Why are 3" 1911's considered less reliable?

[Jack Bauer]

I'm just wondering. I understand (sort of) the operation of the 1911 and the parts relationship, etc. that makes the 5" and 4.25" barrel versions reliable, but why are the 3" considered unreliable? It seems to me that they've been around long enough that development should have caught up to reliability issues. I mean, manufacturers have been making them for years, they should be able to compensate for any feeding/reliability issues, shouldn't they? I ask because I've handled the 3" 1911s in local gun shops and really like the feel and balance in my hand, and would love one for carry, but only if reliability can be more or less 100%.

Thanks...

 

[TeamSinglestack]

Perhaps a smith will chime in, but timing seems to be an issue with smaller guns, including the 1911's. Less room for error with springing and load selection.

 

[Deja vu]

I feel that way about all semiautomatics. It seems like the longer barrels tend to work better. I am not saying that some people are not have luck with there Sig P238s or other mini semiautomatics but this has been my experience.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Perhaps a smith will chime in, but timing seems to be an issue with smaller guns, including the 1911's. Less room for error with springing and load selection.

That sums it up quite nicely.

The shorter slide cycles a lot faster than a longer one, plus it doesn't retract as far. That means the magazines have to deliver the fresh round faster in order to feed reliably. The manufacturers actually do have it pretty well figured out. The Colt Defender has a great reputation for reliability -- as long as people don't try to "improve" it. I have a para Slim Hawg that has been 100 percent reliable for me.

 

[Jammer Six]

The slide has less mass, the cycle is shorter.

But the cartridge stays the same. The energy required is the same, but the mass to eject and load it is less.

Because of the reduced mass, the cycle must happen faster, and, therefore, the lower end of the speed envelope in which the cycle will cycle successfully is higher.

Because the cycle is faster, the magazine spring must be stronger, or the next round won't be pushed into the path of the slide fast enough. However, if the spring is too strong, it creates drag on the magazine that will slow it down.

Bottom line, the bottom of the slide speed envelope is higher in a smaller 1911 relative to a government model.

That means that the envelope in which the cycle will function correctly is smaller.

Inside that envelope, both a government model and a small model will function at the same rate of reliability.

But everything from soft springs to worn springs to carbon to mud to neglect to dirt will act on both weapons at the same rate to slow the slide down, and the cartridge remains the same. The energy required doesn't change, but the energy available will fail in the smaller 1911 before it will fail in a government model.

The government model will function at slide speeds at which the smaller model will fail, and that means the government model will function when the smaller model won't.

The government model is, therefore, more reliable under a much wider set of circumstances than the smaller 1911.

 

[LockedBreech]

This is an interesting thread. Educational. Thanks 1911 pros.

That being said, if the primary issue is magazine delivery of the ammunition, won't buying high-quality mags like Wilson Combat or Chip McCormick solve the issue?

 

[Jammer Six]

No.

The primary issue is not delivery of the round.

The primary issue is that there is a speed at which the smaller slide of a small 1911 cannot cycle but the larger government model can.

 

[LockedBreech]

Ah. I understood that, but since you said some magazine springs, as a consequence of the different slide speeds, feed too quickly, and others feed too slowly (due to too weak/too strong recoil springs), I naturally assumed there would be a middle ground of magazine spring strength that would fit with the quicker cycle speed of the smaller slide.

I don't know much about 1911s. I've only shot a Springfield Armory Operator 1911 one time, 2 magazines full. Bad magazines that fell out and jammed the 1911 every two rounds.

Things like this make me wonder why the shorter 1911s are used as carry platforms. I'll tolerate finicky behavior from a range pistol, not a defense one.

 

[CDW4ME]

EMP: the other 3'' 1911

The Springfield EMP 3'' 1911 was designed around the 9mm and 40 S&W, rather than being a cut down 45 acp.

My EMP 9mm had one fail to feed at round #102; the offending round was a Federal 147 HP. That particular ammunition always felt "catchy" when I loaded the first round from the magazine. I shot another 400+ rounds, including more of the Federal 147 without further problem. When I had shot a total of 500+ rounds (only 50 FMJ, the rest HP) I sent the EMP 9mm back to SA because the plunger tube was loose; I also mentioned how some ammo was "catchy". SA returned the EMP two weeks later, plunger tube fixed and feed ramp polished SLICK. Only one fail to feed in 500 rounds (450 HP) prior to the polish job, I don't expect there will be another.

MY EMP 40 has been 100% out of the box. I've shot over 250 rounds of HP without a single malfunction. Ammunition has included 165 gr. Ranger T & Zombie Max, plus other 180 gr. JHP loadings. This pistol is awesome!

