I've owned Colt, Springfield, Kimber, and Para. The only one that was rough out of the box was the Para.
If the 1911 was such a terrible gun, it wouldn't still be this popular 100 years later.
I'd take a Springer any day. You're just buying the name with the Colt and Kimber. Wouldn't touch the Paras. Taurus is alright. Again, you're just buying the name with a Smith&Wesson. Not saying the Smith is bad, just overrated. 1911s like Les Baers are nice but would you really want to carry one in a muddy field?
I'm assuming that you have extensively tested all the pistols above before you came to your conclusions.
I can only speak to what I've owned and rung out but I've never had a failure from a Gen 1 Kimber or a Nighthawk and every one of those pistols I've owned were extremely accurate and would feed anything, including and empty case.
As always just my
I'd vote for the Champion... Commander length is not too much harder to conceal and in THEORY should be more reliable than a shorter gun (Disclaimer I am NOT berating short 1911's). Better sight radius, little more accurate, little easier to control, just my
sure the springer guys will have better advice for you.
I think people are hung up on the 1911 because it indicates a loyalty to the American Spirit. My thoughts are it is not a reliable weapon. It was reliable for its time but you dont want to be nostalgic in a gunfight. I would get a Glock. Yeah, they may be non-sexy(i think they are cool), but they are 100% reliability. Just above accuracy, reliability is what you want in a handgun. All your fine motor skills shut down when your life is at risk. You need something reliable, accurate, simple, and ergonomic. This adds up to a Glock. New Technology that can take a beating and never miss a beat. They are the best and I would stack them up to my Grandfather's 1911 anyday of the weak. Yes, I would want one but if I could carry only one gun it would be a Glock.
I think people are hung up on the 1911 because it indicates a loyalty to the American Spirit. My thoughts are it is not a reliable weapon. It was reliable for its time but you dont want to be nostalgic in a gunfight. I would get a Glock. Yeah, they may be non-sexy(i think they are cool), but they are 100% reliability. Just above accuracy, reliability is what you want in a handgun. All your fine motor skills shut down when your life is at risk. You need something reliable, accurate, simple, and ergonomic. This adds up to a Glock. New Technology that can take a beating and never miss a beat. They are the best and I would stack them up to my Grandfather's 1911 anyday of the weak. Yes, I would want one but if I could carry only one gun it would be a Glock.
I really don't like big guns as a carry piece, but 4" limit on the barral is good for me. I really want a 45 acp, even if it hold less rounds and I'm not a big fan of fat handles. I like the way my p345 felt in my hand but never measured it and compared to a 1911.
I feel the same way with not going below a 4" barrel. I have found that the grip length makes more of a difference printing than the barrel length does.
I have a Springfield Government and a Kimber CDPII Pro 4.25" barrel. Both are reliable and the Kimber is light which is nice for carrying. The 1911 is definitely thin. If I could conceal it easier I would carry my CZ 97b, but it is big.