Colt LW Commander 9mm or Hi Power?

J

Joe_Pike

New member
Well, I was thinking about selling a 1974 Colt Series 70 1911 in .45 to buy a Colt Lw Commander in 9mm (because I love my Colt 5" 9mm) but I haven't decided what to do about the Series 70 yet. I have sold two ARs in the last week though and have started to think about getting my one handggun purchase for the year.
Anyway, I was set on a LW Commander in 9mm but have also recently been thinking about a Hi Power. The Hi Power can be had for less money if you watch for specials whereas the Colt, not so much. And, for me, less money is a good thing.
So, if you were only going to pick up one firearm for the year, which of these would you go with?
 
Always the Browning High Power, Hands Down. Unless you just prefer the aesthetics of the 1911. The capacity and reliability of the High Power make it, along with it's spectacular design, "pointability" and accuracy made it one of my first handgun purchases back in the early 1980's. Maintain her and like myself, you'll be proud to gift her to your own Grandson someday as I'll be doing with mine.
Be well and be blessed, Joe_Pike,
Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
...~Benny

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
I have six Hi Powers from pre war Belgian army issue to a Mk III and Tangent Capitan, love to shoot them, clean them or just caress one in front of the tv. But if i wanted a pistol to carry the all steel full size HP would take a back seat to the light weight 9mm Colt Commander. So my opinion would rest on: shooter or Carry piece.
 
A bunch of the alloy-framed Hi-Powers have been imported in the last ten years if weight is an issue. Otherwise, a Hi-Power has the same ergos, carries more ammo, and is more reliable because it was actually designed to be a 9mm.

The only thing the 1911 has going for it is the wonderful 1911 trigger. A Hi-Power is never going to match that; but you can still get a fine trigger on a Hi-Power.

Having said that, if I could throw money at a pistol until it worked, a ~4.0" 9mm 2011 from a custom maker would be high on my list.
 
Bartholomew, Find a couple of those aluminum framed Hi Powers for me (at reasonable prices of course) and repeat the last sentence in english, i am old and easily confused. PS: I hope you did not get the impression that I have anything but admiration for the Hi Power pistol, just as I have for the 1911.
As far as reliability of a 9mm in a LW Commander mine shot thousands of rounds ( mostly WIN SILVERTIP) of 9mm and, with a conversion kit I made up (mag and barrel replacement) hundreds of rounds of .38 Super without a malfunction that I can recall. That is reliable.
 
The last batch from AIM Surplus was going for $495 each and they pop up on gunbroker periodically as well, though a lot of people have them customized, which of course drives up the price they want.

On that last sentence, I was just saying I wanted a double-stack 9mm 1911 that was the size of a Hi-Power; but worked as reliably and with better durability. And they can be had: if you have $6000 lying around for the pistol and $150 for each magazine (not to mention the custom leather).

As far as 9mm 1911s go, the ones I've seen have all been finicky. For every "My Costa-Ludus 9mm 1911 fired 5000 rounds in a weekend without malfunctioning once - and I didn't even put powder in the cases!", I read/hear of probably ten "I spent $3000 on a pistol that takes $140 magazines and it won't reliably feed from those magazines!" To be fair, I don't see many single-stack 9s in that crowd though.

Still, at the end of the day, taking a pistol designed for .45 in 1911 and feeding it 9mm isn't going to be simple.
 
Why just those two to choose from?
There's so many good shooting and reliable 9mm pistols available these days, widening one's horizons on the subject could easily lead to an entertaining confusion that lasts for months.
 
Selling a 1974 Colt Series 70 to buy a Colt LW Commander will have you crying, eventually. Just ain't the same thing.
A Lightweight Commander weighs 29.4 ounces. A BHP weighs 32 ounces. The 2.6 ounces won't be noticeable. What will be noticeable is the ease of doing the trigger job on the Commander vs a BHP.
However, if you're only buying one per annum, you need something that isn't the same as what you have now. Just for the variety. Like g.willikers says, look at other stuff too.
 
I have 1911s and BHPs.

BHPs have a mixed reputation for quality of trigger out of the box. And they will never have as crisp of a reset as a good 1911.

The 1911 can be made insanely light or heavy, with crisp resets.

The BHPs that come with heavy [or worse] triggers can be made VERY VERY good- at extra expense.

The best BHP trigger will compare favorably to a decent 1911 trigger- except in the reset length and feel.

