Keeping things basic has worked for me. I cannot remember ever having a problem with either of my Colt O-1992 Government Model 9mm pistols using standard OEM or Metalform 9-round magazines. My son has not been as lucky; he experienced endless problems with a Commander-sized Ruger and a Springfield EMP.
This just popped up in my email (no affiliation):
https://fusionfirearms.com/1911-full...-9-round-black
A friend of mine used to universally say to her "It was such a deal!"
And when I say "used to", I mean pretty sure he isn't married to her any more...
ETA: For example, when he bought an outboard motor at a garage sale, and they didn't have a boat: "It was such a deal!"
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits - Mark Twain
Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy / Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
I mean, honestly...Colt did a good bit of engineering and work into making a 1911 in 9mm back in the late 1940s. Just like Jack Northrop and his Flying Wing...just because the math happened back then, doesn't mean it's not applicable now. If you take a today-made Colt 1911 Commander in 9mm back to 1948, they're gonna go "Yeah, so?" ...they might get a little more excited about modern magazines though. (assuming a non-ramped gun, that is)
A 4.25" Commander sized gun in 9mm is the prototypical 9mm 1911, pretty literally. It'll work, it's designed to. Now, getting things to feed it...that's where todays' puzzle lies
Yes. Though I would add extractor shape and tension to the puzzle with magazines, especially based on recent experience. My Wilson Combat 9mm Commander runs great now that I've got the extractor tension squared away. But then, to your point, that was true in the '40s too.