Trying to pickout a 1911 for personal protection and home defense can be difficult. It seems that the present offerings from Springfield, Kimber, Para Ordnance, etc. all seem to be geared to target shooting or competition shooting. I just read Chuck taylor's book "Combat Handgunnerey." I don't know his reputation, but after reading his book, he sure seems knowledgeable. Anyway, after reading the book, it really made me want to get a 1911 style pistol for personal protection. I'd really like to purchase a stainless one because it seems that stainless would logically hold up better and if I should ever use it for CCW, it would resist rust and humidity better. But here's where I get confused. After reading some posts here and over at the 1911 forums, most of these newer 1911's seem to only feed the standard FMJ or hardball ammo reliably. So here's my question, which of the major brands of new 1911's will feed hollowpoint ammunition reliably and serve well as a personal defense weapon? Thanks in advance.
1911 for personal/home defense
- Thread starter meat
- Start date
Of the three majors, Colt, Kimber, and Springfield, all are supposed to be able to eat JHP out of the box, but some may be sensitive to certain brands of ammo, or bullet types.
My Colt didn't like JHP, but then it didn't like FMJ either. I don't think it's representative of typical contemporary Colts.
My Kimber Compact eats hollow-points with ease.
I have no experience with the Loaded line of Springfields.
Concentrate more on the other features: stainless or not, extended this or that, sights, the fit in your hand, pointability, etc... Find the gun that fits those criteria best, and whatever brand you choose will likely be as reliable as the next brand.
And Chuck Taylor is quite well regarded, indeed.
My Colt didn't like JHP, but then it didn't like FMJ either. I don't think it's representative of typical contemporary Colts.
My Kimber Compact eats hollow-points with ease.
I have no experience with the Loaded line of Springfields.
Concentrate more on the other features: stainless or not, extended this or that, sights, the fit in your hand, pointability, etc... Find the gun that fits those criteria best, and whatever brand you choose will likely be as reliable as the next brand.
And Chuck Taylor is quite well regarded, indeed.
Robby from Long Island
New member
Well, I've had my Para-Ordnance P14.45 LTD for a few years now and it's never once hiccuped. The standard hi-cap magazines with their 14 round capacity never failed to feed the Remington 230 gr. Golden Sabers.
I'm sure Springfield Armory and Kimber also make dependable guns as well.
Safe shooting.
I'm sure Springfield Armory and Kimber also make dependable guns as well.
Safe shooting.
Step back a minute. One of the rationales for .45 ACP is that it does not require expansion. So a nice round-head FMJ is fine. If you shoot someone in your house with a .45, regardless of the type of round you're probably going to blow a big hole through them and they won't survive, so be prepared to deal with that rather than ammo details. Also, if your wife is going to be handling it, something that's easier to rack the slide on and with less recoil might be a better choice. And that's also assuming that a shotgun is out of the question, since the sound of a shotgun being racked is likely to run off any sentient being.
Modern (even non-modern) firearm coatings protect pistols pretty well from corrosion, especially when in a house as opposed to the field. Even stainless pistols can corrode if not cared for properly - ask any sailor.
I'd put more focus on reliability, sights, how the pistol fits you, and the manual of arms for safety, cocking, etc. For example, the Smith & Wesson TDA approach has a manual safety that decocks the hammer, and also a trigger block, allows you to fire double action, single action, and with or without the mechanical safety on. The SIG DA/SA pistols are extremely reliable and can be purchased with factory night sights, but don't have an external safety.
A traditional M1911A1 clone does not have a firing pin block and requires you to rack the slide or cock the hammer to fire, and cannot be put on safe if the hammer is not cocked (though there is the grip safety). Some of the later M1911's have firing pin blocks, and there are even some double action versions available, but then you might as well consider buying something other than a M1911 pattern pistol. The SIG P220 doesn't have an manual safety, but S&W and H&K do, among others.
Modern (even non-modern) firearm coatings protect pistols pretty well from corrosion, especially when in a house as opposed to the field. Even stainless pistols can corrode if not cared for properly - ask any sailor.
I'd put more focus on reliability, sights, how the pistol fits you, and the manual of arms for safety, cocking, etc. For example, the Smith & Wesson TDA approach has a manual safety that decocks the hammer, and also a trigger block, allows you to fire double action, single action, and with or without the mechanical safety on. The SIG DA/SA pistols are extremely reliable and can be purchased with factory night sights, but don't have an external safety.
