By Syd

I have often asked myself why, after years of using autoloaders, I found myself drawn to the Smith & Wesson Airweight Chief’s Special revolver. There are some things about this that aren’t the most scientific reasons for selecting a handgun. I guess I’ve been fascinated by snub-noses since the first times I saw Humphrey Bogart and Jimmy Cagney waving them around in old gangster movies. It was the snub-nose which always appeared out of nowhere and changed the situation. The snub-nose has a mystique about it just as surely as the Luger, The Single Action Army Colt, the M1911A1, the PPK…you know the list — the guns which have become icons. Actually, I’d like to own each of these someday, but some lack the utilitarian value to me of the snub-nose. So, while someday, I may own the Lone Ranger’s six-shooter, I picked up a Model 637 Chief’s Special Airweight in .38 caliber.

The Model 637 is the 5-shot J-frame built with a stainless steel barrel and cylinder and an aluminum alloy frame with an exposed hammer. It has black rubber Uncle Mike’s Boot Grips. The two greatest strengths of this gun are its excellent accuracy and 13.5 ounce weight. Other strengths I would list are the rounded contours of the gun, ease of concealment, its simplicity of operation, and high production values in finish and fit. This particular model is the 637-1, the “-1” indicating that it is rated to handle +p ammunition. When I selected the 637 I really struggled with the choice between the 637 and the 642, the Airweight Centennial which is double action only. I settled on the 637 because its exposed hammer allows me to cock it for single action fire which makes for greater accuracy. The 642 is “snag free” and would be the better choice for pocket carry.

The snub-nose .38 Special is a study in trade-offs. The .38 Special is an excellent cartridge coming out of a 4″ barrel. Launched from a 2″ barrel, it can suffer velocity and expansion problems. On the other hand, a .38 with a 4″ barrel won’t fit in your pocket. A snub-nose .38 can launch a bigger bullet than any other pistol of its size and weight, a 158 grain slug, but it can only launch five of them before you have to reload. Its small size and weight make it a dream to carry, but a pain to shoot. Modern .38 Special +p ammunition from Federal, Remington, and Winchester has addressed the velocity and expansion issues fairly well, but the recoil of +p in an Airweight is brisk indeed.

Shooting the snubby: I have medium large hands and the small grip and fast muzzle flip makes the snubby uncomfortable for me to shoot. One time I ran 150 rounds through it in a single session and came away with a blister on the bottom of my trigger finger from the trigger guard snapping up and hitting it. The trigger pull on the snubby is relatively heavy which doesn’t make for pinpoint accuracy, but provides a margin of safety for a gun that gets carried in pockets, purses, fanny packs and all sorts of holsters. Since the barrel is so short, the sight radius does not lend itself to tack-driving accuracy either. However, if you do take the time to get a good sight picture and have good trigger control, the inherent accuracy of the little wheel gun will surprise you.

“Of all handguns probably none of them are harder to master than the belly model. To begin with, it is short and it is light. This coupled with a walloping big caliber spells a punishing recoil. Only a plentitude of firing will accustom the user to the buck and rear of the sawed-off.

A hard-kicking gun can be controlled in only one way: it must he gripped with a powerful hand pressure. Practice a grip on the belly gun that will crush granite. Such a heavy hand will bring the weapon under control and keep it there. Practice on man targets and do not fire at them more than 30 feet. Do not fire single shots, trigger off bursts of 2 or 3. Extend the arm full length in the beginning and simply look over the barrel. Later on commence to break the elbow and hold the gun below eye level. Shots come faster. Accuracy is just as good from this lower position – it is just a matter of practice.” – Col. Charles Askins, GUNS MAGAZINE, May, 1955 [Editor’s note: I don’t necessarily subscribe to this style of shooting, but Col. Askins was one of the most experienced and successful gunfighters of all time and his methods are worth considering.]

The snub-nose .38 Special competes against guns like the Beretta Tomcat .32, the KelTec P-32, the SIG 230 .380 and the “baby Glocks”. Each of these have attributes which commend them, and I wouldn’t hesitate to use any of them (well, except maybe for the Glocks – sorry, I just don’t like them.). The case for the snub-nose includes cheap ammo, big bullets, simplicity of operation, and excellent reliability.

A while back, I had the opportunity to test one of the S&W titanium 337’s which weighs in at a mere 11.9 oz. In my opinion, the weight difference between the 637 and the 337 is not significant enough to justify the $150 price difference between the two guns (or the $250 difference you pay for the scandium versions). The stainless and aluminum alloy versions seem to be much better values to me. I also think the stainless steel of the 637 is better looking than the flat gun metal gray of the titanium parts of the 337. The two guns shoot about the same with brisk recoil and muzzle flip.

My favorite loads for the snubby include the 125g +p Remington Golden Saber, the 135g +p Speer Gold Dot, the 110g HydraShok which is a very soft-shooting load, and the 129g +p HydraShok. Favorite holsters include the Galco Concealable, Galco Pocket Holster, Galco Ankle Glove, and Galco Classic Lite Shoulder Holster.

Conceptual Issues With The Little Wheel Gun

Criticisms

It’s always entertaining to me to read the noise that gets passed off as gun wisdom on the Internet, and no subject seems to collect more ill-considered pseudo-truths than the snub-nose revolver. With the disclaimer that if I were forced to choose one pistol for my life, it wouldn’t be a snub-nose .38 Special, I want to address some of the issues and criticisms often leveled at the snub-nose. The big one, of course, is that it only holds five rounds, and I admit that this is my biggest negative with the gun. But think about it a minute – unless you are a soldier or a guy who kicks down doors for a living, how often have you actually been in a situation (outside of an IDPA match) in which there was a high likelihood of needing to fire 16-30 rounds? I have read the gun news almost every day for years and the instances in which an armed civilian has been called upon to shoot it out with a gang of heavily armed adversaries are exceedingly rare. And further, the sad fact is that if you have to go up against a half dozen armed people your odds of winning aren’t very good even with a gun that holds 15 rounds. Generally, violent crime is a matter of 1, 2 or 3 against 1 according to Justice Department statistics. The overwhelming majority of people who commit violent crimes against strangers are trying to steal something or commit a sexual assault. These people are looking for a score, not a gunfight. A .38 Special revolver with five or six rounds is quite adequate to dissuade, or if need be, stop this kind of predator, assuming of course that you can put the rounds somewhere that they will incapacitate the attacker. Also, with practice, a revolver can be reloaded as fast, or nearly so, as an auto using speed loaders.

