Barrel length/style and reliability in 9mm 1911s

[TDoor]

My background largely consists of shooting striker fired pistols like Glocks that just work, but recently I've taken in interest in 1911s, mostly as something to start tinkering with. I'm looking to pick up a 9mm 1911 pretty soon, something like a Springfield that offers a good quality frame/slide to work off of even if the small parts and fit aren't all the way there (that's kind of the point), but I'm not sure where to start in terms of barrel length and style. I know .45 is what I should be looking at if I want a gun that will work flawlessly, I'm just not really down to invest in a new caliber for this venture, and again, learning to tune the gun is part of the appeal.

I frequently hear the refrain that if one wants a 9mm gun, a LW commander is ideal, while I also hear that government length guns are the most reliable because of the additional dwell time. At the same time, I've heard that 9mm can struggle with the weight of a 1911 slide. I also haven't really been able to find any information about whether tapered or bushing barrels do better in 9mm, but I am leaning toward bushing just because they're more traditional and seem easier to tinker with.

In terms of reliably cycling 9mm, government length guns with the added dwell time, or commander models with the lighter slide, which will run better, all else being equal? This is not going to be a carry gun any time soon, and even if it were I don't have trouble with G34 length guns, so I'm not particularly worried about the additional length. I'm just looking to make my life a little bit easier as I learn to tune one of these things.


Does anyone have thoughts/experience on reliability in this caliber?

[john c]

I have three 9mm 1911s; two STI Trojan Lites and a very early Springfield all steel. All are 5 inch guns. The STIs have ramped barrels, and the Springfield does not.

I've had very good reliability, though I've only shot the Springfield very little, so it's early to tell. When shooting the 5 inch guns in 9mm, the slide runs noticeably slower than .45. I've read that guys "tri-top" their slides to reduce weight. If I were buying a new gun, I would consider getting a 4.25 inch commander length gun for a lighter weight slide. Also, I prefer the lightweight aluminum frames of my STIs to the all steel frame. Just a lighter, handier gun. In .45, I much prefer the weight of a steel frame to dampen recoil.

Like others, I think the 1911 is a great platform in 9mm.

Don't set your expectations of Springfields too low. I've had great luck with them. Once I bought an example of a Kimber and Springfield in the exact same trims and price points, and shot them side-by-side in a local league for about a year. I determined that I dramatically prefer the Springfield, and sold the Kimber. Both guns performed well; I just liked the Springfield much better.

That said, going one notch higher than a Springfield or Kimber will get you a much better gun. I've never tried a Dan Wesson, but getting an STI for $200 or so more bucks was a big step up in quality. With your goal in mind, a Springfield will be fine.

[HCM]

My background largely consists of shooting striker fired pistols like Glocks that just work, but recently I've taken in interest in 1911s, mostly as something to start tinkering with. I'm looking to pick up a 9mm 1911 pretty soon, something like a Springfield that offers a good quality frame/slide to work off of even if the small parts and fit aren't all the way there (that's kind of the point), but I'm not sure where to start in terms of barrel length and style. I know .45 is what I should be looking at if I want a gun that will work flawlessly, I'm just not really down to invest in a new caliber for this venture, and again, learning to tune the gun is part of the appeal.

I frequently hear the refrain that if one wants a 9mm gun, a LW commander is ideal, while I also hear that government length guns are the most reliable because of the additional dwell time. At the same time, I've heard that 9mm can struggle with the weight of a 1911 slide. I also haven't really been able to find any information about whether tapered or bushing barrels do better in 9mm, but I am leaning toward bushing just because they're more traditional and seem easier to tinker with.

In terms of reliably cycling 9mm, government length guns with the added dwell time, or commander models with the lighter slide, which will run better, all else being equal? This is not going to be a carry gun any time soon, and even if it were I don't have trouble with G34 length guns, so I'm not particularly worried about the additional length. I'm just looking to make my life a little bit easier as I learn to tune one of these things.


Does anyone have thoughts/experience on reliability in this caliber?

Base reliability for 1911 configuration is a 5” steel frame gun in .45 ACP using 7 round magazines.

The more you deviate from that format (via caliber, barrel Length, frame material etc) the greater the potential for problems.

In general a commander sized gun with a 4 to 4 1/2 inch barrel will run best in 9 mm. Some favor bull barrels vs traditional bushing barrel set ups claiming they are more reliable.

You could get lucky and get a “good” SA or Ruger 9mm 1911 but reasonable likelihood of getting a 9mm 1911 that runs without gunsmithing starts with Dan Wesson and goes up from there.

There is significant variation between different makes of 1911 magazines. The “best” is which ever runs best in your individual gun.

PS- re: Springfield- some of my best (and worst) 1911s have been Springfields. They are like Forest Gump’s box of chocolates. IME Dan Wesson is the safest bet.

[Rocket20_Ginsu]

I have a 5” DW specialist in 9 that runs great now but the first 500 rounds were definitely required for break in on my sample. During that time I couldn’t get through a full 10 rd mag without a malfunction because it was very tight.

My brother has a 5” SA combat operator that runs reliability as well out of the box.

