Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Present your argument - S&W 4013 or Ruger SR1911CMD

Mint NIB from 1992 S&W 4013 single stack .40 S&W and a NIB Ruger SR1911 CMD in .45ACP on the table. Make your argument for which one gets the nod for CCW and farm duty.

Positives and negatives.

I'd take a 3rd Generation Smith over any 1911 because 3rd Gen Smiths always work and 1911's are a big POS.





Travis

Well, there is that... LOL!

Travis has a way with words. But speaks the truth...

Well, that pretty much sums it up. And I agree.

I like to have a bunch of magazines for any carry gun and I hate running down vintage magazines. I also dislike DA/SA guns and those with thumb safeties on the slide. I prefer .45 (or 9mm) over .40 S&W. Aside from that, the Smith sounds great. (I probably wouldn't get the Ruger, either, though.)

Although those S&W 3rd Gen autos are extremely reliable, the mags are hard to find. And if I'm going to carry a single stack auto, it's going to be a .45. I'd have to go with the Ruger 1911 in .45 auto.
Every thing I've read & heard on the Ruger 1911's is that they are an extremely reliable 1911.

^^^^ Except I would like to try Ruger's LW Commander. 4.25"barrel, bushing and traditional recoil system, titanium feedramp. Not really a Ruger fan here, but this gun intrigues.

Agreed Dillonbuck. I prefer the Commander size 1911 for concealed carry, and the lightweight version is hard to beat.

I would go with the 40 cal, but I would see if you can find mags first.

3rd. gen smith mags are always listed on ebay, but they can be spendy. Usually $40.00-$60.00/ea. Check ebay out, they have about 10 different mags on the first page I looked.

Magazines and parts can be a concern for the Smith. Not as much for the Ruger as tons of 1911 stuff is out there.

Not looking to open the caliber war of .45ACP vs. .40S&W.

If either was laying on the table, with your preferred holster/manner of carry, with plenty of mags what would you choose?

The Ruger. Just because I prefer the 1911 platform over the 3rd Gen. S&W's. I shoot a 1911 better than any other Semi-auto pistol I own.

Neither one of those

Easy choice. I've owned plenty of 1911s and 3rd gen Smiths and still own a number of the S&Ws. I actually do carry a 4013 TSW. It weighs around 30 oz fully loaded, holds 9 in a double stack mag (there are 2 variants of the 4013, the first variant having a single stack mag and the TSW being a double stack). My next favorite carry gun is my S&W 457S, a compact alloy frame .45 ACP. I feel well armed with either and in fact any 3rd gen S&W.

3rd gen S&W will feed, fire and eject any type of bullet reliably. It will in fact, feed an empty case. Try that on your pistol.

They are durable - in over 25 years, I've never needed to change a part or repair one and I've fired tens of thousands of rounds through various 3rd gen pistols - 9mm, .40, .45, 10mm.

They are inarguably safer to carry, with a round in the chamber.

They have a very short single action trigger reset and I have yet to encounter one that wasn't superbly accurate for it's type.

No modifications are required to get the most out of these pistols for defensive purposes, although you might want to change the recoil spring to match your favorite load. My 4013 came perfectly sprung to handle full power rounds and is quite comfortable to shoot. Accurate follow up shots are very easy, should the need arise.

Spare mags are no problem and if you shop around, can usually be found at reasonable prices. Parts...the likelihood of needing a part for one of these is almost nil. I've never had to search for a part but I have to believe that you could get whatever you need in the highly unlikely event your 3rd gen S&W breaks.

1911 is still a great and iconic design, but there are better solutions and in my experience, the 4013 is one of the best. Safe, reliable, accurate, durable, light and compact. I carry in a leather IWB and once it's on, I don't even notice it's there.

The only problem with some of the 3rd gen S&Ws is availability. But if you're lucky enough to find one, it won't break the bank. My 4013 was a police trade in (in great shape) and if I recall correctly, I paid around $340 and it came with 3 mags. If I'd known how much I'd like it, I'd have bought a couple more.

For me, the choice was easy. The Smith.
It has the positives of safety, durability, size and weight.

Caliber is just fine. And it was designed from the start with a true case supporting chamber as all .40's should have.

Did not hurt that it is a NIB specimen, original owner, non PD issue piece with box and additional aftermarket grip.