I don’t mean this as an admonition to play the averages. I don’t believe in averages and statistics when it comes to self defense. Murphy is alive and well, and it’s the thing you don’t plan for that sandbags you. At the same time, real life is not like IPDA stages in which a dozen assailants stand still and let you shoot them. Groups of people, armed or otherwise, don’t behave that way. They scatter, dive for cover, shoot back, or something, but they don’t stand still. This gives you, the tactically-minded survivor, an opportunity to run the other way or take cover and reload. And again, these situations are rare, although not unheard of. Also, if you frequently find yourself in the position of being alone in a gunfight trying to hold off a half dozen armed adversaries, it might be worthwhile to stay at home tomorrow night to reflect upon your life style and social skills. The point I’m trying to make is that the snub-nose is enough gun for most civilian self defense needs when it is deployed effectively. Nevertheless, if your threat assessment tells you that you may be facing multiple determined attackers, you should consider a higher capacity firearm. For more discussion on this, see “Why Carry a Revolver?”

(My personal choices of armament for a gunfight include a belt-fed M-60, a company of Marines at my back and close air support, but it’s kind of tedious to get all of that together for a trip to the grocery store. If it sounds like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s because I am. The snubby is an acceptable solution to the problem. It’s a whole lot better than throwing rocks, but it is not an optimal solution. A lightweight snubby is a trade-off of firepower for light weight, ease of carry, and conceal-ability.)

One pseudo-truth I hear a lot is that snub-nose j-frames are the best choice for women, beginners and people who don’t want to practice with their handguns. Why? Loading and firing a Kahr or Glock is not exactly rocket science. A 1911 is only slightly more complicated. Are women and newbies too stupid to learn to operate an autoloader? How do they manage to operate their cars and food processors? I would argue the other way: let the newbies get a nice medium size autoloader with a deep magazine and a full size grip so they can miss a lot and not destroy their hands learning to fire the gun. A larger revolver is also a good choice for a newbie. A snub-nose 5-banger actually requires more skill to use effectively. With only five rounds in the gun, there is a smaller margin for error – you can’t afford to miss. The heavy trigger and short sight radius require more skill rather than less to achieve accuracy. You have to practice with these guns. Actually, you have to practice with any handgun, but that’s another rant. Especially with the lightweight revolvers, practice can be unpleasant because of the brisk recoil and muzzle flip, so why saddle newbies with little pocket cannons that are going to discourage practice? The only rational reason to put a newbie into a revolver is that they like it better. There is a certain wonderful trustworthiness about a wheel gun. Autos are mysterious with a lot of strange parts and such. Revolvers are simple and obvious. If the newbie has confidence that the revolver is going to work for them when the chips are down, that’s the gun they should get. Then they should buy a case of ammo (and maybe some shooting gloves) and learn how to use it.

Another criticism of the snub-nose is that it’s underpowered – the short barrel doesn’t give the powder enough time to burn to develop adequate velocity. While the short barrel certainly costs you some muzzle velocity, I believe that this is a criticism based largely on yesterday’s ammo, and it should be revisited. With modern +p loads, the snub-nose can kick out a 125g bullet at 850 – 900 fps. It can spit out the 158g at around 800 – 850 fps. At 900 fps a 125g bullet can shoot clean through a normal sized human being. While the .38 Special lacks the terminal ballistics of the .45 ACP and the velocity of the 9mm, its “power to weight ratio” is actually pretty good with the right ammunition. It is capable of doing the job. The power factor of the .38 Special revolver is the main reason I prefer it to a small auto like a .32 or .380 (and yes, I’ve read the Marshall & Sanow stats and I don’t believe a word of it.). The snubby is still the only handgun I know of that weighs 13 ounces and can launch a 158g bullet.

The last of the frequent criticisms of the snub-nose is that it isn’t very accurate. This isn’t really true, but I know why people think it. The snub-nose is not a gun that is easy to shoot accurately, but it is capable of surprising accuracy. On an episode of American Shooter hosted by Jim Scoutten, I saw trick shooter Bob Munden (see http://www.bobmunden.com/ ) hit a balloon the size of a saucer at 150 yards with a snub-nose .38. I think he had to fire twice, once to get the range and then the second shot hit. I have proven it to myself by consistently knocking down the small 18” tall x 6” wide pepper poppers at 25 yards. Now, to do this, I have to really take my time, aim carefully and fire single action, but I have established to my own satisfaction that the snubby can actually hit things at “long range” when I do the things I should.

The Good Stuff

I’m an auto guy. With the exception of firing a few old .38’s when I was a kid, I cut my teeth on autoloaders – particularly the M1911 and various 9mm’s. For serious business and matches, I still prefer autoloaders. I like their speed in firing and reloading. I have never found a gun that I shoot better than the M1911. With that said, I’m not blind to the appeal of wheel guns. There is a certain solid dependability about a wheel gun. It is simple and intuitive, and in its own way, perfect. To my way of thinking, the auto is faster and has better firepower, but there’s no squirrelly jazz about a revolver. It’s pretty obvious that it’s loaded, and there’s no safety or de-cocking levers to worry about. There are no magazines to fail, no research project to find out which ammo runs reliably, no carefully tuned mechanism to transfer cartridges to the chamber from the magazine – in short, the revolver is a simple and dependable mechanism. While it is technically possible for a revolver to jam, it is a rare event usually brought about by a failure of ammunition to hold together under the recoil cycle of the gun or crud build-up under the ejector star. I have managed to jam almost every autoloader I own but I have never jammed a revolver. I have seen every variety of autoloader jam and fail in match and training settings. I can tell you particular models of autoloaders that have never failed on me, but the possibility of a jam or magazine failure is always in the back of my mind and we have to train for malfunction recovery. It’s just part of the course for training people on autos. With a wheel gun, we don’t worry so much about malfunctions. We worry about learning to reload fast enough to survive a fight. We worry about finding ammo that will achieve the necessary velocity and expansion, but malfunction recovery just isn’t high on the list of worries when it comes to wheel guns. A lot of people like these characteristics of revolvers.

Recently, I suffered a pair of painful back injuries – one was the result of moving a load of drywall, and then a serious exacerbation of the injury happened in a fall on a set of stairs. I could scarcely tighten my belt enough to keep my pants up, much less endure a two pound gun and spare magazines riding on my belt and pressing against my lower back. In this sad state of disrepair, I was suddenly seeing my Airweight 637 in a whole new light. At 13.5 ounces and endowed with a really simple manual of arms, the snub-nose was a viable solution. I ordered a Galco Classic Lite shoulder holster so I wouldn’t have to endure a chunk of metal in my belt, and I had a rig that I could wear without discomfort.

