[bc1023]People seem to overvalue slide to frame fit. While its important, the real determining factor in accuracy is the movement of the barrel during the weapon's cycling. The best 1911s achieve their great accuracy not so much from slide to frame fit, but from extremely tight tolerances between the barrel, slide, and bushing. Barrel quality is also a factor.[/QUOTE]
I agree about people over-valuing slide to frame fit.
Many 1911 gunsmiths -- and 1911 shooters are the ones who historically were most concerned about slide/frame fit -- now say that slide/frame fit might account for maybe 5%-10% of a gun's demonstrated accuracy, while barrel to slide fit is far, far more important.
For aimed fire, the gun's slide/frame fit can be loose if the barrel and slide (and, in effect, the sights) are tightly fit and line up consistenly. (Slide to frame fit doesn't have much role in that part of the process.) I've shot 1911s that would rattle if shaken, but which were very accurate.
I also think that how the barrel moves while the gun is cycling is relatively unimportant, since the bullet is out of the barrel before the barrel and slide have moved much more than a fraction of an inch. (I think I've read 1/10th of an inch for most 1911 .45s); what matters most is that the barrel/slide/sights meet back up again consistently after each shot. Aslong as they return to the same place consistently, the gun can be very accurate if someone is aiming it..
For Ransom Rest tests, which don't involve aiming or sight alignment (except to get an initial point of impact) slide to frame fit is important. That's one of the reasons why we don't see a lot of Ransom Rest tests of polymer-framed guns: the polymer frames just don't always bring the gun back to the same position with each shot.
Aimed fire with a polymer-framed gun can match a steel-framed gun, if the slide and barrel are tightly fit and can consistely lock up. The frame is, in effect, just a handle. The slide and barrel really do the work.
