[Ringer]

I'm in search of a new carry gun. Pretty much settled on .45ACP. I already have a compact 9mm. The guns I'm looking at range from 3.0" to 4.25" barrels. I'm thinking the 3" is too short and wondering what you all think a minimum barrel length is for self defense gun in .45ACP.

Thanks for any replies.

[444]

I carry a Colt Officer's Model. I don't know the barrel length but I know if is between 3" and 4". I don't really have any real hard data to give you, but I can tell you that it does a number on coyotes. I have used this gun several times when calling coyotes in heavy cover. Using a 185 grain HP it appears to knock the coyote off it's feet. On one occasion, I made a poor shot and hit the coyote too far back, yet the coyote was unable to even make an attempt to regain it's feet. I have also done this with a 9mm handgun and the difference is dramatic. Even with a solid shot to the boiler room, the coyote runs at least a short distance after being hit.

[JERRY]

the cor-bon powr ball 165gr. took all the excusues away from 3.5" .45's. while alot of the heavey weights were going to slow to expand properly, and the light weights were just too light to penetrate deep enough after expansion.........

no longer an issue with the powerball.

look into it and base your judgemnts on objective reviews of this round in short barrel guns. some guys will damn a cartidge no matter how good it performs just because "they" dont like it. look at the 9mm for instance.

[Jim Watson]

It isn't the ballistics, it's the function.
The more you chop off any autoloading pistol, the more you reduce its operating margin. I have a very good Colt OACP, but it has been worked on a LOT to get it to where I wanted it to be. The SA Ultra Compact Lightweight 9mm needed less help and that due more to SA peculiarities than length.
The Commander was a lot less fuss.
So you have a reasonable chance, pick the gun you like and then find a load for it that seems to suit and work well. You will just have to do the shooting. Tough, huh?

[P95Carry]

My P97 is 4" (a P95 is 3 3/4") ...... to be honest, I don't want to go much shorted tho - I know some of the real compacts do come down toward the 3" zone ...... too short IMO.

[Ringer]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have not been carrying all that long and am in looking for something easy and comfortable for me to conceal. I have been looking at 3.5", may keep it above 4". Going to rent a couple more over the next week or so, talk to the police offecers that run the range and make up my mind.

[denfoote]

My Glock 30 and my G36 both have 3.5" barrels. They do alright.

[JStordahl]

I suggest if going with a 1911 platform to stick with the standard 5 inch model, because the guns were designed for this barrel length and function well that way. Deleting length on a 1911 does little to make it more concealable, but can cause the pistol to be less reliable. The 1911 platform is thin enough to conceal well, but if you're thinking of something else....well, the rest are kinda chunky, if ya ask me.

[444]

I have owned my Officer's Model for about 10 years and have never had a problem with it's function. But I have to agree. If I was going to carry a 1911 and didn't own one already, I think I would just go with a full sized 5" gun. The length of the slide/barrel isn't what makes it harder to conceal because that is the part that is down in your pants (assuming an IWB holster). The grip is what sticks out and gives you away. Now the Officer's model does have a shorter grip than the standard goverment model, but I think that if you are wearing something that hides the butt of the Officer's Model, odds are it is going to hide the slightly larger govt. model. I have never carried a full sized govt. model so maybe I am full of beans, but it seems that way to me.

[Erich]

. . . my SA Micro-Compact 3" 1911 functions wonderfully. I understand this isn't necessarily the case with all of them, however.

[Jammer Six]

. . . my SA Micro-Compact 3" 1911 functions wonderfully. I understand this isn't necessarily the case with all of them, however.

That's for sure.

My Micro is currently back at Springfield, for the second time.

The recoil mechanism, a nightmare of a re-design, disintegrated and left, somewhere down range.

They replaced the recoil mechanism.

Then it stopped locking back, the slide stop had beat itself to death against the slide, and the slide stop and the slide stop notch are rounded over, so they get it back, again.

Since the day I bought it, it's spent more time enroute to and from Springfield and in their hands than it has in my hands.