The small snub-noses have ergonomics that even the smallest auto of comparable caliber fail to achieve. I have talked to police officers who have actually traded their baby Glock backups for j-frame revolvers because the small Glocks just don’t conceal or carry as well. The snub-nose remains to me the most concealable of guns of significant caliber. The rounded grip and small front end allows the gun to blend itself into the natural curves of the human body, making it an extremely easy gun to make disappear. It is comfortable to wear because it lacks the corners and levers which can dig into your body, and it’s light.

Tying the Threads Together

The snub-nose .38 revolver is an under-appreciated and overly criticized personal defense handgun. I suspect that in our haste to justify our lust for the latest whiz-bang autoloader, the snubby has taken a critical pounding that would leave the casual observer with the impression that the gun couldn’t stop a rampaging grasshopper and is as slow to reload as a Brown Bess musket. Much of this is undeserved. Its days as a primary sidearm for law enforcement are surely over, but it remains very popular among peace officers in the backup and off-duty carry roles. A non-scientific survey of gun shop display cases revealed to me that that compact revolvers remain very popular with the public. Their prices have gone up in recent years, and few “deals” can be found on nice used specimens, especially on the lightweight +p rated models.

A lot of misinformation goes around about the snubbies, particularly that they are the ideal gun for beginners and “non-dedicated personnel” (meaning folks that don’t want to practice). I would argue that the snub-nose is not the best “first gun.” It is actually more demanding of the operator in the tactical context. The snub-nose is capable of significant accuracy and is possessed of adequate stopping power to perform the self defense role. For the person who adopts the .38 snub-nose as their personal self defense tool, extensive practice at rapid shot placement and reloading is encouraged in the strongest terms. Firepower (meaning the art of putting a lot of lead in the air quickly) is this gun’s weakness. One might even consider carrying a pair of snubbies so that an emergency reload is less likely.

Its days as the detective’s best friend may be over, but the snub-nose .38 Special remains a dependable, effective handgun, a delight to carry, and a classic realization of the fighting handgun. And besides, it’s the only handgun my girlfriend ever called “sexy.” (I still haven’t figured out what she meant by that, but far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth.)

Additional Reading:

Why Carry a Revolver?

The Snubnose Files

Making the J-Frame .38 Snub Work

The .38 Snub – Old Fashioned Or Old Faithful?

Self-Defense loads for the 2-inch .38 Special

Is A .38 Snub Enough

By Ray Rios

I first came across the CZ pistols at the gun range in Oceanside, California where I was a member. The CZ’s were marketed as “affordable” pistols (meaning “cheap”). Since I had already fallen under the spell of the 1911 and owned a SIG, I didn’t pay much attention to the cheaper guns that were available. This began to change when I was at the range one day and the fellow in the lane next to me was shooting a CZ-75B. We began to talk and he asked me if I would like to shoot his gun. I took this to mean that if I said no I would probably insult the guy, so I agreed and picked up his CZ. I was immediately struck by the comfort of the gun, as it was very well-balanced. Shooting it revealed that the gun was accurate and had a trigger-pull in DA mode that was very much like the SIG that I owned.

At this point I began to look more closely at the CZ guns. I did some research over the Internet and discovered that the manufacturer is a very old and very well-known Czech company that dated to the early 1900’s. Very much in the European tradition of firearms makers, CZ had developed a full line of pistols and rifles that dated back to pre-WWI. The company was corrupted after WWII by the Soviet Union and began mass-producing firearms for the Warsaw Pact countries. This precluded import into the United States, but distribution was common in the European NATO-allied countries where CZ firearms were well-known for their quality and performance.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, CZ had a big inventory of guns and no one to sell them to. An enterprising US importer began bringing their guns into the US market and the basic CZ pistol – the 9mm CZ-75B could be purchased for under $300.00 for a time. As time has gone by and the guns have become somewhat more well-known the prices have begun to creep up. I bought my CZ-75B in 1997 for $319.00 including two 15-round magazines.

Close inspection of the CZ-75B reveals a gun that was designed to be a military sidearm. No frills. The guns are constructed of steel and are most commonly provided with a black “polymer” baked-on finish that is actually quite tough and durable. The roll-markings on the slide tend to be somewhat obscured by this finish and this effect is less than desirable esthetically. Also, the importer has stenciled their name and location in gold-colored ink on the right-hand side of the slide. I wish they wouldn’t do that! The grips on the stock CZ-75B are of black hard-plastic and are uncomfortable. Hogue sells a soft-rubber wraparound grip that compliments this gun nicely.

All the cosmetic issues aside, shooting the CZ-75B is a revelation. Excellent trigger out of the box. Excellent accuracy. One of my friends who owns a SIG 229 regularly calls and asks me to let him use my CZ when he is shooting in friendly range competitions. The CZ is more accurate than his SIG! I have run many different brands and types of 9mm ammunition through my CZ-75B and I honestly do not recall a single malfunction. Accuracy is excellent with three-shot groups delivered from a Weaver stance yielding 2.0″ to 2.5″ at 15 yards and 3.5″ at 25 yards… provided a good day and a steady-hand, of course. The gun takes down and reassembles easily. Parts are readily available from the CZ USA website.

CZ manufactures a broad line of handguns and rifles. I recently purchased a CZ75 PCR, a compact 9mm pistol with a de-cocker rather than standard safety. This gun is also highly accurate and very comfortable to shoot. The CZ rifle line includes semi-auto and bolt-action guns that are considered top-notch. CZ pistols come in calibers from .380 to .45 with some “race-gun” models available. Finishes range from blue to “black-polymer” to stainless steel.

The CZ line of pistols and rifles represents perhaps the best value of any line of firearms. I would encourage anyone to explore these guns and “spread the word”. My experience with these fine guns tells me that the CZ line is one of the best-kept secrets in today’s menu of firearms.

Specifications:

Action Type: Double Action (75B), Single Action (75B SA), De-cocker (75 BD), or Double Action Only (75 DAO)
Chamber: 9mm Luger, .40 S&W
Capacity: 16 (9mm) or 10 (.40SW) rounds

The, CZ 75 is a recoil-operated, locked breech design that employs Browning style, link-less locking system. Early versions (CZ 75) featured no firing pin block, while modern versions (75B, BD, DAO etc) have such safety. Also, all modern versions feature a CZ-85 style trigger guard. CZ-75B has a frame mounted safety and slide stop. CZ-75 BD has a frame mounted de-cocker, and CZ-75 DAO has no manual safeties.

