Out of the box, stock variety 1911s left a lot to be desired in the accuracy and reliability departments, because this was an era when the very good 1911 magazine was also hard to come by.
I disagree, a bit, some details are needed for better understanding. First, the Colt Govt model "out of the box" was every bit as good as it always had been (other than the series 70 finger collet bushing idiocy. Second, good 1911 magazines existed in the tens of thousands, if not millions. The standard GI 7rnd mag.
Where the problems, and the poor reputation came from was a combination of gunwriter hype and gamesmanship changing people's expectations, combined with multiple civilian companies now producing their own 1911 or parts, with many altering the GI specs to "improve" the gun. People were led to believe that the 1911 should, out of the box be flawless at doing things it was not designed to do. Because the demand was there (and still is there) lots of different folks got into making 1911s and did so without the Govt inspectors enforcing specs that the WWII contractors had. And the civilian aftermarket designed 8 rnd magazines that became popular had their own share of problems and teething troubles for a while as well. Listen to some, they still do...
Accuracy with proper spec guns was as good as it always was, the tales of 1911s not being accurate were a myth, founded in undertrained GI's problems accurately shooting the GI guns in the service during the 60s 70s, and 80s. The
newest 1911A1s in govt service were bought in 1945.
The combination of Gis who were not, by and large, firearms enthusiasts or skilled marksmen, given a day, perhaps two of training and range time, shooting guns that had been in service for 30 to even 60+ years, often their first time shooting any pistol, AND the military standards for serviceability, which DO NOT include any accuracy requirement, and you get a lot of people who can't hit the proverbial bull in the ass.
For which, they, naturally, blame the gun they are using, not themselves, and since their gun is "crap" ALL 1911s MUST be exactly the same. Of course they weren't, but stories like this, once started, never seem to die, and usually get bigger and stronger the more times they are told.
By comparison, the Beretta 92 for example, was reliable, accurate , held twice as many cartridges and had less recoil.
I would point out here, that opposite of the 1911 situation, the only people making Beretta 92s was Beretta. The Beretta didn't have everybody and their Uncle Max making 92s and aftermarket parts to what they felt the specs ought to be.
As to the 9mm having less recoil than the .45ACP, I've never bought into that story. The math says the recoil energy is approximately the same (ball ammo). There is a different in FELT recoil, for some people, but I've never noticed it being much, if any. Everyone is a bit different in that. Likewise, in over 40 years of 1911A1 ownership and use, I've never been "bitten" by a stock GI gun's hammer, and never had a failure to depress the grip safety correctly. So, for me, beavertails and speed bump grip safeties are useless cosmetics, On the other hand, a good friend of mine is almost always bitten by the hammer of a stock GI 1911A1, due to the difference between our hands, and the way we shoot. For him, the beavertail is a very useful thing.
I've got a Govt Model that will put 5 shots in one ragged 2.5" hole at 25yds. I also had a 1943 Remington Rand gun that was barely minute of man (torso) at that same distance (6-8in groups). Individual guns may or may not be as accurate as desired, but don't tell us the 1911A1 design, or 1911s s a group aren't accurate, that's simply not true.
I would also note that I've seen a LOT of 1911s turned into bullseye match pistols. Can't remember ever seeing that done with a Beretta 92.