It's not an Officer's size, it's smaller, and so Officer's components won't work.

One more problem, and it goes up for sale.

:cuss:

[Josey]

I did dump my SA Ultra 45 ACP. It spent more time with FedEx than me. I now have my 5" Colt and a BHP in 9MM.

[zeke]

Have the first models of the Defender and Ultra carry. Excepting having to adjust the sights, no problem with either. Then got a SA Micro milspec , the version with night sites and extended beavertail. Wanted a 3 in with steel frame.

Had problems after 100 rds, that seem to be from a batch of smaller parts that are out of spec. Recoil assembly came apart and (peice that rod screws into too thin to hold) slide stopped locking back (slide stop shelf to narrow and ledge that sticks up into notch wrong angle). Sent the out of spec parts back, SA sent me new ones. The barrel chamber was extremly rough, polished it.

Pistol still wouldn't eject a longer length loaded round (Win 230 fmj value pack at 1.265 in) after chambering, till tightened up the extractor. Will probably buy a new after market extractor. The Micro's that have seen do not have the relief cut on front of the ejection port, like the Defender and Ultra.

Most of the problems were realated to cheap out of spec small parts, instead of the short lenght.

[WhoKnowsWho]

My Para Ord C6.45 Carry has a 3" barrel, up to about 600 rounds without any issues.

Seems there were issues a while back... recoil spring issues and magazine problems when the gun was originally introduced, but so far, nothing has happened with this one.

[SAWBONES]

"My Glock 30 and my G36 both have 3.5" barrels. They do alright."

Actual length is 3.78" on both of these, FWIW.

Every little bit of barrel length helps to increase velocity, up to a point, that is; there are diminishing returns for small arms-size bullets after a barrel length of several feet, after which velocity actually decreases due to friction.

For the .45ACP, I like 5", though 4.25" (Commander) and even 3.78" certainly will permit pretty good velocities.
The Glock 30 and 36, for instance, will give about 1000fps to a 200gr ProLoad +P. I believe it makes some sense to use lighter bullets in the shorter barrels.

Best.

[Sean Smith]

I'd be more concerned about reliable function than ballistics, depending on the design of the gun, with sub-4" barrels.

[Gordon]

5" 1911=win Ranger Talon 230 loads. 3.5" officers model = Win Ranger Talon 230 loads. :D These open to .75" in 5" barrel and .60 in 3.5" barrel thru 4 layers of denim in ballistic gelatin! :what: Any questions?

[Siggyboy]

With the 1911 platform I would not recommend carrying anything below a 4 inch barrel. The Colt Commander has a 4.25 inch barrel, most compact 1911's like the Kimber Pro Carry etc. have a 4 inch barrel. The Colt Officers and the other micro 1911's are too prone to reliability problems.

The timing and recoil systems of the 1911 are too sensitive to go below 4 inches and retain reliability...heck even the 1/8 of an inch shok-buff can cause timing failures in 1911's with micro barrels.

Otherwise, if you want a big caliber in a small package, I'd check out a Glock, or maybe a Sig 245.

[tiberius]

My Colt's LW-OACP has had perfect reliability from day one. I have added the Wilson FLGR and reverse plug because I heard so much about the OACPs fracturing the OEM plugs. With the addition of slim line Alumagrips, this gun is the perfect carry piece for me when I wear a concealed belt pistol. I also find it an excellent complement to my 5" 1911's because it has the exact same feel, controls and handelling properties.

There MAY be something to the fact that 3.5" 1911's are less reliable than 5" models.....and there MAY not be. I can only relate my experience with this ONE pistol.

I am currently using Rem. Golden Saber 230gr rounds in both 3.5" and 5" pistols because, if it exapnds, great! If it doesn't, its still a 230 grain, .45 caliber bullet....and that ain't bad.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

I can tell you from personal and unpleasant experience, that Fed 230grn HydraShock out of my G30, with it’s 3 ¾” barrel DID not expand worth beans at the one moment it REALLY needed to. After the all the shouting I did some research and found that the 230grn rounds, as a general rule, don’t have the velocity out of that short of a barrel, to expand reliably. I’ve since switched to Speer 200grn +P Gold Dot.

