TargetTalk

:):)
We've come a long way since I started shooting in the mid 1960s...I remember alibis on every single string of a match.. Now it's not unusual to see an entire 900 without an alibi.. Precision machining and smithing is far better than the old days. In the early 70s, if you had a consistent 3 inch gun, you were in the game.. Now 1-1/2 is "almost" the norm.. Ammunition is also much better.
I have been trying different barrel twist, chamber design, land to groove ratio ultra precision crowns,.. Some of it looks very promising. The barrel has not gone under any meaningful change in 100 years, and if you want to experiment, one must manufacture your own test barrels.. Frame to slide fit is very very good. Losing 1/4 inch from barrel tester to the gun is presently about average.
Scope mounting is an individual thing. Every shooter has their preference. I have put together some guns in the race gun style with lightened slides, coned barrels, and frame mounted optics that are doing very well, and well received by the shooters. Should have tried that sooner... Has a lot of merit. Doing away with the link is nothing new.. I have built several without the link, and I believe it to be a waste of time..the link is not a problem..The only way to make the barrel stationary, is to gas operate the gun.. Not practical..
The 1911 certainly lends itself well to bullseye target shooting... As continue to advance in precision. One compromise is, the trigger system.. Not the greatest design, for target use, when compared to true target designed systems, but we have learned to make the best of it..
It's important to keep innovation alive. Accepting the norm, because, "That's the way we have always done it", is moving backwards..
Jerry

Very nice post, Jerry! (From an "old fart".)

schatzperson wrote:beer-table-talk phase :-)

I'm not going to bash you because you challenged the throne of the great JMB masterpiece. I would offer this. anything that I could engineer in my mind would be a terrible copy of the masterpiece.

So think of a revolver. While that new Rhino was a royal POS (IMHO) I did like the idea that it jumped off the "this is the way it should work" wagon.

One disadvantage of the 1911 is the slide recoil. Your grip strength varies during sustained fire and the recoil changes how the gun cycles in your hand. I shoot an N-Frame smith with results good enough for a couple HR t-shirts. I like the idea of low bore line. so how about something like the Rhino that fires from the bottom of the cylinder. Double action must be a steady increasing clean break for sustained fire. I'd stay with the 11º grip angle and 1.3" wide which seems to work.

As others have mentioned you would be riding a unicorn. Have a failure on the line and you will need two scoops of pixie dust to fix it. But I do like the idea.

Ok, whar's m' beer? None of that cheap IPA either, A good wheat beer. Something you can chew on.