The gun is available in basic DA/SA with manual safety (CZ-75 B), in DA with de-cocker lever and no manual safety (CZ-75 BD), in DAO without any external levers (CZ-75 DAO). Compact B and BD models also available in 9 mm, with a shorter barrel (100 mm) and 14 rounds magazines. Cadet conversion kits and complete handguns available in .22 LR to provide low-cost training and plinking ability.

MSRP	480.00
Stock	Checkered plastic
Frame	Steel
Finish	Black Polycoat, Glossy Blue, Satin Nickel, Dual Tone
Ammo	9 mm Luger
Mag./cap.	10
Overall length	206 mm / 8.1 in.
Barrel length	120 mm / 4.7 in.
Height	138 mm / 5.4 in.
Width	35 mm / 1.4 in.
Weight	1000 g / 2.2 lbs.
Barrel	Hammer forged
Rifleing	Conventional
Trigger mechanism	SA/DA
Sight type	fixed
Safety features: Manual Safety – Safety stop on the hammer – Firing pin block safety

By Ray Rios

I’ve become a collector of Colt guns… semiautomatics mainly, both old and new. Recently I came upon a barely used Mustang .380. The gun was on consignment in the local gun shop for $400.00 with the original box and literature, and one extra Colt magazine.

I inspected the gun closely and found nothing wrong with it. It was clean, unscratched nickel plated and gleaming steel. My personal estimation is that the gun was fired only a few times, as there was some powder residue in the dust cover, but no discernable wear on the barrel shroud, hammer interface or muzzle. I liked what I saw, so I bought the little gun.

I (as always) did a little internet research and discovered the most obvious improvements that the gun needs. One, replace the Colt-provided plastic guide rod (what a cheesy item!) with a replacement. Two, replace the clumsy double recoil spring arrangement that Colt supplies the stock gun with with a Wolf single recoil spring.

Okay, so I took the gun to the range and put 200 rounds of Russian “Golden Bear” .380 ammo through it. No failures to feed, and surprising accuracy at 25 feet, which is all I would expect of an extremely compact and concealable personal-defense gun in .380 caliber. Basically, at 25 feet the bullets went where I aimed them… nothing wrong with that.

One problem that I discovered is that the safety lever is easily pushed into the “safe” position by the right thumb during recoil. I developed a quick cure for this by “riding” the safety lever with the tip of my left thumb while I shoot the gun. Problem solved.

There is quite a clamor for subjecting these little guns to the “dehorning” process. The logic is that these guns are full of sharp edges and carry guns need to have smooth contours. I don’t disagree, but the price for dehorning a Colt Mustang approaches $400.00! This is as much as I paid for the gun… add in silly stuff like Novak sights, new triggers, etc., and you can sink a bunch of money into a simple self-defense pistol that runs pretty damn well out of the box, and better with some inexpensive aftermarket parts, as I indicated previously.

I experienced no problems with magazines dropping out of the gun while shooting, or the slide release lever falling out. As far as I am concerned, these issues are fables… couldn’t prove it by me…

I like this gun. I would also like to acquire one of the .380 Government models. What a shame that Colt quit making these classy little guns.

By Vaughn Terpack

All features that I can find are cosmetic and not functional on the pistol that I have. They say that the gun is throated and polished, but I can’t verify that as I have little knowledge on the subject.
The trumpeted Novak rear sight is as near to worthless for a combat gun. It is very durable and very snag-free so I don’t expect that it will ever break….but, every smith that I’ve spoken with doesn’t understand their popularity; basically, it is heavier, more costly, and trickier to install than other combat sights. The single greatest reason for my dislike of the sight is that there is no illuminating paint or tritium to help you distinguish the sight picture in low-light combat situations. Black-on-black sights might have been the norm in the old days, but you would think that with today’s technology would allow them to put a drop of bright paint on the sight before sending it out the door. This shouldn’t be left up to the consumer!

The gun is very, very accurate right out of the box and it feels great in the hand. But, if I was to do things over again, I would buy their mil-spec pistol because it is far cheaper and have custom work done to it. This would have allowed me to get all of the needed combat enhancements I want/need without paying so much for the stock gun. Figure that my gun cost $520 new and I will have to replace several components and add several others to make this a serviceable duty weapon fit for real fighting. At $450 for the mil-spec, I could have put on a contoured beavertail safety, extended thumb safety, and durable work grips w/o going too far over the price of the “loaded” versions. It would definitely have been more expensive, but you get exactly what you want and don’t end up with doubles (like I’ll have when I replace my fancy rosewood grips with plastic or rubber ones). The key here is research. Lots of it and plenty of serious thinking about what you need.

The parkerized finish is nice and durable, but maybe something else is better. Maybe you do need a guard under the thumb safety or an inlet mag well funnel. Who knows what your needs are better than you? Do the research and then buy the Mil-spec for the base gun. That’s my opinion.

I am having fun, though;-) Gotta love that 1911A1 and all the history that comes with it.

Vaughn Terpack,
master shootist.

by Syd (1997)

I took the SA Mil-Spec to the range today for the first time. I stepped into a lane next to two guys who were trying to train on a .40 S&W Glock. They were all over the paper. I put on my shooting gloves slowly, and with a certain degree of ceremony, loaded a magazine, ran the target out to about 10 yards, and proceeded to shoot a ragged hole in the x-ring, and then, to ice the cake, loaded a second magazine and shot a second ragged hole into the ocular cavity zone. The boys with the .40 packed their gear and went home.

This particular gun is Springfield Armory’s rendering of the Mil-Spec M1911A1. It’s as close as they want to get to the original configuration that was issued to the troops. It varies from the true mil-spec M1911A1 on some small details: the ejection port is larger and lowered; the magazine well is slightly beveled; the manual safety is a bit larger; the front sight leaf is larger and thicker; the barrel is throated for modern hollow-point ammo, and it has a black parkerized finish rather than the greenish gray of the WWII guns. It is milled from better steel with the benefit of contemporary tool technology, so, in a way, you could say it is “better” than the original Colt Government Model, while maintaining the look and feel of the original. It lacks, of course, the cache of those wonderful old pieces that fought their way across Europe and the Pacific, but those guns are museum pieces now, and I wouldn’t take one out to play with it.

