Colt Combat Commander vs Lightweight Commander - Weight Difference

[Joe_Pike]

Earlier this year I was seriously thinking about getting a Colt LW Commander in 9mm, but the one I was literally seconds away from buying was snagged by someone else so I never did end up getting one. Anyway, I was looking at Colt's website and noticed that the weight difference wasn't nearly what I thought it would be. The Combat Commander weighs in at 33 oz and the LW Commander tips the scales at 29.4 oz....a 3.6 ounce difference. Has the weight difference always been such a slim margin? With such a small difference it seems that the Combat Commander would be the way to go.

[Aguila Blanca]

I have a Para-Ordnance catalog from a few years back. They list the weight of the alloy Commander-length pistol as 28 ounces, and the all-steel version as 35 ounces. I can't think of any reason why their weight difference would be twice that of the Colt pistols of the same size.

[Joe_Pike]

I can't think of any reason why their weight difference would be twice that of the Colt pistols of the same size.

I thought I read the specs on another flavor of LW Commander recently that listed its weight at a little over 25 oz. I don't get it.

[RickB]

Specs have changed over the years, but the Combat Commander spec used to be 35oz, and probably included a steel mainspring housing, so 33 might be about right, today.

The LW was originally 26.5oz, but that included internal lightening cuts in the slide, and an aluminum mainspring housing.
The current LW doesn't have the lightened slide, but the plastic MSH is about an ounce lighter than the old, alloy one, so 27-28 seems about right.

The presence or absence of a full-length recoil spring guide rod will change the weight by an ounce, but, either way, the difference between Combat and LW is going to be about six ounces; the difference in the frame alone is more than four ounces.

[Joe_Pike]

Then Colt needs to re-weigh and update thers specs.

[1911_Hardball]

The Commander (lightweight) should be at or under 25 ounces as that was part of the criteria established by the government contract.
In 1949 the Army was looking for a new sidearm for officers. They specified 9mm, a maximum overall length of 7", and a maximum weight of 25 ounces.
Between the aluminum frame and taking 3/4" off of the barrel and slide they made the weight and size limit.
It was never adopted by the Army, however.

[Hanshi]

Having owned both, there is a real difference in weight and especially the feel. I was going to get another LW commander to accompany my Combat Commander until I discovered the new Kimber Ultra Carry. It was lighter the the LW Colt and more accurate as well as dead reliable.

[tipoc]

...I was going to get another LW commander to accompany my Combat Commander until I discovered the new Kimber Ultra Carry. It was lighter the the LW Colt...

Given that the Ultra Carry's barrel is 1 1/4" shorter than the Commanders it's not shocking that it's lighter.

tipoc

[Joe_Pike]

You do realize that 16 oz is a pound! Lugging around almost 2 lbs on your hip is rough to do.

Yep, I'm kind of like Jethro Bodine when it comes to ciphering.

Oh, I didn't have any real intentions of carrying it, I just kind of wanted one. I carry a P938 in the pocket and really like it.

[RickB]

As Jeff Cooper said, regarding the concept of the Combat Commander, "If I have full weight, I want full length, too."
I like the concept of the LW Commander, in .45, but admit to also now carrying a P938.

[SIGSHR]

Years ago at a National Guard drill I had my Combat Commander, an NCO had a Commander. Everyone said they liked his to carry-and mine to shoot.

[Aguila Blanca]

Trying to close in on this a bit, I think Colt's catalog is wrong. I don't have a lightweight Commander, but I do have a Colt Lightweight Officers ACP, and an all-steel Colt M1991A1 Compact -- which is the same pistol as an Officers ACP but with a plainer finish. The lightweight Officers ACP weighs 27 ounces, with no magazine. The M1991A1 Compact weighs 35 ounces, with no magazine. So the weight difference is 8 ounces (half a pound), and I would expect it to be very close to the same for Commander size pistols.

This also agrees pretty closely with the information I found in the old Para-Ordnance catalog.

[pete2]

I have a Ruger CMD and a Colt Wiley Clapp lightweight Commander, there is a lot of difference in weight when on your hip. I haven't weighed them tho.

[Aguila Blanca]

I just went over to the M1911.org e-zine site and looked up their review of the Colt 1991 Commander. That's an all-steel model. They measured the weight at 36 ounces with an empty magazine in place. And the 1991 models have the plastic trigger and plastic mainspring housing. And it was a .45 Auto. A 9mm has a smaller bore through the same size barrel, so it's likely going to weigh a bit more than a comparable .45. I don't know where Colt came up with 33 ounces, but I don't believe it.

[Joe_Pike]

I found it difficult to believe myself. For that small of a listed weight difference I couldn't see the need for the Lightweight Commander.

[pete2]

I just weighed my SS CMD and my Colt Wiley Clapp Lightweight Commander. Both with empty mags. 38 oz for the Ruger, 29.5 oz on the Colt. That's a difference of 8-1/2 os, a half pound folks. That's a big difference on your hip. A standard Colt Lightweight would be a little lighter than the WC because of the plastic MSH in the Colt. 230 Hardball is a little more pleasant in the CMD due to the extra weight.
My 2 cents and why.

[shooter1911]

Originally Posted by RickB

As Jeff Cooper said, regarding the concept of the Combat Commander, "If I have full weight, I want full length, too."
I like the concept of the LW Commander, in .45, but admit to also now carrying a P938.

I feel the same way as Cooper on this subject. I owned a SS Commander and always felt like I should be carrying a full size at that weight. I now own a lightweight and a full size and they both have their place. And yes there is a world of difference carrying a lightweight Commander if you carry all day. For my everyday needs, the lightweight is just fine for my situation.

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by Joe_Pike

I found it difficult to believe myself. For that small of a listed weight difference I couldn't see the need for the Lightweight Commander.

I think it's the other way around. A steel full-sized makes sense (I have one), and an aluminum Lightweight Commander makes sense (ditto), but a steel Combat Commander is a 'tweener -- it's not full-size, but it's not light. I have no use for that.

[dgludwig]

but a steel Combat Commander is a 'tweener -- it's not full-size, but it's not light.

Though some would deem it being "neither fish nor fowl", others would view it as having the "just right" Goldilocks aura. For me, I agree with you: the steel Combat Commander's slightly shorter barrel length is not enough to justify me leaving the full-size Government format for it in terms of its size and/or material-even if I planned on carrying it concealed.

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm a "just righter." I find that a Combat Commander balances better in my hand than a full-size 1911.

[dgludwig]

Good point, Aguila Blanca. How a particular pistol, albeit subjectively, handles and feels ("balances") in one individual's hand trumps a lot of factors that are more relevant to other individuals' opinions.
My best example is how much better a single-action revolver with a 4 3/4" barrel "balances" in my hand, as opposed to the slightly longer 5 1/2" barrel. Such a small difference shouldn't make that much difference, theoretically, but, in actuality, sometimes it does. It's always good that we have choices.