Cheaper .45 alternatives

[Chia]

Ok, so I've spent some time with ISSF and love the grip fundamentals versus traditional high grips. Is there a way to translate these fundamentals to a forty five that isn't a 1911? Or is the recoil just too severe to handle the broken (but firm!) wrist in ISSF rapid fire, FP and AP?

I realize that this answer might be more complicated since the three types of grips have some differences...

[jmdavis]

There are 45s with different grip angles. But the high masters that I have met shoot 45s with normal grips,

[Isabel1130]

Ok, so I've spent some time with ISSF and love the grip fundamentals versus traditional high grips. Is there a way to translate these fundamentals to a forty five that isn't a 1911? Or is the recoil just too severe to handle the broken (but firm!) wrist in ISSF rapid fire, FP and AP?

I realize that this answer might be more complicated since the three types of grips have some differences...

No, in a nut shell. With the reduced loads we use in Bullseye, there is no big problem with the grip angle.


However the issue is consistent finger placement. If that changes from gun to gun, it can mess with your shot process and your head.

[GOVTMODEL]

Ok, so I've spent some time with ISSF and love the grip fundamentals versus traditional high grips. Is there a way to translate these fundamentals to a forty five that isn't a 1911? Or is the recoil just too severe to handle the broken (but firm!) wrist in ISSF rapid fire, FP and AP?

I realize that this answer might be more complicated since the three types of grips have some differences...

I suspect there are several factors to consider-
1. Market: ISSF doesn't shoot the .45, and in several countries civilians can't own .45 caliber pistols.
2. Having the magazine in the grip is probably a mechanical limitation, both in grip angle and size of the pistol.

Other folks will be able to add to this.

[Rover]

I don't shoot .45 anymore (just Olympic), but I had a really nice pair of Morini grips on mine.

[ghillieman]

The difference is most SP, FP, and AP have a grip that is of a stand alone design. The grips of most 45 caliber pistols are limited by the design, because almost all have a magazine that inserts through the grip. The Pardini GT has a very high grip and a higher rake angle than a 1911, it comes closer to most SP's. A .45 built like a SP would be something to see.

[Chia]

The difference is most SP, FP, and AP have a grip that is of a stand alone design. The grips of most 45 caliber pistols are limited by the design, because almost all have a magazine that inserts through the grip. The Pardini GT has a very high grip and a higher rake angle than a 1911, it comes closer to most SP's. A .45 built like a SP would be something to see.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Giving conventional pistol's (or whatever they call Bullseye these days) limitations of five shots, it would seem to be at least technically possible to create a .45 SP with the magazine up front. I'm not an engineer but since I've gotten my hands on a steyr pistol, I keep wondering "Why are we using 1911s?" I did some research into some alternatives, like the Sig P220, but when looking at the technical specs, they very suspiciously similar to the 1911. I know that the gun is a damn good one. Heck, it's the gun on my nightstand.

Don't get me wrong, I've read about accurizing a 1911 (I'm no gunsmith but I've learned that knowing what the heck is going on with my gun is important), and I understand that the history of bullseye is certainly steeped in military tradition (hence EIC matches and the three gun divisions in 2700), but what about for open division? Why not create a sport pistol-like firearm from the ground up that has adjustable grips, fires five shots, has a mounting bracket for a scope, and most importantly, a completely adjustable two-stage trigger that allows modification for travel, pretravel etc. without having the trigger run through the entire grip? I could see that being a competitive advantage over the 1911's trigger.

I'm not an engineer, and I'm pretty sure that not all sport pistol ideas would work. For example, my airgun has screws in it that allow you to adjust the angle of the gun inside of the grip. Pretty sure that won't work with the sheer energy involved in a .45...well it might work for five shots before the screws get smashed into the frame or torn off by the recoil forces. That would be fun if that part chipped and went into your hand...

Does anyone know why this hasn't been tried?

[GOVTMODEL]

Does anyone know why this hasn't been tried?

I can think of a couple of reasons-

a. Inertia in the business. There is a thriving cottage industry devoted to building accurate pistols on the 1911 platform.

b. Who has the resources to invest in a new platform?

c. How would it operate? A recoil operated .45 with the magazine in front of the grip is going to be a long, nose heavy pistol. (Ed Masaki designed a blowback .45 a few years ago. Very accurate; I think he made one pistol.) A gas system is likely to be complex and heavy.

[Chia]

Does anyone know why this hasn't been tried?

I can think of a couple of reasons-

a. Inertia in the business. There is a thriving cottage industry devoted to building accurate pistols on the 1911 platform.

b. Who has the resources to invest in a new platform?

c. How would it operate? A recoil operated .45 with the magazine in front of the grip is going to be a long, nose heavy pistol. (Ed Masaki designed a blowback .45 a few years ago. Very accurate; I think he made one pistol.) A gas system is likely to be complex and heavy.

As to a and b, that makes sense. C is where I'm weakest, and while I wrote a whole post out on it, I realized that I was just bullshitting and didn't know anything about ballistics. Certainly not enough to come up with a design. But couldn't a recoil design be used with a weight in the handle to balance things out? I know that weight's important, but balance is even more so.

Just ramblings I suppose. Does anyone else have any ideas?