I have read so much about people “tricking out” these guns, essentially rebuilding them into custom pieces, that I expected to immediately launch into a series of mods. But now I find myself debating if I should do anything with this one. I don’t get slide and hammer bite, so I really don’t need to change the beaver tail and hammer. I don’t like super-light triggers, and the trigger on the Springfield is fine – it “breaks like a glass rod.” Being a true M1911A1, it doesn’t have the magazine safety like the Hi-Power, the firing pin block of the Series 80 Colts, or the firing pin block and mag safety of the S&W DA/SA’s, so the trigger is already light and smooth to my touch. I really like the Parkerized finished. I’m the kind who grieves a lifetime over rust spots in blued steel. I added a full length guide rod from Wilson Combat and a set of Pachmyar grips. I will probably change out the hammer and sear because I want to put an extended beavertail on it, and I’ll probably have Novak combat sights installed on it. I’ll do stuff to it because that’s part of the reason I wanted it – the 1911 is the hot rod frame of pistols like the Model A Ford and the `57 Chevy are with cars. But it’s nice to feel like I don’t need to do a damned thing to it for it to be a very enjoyable shoot.

My first real shakedown cruise with the big .45 was an IDPA match, and I was delighted with it. There were no stoppages or malfunctions and the accuracy was impressive. The shots went where I wanted them to go. I can definitely see why a lot of people view the M1911A1 as the greatest fighting hand gun ever built.

It’s not easy to find things to criticize about the gun. With 2500 rounds downrange, it has proven itself to be highly reliable. Although not “match grade,” the accuracy is excellent and more than adequate for tactical action shooting like IDPA. It is capable of 3″ groups at 25 yards. It did experience a half dozen failures to feed within the first 300 rounds. However, after adding the Wilson full-length guide rod and completing the 500-round break-in period, it has experienced no further malfunctions. It has never experienced other types of failures such as double feeds or extraction failures. The front sight blade is square on the back and can snag on a holster if the holster isn’t perfectly fitted for a Government Model 1911. The gun is also large and heavy, a little too big for comfortable extended concealed carry. I know people who do it, but at 39 ounces empty, the Government Model is a load.

There are some things about the 1911 that you have to experience to appreciate, particularly the way it feels in your hand, the accuracy, and the surprisingly mild recoil it creates in launching that big old bullet. Some of it is emotional and aesthetic. It is, after all, the handgun carried and fought with by American forces through four terrible wars. It was affirmed and proven in those trials by fire by those who had to use it. That counts for something.

To me, the thing that sets the 1911 apart is the way that it shoots. In my hand, a Government Model 1911 is just more accurate and faster than any other autoloader I have used. Some of this is the trigger; some of it is the inherent accuracy of the .45 ACP cartridge, and some of it is in the design of the gun. In terms of accuracy and power, I find myself comparing the 1911 not to other autoloaders but to long-barreled wheel guns. There are other good combat guns, but if I knew I had to take one pistol to a fight it would be a 1911.

As to what empirical data might be drawn upon to substantiate the superiority of the 1911, perhaps it is that so many old gunfighters seem to like them. This follows the logic of Hagar the Horrible when asked if you had to be smart to be a Viking. He answered, “No, you just have to be smart to be an old Viking.” For more on this issue, see “Why the 1911?”

The main thing is that they’re just so much fun. They shoot great, look great, and feel great.

Five Years Later

This gun has served well. I shot it in a lot of matches, and then, when in my fickle way, I moved on to other models, my son adopted it for his match gun and he has come to love it more than I do. In five years of heavy service the only problem I have had with the gun was that the front sight post worked loose and I had to have it re-staked. I replaced the factory 17 lb. recoil spring with an 18.5 lb. spring from Wolff. I did a bit of polishing on the feed ramp, throat and chamber, but nothing extensive. I never did add a beavertail, Commander hammer, or custom sights. I decided that I just liked the gun the way that it was, and if I wanted to do extensive modifications on a gun, I would do it to another and let this pistol maintain the classic form it has.

While these guns have gone up in price a little, they remain an excellent value. I paid $400 for mine NIB in late 1997. I’m still seeing them in the $475-$550 range. Whether you want a pistol that is a close, if slightly enhanced, reproduction of the G.I. gun, or if you want a solid platform upon which do build up a custom gun, it’s hard to do better than the Springfield Armory Mil-Spec.

Nine Years Later

This is the pistol I bought in 1997 to start shooting IDPA. It’s the pistol that inspired The Sight M1911. It’s the one that, when I fired the first magazine, I said, “Wow!” It’s the one that my son, Alex, prefers over his $1K Kimber for matches, and he never ceases to try to get me to give it to him, and calls it “my pistol,” but I won’t give it to him, at least not yet, not until I’m too old and feeble to shoot it. I haven’t shot it in several years, in part because Alex is always shooting it, and in part because I have come to prefer the Combat Commander for matches. The Government Models are a little slow for me in terms of getting onto the target. Yet, I love this gun like few others. It’s in that rarified rank with the Winchester Model 94 with which I took my first deer. I have other pistols, but none of them have the psychic power that this one does.

My dad was a tremendous repository of bullshit about the Government Model .45. Most of those tales like, “If you hit a man in the thumb with one it will spin him around,” and, “A normal person couldn’t hit a door at 20 feet with one,” I heard first from him. The irony was that he had carried one during his brief stint in law enforcement before I was born. He was Navy and I don’t know if he actually got any training on the gun during the war. But, nevertheless, one of the first tasks I had with the gun was to work through the lore and stories, and separate fact from fiction.

The SA Mil-Spec was a game gun for me from the start. I wanted to check out the sport of IDPA which was new at that time. That’s why I bought a big, heavy gun. I think I only actually carried it for personal defense once. It’s just a bit too heavy to be comfortable for me for carry. Big guns like this are more pleasant to shoot for matches and such. The follow-up is excellent; accuracy is inspiring, and abuse to hands is kept at a minimum. It never was about the calibers. It was about “shoot-ability.” I just noticed immediately that I got better hits faster with the SA/45 ACP combo than with the other handguns I had tried. The inherent accuracy of the pistol, its excellent trigger, and the .45 ACP cartridge make it a rewarding handgun to fire. However, I didn’t get rid of my lightweight snubs and compact 9mm’s that served for personal defense. The rest, as they say, is getting to be history at an alarming rate. The Sight M1911 will celebrate its first decade in January of 07.

The main frame home page of The Sight M1911 has had 1,112,731 hits. That’s over a million hits on one page of that web site, and the site has well over 300 pages at this point. That’s an honest number. I started the counter at 0 in ‘97 and I have never messed with it. I won’t say that The Sight is the “best” thing I have ever done, but it has definitely had the most impact of any piece of writing I have done, and this pistol was the impetus for it.

