3" vs 4" Barrel Compact 1911

Status
Not open for further replies.

kau

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
4
I want to buy a compact 1911 but I'm having a real hard time deciding which one.

It's pretty much between a Kimber Ultra Carry, Kimber Pro Carry or Colt Defender.

The 3" vs. 4" barrel is my first decision hurdle. Is the 4" really going to be worth the extra length/weight on grouping versus the 3" with the same amount of practice?

Opinions, suggestions, very welcomed.
 
It's not the additional length or weight of 3" v 4" pistol. The big difference is the size of the frame and grip. A 4" commander-sized M1911 has a longer grip and will stick out more during concealed carry than on a 3" Officer-sized pistol.

If you can comfortably and easily carry the 4", I'd greatly recommend it over the 3". The 4" is closer to a full-size M1911 Govt. and less prone to malfunction.

A 3" Officer-size is much more likely to suffer malfunctions because timiing of slide operation is much more critical. It also uses capured springs which need a separate tool (or paperclip) to disassemble compared to standard 5" & 4". lastly, that tiny of a barrel significantly reduces the velocity of the .45ACP bullet.
 
This is where the exceedingly vocal minority of 3" owners will chime in about how their guns never have a problem. It just seems to me that about 50% of the problem guns on the 1911 forums are 3". And gunsmiths hate them. Or mine does anyway, and he builds race guns.
 
Last edited:
Is the 4" that much more reliable than a 3"?

Does anyone make a reliable 4" that has the same grip size/height of a 3".
 
Kau,

I would suggest the Colt Defender. On a recent range trip with a friend we were shooting steel plates from ten to fourty yards. My three inch Defender consistantly outperformed my buddy with his five inch loaded Springfield. My Defender has been reliable, accurate and is easily concealed.
 
I don't think the .45ACP has enough velocity out of sub 4" barrels to insure adaquate penetration, especially if you get any expansion. So I prefer .40S&W in sub 4" barreld carry guns. I've a Colt Officers ACO, Kimber Ultra Carry, and Charles Daly CS, and all are reliable enough for me to carry if I were so inclined.

Note the 230gr .45 has the same sectional density as the 180gr .40 round and the .40 has ~100 fps more velocity in equalivent barrel length because of its higher pressure which is why I'm more comfortable with it in sub 4" barrels than the .45. But I'll stick with the .45ACP in 4" or longer barrels.

--wally.
 
I would go with a comander length IWB there's just not that much difference in concealibility.YMMV

I don't think the .45ACP has enough velocity out of sub 4" barrels to insure adaquate penetration, especially if you get any expansion. So I prefer .40S&W in sub 4" barreld carry guns. I've a Colt Officers ACO, Kimber Ultra Carry, and Charles Daly CS, and all are reliable enough for me to carry if I were so inclined.

Note the 230gr .45 has the same sectional density as the 180gr .40 round and the .40 has ~100 fps more velocity in equalivent barrel length because of its higher pressure which is why I'm more comfortable with it in sub 4" barrels than the .45. But I'll stick with the .45ACP in 4" or longer barrels.
this may have been true 25 years ago.but doubletap ammo did not exist then,
mike's 230 gold dot is going 875 fps from my 3" ported AMT backup.for more expansion and penatration than the .40 can do from 4".
 
I have a Colt Defender, and love the gun. Totally reliable with a mix of FMJ and JHP ammo. Easy to carry and very accurate.

It does kick a bit, but 185gr JHP seem to have a very manageable recoil and from what I read good penetration and expansion. I know I wouldn't want to get shot with one.

I'm small and have a short torso. My 4.25" S&W was still a bit too big for carry. But the Defender is fine.
 
I've got 5 Kimbers. 4 are "Ultras" (3 inch) and one is a "Compact" (4 inch).
Kimber's "Pro" is the full length grip. Personally I don't like the Pro.

In my experience, and friends that have about 6-8 Ultras, they have been completely reliable and very accurate.

I don't carry the 4 inch Compact Carry because of the size and weight compared to the Ultras but the Plain Jane Compact is an all around very nice pistol.

