Which 1911 wad-guns are doing best at major competitions

Is there a listing somewhere of which gun were used for the top 10 competitors at one of the recent major competitions?  Perhaps for Camp Perry?

A question came up in a discussion I had with a relative, where his opinion is that an over the counter gun from one of the major companies selling high-tech guns is "good enough" to win.  My opinion, thanks in part to what I've learned here, is that it's not good enough - it should be sent off to one of the top Bullseye gunsmiths, who will turn it into a competitive Bullseye gun.

Names that immediately come to mind to me are Dave Salyer, Jon Eulette, KC Crawford....  I don't recall that many other names, but people have been talking about six or seven gunsmiths in that category.  

I was thinking that it would be interesting to see if all the top competitors are using custom guns, or if any are using "over the counter" guns.  That would answer his question.


As a side question, do any of you feel the gun is secondary, it's really the shooter, and the winners would have won anyway with an over the counter gun, perhaps changing the springs?

Maybe, maybe not - which is why I'd like to see the actual results.  If it doesn't matter, why spend all the extra money for a custom built gun.

AMU, and whatever the military armorers built, and of cours the unaffordAble Cabot’s.

Which 1911 wad-guns are doing best at major competitions

The ones in the hands of the best shooters.


it would be interesting to see if all the top competitors are using custom guns,

Probably, except for specific matches like CMP as issued service pistol, etc.

do any of you feel the gun is secondary, it's really the shooter, 

Yes, within each class, almost all the time. 

and the winners would have won anyway with an over the counter gun

Depends on how many other shooters of equal class showed up and how big the overall match was (number of shooters). (I've seen some matches where a HM shooting with his stapler would probably scored in the top 3   .) 


But if you think you need a custom gun to participate or even compete, then try thinking again. 

It's just easier to spend money or find excuses (ammo, weather, etc.) or spend time in discussions on the internet than it is to spend time training.

"It's just easier to spend money or find excuses (ammo, weather, etc.) or spend time in discussions on the internet than it is to spend time training."




A high master told me once..."buy as many points as you can and train for the rest of them "

CR10X wrote:But if you think you need a custom gun to participate or even compete, then try thinking again. 

It's just easier to spend money or find excuses (ammo, weather, etc.) or spend time in discussions on the internet than it is to spend time training.

I'm pretty much learning this sport from reading your posts and a few others, and so far, it is working out quite well!

Thank You!

The correct answer is any gun built to be capable of shooting <2" or maybe 1.5" @ 50yds most likely in the hands of a Master or High Master.
It doesn't matter who built it, only who shot it.
- Dave

Personally, I think it's well written Tim.

Tim, I wouldn't argue with anything you wrote, but from the point of view of the original post, the "stock" gun that you did so well with, was no longer "over the counter".  The trigger job alone is enough put it into a category with guns that have been worked on.

As to who else is competing, let's say it's all the better shooters in the country, that can attend the match.  

Over the counter, for this discussion, means just the way it came, other than changing grips and installing your own sights.  The gun remains the way it came from the builder, no special springs, or triggers, or hammers, or barrels, or barrel bushing.  Just "over the counter".  As in buy it, put on grips and sights, get used to it, and shoot it.  



I'm sure an expert shooter with a crappy gun will perform far better than a crappy shooter with the world's best gun, but that's not what this thread was to be about.   For a lot more money, people can buy a Wilson, or Ed Brown, or Dan Wesson, or whatever.  It's stock, just the way it was shown on the website it was being selected from.  Is this gun going to be competitive with all the "high masters" on either side of you at the range?

'dronning' included the words "any gun built to be capable of shooting <2" or maybe 1.5" @ 50yds "
I don't think these companies have anything worded like that on their company web pages.  I'm not sure if "Accuracy X" counts or not, as I get the feeling every one of their guns is a modified custom gun, but if it's available over the counter, not "special order", I guess it would also be included.


I think the best reply so far to the intent of the original question was written by CR10X.   Tim's answer shows that with enough ability, and an ability to work on the gun, other guns can be made competitive.    ........all of which points to why Dave Salyer, Jon Eulette, and KC have established themselves as people that can provide guns capable of winning it the kind of match I was describing.

