Which 3" 1911 for home defense and carry

[chaim]

This is one of my harder gun purchase decisions. The EMP is almost out (as much as I want one) simply due to price. Maybe a year or two after I buy a house, but for now I'm paying off debt and saving a down payment so it is just too much compared to my other priorities. Still that leaves the Defender (probably in .45, but possibly in 9mm) and the RIA (in .45). I actually put both in my Buds cart last night and went to drop one and it seemed for each advantage one had, the other had just as compelling a counter advantage.

Weight:
24oz Defender will be great for CCW
34.5oz RIA will manage the recoil of .45ACP quite well, and with a good gunbelt (I have two) and a good holster, it won't be too bad for carry. Living in MD, I only carry when out of state on my UT non-resident permit since I'm not a business owner, cop, judge or prosecutor, so no MD permit for me. For daily carry a 24oz Defender may be more compelling but in my situation these advantages really cancel each other out. Plus I do have other, lighter guns to choose when my back is acting up and 34oz is too much.

Barrel:
A 3" barrel is smaller than 3.5" so it would be marginally easier to conceal. However, if I go .45, a 3" barrel traditionally could have trouble allowing JHP to both expand and penetrate adequately, though I suspect with modern ammo that isn't a problem anymore. A 3.5" barrel allows a little more velocity for better ammo performance and a slightly longer sight radius for better practical accuracy.

9mm v. .45.
The 9mm Defender would negate the above short-barrel .45 disadvantage, .45 is marginally more powerful. Both are terrific rounds, and I'm a big fan of both for a defensive handgun. However, with the Defender being 8+1 in 9mm v. 7+1 in .45 I'd probably go .45 (it is a 1911). For 1 round I'd rather have the .45. The EMP at 9+1 is more like what I'd want if I went 9mm. Still, I can't quite discount the 9mm. It is a good round that I like quite a bit (I have more 9mms than .45ACPs so there is no doubt I like and trust the caliber).

Price:
The RIA does win here. However, I have wanted an EMP or Defender for a long time. In future years they will be getting more expensive, not less expensive. Though, if I do a RIA now the EMP and/or Defender will be easier in a couple years after some loans are paid off (or even just paid down, my student loan balances are high). I'll feel richer with some loans paid off (no more monthly payment coming out of my budget, and no more paying extra to pay it off faster), and even with my student loans just paid down, I'll feel richer without the high balances hanging over my head. Also, once I have a house, I won't need to put every extra penny I can towards a down-payment (though, there will be house expenses then, so we never really get to where we feel financially flush).

Desire:
I have wanted each for well over a decade. I've wanted a Defender (off and on) since I got into 1911s. I've wanted an EMP since shortly after they came out. I've wanted a RIA since they came out. The one difference is, any RIA would scratch that itch, it doesn't have to be a 3-3.5" compact version. In fact, if I go EMP or Defender now, my 1st RIA would probably be either a full-size GI Series, or a 4.25" 10mm (wouldn't a steel framed Commander sized 10mm be a terrific carry gun).


This is definitely not an easy decision. What does make it easier is the knowledge that there really isn't a wrong answer. Whatever I pick, I'm quite sure I'll be happy with it. Still, knowing that doesn't really make it much easier.

 

[chaim]

...One 3" 1911 missing from your list would be a S&W 1911 Pro. Have one of these as well that is just as good as the Colt. Both are good choices.

Also, one thing I hate to see when people are talking about their CCW is looking for a low cost option. This is a gun that will protect you and your family. While I get price is always a factor, it shouldn't be the top factor when looking at something that could save your life.

Sorry I didn't get to these points earlier.

I do love my S&W 1911SC, it is a great gun. However, I probably won't look at the S&W version of the 3-3.5" 1911. I always wanted either a Kimber Pro Carry (or the CDP version) or a Colt Lightweight Commander. I got my 1st gen 1911SC (similar to the later 1911PD) at such a price I couldn't pass it up. I love it, it is a great gun, from all practical standpoints I can't be anything but thrilled with it (100% accurate, 100% reliable). However, emotionally, I do regret that I didn't get a Pro Carry or LWC. I've wanted a RIA and EMP pretty much since they came out, and I've wanted a Defender since I got into 1911s. So, for this purchase, I will stick with one of those. If I make another choice, no matter how good a gun, I'll probably always have that little bit of regret that it wasn't one of these three choices.

