"thin" 1911 options

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arp32

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
454
Location
Arizona
What are the options for thinner than standard 1911-style carry pistols? I have a 5" Colt series 80 which I am quite happy with as a range/bedside gun, but I hope to add a more carry-friendly option. I'm a thin guy and my wardrobe doesn't counteract this enough to conceal a full size 1911 unless it's jacket weather.

The Springfield EMP, STI LS9, and Kimber Ultra Aegis all come to mind. Are there others? Of these 3, I have rented the 9mm Kimber - which I really liked. I've shot other 3" Officer frame models in .45 and found the recoil to be more distracting, but even with the aluminum frame and relatively slick grips the 9mm didn't seem too snappy.

I feel like if I was going to limit my options to .45 ACP, I'd stick to a Colt CCO, STI Guardian or other Officer frame/Commander length models. Both for the recoil-dampening weight, and the alleged reliability. I don't know of any "thin" options in .45...

Owners please chime in with your opinions.
 
Except possibly the EMP or LS, all 1911 derivatives are the same thickness. They chop the barrel and chop the butt and call it "compact" but it is still .92" across the slide.
 
Not all slides the same

In spite of what some folks think, not all slides measure the same. I have a Briley govt. 1911 built on a Mc Cormick slide and frame that measures .885 across the slide. It looks and feels thinner than my Les Baer. I also have a Briley Commander slide on an Officers frame and it measures .912 across the slide. I had a holster made for this gun and it would fall out. I sent the holster back with the exact measurements of this gun and the new one worked perfectly.

Granted most of them are about the same but there are some out there that are thinner. You just have to look for them.
 
Agreed. Any thickness you lose in the slide is marginal compared to putting thin grips on. Just be sure to use matching screws or your magazine changes are going to be downright funny to watch.
 
.045" is not the difference between concealable and impossible. Your options are a new wardrobe, a new carry method or a new platform.
 
In my experience thin grips, small single side thumb safety, a round butt / bobtail, and similar modifications are going to make a much bigger carry difference than a slightly thinner slide.
 
I can't tell if the OP is talking about smaller than standard 1911s, or thinner than standard 1911s... Because 1911s don't really get thinner.

That EMP you refered to? It's not thinner than a standard 1911, I just measured mine against an Ithaca and a Colt. It's slightly shorter front to back though because they shortened the frame to work better with 9mm/.40S&W.

On the other hand if the OP is simply talking about smaller than standard 1911s... The EMP stomps on all its subcompact 9mm competitors IMHO.

If you're looking for a CCO style .45, Sig makes a decent one. They call it the "RCS" IIRC.
 
Last edited:
When I asked about thinner frames, I meant: are there 1911-style pistol frames that are thinner than a standard 1911?

I understand that if we compare standard 1911 frames to standard 1911 frames, we are probably going to find a standard width that is, by definition, very similar.

(I wrote that sentence 4 times trying to tune out the sarcasm!)

And before 5 more folks pile on, I understand that if I put Hogue wraparound grips and ambidextrous super wide safeties on any 1911 I am going to have a wider overall package, especially if a throw it in a kydex holster that has 4 layers of plastic between my skin and my shirt.

Honestly I am asking about the frames, not the accessories.

I just compared my Colt Series 80 to the STI LS9, and if the specs I read and my .99 cent ruler is correct, the Colt looks like it's 1/8th of an inch thicker. I had assumed the EMP was perhaps also thinner, since I read it was "scaled down" for 9mm and .40.

Are there any other thinner frame derivatives besides the LS9?
 
I appreciate the feedback on grips and safeties, it's just not where I was going with this particular thread. Thanks!
 
Actually I hadn't considered the Sig. Wasn't looking to go to the .380 round, but the Sig 938 could be an option.

I'll be on the lookout for a 938 rental at the range.
 
When I asked about thinner frames, I meant: are there 1911-style pistol frames that are thinner than a standard 1911?

I understand that if we compare standard 1911 frames to standard 1911 frames, we are probably going to find a standard width that is, by definition, very similar.

Doubt it. I went back and measured the frames on my Colt, Ithaca, and Springfield EMP. They're all more or less the same.

You'll have tiny differences between manufacturers, but nobody I know of has taken a 1911 frame and made it significantly thinner, which is what you seem to be looking for. I'd be surprised if they could, doesn't look like there's a lot of metal they could take off of the sides.

Even the EMP, which was scaled down a bit from the traditional 1911 design was pretty much only scaled down front to back for the shorter 9mm/.40S&W rounds. It isn't any thinner than my other 1911s.
 
If STI's dimensions are correct, then the LS9's slide is very nearly the thickness of a standard 1911's frame. To do that, STI would have to mill down the frame rails and decrease the depth of the slide ways.

If you simply want a nice thin all-steel 9mm, my Kahr K9 measures .900 across the slide and 1.10 across the Hogue wraparounds.
 
Can't thin down the 1911 frame much past spec. without modifying the magazine catch, slide stop and thumb safety...then there's the slide rails. If all the thickness were lost on the right side only, it might be doable with just a modified mag. catch and slide rail dimensions but it would be a mess.
 
The LS9 is about .765 across the frame, and I measure my Colt as 7/8". That's about 1/8"...

I'll defer to jfrey in post #4 though, he seems to have calipers handy.

(EDIT - Yes, I was measuring the Colt across the frame. I should have been clearer...)
 
Last edited:
Arp, the LS9 is .765 across the slide, my S&W was handy so I measured it's frame at .756 STI specs. the LS as 1.09 across the "Thin Rosewood Grips". I would bet the maximum width of the LS9 is at least 1.10, probably wider either at the slide stop or thumb safety.

As my Smith is the only 1911 outside the safe, some measurements:

Slide thickness: .910
Frame thickness: .756
Frame thickness across standard stocks: 1.320
Frame thickness at slide stop: 1.091
Frame thickness at thumb safety, Ed Brown Wide: 1.240

I'm as big a 1911 proponent as anyone but for a smallish, thin, reliable 9mm I really like my steel frame Kahr and 1.10 is its maximum width. I realize it isn't a 1911 but if you chop the barrel, chop the slide, narrow the rails, thin the slide, change the safeties, add an external extractor and add proprietary parts, well, that's not really a 1911 either.

So, are you simply wanting a single-action pistol that looks like a 1911 but is thinner or are you wanting a slim carry 9mm?

Kahr K9 (stainless steel frame):

attachment.php


Kahr CW9 (polymer frame) and Colt Series 70:

attachment.php
 
Thanks for that. I was at Sears today and looked for a set of calipers (my Harbor Freight digital calipers broke some time ago, surprise surprise), and Sears was out of stock.

Your picture refreshed my memory. I rented a K9 once 5 or 6 years ago and really liked the sturdy feel of it, but I remember the trigger was heavy. I was relatively new to handguns then, so it might not have been as bad as I recall.

How's the trigger on your K9? Is a trigger job on a Kahr a difficult job? Given the choice I'd take steel over aluminum, and either over polymer any day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top