pistol endurance and accuracy comparative tests

[graycrait]

Has anyone seen any objective test results comparing .45ACP pistols or even various makes of 1911s tested against each other using the same test environment and criteria?

I'm interested in reliability, durability and accuracy comparative tests so that I can see where the cut line is from poor, good, excellent and the best in terms of price and materials.

If you have seen a link please post it.

Craig in Clarksville

[mav]

Don't know if this is anything like you want, but I was given an article on the FBI tests of a few high end 1911s that were in competition for the 1911 contract.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_144_24/ai_57886947/?tag=content;col1

Link fixed.

Edited December 29, 2010 by mav
Fixed link

[Jonnin]

There are different types of high end 1911s. The accurate ones (2 inch or less groups at 50 yards etc) that cost thousands of dollars are designed for accuracy, not defense, and I think you would ruin them if you shot a lot of +p defense ammo thru them --- they are not "durable" in that sense though they can handle many, many thousands of rounds of the target loads; they can also be ruined by abuse such as combat type treatment. By ruined, I mean ruined for competetive shooting, they would probably still *function* but would need many dollars of repair work afterwards to return them to spec.

Only point here is that excellent guns means different things, and some of the very pricy ones would be very poor choices for personal defense or plinking. If you want a price cutoff, IMO anything over $2000 should be researched very, very carefully to understand what that gun was designed for (decoration, IDPA, bullseye, combat, etc). Anything under $500 should be researched for potential problems, there are many fine shooters under $500 but the poor quality stuff begins to mingle in at about that price range and below.

[timcalhoun]

Top quality custom guns are made with the best parts out there and fitted to perfection and will wear actually less and shoot accurately longer no matter what ammo you run in them. They will not need repaired if you shoot hot ammo in them as long as the proper recoil spring is run. They will actually wear less because of the superior fit and better parts.

You would need to explain to me why a gun built with the best parts on the planet fitted perfectly would be somehow less "durable".

[Jonnin]

Define durable. The guns will take it, but if you abuse them, a $4000 one can become a $500 one in short order, even though it still shoots fine and is somewhat accurate, it will be ruined in that sense and in that sense, it is a fragile thing to be treated with respect rather than abused. The expensive target 45s are not good guns to test fire after dunking them in the mud and running over them with a truck, even if they DO still fire after such. They are not really meant to eat box after box of cheap or hot ammo, and such things can wreck their trigger jobs, target barrels, etc. The expensive combat models, if you want to do this, go for it, but the target ones, no way I would go there.

The recoil spring is a good part of it: they are sold/built with a light one and the defense ammo will hammer them. Second, the tight fit of the parts will be hammered faster/more by the harder recoil, high pressure, hot gasses, etc --- normal pistols wear out faster with hot loads, can you see that precision fitted parts will lose that tight fit rapidly under the same conditions? For a target gun, excessive wear and tear is going to degrade the custom gunsmithing that went into it rapidly, until the gun is no better than a regular cheap 1911. It will work, but the precision action and trigger and slide work and barrel will all be degraded and have to be redone.

[graycrait]

I understand, or at least I think I do, that a decent combat 1911 or pistol won't be a 50M Slowfire pistol that will allow you to win against good shooters.

What I really can't wrap my arms around is the differences in prices vice durability, reliability, accuracy. Is a Taurus 1911 a waste of money or is the Springfield Professional a waste of money. What are the shortcomings in specifica areas of an RIA 1911 vice the SA Pro? Is it hype and marketing or something else, both use a mix of forge and MIM I suspect. ... Is the HK MK23 a quantum leap ahead of the 1911 and how would it do head to head against the Sprinfgfield Pro or are the missions so different? I have a retired bullseye shooting friend who gave his Les Baer bullseye gun to his son, sold his Pardini or was it Benelli or Walther .22LR and Air Pistol and now has fun shooting a Ruger MKII. But I have another friend who is required to carry a Springfield Pro, but swears by a G19.