[Smoke]

Kimber Pro Carry = 4"
Kimber Ultra Carry = 3"
Springfield Champion = 4"

With the exceptions of some extractor/Mag problems when I first obtained the Springfield all the above guns have had no problems.

The Kimbers have absolutely zero malfunctions of any sort. Once I got the Springfiedl hashed out it has performed well.

I agree that a 5" is ideal for a 1911, sometimes its easier to conceal a sub compact. Carry what you can.

[jercamp45]

if I was in your shoes...I'd be looking for a used Colt Concealed Carry Officer's models or a Kimber Compact(I). Each have an Officer's frame and a 4 to 4.25 inch barrel/slide. The grip length is the hard part to conceal using an IWB, so hence the Officer's frame.
Bill Wilson makes a few compact versions too, none of his have less than a 4 inch barrel and he knows alot more about .45's than I will in the next ten lifetimes!
The Government's ARE very nice and I carry them too. But, I Love the Officer's model as a back up and carry gun!!
So to answer your question...I carry a LW Officer(has been customized with King's big bushing and guide rod), had a 1991A1 Compact, and a steel framed Officer's model and I NEVER had a problem with them. They worked fine and are very accurate(the Compact I no longer have, which I regret)
I have heard of challenges, of course. My ParaOrd LDA Companion had a few bugs(springs and mags), a friends Springfield Micro needed a Wilson guide rod to get total reliability(but his Kimber Untra Carry has been perfect from day one), another friends ParaOrd P-12 needs to have its mag spring changed regularly.
That be my opinion.....
Jercamp45

[Johnny Guest]

I'm really leery of anything shorter than a Commander with the 4.25" barrel. The geometry and timing of the original 1911 was worked out with the 5" barrel. The further one departs from the time-tested design, the more peril, it appears.

From what I've read, Colt's did a LOT of experimentation in shortening and lightening the 1911 into the Commander. They didn't just say, "Hey, let's cut off the slide and barrel and start selling it!" The geometry and timing issues were well settled before the first Cdr was ever marketed. I've had several Commanders, mostly the "Real" version, but an all-steel as well. Nary a problem with any of them, stipulating good ammo and magazines. One is my daily carry pistol, and I keep an old and ratty-looking one back in the safe. It's still fully functional, though.

I also know maybe ten or a dozen other guys who use Commanders extensively. The ONLY problems I know of were when a couple of them self-installed "Full Length" guide rods and/or after-market barrels. ALL of those left in the original Hartford configuration have just gone on and on . . . .

All that being said, I have one Officers ACP, possibly the first lightweight model to hit Dallas. I'd had a $200 deposit on it for several months before it ever shipped. I was very happy with it, and it was only later that I found that other types of super-short .45s were giving people a bunch of trouble. Only difficulty I've ever had with my OACP was when part of the barrel bushing cracked. I replaced it with a thicker version and no problems since that time, though I didn't put it back in service til I'd run over 300 rounds through it.


Best,
Johnny

[ambidextrous1]

My SA Ultra-compact with 3.5" barrel was a bit fussy until I replaced the extractor and adjusted the new one. Since then, no failures in about 2400 rounds, except the time I failed to seat the magazine in a tactical reload :eek: .

In reviewing the above posts, I see a lot of happy short-barrel users, and a lot of like-sounding posts about the 1911 being designed for a 5" barrel and vague timing concerns.

It seems that I've replaced extractors on quite a few full-size 1911s, too. I'm starting to think the concerns about short-barrel 1911s may have been more valid a few years ago than they are now.

That's my opinion; but what do I know?

[Ringer]

Thanks for the responses, good stuff.