It will get a range workout soon. Doubt it kicks the G26/G19 to the curb for carry, but I bet the results will impress.

I agree.

I would opt for a Glock 19 in 9mm, or a Glock G30S in .45. Both are top contenders in their respective calibers/cartridges.

That said, if you don't want a Glock, there are lots of other great choices.


In the traditional double action category, the CZ-75 or a variant would be a top choice.

In .45 traditional double action, an HK 45 compact would do very well.

In single action 1911 category, unless a person is willing to step up into the custom/semi custom category, like a Les Baer or Ed Brown, I would choose a Colt every time.

We agree on that.

There are lots of good choices for carry guns (besides my preferred G19), but those two ain't it.

If it were my choice, I'd pick whichever was worth more, sell it, and buy a Glock or maybe one of the CZ offerings. But that's just me.

If you're buying, I can't see the logic in either. If you have either, or both, then they'll each/either/both work fine.

I'm pretty sure that everybody has owned or fired at least one 1911 variant. But I'm wondering, how many of you who are dismissive of the 4013 as a carry gun have actually handled or fired one???

I have handled and fired 3rd generation Smiths enough to know I wouldn't buy one (now). Not that there was anything wrong with them at the time they were current. Just that there are so many better options.

The Ruger SR1911? Well - that's a matter of if you have to ask, you probably should look elsewhere. It's true that 1911's as a group are not as reliable as a lot of guns, but when they're done right, they work - and, well, if you have to ask.....
Anyway - I have yet to see or hear of any problems with the Ruger other than the initial bad run front sights. IIRC, Glock had a similar problem (and worse) early on. My SR1911 continues to run flawlessly, and I picked it up fairly early in the run.

Bottom line...between those two guns...no way I'd pay money for the Smith. The Ruger, like any other 1911.....if you don't know what makes it tick, you might want to pass.

Bottom line...between those two guns...no way I'd pay money for the Smith. The Ruger, like any other 1911.....if you don't know what makes it tick, you might want to pass. [/quote]

I think you made my point for me. The 4013 (any 3rd gen Smith) in stock form is utterly reliable. The same cannot be said for 1911s as a group. I do know what makes 1911s run. I fired my first one in 1970 and plenty more since. I bought my first 3rd gen Smith, a 4506, in 1988 and it ran rings around any pistol I'd ever fired. That one was stolen in 1990 but I replaced it and still own that one. I've handled and fired Glocks as well but have no reason to own one. My brother, retired LEO, owns two Glocks and loves them. But the Glock wasn't part of this argument. FNs, Sigs, I've owned most of them but none of them have approached the Smith in terms of reliability.

You don't need to know what makes the Smith tick. There's nothing finicky about it, no tweaking required - just load up with any bullet you like and go to work.

no one is dismissive, there are just better choices currently.

Still no way I'd buy the Smith - now. If I already had one, I might keep it for nostalgic reasons, or if someone all but gave it to me....maybe. But in reality, it is about as archaic a design as the 1911. More reliable than a lot of non-spec 1911's maybe, but still just as outclassed by many newer designs.

That is why my answer for the OP would be "neither".

The Glock is not part of the discussion, but they always are thrown in and I know why. I carry one in various sizes and calibers often. VERY often. I even stated the Smith would probably not kick my G26/G19/G23 out of my daily rotation.

The discussion puts these two specific pistols on the kitchen table, with their mags, your preferred ammo and your chosen carry method, and gives a choice as to which would you pick to head out into the unknown.

I'm not a first-time buyer. Have a pretty good collection.
So it is not about recommendations or personal preference outside these two pistols.

I can say I'm old enough to have received good training on both the 1911A1 and traditional DA/SA autos. Some folks can't remember when anything other than Glocks have been issued for gov't or LE. That's just modern times.

All good points presented, and my next situational discussion may involve something even older against something brand new!

This. I like the 3Gen S&Ws, quite a bit, as well as the 1911. However, if buying for the purposes stated, there are better choices.

I'd argue that either platform has proven they could handle the challenges they faced "in their day" and at one time were cutting edge technology. And would probably do the same today outside of true military combat requirements.
The improvements in the "newer" Ruger SR1911CMD maybe give it some advantage over the same 1990's Commanders available then.