The 40 S&W may not be what pops into most people's mind when considering a 1911, but in the 3'' EMP version it delivers plenty of power:

EMP 40 chrono results (average for at least 5 shots):
Remington 180 JHP @ 935 fps / 350# KE
Federal 180 JHP @ 944 fps / 356# KE
Winchester 180 JHP @ 952 fps / 362# KE
Winchester Ranger T 165 @ 1,054 fps / 407# KE
Hornady Zombie Max 165 @ 1,078 fps / 426# KE

 

[Nakanokalronin]

The physics have been well explained so I won't bother with that. I will share my experience though.

I've owned 2 Kimber Ultra Carry IIs (still have one as my Winter EDC) and one RIA Compact.

All three feed, fire and eject the same rounds, using the same mags as my full size 1911s. I have roughly 20 different brands of magazines in as many different spring pressures and follower type, in Officer (7rd) and Government (7-8rd) and they all work 100%.

I think the manufactures have the correct physics down now a days over when they where cutting down full size Government 1911s which is where the small 1911s first got their unreliable title. Bull barrels, dual recoil springs and thicker slides are pretty normal on many subcompact versions of their bigger siblings which includes more then just 1911s.

There are also many people that get a Defender or Officer sized 1911, have some issues, ask about the issues on a forum and many will talk about how the smaller 1911s don't work right with the "help" ending right there. Ask the same questions, about the same issues, about a full size 1911 and people will tell you it's an extractor, magazine,ammo, ejector,spring,etc.....

I've seen it plenty of times. Ask about a smaller subcompact gun and it's like "Well mouse guns are not reliable,get something bigger." Ask about a full size gun and it's "Lets get to the bottom of this problem and actually figure it out."

Not debating with anyone, just thought I'd add some personal experience and opinions.

 

[Dashunde]

I've often considered then reconsidered buying a small 1911 45 for carry.
I keep coming back to the same conclusion... small 45's are expensive, still too heavy, and have dubious reliablity.

G36 is about the only small 45 I'd trust, but then... I realize that the G27 I already own is still smaller, carries 3 more rounds, and is nothing to toil with in its own right.

The 40 S&W may not be what pops into most people's mind when considering a 1911, but in the 3'' EMP version it delivers plenty of power:

I really dont see the point of the EMP it at all... It looks great, but the numbers dont add up for me for daily carry.
A 9mm version is far more gun than ammo - Its nearly twice as heavy as a CW9.
The EMP .40 is 33 whopping ounces empty - thats 2 ouces shy of a empty full size CZ75B and its 5 ounces more than a loaded G27.

 

[Nakanokalronin]

The EMP is heavier than the Ultra Carry due to the steel SA frame over the Kimber aluminum.

My Ultra Carry in 45acp is 26.8 ounces with an empty Kimpro Tac mag in it and even loaded, it's not heavy at all. A 1911 also feels better, shoots better and has a better trigger and point ability over a Glock for many out there. I had a few Glocks and liked them for awhile but sold my last one a week ago while all of my 1911s remain.

A good belt and holster will negate the weight of many guns out there. I also own a PX4 I sometimes rotate in my winter line-up. Some say its chunky and heavy but with my CBST and Wilderness belt, I sometimes forget it's there.

For the Ultra, its a Bianchi 100 and Wilderness belt. Well supported and not heavy or uncomfortable at all. I actually have an easier time carrying my Ultra Carry over the G26 I recently sold and both where in a Bianchi 100 on the same belt. I felt no difference in weight because of the quality equipment, but the thickness of even the 9mm Glock feels bulkier then a 1911.

I guess in the end though, to each his own.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No.

The primary issue is not delivery of the round.

The primary issue is that there is a speed at which the smaller slide of a small 1911 cannot cycle but the larger government model can.

I disagree. Very often a recalcitrant pistol becomes totally reliable with a new magazine, or simply by replacing the magazine spring with a Wolff +10% magazine spring. The issue IS delivery of the round. All the stuff about mass and size and speed boils down to one factor: The faster cycle time leaves less time for the magazine to present the next round. Address that and the problems go away.

That's not to say that the full-size and Commander 1911s aren't able to keep going over a wider range of conditions -- they are. But 3" 1911s can certainly be made to run reliably.

The Springfield EMP 3'' 1911 was designed around the 9mm and 40 S&W, rather than being a cut down 45 acp.