Unconsciously, this particular pistol has influenced a million people. I find that statistic staggering – the miracle of the internet, I guess. It has never “fired a shot in anger.” It didn’t have to. It’s an icon. I started my e-mail newsletter in 1999 just to alert people on what was going on in gun rights, and on my mind at the time was defending my right to keep and bear this pistol. This pistol is “mythical” in the sense that it is a symbol that points to a reality that is beyond it, and for the most part, inexpressible. How do you describe freedom and heroism? This gun points to that level of meaning. It demands that you search out the stories of heroes and villains who have fought with the M1911, like York, Basilone, Dillinger and Barrow. That’s where this gun takes you – to some of the darkest moments of the 20th Century. There is perhaps one other handgun that has this kind of effect, and that would be the Colt Single Action Army revolver. The old six-gun is an antique, obsolete for anything except cowboy action shooting. The 1911, old as it is, is not at all obsolete, and is probably more popular and more in use today than at any time in its illustrious history.

I do consider the M1911A1 to be the greatest fighting handgun, but that’s just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions. There are other fine pistols that will do the job, but none to my knowledge have seen the moments of greatness that Old Slabsides has. There are none that feel quite as “right” in my hand, or burn up the stages quite as well for me. Most of all, no other firearm has fired my imagination and sustained a decade-long effort to understand and describe it that this one has.

The Mil-Spec is really nothing special when viewed objectively, just a 95% true reproduction of the G.I. M1911A1 of World War II. But to me, it’s something more like a magic carpet.

By Bill Vojak

I finally had a chance to take my Springfield Micro Compact 1911 out to the range this weekend. Fit and finish are very good. The gun takes officer magazines, and is equipped with Novak low profile night sights. The whole gun is “melted” so there are no sharp edges. The gun has a bushingless barrel, an ambidextrous safety, a beavertail, with memory groove, It also has the Integrated Locking System, that you can simply ignore. The lock seems to have no effect on the trigger feel.

Earlier in the week I sorted through my ammo supply and dug up 3 different types of rounds (all were purchased in 1994).

1. 185 grain, cone shaped with a flat nose. All lead
2. 185 grain, cone shaped with a flat nose. Fully jacketed
3. 185 grain +P, jacketed HP with a average sized opening

So over the weekend I grabbed an assortment of ammo and headed to the range. I took 200 rounds with me, providing an mixture of the three above mentioned types of ammo. I had 3 magazines. The two Springfield magazines that came with the gun, and one Chip McCormick 7 round Shooting Star magazine.

I started with an SA magazine and the all lead ammo. I had 2 jams with that magazine. One in the middle, and then on the very last round. The next SA magazine provided the same results. The McCormick magazine only had one jam in the middle.

After a bit of shooting I realized that the SA magazines have a dimple on the follower that seemed to cause the last round to in each magazine to fail to feed. The McCormick magazine had random failures, but never any last round problems. I switched to the fully jacked ammo and had similar results. When I switched to the HP ammo the failures to feed dropped considerably. But after just a little bit of shooting the failure to feed rate amongst all the ammo types started to drop off.

I would estimate that in the first 50 rounds, I had at least 1-2 failures with each SA magazine, and 1 failure each time I used the McCormick magazine . But as I got close to 50-60 rounds the failure rate was closer to 1 failure for each SA magazine , a 1 failure every second use of the McCormick magazine .

During the next 50 rounds I only had about 4-5 total failures to chamber, and only with the SA magazines, and these were only on the last round of the magazine. The final 100 or so round only had one minor failure. That was with an all lead, flat nose round, and the slide was just a 1/4 or so out of breech. I tapped the back of the slide, the round finished chambering, and I fired it. This happened at somewhere about round 140-150, so the last 50-60 rounds chambered and fired without any problem, using all 3 magazines.

I do have a couple more of the Chip McCormick magazines on order and will use them instead of the SA magazines for CCW, as they seem to be more inherently reliable, and they hold one extra round (7). I had no failures with the gun firing when the trigger was pulled. If there was a round in the chamber and you pull the trigger, it fired.

So it looks like it took about 200 rounds to break in the gun. I still want to put another 200-300 through it with no jams before I’ll declare it fully broken in. It seems that generally speaking, all of the 3″ micro guns made by the different manufactures tend to be a bit finicky at first. The physics of making a sub-compact .45 just seem to require much more thought than when designing a 5″ standard gun.

As for shooting, I was having some problems at first with it shooting low. Then I realized this gun really likes you to line up the 3 dots on the sights instead of the tops of all the sights. Once I did this it still shot low, but only a inch or two instead of four or five. Next time out I’ll be trying some 230 grain rounds and see if that raises the impact point.

I was using some homemade 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper targets and had no problems keeping all of the rounds on half of the paper.

By time I got through the break in period and got a feel for the sights, I had put about a 150 rounds through the gun. At that point I tried to see what types of groups I could get. At 30 feet a typical 5 shot group was 3-4 inches depending on ammo. I’m pretty darn sure I can cut that down by at least one inch with a bit of practice, using ammo that the gun likes. The short sight radius does present some practical limits when shooting.

There is a fair amount of muzzle flip, but the recoil in my opinion, is mild. I’ve never really been recoil sensitive, except a Ruger SP101 in .38 special I own. Shooting my Taurus 85CH with 158 grain +P rounds never proved to be uncomfortable, even though it’s smaller and lighter than the SP101. I guess the geometry of the grips on the SP101 just don’t match my hands. A problem that is easily solvable by buying a new set of grips.

It’s been a while since I’ve fired a .45, and I have to say that it was fun. I never really understood all of the stories about the “tremendous recoil”, and how “it will knock you flat on your a**” and so on that some people claim regarding .45s. Even with a 3 inch barrel, a alloy frame, and shooting 185 grain +P ammo, I felt that the recoil was no big deal.

A couple other people tried shooting the Micro and liked it. Like me, they all shot a bit low. The guy in the lane next to me let me try his Kimber Ultra (5″). After shooting the Micro, the full size gun felt like a .22!

So I’m really happy with this gun. I still need some more practice with it. It’s looking like long term reliability will be high now that it’s past the initial break-in period. I have no problem with having to put a few hundred rounds though a gun to break it in. Too many people buy a gun, loaded it up, and never fire it till then need it in an emergency. As this is my new concealed carry gun, I’d still be running a few hundred rounds through it on a regular basis, even if it had been 100% reliable from round #1.

My only other problem is that Springfield provides a manual that describes three different takedown procedures, none of which are for the Micro. I had no problem removing the slide, but I still can’t figure out how to remove the barrel. None of the three described methods in the manual, worked. Further research on the WEB led to the discovery that Springfield forgot to include a spring tool in the box. It’s just a small plastic clamp that keeps the spring compressed so you can remove the barrel. I called Springfield and they are sending me one.

