RFI: Mark IV Series 70 Colt Combat Commander

[okie john]

I got into one of these in excellent condition. It has no mods apart from a King-Tappan rear sight, taller ramp front sight, and a light polish on the feed ramp.

I know that the 1911 is the King of the Feedway StoppageTM, and that a 5" steel-frame gun is the apex of the 1911 world, but I've been without a 1911 for quite a while and am considering hanging on to this one. Not sure whether I'd ever carry it, but with recent magazine restrictions in Washington State, I also can't rule that out.

What do I need to know about its care and feeding, replacing springs, etc.? Are they inherently less reliable than a 5" steel-frame gun? What mods to they typically need to run at their best?


Okie John

[Evil_Ed]

Missed this thread, I see?

Ahd, uh, are you SURE, I mean %100000000000000000000 positive, it is a MkIV Series 70 Combat Commander?

If so, can you please take photos of it? Slide, both sides...That would pretty literally be a one of one, a grail, and it could command 10s of thousands on Gunbroker - Colt did not mark Commanders as Series whatever, until S80s came out...Commanders up until the mid-1980s were just marked Colt Commander, or Colt Combat Commander. Huge threads on 1911forum about it; people claiming they have one, everyone else asking for a photo, and the OP shutting up and going away...

[Robinson]

A Commander can be very reliable, especially a 45. It's true that the Government model is the apex of 1911 reliability, but a Commander can be just about as good. I've owned several Commanders that ran great.

The standard recoil spring weight for a Commander 45 is 18#. I would start by installing a fresh recoil spring and maybe a firing pin spring. Then check the extractor tension and if it's not right, plan to either adjust or replace it.

If you suspect the main spring (hammer spring) might need replacing, you can go with the standard 23# spring or a 21# spring would probably be fine.

At that point hopefully the gun will function properly and provide years of enjoyment.

[okie john]

Dang it, nomenclature strikes again. It's a Combat Commander with Mark IV Series 17 innards, but it's not marked as such.






I did see that thread. I'll wade through it, but I thought there might be some other Commander owners with current insight.

It's a slick old pistol but I'd guess that it needs some work to come up to modern standards. If that's a lot of work, then I'll move it along to someone who can appreciate it as is and buy something else.

Thanks for your speedy reply.


Okie John

[RJ]

That is a pretty cool gun.

I'd like to learn more about commander length 1911s, in particular how they might differ from 5" government models in terms of carry, shooting, and recoil. I'm also interested in what you would use for carry ammo in one of these, if not the same as a full length pistol.

Looking forward to this thread.

[Jim Watson]

Dang it, nomenclature strikes again. It's a Combat Commander with Mark IV Series 17 innards, but it's not marked as such. I did see that thread. I'll wade through it, but I thought there might be some other Commander owners with current insight.

It's a slick old pistol but I'd guess that it needs some work to come up to modern standards. If that's a lot of work, then I'll move it along to someone who can appreciate it as is and buy something else.

Thanks for your speedy reply.


Okie John

Mk IV Series 70 innards are just the same as pre-1970 innards. The defining characteristic of the Mk IV Series 70 Government Model is the collet barrel bushing, NOT the lack of a Series 80 type firing pin obstruction, no matter what you may read on the internet or even in recent Colt catalogs.
The Commanders* are too short for the collet bushing and therefore were never Mk IV Series 70 guns. They can be Series 80 guns if made after 1983 when the firing pin blocks went in.

Modern standards.
The first thing I would do is to SHOOT THE GUN and see if it is reliable with the ammo you like. Feed ramp and extractor seem to be the first things to look at if it isn't.
With it shooting well, I would look to the sights - night or fibre optic are the Modern Standard - and most want a beavertail grip safety. After that the sky is the limit.

*Yeah, they messed with the Commander designation, too. The original Commander Model was on an aluminum frame, now commonly referred to as the Lightweight Commander. The steel framed Combat Commander came out over 20 years later, but seems to have taken over the name of Commander.

