I think it’s because it looks more “Tactical” or, maybe it’s less work for a manufacturer to install the bull barrel instead fitting the bushing to the gun and barrel. Just my .2 cents

 

- Because the 2011 has more of a competition “pedigree” and history, bull barrels have become more prevalent / more standard?

- Truly different customer bases, with single-stack users / customers more likely to be “traditionalists,” while 2011 users are a different “crowd”

I think it’s mostly the first reason bolded above, with a slight bit of the second. Given the platform was specifically designed for USPSA/IPSC type of shooting, less emphasis was placed on maximizing bulls-eye accuracy and more on aggressive shooting. I’d bet the added weight of the bull barrel was a pretty desired feature to help with recoil, and ended up becoming the most popular configuration. After all the 2011 was designed as a purely gamer gun to max ammo capacity and dominate, so that was the customer base not really carrying about traditional features. Keep in mind too that 40SW was the most popular chambering for a long time to be used in Limited Division to get major PF. Bull barrels being softer recoiling would be a bigger consideration vs. a 9mm gun

The other part too is that moving away from bushing barrels really helped open up the platform to be further modified. I think a bushing barrel compensated open gun can be done, but is way more work/complicated than just using a bull barrel. Also stuff like hybrid barrels, sight blocks, etc. mostly expand on a bull-barrel type setup. So for 2011s as a class, the default ended up to not have slides cut for bushings as there was low demand for it

 

Yeah, those were my best guesses, which is why they were the first two, hahaha.

I do also wonder how much of it has to do with trying to “hide” the 1911 lineage because a “classically styled” gun would be too reminiscent of a “Boomer Fudd” gun to a certain segment of the target market—especially for companies like Staccato / Springfield, and especially given how much Staccato has tried to distance themselves from the “old” STI.

The long-term evolution from issued duty sidearm to competition gun back to duty gun essentially twice along two diverging paths despite being intended for more or less the same purpose: The “National Match” style lineage that evolved into the SA Pro, MEU(SOC), etc., single-stack “tactical” guns have evolved into their own fairly distinct style, while the 2011 / “Action Shooting” lineage has evolved into a completely different style.

~Augee

 

I got a killer CZ TSO....ugly as hell,but accuracy is amazing. Just sayin'.

 

I personally really miss the old STI design that used the Dawson Precision Tool-Less guide rod system, like you see on Staccatos today. It really was the best of both worlds. No tight bushing to turn and no silly paper clip.

 

I’m familiar with the arguments for and against bull barrels / bushing barrels.

OK, don't you want the bull advantages claimed by USPSA enthusiasts?

On the other hand, ask a bullseye gunsmith for an X ring pistol and see which type barrel you get. AccuracyX Pro Plus target guns have bushings.

 

The point is that I’m not trying to litigate which is the superior option for the role, it’s that despite being ostensibly intended for the same “purpose” (a “fighting pisol” / duty sidearm) the “institutional momentum” seems to have gone in opposite directions, with “most” supposed “hard, duty use” single-stack 1911s being bushing barrels and often GI recoil systems, while most similarly marketed 2011s tend to be bull barrels, and I’m curious to know / hear others’ thoughts about why that is—and I don’t think it’s because most 2011 buyers and inherently smarter / better shooters / make better decisions than most 1911 buyers or vice versa.

~Augee

 

There is no one simple reason for the 2011's usage of bull barrels versus the 1911's continued emphasis on the separate bushing. There are many.

1) The 2011 was devised and used to shoot action sports. Pure mechanical accuracy is not as necessary as it is with something like Bullseye or PPC. Although most service pistols deleted the standalone barrel bushing decades ago, pure accuracy pistols still use them. Examples include the S&W M952 with the Briley spherical bushing.

2) The 2011 emphasis for decades has been faster splits and competitors are willing to try anything that works to get an edge. Reciprocating weight slows splits. Non-reciprocating weight gets the sights/dot on target faster. Advantage: bull barrel.

3) With the emphasis on the 2011 as a service pistol, more parts is considered a negative and field stripping and assembly need to be simpler. Advantage: bull barrel.

4) Profit. Pistols with less parts and assembly steps cost less to manufacture. Advantage: bull barrel.