A traditional M1911A1 clone does not have a firing pin block and requires you to rack the slide or cock the hammer to fire, and cannot be put on safe if the hammer is not cocked (though there is the grip safety). Some of the later M1911's have firing pin blocks, and there are even some double action versions available, but then you might as well consider buying something other than a M1911 pattern pistol. The SIG P220 doesn't have an manual safety, but S&W and H&K do, among others.
CastleBravo
New member
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Aside from their few models with adjustable sights and/or "show off" polished finishes, most of their products look like practical weapons to me.
Pretty much every 1911 out there is available in stainless. Or, you can get a normal steel gun and have it finished in hard chrome, NP3, Black-T, etc. for about the same total cost.
The stuff about modern 1911s not feeding hollowpoints is largely B.S. Some 1911s won't feed some brands of hollowpoints, but that could be said of pretty much any handgun. Most worthwhile hollowpoints (Remington Golden Saber 230gr being a good example) are designed with feed reliability in mind, and work just as well as FMJ in any decent 1911.
Some 1911 reviews for you
:http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/1991.htm
http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/kimber.html
http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/delta.html
http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/deltabcp.html
My generic recommendation for would-be 1911 buyers is either a basic Kimber (blue or stainless), or a Colt 1991A1 if you want something more traditional-looking. Don't go cheaper than a Springfield Armory Milspec or you will probably regret it.
Double Naught Spy
New member
meat, I think you must have misread, misunderstood, or taken something out of context in regard to newer 1911s NOT feeding hollowpoint ammo. Pre 1970s 1911s often have problems with hollowpoint as hollowpoints were not commercially available before then and so the guns were not designed to handle them, something about feed ramp angles as I recall. Newer 1911s should feed hollowpoints.
That being said, each gun may have its own personality or a particular brand of hollowpoint may be made to slightly different specs and so not feed.
I believe VVG's impressions on the blasting capability of .45 acp is probably well overstated as is the potential lethality. .45 acp is not known for blowing big holes through people and whether or not a person survives being shot is going to depend on shot placement. A poorly placed .45 acp can be horribly ineffective.
That being said, each gun may have its own personality or a particular brand of hollowpoint may be made to slightly different specs and so not feed.
I believe VVG's impressions on the blasting capability of .45 acp is probably well overstated as is the potential lethality. .45 acp is not known for blowing big holes through people and whether or not a person survives being shot is going to depend on shot placement. A poorly placed .45 acp can be horribly ineffective.
I bought my Kimber for home (and away) self defense
It's a Kimber Ultra CDP II stainless with night sights. It was a 'toss-up' between the three inch Ultra and the four inch Custom and both are, IMHO, excellent for home defense and CCW.
I've been 'practicing' and breaking in the Kimber with 230 grain FMJ and in the meantime, keep these in the pistol for 'protection'. I might even just keep the FMJ 'hardballs' as my #1 protection round as they feed so easily through the Kimber.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't want to be hit by a 230 grain FMJ hardball from home defensive range, approx. 10-25 feet. I'm sure, any intruders wouldn't want that either.
It's a Kimber Ultra CDP II stainless with night sights. It was a 'toss-up' between the three inch Ultra and the four inch Custom and both are, IMHO, excellent for home defense and CCW.
I've been 'practicing' and breaking in the Kimber with 230 grain FMJ and in the meantime, keep these in the pistol for 'protection'. I might even just keep the FMJ 'hardballs' as my #1 protection round as they feed so easily through the Kimber.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't want to be hit by a 230 grain FMJ hardball from home defensive range, approx. 10-25 feet. I'm sure, any intruders wouldn't want that either.
Baron Holbach
New member
Maryland's soon to be enacted internal lock law
Because you are from Maryland, where internal locks will be required on all new handguns effective January 1, 2003, consider first a Colt or Kimber because Springfield 1911s are already equipped with the internal lock. By choosing the Colt or Kimber you can determine if either brand meets your needs. If neither Colt or Kimber fulfills what you want in a 1911, then take a look at the Springfield 1911s.
Because you are from Maryland, where internal locks will be required on all new handguns effective January 1, 2003, consider first a Colt or Kimber because Springfield 1911s are already equipped with the internal lock. By choosing the Colt or Kimber you can determine if either brand meets your needs. If neither Colt or Kimber fulfills what you want in a 1911, then take a look at the Springfield 1911s.
dairycreek
New member
1911's can be ammo sensitive!
