Combat Commander

If you want to shoot/carry it get the new one. The older Colts often than not needed quite a bit of work to function with h/p ammo, trigger job, fit barrel bushing, lower ejection port, better sights - all of which adds up. I bought a brand new Commanded back in the 70's that would choke on ball ammo. When Colt was the only game in town they made a pretty pistol, but most needed work to be reliable with the new h/p ammo.

Reasons to buy an older one: better fit, finish and polishing; more collector appeal; higher resale value; no MIM parts.

Pretty much what NIGHTLORD40K said. Sometimes older means built better though newer might mean certain improvements have been made, like better sights and ergonomic changes have been added. In the case of an old Combat Commander I would still look it over very carefully before putting down that kind of cash on it.

rskent said:

Why would someone buy a vintage Combat Commander for the same price as a new one. Which one would you want? Why?

http://www.armslist.com/posts/73576...er-used-w--2-mags-and-orig-box-inv--g-59662-4


https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/2084_21_141/products_id/36059/Colt+O4860XSE+XSE+Series+8+1+45ACP+4.25

Click to expand...

The first pistol is most likely in matte nickel and has a steel frame. It looks bone stock. It might have to have barrel throating job to feed/chamber HP ammo. I had one 35 years ago in .38 Super and loved it. If you buy one like this, leave it bone stock other than the barrel throating.

This second one has an aluminum frame and all of the "bling", as I term it, so it is not a Combat Commander. Does it have a throated barrel so that it is guaranteed by the factory to function with HP ammo? I doubt it. Aluminum frames tend to crack after prolonged shooting if not set up properly. I found the point of balance change considerable between a full mag and an empty mag with my LW Commander.

Are you going to primarily carry it or shoot the heck out of it? If the former, go for the aluminum frame. If the latter, go for the steel frame.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Reasons to buy an older one: better fit, finish and polishing; more collector appeal; higher resale value; no MIM parts.

Click to expand...

^^^^^ +1.

I prefer cast / steel small parts over MIM ... but ...
I can't tolerate a narrow tang grip safety and hard to see sights.
I'd take the new pistol in this comparison.

CDW4ME said:

I prefer cast / steel small parts over MIM ... but ...
I can't tolerate a narrow tang grip safety and hard to see sights.
I'd take the new pistol in this comparison.

Click to expand...

The "narrow" tang GS should be no problem with the Commander hammer. No bite to the web of the hand as in the Government Model hammer. I shoot a 5" Government Model with the Gov hammer and the "narrow" tang GS with no problem. Too much emphasis is put out about a high ride hand, and then the beavertail GS is probably a must when target shooting. Never had one and don't need one.

I can agree with the sights (to a point) if you are target shooting. At 7 yards or less and using it as a HD/SD/CC pistol, you should be shooting with both eyes open. Forget about acquiring the rear sight: your eyes are the rear sight. Just acquire the front sight/muzzle and put it on center-of-mass. Proper gun hold in the hand is a must.

Next time you are at the range try it at 7 yards, with whatever 1911 .45 you have. Once you get used to it you will be surprised.

Jim

351 WINCHESTER said:

If you want to shoot/carry it get the new one. The older Colts often than not needed quite a bit of work to function with h/p ammo, trigger job, fit barrel bushing, lower ejection port, better sights - all of which adds up. I bought a brand new Commanded back in the 70's that would choke on ball ammo. When Colt was the only game in town they made a pretty pistol, but most needed work to be reliable with the new h/p ammo.

Click to expand...

I have never seen a Combat Commander/LW Commander without a lowered ejection port. The bevel to the rear of the port is superfluous if the extractor is tuned and the ejector is the proper length.The trigger fit is easy if you know how to field strip the pistol and remove the mainspring housing and re-assemble. The sear/hammer fit should be just fine unless you want a trigger pull below 5#. If the barrel bushing/barrel fit is a bit loose, it will not be a problem.

Jim

Probably because the Pawn shop guy is using something like this, as a comparative:

https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/79772

The armslist photo looks like it's in Colt's underdocumented 80s electroless nickle finish. Which is never listed in Fjestad, so Blue Book users tend to just use the next highest price as a go-by.
During the UAW strikes, a lot of "management" was back down on the floor from where they had been promoted. Some of the things they turned out were marvels. This does not look like one of those. The Pawn Shop certainly does not suggest it, either, other than by price tag.
My IV/Series 70--labeled "blue" on the box--is, in fact, electroless nickle, with blue working parts, and a Colt Custom shop, low-rise thumbswell Pachmyr wrap-around grips (with golden dancing ponies). That would be a find. I know I was this >< close to getting an Officer's tricked out to match it, but just did not have the cash.

That's my 2¢ for what that's worth

expat_alaska said:

The "narrow" tang GS should be no problem with the Commander hammer. No bite to the web of the hand as in the Government Model hammer. I shoot a 5" Government Model with the Gov hammer and the "narrow" tang GS with no problem. Too much emphasis is put out about a high ride hand, and then the beavertail GS is probably a must when target shooting. Never had one and don't need one.

