Min
Member
Anyone know the comparison between these two in terms of dimensions? The G36 is pretty slim, I wonder about the CS45's width. They look like good .45 carry guns, aside from the 1911 compact variants.
SW Chiefs Special .45 v Glock 36 .45
- Thread starter Min
- Start date
- Status
DMK
Member
I was looking at one of those Chief's Specials myself. Nice and compact. However, the price! 
VG
Member
I have a Chief's Special 9, but it is significantly smaller than the .45. The
S&W website only lists the length (6.5") and weight (24 oz).
Here a CS9 and 3913.
S&W website only lists the length (6.5") and weight (24 oz).
Here a CS9 and 3913.
George Hill
Member
I'd take a one of the small Para LDAs.
CS45 Dimensions
the thickest part is where the safety/decocker is. The frame at that point is about 15/16'. The decocker brings it to about 1-1/8 inches thick (or a little less). This is measuring the version with the decocker on both sides. I hear there is a version with it only the left side. The decocker is recessed on the left side but the lever is not recessed on the right. So if you wear it IWB on the right, the lever does not jab you.
I've been carrying mine 16/7 for about a year - one in the chamber, decocked, safety off. If I need it, point it and pull the trigger, very simple, accurate and reliable. I Love it. Can see no reason to carry anything else.
the thickest part is where the safety/decocker is. The frame at that point is about 15/16'. The decocker brings it to about 1-1/8 inches thick (or a little less). This is measuring the version with the decocker on both sides. I hear there is a version with it only the left side. The decocker is recessed on the left side but the lever is not recessed on the right. So if you wear it IWB on the right, the lever does not jab you.
I've been carrying mine 16/7 for about a year - one in the chamber, decocked, safety off. If I need it, point it and pull the trigger, very simple, accurate and reliable. I Love it. Can see no reason to carry anything else.
fastbolt
Member
As I remember, the early production CS series had single-side decocking assemblies, which would make the slide width dimensions just a bit slimmer. I still have a couple of single-side decocking assemblies in my parts drawer, from when I installed a couple of ambi-assemblies for someone in their CS9 & CS45.
However, comparing "size" often involves more than just the objective measurements. It generally involves a lot of subjective personal preference ...
For example, while the grip dimensions seem a bit "thick" and "blocky" on my CS45, comparing it to a G36, the front-to-back dimensions of the G36 feel much "blockier" to me when actually shooting them. The grip of the G36 feels as though it should belong to a larger pistol.
But that's subjective personal preference, and it would undoubtedly be different for someone else.
I'll say this, though ... and that is that while the CS45 grip profile may appear a bit ungainly and chunky to some folks, the fat rubber grips really do a decent job of absorbing the recoil impulse of the .45 ACP, and it balances and "points" very well during actual shooting. I find it much easier to quickly and accurately shoot during qualification courses than many other subcompact .45's, including the G36. Just that "personal perception" thing.
I did lose just a bit of "precision" aiming potential when I changed from the 3-dot Novak style sights to the Big Dot sights, but this is a defensive weapon in my case ... and it just makes consistently hitting the pepper poppers at 50-75 yards a bit more "challenging".
The CS45 & G36 are both fine examples of their breed ... but you should probably consider that when you start "shrinking" a large caliber semiauto pistol down to "mini" dimensions, that the potential for shooter-induced ... AND ammunition related ... malfunctions may sometimes increase for some folks. Small platform .45 pistols can be a challenging thing for both firearms designers, AND shooters. Slide mass/slide velocity issues, grip stability issues, etc ...
A friend of mine actually had me install an elevation-adjustable Millet rear sight on his early production blued CS45. Talk about a strange looking profile for a subcompact pistol.
It worked for him, though ...
However, comparing "size" often involves more than just the objective measurements. It generally involves a lot of subjective personal preference ...
For example, while the grip dimensions seem a bit "thick" and "blocky" on my CS45, comparing it to a G36, the front-to-back dimensions of the G36 feel much "blockier" to me when actually shooting them. The grip of the G36 feels as though it should belong to a larger pistol.
But that's subjective personal preference, and it would undoubtedly be different for someone else.
I'll say this, though ... and that is that while the CS45 grip profile may appear a bit ungainly and chunky to some folks, the fat rubber grips really do a decent job of absorbing the recoil impulse of the .45 ACP, and it balances and "points" very well during actual shooting. I find it much easier to quickly and accurately shoot during qualification courses than many other subcompact .45's, including the G36. Just that "personal perception" thing.
