Wyatt-Luger Target Pistol

Good evening,

In looking through the #6 Speer manual, I noticed that the data generated from the Wyatt .45 Target pistol, which is a 222 grain bullet with various charges of Bullseye. I've never heard of a Wyatt-Luger, so I searched for them with an image lookup, and they look like a Luger, no question- but not a lot of discussion to go along with the photos. 

Who was the Wyatt of Wyatt-Luger target pistol fame? The copy in the manual says of the pistol, "The latter is an amazingly accurate gun and a real pleasure to shoot which suggests that any cartridge in a precision made gun will prove to be a good performer."

Sounds neato, but never heard of it- anyone shoot one or see one in the wild?

I read that a gun is very accurate and the test results brag about a 2" group 2 25yds off a RR.  I suspect this gives most BE shooters a chuckle.  Great gun for SD or maybe IDPA but who needs a $3000 gun for SD.  So when I read that a Wyatt-Luger is a "Amazingly accurate gun,  it doesn't mean much to me.  Don

Don't disagree, Don. If it had been all that and a bucket of chicken, we'd still be shooting them.

And Speer made a 222 grain bullet? 230 just wouldn't work?

I hear that a lot from my IDPA friends.....

"one hole groups at 10 yards!!"

james r chapman wrote:I hear that a lot from my IDPA friends.....

"one hole groups at 10 yards!!"

Right James I been there, done that, got bored and switched to BE.  From what I seen most of them try to keep the shots in a 8" circle.  They are having fun and shooting and that is what counts.  Don

Somewhere or other I ran across some comment that the Luger grip and balance made the basic pistol form shooter friendly but the trigger action left a lot to be desired for precision shooting.

Here is a company offering 45ACP Luger replicas: LugerMan Inc Luger 45

Another: Mike Krause 45 Luger

Too bad nobody wants to try making a Wilson Target 45, a clean sheet Bullseye pistol: Wilson Pistol


Page 29, Wyatt Luger: Guns Magazine, Feb 1960

The Wyatt looks like a modest rework.  I didn’t read the whole article, but it seems that the frame and barrel extension aren’t widened like the later Martz Lugers in 45.  They added mass to the barrel to keep the reciprocating speeds down.  

I dunno.  Seems like a bad idea from the get go.

I currently own a Luger.  The triggers are goofy.  Just a lot of mush and goo.  Very accurate pistol otherwise.  Just a less than great trigger.  As for the grip angle, Lugers kinda sorta make you break your wrist down.     You wouldn’t throw a punch with your wrist in that form.  And that is one reason I don’t care for the Euro style grips.  I want my wrist to be locked to take the hit.

Sa-tevp wrote:Somewhere or other I ran across some comment that the Luger grip and balance made the basic pistol form shooter friendly but the trigger action left a lot to be desired for precision shooting.

Here is a company offering 45ACP Luger replicas: LugerMan Inc Luger 45

Another: Mike Krause 45 Luger

Too bad nobody wants to try making a Wilson Target 45, a clean sheet Bullseye pistol: Wilson Pistol


Page 29, Wyatt Luger: Guns Magazine, Feb 1960

Thank you for that pdf boy does that bring back memories.  Don

That Wilson pistol looks very impressive.
Shooting my FAS607, I keep thinking why not any number of barrels in different calibres and different front weights?
After introducing the 32ACP, Pardini should jump all-in and issue their Pistol in a 22/9mm/32long/32acp/45acp combo.

.45 would be difficult as those guns are blowback.  They do offer 9mm/45 GT9/GT45 series guns though...

So, to bring this item full circle- I recently received a copy of Speer's #5 reloading manual, which contained a reloading section for pistols which was written by Ken Wyatt. It goes on to say under his by-line:

"Ken Wyatt is well known throughout the Northwest as a gunsmith, reloader and champion pistol shooter. He recently originated and built a new match gun called the Wyatt .45 Target. He won the 1959 Idaho Open Pistol Championship and was Resident Champion in 1956, 1957 and 1958."

So, should someone else come looking for information on this subject, hopefully this will lead them in the right direction.

Still puzzled at a 222 grain bullet, though. I don't think Speer produced it, just gave load data for some mold (?) without seeming to reference the mold number or make. Circa 1962:

The bullet as pictured for the 222 grain looks like the Lyman 452374 cast bullet. It has a nominal as cast weight of 225 grains. Actual weight will vary with the alloy used. The two semi wadcutter bullets look like 452488 (H&G 130) and 452460

Wow, that Wilson .45 really is a thing of beauty. Too bad they were never produced. I bet that thing recoils like a .32 during rapid fire with light loads. Talk about complicated, though. Very cool piece of history.

SmokinNJokin wrote:Wow, that Wilson .45 really is a thing of beauty. Too bad they were never produced. I bet that thing recoils like a .32 during rapid fire with light loads. Talk about complicated, though. Very cool piece of history.

This is off the cuff and might offend a few and it might appear a little disjointed as I'm not taking the time to organise the various thoughts.
IMO, the reason the Wilson Match 45acp pistols were never put into production may be exemplified by this forum.
Serious bullseye competitors are willing to spend thousands and thousands of dollars accurizing 1911s and only 1911s. For someone totally new to the sport, the discussion of which gun to start with seems to be a debate about which quite expensive gun isn't so really bad. Or that isn't really good enough, but not so bad that it can't be improved.
Everyone seems to be repeating what everyone else before them has done and what everyone around them is doing. But unwilling to even explore the possibilities of other options or it seems to even entertain a discussion about what the pros and cons of another option might be.
Granted, if a wealthy or well backed genius were to develop a great 45acp match pistol, I think they'd have to work alone until the pistol was complete and would face a huge hurdle to bring the pistol to market and make a success of it.
What surprises me is the number of European manufacturers that make very specialised firearms for Olympic and ISSF sports and the non-existence of specialised firearms for Bullseye in 45acp. It would seem to me that the market for Bullseye 45acp is at least as large as the demand for ISSF firearms. Probably bigger, or at least very significant on a worldwide scale, considering Pardini is catering to the American Bullseye market.
I think the sport and the general attitudes and expectations are very much driven by the history of the sport and the origin of the 45acp bullseye as service pistol competition. Much like classic car racing. But made even more attitude/appearance/history/group driven because the driver makes far more of a difference to the final outcome than the machinery. I think at the time that Wilson produced the 45acp Match Pistol the entrenched wisdom was even more against his pistol than it would now.
None of this is meant to be made in a negative light. Nothing wrong being very enthusiastic about racing '69 Mustangs...

james r chapman wrote:I hear that a lot from my IDPA friends.....

"one hole groups at 10 yards!!"

I build guns for a group of uspsa guys. I had one customer come back a year or so later jokingly complaining. "Hey, you need to fix this gun. I'm tired of arguing for doubles in the middle of the target... "he suggested a new slogan... guns so accurate, you'll loose points.  I laughed...