Commander vs Government 1911

[Jacket67]

Hey TFL,

I recently posted about what 1911 I should save for. I appreciate all of the responses, but I have decided to save for a Colt. I got to handle my friend's again, as well as our other friend's Rock Island, and there was just something about the Colt. Not in a snobby kind of way, but it just felt better to me. So I have decided that I will save for a Colt 1911. I got to looking at the models and as far as price and what I like, the two models I am deciding between are the Competition and the Commander (either lightweight or combat). I picked these two because they come with a skeletonized hammer and beavertail safety, and are within my price range. God willing I'd buy a special combat government, but that's not really feasible for me.

What do you all think about getting a government size vs commander first? I know some will mention "if you are going to carry it, get the commander, if not, the government", but please refrain from mentioning this. I'm more focused on shootability and reliability, and just what people prefer overall whether it be looks or feel. I like them both a lot, and have recently started to take notice of the commander size. I will be getting either model in 45acp.

Thanks in advance!

[Aguila Blanca]

I have owned and shot both Government-size and Commander-size 1911s, from Colt and from sveral other manufacturers. Either should be equally reliable. Personally, I find that a Commander (steel, not lightweight) balances better for me, and is just as accurate as the full-size.

[Jim Watson]

Shootability = Government Model.
Yes, the Combat Commander "balances" nice, but sight radius and some front end weight are what the shooter needs.
You don't see many of the shorter models in competition.

[tony pasley]

I have carried and shoot a full size 1911a1 for over 40 years. I own several of full size, commander size and officer size and I always prefer the full size. I also like the all steel over the rest because it feels more comfortable in my hand when shooting.

[Deaf Smith]

Now if we are talking competition.. get the Government.

But daily carry.. I mean lots of daily carry, get the Commander. It don't stick in the car seat while driving due to shorter barrel.

Deaf

[Eazyeach]

Personally I love a commander 1911. I don't feel like 3/4 of an inch is going to make too much difference. Especially for combat accuracy or range fun. I very much like a full size 1911 too. You are going to have to do some soul searching and decide which you like better.

Eventually you'll have one of each. At least one of each.

[Targa]

For me a 1911=5"

[5whiskey]

if you are going to carry it, get the commander, if not, the government

I know you ask me not to say this, but it really makes a difference. Any firearm platform will just feel better at the range, or just shooting, with a full size model. A 1911 almost especially so. While you will likely be just as accurate with a commander as with a government, concentrating on that slow steady squeeze and focusing on fundamentals of marksmanship; the government model will feel significantly better on longer range sessions and will be easier to shoot fast. Neither is hard recoiling, but that extra weight on the government model will help a lot both for shooting at speed and shooting 200+ rounds in one session.

Likewise, if you do plan on carrying it a commander will carry a little easier. As has been said, sitting in a car is when you will really notice a difference (depending on how you carry). I will say, I feel like the government has a greater advantage of shootability than the commander has in ease of carrying. The weight/length difference isn't huge to me. To the point that I no longer have a commander. Full size for me please. My opinion is worth what you paid for it, BTW. Definitely would recommend the government for your first 1911.

[BigJimP]

Depends partly on what fits your hands the best../ some mfg's market commander models that are full sized, some aren't, so its confusing sometimes .....but most shooters refer to commander sized guns as having 4.25" barrels....

Reliability should be good with both....especially these days / while there was a time when only 5" guns were considered reliable.

Personally i shoot a full sized gun in a 5" much better than the commander sized guns or anything with 4.25" barrels. Longer sight plane is a big factor and I prefer heavier guns.

[muzzleblast...]

Originally Posted by Jacket67

Hey TFL,

I recently posted about what 1911 I should save for. I appreciate all of the responses, but I have decided to save for a Colt. ...I got to looking at the models and as far as price and what I like, the two models I am deciding between are the Competition and the Commander...

What do you all think about getting a government size vs commander first? ...I'm more focused on shootability and reliability, and just what people prefer overall whether it be looks or feel.

I think you will find both to be reliable. So, if you are concerned less about carry, and more about enjoyment shooting at the range, it seems the Competition will be the better choice.

[Skadoosh]

I have used my run-of-the-mill Colt Combat Commander in several semi-formal competitions and through several stages, I was still able to whip the butts of many experienced competitors who were running heavily modified pistols. I find the Commander to be quite shootable. And far more carryable. As far as ergonomics go, I prefer a flat mainspring housing and ultra-thin grips on my 1911s. For carry, I do not like an extended safety or an ambi-safety...and I have thought of doing away with the beavertail as well.

[WC145]

In practical, day to day use, any differences in accuracy and shootability are likely to be negligible, the weight differences between them is only a couple of ounces (steel vs steel or LW vs LW), and there's no reason they shouldn't be equally reliable. The place where that 3/4" makes a difference is on the hip. Like Deaf Smith said, the shorter barrel doesn't stick into the car seat, it's a little more comfortable IWB, it's a little easier to hide OWB, it's a little faster out of the holster (or, if you have bad shoulders, it means not having to pull up quite as far to clear the holster), etc.. That 3/4" isn't much on paper, but in the real world that little bit of difference translates to a gun that is easier and more comfortable to carry and, at the end of a long day with a gun on your belt, that can make a big difference in how much it wears on you.

