Striker Fired vs 1911 - a dispassionate discussion?

[RPRNY]

I am not much of a semi-auto fan. In fact, full disclosure, my interest in handguns is almost exclusively revolvers. However, I have owned a Kimber full size 1911 and have my father's 1943 issue Government 1911. I also owned another GI 1911 that has moved on. I understand the 1911 and I like it. But, I am aware that I may be a bit of a stick in the mud, old fuddy-duddy on this issue.

I am looking for a somewhat compact semi-auto in 45 ACP. I may concealed carry it at times but this will by no means be a primary carry pistol, and will do duty as both a range gun and a woods carry. My first interest is the RIA 1911 CS, Lipsey's special run in FDE Cerakote (I like the RIA 1911 but their pseudo-Parkerized finish is not nice imo). But I admit that I don't really know much about striker fired pistols. I had a look at the Ruger American pistol this weekend (didn't get to shoot it) and liked the trigger a lot. I will shoot before deciding so just looking for experience and information at this point, preferably from those familiar with both and not violently partisan.

So, is it possible to have a dispassionate, factual discussion of the pros and cons of a semi-compact (let's say 3.5"- 4" barrel) 45 ACP pistol of the 1911 variety vs a striker fired pistol? I am looking for education rather than affirmation. Thanks very much for your knowledge and assistance.

 

[Cannibul]

I carry a Commander sized 1911.

I own several 1911 pistols. Colt New Agent, Colt SS Officers's Model, three Commander sized pistols and a few full sized.

I also have an XD 45 with a 4" barrel. It's my bedside firearm.

If I was going to carry a polymer mini .45 it would either be an S&W Shield or an XDs. I have no range time with either one. I will be getting some range time with the S&W soon.

 

[badkarmamib]

My CCW rotation consists of an Springfield XD-S, Ruger 1911 Commander, and a S&W M&P full-size. I carry what I want, based on where I am going, how I am getting there, and what I will be wearing. IMHO, the only pros and cons when using the broad spectrum of striker-fired vs. 1911 is what you train with, and what you are comfortable with. The only objective discussion I can think of is MOST striker-fired guns utilize passive safeties (i.e. they are disengaged when you grip the gun and pull the trigger), whereas 1911's have a thumb safety to contend with.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Check out the Dan Wesson Commander Classic Bobtail.

I have been pin'n for one for a year now. I am thinking birthday this year.

Seems like it should fill the occasional CCW role nicely.

 

[Telekinesis]

It will be difficult to have a good factual pro/con discussion just because of the large number of pistols (in many different sizes even within the "somewhat compact" arena) that fall under the striker fired category.

In general, keeping in mind that there are exceptions to everything, I find the following to be true:

•Striker fired guns tend to only have passive safeties rather than an active/manual safety like a 1911 (and those that do have an active safety usually dont have the safety lever as well designed as one you would find on a modern defensive 1911)

•comparing similar sizes, the striker fired will usually be a double stack and hold more ammo

•I would trust a smaller striker fired gun (Shield or Glock) more than I would trust a micro 1911 of the same size

•A striker fired pistol (assuming it's polymer as almost all of them are) will weigh less than a 1911. If the gun holds more ammo, the weight advantage will begin to decrease (ammo is heavy!)

•A 1911 will generally have a better single action trigger (but that's not to say a striker fired pistol's trigger is bad)

•A 1911 will have a hammer/bevertail that will stick past the rear of the slide while a striker fired pistol will generally have a flat back and no bevertail



If you have a couple of specific models of striker fired pistols you are looking at, that might help narrow down the pros and cons a bit.

 

[ManInLowCastle]

These days a striker fired polymer wonder does as well of a job as any all metal handgun out there when you're looking at casual range and CCW use. For all the bickering we like to do a Glock, Walther, Springfield, Ruger, S&W, or whatever is a reliable straight shooting weapon.

If you want a striker - find a place to rent a few and try several until you find one that fits your hand, shooting style, and preferences. My personal carry rotation is a Glock 43, Walther PPQ, and Sig 229.

 

[mavracer]

I've got a Colt 1991 compact (3.5" officer's size) it's all steel and about 35oz shoots better than it should for it's size. problem is it's a little big and way too heavy to pocket carry and IMHO isn't as good of choice for belt carry in social situations as my 12+1 P229 or 14+1 FN FNS40. So it's pretty much a BBQ only carry.
I also have a Kahr CW45 that I cut down to use PM size 5 round mags at 22oz it's at the upper end of what'll work for my pockets.
As far as shootability there pretty equal the Kahr has a nice smooth DA trigger that I find easy to shoot and it's light weight makes recoil a bit harsh.