Shooting qualities
I find the Commanders to be about as reliable as a Government Model of the same vintage. I prefer the balance and sight radius of the GM for shooting, even though the Commander fondles nicely.

[Evil_Ed]

Dang it, nomenclature strikes again. It's a Combat Commander with Mark IV Series 17 innards, but it's not marked as such.






I did see that thread. I'll wade through it, but I thought there might be some other Commander owners with current insight.

It's a slick old pistol but I'd guess that it needs some work to come up to modern standards. If that's a lot of work, then I'll move it along to someone who can appreciate it as is and buy something else.

Thanks for your speedy reply.


Okie John

No worries, and yeah nomenclature is important - as mentioned above, S70 is pretty much defined by the collet bushing and accurizer barrel; the fire control system was not touched at all until Series 80...the other big change they made was lengthening the rear frame tangs on Gov't models, which was another change that was not made to Commanders. If you want to see what I mean, disassemble a pre-1970s 1911 (commercial or USGI), and any standard Gov't model Colt made from the 70 series onwards to today (that has NOT been cut for a beavertail of any kind). Then, just stick a pole through the thumb safety hole, or even the slide stop hole, and line 'em up...the enlarged rear frame tangs will be really obvious. Anyway...

Colt still sells plain jane Gov't models, and at least up until recently plain old Commanders...and yours already has "upgraded" sights. Shoot it, make sure it works, do the 10-8 test on the extractor and make sure that's good, and also as mentioned replace the recoil spring...and mag springs, if the mags are the same age...and give it a whirl. Tit for tat it won't be %10000000000 as reliable as a Gov't model just because of the shortened slide, barrel, and lighter slide mass - the slide will cycle a little bit faster, which means the mag springs will matter a little bit more, and it also means since the slide doesn't move as far back, there's less room for the spent case to make contact with the ejector and get punted out in...little things. It's still a super reliable gun, just it doesn't have the wide open reliability window that 5" Gov't models enjoy. If it runs, there's really no reason to change anything. If you want you can fit a new wider/larger thumb safety...that might be the only change that anyone would want to make, depending on personal preference.

It handles and points a bit quicker than a Gov't model, carries easier too...especially if you're in a car a lot; the shorter slide won't poke the seat nearly as much. The consequence is, it'll be a little flippier than a Gov't model. Think...more like an earlier Sig P220, from before they went to the full stainless steel slides; a mid-1990s example say. Not a bad thing necessarily, just be aware of it; if you're a little recoil sensitive, a Gov't model will be more fun to shoot for longer. Commanders, either Combat or Lightweight, were always "carry a lot but don't actually shoot so much" guns for me.

[Lost River]

I am looking trying to find better pics, but this is a pic of an aluminum frame Commander. As you can see the slide has the small Colt lettering and does not say "lightweight" on it. If I recall correctly it is from the late 60s early 70s time frame but I would have to look it up again to confirm.

[Lost River]

Found a pic of the other side.

You can also see that the frame starts with serial number/lettering indicating a lightweight frame, even though the slide does not.



As has been stated, I would opt for some fresh springs to start. Depending on how much you actually plan to shoot this, you may consider Wilson Combat's flat wire recoil spring. They are supposed to last something on the order of 40K rounds, so effectively with a LW Commander you may not need to buy one again (not that recoil springs are expensive). With the WA state's mag restriction, I personally think a LW Commander would be an excellent choice for a carry gun BTW.

If I were wanting to load for this gun, I would probably throat it for 200 grain H&G SWCs. Set your press up and go for it. A good hard cast 200 grain SWC that shot to the sights doing 950+ FPS from a Commander will likely do pretty most things that need to be done.

[Jim Watson]

Colt is not real careful about such stuff.
There are a lot of those satin nickel Combat Commanders with "Commander Model" roll marks. I am not surprised by one the other way.