I don't currently own a pistol, but I'd like at some point in the future to get a 1911. I like the extra capacity of double-stack models, but I've been told that they're noticeably less reliable than the single stack models. I wanted to know, how much of this is true, and how much is exaggeration/urban legend from people who haven't used them?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1911 doublt stack versus single stack: Reliability difference?
- Thread starter ADB
- Start date
Technosavant
New member
The real trick is that since the 1911 was designed as a single stack, any double stack version is the result of that manufacturer taking liberties with the design. Sometimes it's done well. Sometimes it isn't.
STI has their 2011 framed guns, and those seem to get a lot of use in competition circles, and if I were going to go with a double stack 1911 I'd probably lean that direction. They can be a bit spendy though. Para Ordnance is also known for their double stack 1911s (and they're much cheaper than STI), but I just haven't read up much on their reliability. I occasionally see things that aren't too complimentary, but again, the sample size is just low.
STI has their 2011 framed guns, and those seem to get a lot of use in competition circles, and if I were going to go with a double stack 1911 I'd probably lean that direction. They can be a bit spendy though. Para Ordnance is also known for their double stack 1911s (and they're much cheaper than STI), but I just haven't read up much on their reliability. I occasionally see things that aren't too complimentary, but again, the sample size is just low.
comn-cents
New member
I've owned two double stacked Para's and they both worked great. One in 40 the other in 45, never had a failure of any kind in the 45. The 40 had a few at around 6 or 7 thousand rounds and I replaced some springs (recoil-mag) and it worked great after that. I must say some of Para's parts seem a little soft and their black finish sucks. It wears very fast, I would buy another one. I used some factory mags & mec-gar, and all worked well.
I have a Springfield hi-cap, which uses the same mags as the Para P14. While it has been "pretty reliable", it's not nearly as reliable as any of my single stacks. The problem seems to be friction in the magazine. The sides of the double-stack .45 mags are flat, so the entire length of the loaded rounds is in contact with the mag tube, and getting all of those rounds rolling in unison doesn't seem as certain as just feeding straight out the top of a single-stack mag. When I load the hi-cap mag and then thumb the rounds out again, without even feeding them through the gun, the rounds have an amazing amount of scratches and rub marks. While I have had few actual stoppages, sometimes the slide sort of hesitates before snapping into battery. One thing that has helped, and which is outside the scope of what most people are willing to do, is as part of the cartridge reloading process, run the cases completely through a sizing die so the entire case is the same diameter. Case rims can be as large as .480" in diameter, and that causes the rounds to bind a bit in the mag. I've accumulated a few hundred cases with rims that measure .468"-.470", and they load into the mag and cycle into the gun much more smoothly than regular mixed brass, as cylinders will roll with each other much better than will cones.
lambertsteeth
New member
I've got double stack(Para) and sigles(Colt). I they have all been reliable (after breakin period). Speaking of the guns I own, I see no difference in reliability.
lambertsteeth
New member
45Gunner brings up a point I forgot to mention. I'm a big dude. My double stack 1911 is even getting on the big side for me. A good two hand grip is not uncomfortable for me, but I'm 6ft. 4in.
Doc Intrepid
New member
+1lambertsteeth said:"I've got double stack(Para) and sigles(Colt). I they have all been reliable (after breakin period). Speaking of the guns I own, I see no difference in reliability."
Own both.
No difference in reliability.
As Technosavant noted, its a small sample size and your mileage may vary, but manufacturers magazines and new springs tend to keep things running smooth on both my single stack and double stack .45s.
FWIW.
The single stack design is proven by nearly 100 years of performance and is inherently more reliable.
I have owned a Para P13.45 that was reliable with good condition Para factory magazines. I have owned a P12.45 that could not be made to run reliably.
I have seen Wilson Combat comment on the supposed unreliability of unnamed other double-stack .45s when they brought out their KZ-45 with a 10-shot mag and a different, more gradual feed of the rounds inside. I presume they were referring to Para Ordnance when they criticized other designs.
I have owned a Para P13.45 that was reliable with good condition Para factory magazines. I have owned a P12.45 that could not be made to run reliably.
I have seen Wilson Combat comment on the supposed unreliability of unnamed other double-stack .45s when they brought out their KZ-45 with a 10-shot mag and a different, more gradual feed of the rounds inside. I presume they were referring to Para Ordnance when they criticized other designs.