TargetTalk

I have a few questions for seasoned bullseye shooters.
Right away I will say that this is for a project that has so far left neither sketching and nor beer-table-talk phase, between myself and one employee of a major manufacturer. So please expect a mild dose of pinch of salt in my questions. I will look for the same in your answers;
The object being a .45 auto handgun, designed straight off for target shooting and not derived from a combat gun.
This said, one will then keep in mind that one-run reliability (no cleaning) beyond say 300 shots will be self defeating.
The pistol must however also be durable and inexpensive.
Accurate enough for both short and longline, and possess the ergonomics to assist the shooter deliver this accuracy.
What is on the drawing board right now is a delayed gas blowback handgun, with either an annular (around the barrel) gas chamber, or right above it.
The barrel boreline will sit low in the hand, perhaps lower than in a glock.

Most design details in a pistol are inter-related and my belief is that they must be tackled right away even in the concept stage; So I am thinking even now of a 22 conversion ( very difficult with a fixed barrel design).
So here we go:

1) What would your barrel length and twist rate be?
2) Have you any weight and balance (you can quantify) ideas ?
3) Would a twin-stack grip width bother you much, if it would at all ?
4) Will a first class pistol that will do everything for your shooting but not necessarily much for your expected esthetics, still attract you ?
5) If such a pistol needed a quick takedown , and a good scrubb after every say.....300 shots......will this put you off ?
6) Where would you put a scope? Slide / barrel ?

The one difficult thing I will ask of anyone willing to contribute some answers or ideas, is to be objective, therefore not be prejudiced by any previous concepts.
Hey after all we are shooters, we do not dwell on past neither bad nor good shots.
Every shot is a new day :-)

There have been many attempts at reinventing the wheel with little success , here is one that was well received but never has never made it to production due to many little bugs in the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBToZp96RuQ

I am not inventing anything new; A mere peek at "other possibilities".
Believing that any attempt at innovation means re-inventing the wheel is like saying that the wheel is perfect...dont touch it, its god and thats it.
The 1911, removed from religious adoration, can be seen to be far from perfect for the target shooter.
Can we be a little less religious and consider things objectively ?

schatzperson wrote:I am not inventing anything new; A mere peek at "other possibilities".
Believing that any attempt at innovation means re-inventing the wheel is like saying that the wheel is perfect...dont touch it, its god and thats it.
The 1911, removed from religious adoration, can be seen to be far from perfect for the target shooter.
Can we be a little less religious and consider things objectively ?

A 1911 might not be perfect, but to say its not a good target shooter is ridiculous, the record scores set in 1974 still stand and many attempts to pass them with many different target pistols from all over the world have failed. The 22 part of that still standing record was shot with another American classic, the smith and wesson model 41, and both had iron sights!
Coming up on its 40 year anniversary Herschel Anderson's score says a lot about the 1911 and his talent to find its target potential

I am not saying that the 1911 is not a good target gun, just that its far from perfect as a design concept; That swing link/tipping barrel and general geometry is far from ideal thats all.
There might be a different way to work things out and its a good idea to look into other possibilities for various reasons.

You know, I just realized something; That my gripe about the 1911 is not really the gun itself, but the assumed high horse on which it rides.
There is no perfect steed.

Its as if its so perfect..dont smell its armpits...dont look further.

C'mon guys, lets look at things dispassionately.

schatzperson wrote:I have a few questions for seasoned bullseye shooters.

So here we go:

1) What would your barrel length and twist rate be?

I have no preference and don't pretend to know enough about it to pontificate. The full size Government Model barrel seems long enough without being too nose heavy. If the popular bullet configurations would benefit from a different length and twist, go for it.

schatzperson wrote:2) Have you any weight and balance (you can quantify) ideas ?

A scoped .45 is about as heavy as I'm interested in.

schatzperson wrote:3) Would a twin-stack grip width bother you much, if it would at all ?

It's fine for me, but I have large hands.

schatzperson wrote:4) Will a first class pistol that will do everything for your shooting but not necessarily much for your expected esthetics, still attract you ?

I'm only looking at the front sight or the red dot:-)

schatzperson wrote:5) If such a pistol needed a quick takedown , and a good scrub after every say.....300 shots......will this put you off ?

Not at all

schatzperson wrote:6) Where would you put a scope? Slide / barrel ?

I've tried both and have no preference.

schatzperson wrote:That my gripe about the 1911 is not really the gun itself, but the assumed high horse on which it rides.

IMO, the 1911 earned its place on the so called high horse, if not something else would have been in the saddle long ago. A proper built 1911 can put 10, 45 acp rounds in a hole measuring less than 1.5'' @ 50 yards. Some things are well thought of for a reason.

