1911's are confusing

[Balog]

My beloved wife has been wanting a 1911 to carry for a long time. So, I've finally gotten around to looking into them. Oh man, what a mess. Flat vs arched mainspring housing, internal vs external extractor, full length guide rod vs whatever the alternative is etc... All defended by ardent fanbois on both sides.

So what do I actually need to know? Which of these differences are significant, and which are tradition vs new stuff with no real performance issues?

[dogmush]

Arched vs. Flat mainspring: Affects fit to the hand.  Have her try one, and see which she likes.  Does not affect function.  

Short vs. long guide rod: I've never seen anyone have any real evidence either way. I don't think it affects function.  Go with whatever's in the gun, assuming the gun functions with it.

Internal vs. external extractor:  My internals need adjusting every now and then (~5000 rds) but seem to work fine.  Supposedly Externals don't need adjusting and hold tension longer but I've never had one.  IIRC only Sig still uses them on 1911's and Sig's guns are over-priced and ugly. (Opinion not backed up with facts)

Unsolicited advice:  1911Tuner over on THR has said not to go under a 4" barrel as that gets iffy with reliability, and my own observations bear this out.  The super small 1911's are way toucher about things like spring rates and COAL then commander or full-size ones.  Stay longer then 4"

[SADShooter]

I assume she has fired one and is OK with manual of arms and .45 (?) recoil? Hand fit and trigger reach are two overlooked considerations. My wife has an STI Trojan with thin stocks, a flat MSH, and the trigger ground flat almost to the frame.

Most of the issues with 1911s are personal preference. FLGR, sights, grip safety all come down to what works for you or on YOUR gun. If you've read AZRedhawk44's recent "Steel Match" thread, reliability generally comes down to extractor/ejector, springs and magazines. I'm partial to Wilson mags and Wolff springs.

Flexibility is the blessing and curse of the 1911. I hust haven't found another semiauto pattern that suits me better.

ETA: I'll echo dogmush, and add that S&W uses external extractors. My sense is that they work better generally, but if you experience a problem they are more trouble than traditional internal extractors to fix.

[Balog]

She's fired a couple 1911 variants, and enjoyed them. I agree about fit and control access. And the options are nice, just a bit overwhelming. Like AR's, except with them I actually understand the purpose and function of all the fancy doodads and gimcracks.

[Perd Hapley]

None of the things listed really matter.  She should get whatever she likes. 

Ditto on the smaller guns being more finnicky.

[dogmush]

She's fired a couple 1911 variants, and enjoyed them. I agree about fit and control access. And the options are nice, just a bit overwhelming. Like AR's, except with them I actually understand the purpose and function of all the fancy doodads and gimcracks.

I call BS, I don't think the manufacturer's understand the function of ALL the AR doodads out there.:D

I also get the feeling that sometime in the mid-70's they started producing 1911 accessories for no reason other then they could sell them to someone.

[Balog]

None of the things listed really matter.  She should get whatever she likes. 

Ditto on the smaller guns being more finnicky.

That's the plan, modified by the inclusion of that we can afford. I was just wondering if any of those items made a difference, given all the words spent on them.

I call BS, I don't think the manufacturer's understand the function of ALL the AR doodads out there.:D

The intended function of that original piece of the gun, then.

[Perd Hapley]

For comparing 1911s to dorky ARs, you are fined one 1911.  It should be in my mailbox by next week.  I prefer lightly tricked commanders in blued steel. 

Thank you. 

[Balog]

For comparing 1911s to dorky ARs, you are fined one 1911.  It should be in my mailbox by next week.  I prefer lightly tricked commanders in blued steel. 

Thank you. 

Oh, I'll mail you a box full of something... 

Just have to talk to PaddyMcRiley for your address. 

[SADShooter]

I generally prefer 4.25" guns. They balance better, and the shorter slide cycle gets me back on target faster. One mod I don't have but I like is the Ed Brown Bobtail MSH. I have broad, flat palms, and a flat MSH bites into the heel of my hand. Many other hate it, but I think it's a neat innovation.

[AZRedhawk44]

Flat vs arched mainspring housing, internal vs external extractor, full length guide rod vs whatever the alternative is etc...

I like arched better, but both of my 1911's are currently flat.  Elmer Keith liked arched better, too.  Seems to emulate revolver-like grip orientation better for folks that bounce between the platforms.  Probably part of why I like my CZ so much, too.  The CZ seems to be in-between the flat and arched MSH contours.  Arched seems to be favored by folks with bigger hands and like to shoot revolvers often.

External extractor?  I had one of Sig's 1911's.  They could never get the accursed thing to run even after 3 trips to the factory.  To be fair it seemed to be frame geometry and had nothing to do with the slide or extractor... but there was SOME sort of drama getting the cartridge to slide up the breech face during feeding.  I do know that I just had drama with my internal extractors on my Colts that was easily fixed once I had knowledge and courage to tamper with 'em... in all of about 5 minutes.  And if the problem ever comes up again I'll recognize the symptoms and get it fixed in even less than 5 minutes.  But, I know what to look for and can nip it in the bud before it gets to the point of causing problems (by gently adding tension to the extractor if it can't hold a cartridge against the breech face on its own).