I hear about the 3 inch 1911's being unreliable but in about ten years I haven't seen it with the Kimber Ultras.

A couple months ago I bought a Ultra Covert II. Checked the barrel and started shooting, using the factory magazine. Since then I've used a Wilson magazine and a old no name magazine. I've given the gun one good cleaning and the rest of the time I just swab out the barrel.

Totally reliable.
If I could do it, there's no doubt the gun can empty the magazine in one ragged hole from ten yards and beyond.:)
 
I have Defender, Officer, Commanders. ,Govt My main carry is my Defender with the LTW Commander next Both have been proven relieable and I use 185+P Corbon DPX in both. I also have a Detonics and it to is still a relieable carry pistol but weights more than Defender. IN a short barrel use a 185gr They work fine.
 
Truth and mythconception.

About velocity in a 4" barrel .45acp: The standard is a 4" barrel. All velocities printed on your ctg boxes are based on this industry standard.

There is a huge difference in reliability in a 3" and a 4". There are some well known 'smiths who won't touch guns under 4.25". They seem to know more than me and you, they do this for a living. Search the forums for unreliable 1911's and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most are micro-guns.

Colt makes (and I'm sure somebody makes a copy) the CCO model, officers frame and commander slide/barrel.

In short, don;t go less than 4.25 (original commander length) for a carry gun, unless you're willing to roll the dice. Might be good, might be a nightmare. I avoid it all and carry a 5" pistol.
 
Defender

...

I went with the Colt Defender, both for the name/quality, and the CCW of it.

It, I, had teething problems at first, with either FMJ or JHP, but my gun-buddy, the range officer at my range, who carries a Defender, and swears by them, told me to get Wilson Combat magazines, which did correct the feeding problems.

But, after I had some 300 more rounds out her, it would jam, now and then, not a lot, but sometimes.

So, I disassemble the gun, cleaned her good, including all the magazines, both Wilson, and the factory mags (using EEZOX for the magazines and the feed ramp.

Since then, and after any shoots of more than 200 rounds, they all get cleaned, and have had no feeding issues since, be it FMJ or JHP using, either the Wilson mags or, the factory mags.

They're tight, and non-forgiving, if they get too much powder residue either in the mags or on the feed ramp, but again, no problems if kept clean.

For the record, any of the jams that occurred were cleared fast, one motion, and the gun continued to fire the rest of the mag load/s. Otherwise, no stove-pipe jams.

Same deal with my Sig *P232 SL's blow-back action, and round count, and cleaning of everything, or else.. problems.

*Not true of this gun, as most of the jams are stove pipe, and require, time, pressing on the magazine thumb release button and muscling the slide down just a tad to clear the jam.. no joy.

Also, I did shoot a Commander and that gun had as much, if not a tad more, recoil, than the Defender IMHO, including a big difference with getting back-on-target follow-up shots with accuracy than my Defender, which I shot them both, back to back, 50 rounds each..

IMHO, weight carries its own, in; for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction, and I think it's simply the fact that the grip wins the day (in controlling either gun, but the defender is easier to hold down) along with, for me, the accuracy because of the great day/only Novak sights on the Defender are easy to acquire and fast to use.

Mine, and others that I have seen at my range shoot them are tack drivers at, or below, 50ft, which is the critical area one is most likely gonna have to cover in a HD or SD situation.

But, either a 3" Defender or 4" Commander is very CCW, and in terms of forgiveness, I would give that to the 4", in the area of round count, replacement of recoil springs, and cleaning, in terms of a 4" will shoot longer, dirtier, without problems than a 3" IMHO.

Keep them clean, lubed, same ammo weights, FMJ/*JHP with ammo that works for your gun, and you should be good to go either way IMHO.

*have used with complete success, 185gr JHP fyi.



LS
 
Last edited:
I've owned my Defender for two years, I've been carrying it for 6 months. I love it, but it has had some feed issues until recently when I polished my feed ramp. No issues since. My next purchase is a Commander, and soon enough I'll have a full size. That is how I plan on fixing the barrel length battle. You can never have too many 1911s!
 
don;t go less than 4.25 (original commander length) for a carry gun, unless you're willing to roll the dice. Might be good, might be a nightmare. I avoid it all and carry a 5" pistol.