Encyclopedia of Bullseye Pistol

MEU(SOC) pistol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Brief Review of the Springfield Professional Operator - Page 3 - M4Carbine.net Forums

Heckler & Koch Mark 23 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have friends tell me that I am just cheap, and maybe I am. I am going to stick with Glock 9mms and tinker with my range toys.

[timcalhoun]

Define durable. The guns will take it, but if you abuse them, a $4000 one can become a $500 one in short order, even though it still shoots fine and is somewhat accurate, it will be ruined in that sense and in that sense, it is a fragile thing to be treated with respect rather than abused. The expensive target 45s are not good guns to test fire after dunking them in the mud and running over them with a truck, even if they DO still fire after such. They are not really meant to eat box after box of cheap or hot ammo, and such things can wreck their trigger jobs, target barrels, etc. The expensive combat models, if you want to do this, go for it, but the target ones, no way I would go there.

The recoil spring is a good part of it: they are sold/built with a light one and the defense ammo will hammer them. Second, the tight fit of the parts will be hammered faster/more by the harder recoil, high pressure, hot gasses, etc --- normal pistols wear out faster with hot loads, can you see that precision fitted parts will lose that tight fit rapidly under the same conditions? For a target gun, excessive wear and tear is going to degrade the custom gunsmithing that went into it rapidly, until the gun is no better than a regular cheap 1911. It will work, but the precision action and trigger and slide work and barrel will all be degraded and have to be redone.

I just can't disagree more. I own nothing but custom 1911s (spare one 238) I can build them from the ground up and just finished one a couple weeks ago. If sprung correctly the slide speed is a constant therefore it wears the same. But to your point that somehow tighter wears more- take a hammer and hold it over your car hood 1/8" off the hood and hit the car as hard as you can. Then do the same thing holding the hammer 2 feet above the hood. A tight fit would cause less peening, but the point is moot since if fit and sprung properly there should be no peening.

My main competition gun has over 50K down the pipe with major power loads and an 11lb recoil spring (in 40SW). It still shoots an inch at 25yds and I challenge you or anyone to move the slide to frame fit and the barrel to slide fit even after all those rounds. You will shoot the barrel out before you will wear the gun out and be able to re-barrel the gun and get the same performance again.

[Jonnin]

There are so many models on the lower end side that a true cross reference between them all is not going to exist, sadly. I have heard that RIA are great pistols (everyone I know with one has been very thrilled with them), and no one I know has ever regretted buying a springfield. When looking to get into bullseye, I was told springfields were some of the best to work on "out of the box" as a platform to get customized, and are great for a "tinker".

There is nothing wrong with being cheap, if you do your homework (as you are doing here). Unless you are a pro shooter (either for your job with your life on the line, or for competition, or whatever) there is little reason to buy the really costly guns over a cheap one. My top 10 favorite guns to shoot all cost under $1000, many of them were used. Half were under $500 or right at that. None of them have worn out or broken, and all are pretty accurate (to me that means able to make "pretty much" 1 big hole at 25 -30 feet when using factory ammo).

Anyway I do not think what you want exists. If you google around the issue, asking for things like "best 1911 for the money" you find dozens of forums where it is discussed. In those forums the RIA comes up again and again as excellent, the taurus also comes recommended. If you are happy to spend under 1000, you can get some very, very good guns. If you want under 750, you can still get a lot of very good guns, some colts and kimbers, or a used higher quality model, etc are found here. If you want under 500, the RIA and taurus keep popping to the top of the list. Always, a used better quality gun is less and compatible in price to a cheap brand new in the box.

[timcalhoun]

The problem with the 1911 platform is that you have 100 year old technology that only transfers to a certain extent to modern manufacturing techniques. Compound that with dozens of companies producing them with different levels of success and you get the confusion you feel. Take 10 Springfields, Kimbers, Para etc.....and I will show you odds are there is probably one with the barrel out of time or linked wrong or frame ramp wrong or extractor too tight etc.... So which one is better????? the RIA built right or the Springer that the link will break in 5k? How can anyone answer that? You can't. Bottom line the 1911 still requires a skilled person to put the gun together and of course every manufacture tries to minimize this thinking that their CNC machine will help reduce that labor cost. It only works so good, and all of them are willing to except a certain amount of guns coming back instead of paying for the extra skilled labor.

