Those tiny sights are the only flaw in an otherwise great gun. Of course, all handguns from that period had awful sights.

It's just not as easy to shoot as say the .38 M&P revolver that was issued to a lot of men during the same period.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's much easier (not to mention more "manly") to blame it on that old gun than to admit "I can't shoot worth a damn."

 

[1911Tuner]

Origins

DK asked:

>Ok folks, you sold me that it wasn't the guns, but why does this myth exist and what was it's origins?<
**********************

Howdy DK...Sorry we got off on a tangent.

The myth probably got started for on e or more of several reasons. The first one being that some guys just flat can't shoot. Like Hawk said...Blame it on the plane instead of pilot error.

The other end of it was that, after many years of enduring thousands on thousands of conscripts, many of the guns were flat worn out. Since the pistol's role changed in WW2, not as much attention was given the sidearms...
money...as was spent on the rifles. When they were issued to the cavalrymen in WW1, they were treated as each man's personal responsibility...like the rifle was to the infantryman. In WW2, that all changed. Unit armorers also had a tendency to tear down as many as a hundred guns for cleaning...toss all the parts in a bath...and reassemble the guns willy-nilly from the pile until they ran out.

The pistols were designed with parts interchangeability as a criteria, but that didn't mean that it was the best way to do it. Only that it could be done
as a Field Expedient means to return a pistol to service in an emergency.

By the time the U.S. got involved in Korea, time and wear had taken a mighty toll on most of the pistols...and most of'em still didn't know how to shoot a pistol.

I've met many an ex-GI who had one that he had brought back as a souvenir, make a flat statement to me to the effect that:

"Damn thing ain't worth spit. Jams all the time and can't hit the side of a house with it...just like ALL of'em." Examination doesn't reveal any serious problems, and after a detail-strip and a much-needed scrubbing...take it out back and proceed to roll beer cans at 25 yards and beyond...magazine after magazine without so much as a burp.

So, who knows how such myths and other urban legends get started...

 

[Delmar]

why does this myth exist and what was it's origins?

The glock angel tellin whoppers again!

 

[Old Fuff]

Tuner's right concerning the pistols and the condition they were in, but there's more to the story.

Very few people in the military services were properally trained to shoot the .45 pistol, and many who carried one didn't have much or any formal training or experience. It was not unusual to be told at qualification time that "hitting the target wasn't expected," and shooters lived up to expectations. As a rule the military never placed a high value on handguns as a weapon - at least after they stoped riding horses. The .45 was considered something you used as a last resort - firing at someone no further then 10 meters (33 feet) away. From that perspective even the guns in bad condition worked.

Of course Tuner will skin me alive if I don't point out that the U.S.M.C. was an exception to this rule ...

 

[dsk]

Of all the USGI .45's that passed through my hands, only one was ever truly inaccurate. It was a badly worn Remington Rand that shot 6 to 8-inch groups at 25 yards. Shortly before I sold it I tried a replacement GI barrel in it just for fun, and it suddenly started shooting some really decent groups.

None of the GI pistols in excellent condition I've fired ever shot less than acceptable groups. I am firmly in the camp of feeling it was a simple matter of soldiers not having any decent training on how to shoot a pistol accurately. A case in point: I read a wartime story of some GI's who surprised a German patrol in the waning days of WW2. Instead of putting up a fight the Germans immediately turned and ran. The US soldier in question was ahead of the Germans on the side of the road, and he pulled out his .45 and hastily emptied it at them as they ran right past him. He never connected with a single shot, and last he saw of the Germans they were still running at full speed down the street.

 

[M2 Carbine]

"dk-corriveau
Ok folks, you sold me that it wasn't the guns, but why does this myth exist and what was it's origins? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Few inexperienced people can pick up the 1911, or any pistol, and with almost no training shoot worth a darn.

I had an M1 Garand in the USMC and not the 45, but I assume the USMC 1911 training was somewhat like the M1.

When I did qualify with the 45 in the Army National Guard the training consisted of being issued a pistol and shooting.
Except for the men that could already shoot most everyone else was lucky to hit the target.

No doubt every man that shot poorly that day will believe and tell everyone, to the day they die, what an inaccurate pistol the 1911 45 is.

 

[dmftoy1]

I'm not sure about this, but wasn't the training in those days to hold it out one handed at full extension? (I've seen pictures but I'm not sure if they were WWII vintage or WWI). I know I can't hit worth a damn like that. Now a modifiied Weaver or Iso . . . .


That and the small sights get my vote . . . .I had a WWII era 1911 that I couldn't hit very well with (although reasonably) and I had Millet sights put on it. (yes, I know . . but it was a long long time ago and I was young and very stupid). With no other changes I could shoot sub 3-inch groups at 25 yards all day long.

Just my .02

Regards,
dave

 

[M2 Carbine]

"dmftoy1
I'm not sure about this, but wasn't the training in those days to hold it out one handed at full extension? "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, only sissies used two hands and stuck cotton in their ears.