5) Tradition and marketing: The 1911 was used in wars for a century with a barrel bushing. 1911 buyers still chase pistols like the ones used by the DoD. Advantage: bushing barrel for the 1911. The 2011 has no such history (indeed the opposite is true with DoD efforts to use 2011 pistols being not successful).

 

There is no one simple reason for the 2011's usage of bull barrels versus the 1911's continued emphasis on the separate bushing. There are many.

1) The 2011 was devised and used to shoot action sports. Pure mechanical accuracy is not as necessary as it is with something like Bullseye or PPC. Although most service pistols deleted the standalone barrel bushing decades ago, pure accuracy pistols still use them. Examples include the S&W M952 with the Briley spherical bushing.

2) The 2011 emphasis for decades has been faster splits and competitors are willing to try anything that works to get an edge. Reciprocating weight slows splits. Non-reciprocating weight gets the sights/dot on target faster. Advantage: bull barrel.

3) With the emphasis on the 2011 as a service pistol, more parts is considered a negative and field stripping and assembly need to be simpler. Advantage: bull barrel.

4) Profit. Pistols with less parts and assembly steps cost less to manufacture. Advantage: bull barrel.

5) Tradition and marketing: The 1911 was used in wars for a century with a barrel bushing. 1911 buyers still chase pistols like the ones used by the DoD. Advantage: bushing barrel for the 1911. The 2011 has no such history (indeed the opposite is true with DoD efforts to use 2011 pistols being not successful).

For me it does beg the question. Why has Infinity released several recent drops with bushing barrels?

 

Climb the mountain and ask the sage:
"It is something they think they can sell."

At the levels commonly discussed here, such design elements are almost entirely a matter of fashion and fad.

 

That’s why I made it clear that the discussion was not about “which is better,” but why it is “what they think they can sell” and the “fashion and fads” seem to be different between what could / should be very similar if not identical guns / markets.

~Augee

 

The bushing design is JMB's creation, so most 1911s follow that. Maybe easier to produce - both now and back in the day?

Bull barrels have more weight out front to add non-reciprocating mass, and especially being far out it helps more than anywhere else on the pistol (I.e. torque=force x length). So most 2011s follow this recipe since soft recoil is one of their selling points.

 

A bigger barrel has more thermal capacity, which you want in a barrel that's chewing through hundreds of rounds in quick succession in a given outing.

 

Adding a bit to my own speculation here, I do think there’s a certain element where “modern tactical / duty” 2011s are geared more towards “luring” Glock and other striker fired pistol shooters into a new (old) design, whereas the single-stack market plays heavily towards and is oriented on a sense of nostalgia, which lends some credence to the “more similar” field-stripping manual of arms, though I do wonder how truly “different” it is to “learn” a bushing compared to say the transition between a Glock and P320 or any other slightly different pistol design (I am probably too far removed from a place where bushings are unfamiliar to fairly speculate, but I have had to learn new takedown and maintenance routines for different guns).

I think part of my curiosity comes from the idea / assumption that many 2011 owners would come “through” the single-stack 1911, however I also think / know that there’s not an insignificant number of say Staccato owners who have never owned and possibly never even shot a single-stack 1911, or if they have, it was so long ago / so minor an introduction (e.g., trying out a buddies beater RIA at a range) that it didn’t really leave much of an impression and they may not even make a strong association between their Staccato and say a stock M1911A1.

~Augee

 

Going to agree with Farscott's post. The biggest difference being predominately point 2.
There is a difference.

 

If it hasn't already been mentioned, Alchemy uses bushing barrels on the Quantico HiCaps.

Springfield Prodigy slides are cut for a bushing so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a new barrel may drop in, depending on its specs. Or a new barrel and bushing could always be fitted if someone wanted to go that route.

And, FWIW, the 2311 EAA Girsan is a bushing gun.

 

If it hasn't already been mentioned, Alchemy uses bushing barrels on the Quantico HiCaps.

Springfield Prodigy slides are cut for a bushing so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a new barrel may drop in, depending on its specs. Or a new barrel and bushing could always be fitted if someone wanted to go that route.

And, FWIW, the 2311 EAA Girsan is a bushing gun.

And no one is winning anything with any of them.

 

I know a guy who shoots an Infinity with bushing barrel. Don't know if he won anything with it but he claims the additional weight isn't necessary with a 9mm steel grip gun.