GunRunner wrote:

schatzperson wrote:That my gripe about the 1911 is not really the gun itself, but the assumed high horse on which it rides.

IMO, the 1911 earned its place on the so called high horse, if not something else would have been in the saddle long ago. A proper built 1911 can put 10, 45 acp rounds in a hole measuring less than 1.5'' @ 50 yards. Some things are well thought of for a reason.

I agree, like socialism, compared to capitalism, there are many guns that, in theory would work better in competition than the 1911. The problem comes, in the engineering phase, and actual use on the firing line. The 1911 survives and prospers because, other guns that look better on paper, have issues that make them less suitable for conventional pistol competitions than the 1911. Like most engineering problems, reality, physics, and cost, drive this train, and not pretty ideas.

From the substance of your comments Schatzperson, I gather that your biggest complaint about the 1911, is that the bore line seems too high above your hand?

One big hint about shooting; the perfect gun, is the one you are familiar with and comfortable with. The profile of the 1911 bothers me not at all. You want to know why? Because my hold, and my triggering are what give me good shots. When I focus on those, and not the gun, I shoot well.

I totally agree as well, that the 1911 has earned its place and this is to a large part because of good service assisted by tradition; And dont underestimate the latter, because here we are, essentially result oriented "performers" all (sport), and discussing not technical content but whether we should even discuss improving technical performance.
Nothing is that sacred.
Socialism and capitalism? Sure capitalism works well, as indeed it has; Should this prevent us from discussing or perhaps improving a winning formula ( the self-loading handgun) ?
Its very human to be caught up in victory and thereafter believe that nothing can be better, ever.
But histrionics apart, let me just re-cap why a new 45:
1) A barrel not fixed to the frame is not conductive to inherent accuracy ( in a vice). Its also expensive to engineer and tune.
2) A low bore assists shooting through less perceived recoil and bullet dwell time dynamics.
3) A higher grip rake angle helps (2) .
4) A trigger with adjustable properties is a plus.
RE 2 and 3: A little after ww2, the commie block, all out to win in prestige and sport, left no stone unturned to improve their chances in any scientific way they could. I believe it was in east Germany that pistol ergonomics and the associated hand physiology was studied closely for the first time.
Today's high performer international pistols "topography", largely reflect these findings.
I am merely asking how large-bore pistols for the sports shooter can benefit from all this.

No doubt a good 1911 can put 10 shots in 1.5" @ 50 yards, but at what cost financial and something else: Yes for the shooter its hold and triggering, but wont you consider any assistance at all in this difficult task ?

Aren't the S+W 4506 and Pardini GT45 already well ahead of the 1911, in terms of design and ergonomics?
A friend of mine had a 4506 which would reliably feed empty cases from the magazine.

I wouldn't assume a barrel fixed to the slide with a low boreline and raked grip is necessarily the way to go in a heavy cartridge like a 45, I would have thought the initial recoil would be fairly punishing and damaging.

I would be looking for some other action than the traditional Browning link, some way of firmly locking the slide to the barrel for a defined period and not disrupting the axis of the barrel once unlocked.

I would be interested in any improvement you can come up with, I myself shoot a non typical 1911 made by Travis Strahan, My gun will drop 10 in a inch or less, me im lucky to shoot a 4'' group at 50yds. The gun is not my problem. LOL

James, the Smith and the Pardini might be ahead in some regards, but they still suffer from the worst that tilting barrels offer: Its just too involved and expensive a system if it is to work well for target shooting.
If I did not have the hindsight of handgun development of the last century or so, I would say the browning lock certainly is the business; but I have tried other systems that offer promise in the way of practicality, repeatability and economy.
For example I have played with Steyr GB gas brake handguns and can say that they are reliable enough and very accurate. However they are service pistols and have the ergonomics of a plow and triggers smooth as 4 bladed gloves on a blackboard.
James, actually, almost everyone who has fired gas delayed blowback pistols, say that perceived recoil is less than "regular" semi autos.
This is probably due to the manner in which the recoil impulse is transmitted to the shooters hand (lbs/sec). Recoil appears to be more of a gentle push than a sharp wallop.
Gunrunner, that idea by Travis Strahan is exactly what I meant when I said that there might be room for improvement in most things mechanical.
If we could have a barrel that does not move at all, we can divert engineering effort and production costs in other areas, like the trigger, materials and ergonomics.
Thank you for the feedback so far.
Its whats needed at this stage.
I trust that everyone sees that my criticism of any gun or established system, is meant in the best possible way and my goal is simply the prospect of some improvement in modern handguns for sport.