In fact, the EMP was designed around the .45 GAP cartridge, it was announced for the .45 GAP cartridge, and several magazines did full write-ups on .45 GAP prototypes. But Springfield was never able to make the production models reliable (at least, that's the story I heard), so they dropped the .45 GAP and released the EMP in .9mm and .40 S&W only. It was NOT designed around those cartridges.

I suspect that Springfield realized there just wasn't a market for a 1911 firing the .45 GAP cartridge. I know I was one of those who saw the original announcements of the EMP and immediately contacted Springfield to say, "You know, we're never going to buy a .45 GAP for a 1911 when it offers nothing the .45 ACP doesn't already have, but that neat little pistol you have there would be a natural for 9mm or .40 S&W." I suspect I'm not the only one who told them that, and apparently they paid attention. It's perhaps noteworthy that Para-Ordnance also came out with an EMP-size 1911 (in the LDA lineup) in .45 GAP, and the sales were so underwhelming that they quietly dropped it after a year or two.

 

[federali]

Shortness for its own sake?

Worth mentioning here is that barrel or overall length presents the least problem to concealability compared with overall gun height and gun width. The need for ultra short barrels is overblown.

Also, I appreciate the knowledge imparted by the guys who responded here with a commanding knowledge of the 1911 and an understanding of why short-barreled 1911s can be troublesome.

 

[Nakanokalronin]

I've tried carrying full size 1911s IWB and the barrel is pushing one way making the grip push another during everyday activities and/or it hits every seat I sit on.

Leaving the barrel at 5" or even 4" with an Officer sized grip has the gun feeling nose heavy IMO

The subcompact 3" - 3 1/2" models balance just right with an Officer sized grip. I also have a 92 compact which is pretty nice but since its basically a subcompact grip with a barrel/slide only slightly smaller than a full size 92, it's front heavy and slightly awkward. Everyone has different opinions and preferences though.

 

[Jammer Six]

The issue IS delivery of the round.

Delivering a round perfectly every time does not change the fact that there is a slide speed below which the smaller 1911 will not function but a government model will.

The envelope in which a government model runs is larger.

 

[CDW4ME]

Yes, the original load for EMP was the GAP, but the 9mm and 40 were produced.

My use for a 3" 1911 is either appendix IWB or Smartcarry, either of these methods is complimented by a short barrel.

If utilizing strong side IWB then I go with a "Commander" or a 5" regular size 1911; the barrel / slide is not a hinderance to concealment in strong side IWB, for me.

 

[fastbolt]

I'd think the feeding timing & extraction/ejection issues that can occur with really short 1911-style pistols have been pretty well grasped and addressed with engineering & design changes to the 1911-style platform by a number of the major gun makers.

Shorter slide travel has been balanced by a number of changes, such as slide mass considerations, changing spring rates, the use of captured recoil spring units, ejector length, barrel dimension profiles (to control barrel movement during cycling), etc.

Even so, the smaller 1911-style guns are still seemingly less tolerant of the 3 primary influences that the gun maker just doesn't have any direct control over once the guns leave the factory ... which are the shooter & ammunition influences, and the maintenance practices of any particular owner/user (cleaning, lubrication, etc).

The shooter and ammunition factors can be pretty hard to predict, with the 'shooter influence' being the most variable, perhaps.

I've had my fair share of instances (as an instructor) where the owners of very short 1911's complained of "jamming" ... and I watched some stoppages occur while they were shooting. When I tried their guns, though, using the same ammunition, the guns ran fine. When I handed the guns back to them, they started experiencing stoppages again. (When the shooters are strapping young men who are larger and stronger than I am, it can be hard for them to consider that maybe their grip technique might require more than simple brute strength.)

I tend to suspect that some owners/shooters might be better off with larger 1911's, all things considered.

Training in grip technique and practice can certainly help, but not as many folks seem as willing to address shooter grip technique issues, and invest more time in practice, as you might think.

Also, it's not really just the reduced size 1911-style .45 pistols that can be less tolerant of shooter & ammo issues, but it's not unknown to hear of other diminutive .45's occasionally causing some frustration to their owners, as well.

Just my thoughts.

 

[drail]

While a 3 in. 1911 can be tuned properly to function as well as a 5 in. there is no room for sloppery tolerances and drop in parts that are common in mass produced 1911s. If you buy one don't be surprised if it needs some tweaking. Most of them do in my experience. They do require a firm grip and are somewhat harder to hit with. That can be learned if you apply yourself. I cannot see any advantage over a 4 in. or 5 in. gun though. If you can't conceal a Commander or Govt. model then you're doing something wrong.

 

[Edward429451]

I'm glad I bought the 5" GM. I dodged that bullet by doing so.