Page 2 of 2

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:44 am
by charlesb
More decades ago than I care to admit, the story I got was that a 1911 that rattled would probably be reliable, but not all that accurate - and that a 1911 that did not rattle would probably be accurate, but not all that reliable.

For most purposes, some happy medium was sought after that would return the best possible accuracy without affecting job #1, which is to be reliable.

Target shooters might let job #1 slide a bit, resorting to having to hold the gun a certain way, follow a rigid cleaning and lubricating regimen, stringent load development, and overhauling the gun on a regular basis in pursuit of the best possible accuracy - but for everyone else, the most important thing is job #1, that it goes bang each and every time that you pull the trigger, no matter what.

Starting off as a gunsmith, I bought a 1911 so that I could learn on my own gun before working on anybody else's, and that poor thing went through multiple surgeries and parts swaps as I sought that happy medium where accuracy took as close a second place to job #1 as I could possibly muster.

In the end, if I let a gun go out of the shop that was not 100% accurate, that was light years ahead of letting one go out that was not 100% reliable.

Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:21 pm
by blue68f100
In today's world I believe you can have both. I know the top pistol smiths can any way but every thing must be right. But at a $$$$. They have learned over the years as to what spec the parts must be.

But rattle and loose will probably feed anything but accuracy will not be the best.