Schatz;

My hat's off to you for asking the question. It's the mark of a true innovator.

I certainly agree with you that the "European" grip angle is superior to the "American" for target purposes. That's why I have a GT45.

I also am in total agreement about the advantages of a fixed barrel platform. As I mentioned previously, I think there was an American tinkerer who developed a gas retarded blowback slide for the 1911, other than Ed Masaki, but I can't find a link.

I had heard that the Masaki Dragon gun was never "in production". Masaki is a septuagenarian gunsmith, and he only makes them one at a time. I've never heard anything negative about them.

If you're thinking of developing a new platform, strongly consider using an existing platform as a base. One, costs will be lower, and also regulations much lighter. The 1911, for example, is widely distributed in the US, and parts other than the frame can be purchased by mail without any government paperwork. This is key to the success of the Marvel conversion. Also, you don't have to worry about developing a target level trigger.

I think that a gas-retarded blowback version of the Marvel in .32 acp or S&WL would be a great start. Then a .45 ACP version. Keep the top end one piece except for a reciprocating bolt. Once this works, contact Pardini about buying GT45 frames and mounting the top end on those.

Alternately, I would love to see the Benelli B76 target scaled up to the .45 ACP. Or, while I'm fantasizing, a .45 ACP Luger. I have one in 9mm, and the accuracy is simply astounding.

I wish you good luck.

-John

John, have you ever seen a Hoyt Luger conversion? Late 40s or early 50s I believe. I handled on about thirty years ago- 12 inch barrel with sights mounted on it like an artillery Luger, feed lips were weld and shaped into the top of the mag well, you dropped 45 rounds into the well individually and bottom part of a magazine provided spring pressure to feed. Heavy piece, but the owner claimed exceptional accuracy with it. Oh, and he wouldn't sell. Recall that he had a few magazine articles from the fifties about it, but I have no idea how many were built.

Cheers. Dr Jim

I have a old issue of American Handgunner, Jan/Feb, 1994. There is a article about a gunsmith, John Martz who was making 45cal Luger pistols out of the original 9mm. It does not say much about accuracy, but they did look good.

Thanks, guys, for the tips on .45 ACP Lugers. I started googling the topic, and it seems that Martz is no longer in business, being quite elderly (if he's still around).

I did find this link to a guy who's currently making them, though unfortunately for me he's in Germany. http://www.waffen-werle.de/news.htm

I've got a mix master Luger in the safe, and I'd jump at the chance to have it converted to .45. If I could get target sights on it, it would definitely turn heads at a 2700!

-John

More power to you.

A guy at my club has a Dragon-- it's pretty wicked looking.

Have you seen the Hogue Avenger?
http://www.getgrip.com/main/overview/avenger.html

I am not a gunsmith or a mechanical engineer.

What would happen if you beefed up the design of an FWB AW93 for .45ACP. Probably would add some thickness and weight but for shooting, I love that gun.

-dsd

dsd;

Thanks for the link to the Hogue Avenger. I remember when they came out, probably almost a decade ago, now. I know they took them off the market, and that's the last I heard about them. I'll have to see if I can scrape my pennies together and get one.

Schatz;

It seems like the Avenger is conceptually what you were talking about, a lever delayed blowback .45 ACP. Now just design a Euro grip angle lower for it, and you'll have what you're looking for. It looks like these will fit either a single or double stack lower.

-John

It's always interesting to see what people might come up with. I talked with Ed Masaki about his Dragon gun a couple of years ago at Perry but it was clearly unlikely that there would ever be production enough for me to even be on the list let alone pay the price.


1) What would your barrel length and twist rate be?
I don't like anything less than 5" for the barrel. I prefer a balanced feel as opposed to muzzle heavy. Probably 6" at the outside.

2) Have you any weight and balance (you can quantify) ideas ?
Twist should accommodate 165g to 200g rounds accurately to 50 yd whatever that requires. I like the balance to be just slightly forward of my hand with the gun loaded.

3) Would a twin-stack grip width bother you much, if it would at all ?
That would bother me tremendously. You can always make a grip wider but you can only slim so much.

4) Will a first class pistol that will do everything for your shooting but not necessarily much for your expected esthetics, still attract you ?
I would like to say yes but the real answer is probably that it would not. Ugly and expensive would really have to offer something significant.

5) If such a pistol needed a quick takedown , and a good scrubb after every say.....300 shots......will this put you off ?
Not a problem.

6) Where would you put a scope? Slide / barrel ?
Slide