Compact or Sub-Com 1911

W

Walter

New member
I'm seriously considering going to a compact or sub-compact 1911
.45 ACP for a CCW. Does anyone have any recommendations?

I'd like to stay under 1k, price-wise, but that's not set in stone.

Which makers should I look hard at, and who should I stay away
from? I'm a 1911 fan for many years, but my main experience
has been with a Colt Series 70.

My current CCW gun now is a CZ RAMI .40. It's a fantastic gun,
but it's not a 1911, and I am getting the itch to change.

Help???

Walter
 
C

CougarRed

New member
Be careful, Walter.

1911s built smaller than Browning intended are notorious for their bad reliability.

Plus, a .45ACP round out of a 3.5" barrel may not generate enough speed to ensure reliable expansion of the hollowpoint. You usually want at least a 4.25" barrel in a .45.

Nothing wrong with your .40 for self defense.
 
C

CWO4USCGRET

New member
Personally

I prefer the ParaOrd Stealth Warthog. 3" Barrel, 10 round double stack magazine, with 185 grain +P rounds, it is perfect.
 
1

18DAI

New member
With a 1911, I wouldn't go smaller than a Commander. I finally went with a S&W 4516. Only compact 45 I've owned that has not malfunctioned. YMMV. Regards 18DAI.
 
B

Boarhunter

New member
Walter:

I am much impressed by the lightweight, snubby Kimber Ultra CDP II, but....

My experience corroborates the wisdom shared by others already; snubby .45s are not always terribly reliable (and an unreliable gun equates to no gun at all). My current Ultra CDP shoots every time, but the first one I owned did not. It went back to Kimber twice, and each time it was returned with the comment that there was nothing wrong with the gun...limp-wrist shooter error.

Well, I knew that was not the problem as I have been shooting 30 years and know a limp grip from one that was not, and I was not shooting limp-wristed.

Fortunately, the dealer also knew that the problem was not shooter-induced and traded the gun out for another, identical gun (albeit one that was reliable).

So, I say all that to say this...the snubby .45s, particularly those with aluminum frames, are a delight to carry (and not too bad to shoot), but they are far more likely than full-sized guns to be unreliable.

If you pick one out, shoot it extensively before you carry and if it is unreliable, swap it out for one that is. Or, realize that a Commander-size 1911 is virtually as convenient to carry, easier to shoot, and much more likely to be dependable.

Boarhunter
 
S

Socrates

Moderator
I have one. Ultra Carry II, custom setup to shoot 45 Super by Jack huntington, and, it also will easily shoot 45 ACP.

The gun, new, went straight to the gunsmith to be checked. Came back, and, have had a few failure to feeds with 45 ACP ball, cheap practice ammo. Obvious the case sizeing was just on the large side. 2 or 3, in a couple thousand rounds. While Jack said the same thing everyone else did about the smaller 45's, he none the less set mine up to run perfectly, and, I replaced every MIM part I could with Ed Brown parts, and, chip McCormack ultra thin, smooth,grips.
Gun shoots at combat distances, quiet well, and, I figure if the SHF, the 45 Super gets me about 45 ACP Plus p velocities, with a 3 inch barrel.
Plus, I can practice with cheap, 230 grain ball ammo.
I might be willing to part with it. If your intrested, let me know.

S
 
S

saypek

New member
1911s built smaller than Browning intended are notorious for their bad reliability.
Click to expand...

Oh man is this true?! I was about to buy SA 1911 ultra compact .45 for CCW. Is it also true that compact 1911 .45's have a very strong recoil and less accuracy??? Now i'm thinkin glock 27...
 
B

Boarhunter

New member
Saypek,

Actually, the recoil is not too bad (I typically use factory 185 grain bullets), and the Kimber Ultra CDP II is exceptionally accurate for such a compact package. I personally have no complains whatsoever in these areas.

Boarhunter
 
S

Socrates

Moderator
If I had it to do again, I'd try and find a gun with a 4" barrel, but, and this is the hardpart, the shorter Magazines, AKA the
Kimber Ultra Carry length, or Detonics.
combatmaster_lg.gif


this is my idea of a near perfect concealed carry gun
servicemaster_compact_lg.gif

Now if S&W would make the same gun, with a Scandium frame...
Put the CombatMaster back strap, and hammer on it..
s
 
J

JCAM

New member
the cause

What exactly is the problem that make the smaller guns unreliable? Is it the shorter springs? Or something else about the action?

What makes a sub-compact 1911 more unreliable than, say, a Glock 26?

Thanks
 
C

Charles S

New member
If I had it to do again, I'd try and find a gun with a 4" barrel, but, and this is the hardpart, the shorter Magazines, AKA the
Kimber Ultra Carry length, or Detonics.
Click to expand...

Socrates, that sounds like the perfect compact size to me. I like you would like it with an alloy frame.

If I had it to do again, I'd try and find a gun with a 4" barrel, but, and this is the hardpart, the shorter Magazines, AKA the
Kimber Ultra Carry length, or Detonics.
Click to expand...

That is a good question. I bet Tuner could answer it.

In my experience the officer sized 1911s are very finicky about ammo, hold, cleanliness, springs ext. I have tried several, but currently my only 1911s are full size or commander sized.

Charles
 
S

Socrates

Moderator
JCAM
As it was explained to me:

Take a full size, or commander, and put it next to a 3 inch, cycle the action, and compare the distances, and tolerances,
when you cycle the actions, as a round comes up, and cycles through the action. You can see the tolerances are shorter, and compressed, giving less room for error.
s
 
J

JCAM

New member
thanks

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense.

But I don't understand why this is more of a concern with subcompact 1911s than with the Glock 26 or the XD9, both of which seem to get good reviews for reliability. Is the 1911 simply a design that wasn't meant to be miniaturized so drastically? Is it less forgiving than other designs?

I believe I once read Jeff Cooper make a disparaging remark about the performance of micro-45s during the Gunsite classes, and ever since I've been trying to get a detailed explanation.

Just wondering if the main culprit would be shortened recoil springs, the amount of slide travel, feeding, or even ergonomics.

To have a reliable .45 1911 in pocket size seems ideal...but maybe too good to be true?
 
D

dajowi

New member
I'm not going to be much help here. I've owned everything from a standard government model 5" to a 3" Kimber stainless .45. Colts, Glocks, Para's., and Kimber. I have to admit the that Glock was the only one that never had a problem feeding, firing, or extracting. As far as carry comfort, felt recoil, egonomics, and dead on accuracy out of the box, the Kimber Ultra Eclipse stainless 3" beat them all.
 
H

Hayley

New member
*

"But I don't understand why this is more of a concern with subcompact
1911s"

It's not a concern with some of us. I see this bromide posted nearly everytime this issue arises.
 
C

croyance

New member
If there is one gun you should know very well, it is your carry gun. You won't have a chance to readjust if you ever need it. So change for the sake of change alone isn't such a hot idea.

I wouldn't worry too much about velocity - you are talking about short range shooting. You're not worried if the bullet will expand after traveling 100 yards. Gun rags running chronographed tests of different barrel lengths still show velocities in excess of 800 fps from +p loads anyways.

The 4" and 4.25" Commanders have a history of reliability. Shorter barrels don't. Now some of those are on an Officer's model frame. So I would go for the 4" barrel and I'd say your choice of frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top