In rejecting the Apocrypha, Protestants are following the canon of the Jews rather than that of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. 1 Maccabees is a reasonably reliable historical account of the Jewish revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes. However, it is simply a historical account; I see no reason to regard it as Scripture. There are lots of histories and other documents from Jewish and Christian sources that are valuable, but not regarded as being part of the Bible. The Jewish canon was established before the time of Jesus, and the Christian church basically followed it. The Apocrypha were seen as valuable devotional literature that gave insight into Jewish history and thought, but of distinctly less value than Scripture. If I recall correctly, the RC church did not dogmatically make the Apocrypha an "official" part of their Bible (though there were certainly those in earlier times who regarded them as Scripture) until after the Reformation, as a response to the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha.
2 Maccabees is another matter. It appears to be a later, more embellished account and has religious issues as well for Jews and Protestants, in that it contains the idea of prayer for the dead. JW's would also have a problem with that concept. That doesn't mean that the book has no value or that it shouldn't be read; only that one must recognize that the problem exists and proceed accordingly. If you're looking for the most reliable text in a historical sense, I'd suggest sticking with 1 Maccabees.