Commander vs Government 1911

[qmasterarms]

i have had both and full size works better for me. the commander size was a custom build by great smith trained at pachmayr and it had cracked frame from full house loads with frame cracked at slide stop hole.

[BBarn]

I have owned both and prefer to shoot the full size. The extra length/weight reduces recoil some, and the extra weight out front feels better once accustomed to it.

[Hal]

I have two full size & one Commander (plus a S&W Shield).

I prefer the Commander - - but,,,
Carry the shield, one full sized is here next to me at the computer desk & the Commander is in the safe....go figure....

Honestly I doubt you could go wrong either way.

[damienph]

Buy which ever one feels best to you. I also like them both but own three Gov't sized but only one Commander, and one Officer's sized.

https://ibb.co/nDZVW5

[Wheelgun]

Honestly, it is hard to go wrong with either. I have a full size Colt and a Colt Lightweight Commander. I enjoy shooting both, but if I could keep only one, it would be the Commander. That pistol balances well, and just feels right in my hand.

If it is a steel framed Government vs steel framed Commander, I would lean toward the full size. I had a steel framed commander style for a short while, but it also had the bobtail feature and I found that I much prefer the standard frame.

[sarge83]

I have three government model size 1911's and three commander size 1911's. I enjoy all of them but the one hanging in the holster ready for action is an old Chuck Daly 1911 Commander which has been solid since the day I bought it. Before the Chuck Daly I carried an original 70's Colt Light Weight Commander, it is now a safe queen although my wife enjoys shooting it. I like the commander size, personal preference.

[TwinPlanetBros]

I have a 1972 Colt Combat Commander 1911. It's pretty awesome but would love to get a 5" 1911 sometime.

[James K]

For carry, I strongly suggest the LW Commander. For strictly a range gun, I would go with full size and weight, but for EDC, those extra ounces and extra inch get pretty old pretty quick. (Actually, I carry an S&W Chiefs Special 3", but the OP limited discussion to the 1911 auto platform.)

And practice with the carry gun; even the slight change from full size to Commander can be disruptive.

Jim

[JJ45]

Have shot and carried concealed full size 5" 1911s for years and just recently acquired a Colt LW Commander. I did it mostly to have a 1911 that was more carry friendly and I didn't really expect the LW to measure up as a shooter compared to my FS 1911s, I was wrong.

When shooting these pistols the difference in accuracy out to 25 yards, sight picture and perceived recoil is so small as to be inconsequential. This is my experience.

Carry these pistols concealed all day and you will likely favor the LW for this purpose.

[Jacket67]

How's the reliability of the LW commanders? Any issues with slides or frames cracking?

[sarge83]

No issues on my LWCommander thus far. But then again I am not putting 500 rds a week through it either. The only complaint I would have is I have the original stock sights which are not that great.

[mavracer]

You really mean which one first, the correct answer is as always both.

[RickB]

I'll take the additional weight and sight radius of the Government Model.

[CDW4ME]

I've got steel frame commander and government length 1911's and have carried both.
I carry at 3:00 IWB, the extra barrel length of full size put the end of the muzzle past my hip rather than stopping on it; this distributes the contact area on the slide more and tends to hold the grip tighter to my side (holster is open muzzle which I prefer and slide sticks out either way).
One may be more comfortable than the other based on where it contacts your body, or not.

Glock 35 is more comfortable than 23 at 3:00 IWB for same reason, shorter model 23 stops on my hip, whereas 35 extends past slightly, open muzzle holster.

[Brownstone322]

I own exactly the two you are describing (albeit in 9mm) -- the new-ish Competition model with the blue grips and the latest-issue Lightweight Commander. You'll probably hate me for this, but I got both, specifically because I had the same questions you had.

First, let's agree on the differences other than barrel length and sight radius (and make note, again, that I have the Lightweight Commander, not the Combat):

• Weight. Big difference here, but the significance can go either way. The full-size is more stable, arguably, but it feels heavy to me after a hundred rounds or so. On the other hand, the Lightweight Commander isn't especially light compared to, say, a Glock 17, and I think its weight is perfectly reasonable.