I bought a Don Hume J.I.T. holster for it, and It’s really nice. It’s just a thin strip of leather that covers from the trigger guard, to the end of the barrel. Even though the Micro’s barrel and grip are longer than my Taurus .38 snubby, It really is easier to carry since it is so much flatter. Also it’s easer to carry spare ammo in a magazine, rather than a speed-loader. Once I get the two extra McCormick magazines I’ll have a standard carry of 21+1 rounds of ammo.

As for the carrying cocked & locked, something I was a bit wary of, I’ve already transitioned to carrying with a round in the chamber. The J.I.T. holster completely covers the trigger area, and the slide safety clicks on with a good solid click, and stays on. Carrying cocked and locked has ended up being no big deal. Of course I am also making sure that I keep my finger out of the trigger guard and off of the trigger at all time as no manually safety can be a substitute for good weapon handling.

I’m very happy with the Springfield Micro and would recommend it as a concealed carry gun. The quality is excellent and the reliability looks like it will very good.

By Syd

I was determined not to like this gun – Colt/Kimber/Springfield snobbery at work, I guess. I went at it with the intention of finding fault. At the same time, I love M1911A1’s, and precious few gun makers are building true M1911A1’s these days. They may look like them on the outside, but inside, they’re polluted with a bunch of lawyer-friendly, California suck-up perversions of the design, like Swartz safety firing pin blocks, external extractors, integrated locking systems and other “answers in search of a question” devices that degrade the trigger and add unnecessary complexity to the design. Personally, I really like the M1911A1 design, which is sometimes referred to as the “Series 70” format (even though “Series 70” and “M1911A1” are really two different pistols). People use “Series 70” to mean 1911’s that don’t have firing pin blocks (or in Kimber parlance, Series 1). (Go here to get a complete description of the Series 70 Colt.) Kimber had taken to adding these “improvements” with an external extractor and a Swartz-type firing pin block, but the Marines rang their bells when they ordered a batch of 1911’s from Kimber, but specified that they should have no firing pin blocks or full length guide rods, and they should have internal extractors – in other words, they should be real M1911’s and not the lawyer friendly crap that has developed recently. So, even though my Colt/Kimber/Springfield snobbery was blazing bright, there was some serious sympathy for an outfit that is still willing to build a true M1911A1, and RIA (actually Armscor of the Philippines through their subsidiary, Twin Pines) is doing that.

The RIA guns are being sold at extremely attractive prices. The “M1911A1” is selling for about $350-$370 and that price point is generating a lot of interest, especially when guns like the Springfield Mil-Spec are commanding $560 and most Kimber and Colt models are going for $800+.

There are some ways that the RIA M1911A1 is not a true M1911A1. The most obvious is that it has a flat mainspring housing. The G.I. M1911A1 has a curved mainspring housing. Contemporary 1911 shooters seem to prefer the flat mainspring housing which was characteristic of the older M1911 over the curved housing of the WW II era guns. The RIA pistol, like most modern production 1911’s, has a lowered ejection port with the scallop relief to the rear which is a good idea for reliability, but is not characteristic of the G.I. gun. It has a beveled magazine well and a somewhat enlarged thumb safety flange – again, modern modifications that make sense, but which were not found on the G.I. gun. It also has smooth wood grips rather than checkered bakelite. The RIA is like the M1911A1 in that it is parkerized, has the short trigger of the M1911A1, has authentic sights, short guide rod and spring plug, no firing pin block, and a mil-spec trigger of about 5.5-6 lbs.

First Test

It shot really well close. At seven yards I got a ragged hole. At 25 yards I got a pattern the size of a cantaloupe 8″ low at 8 o’clock. (By way of comparison, I shoot a baseball-sized pattern at point of aim at 25 yards with the SA XD 9mm at this same range under similar lighting conditions). It could have been my eyes and those tiny sights in the indoor range. I’m not ready to blame that totally on the gun yet. Probably a bit more testing is in order. I did the “magazine from hell” test (running every weird old magazine in my collection through it for reliability testing) and it only had one problem – a no-name Chinese knock-off magazine failed to lock back on the last round. There were no failures to feed (FTF). I did nothing to prep this gun for the test. I just took it out of the box, wiped the packing oil off of the outside and fired it – no lube, cleaning or “fluff & buff.” The only real problem was that I got some bitchin’ hammer bite. I don’t usually get hammer bite with M1911A1’s but this one sure did. When I got home, there was blood on the hammer flange and beavertail. All in all, it was a pretty decent performance for a $350 pistol. It was better than I expected it to be.

Second Test
Without cleaning it, I took it to a training session. For this session the RIA performed in the second gun role, with the trusty Combat Commander as the primary. I shot about half of the session with it, around 50 rounds or so. Again, the RIA performed flawlessly; again there was bitchin’ hammer bite.

Third Test
I remembered to grind off the sharp end of the hammer this time, but aside from a bit of wipe off when I took the hammer out of the gun, I still had not cleaned or lubed it. This session was at an indoor range and I ran 100 rounds of Winchester White Box through the gun. Again, it performed without a single bobble or hiccough. That made approximately 250 rounds of hardball through a new gun, without any cleaning or maintenance. All ammo was Winchester “White Box.” I have to admit that I’m warming up to the gun at this point.

Critique
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and you would expect that certain corners might be cut in order to keep the pistol in the $350 range when most other M1911’s are bringing $800 and up. If you want to find nits to pick, you can. The sights are very authentic narrow blade sights like those used on the G.I. guns. In the dim light of the indoor range, they were hard to pick up. The smooth wood grips strike me as a little chintzy. Like many guns these days, the RIA has a number of MIM (metal injection molding) parts. If you look at the MIM parts with a 10x loupe, you will notice tiny surface imperfections like pits that appear to be the result of not quite enough polishing after the part came out of the mold. Also, a gun billed as an “M1911A1” should have an arched mainspring housing rather than a flat one. There seems to be a collective decision in the 1911 universe that we all prefer flat mainspring housings over arched ones. It really depends on an individual’s hand shape and geometry. Flat MSH’s aren’t perfect for everyone. The slide and frame are castings rather than bar-stock milling. I know for a lot of folks this is a negative, but you have to keep reminding yourself, “$350.” Last, if you look at a real government issue M1911A1, you will notice that the finish is dark gray with green and brownish tints. Like most “mil-spec” 1911 clones, the parkerization on the Rock Island Armory gun is black. Personally I like the black, but it’s not completely authentic.