Ever since this topic came up many posts ago, and I apologize for not remembering who among many planted this strong opinion(Old Fuff, 1911 Tuner or Guy-not sure…) about an arbitrary-absolute barrel length: the mystical 4 ¼” & up for reliability. Do you realize how many mfgr’s & compact autoloaders we would eliminate from the equation? Looking at Colt for a moment; designers, engineers, production chiefs: had no idea & testing protocol for reduced barrel length & reliability? I don’t think so….
So, Massad Ayoob, Chuck Taylor, the late Dave Arnold, (I can go on & on who have extensively tested compact pistols, in particular the Officer's Model (light weight also) are not straight-shooters with their info. & testing? All have no hesitancy in the CCW mode.
This type of information about reduced barrel length being a direct cause for failures in reliability is based on limited personal data & non-scientific facts. I contend reliability deals with other variables far more relevant than slide-travel….Magazines, ammo, caliber, weight, maintenance, good lubes, springs, proper throating will do for a start.
Yes, I have an Officer’s model and take it to the range regularly since acquiring it n.i.b. 6 months ago….NO PROBLEMS duel-springs & all if you maintain the pistol: it makes a fine carry for the approaching winter.
It’s a disservice to say: “Well, you might have an exception” and still plant this thought in our members that it still isn’t a good piece of engineering….
When you draw a line in the sand, aka 4 ¼ : I question one’s data.:)
 
This type of information about reduced barrel length being a direct cause for failures in reliability is based on limited personal data & non-scientific facts

Probably so...but some of us have further limitations and a little more data than others.

Here's what I know:

I've seen Colt Officer's Models, Defenders, and Springfield Micros run like a Timex from Jump Street. I've also seem many...too many...that choke like a pukin' buzzard.

(With apologies to the Screamin' Eagles. No offense intended.)

I can get the persnickety ones to run. Same goes for Commander-length and 5-inch pistols. On average, it takes me about 50% longer to get the Commanders up and at'em than it does the 5-inch guns. It normally takes me 2-3 times as long to get the shorter ones goin'...sometimes without losin' another chunk of my sanity and what's left of my religion.

I have a 1991A1 Compact/Officer's Model that's functioned perfectly since I got it. Never a failure to function in 500 rounds, give or take. Will I carry it? Nope.

'Bout all I can tell ya.
 
Bought a used and abused Springfield 3.5" Ultracompact V10. After a new extractor and slide spring it works great ..... but then I bought a 5" Kimber that works better.

I've grown to really dislike shooting the ported 3.5"er.
 
This type of information about reduced barrel length being a direct cause for failures in reliability is based on limited personal data & non-scientific facts

If you look through this (and other forums) archives you'll find that of all semi-automatic pistols, the more-or-less current crop of 1911 style pistols are cited more then any others for having various kinds of malfunctions. Of those, the ones with under 4-inch barrels crop up the most.

The basic problem isn't the barrel length itself, it the effect of shortening (and thereby lightning) the slide. This causes the slide to cycle much faster, something that was proven by the inventor/developer of the original Detonics pistol using high-speed movie photography. Combine this with shorter runup (the distance between the slide's most rearward travel, and the back of the magazine well) and magazine spring tension becomes critical. The reduced recoil spring tunnel requires various dual spring set-ups’ that at best overstress the springs.

All of this adds to the potential for a jam, and the past history of complaints concerning the number of guns that don't work confirms Tuner's observations.

It is not that all of the sub-lengths fail, but rather that enough of them do to make their use as a defensive weapon questionable. If you have one that works that's fine, and if you chose to stake your neck on it that's your business. But I for one don't carry one, nor do I recommend them to others. Along with George Nonte I was experimenting with sub-compacts during the late 1960's forward. They could be tinkered with until they worked, but too often they didn't stay that way.

A good weapon does not need to be either broken in, or tinkered with. Anyone that thinks different is welcome to make their own choices.
 
Preach it, Brother!!

Old Fuff said:
A good weapon does not need to be either broken in, or tinkered with. Anyone that thinks different is welcome to make their own choices.