[LngRngShtr]

Well lets think about it in a reasonable way.

Durability,.. lasts a long time with normal use and care,.. lots of Surplus GI 1911's still out there shooting plenty well..I know of a 1912 that will still hold 8" at 50 ft.

Accuracy,.. shoots straight enough to get the job done...Bullseye guns MUST shoot tighter than a carry gun

Reliability,.. works almost every time ( I have seen specs for # of Malfs. per so many 1,000 rounds)...depends on who you read,this will effect the lineup when they run the final report

You will have to set your parameters as to what you need and that will decide where your line is,.. any gun rag will tell you a nighthawk will out perform a PT1911 but if your needs are filled by the PT1911 then invest the rest in practice/training/competition to improve, we all want the latest Ed Brown but some old shooter with a beat up,half finish gone,mags in his back pocket and a $3.00 Uncle Mike's holster will out shoot it if it isn't run by someone who practices...

My 10mm Delta Elite has countless thousands of rounds through it,.no peening or cracks..so it is mostly cold blued and looks a bit "ratty"

thanks to a Bar Sto will shoot straighter than anyone who has ever shot it, including some nationally ranked shooters

the handful of stoppages have been traced back to ammunition problems or magazines that should have been retired

for me it is the top of the pile... Others won't give the time of day to a DE or any other 10mm

I also have a 5" 1911 that hits what I point it at and has for 25 years and always goes bang,.. but it is by definition a "frankengun" only colt parts are barrel and slide(Gold Cup) and frame ( a standard 70 Series )

Either pistol would be my first choice, neither has a Pedigree they are mutts but they fill the duties they were selected for..

So my question to you is,..... what you gonna do with it ? Carry ? Competition ? Paper and cans at the rock quarry ? around the house ? these will all affect what will work best and where the "cut line" is drawn..

John

P.S.

Keep in mind that the 1911 and its variants are the most "customized" pistols out there,.. some good smiths and some glorified parts changers have all tried a 1911 be careful when purchasing used,..go with someone who knows what to look for to avoid buying one that won't feed because some "hack" thought there shouldn't be a 1/32" flat from feed ramp to barrel lip when he "polished" it..

[timcalhoun]

Well lets think about it in a reasonable way.

Durability,.. lasts a long time with normal use and care,.. lots of Surplus GI 1911's still out there shooting plenty well..I know of a 1912 that will still hold 8" at 50 ft.

Accuracy,.. shoots straight enough to get the job done...Bullseye guns MUST shoot tighter than a carry gun

Reliability,.. works almost every time ( I have seen specs for # of Malfs. per so many 1,000 rounds)...depends on who you read,this will effect the lineup when they run the final report

You will have to set your parameters as to what you need and that will decide where your line is,.. any gun rag will tell you a nighthawk will out perform a PT1911 but if your needs are filled by the PT1911 then invest the rest in practice/training/competition to improve, we all want the latest Ed Brown but some old shooter with a beat up,half finish gone,mags in his back pocket and a $3.00 Uncle Mike's holster will out shoot it if it isn't run by someone who practices...

My 10mm Delta Elite has countless thousands of rounds through it,.no peening or cracks..so it is mostly cold blued and looks a bit "ratty"

thanks to a Bar Sto will shoot straighter than anyone who has ever shot it, including some nationally ranked shooters

the handful of stoppages have been traced back to ammunition problems or magazines that should have been retired

for me it is the top of the pile... Others won't give the time of day to a DE or any other 10mm

I also have a 5" 1911 that hits what I point it at and has for 25 years and always goes bang,.. but it is by definition a "frankengun" only colt parts are barrel and slide(Gold Cup) and frame ( a standard 70 Series )

Either pistol would be my first choice, neither has a Pedigree they are mutts but they fill the duties they were selected for..

So my question to you is,..... what you gonna do with it ? Carry ? Competition ? Paper and cans at the rock quarry ? around the house ? these will all affect what will work best and where the "cut line" is drawn..