But that is probably true of most semi auto pistols - not just 1911 pistols. All of the modern 1911 pistols I have used have fired hollow point ammo and FMJ ammo with equal dispatch. Both were good. I prefer Kimbers but have had good results with Colt, Springfield, Norinco, and Wilson shooting a variety of ammunition types. On a personal note I prefer FMJ ammo. It is highly arguaable as to howmuch more expansion is needed over the already large hole made by a 45. Good shooting
But that is probably true of most semi auto pistols - not just 1911 pistols. All of the modern 1911 pistols I have used have fired hollow point ammo and FMJ ammo with equal dispatch. Both were good. I prefer Kimbers but have had good results with Colt, Springfield, Norinco, and Wilson shooting a variety of ammunition types. On a personal note I prefer FMJ ammo. It is highly arguaable as to howmuch more expansion is needed over the already large hole made by a 45. Good shooting
dairycreek
New member
1911's can be ammo sensitive!
But that is probably true of most semi auto pistols - not just 1911 pistols. All of the modern 1911 pistols I have used have fired hollow point ammo and FMJ ammo with equal dispatch. Both were good. I prefer Kimbers but have had good results with Colt, Springfield, Norinco, and Wilson shooting a variety of ammunition types. On a personal note I prefer FMJ ammo. It is highly arguable as to how much more expansion is needed over the already large hole made by a 45. Good shooting
But that is probably true of most semi auto pistols - not just 1911 pistols. All of the modern 1911 pistols I have used have fired hollow point ammo and FMJ ammo with equal dispatch. Both were good. I prefer Kimbers but have had good results with Colt, Springfield, Norinco, and Wilson shooting a variety of ammunition types. On a personal note I prefer FMJ ammo. It is highly arguable as to how much more expansion is needed over the already large hole made by a 45. Good shooting
I have done tons of research over at the 1911 forums also.
I was deciding between a Springfield mil-spec, and a Colt mil-spec. They are both fine guns, and will usually feed most all ammo quite reliably.
IMHO, the 1911's *seem* more finicky than most other guns. However, there are loads and loads of perfectly reliable 1911's out there as well. All guns are mechanical devices, and no mechanical devices are perfect. (Think cars, electronics, etc.)
My advice: Go ahead and buy one, and put at LEAST 4-500 rounds through it. FMJ, JHP, all the different stuff. If it has reliability issues, either take it to a reputable gunsmith who can do some stuff to make it feed better, or get another gun.
The 1911's are great, and as most will say "every gun nut needs a 1911!"
I was deciding between a Springfield mil-spec, and a Colt mil-spec. They are both fine guns, and will usually feed most all ammo quite reliably.
IMHO, the 1911's *seem* more finicky than most other guns. However, there are loads and loads of perfectly reliable 1911's out there as well. All guns are mechanical devices, and no mechanical devices are perfect. (Think cars, electronics, etc.)
My advice: Go ahead and buy one, and put at LEAST 4-500 rounds through it. FMJ, JHP, all the different stuff. If it has reliability issues, either take it to a reputable gunsmith who can do some stuff to make it feed better, or get another gun.
The 1911's are great, and as most will say "every gun nut needs a 1911!"
Thanks for the great responses. I have been looking at the kimber's and the springfield's mostly for cost concerns (wilson's, sti's, and baer's are just too darn expensive!!!). Any opinion on which may be better, or is it pretty much a toss up? Some say thet the Series II safety is a concern w/ the Kimber where others say that the Springfield's internal lock is a problem. Any experienced/ educated responses regarding this????
You can take the Springfield internal lock out by replacing the mainspring housing and a few small, inexpensive parts. If you buy a Kimber, you're stuck with Series II safety.
FWIW, if I was going to buy a new 1911 today for less than a grand, my first choice would be a loaded model Springfield, second choice would be a Colt Government Model (the one formerly known as 1991-A1, not the goofy XSE model), and my third choice would be a Springfield Mil-Spec. I would not buy a Series II Kimber.
Baron Holbach
New member
Kimber 1911
I own a Kimber Stainless Target II .38 super. The gun has been utterly reliable and accurate through 400 rounds. .38 super is not an ideal defense round because of its lack of availability in specialized defense ammo. However, this does not detract from how well a Kimber will perform. A shooter can opt for one of Kimber's pistols chambered in .45 ACP or .40S&W and have a wide selection of defense ammo from which to choose.
I own a Kimber Stainless Target II .38 super. The gun has been utterly reliable and accurate through 400 rounds. .38 super is not an ideal defense round because of its lack of availability in specialized defense ammo. However, this does not detract from how well a Kimber will perform. A shooter can opt for one of Kimber's pistols chambered in .45 ACP or .40S&W and have a wide selection of defense ammo from which to choose.