FLGR versus standard?  My LW Commander has a FLGR and came installed with it from Colt.  My 1991 has a standard.  Both seem to work fine.  I bought a FLGR a while back to "trick out" an old Charles Daly I used to have.  Could never get it to work properly.  If it comes with one type, stick with that type and don't change it.  But it's not a big deal one way or another, except the FLGR's have hollowed out barrel bushing plugs and make tear down a skosh more tricky (meaning you use the tip of your magazine to depress the plug rather than just using your thumb).

wife has been wanting a 1911 to carry

If she's comfy with carrying the weight of a steel framed gun, do the lady a favor and get her a true Colt Commander.  Should last long enough for her to pass on to a favored grand-daughter.

[Waitone]

The 4" barrel limitation is real.  Everything else is a matter of cost and preference.  Since the prime reason for the handgun is carry I would invest in high viz sights. 

[Hawkmoon]

My beloved wife has been wanting a 1911 to carry for a long time. So, I've finally gotten around to looking into them. Oh man, what a mess. Flat vs arched mainspring housing, internal vs external extractor, full length guide rod vs whatever the alternative is etc... All defended by ardent fanbois on both sides.

So what do I actually need to know? Which of these differences are significant, and which are tradition vs new stuff with no real performance issues?

Simple.

1. THe original M1911 adopted by the U.S. Ordnance Department had a flat mainspring housing. Some of the old cavalry types who were still accustomed to the Model 1873 SAA complained that the new pistol didn't shoot to the same point of aim because it felt "funny" in the hand. The arched mainspring housing was introduced to raise the point of impact. Today it's a matter of personal preference. I prefer the original flat MSH and any 1911 I get that has an arched MSH gets retrofitted.

2. The original M1911 and the M1911A1 had internal extractors. Browning was no stranger to external extractors, yet he chose to use an internal extractor for the M1911. Why? Imagine dragging a 1911 with an external extractor through a muddy trench and then trying to shoot it. A purist might argue that a "1911" with an external extractor is not a 1911. (And, in fact, I have done so.) Who uses the external? Kimber tried it, failed miserably, and has quietly been replacing slides for anyone with their external extractor who asks. SIG tried it, and also seems to have reliability problems. They tried to blame it on Caspian, who originally supplied their frames and slides. After changing suppliers, they still have problems. Meanwhile, Caspian has been selling the excess parts to custom gunsmiths, who don't seem to have any problem with them. Hmmm. And Smith & Wesson. Theirs work -- but S&W has been building semi-auto with external extractors for many years, so this is hardly a surprise. No other current 1911 manufacturer uses an external extractor.

3. The original M1911 did not have a full-length guide rod. Some advocates claim it precludes spring bind. Take a look at a 1911 and you'll see that the recoil spring is completely contained in four axes. There is, simply, no way the spring can bind. False argument #1. Others claim the added weight helps reduce muzzle flip and get the pistol back o target quicker. Candidly, unless you are a world-class shooter I don't think you can possibly see any difference due to the minimal weight increase. What the FLGR actually does is to needlessly complicate the take-down process. Like the arched MSH, any 1911 I bring home that has a FLGR doesn't keep it for long.  I have a drawer for them. Since shortie guides for Colt Officers ACP models are no longer available, eventually I'll probably chuck them into a lathe and cut 'em down to make Officers guides.

-----------------------------
Bottom line: Get her the one she likes. What was Cooper's quote about the 1911? Something about all you need is a decent trigger and sights you can see ...

My personal choice today (for a new 1911) would be a Colt's 1991 series Commander ... in blue.

[Jim147]

As Hawkmoon said, "Get her what she likes."

My personal choice of a pre 80 series Combat Commander in blasted nickle may not work for her.

But just so you know it has an arched main spring housing and a standard recoil system. It's all stock from over thirty years ago except a new set of springs, Houge grips and a poor mans trigger job.

jim

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Fisful is right.  None of that stuff really matters.  Some people prefer certain features over others, but non are inherently better or worse.  And all of this stuff (except the internal vs external extractor) can be changed almost on a whim later if you change your mind.

The only thing I've found that makes a real difference is the presence of a beavertail grip safety.  I find the original tiny grip safeties are uncomfortable to shoot, and I won't tolerate them on any of my guns.

Other than that, get whichever one floats your boat.  Good triggers and sights are nice, but even the worst 1911 triggers are better than the best you'll find on most other guns, and sights can be upgraded later as necessary.  So even those aren't much of a discriminator.

[Ben]

Hopefully you can take her somewhere we she can try a few different configurations. I personally shoot better with an arched mainspring housing, so I like that on all my 1911's. She may be the opposite. As has been mentioned, stuff like that is easily swappable if you get a particularly good deal on a pistol.