.........just my thoughts from reading the above, and trying to understand.  Tim, would your results have been the same, had you not done anything to the Range Officer?

Your correct
A high master with an over the counter crappy gun will generally score much better than a crappy shooter shooting a crappy gun or even a crappy shooter shooting a high end gun

I’ve won big matches with the cheapest gun on the line (Colt 1991A1 with welded up stock barrel and a grip mounted Tasco ProPoint; 880’s) and I’ve won with the best custom pistol on the line. Trigger puller is the deal maker or breaker. I had a good year this year; Two guys breaking 2600 for the first time and a 2655 Regional Championship win at Canton with pistols I’ve built. It feels good to have guys shooting 880’s in competition with pistols you’ve built. Trigger trumps accuracy but you need the accuracy to beat the other HM shooters. 
Shoot what you can afford. Climb the gun ladder as you progress.
Most importantly have fun.
Jon

mikemyers wrote:A question came up in a discussion I had with a relative, where his opinion is that an over the counter gun from one of the major companies selling high-tech guns is "good enough" to win.  My opinion, thanks in part to what I've learned here, is that it's not good enough - it should be sent off to one of the top Bullseye gunsmiths, who will turn it into a competitive Bullseye gun.

Mike, IMHO definitions of the "major companies selling high-tech guns" in your and your relative argument aren't well defined.  Pardini, Hammerli, IzMash, TOZ, MatchGuns and other alike are major companies in respective space, and their "over the counter" offerings win worldwide, albeit souped up in most cases. However hypothetically such guns can most likely win major competitions without post-production tinkering.  For that matter Professional, Single Stack Classic and other models of Springfield Armory Custom Shop, and / or Colt Special Combat models can do quite well out of the box.  I believe, that hardware is a secondary to one's individual aptitude.  I venture to point your attention to the historical anecdote / fact going back to Lexington / Concord era, when men held trial for the 40 spots in the local militia by shooting at the shingle at 200 yards.  41st in line had no chance for trial, as first 40 hit the target.  However good hardware can greatly enhance shooter's capability.  With such being well known fact, your argument becomes a moot point, as one would be hard pressed to desire shooting a gun pulled out of the display at Bass Pro Shop or Cabela's in any prestigious competition.  So combination of great shooter equipped with great hardware by default has advantage, and that is the default route.  On other hand, it would be an interesting proposition to create handicaps when HM shoots such a gun against bunch of "AP"s equipped up to wazooo with MatchGuns and Hammerlis.  That is if anyone wants to monetize sport of precision shooting, kind of World Wrestling thing. 
Just my two cents.
AP

It is called "self sarcasm" since I was the one typing.....  "It's just easier to spend money or find excuses (ammo, weather, etc.) or spend time in discussions on the internet than it is to spend time training."

But "bitter", well now that's a different subject.  I've been on the list since the "bulletin board" days and through all the previous versions to this one; also running matches for over 20 years, shooting bullseye for a few years more than that, got a handfull of Mayleigh hats, a couple of trophies, DP in 4 matches, got DR and D .22, been married to the same great woman for almost forever, already retired and still having fun.  But "bitter", no way.  Maybe reading between the lines would help, or maybe not.  To each his own opinion.

Yes, I agree with Tim's comments and perspective.  I think they are on point. 

As for first statement, a good shooter with a gun from any of the pistolsmiths mentioned, and many more not mentions, would / will win matches. It's not the specific make / smith that really makes the difference, except maybe to that shooter. (Some people have preference for different setups, triggers, etc., even if the intrinsic accuracy is the same.) 

However, I have seen too many shooters confuse getting good equipment and ammo with actually coming to grips with what it takes to get better at this sport.  Being adamant about working on the variable that will provide the best return for the time and or money is not a small issue to me.  And I've seen far too many shooters have issues thinking they have to have the best gun, or ammo or piece of equipment in order to even shoot a match, much less think they can compete.  Take what you got, go to the line, shoot and then compare the you tomorrow to the you that shot today.  