Scenerio is, you find yourself unarmed... (Me? Never! LOL!) and at a friend/family member/associate's home. Something REALLY bad has happened and you have to choose from a firearm being offered from his/her collection. Even just for temporary use. I doubt anyone will simply say "no thanks" and get a knife from the kitchen butcher block and call it good.

I had a second generation Smith auto that had to go back for service because of hammer follow necessitating a restrike from DA. In addition, the safety lever on the right side of the gun constantly was getting loose. As I alluded to earlier, the DA/SA transition is a needless hassle, and I migrated to DAO versions of the same guns back in the day. (E.g. DAO Beretta 92/96 models.) The safety also is more difficult to deal with if I forgot to swipe it off or it got engaged accidentally, unlike the 1911 design. As an additional disadvantage, it is easy to engage the safety by accident when retracting the slide.

I'd take the Ruger. It also would be easier to offload if it didn't work out.

If the Commander was a lightweight I would take it hands down.

I had lots of four digit Smiths at LE quals in the mid 90's when they were all the rage. They were decent pistols, generally better than early S&W autos. But they were not perfect and I've seen them tap-racked-banged like everything else.

Oh, so that's it. A hypothetical.....

Well, hypothetically...I would turn my nose up at the Smith and quickly disassemble the Ruger to check for any signs that it's been boogered on that kitchen table or any other. I'd put it back together and function test it - even manually cycle a couple of mags of rounds through it (assuming I have no opportunity to shoot it). Assuming I find nothing wrong with it (as I would expect if it is unmolested), I'd then load it up and get on about my business.

I'd bet even odds or better that the Ruger is as likely to run right as that old Smith. And with the 1911, at least I know what to look for and what to expect when checking it out. Besides...I'm going to shoot better with the 1911 anyway.

Shiet I just saw that. I'll shove the Smith in a back pocket, take the 1911 in my left hand and a 12" Old Hickory in my right.

Does the guy have an axe? I don't have any friends who don't know right where their axe is.

Best answer yet!

Exactly.

Quite frankly the immediate NO-GO for me is that it is a .40. Having fired a substantial amount of various duty type semi auto handguns in 9mm, .40 and .45, I have noted that the .40 is almost always the least accurate of the 3, in similar platforms. That was definitely the case for 3rd gen Smiths.

Speaking of Smiths, the full size M&P .40 I was issued had to be the all time worst shooting handgun I have ever been issued. The 25 yard targets looked like Improved Cylinder patterns.

The Compact M&P .40 I was later issued was substantially more accurate than the full size version, but it was still a piss poor shooter as compared to similar sized 9mm handguns.

In fact one day while at the range I recall telling the mouth breathing retard that was in charge of the agency's firearms program that the M&P .40s were the single worst grouping handgun I had ever had the displeasure of being forced to carry.

The dumbphuck made a comment that perhaps it was the shooter. I then went to my gear bag, pulled out a Glock 19 and put 16 rounds from the 25 yard line into the head box of the qual target.

I pointed to the target and asked him to explain the fact that the Glock could shoot 3" groups at 25 yards, but the M&P .40 was shooting 12"-15" groups at the same distance.

He would not answer the question, and went to the other end of the line.

Of course this was the same blowhard who could barely qualify, had never been in a gunfight, yet felt compelled to teach everyone his own version of "gunfighter skills", which I swear must have been based off of watching action movies.

Back to better choices...

A CZ-75 SP01 would be a nice choice if a person is allergic to polymer from Austria.

Odd... the first M&P45 fullsize I shot was not particularly accurate. Shot a fullsize 9 that was just OK. We've got two MP40c's here now and mine looks to be about 2 1/2"st 25 yards and 4-4 1/2" at 50 with decent ammo; or about equal to the best shooting fullsize Glocks I've had ahold of. I've been tempted to try a fullsize M&P40 but the sorry 45 and the lukewarm 9 I shot are still fresh in my memory.

I'll part company with you on the 40, Sagebrush. In a decent pistol it is as accurate as any other service cartridge.

You are right. That would be a hard decision. However, I'd probably take my 40 over the 45. Only because it holds 11 rounds vs. 8...


And yes, my 40 is damn accurate..

I've been to a lot of bowling pin shoots and have shot against guys with your same attitude. I love taking your money...

And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?