I can agree with the sights (to a point) if you are target shooting. At 7 yards or less and using it as a HD/SD/CC pistol, you should be shooting with both eyes open. Forget about acquiring the rear sight: your eyes are the rear sight. Just acquire the front sight/muzzle and put it on center-of-mass. Proper gun hold in the hand is a must.

Next time you are at the range try it at 7 yards, with whatever 1911 .45 you have. Once you get used to it you will be surprised.

Jim

Click to expand...

I wasn't looking for advice in my initial reply to this thread.
I have a Ruger Talo CMD, Dan Wesson Valor, Les Baer UTC, and Ed Brown Special Forces all have night sights and a beavertail grip safety.
Years ago I had a narrow tang grip safety Combat Commander with little sights (like pictured) and shooting it sucked, hurt the web of my hand.

Edit to add pic:

I will take a vintage series 70 Commander over a new series 80 Commander everyday of the week.

CDW4ME

Nice collection of 1911s you've got there! I never had a problem with the grip safety on any of my Combat Commanders, probably the only benefit I have ever realized from having smaller sized hands. I did try a beavertail type grip safety on one of my Combat Commanders once but didn't care for the change in the handling dynamics of the gun. Just didn't feel "right" to me. Put the original one back on and it has been smooth sailing, shooting wise that is, ever since.

Thanks bannockburn
The Combat Commander I had was satin nickel series 70 which I bought used from a friend's dad for the steep price of $350 in 1988.
I had a Delta Elite 10mm in the early 1990's with narrow tang grip safety and it was brutal to the web of my hand.
I have no discomfort shooting a beavertail grip safety, each 1911 in my pic has somewhere between 700-1,000 round through it.
More of a Glock guy.

rskent said:

OK, but why?

Click to expand...

Because the firing pin stop makes disassemble and reassemble a pita.

And I don't care what anyone says, that firing pin stop absolutely ruins the beautiful trigger pull the series 70 has.

This probably won't be a popular opinion but there was a time when I thought the Combat Commander (steel) would make for a more "handy" pistol over the standard Government model for concealed carry purpose. But the more I handled and carried the pistols, the less I thought there was any practical difference between the two in terms of size and weight. I have decided for my uses, if I'm going to carry a slightly shorter 1911 concealed and wanted a significant difference between it and the Government model and still have the same magazine capacity, it would be the Commander (aluminum frame) variant.

rskent

Actually the front sight is blued and surprisingly easy to pick up with the MMC rear sight. The gun is also extremely accurate. Shot it once side by side with a friend of mine who was using my Colt Gold Cup. Same ammo, nearly the same accuracy with a slight edge going to the Gold Cup.

351 WINCHESTER said:

... If you want to shoot/carry it get the new one. The older Colts often than not needed quite a bit of work to function with h/p ammo, trigger job, fit barrel bushing, lower ejection port, better sights - all of which adds up. I bought a brand new Commanded back in the 70's that would choke on ball ammo. When Colt was the only game in town they made a pretty pistol, but most needed work to be reliable with the new h/p ammo. ...

Click to expand...

Wow! Looks like, long ago, I dodged a bullet, so to speak.

And, no, I am not suggesting that you are wrong ... just that the one, single CCC with which I have been familiar in my life treated me very well.

On 11Apr75 I purchased a Colt Combat Commander (nickle) which I carried and shot for about 3 years. It was accurate and flawlessly ate every type of load that I fed it ... but the massive majority of that was simple, classic 230gr ball.

Great handgun ... but it is The Handgun That I Let Get Away.

Shooting it was a very comfortable experience, carrying it, not so much. I was a lean 160-165 pounder just under 6' tall and having that pup under my sport-/suit-coat would quickly become a burden.

Dad had a Combat Commander in electroless nickel back in the late '70s that I purely loved. It had uncheckered wood grips that I thought I wouldn't like, but they did fine by me. He handloaded 200 grain lead SWC bullets that ran about 800 fps and I never knew the pistol to bobble. At the time, we were shooting maybe 500 rounds a month. When he died in 1989, older brother got the CC, baby brother got a .45Colt New Service (with factory butt lanyard ring!), and I got a 4" Python. I never complained; I still miss that semi, though.
Me, I'd get the old one.

rskent said:

Why would someone buy a vintage Combat Commander for the same price as a new one. Which one would you want? Why?


http://www.armslist.com/posts/73576...er-used-w--2-mags-and-orig-box-inv--g-59662-4


https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/2084_21_141/products_id/36059/Colt+O4860XSE+XSE+Series+8+1+45ACP+4.25

Click to expand...

The one on Buds is a "Commander" Aluminum frame. The Combat Commander had the steel frame. I had the latter in Satin Nickel. Nice gun but for shooting I would take the new one all day long.

Creature said:

Because the firing pin stop makes disassemble and reassemble a pita.

And I don't care what anyone says, that firing pin stop absolutely ruins the beautiful trigger pull the series 70 has.

Click to expand...

Just for clarity, I'll assume you meant the firing pin safety rather than the firing pin stop, as the firing pin stop, while different between a Series 80 gun and a non-Series 80 gun generally won't affect disassembly, and will have no affect on the trigger pull.

Or maybe shooting Glocks has ruined my trigger finger. Stupid Glocks.

Click to expand...

Could be... a series 80's trigger is still better than a vast majority of stock triggers out there.