• Sights. The Competition pistol has fiber-optic sights that I love (I use the red), and it's a big advantage (for my eyes, anyway). The white three-dots on the Commander are fine, but I want to upgrade them.

• Frame. Most people seem to overlook this, but the aluminum-alloy Lightweight Commander has serrations on the "front strap" while the steel Competition model has a smooth surface on the front of the grip. Take your pick. I like the serrations. (I don't know if the Combat Commander has serrations, but, being steel, I suspect it does not.)

• Barrel. The Competition model has the "National Match" barrel, but, I dunno ... both guns are more accurate than I am.

As you probably know already, everything else that makes these 1911s "modern" is the same: Series 80 firing mechanism, skeletonized trigger, undercut trigger guard, plastic mainspring housing, palm-swell grip safety, extended thumb safety, extended beavertail. These are pretty damn cool guns, and they are fun to shoot. (Especially in 9mm ... I'm tellin' ya, crazy fun.)

RECOMMENDATION 1: If I had to pick one and only one, it would be a Lightweight Commander with a fiber-optic sight upgrade.

RECOMMENDATION 2: A Competition model in .45 and Lightweight Commander in 9mm with upgraded sights.

Have fun. You're gonna like those things.

[Jacket67]

^^I can't tell you how bad I wish I could do this!!

But yes, as mavracer said, I really am asking which one is better first. I love the 1911 platform and will own a few in my lifetime at least.

If the LW commander feels as good to me as some have stated on here, I may look into it more as an option.

[JJ45]

IMO, the undercut trigger guard and G10 grips on the LW Commander Colt is now producing are more than just sales gimmicks.

The pistol feels really good in MY hand. Some don't like the abrasive nature of the G10 grip panels and the fact that they are synthetic, but I really like them.

Couple these with the other well known characteristics of the 1911 and you have a hard to beat carry pistol in the LW Commander.

But as is mentioned any time 1911s are discussed, your going to end up with both of them anyway sooner or later, so might as well get it over with and buy one of each .

[Tactical Jackalope]

Oh man. I love both the Government models and the Commander models. Obviously, it's easier to carry the commander-sized 1911.

I have the "sacrilegious" Smith and Wesson 1911PD Commander and 1911SC E-Series Commander. Love them both. That said, they're both Scandium / Alloy framed and I do prefer all steel. Also, the Bobtail on the E-Series is absolutely heavenly. Going to that Bobtail and then feeling a standard 1911 feels funny.

I will get another government model eventually. More than likely a Colt. So they both have a place and both can be carried comfortably. Just get a good holster and especially a good belt for that weight.

These days I carry a Smith and Wesson M&P 9L with the Surefire X300U. So, it's all possible.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Saurdaukar]

Surprised how many people have mentioned that the Commander size feels more balanced in the hand. Thought I was alone on that score.

Whichever one you buy, you'll be happy with. Then, you'll just go buy the other one six months later, anyway. Fire away.

[rodfac]

I've never found any difference in reliability between 1911's of Commander or the full length (5" bbl.) model. I do think that when you go shorter than 4" or so in bbl. length, there is the potential for problems. Spring strength becomes more critical for reliable functioning, as does feed ramp angle, and ejection port size and shape. Too, the stiffer recoil spring makes racking the slide more difficult.

Accuracy is virtually the same in the examples that I've owned. Truth be told, I shoot the shorter Commander models better than the full length ones; which I attribute to its better balance in my hands.

And, as has been previously stated, the lighter weight of the alloy framed Commanders as originally made by Colt, are a lot easier to tote around all day...this last from my personal experience. As to the oft heard comment regarding additional recoil from the alloy framed models, I've found it just barely noticeable.

Lastly, if concealment is the goal, as well as range use, the shorter bbl. is an asset, but in reality, it's the length of the grip that makes the biggest impact. It's just as easy to 'hide' a full length 1911, as a 'Commander' length model. Either will require a fairly long shirt tail to conceal if you carry OWB at the 4 o'clock position, as I do.