 

[ManInLowCastle]

We are in full agreement. It isn't that you can't have a reliable micro 1911 but that more of them that you find are unreliable or at least picky. Not my ideal carry weapon.

•I would trust a smaller striker fired gun (Shield or Glock) more than I would trust a micro 1911 of the same size
.

 

[Tacoma]

I doubt this ends up civil but I'll weigh in given I have samples of each. .So , up front, I'll say I'm a 1911 guy. I'll also say that, despite that fact, the S&W M&P45 compact has grown to be my favorite carry gun. For carry, I like that it can carry more rounds in a shorter profile. I like that I don't worry about beating it up as much as I would with an all steel gun. I like that it handles felt recoil as well as any full sized 1911 that I own. I like that both my M&P 45s will eat any ammo right out of the box.I like that I seem to be able to shoot it more consistently that my 3.5" 1911.
hth

 

[pblanc]

I'm not sure that anything shoots quite like a good full-size model 1911 with its straight back, linear pull single action only trigger. I have avoided model 1911s less than full-sized due to perceived issues with reduced reliability so I have no experience with them.

I think that Telekinesis summed up the relative pros and cons of striker-fired, polymer framed 45 ACP autoloaders pretty well. The the pistols in this genre that I have shot and like the most are the SIG-Sauer P320, Hecker & Koch VP9, Walther P99 and Walther PPQ. Walther does make a .45 caliber PPQ but it is perhaps a bit larger than what you are looking for. HK does not as yet make the VP chambered in .45 ACP. SIG does make the P320 compact .45 and you might want to give it a look.

I own a full-size P320 in .45 ACP and it is a joy to shoot. Quite accurate and comfortable with a very nice trigger action for a striker-fired pistol. I also own a compact P320 in 9mm. Although I have not shot the compact P320 45 my guess is it would perform quite well. It has a 3.9" barrel and a 9 round magazine capacity.

I have not shot one but I have read a number of glowing comments for the M7P Shield 45 which does offer a thumb safety as an option. It might be a bit smaller than what you are looking for, however.

 

[ManInLowCastle]

I don't think anyone recovers from shooting a good single action - being it a 1911, SA Colt, or whatever. Once you've had it you don't want to give it up. That said I've found some excellent SA/DA triggers (Sig particularly) and the newer batch of strikers have great triggers (PPQ, VP9).

I'm not sure that anything shoots quite like a good full-size model 1911 with its straight back, linear pull single action only trigger. I have avoided model 1911s less than full-sized due to perceived issues with reduced reliability so I have no experience with them.

I think that Telekinesis summed up the relative pros and cons of striker-fired, polymer framed 45 ACP autoloaders pretty well. The the pistols in this genre that I have shot and like the most are the SIG-Sauer P320, Hecker & Koch VP9, Walther P99 and Walther PPQ. Walther does make a .45 caliber PPQ but it is perhaps a bit larger than what you are looking for. HK does not as yet make the VP chambered in .45 ACP. SIG does make the P320 compact .45 and you might want to give it a look.

I own a full-size P320 in .45 ACP and it is a joy to shoot. Quite accurate and comfortable with a very nice trigger action for a striker-fired pistol. I also own a compact P320 in 9mm. Although I have not shot the compact P320 45 my guess is it would perform quite well. It has a 3.9" barrel and a 9 round magazine capacity.

I have not shot one but I have read a number of glowing comments for the M7P Shield 45 which does offer a thumb safety as an option. It might be a bit smaller than what you are looking for, however.

 

[RPRNY]

IMHO, the only pros and cons when using the broad spectrum of striker-fired vs. 1911 is what you train with, and what you are comfortable with. ...QUOTE]

A very pertinent point in favor of the gun I know rather than the one I don't. And the remarks about single action triggers also pull me back to my comfort zone. I'm going to rent/shoot several striker fired 45s this weekend. I would imagine that given there does not appear to be any huge setbacks or, for me, absolute "no"s, I will likely gravitate back to the platform that I know and like, but the extra ammo of many of the striker fired pistols is a consideration and I really want to be open minded on this.

I am impressed with the civility in the discussion

 

[ManInLowCastle]

A very pertinent point in favor of the gun I know rather than the one I don't. And the remarks about single action triggers also pull me back to my comfort zone. I'm going to rent/shoot several striker fired 45s this weekend. I would imagine that given there does not appear to be any huge setbacks or, for me, absolute "no"s, I will likely gravitate back to the platform that I know and like, but the extra ammo of many of the striker fired pistols is a consideration and I really want to be open minded on this.

