1911 9mm V 45 ACP

I wonder if the reference to a 1911 in .380 acp might have meant .38 acp which preceded .38 Super?
 
I just had the chance to order a Springfield product off a long list at no charge. While i have a number of 1911’s in .45, ive never owned one in 9mm….so i ordered a Ronin 5” in 9mm.

Im still waiting on its arrival at my LGS. Im sure it will be a fun range gun.
 
Looks like I'm in the minority. I have two 1911's in 9mm that I really like - a Sig and an Alchemy. To me they represent the best of both worlds: the ergonomics and great triggers associated with 1911's and the light recoil of 9mm. In fact, because both 1911's are full sized and fairly heavy, they are very soft shooting. And 9mm ammo is still cheaper than .45.

Of course, I don't, and wouldn't, carry either. But then if I were looking at a carry gun I'd be inclined to just get a Glock.
 
I built a 1911 in 9mm as a range gun a few years ago, since I could buy cheap steel or aluminum case 9mm at Wal-Mart for about the same price as I could reload .45, and I didn't have to try to find the spent brass. I cackled every time I took it to the range; it was great fun.

[a moment of silence]

It works perfectly. Since 9x19 NATO and .45 hardball have almost identical muzzle energy, there's almost no difference shooting them. And nowadays, no cost difference either. Given there's no caliber that's "cheap" any more, and reloading .45 ACP costs as much as .45 Super and .460 Rowland, I shoot very little ACP or 9mm now. If it's going to make my wallet twinge every time I pull the trigger, I'm going for the bigger bangs.
 
Laz said:
I wonder if the reference to a 1911 in .380 acp might have meant .38 acp which preceded .38 Super?
Click to expand...
I referenced a 1911 style in .380. Springfield makes the 911 in .380 and 9mm I have the .380 shown here.
KZR7mTdm.jpg
 
ms6852 said:
I referenced a 1911 style in .380. Springfield makes the 911 in .380 and 9mm I have the .380 shown here
Click to expand...
There is considerable disagreement as to whether those are "1911-style" pistols. My opinion is that they are not, and they are not recognized as 1911-style by the M1911.org forum. The Springfield .380 you have, along with the Sig P380 and the Kimber Micro 380, is basically a copy of a Colt Mustang 380, which in turn is a copy of an older Spanish pistol made by Star. The 9mm versions are just enlarged versions of the .380s.

Why aren't they 1911-style?

  • Swinging trigger rather than sliding
  • No grip safety
  • No barrel link
  • Wrong grip frame angle
 
I enjoy shooting my STI Trojan 9mm 1911 as much as either of my BHPs. Since Browning discontinued the BHP, and I refuse to pay the inflated prices for another decent one, a good 9mm 1911 is (IMHO) an excellent alternative.

Once I got the RSA sorted out, the Trojan shoots 115 grain ammo reliably and accurately. Definitely one of my favorite range guns.
 
I recall the Colonel describing (paraphrasing) the 1911 [govt] as a large battle pistol. Given the number of small size/weight 9s, why would one suffer a minor caliber 9 in a large major caliber designed pistol. Having said that, in the '80s IPSC matches my ex happily shot a minor 9mm Commander (not lightweight). And I now carry a 9mm Shield. Apples to oranges. If you want or need small and light, the multitude of 9mm is fine. If you want or feel the need for a full sized battle pistol (I've carried that as well for years) why stuff it with a minor cartridge?

That has stuck with me for 40 years, the concept of what is the purpose of a 40oz 9mm? [shrug] :D

-jb, happy with big/slow or small/fast, not the other way around
 
Not to get too far off topic, I landed with a Springfield Ronin. It is far from what I wanted as far as appearance. I took it out and put a hundred rounds down the barrel. I am pleased with it so far, however I could not get past the appearance. The black slide on a stainless frame just didn't appeal to me. Especially the slide, portions being a nice gloss shiny finish, while the top is a matte black. So it was dropped off to be cerakoted. I landed on an FDE color frame, black controls and matte black the entire slide. It is also getting night sights as well as a pair of hogue wrap around grips.

This thread has gone pretty much as I imagined it would, in the fact that most agree 1911 is prominently thought of as a 45.
 
I don't know if that's really too far off topic.

The only reason I have a 1911 is because I scored what I think is a pretty one for very little $$, and it's fun to shoot. It's the only "fun" firearm I own, everything else has a very specific purpose. So I'm ok with sourcing some .45 range ammo, and keeping it loaded with JHP under my bed.

There is no reason on the planet I would own it otherwise.

.. but I also know many who just collect for the sake of it, and that's OK too.
 
I'd consider an FDE 9mm, with mis-matched small parts, to be something I couldn't get used to, in contrast to a .45 with classic blue/black over stainless/plated, two-tone finish. :)
 
I have 1911’s. In the proper caliber. .45 ACP. Carried a Wilson Master Grade as a duty gun for about 20 years.

But, the 9mm is a very popular cartridge. Good ammo available. Easy to shoot.

I settled on a Springfield Armory EMP4.

Springfield designed a “1911” around the 9mm cartridge. There’s subtle downsizing involved.

So, I don’t have a 9mm 1911. But, I have a lovely cocked and locked 9mm that feels an awful lot like a beloved 1911.
 
@Aguila Blanca: Referencing your post #29, I seem to recall a .380 Colt "Pony". Was that a Star copy, or was the Star a copy of the pony, or neither. I think the Pony goes quite a way back.

@Bill DeShivs: As for the barrel link in the colt .380, were you referring to the Pony, which I vaguely remember? The later Colt .380's did not have a link. I know, because I have a Colt Government .380, and it does not have a link. I don't know about the colt mustang, or the Mustang+2, but since they were manufactured concurrently, and since the mustang+2 was a government/mustang hybrid, I would not expect a barrel link in those models either.
 
Sgt127 said:
Springfield designed a “1911” around the 9mm cartridge. There’s subtle downsizing involved.
Click to expand...
The EMP is a nice little package but, to be accurate, it wasn't designed around the 9mm cartridge. Springfield first announced it and built the introductory prototypes in .45 GAP. At the time, I told them the gun made no sense in .45 GAP but that it would be a dandy platform for 9mm and .40 S&W. Apparently enough other people agreed that Springfield never offered the .45 GAP model for sale, and soon thereafter came the 9mm version.
 
hammie said:
@Aguila Blanca: Referencing your post #29, I seem to recall a .380 Colt "Pony". Was that a Star copy, or was the Star a copy of the pony, or neither. I think the Pony goes quite a way back.
Click to expand...
I happen to own a Colt Pony .380. The slide and barrel interchange with the Mustang, but the Pony is a DA only pistol. I don't know what (if anything) it was derived from.
 
@ Aguila Blanca: I had forgotten about the recent Colt Pony Pocketlite. I didn't remember it being double action, but of course, it is. Thanks for the re-education. The pony I'm thinking about goes back a lot farther, and I remember it being a single action. Maybe someone else will remember more details.

It is fascinating that you were involved with the Springfield EMP design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top