Fwiw, I don’t consider my DW quite as reliable as my Glocks or Berettas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rathos]

In 45 5 inch or 4.25. for 9mm 4.5 or smaller. I have had the most issues with 5 inch 1911s. There is a reason the new staccatos are 4.45 and 3.9 inches. I recently got rid of a 5 inch 1911 because it was the least reliable. Took the most time and effort (via multiple recoil spring changes and hundreds of rounds) to find the right combo. For my 4.25 ruger it ran out of the box and after I got a chambers red dot plate installed it continues to run without any spring changes. I also have an officers STI spartan. It runs like crazy and has been to a few high round count classes. The only issue I ever had with it was trying to run Wilson combat mags. It seems to like the metal form mags only. 9mm 1911s and 2011s seem to be the most reliable with a 3.9 inch to 4.5 inch barrel.

[S Jenks]

I have a 5” DW specialist in 9 that runs great now but the first 500 rounds were definitely required for break in on my sample. During that time I couldn’t get through a full 10 rd mag without a malfunction because it was very tight.

Same here, except ~800 rounds. Perfectly reliable in the 4000ish rounds since then.

[gato naranja]

Does anyone have thoughts/experience on reliability in this caliber?

I may be the outlier in this thread, because as I have "discovered" the 9mm 1911 for myself, I have not noticed any huge reliability differences between full length, all steel pistols or shorter, alloy framed guns. All have been Springfields with the exception of one Ruger, so we are talking about <$1000 apples and not >$1000 oranges. All of them had some minor fit/finish issues out of the box, and the result of my experiences with them lead me to believe that that the first thing to do on a new 9mm 1911 is to make sure the disconnector is moving smoothly and nothing is being hindered in movement by a burr somewhere or a sharp edge on the stamped sear/disco/grip safety spring. My first big mistake in the 9mm 1911 game was not really looking at the fcg parts closely enough to see where things were chewing on one another... a simple field strip was not sufficient, and subsequent purchases have been taken down a bit more completely early in the game.

Once each of the lot had been cleaned/thoroughly inspected, with no components needlessly rasping against one another, and everything lubed as I like it, the all-steel 5" guns have worked as reliably as the more compact ones. I do think that the 5" 9mm's are quicker to tell you if they are under- or over-sprung. This "big iron," as has been noted in earlier posts, is more tame in recoil impulse and slower in slide movement (given the factory recoil springs). Both of us here at casa del gato consider the bushingless "bull" barrels and the trad bushing barrels a wash as far as functionality goes, but the trad ones need no little tool to capture anything, and I am always laying that bent factory pin down someplace and then losing it in plain sight.

(Allen hex keys from the toolbox suffice until until I eventually find the factory tool.)

While we have had better results overall with the Springfield/Leatham style Metalform magazines, we use all the various magazines we have on a regular basis, and habitually load all of them down from their nominal capacity by one round. Saves on cussing.

My favorite 9mm 1911 of the lot remains that first one: a 5" all-steel 1911 RO Operator having a 3/4 rail. It is heavier out front and is super-stable for me. It is sort of the shooting equivalent of a 383 Super Commando in a Plymouth Fury compared to the same mill in a Barracuda (representing the more compact 1911's). I guess I prefer comfort to speed in my old age. The better half thinks I am obtuse and prefers the shorter, lighter guns.

It is not a reliability issue, but one thing you may want to consider in making your choice is the sight radius: it is much easier for gata naranja to use the commander-length guns because her eyes handle that sight radius better; I find the same to be true to a lesser degree, but I prefer to use the 5" guns and just deal with it as best I can.

[krav51]

My Wilson Combat experior commander has been 100 percent through 3000 rounds now.I think regardless of make ,running Wilson mags is a good idea

[OlongJohnson]

All of them had some minor fit/finish issues out of the box, and the result of my experiences with them lead me to believe that that the first thing to do on a new 9mm 1911 is to make sure the disconnector is moving smoothly and nothing is being hindered in movement by a burr somewhere or a sharp edge on the stamped sear/disco/grip safety spring. My first big mistake in the 9mm 1911 game was not really looking at the fcg parts closely enough to see where things were chewing on one another... a simple field strip was not sufficient, and subsequent purchases have been taken down a bit more completely early in the game.

Once each of the lot had been cleaned/thoroughly inspected, with no components needlessly rasping against one another, and everything lubed as I like it...

That is every gun for me, from every manufacturer so far. There is no such thing as out of the box to the firing line.

[HCM]

I have a 5” DW specialist in 9 that runs great now but the first 500 rounds were definitely required for break in on my sample. During that time I couldn’t get through a full 10 rd mag without a malfunction because it was very tight.

My brother has a 5” SA combat operator that runs reliability as well out of the box.

Fwiw, I don’t consider my DW quite as reliable as my Glocks or Berettas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Myself and two other PF members had problematic SA Combat Operators in 9mm. Myself and one other member sent them back to SA for warranty work and eventually got rid of them be use they still weren’t “right.” @JHC sent his off to a gunsmith and spent nearly the cost of the pistol making it “right.”

Re: DW, If I recall correctly the factory specifically recommends a 500 round break in.