1911, Full Size or Compact for Concealed Carry?

B

brianidaho

New member
I'm finally ready to jump into the 1911 camp, and for a variety of reasons have settled on one of the stainless Springfields. Unfortunatly, due to financial reasons, my collection is growing quite slowly, and this will be my last new gun for a while, so I really want to make the best choice here. I will be upgrading from a Witness compact .40. In addition to being my carry gun, I will also be doing quite a lot of range time with it, and would also consider some low-level competion (bowling pin shoots and perhaps IDPA), to improve my skills.

OK, so for playing at the range, or competition, the full size would be the better choice. I'm wondering just how much more "awkward" for lack of a better word, is carrying the full size government model as compared with the Springfield Champion (Commander) size weapon? One of the things that appeals to me about the 1911 is the thinness of the weapon, I'm not sure the extra length would be that big an issue. On the other hand, how much more difficult is it to shoot well with one of the compacts? I don't want to go one of the "ultra compacts" (officers model) since I can't get a 3-finger grip with my big mits.

For what it's worth, primary carry method will be in a IWB holster. Usual attire is jeans and a casual shirt, though when weather is cool enough I will often wear a light vest to reduce printing.

Any thoughts or input from those that carry either are much appreciated.

Brian
 
I carry a Commander sized 1911 and I'm not convinced the 1" shorter barrel helps that much for concealment. The only times it would come to play for me is when I sit in public. Not going "thunk" every time I shift is good.
On the range, I don't really miss having a little more sight radius though. It is very controllable, even with the shorter slide and alloy frame. It really doesn't slow me down or make my hand sore.
I think you will be well served by either one. One gives you a little more controllability at the cost of a little concealment. The other gives you better concealment for a little control.
 
That 1" less on the barrel is appreciated when you're sitting for long periods.
As for the grip, there's only the two sizes, so you're stuck with the gov't size frome, either 4" or 5" bbl.
Shooting either is not all that different, especially considering the time you should be putting into your primary carry weapon.
I personally like the looks of the gov't over the commander - more balanced - but that's me.
I carry the compact (officer's frame, commander bbl.)
Me mitts isn't all that small, neevuh.
I do like it a lot.
Thin grips to accentuate the slim profile.
Either way, you'll dig it way over that Witness.

youngun
 
I've carried, owned, and shot both a lot. It takes a shot timer to tell the difference in shooting. For carry it is more a matter of holster / belt and body build. I really couldn't tell a difference between the GM and the LWC. Others are more affected by weight.
Get which ever feels 'right' in your hands and don't look back.
 
I carry a Kimber Compact Custom. Officer frame (7 shot mag)
and a 4" bbl', which is very much as accurate as my FS Kimber.
The only difference is the lenghts of the bbl and the grip. The grip is about 1/2" shorter, which translates into 'less' printing on your clothing. Not to mention that it's a little lighter.
 
Kimber Compact

Like Bowhunter, I also carry the all-steel, 4" Kimber Compact as my primary CCW. I replaced most of the parts with Ed Brown and Wilson, a short Videcki trigger and a hammer, sear, disconnector group from Cylinder & Slide (4# trigger). It is much easier to conceal, primarily because of the grip length, than my beloved Series 70 Colt Government Model, and is actually significantly more accurate.
Ron
 
I'll chime in as the third. I also carry a Kimber Stainless Compact. I find it easily concealable and very accurate at the range. It's hard for me to imagine that I can be giving up any accuracy because of the shorter barrel. The shorter grip frame helps considerably with concealment.

Randy
 
Hi. I'll be number 4. I prefer to carry my Kimber Compact. Better concealment and I'm just as accurate with it as I am with a full size.
 
I've really enjoyed carrying my Kimber Pro Carry SLE. 4" barrel with a full size grip. It makes for comfortable shooting as well as being slightly easier to carry. In short torso type persons such as myself, the 1" barrel length difference can feel like much more.

Some folks can handle hiding a full length govt model slide in a IWB holster. I'm one of those who can't. It just feels like it's half way down my leg. Hiding the butt of the weapon is just a matter of what clothing you wear and holster, so its a little easier for me.

Also, you still get very respectable velocities with the 4" barrel and a bit of weight savings.

Good Shooting
RED
 
Oohh..and instead of yapping about Kimbers:D , the Springfield Champion is a beautiful choice.

This thread may be of some interest to you concerning the new Champions.

http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19704

It's hard to beat the good looks of the Springfield Armory Stainless if you like the full size. Plus $643.00 isn't a bad price either.
px9151l.jpg


Good SHooting
RED
 
STEVE M right re body shape, belt and holster makin the difference.

I carried full size concealed for years.

Opinion......with less than 200gr loads, seems that the full size are more reliable than the compacts.

What works for you.

Sam
 
I'm with Sam and Steve M., a good holster will negate the barrel length issue, and will accomodate anything (almost!) regarding body shape, particulary if you are willing to adjust the rake of the weapon to aid concealment.

Having said that, I would take either a full-size Colt or a Sig P245, were I in a place that allows CCW.:barf:
 
Well, I finally got off my butt and had my local dealer order a Springfield for me today. I live in North Idaho, and had not been able to find one in stock to handle, so I took a ride over to the gun show in Spokane today. One of the dealers had excellent prices on both a GM stainless, non night sights (about $620) and a parkerized GM loaded with night sights for $605. Unfortunately it would have been an out-of-state sale, with the hassle of shipping to my FFL as well as the cost, not to mention Washington's sales tax, I elected to order locally.

Anyway, according to several dealers that I talked with the Springfield Champions are in short supply and they have had trouble getting them in. My dealer won't place the order till Monday, I told him to get me the Stainless Champion if available, or the Stainless GM if not. The only thing I have against the full size as Springfield packages it is that you can only get the night sights on the parkerized version. I actually prefer the look of the parked (or blued) gun over stainless, but given the inevetable holster wear, I chose the stainless.

I also looked pretty seriously at the Kimber Pro Carry HD. It runs about $75 more than the Springfield and does not have the night sights. It also has the plastic grips, which I'll admit are more practical but I prefer the wood on the Springfield. I also prefer the finish of the Springfield over the matte blast of the Kimber stainless. One more gripe about the Kimber is the molded plastic mainspring housing/flller. It is not well molded (lots of flow marks in the plastic, due to the "metallic" filler), and to me is out of place on a gun in this price range. All pretty trivial reasons, and from what I gather here on TFL the Kimbers tend to be more accurate.

I also considered the CDP-dang those look nice! I didn't want the aluminum frame though. Also got to handle an Eclipse Ultra, if there had been a Eclipse Pro Carry I might have bought it in a moment of weakness. Would really require opening the wallet a little more than I wanted, but one hot looking piece. Should have done the responsible thing and gotten the Springdield mil-spec GM, my local dealer has it for $395.

I'll post again with a range report later this week.

Anyone got any good recommendations for a IWB holser? I'm heading to Milt Spark's web site now.

Bri
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top