I concur with the 4" barrel thing. I have a Springfield Micro-Compact, and I'm just not sure that I would be comfortable carrying it as a "life depends on it" gun. There's not that many places on the body that a reduced size 1911 can be carried that a Combat Commander can't.

[Balog]

Ok, so we go out, she finds one that fits her hand: what do I need to look for?

[taurusowner]

Well amidst all that confusion, at least one things remains constant:  They all cost way too damn much for a pistol that only carries 8 rounds.

[AZRedhawk44]

A label.

Colt and Springfield lead in my opinion due to warranty, service and product reputation.

Kimber only has a 1 year warranty.

Dan Wesson frames are currently cast rather than forged, though the 2010 models will be forged.

A subtlety that I really like is that the Colt XSE models all have undercut trigger guards.  Springers don't.  Helps the shooter to get their hand high and tight into the grip for best control.  I first experienced it on a Colt Gold Cup (first 1911 I ever shot) and didn't know what it was until I DIDN'T experience it on other 1911's I owned later (Charles Daly and Sig).  

If I already had a safe full of decent serviceable pistols and wanted to shop for "the" 1911 I was gonna carry, I'd stay away from STI or RIA or Taurus and wait till I had the bones to get what seemed to fit my needs, from either Colt or Springfield.

A Springer aluminum alloy Champion model, stainless, with a reputable local gunsmith making a soft undercut in the trigger guard, would be dang near perfect for probably about $700-$750.  If you get a color finished one, you'll have to re-treat the trigger undercut area.

Next would be a Colt Commander.  The XSE's come with the undercut trigger.  The 1991's don't.  A blued one (not parkerized) would be good, and you could cold-blue the small undercut area easily enough.  It's a carry gun, not a BBQ queen.  No one would notice unless they looked really close, at which point they'll see the kydex or leather scuffs from carrying, too.  The only aluminum alloy framed one is the XSE.  

[AZRedhawk44]

Undercut trigger illustration, courtesy of Playboypenguin at TFL:

Colt, with undercut trigger:


Springer, without:

[RoadKingLarry]

In your search don't rule Rock Island/Armscor out. Good warranty and I've heard nothing but good about their customer service in the event of a problem.
I'm very happy with mine. Every bit as accurate as my Kimber.

[roo_ster]

I love me my near-box-stock SW1911.  I put on thin grip panels & tritium sights.  Oh, and a little grip tape.

[lee n. field]

My beloved wife has been wanting a 1911 to carry for a long time. So, I've finally gotten around to looking into them. Oh man, what a mess. Flat vs arched mainspring housing, internal vs external extractor, full length guide rod vs whatever the alternative is etc... All defended by ardent fanbois on both sides.

So what do I actually need to know? Which of these differences are significant, and which are tradition vs new stuff with no real performance issues?

I'd be inclined to go with whatever St. John Moses Browning did.  Which is to say, internal extractor, short guide rod.  Would prefer better sights than JMB thought necessary, though.

Internal vs. external extractor:    IIRC only Sig still uses them on 1911's and Sig's guns are over-priced and ugly

S&W does too.    Other guns with them work fine, I don't know why 1911's have such problems.

[alex_trebek]

I would only trust SW to make one with an external extractor.  They were affordable when they first came out, now I think they are a bit pricy but not too bad.

Springfield only makes a series 70, which is the original design.  Everyone else pretty much only makes series 80.

Series 80 is considered safer, but purists prefer the series 70. The colt 1991 is a series 70 colt 1911 produced for the first Iraq war. The military refused to use the series 80, but there are probably multiple reasons for that. 

Basically the difference is a block for the firing pin to prevent accidental discharges if dropped. Similar to other modern pistol designs. There is no external difference to my knowledge.

The brands I would trust are:
colt
Springfield
Dan wesson
Wilson combat
Kimber
SW
 
I have heard good things about rock island armory.

The 1911's with the full length rods are a bit more difficult to field strip, but by no means impossible. Generally a plastic tool is included to assist with breaking it down. This is not needed on the small rod.

Make sure the grips have a hex nut, not a flat head screw. Unless you don't care about the screws getting a little marred or are very careful.

People have claimed that the stirrup hammer can snag on holsters, etc. I have not noticed this on mine. However, if she plans to chamber a round and wants the pistol decocked, the combat style is harder to work. Not impossible, I just feel safer doing that with the stirrup style.

I prefer the feel of the standard grip safety, as the beaver tail style generally is not flush with the frame when engaged.

Springfield had issues with their internal extractors needing tuned after a while. I encountered this issue, after ~3000-4000 thousand rounds. A gunsmith told me that you can bend it back a little using the slide for leverage. This worked just ok for me.

I would personally stick to standard designs, so you can easily get replacement parts if you so need/desire.
 

[Owens]

From what I hear tell, it may pay to look at something that is true mil-spec. Problems avoided, not picky on ammo, reliable.