Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns 3.5" 1911's

I am looking to get a 1911 for carrying with me while hiking, I was wondering if anyone had any experience with the 3.5 inch models the shortest I have ever shot is a commander? what are they like?

I am not interested in anything shorter than the Commander. Muzzle flip, feeding problems and accuracy drop. YMMV

Muzzle flip was the thing I am concerned about, losing that 1911 controllability.

I'm not a fan of the 3.5" barrel .45's either, that's why I built a carry gun with an Officer's frame and Commander slide and barrel.
Much easier to conceal and easy to control.

Ed

^^^This!^^^

It's just damn hard to beat a Commander. Especially a LW Commander in 45acp.

I have experimented with several. Officer sized 1911's over the last 20 years and have never found any of them to be completely reliable. At least not reliable enough to bet MY life on.

I have a Kimber Ultra Carry II that I really like. Shoots very well.

Colt's Defender Model is supposed to be one of the better ones. Mine shot well, though I eventually traded it off. You may have to try a variety of ammo, as it was sensitive to what it would feed reliably.

I agree a Commander is a better deal. Or go with a CCO model (Commander slide, Officers frame) for a little better concealability.

I just picked up an RIA Tactical Compact. It shoots very well, and I posted a thread on this that included photos of groups. No one responded so I'll say it again.

It was very accurate, easily controllable with full strength ammunition AND reliably fed semi-wadcutter cast lead too. I could easily get 3" groups at 25 yards! So much for those who say they aren't accurate.

It's actually more controllable than the Springfield XD-S due to a better designed grip. Reliability is on par with a full sized 1911, if you do your part.

They are not as easily concealed as the XD-S

See my thread on the new pistol.

I have a Para Expert Carry with the 3.5" barrel, and I like it. Muzzle report and flip were surprisingly low - no more than my full sized 1911 to me. The Para magazines did not feed well, but when I switched to Wilson mags, all feeding/function problems went away. It IS a lower price range pistol, but is has a very good trigger. Glad I bought it. I got it for the smaller size, and it does conceal a little better than a full size 1911, considering the only difference is barrel/slide length. If I wanted to carry a 1911 "in the woods" - which I do a lot of the time - I would likely go full size.

I'll not argue with any of the above. I do have a 3.5" lightweight Springfield that was a gift and I love it (especially after I ditched the ported barrel for a standard). Shoots well and carries well also. Has not had any issues but if I were picking one for myself I'd go Commander length for sure.

1/2 inch shorter barrel on the 1911 just won't make a lot of difference to your target in a self defense situlation the conceal carry citizen may find him or she in

I've had'em all. I now have a full size 1911 and this shorty.

If you have a full size, a Commander length offers no real savings to speak of. You might as well carry a full size gun. Thinking 3/4 of an inch makes a difference in portability is ridiculous. Now, the Commander length gun is a sweet length, and if you have one, you are well served, but to compare it with a full sized 1911 and think it offers an advantage is silly.

Chop some from the butt and chop a lot from the muzzle and you are starting to realize a benefit. Those who can't shoot it well, shouldn't. Those who can, know that the 3.5s offer all the same accuracy they will get from either a Commander or a full sized piece. And with my McCormick mag, I still get 7+1!

The smaller guns require stiffer recoil spring assemblies, but the excessive recoil or muzzle flip is simply a myth as the stiffer system soaks it up.

Now, the XD-s is a different matter. I love mine and it takes the nod over the Micro 1911, but if you complain about muzzle flip on a compact, you don't want to shoot the XD-S

The EMP 40 is the shizzle.....

I have the short Kimber and an 80's Colt Officer. Both are accurate and no more muzzle flip than a standard 1911 IMHO. the Kimber loses a lot of velocity, the colt does not.

bea175 - I agree with this also. Just saying that I prefer the 4.25 if I was starting over. Like the traditional bushing system, etc. I won't be trading my 3.5" in for one but if I picked for myself it would be a 4.25". Only my preference.

This my Kimber Combat carry , my Springfield Champion Commander, and my full size Springfield Black SS . The full size i shoot the best mostly because of the better Target Sights than on the other two , the Champion and Kimber i shoot equally well.

My wife carries a Kimber Ultra stainless TLE. I shoot it sometimes when we go to the range. I can't recall it ever malfunctioning. Recoil and "muzzle flip" are not anything more than a commander. I have zero hesitation trusting my wife's life to that pistol.

On a related note, I've never encountered a carrying situation where a commander size 1911 was too big but an officer model was small enough. That extra barrel length just doesn't ever get in the way for me. (My wife carries in her gun purse and the dedicated holster and pocket on the side of the purse won't take the commander, whereas you can squeeze in the officer model.) But, since I carry in a holster, the commander is no more inconvenient than an officer model. I'm not going to wow anybody with my shooting accuracy and that extra bit of sight radius does assist me in hitting what I'm aiming at. YMMV.

If you're only concerned about reliability, however, I can't fault the Kimber, nor the Springfield officer size I've owned. They work.

I like mine, though admittedly I have done a bit of work to it.

Yes They Are! Absolutely love mine!

And it is the only small sized 1911 that I've had that is 100 % reliable.

Is this for defense against two or four legged critters?