I am impressed with the civility in the discussion

I'm happy as well to see we made it this far without devolving into a flame war.

I've found out that I can comfortably and reliably shoot a number of handguns with a variety of manual of arms. My preference as of late is for SA/DA semi-autos. That is only a preference though. At the range this weekend I brought a Sig 229 Legion, Walther PPQ, S&W 1911 E Series, and a Cimarron "Evil Roy" 1873 Colt clone. On my hip was a Glock 43. So...shoot what you like.

 

[Jim Watson]

I agree with most of the above. A striker fired pistol is likely to be lighter, cheaper, and hold more rounds than metal framed swinging hammer. A good hammer gun will likely have a better trigger pull but if the OP is good with the Ruger, fine. There is some overlap, so you have to go by make and model to compare.
Getting down into the smaller guns, I am a little leery of sawn off 1911 types. My OACP and UC are ok but they know where my gunsmith lives.

 

[Kano383]

It's like the difference between a quartz watch and a mechanical watch. Both will give you the time, quartz watches will tend to be more reliable out of the box, high quality mechanical watches will run like a Rolex and last a lifetime. Low quality mechanical watches are not worth spending money on, and nobody really wants one.

On one side you have CNC-electronic-robotic-era pieces made in large series, and perfect at what they're supposed to do: tell the time. But one thing they don't have, is a soul.

On the other side, you have precision machines, hand fitted by highly skilled craftsmen, and often one-of-a-kind because commissioned by one client with precise demands. Try these, and nothing else will ever really satisfy you.

Lots of outdoors and sports types will rave about a polymer-cased G-shock, while aficionados will fork unhealthy amounts of money for a hand-made Patek Philippe or Vacheron-Constantin. You're more likely to leave a Patek as a heirloom than a G-shock...

 

[JohnBiltz]

You might want to take a look at ballistics for a .45 in different barrel lengths as well. You get under 4 inches with .45 and things change a lot. Probably not a big deal for urban environments but you are talking about using it as a woods gun as well.

 

[Mike J]

My wife & I picked up a Ruger American in 9mm this past spring. To be honest it has been a crazy year & we haven't gotten to go shoot it much. I do like it for what it is though & believe it is a good gun. No experience with Rock Island but I do have a Ruger SR 1911. To be honest I like the 1911 more but if I am carrying a gun it is usually a polymer framed striker fired pistol. My experience has been that they are reliable & most have durable finishes. If something did happen to one of them I wouldn't be heartbroken. I honestly like the 1911 more but a smaller, lighter gun that carrys more ammo, is less expensive & I wont feel horrible if gets dinged up some fills the bill pretty well for carry.

 

[DT Guy]

I've always thought the main distinction was the commitment needed to carry in condition 1; getting the 'safety on, safety off' to be truly reflexive takes quite a bit of repetition, IMHO.

Having started on condition 1 handguns (1911's, BHP's and a Benelli) I found the transition to a modern striker-fired weapon pretty easy; my thumb still pushes down where the safety would be, even if there isn't one; no lost time, no safety issue. I think going the other way-striker to condition 1- would be harder to get confident with, since getting that safety off as the sights land has to be genuinely reflexive, or you'll end up pressing a 'dead' trigger.


Larry

 

[tarosean]

So, is it possible to have a dispassionate, factual discussion of the pros and cons of a semi-compact (let's say 3.5"- 4" barrel) 45 ACP pistol of the 1911 variety vs a striker fired pistol?

Your kidding right??? Seriously though. I own a lot of each type (Poly v 1911). While Ive settled on certain brands, It's really a matter of your personal preference now-a-days regarding "pro's vs. cons". Its rather rare that a gun from a major name brand manufacture that been around the block for a while, will not be a perfectly reliable weapon with quality ammo.

You can just about get either type in any configuration dreamed. Want a 4" 1911 that will hold 26rds of 9mm? You can get them. A 4" single stack poly striker that holds 6 rounds of 45ACP? you can get those too..

A) Chose indented use. (Plinking, CCW, HD, Competition, etc. etc.)
B) Choose caliber
C) Chose which one is comfortable to hold and operate controls effortlessly.

 

[Tirod]

I like the watch comparison - but the fact is that most Swiss watches are robotically assembled. Little old men tinkering away at fleets of benches assembling the works are not the norm in that industry. For the most part they hire women to tend loading trays of parts for the machine to grab in the assembly sequence.

And you will find the same thing going on at the gun assembly line - for the most part the makers avoid any hand fitting whatsoever. It's the mark of poor parts manufacture to need to fluff or buff a widget to get it right when it could have been made right. That is the real reason behind the change at Winchester in 1963. They had too much labor filing parts to make them fit for the bottom line.

