Colt Commander v. Lightweight Commander


September 8, 2010, 11:41 PM
For IWB carry, is the weight difference between the Commander and Lightweight Commander a big deal?

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt Commander v. Lightweight Commander" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Jim Watson
September 8, 2010, 11:47 PM
It is to me.
My Commanders go back to when the "Commander" WAS the lightweight model and the all-steel gun was the "Combat Commander."

September 9, 2010, 12:04 AM

I have both the all steel Combat Commander and the Lightweight Commander, as well as an all steel Officers Model. To me there is quite a noticeable difference in weight; especially when you try them out side by side. I would have loved for the Officers Model to have been the lightweight version; that to me would have made it just the right size and weight for concealment. While I enjoy carrying my Combat Commander, it's lighter weight Commander relative makes for a more comfortable set-up for concealed carry.

September 9, 2010, 12:22 AM
A lot is going to be dependent on your holster and belt. I notice the difference, but it's not a huge deal.

September 9, 2010, 06:31 AM
Okay thanks. I'm accustomed to either a Glock or a lightweight "officers size" 1911. I didn't know if a few ounces really mattered, apparently it does.

September 9, 2010, 11:54 AM
Combat commander will feel like an anvil compared to either alloy officers or polymer, IMHO. I'm pretty fond of my lightweight commander though.

September 9, 2010, 01:31 PM
With a 1-3/4" double thickness leather gun belt and a pancake holster, I find the Combat Commander manageable. But I personally couldn't carry it all day every day.

But then again, I have a poly 9 for that purpose.

I think you'll find the weight difference quite noticeable.

September 9, 2010, 01:59 PM
I've carried both the Combat Commander (steel) and the Commander (alloy)...yes I'm that old both duty and off-duty weapons.

There really is a difference at the end of a long day. You can off-set the weight by having a stiff belt, I'm currently using a Wilderness Instructors belt, and a good holster, I like the Comp-Tac Settable Cant Paddle...but you'll still feel the difference in your gait and balance.

I've really don't see and advantage of a steel Commander sized 1911 over a 5" GM, but I really like the Combat Commander...I know that it is just about the more balanced look over the 5" Government model

September 9, 2010, 02:01 PM
The difference was noticeable to me between my old Commander and Combat Commander. The steel Commander was heavier when I carried it as a young cop. In retrospect I shouldn't have listened to the naysayers of the 70's about how an aluminum alloy frame wouldn't hold up and might crack and should have kept my Commander.

I do appreciate the lighter weight when I carry my SW1911SC 5" or my M&P 45 FS compared to one of my all-steel 1911's.

The Lone Haranguer
September 9, 2010, 05:46 PM
The weight of an all steel one will wear on you a bit after a few hours.

September 9, 2010, 07:48 PM
Thanks for all the replies! I'll be getting a Lightweight Commander.

September 9, 2010, 08:18 PM
I've really don't see and advantage of a steel Commander sized 1911 over a 5" GM,

The advantages of the all-steel Combat Commander is that they hold up as well as the Government Model for hard use, and that...for duty carry...they clear the leather a tick faster and with a slightly reduced chance of a fumbled draw under stress, all else assumed equal. That may not mean much on the range, but kill/be killed situations are often decided in a tenth of a second.

September 9, 2010, 09:19 PM
The alloy Commander is about the most perfect carry 45. Get both and practice with the steel pistol. Save the alloy for carry. Back in the 70ties when combat handgun shooting first started it was possible to win matches with a lightly customized Commander. The alloy Commander is a much more "practical" pistol than todays match guns IMHO.

The Lone Haranguer
September 9, 2010, 10:58 PM
I've owned and shot an actual Colt Combat Commander and its equivalent, a SIG Revolution Carry. I found them to be better balanced than the five-inch guns I tried, which felt "nose heavy."

blue german
September 10, 2010, 01:29 AM
According to my postal scale, The Combat Commander weighs 34.5 ounces empty with mag. My 1969 era Commander weighs 26.5 ounces......eight ounces i a LOT if you're carrying all day, every day. Good holsters can help, but when the weight difference is that of two loaded mags, I'll carry the Commmander.

September 10, 2010, 11:24 PM
A series 70 LW Combat Commander was my first pistol. I bought it in 1974 to carry when I was transferred to a store in the ghetto. I loved it and shot it a lot. Two bad things happened (one was self-induced).

1. I had it modified including a trigger job. The gunsmith misunderstood me and reduced it to a 3lb trigger pull. In my opinion, I couldn't carry it as a self-defence gun any more. But still shot it a lot.
2. It developed a crack in the frame.

Dang, I shoot it seldom, still like it, it is great to carry...but I don't. My father bought a Kimber Commander style which I will get some day.

In my older age (59), I carry various guns (practice with them all) and find that an inside the waistband holster transfers the weight fairly well for steel guns. I mostly carry a Kimber Fullsize Custom Classic, Glock 23C, or a S&W 325pd depending on where I am going. I can carry each of them in an IWB holster...though the 325pd weights 28 oz loaded...carries high. All of them can go under a polo shirt.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt Commander v. Lightweight Commander" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!