As for cost, of course cost matters. First priority in a defensive gun is that it is reliable. Next is how well you shoot it. So, the top two criteria are not cost, but this is the real world, and most of us aren't rich. As long as a gun meets the first two criteria, a cheaper gun is an advantage. With my limited budget, I'll be more protective of a gun near the top of my budget. A carry gun gets banged around, any defensive gun may be confiscated worst come to worst (and may not come back in working condition). So, my most expensive guns end up as range only guns. All my carry and home defense guns are reliable (none in my current selection have ever had a bobble) and that comes first, but cost is definitely a factor. As for my current choices, all have good reputations for reliability (even the cheaper RIA), though of my original choices Kimber doesn't have the reputation it once did (but it is as expensive as any other option).

 

[shooter1911]

Although the Defender works well for many, it was very finicky for me, and after two trips back to Colt with no results I ended our marriage. The SA Range Officer Compact with its Officers frame and a four inch barrel has been one of the most reliable 1911s I have ever owned. It has earned its place as my number one EDC for this reason. Good luck.

 

[chaim]

Although the Defender works well for many, it was very finicky for me, and after two trips back to Colt with no results I ended our marriage. The SA Range Officer Compact with its Officers frame and a four inch barrel has been one of the most reliable 1911s I have ever owned. It has earned its place as my number one EDC for this reason. Good luck.

Funny you mention the SA Range Officer. Earlier today I almost posted my wild cards. When I first started looking, I didn't think about them much, but now that I'm closer to a decision, they keep creeping into view (and almost getting put into an online shopping cart).

One of my wild cards is a 10mm (remember the 4.25" 10mm I mentioned earlier).

The other is the CCO sized 1911. Colt, RIA and SA (the Range Officer Compact) make them. Since I usually carry IWB, the hardest part of the gun to conceal is the butt. The CCO sized gun uses a 4-4.25" Commander length barrel, with a compact Officers size frame. The shorter frame should make concealment easier than my Commander sized S&W 1911SC. Since 90% of the time I carry IWB, the longer barrel will have little impact on ease of concealment (the shorter barrel of the 3-3.5" may be a little more comfortable at times when sitting). Meanwhile, the longer 4.25" barrel will have some advantages- mainly JHP will expand more consistently, and the longer barrel in a 1911 should be more likely to be reliable. Though, with that comfort when sitting, and the 10% of the time I may use an OWB holster, that extra inch could matter.

Oh, if I do buy from Buds, and if I do go with the 3-3.5", since all 1911s of that size can be more likely to be finicky than a larger 1911, I may spend the extra few bucks they charge for their lifetime warranty. For an extra $20-30, if I get one that isn't totally reliable, they will take care of it even if it develops well after the manufacturers warranty expires.

 

[jr24]

3" 1911s are hit and miss across all brands. I've almost both a Colt Defender and New Agent until, upon close inspection saw a bunch of tool marks and sloppy fit. Everyone on the internet has heard Kimber horror stories.

That said, if you don't want to go ad high as a Dan Wesson ECO, a Colt Defender or Kimber Ultra are probably my two suggestions.

I recently got a Kimber Ultra that had some issues with my handloads but runs factory defense ammo fine.

I'm sure Springfield offers a nice option, but their recent shenanagans put them off the table for me, for a while at least.

 

[chaim]

Argh, I have to make things tougher on me...Just when I was narrowing things down...

Re-reading my posts (and thinking about what made me post them) got me thinking...

When I dropped the Kimber from consideration I said this:

they are probably the best looking guns on the market, if the reliability and overall quality was what they once were it would probably be #1

That is true. I've long been a Kimber fan (though I've never owned one). The Kimber I had a terrific reputation, which got me interested. I also rented quite a few. For a long time, they were my first choice for when I stepped up from my Charles Daly to a more expensive 1911. My best friend had a stainless Kimber II (Target II I think, though it may have been the Custom II) that he bought just after the switch and it was a terrific gun. But over the years, I've read more and more complaints about Kimber quality and reliability going downhill so I pretty much wrote them off years ago. Still, I want to like them because I used to love them so much and they often are (as is the case of the Ultra II) some of the most beautiful guns in their class.

But, this will be a carry/HD gun so reliability is #1, so I dropped it from my list in favor of the Defender.

Then, thinking about it the past few days, I came to the decision that lead to this post:

Oh, if I do buy from Buds, and if I do go with the 3-3.5", since all 1911s of that size can be more likely to be finicky than a larger 1911, I may spend the extra few bucks they charge for their lifetime warranty.

For $20-30 extra, I can get Buds warranty, and then if I do get a bad Kimber I could return it to Buds and get a new one until I got one that works. A little hassle (if I get a bad one), but no risk, no need to worry about whether I get a lemon.