John

P.S.

Keep in mind that the 1911 and its variants are the most "customized" pistols out there,.. some good smiths and some glorified parts changers have all tried a 1911 be careful when purchasing used,..go with someone who knows what to look for to avoid buying one that won't feed because some "hack" thought there shouldn't be a 1/32" flat from feed ramp to barrel lip when he "polished" it..

Yep +1

[mav]

+1 on timcalhoun and LngRngShtr's comments

I fixed the link in my earlier post. It is a good read on what was tested during the FBI 1911 contract.

I am totally confused by some of the earlier comments. I don't see why accuracy and defense need to be mutually exclusive. As far as abuse goes, I take care of all of my guns regardless of their price. There is absolutely no way I would ever intentionally submerge my gun in water or pack it in mud just to prove how reliable it is. I am not in the military, a LEO, or a contractor, so I doubt any of my firearms will ever encounter extremely harsh conditions. I'm just a Joe Nobody who enjoys shooting guns.

Still being fairly new to firearms (1.5 years), I have bought 15 guns (sold or traded a few of them) within that year and a half. After taking quite a few private lessons on how to shoot etc..., and running through rougly 15k rounds of ammo this year, I have started to learn what I like and dislike (still learning too) in handguns. I realized that the 1911 platform is my favorite, and I prefer a semi custom model over a mass-produced model. They are reliable, durable, and unbelieveably accurate (more than I ever will be). In regards to the durablity of semi custom 1911s, read the article. I doubt anyone on this forum has put their guns through that kind of testing.

I am somewhat in disagreement with the whole concept of buy just what you need. Ultimately and if you can afford it, you ought to buy what you want not just necessarily just what you need. Are there those on this forum that could outshoot me using a Raven Arms Saturday Night Special while I am using my most accurate handgun (not a 1911 by the way)? Sure. Are there those on this forum that will urinate on their gun just to prove it is more forgiving and durable than one of my higher end handguns? Unfortunately, yes. In the end, it doesn't really matter. I bought them because they were what I wanted to buy. As stated earlier, they are more accurate than me, and given proper care, they will last a lot longer than me too.

[leroy]

All:______________

Take the time to read this; all the way back in 1910:

The M1911 Trials

Donald Bady

On November 10, 1910, the Ordnance Office directed the Commanding Officer of Springfield Armory to convene a board of officersâ€â€¦to make tests of such automatic pistols, caliber .45, as may be presented to them for that purpose…â€. The board met on November 10, 1910.

“The President of the Board (Major Kenneth Morton) announced that two pistols had been submitted for test, and presented them to the board. The two pistols…were found to be semi-automatic, cal. .45, latest model, one manufactured by Colt’s, and the other manufactured by the Savage Arms Co. …â€

This trial was of major importance. The pistols submitted were the most advanced specimens thus far developed by either manufacturer. In the case of Colt’s, the weapon was the Special Army Model 1910; the Savage pistol was a specially improved version of their Model H. Colt’s was represented by its President, Col. W.C. Skinner; two Vice Presidents, Mr. P.C. Nichols and Col. C.L.F. Robinson; plant superintendent James J. Peard; John Browning, two engineers and a mechanic were also present. Savage was similarily represented, it’s President, Vice-President, and plant superintendent were on hand; Elbert Searle, inventor of the Savage pistol, and two mechanics were present.

The tests commenced with a detailed examination of the pistols; special attention was paid to the safety devices. Field strip and complete disassembly was performed and timed. The Colt was more readily dismounted for field stripping. On the other hand, the Savage could be completely disassembled in less time than the Colt. The Colt was listed as having 64 separate components, includind the magazine; the Savage had 45 components. In the next examination, the velocity at 25 feet was obtained: 858.4 f/s for the Colt, 846 f/s for the Savage. In the accuracy trial, the Colt proved better than the Savage by shooting an average group of 1.94″ compared to 2.84″ for the Savage. The penetration tests were puzzling; the Colt did better on pine boards whereas the Savage did better on solid oak blocks. In the combined accuracy-rapidity tests the Colt was faster and more accurate than the Savage. An exhaustive endurance trial was now performed. 6000 rounds were to be fired from each weapon. The firing was to be done in cycles of 100 rounds, at which time water would be poured through the barrel. After every 1000 rounds the pistol could be cleaned and oiled.