I'm leaning towards the Para CCW with 4.25" barrel. I like the LDA trigger and the gun just shoots and feels right. A couple more rentals at the range and I'll make up my mind for sure.

[BluesBear]

Try a Commander length model and have Ed Brown Bobtail it for better concealability.

[ddflorida]

The Kimber Eclipse Ultra II has a 3" barrel and is a super carry. It has had zero malfunctions, and is dead-on accurate at 15 yards. IWB carry is very comfortable, and pocket carry also works well with a large front pocket. Carrying the Eclipse in my SmartCarry holster feels no different than carrying my Kel-Tec P-11.

[Checkman]

I carry the Sig 245 and haven't had any troubles with funtioning. It has a 3.9 inch barrel and shoots like a dream. Somewhat pricey, but I wanted it so I didn't buy anything else for almost a year afterwards. It was worth it.

[LEGHORN]

IMHO, I think Ringer is on the right track. Para's LDAs are something that the market needed. A superb double action design with all of the attributes of the 1911; what could be better. Kimber and SA make fine pistols and I can understand why they're liked as much as they are by those that have invested in them. But they have also invested in the idea that the additional safety offered by a pistol like the LDA is not necessary. Well I dare say that for concealed carry the idea of not shooting of my toe off, if nothing else, goes along way in my mind; especially when the LDA offers a trigger action that most people I've spoken to claim makes them a better shot than any of the other pistols they've owned or shot.

[tiberius]

In what whay does the LDA trigger prevent you from shooting your toe off????? If you can't keep from accidentally discharging a traditional 1911, then you need to learn to keep your finger off of the trigger.

For those who prefer a DA trigger I am happy that Para-O has brought out what is apparrently a quality design. I, for one though, don't see any advantage in the system and prefer the crisp, light trigger of the traditional SA.

[dandean316]

The thing with Para is the hammer is down, unlike the SA 1911. I think the whole cocked and locked safety thing with traditional 1911's is overblown, but Para did fill a niche with a 1911, cocked and locked with the hamer down thing.

Also, the LDA trigger is a longer pull than a SA, yet lighter trigger than a DA. So I'd guess under stress, it'd be safer, but not too heavy to pull. Try pulling a 15 pound DA revolver trigger under stress and hit your target. Most people can't do it. And yeah, keep you finger off the trigger, but in a stressful situation, some won't be thinking straight necessarily.

I'd think the LDA trigger would be great for police departments, but it hasn't seem to caught on. I guess cops don't like to clean their guns, so they'll stick with Glocks.:rolleyes:

[jercamp45]

As much as I like my Para LDA, the ONLY reason I got it was because it was MANDATED that I have a DAO or DA w/decocker for a security commission. I much prefer my Cocked and locked Colts.
However, the trigger on the LDA is very sweet and light. So, it has to be handled with the same safety precautions.......as does ANY firearms. Safety is between the ears, not in the mechanical gadgets.
I do like the LDA and carry it everyday now, when I can carry my Colt's. But that is not because it is superior. It is simply because I got it as a work gun, and if I get involved in a shooting...my sidearm will be sitting in an evidence vault for six months with no care and cleaning by Metro PD. It is stainless, and it it get a few dings and scratches...so what. My Colts are more sentimental to me.
Soon, I'll be out of the Security field(it has been a MOST interesting educational experience) and the Para will stay in the collection and may be carried alot CCW. I chose the Companion two years ago for that possibility. It fits as nicely in my Milt Sparks VM2H as the Officer's, so I might as well use it from time to time, what?
May your Ammo Can Never Empty!!
Jercamp45

[bubbygator]

I got a real "deal" about a month ago on a SS Colt Combat Commander that had been cut down to fit a custom 3 1/2" ramped barrel (plus a few more goodies). Tried it out just for function & it was a tack-driver. Went back to the range later & started doing some rapid fire. Oops - FTF on the 4th or 5th shot on every magazine. My gunsmith diagnosed improper extractor tension... but he's still working on it. I guess I know now why I got such a good deal.