I might just have to add the Kimber Ultra II back to my list. It is (IMO) the best looking of the bunch. If I got a good one, I'd be quite happy, and with Buds warranty, that would remove most of the risk. Further, it is about $60-70 less than a comparable Colt (though about $200 more than the RIA I'd most likely get).

I really should be narrowing things down more, but I really kind of do want the Kimber. The warranty just takes a bit of the risk out of it (and I'd probably buy the warranty with any of the 3-3.5" guns).

Edit: jr24, it looks like we were posting at about the same time. The Kimber is back on the list (right now, I think it is about a 3 way tie between the Kimber, Colt and RIA).

 

[jr24]

Missed your last post somehow. CCOs are probably bettwr options but I find the 3" barrel really nice for appendix carry. I looked hard at a few CCOs but ultimately determined that, for me, the slight concealment bonus over a bobtail wasn't worth it, if I wad gonna go small Im gonna go SMALL.

 

[chaim]

Missed your last post somehow. CCOs are probably bettwr options but I find the 3" barrel really nice for appendix carry. I looked hard at a few CCOs but ultimately determined that, for me, the slight concealment bonus over a bobtail wasn't worth it, if I wad gonna go small Im gonna go SMALL.

I don't usually appendix carry, but part of my decision to go back to 1911s was because I was rethinking virtually everything regarding carry. I'll still carry IWB/OWB strong side as my usual carry. However, I've gone back to larger guns for carry (capacity, and more importantly, I shoot them better). While the 3" would sometimes (maybe often) be carried as my primary, one of the things I re-thought (and part of why I'd get a 3") is that I want to go back to carrying a backup as often as possible. Most likely, when used as a backup, it would be carried AIWB (weak side). Also, I've been thinking about switching to AIWB (when carrying a smaller gun) due to it being easier to get to when sitting (like when driving). So, I find the CCO size guns interesting, but like you, I probably won't go that way (most of the time, when the CCO works for me, my 1911SC will work just as well).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Just to further muddy the waters, with Colt and all other manufacturers who care about making smaller 1911s run, the frame abutment surface and the front of the frame rails are cut back approximately 1/10 of an inch compared to a full-sized (5-inch) 1911. That's true for the Defender -- and for the Colt Commanders. Which means you can buy a Defender today, and down the road convert it to a CCO by swapping the slide and barrel. (Or you can buy a Commander today and put a shorter slide and barrel on it down the road -- but that leaves you with a short barrel and a full-size grip).

For those who aren't afraid to tinker, the 1911 is one of the most easily convertible guns around. I have a mongrel 1911 -- it's a Para P15.40 slide and barrel (4-1/4" Commander-size) on a Para Elite Officers receiver, making it a .40 S&W CCO form factor pistol. It's a model that Para never offered and which I assembled from parts accumulated over a period of several years. It looks great, it works great, and this is how I know that .40 S&W in a small(er) 1911 is definitely NOT "almost without recoil."

As to muzzle velocity, the difference between 3-inch and 3-1/2-inch is negligible. M1911.org did some testing on this several years ago, and I believe they will be running a new test sometime in the near future. I looked up the results of the original testing. They compared several different commercial ammo samples, fired through four pistols -- a P14.45 (5"), a P13.45 (4-1/4"), a P12.45 (3-1/2"), and a Slim Hawg (3"). The first thing they found was that in the 3-1/2" and 3" barrels, several of the loads threw enough burning "stuff" all the way to the chronograph that they got error readings rather than velocities. This suggests that the shorter barrels were too short for the powder to burn even almost completely. This is why most ammo makers have now come out with "short barrel" variants of their self-defense ammo lines.

Leaving those out, the general trend over several different makes and types of ammo was that the 4-1/4" barrel resulted in an average reduction in velocity of around 7.8% compared to the 5". The 3-1/2" barrel resulted in an average reduction of 7.5% compared to the full-size. And the 3" showed an average reduction of 10.8%. The fact that the Officers length dropped less than the Commander length surprised me, and I believe this is why they plan to run a new test; it's rather counter-intuitive, but they used all the same guns and tested eight different ammo types through all of them.

I think with any name-brand "short barrel" ammo either a 3" or 3-1/2" pistol would be good to go. I have a bunch of Remington Golden Saber that I bought long before short-barrel ammo was introduced, and I'm not worried about carrying it in a 3" 1911. Even if it doesn't expand, it'll still make a .45" hole, and I don't think anyone would volunteer to be shot with it.

