[JamesP81]

I think there are three reasons the GI 1911 was considered inaccurate.

1) Shooting handguns accurately is much harder than shooting rifles accurately.

2) Related to #1, the military doesn’t spend a lot of training time on pistol marksmanship. Of the skill soldiers need, it’s not that important.

3) The GI issue 1911 had *horrible* sights. The easiest accuracy upgrade that can be done to a GI issue 1911 is to put some decent sights on it.

[sean327]

There is also another reason.
The 1911’s the army and Marine Corps used were not in the best shape. They were worn out. Loose slides will kill accuracy.
Your assessment of training time is on the money. Qualifying once a year for most soldiers and Marines doesn’t cut it. I went out and bought a Berretta M9 after I picked up SSgt and it became my TO weapon. Continuous practice is the only way to become and stay proficient.

[Stayfree]

As an owner of one (and who is not very skilled), I agree with your assessments and would add a few other observations:
The 1911A weighs about 2 pounds fully loaded and when fired, the recoil is huge. I suspect that is so because when the slide is thrust backward causing ejection of the spent casing and cocking of the hammer, the slide being a significant amount of weight in of itself, adds to the recoil effect. I have also noticed that holding the heavy 1911A steady is not easy because it is so heavy. I have a Sturm-Ruger .22 which is very light and also has better sights is a slam dunk to hit your target.

[painter]

The GI issue 1911 had *horrible* sights. The easiest accuracy upgrade that can be done to a GI issue 1911 is to put some decent sights on it.

I have a Rock Island 1911a with "GI" sights. I am a decent shot with it at 15 yards wit it. Two of my sons are Absolutely Deadly with it at that range with it!

Get into a gun fight (hand gun) at up to 50 yards with them? You better be good because they would kill you!

[Strac6]

You are exactly right. Little time was spent with the .45, as opposed to days with the M-1, M-14, M-16.

Rifle shooting is very “natural.” Pistol shooting, of any kind, is much more difficult to do accurately unless one is thoroughly schooled in it.

The rifle (and the human body connected to it) is inherently more accurate than any pistol.

[trebb]

You nailed it. I grew up with a 1911 (was Dad’s and he left it to me) that was manufactured in the Springfield Armory in 1914. We used it in competition shoots and it is still accurate to this day. He committed a “sacrilege” by having it milled for adjustable sights and hand carved a set of grips to form fit his hand (now is perfect for mine). Only other mod was the common at the time trigger shoe. I still have the original magazines that are half blue and half natural metal. Never known it to misfire or jam and I trust it as a defense weapon.

[ModelBreaker]

A close acquaintance is a firearms instructor. One out of two bad shooters on the range tell her, “my sights must be off.”

[DesertRhino]

“The GI issue 1911 had *horrible* sights. The easiest accuracy upgrade that can be done to a GI issue 1911 is to put some decent sights on it.”

Actually the original had very good and well designed sights. John Browning knew much more than you. Those very fine sights on the original are far better than the blocky modern sights for shooting out a couple of hundred yards. This is something they actually practiced, shooting at steel drums out at 2 and 3 hundred yards. At that distance the fine sight is on, while a modern blocky white dot may cover a swatch 10 feet wide a few hundred yards away.

As for up close at foxhole distances, the sights aren’t used that much. This pistol was also heavily designed to be used on horseback, at horseback and other interpersonal distances.

The true problem is that grunts are notoriously bad pistol shots. The same was true for the 30 carbine. It was not bouncing off Chinese quilted jackets, they missed.