The best BHP trigger cannot equal the best possible 1911 trigger- linkage design doesn't allow it.


I like the feel of both. If I could only have 1 9mm, it would be a BHP.


I was playing a horrible game with myself: what centerfire semi-auto handgun would I pick if I could only have 1?

I settled on the BHP .40S&W- with a 9mm conversion barrel, with a .357Sig conversion barrel and a .22lr top end.


I have this set up.

Now, if I had a LOT of money, I might have gone 1911, with ramped barrel. and then I could do a couple of different slides for the top end and make it multi-caliber too.
 
I'd rather shoot a 1911 than a HP, because of the superior trigger on the former, but am no fan of 1911s chambered in 9mm.
If you already have a 1911, the classic .45, get the HP, the classic 9mm.
 
Why just those two to choose from?
Click to expand...

Both are icons with a storied history. I have no interest in another plastic-fantastic pistol regardless of how good it shoots, so, those are out. I know there are other all metal guns out there (CZ, 3rd Gen Smith and Wessons, etc), but these two seem to be sticking out as the ones to look at.

but am no fan of 1911s chambered in 9mm.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm cheap, so, 9mm is my caliber of choice and I have really enjoyed the Colt in 9mm.
 
Still, at the end of the day, taking a pistol designed for .45 in 1911 and feeding it 9mm isn't going to be simple.
Click to expand...
I do not understand that. I have had a Colt Combat Commander in .38 Super since the seventies and it shoots (feeds), my handloads with no problem at all. Furthermore, the only difference between my .38 Super 1911 and a 9MM 1911 would be that little spacer that is spot welded into the rear of each magazine to make up for the shorter round. So, what is it about the "design" of a 1911 that makes feeding problematic? Explain it to me like I was a nine-year old...you have me confused and you have confused my Colt .38 Super also.
 
Cartridge overall length.
The 1911 was designed around a cartridge 1.25" long, and it works best with rounds of that length - .38 Super, 10mm, .45.

I've been watching the rise of the 9mm 1911 in IDPA competition - rare fifteen years ago, now, very common - and they just don't run as reliably as guns chambered for the longer cartridges; I think .38 Super should be most reliable of all, as its closer to the bore centerline as it sits in the mag, so feeds straighter into the chamber than 10 or .45.

Of course, time doesn't stand still, and it seems like a new, magic 9mm mag comes out every couple of years, so maybe things have improved.

My Super has never malfunctioned, but it has only a couple of thousand rounds through it.
 
Cartridge overall length.
The 1911 was designed around a cartridge 1.25" long, and it works best with rounds of that length - .38 Super, 10mm, .45.
Click to expand...
"...was designed around a cartridge 1.25 long..." That does not explain much. The 1911 was also designed to use a cartridge .476 in diameter whereas the .38 super is only .384 or so. So, it would seem that what a gun was designed around, does not preclude reliability in other chamberings.

The spacer in the 9MM magazine eliminates any problem with too short of a cartridge in a .45 size magazine. So the "problem" with the 9MM would have to be from that point of cartridge moving from the magazine into the chamber. What specific feature of a 1911 prohibits that movement? Be specific please (you weren't before). That should be interesting...especially if we look at how all those non-1911 9MM's transfer their cartridges into the chamber without a problem. In other words, how are the feed-ramp, chamber designs different than the 1911 that precludes problems?

Or better yet, how about owners of the 9MM 1911's chime in here and tell if their guns are reliable or not. I would really like to know.
 
I don't claim to be an engineer, I claim to pay attention to what I'm seeing.

I see more 9mm 1911s malfunctioning than I do 1911 pistols in other calibers.

A large proportion of the folks shooting 9mm and .40 in their 1911s in competition are loading them long; there really is something to it.



Is there another 9mm pistol on the market today that wasn't a 9mm from the get-go?
 
Even those who make 9mm 1911s (excluding the SA EMP) will usually admit that it is more difficult to get one running without incident. I've seen the Dan Wesson shop manager say this online and a DW rep told me this when I had an issue with my 9mm. In fact, that's why SA developed the EMP -- to make a reliable 1911 in the shorter 9mm and .40 S&W.

In the best of worlds, I would have a .38 Super with an extra barrel and bushing for 9mm. I would carry with .38 Super for self-defense and do a lot of practice with 9mm. The problem is that best self-defense loads are not offered in .38 Super --- Gold Dots, HSTs, or even PDX1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top