Full Size vs. Compact

[Ale Golem]

I'm looking into buying a 1911 within the next year or so and am interested in the communities opinion on the aforementioned comparison. I'll be living in Saratoga county within the next two weeks so a concealed carry permit is pretty much off the table until I'm out of there. This will be a range gun first and foremost with a potential to carry years down the line.

 

[Rail Driver]

I've got a full size, a commander (4.25" barrel, full size grip), and a compact (3.25" bull barrel, officer frame). I find myself carrying the officer more around the house, and it loses nothing in accuracy to the full size 1911 I have, though I do lose a few FPS with the shorter barrel. The full size is more reliable with a wider range of ammo and mags than the compact, which is picky by comparison.

 

[COgunner]

I have a SA compact 4" on an Officer frame. I think it's the perfect carry gun (if you happen to move) and it's dead-nuts reliable and accurate. I don't think it gives up anything to a full-size except a few FPS.

 

[HDCamel]

Full-sized looks nicer and has better balance IMO.

 

[JTQ]

a concealed carry permit is pretty much off the table

Concealed carry is really the only reason for the 3" gun.

I'd get the 5" pistol. Nearly all the guidance you find in books or on the net will be geared towards a Government Model (5") 1911 with a barrel bushing. That is the way I'd go. The 5" pistols generally have a better reliability, and durability reputation than the small models. If you want to conceal carry a 5" 1911 you can do that too.

Magazines are also easier to find as are holsters.

 

[NG VI]

I really like the look of the CCO types, the Commander/4" uppers on Officer size frames. If I understand 1911s like other autos, the more finicky nature of the small 1911s comes from the shortened top ends, not the shorter frame.

So in addition to having some really pretty proportions, the CCOs should be as reliable as a comparably built Commander model.

Something like that would be the type of 1911 I'd be likely to get.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

Im finding that a lightweight commander fits the bill.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=620192

 

[BYJO4]

For a range and home defense gun, I prefer a full size 1911.

 

[sgtstryker]

Find a Combat Commander and don't look back. Best size for the .45, IMO.

 

[Tim37]

i love my 1911 but there are better carry guns. so go for the full size there, is also a huge balistic advantage to a 5" barrel over a 3" barrel.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

For a range and home defense gun, I prefer a full size 1911.

This.

 

[orionengnr]

I have owned 3", 3.5" 4", 4.25" and 5" 1911s.
For carry, the 3" is a great choice, especially with an alloy frame.

Now that I have learned the right combination of belt and holster, I like a 4" or 4.25" 1911...again, an alloy frame is an advantage.

For range or HD use I prefer a 4" steel frame.

To be honest, I don't have much use for the 5" models. If you are one of the few people who shoot Bullseye well, maybe that extra inch of sight radius will be an advantage. i shoot at 25-50" and note no difference between a 4" and a 5" 1911.

there, is also a huge balistic advantage to a 5" barrel over a 3" barrel.

Huge ballistic advantage? I think this is another example of advice you receive on the 'net being worth what you paid, and sometimes, much less...

 

[Sergei Mosin]

For a range gun, the Government Model (5in gun) is the way to go. There are a number of full-size 1911s out there intended specifically for target work and equipped with adjustable sights - ie, the Springfield Range Officer and Trophy Match models. Offhand I can't think of any 1911 target guns that aren't full-size, although given the proliferation of 1911s I'm sure there are some out there.

The Government Model is also eminently concealable, although some folks prefer the shorter guns for that purpose.

 

[johnnydollar]

I'd stick with a 5 inch gun myself. Usually more reliable, generally more accurate.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