I've said that since I joined this forum and have been largely ignored or derrided. You've got the clout here to make it stick. Say it again! music to my ears!

Halley-loo-yaa!
 
1911 Guy...you're in good company. I get jumped regularly whenever I point out that a correctly-built 1911 pistol doesn't need the attentions of a smith to get it to work...or that the gun is only reliable with hardball unless tweaked...or that they all need to be broken in before they're reliable. I've got several unaltered GI pistols...a couple that predate the US involvement in WW1...that can't seem to tell the difference between hardball and hollowpoints and lead semi-wadcutters...and they don't need to be fed from 30 dollar McCormWilTripp Super-Duper Double-Throwdown wundermags to do it, either. ;)

And before somebody says it...These pistols don't rattle like a bucket of rocks.
 
This causes the slide to cycle much faster, something that was proven by the inventor/developer of the original Detonics pistol using high-speed movie photography. Combine this with shorter runup (the distance between the slide's most rearward travel, and the back of the magazine well) and magazine spring tension becomes critical.

Excellent point....How could a Colt designer/engineer ignore this? The above quote also explains why +P & +P+ ammo would affect the compact pistol tremendously.

the past history of complaints concerning the number of guns that don't work confirms Tuner's observations.

Not sure this a good measuring stick. Those responders with complaints target these forums for a quick-fix and represent a percentage of gun owners that would not be statistically significant to the over-all pistol population.

Appreciate Old Fuff, 1911 Tuner, & 1911 Guy for their civil responses. This just happens to be a rare moment of disagreement.
 
How and why did they ignore it?

Excellent point....How could a Colt designer/engineer ignore this? The above quote also explains why +P & +P+ ammo would affect the compact pistol tremendously.

The fact is that a lot of folks don't buy a handgun to use it, they buy one to play with on weekends at the range. That and the trend toward what I call "microguns" bred these little bastard children of a good design. They just gave the consumer what they wanted, a toy, not a tool. Unreliability got turned into "it's not broken in yet" and needing a better belt and holster turned into "you need a smaller gun". I imagine the engineers knew, but marketing decides what's going to go to production.
 
I don't know about clout... a substantial number of members think I'm over the hill ... :D

However I have an advantage in both age and experience, and I notice that while I explain the specific issues that may cause problems with sub-compact 1911 style pistols; those on the other side simply say that they have a (fill in the blank) that works fine so therefore they all should. However the many posts we receive from owners with malfunctions of various kinds show that there is a difference between "should" and reality.

The various 1911 pistols being made today often have functional issues because they are not made to the original blueprint dimensions and (sometimes) material standards. They are much closer kin to USGI National Match pistol of the 1960’s that were made for bullseye target shooting. This being the case they sacrifice reliability for accuracy, even though most owners don’t take the advantage that this additional accuracy offers.

But according to the gun makers, this is really what their customers want. I suppose they could be right. :confused: ;)
 
I am no X-pert, but my observation is a 1911 runs, or it doesn't. When it's a good one it's hard to make it fail. When it's a bad one, it's hard to make it reliable. I think many are just out of spec as makers change little things here and there and mass produce parts with seemingly little quality control, using consumers as the QC Dept.

I have been using McCormick Shooting Star mags, Power Mags, Wilson mags, and recently Kimber Pro-tac mags with great success in an old Springfield and an old LW Commander for years. I have listened to Tuners advise on mags and have read with great interest about which mags he likes and why, but mine were working, right. I recently purchased a 1911 which would feed anything when fired, but did not like to feed when slingshoting or dropping the slide with the slide stop. I got a Colt mag with my newest 1911 ( A Colt Series 80-very nice) and it is the controlled feed design like Tuner advocates. It holds the top round at a better angle and the nose of the bullet is more in line with the barrel. Guess what. That 1911 will feed anything with the Colt mag when slingshoting or releasing the slide with the slide stop. I went from a believer, to a BELIEVER!

Oh yea. My 3" CDP has been 100% reliable and I guess it is just a good one. I trust it, but if I was going to battle for 6 months in the weather and grime I would take my all steel 5" Springfield. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top