Well, I'll spend a little money to see if it can be fixed - it sure looks & feels & shoots nice (for a little while).

[Edward429451]

but I think that if you are wearing something that hides the butt of the Officer's Model, odds are it is going to hide the slightly larger govt. model. I have never carried a full sized govt. model so maybe I am full of beans, but it seems that way to me.

Depends on your exact state of dress. I've carried all three sizes of Colts and there's times that the smaller frame of the OACP makes a discernable difference. I normally carry the 5" GM and its not a problem to conceal but clunks more than the OACP.

The sweetest setup would be a 5" on an OACP frame. Concealable, no timing problems, wilson 7 rnd mag and all that sight radius.:cool:

[fastbolt]

In previous years JHP handgun ammunition actually expanding was almost the exception, rather than the rule ... and even then, it seemed that velocity played a critical part in expansion when it did occur, with a "velocity threshold" of somewhere around 1,000 fps often being mentioned.

Nowadays, engineers are doing some rather remarkable things with bullet design ... and velocity, while still important, seems to be less critical to expansion, than in days of yore, in many of the best modern bullet designs.

Well, that's what we're told, anyway :rolleyes: ... and it even seems to be working that way occasionally.;)

In our last LIMITED testing of some of the RA45T & RA45TP loads, using calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin, I offered the use of my personal CS45, which has a 3.25" barrel, and another one of the instructors used his personal Commander, with the standard 4.25" barrel. The RA45T (standard pressue) load exhibited 802fps, with 13" of penetration after passing through 4-layers of denim, expanding to .76 ... and the RA45TP +P version did 839fps, penetrating 12" and expanding to .77 ... Not too bad for such a short barreled pistol.

In the 4.25" barreled Commander, the RA45T did 846fps, for 14" and .79, and then 901fps for 11.5" and .77 ...

From other testing results available here and there, online and elsewhere, it seems like the 230gr Gold Dot & 230gr Golden Sabre also offer some potential decent performance out of a wide variety of different pistols.

The "standard" Federal Hydra-Shok, though, in all bullet weights ... and the 200gr Gold Dot +P ... don't always seem to offer the same consistent, potential for desirable expansion performance when heavy clothing & 4-layers of denim are used in the testing ... again, according to results posted here and there. Sure, they work in some cases, and then not in others. In standardized ballistics testing, however, some testors apparently offer less than enthusiastic results.

There are no guarantees with this sort of thing ...

Personally, when I was in the market for a subcompact .45 ACP pistol, I was more interested in finding one that offered realistic and reasonable functional reliability. As has been mentioned, for design and engineering reasons, it isn't as easy to make a functionally reliable short barreled .45 as it is to make a full size model. I remember handling some of the little Detonics pistols when they were in vogue, and talking to folks that shot them a lot, it seemed it was entirely the luck of the draw whether you'd get one that functioned. As I remember, my brother had one of each variety.;)

The smaller you go, the more likely reduced slide mass, increased slide velocity, recoil spring calibration issues and magazine issues (lips, followers & springs) can combine to make things interesting ... ;) Compact & subcompact .45 pistols can also be a bit less forgiving of "grip stability" issues, too.

My CS45 requires a bit more attention on my part, especially related to recoil management and recovery, than my 3.75" barreled 4513TSW. My 3.5" barreled Officers Model is somewhere between the two ...

On the other hand, shooting a Commander or a full size Government Model-size 5" pistol reminds me of why I first was attracted to the caliber in the first place.:)

A compact or subcompact .45 pistol can usually be considered as a compromise ... but it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad compromise, depending on what you're willing to accept as reasonable trade-off's. Prioritize your needs, and then shop wisely. Avoid "bargains". Demand the best quality you can afford, and then skip some meals, beers and movies, if that's what it takes ... to "buy upward".

After you've decided what the "best" pistol is ... for your needs ... THEN you can use the same process to determine your ammunition needs ...

But then, my thoughts are just for entertainment purposes, and aren't even worth what it cost to read them.:)