 

[chaim]

Leaving those out, the general trend over several different makes and types of ammo was that the 4-1/4" barrel resulted in an average reduction in velocity of around 7.8% compared to the 5". The 3-1/2" barrel resulted in an average reduction of 7.5% compared to the full-size. And the 3" showed an average reduction of

Hey, no fair... You have got to finish that sentence, though I guess I can go digging on M1911.org to get the information myself

BTW- I just logged in...wow, has it really been 7 years since I logged into M1911.org

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sorry - I hit "Post" before I meant to. I finished the sentence by edit.

And I just came across some other .45 ACP velocity/barrel length data I snagged from somewhere. I foolishly didn't note where it came from -- might have been from Ballistics by the Inch. Their results are a bit different from M1911.org.

This set of data included two ammo brands and ten types/weights. No true Commander or Officers lengths, they tested 5", 4", and 3" (which is why I think it must have been Ballistics by the Inch). Compared to the 5", the 4" barrel showed an average reduction of 4%, but the individual readings varied from 2% to 7%. For the 3" barrel the average reduction was 13%, with individual readings ranging from 10% to 15%.

 

[chaim]

I think with any name-brand "short barrel" ammo either a 3" or 3-1/2" pistol would be good to go. I have a bunch of Remington Golden Saber that I bought long before short-barrel ammo was introduced, and I'm not worried about carrying it in a 3" 1911. Even if it doesn't expand, it'll still make a .45" hole, and I don't think anyone would volunteer to be shot with it.

Yeah, I think any modern short barrel ammo will be more than fine, and many modern loadings that aren't specifically short barrel (HST for instance) will probably expand reliably. With the older stuff, if I recall correctly, most people compensated by going with lighter bullets (185gr max) to increase velocity. The main reason I like the 4.25" barrel is that at that level, most people (including "experts") seemed to agree that whatever velocity loss there was, at that barrel length it wasn't enough to interfere with expansion. With how great many 9mm loads are these days, one of the main things I like about .40 and .45 is that their effectiveness is a little less ammo sensitive and I can go with whatever is on sale. With the 3" barrel, you have to be as careful as with 9mm. Then again, that is theoretically why I like the larger calibers, in reality, I'm careful about what ammo I choose with any caliber, not just when choosing a 9mm load.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

With how great many 9mm loads are these days, one of the main things I like about .40 and .45 is that their effectiveness is a little less ammo sensitive and I can go with whatever is on sale. With the 3" barrel, you have to be as careful as with 9mm.

So how many people are you planning to shoot?

The reason I still have boxes of old Golden Saber (which has now been discontinued entirely) is that, once I shot enough to know it was reliable in my carry guns, I didn't need to shoot any more. $1+ per round is too expensive to use up as range ammo (at least for me). I've been carrying the same cartridges around for more than five years -- for some of the guns, probably closer to ten.

 

[chaim]

So how many people are you planning to shoot?

The reason I still have boxes of old Golden Saber (which has now been discontinued entirely) is that, once I shot enough to know it was reliable in my carry guns, I didn't need to shoot any more. $1+ per round is too expensive to use up as range ammo (at least for me). I've been carrying the same cartridges around for more than five years -- for some of the guns, probably closer to ten.

I like to periodically shoot off my defensive ammo as part of my regular training. I do it to stay aware of the recoil and POA to POI with it. Also, I like to burn up all my defensive ammo in a particular caliber every 2-4 years even though I often buy the same thing I already had as an excuse to keep up with new developments and see if something else looks better now.

 

[rwagliardo]

I have the Kimber Ultra it has been 100% reliable.

 

[dgludwig]

I like to periodically shoot off my defensive ammo as part of my regular training... Also, I like to burn up all my defensive ammo in a particular caliber every 2-4 years

I thought you said you were a teacher; spending your summers painting houses to eke out a decent living-yet you have enough jingle in your jeans to "burn up" the high-priced spread instead of practicing with the common man's hardball. Do you teach at Yale?

Even though you've arbitrarily ruled them out of consideration, I've had such good luck with SIG pistols, including their 1911 (but not a 3" configuration), that, in the interest of extreme reliability, having a lifetime warranty and a general pride of ownership (the cops will give it back to you, well, eventually), I suggest that you revisit SIG as being a viable option for getting a "3 inch 1911 for home defense and carry".

Good luck in your search-as you know, it's an important decision to make.

 

[shooter1911]

Funny you mention the SA Range Officer. Earlier today I almost posted my wild cards. When I first started looking, I didn't think about them much, but now that I'm closer to a decision, they keep creeping into view (and almost getting put into an online shopping cart).