Experience wise: I've carried a 1911 since 1969, in peace, on the street, and in war. It's always met my expectations...short bbb.'d one now in my dotage, but the 5" model rode well when I had 20/15 eyes and big shoulders. A dozen Colts have come and a few have gone, as well as a pair of Rugers, a Remington-Rand WWll model, and most recently, a superb Sig 1911 RCS...all in .45 ACP of course...well there's still a 5" 9mm Series 70 in the safe that seldom gets out to the range.

Hope this helps, Rod

[Johnny Guest]

Sounds as if you're already decided on getting both full-size and Commander-length. As always, it is your money and your subjective choice. Here are my thoughts on the matter- -

I've been owning and shooting various 1911-pattern .45 pistols for over 50 years. They've been almost exclusively Colts, just from personal preference.

If I were starting from scratch, I'd want to begin with a full size- and -weight commercial Government model, or GM. The full, 39-ounce weight allows for maximum steadiness and recoil attenuation. The five-inch barrel gives maximum practical sight radius. Leave the entire pistol totally box-stock for the first several hundred rounds. I strongly urge you to use factory standard stock panels. If you learn to shoot with these, you can pick up almost any variation and do a decent job.

If you contemplate carrying the pistol, either afield or for personal defense, owning it is but the first step. You need at least three additional high quality magazines, IN ADDITION TO the one in the pistol. A good, stiff belt, a high quality holster. and a magazine pouch - - - These are part and parcel of the entire system.

Once comfortable with handling and shooting the GM, you may choose to move on to the Commander.

Please note: The Commander is a shorter, lighter weight version of the GM. Some shooters use the term, "Commander size" or "all steel Commander" but properly, the 4-1/4-inch barreled, 26.5 to 27 ounce pistol is the one termed by Colt's as the COMMANDER, or CLW. The all steel version was dubbed the Combat Commander by the folks at Hartford. Many speak of the good "feel" of the short, heavy pistol. The problem is that the particular piece is only an ounce or so lighter than the full scale GM. The sight radius is very notably shorter. The weight drags the pants waistband down about as much as the GM does. In other words, the Combat Commander has the drawbacks of the GM but none of the advantages of the CLW.

For my first five years service as a peace officer, I was required to carry a revolver on duty. I subsequently became a plainclothes investigator with another agency. I carried my .45 National Match -- "Gold Cup" -- until I could find a CLW, and was content with that until well past retirement. I still carried a GM on special occasions, such as when actual hostilities seemed less unlikely.

Best of luck on your choice.
JPG

[Skadoosh]

Johnny Guest wrote:

Many speak of the good "feel" of the short, heavy pistol. The problem is that the particular piece is only an ounce or so lighter than the full scale GM. The sight radius is very notably shorter. The weight drags the pants waistband down about as much as the GM does. In other words, the Combat Commander has the drawbacks of the GM but none of the advantages of the CLW.

Are you saying the short barrel length in NOT an advantage in terms of carriability but rather a disadvantage that both the Combat Commander and CLW share?

[RickB]

As Col. Cooper said, "If I have full weight, I want full length, too".

[Big Shrek]

WHY PICK JUST ONE??

Buy RIA and you can have them both for less than the price
of one Colt. And frankly, as a beginner, you'll never notice
any difference. Those PI guys build and QC better than
the average US company these days...

By the time you get good enough with 'em to start making
serious mods, you'll be making enough money to afford
a top end pistol...if you even bother. Usually a little tweaking
and a lot of trigger time make for a better shot than a $2000
pistol ever will.


Which brings me to the next point...RELOAD YOUR OWN AMMO.
Why? If you are shooting .45acp, it's going to cost a bunch
to keep buying factory ammo...even if you buy Perfecta, still
looking at a serious ammo bill. So get a basic press, set it up
for .45acp, and you'll quickly start seeing a good savings.
Which is important, because whatever you save on ammo, you
can spend on better sights, trigger, springs, bobbed hammers/etc.

[Skadoosh]

As Col. Cooper said, "If I have full weight, I want full length, too".

Uhhh...have you ever actually concealed carried a Commander and then carried a full size? That 0.75" makes all the difference between convenient and damned annoying.