[JERRYS.]

I've shot both styles plenty and found the commander size to be better for me when transitioning to different targets. my times when shooting qualification courses for my department weren't noticeably different but my COM shots were a little off with the full size because I tended to "over swing" at close range. not a problem at 15 yards and out because I pivoted my body, but close in it was more upper body movement....

I didn't see any difference in slow fire accuracy with either, the commander just seemed more balanced in my hands.

[BarryLee]

A few years ago, I was looking for a nice 1911 for range use and possible carry. The Colt Competition Pistol was new, so I took a chance and have been very please. The gun comes in at a very decent price and already has most of the upgrades that someone might add. I also have Commander sized guns and also enjoy them a lot, so If you go that direction you most likely won’t be disappointed. However, for whatever it’s worth, I think your first 1911 should be a full-size and the Competition Pistol is a good choice.

[Skadoosh]

BarryLee wrote:

However, for whatever it’s worth, I think your first 1911 should be a full-size

Why?

[kenny53]

When I carry a 1911 it is full size. In my mind you get the full benefit of the 45 acp with the 5" barrel. It feels good in my hand and I shoot it well. It hides well with a IWB holster.
Plus living a few miles from John Moses Browning's home it just seems right to carry the gun the way he designed it.

[Jacket67]

Kenny, while I see your point about liking the original design, is there a major ballistic difference between the two lengths?

It seems as though most people say to go with the commander if I plan to carry it whatsoever. If I do, it will most definitely be the colder winter months. I have a shield 9mm for edc.

I haven't gotten to handle a commander, but out of the Colt models, it is the only one that comes exactly the way I want it, minus an ambi safety (I'm lefty). With the competition, I'd probably replace the front fiber optic, and the blue grips. Should I opt for something like the lower-priced series 80 that I have shot, and just slowly add the accessories that I want to it? I know that is an option, but I think I'd prefer to buy a gun that I wouldn't really have to do anything to.

The only option I'd consider other than the Colt at this point would be the Ruger sr1911. Both the full size and commander come with everything I like, minus the safety. So I am no worse off than buying the Colt commander, but maybe save $100 or so.

[tony pasley]

Either you select should be fine but if you get bit by the 1911 bug you will have several.

[Jacket67]

^^^I have no doubt in that whatsoever.

I am going to try and handle both variants side by side and see which I like better. Then shoot my friend's series 80 again to see if I like the government just that much. Hopefully I can shoot the commander at some point too. But, at this point, I may be leaning towards the commander just because I have the plan of carrying it when I can. But only time will tell.

Thanks for the input!

[WC145]

Originally Posted by Jacket67

Kenny, while I see your point about liking the original design, is there a major ballistic difference between the two lengths?

Maybe 50fps, not enough to fret over, IMO.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Jacket67

Kenny, while I see your point about liking the original design, is there a major ballistic difference between the two lengths?

The web project, Ballistics by the Inch, doesn't have anything for a 4-1/4" barrel (true to their name, they increment in full inches), but they do have results for .45 ACP for a 5" barrel and for a 4" barrel.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

The difference varies depending on the ammunition but, in general, it seems to be less than a 50 fps variance -- and that's for lopping a full inch off the barrel, not 3/4 of an inch.

[Hanshi]

https://thefiringline.com/forums/att...4&d=1505689775

This, I hope, a photo of my 1911 .45acp.

I have both and many of both have passed through my hands. I started out with the full size 1911 and still am a little partial to it. At the same time I like both a lot.

[5whiskey]

I haven't gotten to handle a commander, but out of the Colt models, it is the only one that comes exactly the way I want it, minus an ambi safety (I'm lefty).

Then it sounds like the commander it is. The difference between the two is not so great that the features I wanted wouldn't be a priority in the selection. I prefer a full size, but the difference is not huge between the two.

[Deaf Smith]

I'll say this.... Cor-bon 230 gr JHP at 1000 fps (4.25 commander) ain't bad at all. But I'd settle for the DPX 185s at 1060+ and 470+ ft/lb of energy good enough.

And Cor-Bon still makes it but it's backordered!

https://shopcorbon.com/CORBON/DPX/DP...?mfp=3-caliber[45 Auto%2C45 Auto P]

Nice thing about the .45 is you can pick just about anything except target wadcutter and it will do fine to ride the river with.

Deaf

[10-96]

I may be the oddball here, but here's my 2 cents worth.

If at the range and shooting one handed Conventional Pistol style- I prefer the 5". However, if I'm just goofing off and having a fun range day and shooting 2 handed- then the Commander tickles my fancy more betterer.