In the first thousand, the Colt had 5 malfunctions, three of which were due to lack of adequate oiling. The Savage had 4 malfunctions; its sear had broken off and the right grip piece split and came off.

In the second thousand, the Colt had 4 malfunctions; toward the end of that run, the barrel split and had to be replaced. The Savage had 22 malfunctions; it’s extractor broke and was replaced.

In the third thousand, the Colt had 2 malfunctions; the mechanical safety broke, but this did not disable the pistol. The Savage had 7 malfunctions; grip pieces split and the bolt stop broke.

In the fourth thousand, the Colt had no malfunctions, but the slide lock failed to act properly and the grip piece screws came loose on several occasions, several jams were caused by incorrect feeding, the extractor broke, and the magazine floor plate broke. Upon examination after firing, the Savage was found to have a broken barrel lug and bolt lock spring. A new barrel and spring were installed.

In the fifth thousand, the Colt had one malfunction. The Savage had five malfunctions and a broken sear lock.

In the sixth thousand, the Colt had no malfunctions but the grip piece screws continued to work loose. The Savage had 5 malfunctions resulting from a faulty magazine.

It is interesting to note the performance of a .45 caliber Colt Revolver Model 1909, fired throughout the tests as a control. The revolver had 2 malfunctions during 6000 rounds; the first was due to the absence of powder in a cartridge, the second was due to a sticking latch.

A summary of broken parts in both automatic pistols revealed that the Colt automatic pistol required 4 replacements; the Savage 13.

On March 15, 1911 the trials were reconvened after both companies had made improvements to their weapons.

“The endurance test was now begun. 6000 rounds were to be fired in a series of 100. Between series , the pistols were allowed to cool for five minutes. The pistols were to be examined, cleaned, and oiled after every 1000 rounds.

In the 1st thousand rounds, both pistols worked perfectly, without malfunctions. In the 2nd thousand rounds, the Colt functioned perfectly. The Savage had 4 malfunctions. In the 3rd thousand rounds, the Colt functioned perfectly. The Savage suffered a broken bolt stop which was replaced. In the 4th thousand rounds the Colt functioned perfectly. The Savage had 4 malfunctions; the bolt stop and sear were found to be upset from constant pounding, the firing pin spring was found to be shortened. In the 5th thousand rounds the Colt functioned perfectly. The Savage developed a magazine release defect, and dropped its magazine five times; there was further upsetting in the bolt stop and the bolt was found to contain cracks. In the 6th thousand rounds, the Colt functioned perfectly. The Savage had 31 malfunctions; a new extractor was required, the breech plug had cracked, and thefiring pin had acquired a permanent set., the safety slide broke and the retractor spring had acquired a permament set. At the end of the firing, a careful examination of the Colt failed to reveal any defective parts.

A series of tests were performed with under-loaded and extra-loaded cartridges. Cartridges with thinned primers were also fired, and velocity was taken once more. The Board listed the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations:

“…Of the two pistols, the Board is of the opinion that the Colt’s is superior, because it is the more reliable, the more enduring, the more easily disassembled when there are broken parts to be replaced, and the more accurate…â€

“…The Board therefore recommendsthat the Colt Caliber .45 Automatic Pistol of the design submitted to the Board for test be adopted for use by foot and mounted troops in the Military service in consequence of its marked superiority to the present service revolvers and to any other known pistol, of its extreme reliability and endurance and of its fulfillment of all essential military requirements…â€

This report was rendered on March 20th. On March 23rd, the Commanding Officer of Springfield Armory concurred. Concurrence of the Chief of Ordnance and the General Staff followed. On March 29th, 1911 the Secretary of War approved the change.