To paraphrase an old saying about liars "You probably watch the competitor you need to beat shave his face in the mirror every morning."

In difference to the statement above about advantage;  its not the equipment that provides the advantage, its the training and confidence of the shooter that does so.  Simply put, a shooter that shoots a 6 with a Cabot gun will immediately be at a disadvantage (mentally and score wise) shooting against Tim and his RO unless he knows the reason for that shot.

Thank you all for your participation and comments.  I will give them all the consideration they deserve.

CR

mikemyers wrote:Names that immediately come to mind to me are Dave Salyer, Jon Eulette, KC Crawford....  I don't recall that many other names...

I would add Jon Shue of Deep River Custom.  Yes, it is the same Jon Shue that won the last two national championships.

Also, when I am looking for excuses, I use my shot analysis and correction chart.


p.s. I posted something similar to the Facebook Bullseye page.  I have different versions depending on the excuse I am looking for.

PhotoEscape wrote:

mikemyers wrote:A question came up in a discussion I had with a relative, where his opinion is that an over the counter gun from one of the major companies selling high-tech guns is "good enough" to win.  My opinion, thanks in part to what I've learned here, is that it's not good enough - it should be sent off to one of the top Bullseye gunsmiths, who will turn it into a competitive Bullseye gun.

I believe, that hardware is a secondary to one's individual aptitude.   So combination of great shooter equipped with great hardware by default has advantage, and that is the default route. 

CR,
I want to ask you not to concentrate on one word lifted from the sentence, but rather on entire sentence, and for that matter entire post.  Given equal abilities on human end, i.e. Jason shooting against Jason, Jason with better hardware (i.e. with gun accuratized by Jon Eulette) has advantage over Jason with RO.
AP

While I do think some of the high end guns are accurate enough to win a match (a friend of mine has two Wilsons that shoot lights out) We are talking about trying to win and knowing your pistol is not only accurate but has a perfect trigger, and is reliable with a particular load there is no reason not to have a custom wad gun.  When you are comfortable and confident with the pistols you are shooting you will shoot them better (in my opinion.  I also think the custom guns are tuned to shoot the light loads that we like to shoot in bulleye shooting.  My friend also had a 1911 wad gun set up by a bulleye smith because he did not want to put holes in the slide of his pretty Wilson.  All that being said it would be interesting to see and know what the HM shooters and winners of the big matches are using. I don't think the pistol is making them HM shooters but I bet they like the pistols they are using and I would think that any competitor would take any advantage that they could by using a custom pistol.

The NRA could do a service to the sport by simply requesting this information as part of the National Championship entry, and publishing it with the results.

We have a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation with bullseye: few manufacturers will put big sponsorship dollars up because there's too little return on investment, yet rank-and-file shooters don't buy guns from the mainstream manufacturers because that's not what the winners shoot.

Or, if the winners are indeed shooting off-the-shelf guns from mainstream manufacturers, the NRA either doesn't have or doesn't publish that data.

PhotoEscape wrote:

PhotoEscape wrote:

mikemyers wrote:A question came up in a discussion I had with a relative, where his opinion is that an over the counter gun from one of the major companies selling high-tech guns is "good enough" to win.  My opinion, thanks in part to what I've learned here, is that it's not good enough - it should be sent off to one of the top Bullseye gunsmiths, who will turn it into a competitive Bullseye gun.

I believe, that hardware is a secondary to one's individual aptitude.   So combination of great shooter equipped with great hardware by default has advantage, and that is the default route. 

CR,
I want to ask you not to concentrate on one word lifted from the sentence, but rather on entire sentence, and for that matter entire post.  Given equal abilities on human end, i.e. Jason shooting against Jason, Jason with better hardware (i.e. with gun accuratized by Jon Eulette) has advantage over Jason with RO.
AP

Thanks; that's pretty much what I meant, and why I specified 1911 guns in the title.  I agree with almost all the responses here, but they're not responding to what I was trying to ask.  