It really depends on the kind of life the pistol is going to have. Is this going a be a gun that spends the weekdays at home or is it going to be a constant companion? Though slender, the all steel 5" really bogs you down if you're packing an 8 to 12 hour day, especially if you work in confined spaces that requires frequent turns and maneuvering.
I have a 5" target gun, and 5" GI pistols, love them dearly for target shooting but I have always liked the idea of finding one, single, all purpose 1911- excellent for carry and good for target. The first step down was a combat commander, the size was a good fit- the pistol could more easily fit in the pouches of bags, be hidden in nooks, and the muzzle didn't protrude below my jacket or shirt tails.. (Thinking hard about bob-tailing the lightweight) But it was still heavy- I threw in the towel after 4 or so months and picked up a lightweight commander. It is lighter than it looks and is quite comfortable to handle.
4 1/4" commanders still make good target guns. Novak sights are similar in blade size to adjustable match sights and the 3/4" shorter sight distance is made up for the commander getting back on sight picture a little quicker, and using 230 grain ball a good pistol will hit point of aim negating much of the need for adjustment sights. In two handed slow fire my 70 series Gold Cup groups better than my steel framed XSE- but they are nearly identical in two handed rapid fire (firing as fast as I could with a decent sight picture for each shot) The combat commander was a dream to shoot and absorbed recoil as nicely as a 5". The Lighweight commander does have more felt recoil. After 50 rounds I know I shot it... I think more than 100 it would become uncomfortable. Since this is a 24/7 pistol I give emphasis toward carry comfort. The trick is that it still needs to be fun to shoot for those days you may only put 50 to 100 rounds through it (with the cost of ammo this will be the most likely scenario) The lightweight preforms the light range duty well... And for the special high round count family/friend fun shoot, well, you can have a 5" for that too
This is just me, your carry conditions may be different. I still sometimes carry a 5" in a shoulder holster on camping trips...

 

[Autolycus]

I prefer 5 inch 1911s myself. Though I don't have any at the moment. When I have the cash I will be buying a full size 1911. I like the ballistic advantage and I feel the longer barrel stabilizes the gun when I have it in an IWB holster.

As of right now I am a Glock fan and prefer to carry my Glocks in OWB holsters. I prefer to carry a 1911 in an IWB holster. They just seem to be more naturally carried that way since they are thinner.

 

[ku4hx]

In 9x19 I own Glocks 26, 19 and 17. In 40 S&W I own Glocks 27, 23 and 22. The compacts fit my hands best with the subcompacts being a mite small and the full sized models feeling pretty much just like the compacts but with a slight bit of grip showing below my hand. I wear size L or XL gloves depending on maker.

It all comes down to how committed you are to learning to shoot a particular size gun, what your hand can tolerate and what [subjectively] feels best to you. I like 'em all and for me shooting proficiency is a matter of practice, practice, practice.

But I do really like my 1911, KP-90, BHP and 1006. They've all got "largish" frames and they all do feel really good.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I like the Commander size for its pointing and balance, myself.

The smaller you make a 1911, the lesser the chances that it will be reliable. The "CCO" size seems to be a good compromise.

 

[Double Vision]

You can't go wrong with a full-sized 1911.
That being said, my Springfield Micro Compact has performed very well at the range.

 

[ExMachina]

I have a SA compact 4" on an Officer frame. I think it's the perfect carry gun (if you happen to move) and it's dead-nuts reliable and accurate. I don't think it gives up anything to a full-size except a few FPS.

this is my opinion too.

you said you will want to carry it in the future, so an officer's size frame is great for that purpose--more concealable than a full size frame.

(ideally for carry, i'd like a 5" barrel on an officer's frame--that would be my ideal carry 1911...but nobody's making that )

Don't give into the 3" barrel trend in 45acp 1911s--they are ballisitically and functionally inferior. if you want that size package, get something in 9mm or .40cal

 

[mljdeckard]

I won't call them inferior. But I haven't owned anything other than a full-size in a long time. I use it for everything including concealed carry.

 

[Ankeny]

Range gun first and foremost...5 inch no doubt. In my experience, the 5 inch is much easier to run hard in warp drive. Typically the full size gun is more stable and tracks better than the Commander sized pistols. Anything shorter than a 4-4 1/4 inch gun is tough to shoot well.

I like the Commander size for its pointing and balance, myself.

Me too, and that is why I have a Dan Wesson V-Bob. I love the pistol, but the 5 inch guns are still easier for me to shoot well. Of course, I am talking about small differences in accuracy and tenths of seconds in speed.

 

[nathan]

Get the best in commander size, check the Dan Wesson with the bob frame. If its meant to be carried theres no other in the market like it.

 

[jimniowa]

I have a 5" Colt Model 70. It is a go to gun and has been tricked out to be reliable to function with all loads. My current carry gun is a Kimber ULTRA in 3" barrel. I had ordered the Colts model of this but was not available for some time. The Kimber cost me more but I have no regrets as it has worked fine fore over 300 rnds down the tube. In a short tube .45acp you need a fast powder behind a light bullet as your in a SD mode it will be with in 25 yds. FYI a person with a knife at 40 ft at the ready to charge you will in fact get you before you can get in action.
The compacts are very good if you can shoot them. My back up is a 2" 44 sp revolver.
Jim