Bady, Donald. Colt Automatic Pistols 1896-1955.

link here: The M1911 Trials, Government Model Colt Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45

Interesting aint it? My short assessment: They are all durable. This is 1910 machining and metallurgy. We have made quantum leaps in machining and metallurgy technology since 1910. Bottom line, the least of 'em are great. Dont worry about durability.

Leroy

[Jonnin]

I am totally confused by some of the earlier comments. I don't see why accuracy and defense need to be mutually exclusive.

I was not trying to say they were mutex. I was trying to say you probably don't want to do it for practical reasons: a $4000 gun in a holster getting its finish worn of during daily carry is excessive. You are *probably* not doing self defense at 50-100 yards, and do not need to be able to shoot those ranges with your defensive handgun. A $500 or so gun can put every shot in a 1 inch group at 20-30 feet (or if it cannot, something is wrong with it), and if you scratch it, the loss of value is much, much less. If you can afford and want to use the expensive one, go for it, but its not practical for most people. Also practical, most of the target guns are low capacity, while a defensive one tends to have more rounds in the clip, though this is a broad generalization. Also, as I said, my target gun has light springs, thats how it came. Perhaps it could handle it, I have not tried it, and will not, and will not recommend it to others. If you want to do that to your gun, go for it, its your money.

I have never stress tested any gun by water, dirt, etc but have seen tests where such were done, including the old glock tests from way back when. Its cool to see such things, but not something one does to an expensive gun for fun (or any gun, unless you have a really good reason to do so, such as a sponser or a contract to test the guns). As you do, I also try to treat all my guns well but the ones I have carried for years have heavy wear on the finish and have had thousands of rounds thru them and show wear internally and externally -- not something I want done to my few expensive ones.

And that is all I was trying to say earlier. Durable can be defined many ways. One important way to define it is the value of the gun vs the % condition of the gun. A 4k gun at 90% is a 3.6k gun. You can buy a carry gun for that! A $500 gun at 90% is 450, it still has most of its value! In that sense, durable takes on a practical meaning, and in that sense, the expensive ones are "less durable" as every little scratch, ding, and wear (internal or external) degrades the value of an expensive one at an alarming rate. As far as actual abuse suffered vs function, that is a different defination of durable, and it is probalby going to turn out that both a cheap and an expensive gun can handle about the same amount of abuse/wear --- this defination is not very useful until you get into the guns that are so cheap they break, which is not a big problem in the 1911 market. Its hard to break even the cheap ones.

[mikegideon]

All:______________

Take the time to read this; all the way back in 1910:

link here: The M1911 Trials, Government Model Colt Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45

Interesting aint it? My short assessment: They are all durable. This is 1910 machining and metallurgy. We have made quantum leaps in machining and metallurgy technology since 1910. Bottom line, the least of 'em are great. Dont worry about durability.

Leroy

Is it just me, or did you cringe a little when they decided to dip the gun in water in the first series of tests? Interesting read!

[leroy]

....Is it just me, or did you cringe a little when they decided to dip the gun in water in the first series of tests? Interesting read! ...

Mike:___________

I thought the whole thing was very interesting. The guys that came up with these tests were the sons of the men from the Indian Wars. There were tales of cooling the old plack powder guns down with cold water from heavy shooting. I'm like you; the shock on the old barrel materials was probably a great test of the metallurgy. I love the practicality of the whole test.

Leroy

[mikegideon]

Mike:___________

I thought the whole thing was very interesting. The guys that came up with these tests were the sons of the men from the Indian Wars. There were tales of cooling the old plack powder guns down with cold water from heavy shooting. I'm like you; the shock on the old barrel materials was probably a great test of the metallurgy. I love the practicality of the whole test.

Leroy

Something tells me that 1911 was running hotter than an old black powder gun could get. Yes, real interesting. Probably the most interesting part was Browning's team's drastic reduction in failures.

[Guest BungieCord]

Not a head-to-head comparison but I've not seen anything that comes close to Chuck Taylor's 100,000 round torture test of the G-17. There's an old mention on his website that the gun had passed 168,000 rounds fired and I've read comments by him elsewhere (which I can't locate at the moment) that it finally had had a mechanical failure (broken extractor, IIRC) a few rounds short of 200,000.