whats the best caliber for a 1911?

Of Course-

.45 ACP~! :banghead:

7rds of .45

45 ACP... what the 1911 was designed to use... and one of, if not THE best fight stopping handgun cartridges.

.45ACP is the only proper caliber.

45 ACP... what the 1911 was designed to use... and one of, if not THE best fight stopping handgun cartridges.

Click to expand...

Actually I believe that it was originally designed for .38ACP. It was later adapted to .45acp because the US army rejected the .38acp cartridge. .38 super models emerged shortly thereafter.

So to answer the question either .45acp or .38 super.

I can't (and won't) argue with the belief that the .45acp is the best cartridge for the 1911. However, I must say that I wouldn't mind a 1911 professionally converted to .460 Rowland for trail use.

I certainly wouldn't mind a 1911 in 9x23 or 10mm too, just to have something different (I already have two 1911s in .45acp).

.380, yes, .380.

Rhetorical question.

Dude...45!, just as John Moses Browning intended

At least the first one you own should be .45 acp....

Bill.

.45acp

.45 ACP just because it's the classic caliber for the pistol, and not because .45 ACP is so much different from the other service calibers.

45 because it works and has for close to a 100 yrs

45 acp

7.62x54r

Actually I wish it was in .357 Sig.

9 to 10 rounds of .357 magnum power from a 5 inch barrel.

Deaf

It is designed and engineered around the .45 ACP cartridge, and that is how I would prefer it. Other calibers require adaptation to use, e.g., the magazine spacer/shim for the shorter 9mm Luger.

futureranger said:

haha i got quite a few 45acp suggestions, but rather than just saying "45." can some one give me a few reasons why its better than 40sw or 10mm or anything else, compare energy, velocity, and the like?

maybe something like "the extra power of the 45acp is more important than the lighter recoil and fast recovery time of like the 9mm..." or something along those lines

Click to expand...

That's kind of up to you to decide for yourself. Putting the 10mm aside for the moment since it's basically a magnum caliber, the three most common service calibers are all more or less comparable in "power," with 9mm lagging somewhat behind .40 S&W and .45 ACP in terms of terminal ballistics, although not by much. Between the three, the main tradeoff is between poking slightly larger holes or being able to poke a few more holes in more targets. Recoil and grip size are additional issues in the general case, although they're not that big of a deal in a 1911 (especially grip size, of course). 10mm has its uses, but it's kind of overkill for defense against humans unless you happen to believe in the wounding effects of temporary cavitation (i.e. dumping energy into the target) at this level of power (still just a handgun). As for recoil with regard to all of these calibers, there's only one way to find out what you're comfortable with, and that is to try them all for yourself, if at all possible.

The Commander was designed/launched for the 9mm Luger caliber, and with a lightweight alloy frame. There are frame differences between a full-size frame and a Commander sized one, and also between a .45 frame and a .38/9mm frame. You need to be aware of those differences when ordering or buying a frame for a project.

I have owned Commanders in .40 S&W (Caspian/Schuemann), .45acp (Colt), and 9mm (Colt). All of them all-steel and not lightweight variants. The only one I still own is the 9mm. The frame size and weight of an all-steel "Combat" Commander and the ballistic characteristics of the 9mm go together very well. I much prefer the handling of a 9mm Commander as a potential concealed carry gun. For open carry or other uses, I'll grab a full sized gun in .45acp or a revolver in a more powerful caliber where prudent.

Snowdog said:

However, I must say that I wouldn't mind a 1911 professionally converted to .460 Rowland for trail use.

Click to expand...

I was in that category a few years ago. I already had a .45acp full-sized Caspian with a ramped barrel, so it was a natural to use that as a base gun for even more insurance. I bought a comp'd, ramped Clark barrel and was going to have them ream it to .460. But the more thoughtful folks (gunsmiths), including some moderators here at THR, were not very convinced of the viability of the 1911's frame for that much power. Listening to their stories of cracked frames from .460 use, and even with extended 10mm use, I gave up on it. I sold the barrel and just bought a .44 magnum. It was a great excuse to buy a new gun. There are plenty of happy .460 users, but there are a number of things to consider.

I have 3 1911's - a stainless xse, no frills stainless series 80 and the o1918 model.

Just for reloading component ease of supply I've been trying to keep a low profile cailber footprint: 45 LC, 45 acp, 38/357 for handguns...but the 38 super has always been tempting to me for something to try.

If I were getting a 9mm, then i'd probably get something not in a 1911 platform, like a 3913 or bhp.

You know this is a rhetorical question, right?