One of my wild cards is a 10mm (remember the 4.25" 10mm I mentioned earlier).

The other is the CCO sized 1911. Colt, RIA and SA (the Range Officer Compact) make them. Since I usually carry IWB, the hardest part of the gun to conceal is the butt. The CCO sized gun uses a 4-4.25" Commander length barrel, with a compact Officers size frame. The shorter frame should make concealment easier than my Commander sized S&W 1911SC. Since 90% of the time I carry IWB, the longer barrel will have little impact on ease of concealment (the shorter barrel of the 3-3.5" may be a little more comfortable at times when sitting). Meanwhile, the longer 4.25" barrel will have some advantages- mainly JHP will expand more consistently, and the longer barrel in a 1911 should be more likely to be reliable. Though, with that comfort when sitting, and the 10% of the time I may use an OWB holster, that extra inch could matter.

Oh, if I do buy from Buds, and if I do go with the 3-3.5", since all 1911s of that size can be more likely to be finicky than a larger 1911, I may spend the extra few bucks they charge for their lifetime warranty. For an extra $20-30, if I get one that isn't totally reliable, they will take care of it even if it develops well after the manufacturers warranty expires.

A couple of thoughts come to mind regarding your post. From the tests I have seen there should be no measurable difference in bullet functionality shooting any good premium 45 ammo like HST, Ranger T, or Gold Dot between a 4" or 4 1/4" 1911 barrel. Also as far as a lifetime warranty goes, it doesn't matter unless they are willing to give you a new gun if your's will not perform to your reliability standards. My Defender, as well as all Colts, S&Ws, SAs, etc have a lifetime warranties, but all that means is the manufacturer will keep trying to fix your gun to your satisfaction. Every time I sent my Defender back to Colt I had to re-test with my carry ammo at a cost of about $120 per session. After two times and $240 spent I said no thanks. I still love my Colts, but that's just the nature of the short barrel version. Like I said, some work fine and some don't. It's a roll of the dice. I'm very pleased to say SA has solved the 4" reliability issues. To me there is no difference in carrying a 3" or 4" 1911. I carry IWB, and OWB depending on what I wear that day. I hope this helps, but it's only one guy's opinion.

 

[chaim]

OK, I have made a choice (sort of). I have submitted my S&W 442 to them as a potential trade. If they give me the price I'm asking for my 442 (which isn't an unreasonable request) or close to it, I have picked the Kimber (when asking to trade, they ask which gun you are considering). If I get that price or near it, I'm getting the Kimber. If they don't take that number, I'll sell it myself or put it on consignment locally and get more for it, but it will take longer. If I buy without the trade, I'll probably get the RIA (though I may wait for my consignment guns to sell, or even use layaway, and get the Kimber).

Some deciding factors...

• The Kimber is a little less than the Defender, a lot less than the EMP. Depending upon which RIA I'd choose, it is $100-200 more than the RIA pistols on my list ($100 isn't all that much, though the model that is $200 less does make it a tough choice).
• While Kimber's overall reputation isn't what it once was, it seems that there are no more complaints about the Kimber Ultra online than other 3-3.5" 1911s.
• The Novak style sight on the RIA Tac isn't a standard Novak cut and it is difficult to find aftermarket sights that fit. I can go either way with night sights, but I'd prefer to have a real choice in the matter. With the Kimber, I could stick with the standard sights, get fiber optic, or have a choice of night sights from pretty much everyone who makes them.
• The RIA as a close 2nd choice: Other than sights, it has the features I want. RIA overall has a good reputation for reliability, and the 3.5" seems to have no more (and maybe fewer) complaints than other 3-3.5" 1911s.

 

[wizard1911]

I carried a Defender for several years during the summer months when my HK 45 was just too large when wearing only a t-shirt. Great gun as long as you don't try to shoot SWC's. Everything else is ok. I recently found a nib HK USP45c and it has become my year round CCW. It actually costs less than the Defender. Another consideration is the S&W M&P Shield in 45. It is a striker fired gun but does have a thumb safety.

 

[chaim]

I thought you said you were a teacher; spending your summers painting houses to eke out a decent living-yet you have enough jingle in your jeans to "burn up" the high-priced spread instead of practicing with the common man's hardball.

Actually, I do teach both evening school (2 evenings a week I put in a 12-13 hour day before I get to grades, IEPs, paperwork, etc) and summer school to help pay for my hobbies (actually, to put money aside, some of which goes to my hobbies).