Eli Whitney's idea of producing completely interchangeable parts finally got realized when the AR15 became popular. Having to gunsmith fit parts to get a 1911 assembled is one of the reasons they are expensive. When a polymer striker fired gun is made, many parts can be manufactured to meet assembly specs taking into account the relationships between them so that they are a drop in part at the factory.

Take that into account when choosing a 1911 vs striker fired. In ten years the 1911 could have a new part fitted and function - for the cost - the striker fired will need a proprietary part from the manufacturer and should work out of the box. On the other hand - striker fired guns in polymer are a highly changing market and makers are flipping designs constantly. Will they still offer parts then? "Maybe" is the best answer I know. Even S&W has stopped offering 100% support for the 3Gen autos they have made since the 1950's.

Polymer is the digital quartz of the gun market, it allows much cheaper firearms and also allows them to obsolete a model quickly, too. Once the molds are paid off then the clock is ticking to justify continuing the series when a New! model can be introduced to beat back the competition. Look at where many of the all metal framed guns are now coming from - outside the USA, and that includes a lot of the 1911's. Many more than most realize, with Made in America roll marks which is legal when you start counting parts and assembly.

If a compact .45 is the search, then guns under 4" are as a class problematic unless the maker downsized the works to fit. 1911's were designed as a full sized interrelationship and the short chopped down models get finicky. Better a quality gun designed and built short to get reliability.

For that I bought a S&W 4566 which is commander sized but the pocket gun is a Kahr .380. If I were to buy a smaller .45 the Kahrs would be a first look.

 

[TomJ]

I have 5 1911's, including a SA Range Officer compact, which has a 4 inch barrel. I recently picked up a P320 compact 45. There's no bad choice between the Range Officer and P320, but the P320 has quickly become one of my 2 primary carry guns. They're both comfortable to carry. The Range Officer weighs slightly more but is thinner, so I'll call that a draw. The P320 has the advantage of higher capacity, with either 9 or 10 round magazines available. The Range Officer is limited to 6 or 7 round magazines. I have several 8 and 10 round 1911 magazines, but they haven't fed reliably in the RO. I won't say that the trigger on the P320 is on par with a 1911 trigger, but it has the best striker fired trigger I've experienced. The P320 manages recoil better than the RO due in part to the grip being wider than that of the RO. The P320 is currently not in production in a compact 45, but I found it on Gunbroker. Finding them can be hit or miss.

On another note, there's a thread I saw today regarding Smith and Wesson releasing a new version of the M&P. I haven't shot one, but have heard good things about them. They may be worth a look.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

So, is it possible to have a dispassionate, factual discussion of the pros and cons of a semi-compact (let's say 3.5"- 4" barrel) 45 ACP pistol of the 1911 variety vs a striker fired pistol?

Well there are Hammer fired pistols too, are they under consideration? Like a CZ or a Sig for example?

 

[1911 guy]

I like the 1911. Other people like other pistols. Line up a bunch of proven designs and pick the one that fits your hands best.

 

[jmr40]

I own 1911's and Glocks primarily. I find they are a lot more similar than different. Out of the box both have a very crisp 5-6 lb trigger pull that is exactly the same for every shot. The Glock has more take-up for the 1st shot, but after that the reset is very similar. 1911's can be had with lighter target triggers, but Glock makes a 3.5 lb connector too. That is as light as I want a handgun trigger.

While a lot of hogwash is posted on the internet about the Glock grip angle, a 1911 with an arched mainspring housing and a Glock are almost identical in grip angle and are closer than any other 2 handguns. Even with a flat housing the 2 are more similar in grip angle than 1911's are to guns such as BHP's S&W's, Sigs and Beretta.

The 1911 is old school tech that can still work. Glocks are just a modern, improved evolution of the 1911 as it was originally designed. 1911's, (actually 1905's which evolved into the 1911),originally had no grip or thumb safety. The military requested those be added.

While the 1911 has been around for a long time a lot of it's legend is based on hyperbole. Not a bad design, but it's true story doesn't exactly match the hype. I think a striker fired gun is a better option that is more reliable. It is a simpler design with fewer external parts to be damaged or malfunction. Of course nothing is more nostalgic or American than a 1911. Which you choose depends on whether saving your butt is more important, or are nostalgia and aesthetics.

 

[PabloJ]

I would choose from between G30SF, G30S or Gen IV G30 whichever feels best in hands. For carry pistol I would skip on grip safety and slide lock or empty chamber carry, therefore, the 1911 should be eliminated from consideration.