Tim, I don't disagree with what you wrote, but how many people buying a 1911 have the knowledge, and ability, to do a "trigger job"?   I was thinking of someone who would read the Wilson on-line pages, or Ed Brown, or Dan Wesson, or any number of other pages, and come away thinking (as I used to think) that this was as good as it gets.  I certainly agree with what you wrote.


Me?  I think the better shooter will do better almost regardless of the other person, even if using an ordinary, borrowed gun.  But if this better shooter was up against others who were just as good as he was, as I see it, the ones with specialized guns would have an advantage.

Or in this case, someone wanting to spend $3500 on a top of the line Wilson, for Bullseye shooting, will be better off buying a gun built by gunsmiths who will make a dedicated Bullseye gun.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough......      but I really thought the scores and equipment must be available somewhere.....     Apparently not.

Best I can do.

https://shootingindustry.com/selling-the-guns-of-the-champions/

Well, I'm not sure, based on my observations of shooters over 20 years, that the following is completely true. Now there are cases where it is true, but there are lots of cases where its just not demonstrated by the actual results.  (I've watched and tracked shooters competing in matches for over 20 years, since I'm the guy entering the scores.  And remember that at an average match 90% or more of the shooters are shooting Expert scores or below.)

CR,
I want to ask you not to concentrate on one word lifted from the sentence, but rather on entire sentence, and for that matter entire post.  Given equal abilities on human end, i.e. Jason shooting against Jason, Jason with better hardware (i.e. with gun accuratized by Jon Eulette) has advantage over Jason with RO.
AP

I think, and have seen, that unless "Jason" has the capability to performing to a certain level, say Expert, there is the probability that Jason with a working RO that he is familiar with will have the same level of scores as "Jason" with a gun with more intrinsic accuracy (custom gun). And sometimes it's even lower scores, particularly if they get a great quality gun and then spend time "improving" it or not maintain it to the point of unreliability. 

I've watched more shooters than I care to remember that got trapped into buying "better" guns, over and over again, spend hours painstakingly reloading ammo, and hundred of dollars on grips, just to continue to eventually, shoot the same scores in matches as they did with the first gun they started with (say a Ruger Mk II for example).   Mostly because they neglected to address the core issues related to their shooting performance, be it technique, vision, mental performance, or just plain outlook on life.

Now I did say, not completely true, as there are some great cases where a good gun got better results, but in each of those cases it was the gun catching up to the ability of the shooter.  It was the shooter that improved and that's what I think really makes the difference.  

CR

Addendum:

I should probably post this in the Fundamentals section, but it applies here.  I have noticed 3 things of interest over the years concerning shooters and equipment (guns) by watching the shooters, providing equipment, entering their scores and monitoring their progress.

(1)  The "new gun" effect does happen.  I've seen many shooters come to the line with a new (or "better") gun and shoot some good scores compared to their normal scores.  This includes when I provided my personal guns as loaners for a match or matches (and I know the capability of these guns as they were tested and the shooter shot my ammo.)  For the first little while, shooters are just shooting and expecting something better and in general getting it.  Their attention and mental image seems to have been moved from "trying to shoot" to enjoying the experience and just performing.  They seem to expect the shots to be better since the gun was better.  

(2)  But, eventually almost all the shooters began shooting almost the same scores as they shot previously, sometimes even within the match itself.  Interesting.  And in general, the decline comes as shots or performance degraded, no matter how slightly.  Then it would be a steady change that eventually got them back to, in general,  to "normal scores".  (Shooting that 8, or couple of 7's or 6 or even 5 seemed to bring some mental change that affected continuing the process that flowed so easily before.   So if the equipment provided the improvement, something was there that eventually took over and put the shooter back at the same or almost the performance level as before.  So it seems that even with better quality equipment, shooters would generally revert back to the performance they expected of themselves. 

(3)  However, a few shooters did continue to shoot improved scores, a very few immediately, others over a period of time.  The major difference was that these shooters were actively training and they also improved the mental expectations of their performance, especially in a match environment.  

Just some observations.  Make of them what you will. 

CR

If you go to the CMP competition tracker and look up 2018 P-100 top 100 shooters. The CMP has a small bit of info on the gun that was used.