I did lose just a bit of "precision" aiming potential when I changed from the 3-dot Novak style sights to the Big Dot sights, but this is a defensive weapon in my case ... and it just makes consistently hitting the pepper poppers at 50-75 yards a bit more "challenging".
The CS45 & G36 are both fine examples of their breed ... but you should probably consider that when you start "shrinking" a large caliber semiauto pistol down to "mini" dimensions, that the potential for shooter-induced ... AND ammunition related ... malfunctions may sometimes increase for some folks. Small platform .45 pistols can be a challenging thing for both firearms designers, AND shooters. Slide mass/slide velocity issues, grip stability issues, etc ...
A friend of mine actually had me install an elevation-adjustable Millet rear sight on his early production blued CS45. Talk about a strange looking profile for a subcompact pistol.
It worked for him, though ...cs45 pocket carry?
Not really, you'd need a pretty big pocket - overcoat size or thereabouts.
At 23 oz empty it is light and small (for a large bore) but its size makes it tough to hide. The rubber grips also would make it tough to retreive from a pocket.
I don't know of too many .45's that would get the 'good for pocket carry" label stuck on them.
Not really, you'd need a pretty big pocket - overcoat size or thereabouts.
At 23 oz empty it is light and small (for a large bore) but its size makes it tough to hide. The rubber grips also would make it tough to retreive from a pocket.
I don't know of too many .45's that would get the 'good for pocket carry" label stuck on them.
fastbolt
Member
I doubt many folks would find either the G36 or the CS45 suitable for lawful "pocket carry" ... except in "down-vest" pockets, or jackets with generous inside or outside pockets. Some might, though. My leather riding jacket wouldn't work for this, although my armored fabric riding jacket has outside bellows pockets large and strong enough to carry my full size SW99.
I guess it depends on your manner of dress. I think if most medium-sized folks tried to use a front pants pocket carry method with either .45, there would be a lot of other folks asking if they were glad to see them ...
I guess it depends on your manner of dress. I think if most medium-sized folks tried to use a front pants pocket carry method with either .45, there would be a lot of other folks asking if they were glad to see them ...
fastbolt
Member
That's another issue, and a hard call ...
Personally, I went with the J-frame long before the PM9 was even a glimmer on the drawing board, and after shooting a PM9 I'm not even remotely tempted to change my mind.
If I "need" a subcompact 9mm weapon, my CS9 offers me the same DA/SA trigger controllability I've become accustomed to over the years of carrying a full size DA/SA service weapon. While I don't find it a suitable candidate for front pants pocket carry for ME, I've found it slips into jacket & vest pockets as easily as my Ruger SP-101. It's more of a belt weapon for me for most instances, though. The PM9 is smaller and easier to adopt for pocket carry ... but still requires a pocket holster for safety reasons.
The 642 is simply an easier choice for my off-duty concealment needs, when it comes to the ability to carry it in smaller places ... AND yet still retain the ability to control it in the same qualification courses used for our service weapons, which currently includes moving targets and shooting while moving. Training is the key, though, and some folks might find the little semiauto a better tool for their skills and needs.
Also, while I certainly don't intend to step on anyone's toes ... the owner feedback has been mixed on the little Kahr polymer pistol to date ... and the only one I have personal knowledge of belongs to another fellow at our agency. It functioned fine the first time he brought it through our range, brand new and right out of the box ... and then the next time he brought it for qualification he experienced repeated feeding malfunctions, using the same ammunition. This guy isn't an unskilled shotoer, either, being a former SWAT team member and a fellow member (but currently inactive) of our firearms instruction unit. I don't know what this means, if anything ... but I'm very comfortable and confident with the reliability of the J-frame.
One thing that isn't often addressed about primary defensive weapons carried in pockets, and other hard-to-reach places, however ...
And that's the potential for a "less-than-ideal" grip occurring during a stressful draw & presentation. True, this IS a training issue ... but not everyone devotes a sufficient amount of time to this issue, do they? Nor do most public ranges offer the regular patrons the opportunity to engage in concealed draw & presentation practice.
While an improper grip naturally has the potential to create "accuracy problems when it comes to hitting the intended target ... a subcompact semiauto pistol may be a bit more prone to malfunction, due to shooter-induced grip stability conditions, than a small revolver. This doesn't even take into consideration the possibility that the primary defensive off-duty/CCW weapon, or BUG, might have to be used by someone in an awkward, physically compromised or injuried situation.
Risk assessment, and determining which platform YOU can use more effectively, is probably something only you can answer ...
That doesn't mean the rest of us aren't intersted in learning what you decide,and why ... and how satisfied you are with the eventual results.
Stay safe ...
- Status
Similar threads