[boris]

Difference in weight between 5 x 22LR and 5 X 45ACP rounds is very substantial. In 22LR pistols weight of 5 rounds is negligible small compared to the total pistol weight and can be ignored.
Counter-balancing the variable front weight between 1 x 45ACP and 5 x 45 ACP dynamically during emptying the magazine is not a trivial task.
Take a look at the front magazine Mauser (Broomhandle)

It uses lighter rounds, but do you want to hold it in the match one handed? Do you think you will have an advantage with similarly designed 45, even with better grip ergonomics?

[Isabel1130]

Difference in weight between 5 x 22LR and 5 X 45ACP rounds is very substantial. In 22LR pistols weight of 5 rounds is negligible small compared to the total pistol weight and can be ignored.
Counter-balancing the variable front weight between 1 x 45ACP and 5 x 45 ACP dynamically during emptying the magazine is not a trivial task.
Take a look at the front magazine Mauser (Broomhandle)

It uses lighter rounds, but do you want to hold it in the match one handed? Do you think you will have an advantage with similarly designed 45, even with better grip ergonomics?

Bullseye, and even ISSF is a tiny part of the shooting game.

It isnt commercially feasible to develop a special 45 for it.

Weight, and changing weight makes a big difference. I know some shooters who load one round at a time in slow fire to keep the weight of the gun, and the balance consistent.


But the bigger issue, is why reinvent the wheel? There is nothing to be gained from it. The 45 with anatomincal grips is good enough for Bullseye.

Free Pistol is precision. Bullseye is 90 percent trigger control.

[Chia]

Bullseye, and even ISSF is a tiny part of the shooting game.

It isnt commercially feasible to develop a special 45 for it.

Weight, and changing weight makes a big difference. I know some shooters who load one round at a time in slow fire to keep the weight of the gun, and the balance consistent.


But the bigger issue, is why reinvent the wheel? There is nothing to be gained from it. The 45 with anatomincal grips is good enough for Bullseye.

Free Pistol is precision. Bullseye is 90 percent trigger control.

But it is clearly commercially feasible to develop a special .45 pistol for bullseye. See Les Baer etc. as well as Pardini. The high end competition 1911s are proof of the success of that concept. And Springfield armory for that matter. Weren't they the ones who offered a prize to someone who placed with their gun?

I like the 1-round consistency thing. I may try that.

But if Bullseye is 90% trigger control, then a sport-type pistol would be a huge competitive advantage. ISSF triggers are completely adjustable both in position and in the multiple travel stages, without taking the firearm apart. You can control pretty much everything you need to effectively create a smooth, clean break.

And don't get me wrong, I love my 1911s. But I don't think anyone would call its trigger the best type available for precision shooting. And the trigger is the main advantage I was thinking a sport-pistol model would give: an adjustable trigger with a rod that goes directly to the sear that goes directly to the hammer. Nothing in between to gum things up.

Okay that's probably enough jawin' out of me. I really hope someone takes this somewhere, but hey, if there's a serious reason not to, that's just fine too.

[Isabel1130]

"But it is clearly commercially feasible to develop a special .45 pistol for bullseye. See Les Baer etc. as well as Pardini. The high end competition 1911s are proof of the success of that concept. And Springfield armory for that matter. Weren't they the ones who offered a prize to someone who placed with their gun?"



The modifications done to a Les Baer and other 1911s to make them competition guns are not as extensive as you think. It is just standard gunsmithing with fitted parts, a better barrel, and a tighter bushing. Very little special about it. If it was a car I would call it a tune up job, as opposed to building a Ferrarri for example, from the ground up.

I know many gunsmiths capable of fitting up a Springfield to be competition ready. It is a fine gun. Just needs a bit of work on the trigger, and sometimes a replacement barrel.


The Pardini 45 as I understand it, is a double stack. Doesnt even resemble their fine .22.

[ChipEck]

There is a rumor Pardini is working on another .45 that will be single stack. Rumor only. I first heard it at Camp Perry this July.

[john bickar]

Do you want to know the fastest and easiest way to get $1 million cash in the bank?

Start with $10 million, and invest it in bringing a commercially-viable alternative to a 1911 to the market for bullseye pistol.

[Jon Eulette]

The title of the post is cheaper 1911alternatives.
Very misleading. Everything you discussed is more expensive :l)
I was expecting something like can you take a RIA .45 and turn it into a competive 1-1/2" BE pistol? Yes I can! So I was let down on the discussion of cheapy 45's.
John if I had millions I'd try :)
Jon

[Chia]

The title of the post is cheaper 1911alternatives.
Very misleading. Everything you discussed is more expensive :l)
I was expecting something like can you take a RIA .45 and turn it into a competive 1-1/2" BE pistol? Yes I can! So I was let down on the discussion of cheapy 45's.
John if I had millions I'd try :)
Jon

Conversations morph like that. If you want a cheap solution, get a springfield RO and get a work-over done on it by a competent B.E. gunsmith. That's about as cheap as it gets right now...

Somehow I don't think we're going to see RIAs on the firing line anytime soon.

[jmdavis]

Chia,

I think Jon, who is one of the best Bullseye smiths around, could take an RIA and make it a 1.5" or even smaller gun. Obviously that says more about Jon than RIA. And the amount of work required might make it less expensive to start with a Caspian or other frame.