What’s to Like?
Well, there’s price, price and did I mention price? For the money, I think this gun is an excellent value. The Rock Island Armory M1911A1 would be an excellent “first gun” for someone who wants to try out the M1911 platform without over-committing resources. Based on my testing so far, it has the reliability and accuracy to serve in the personal defense role. It might be able to go places with you where you wouldn’t want to take the “safe queens.” And, by the way, I still haven’t cleaned and lubed it, and it’s still running fine.

By Syd

Between 1905 and 1911, the combined efforts of John Browning, Colt, and the Army Ordnance Board were required to produce the M1911 pistol, and this effort stood on the groundwork of several decades of autoloader development from Hiram Maxim, Hugo Borchardt, Herr Luger, the Mausers, and Browning himself. The M1911 fought its way through WW I and experienced some minor modifications, but beyond that, the Ordnance Board seemed to lose interest in further refinement of the M1911, and after WWII, began to search for a smaller caliber, and a lighter weight pistol with a smaller frame. Past 1926, design innovation of the M1911 was left to Colt, the armorers of the Army Marksmanship Unit, and talented civilian gunsmiths who applied their creativity and skill to the old warhorse. Through the shared experience of soldiers, lawmen, gunsmiths, metallurgists, competition shooters and others, a profile for the M1911 developed in the last half of the century: make it lighter, more accurate, smoother, better sights; bring back the longer trigger and flat mainspring housing of the M1911; make it able to handle modern hollowpoint ammunition reliably; give it a match grade trigger, and make it visually appealing. In the Pro CDP II, Kimber has done an excellent job of capturing this profile.

While it is arguably the most successful autoloader pistol design in the world, the M1911A1 is not perfect (oooh, heresy… ). It’s big, heavy, has lousy sights, and in its military form, has marginal accuracy. (Kuhnhausen states that anything better than an 8” pattern at 50 yards was considered acceptable by government armorers.) These days, pistol shooters are demanding more out of their guns. It’s interesting to see how Kimber has addressed the criticisms of the M1911 in the Pro Carry and Pro CDP series of pistols.

The first major design innovation made by Colt to the venerable 1911 formula was in 1949-1950 when the aluminum alloy framed Commander was introduced. Colt did this in response to the Armed Forces’ quest for a smaller, lighter sidearm. Although the Commander was not adopted by the military, the format proved to be immensely popular. At 28 ounces, the Commander was considerably more comfortable to carry than the Government Model. The Kimber Pro CDP is a Commander-format gun. It has the aluminum alloy frame and Government-size grip of the Commander. Its slide and barrel are 1/4″ shorter than the Commander, and it uses a 4″ bull barrel rather than the 4.25″ barrel with bushing of the genuine Commander. The Commander format makes for a gun that is very easy to carry but still large enough to have excellent accuracy and adequate muzzle velocity.

Kimber made their mark in the M1911 pistol world by offering guns that had all of the “custom” features that people had been adding to their guns for years: extended beavertails, non-snag combat sights, extended ambidextrous thumb safeties, etc. The Pro CDP has every custom nicety that you can think of for a custom M1911.

“CDP” stands for “Custom Defense Package” in Kimberese. These guns are hand fitted in the Kimber custom shop and have a distinctive look. The frames have a black anodized finish. The slides are bead-blasted stainless steel with a “melt treatment” meaning that the sharp edges are rounded off. The CDP pistols also feature Meprolight tritium night sights and ambidextrous thumb safeties. The grips are rosewood. The small parts – the slide stop, grip safety, grip screws, hammer, mag catch, and thumb safety – are stainless steel to contrast with the flat black of the frame. The mainspring housing is silver colored plastic and the trigger is aluminum. For some, including me, this visual treatment is a bit flashy, but it does create an eye-catching effect.

Kimber has begun to install what they call the “Series II” firing pin block. (It is essentially a resurrection of the Swartz safety developed for Colt before the Second World War). When you depress the grip safety, a small pin pushes a plunger up in the slide which unblocks the firing pin. I do like it better in one respect than the Series 80 firing pin block of Colt: it is activated by the grip safety, not by the trigger (see diagram), so you get the clean trigger pull sans the click and crunch of the Series 80 guns. You have to be careful when you field strip it and reassemble it because if you hold it by the grip and activate the grip safety, a little pin comes up next to the disconnector and it will stop the slide from coming off or going on, and if you get muscle-bound with it, you could shear the pin and render the gun unable to fire. Also, the FPB mechanism can only be accessed by removing the rear sight should you need to do cleaning or maintenance on it. I’m not terribly wild about this characteristic. (I still believe this is a lawyer-friendly answer in search of a question. I continue to search for documented instances of 1911 pistols going off from being dropped on their muzzles, and I have yet to find one documented instance of an unmodified 1911 in good repair discharging due to a drop on the muzzle from any kind of normal height – if you find one, please send it to me).

One of the persistent complaints about the M1911 pistol is that the venerable Government Model would only feed 230 grain full metal jacket “hardball” ammunition. The Government Model and the hardball cartridge were literally built for each other. The development of the cartridge was part of the development process of Browning and the Army Ordnance board. The original M1911 and M1911A1 pistols are tremendously reliable with the hardball cartridge. The problem emerges when shooters want to run other types of ammo, particularly wadcutters and hollowpoints that don’t follow the hardball profile. The traditional solution for this problem is to throat the barrel and hope for the best. Kimber seems to have conquered this problem for the most part on their defensive models. The barrel is given a wide throat at the factory, and, if you compare the feed ramp of the Pro CDP with the feed ramp of a Series 70 Colt, you will notice that the Kimber feed ramp is cut at a deeper angle than that of the Colt. The Pro CDP has shown superb feed reliability. This gun just hasn’t jammed or failed to feed at all.

A common complaint levied against the 1911 is that it’s designed for right-handers and is not south-paw friendly. This is mostly true: the thumb safety and magazine release are on the left side of the gun and are intended to be operated with the thumb of the right hand. Those of us who are devoted to the 1911 pattern learn to operate the controls of the 1911 with either hand, but many find the left hand operation of the manual safety to be awkward and difficult. The user must bring the thumb around the beavertail while holding the grip only between the palm of the hand and four fingers. This is not a secure hold and may be difficult for users with small hands. Kimber’s response to this issue is to install an ambidextrous thumb safety in the CDP line of pistols. The magazine release remains on the left side of the frame only, but south-paws can work the mag release with less awkwardness than the left handed operation of the thumb safety. The index finger on the mag release works well.

Another common and well justified critique of the Government Model M1911 is that the sights are too small and hard to see. Thin front sight blades and narrow rear sight notches make for more precision in high accuracy target work, but a thicker front sight post and wider rear notch make for quicker target acquisition. The wider leaf and notch are also easier to see for those with weak eyesight. Remembering that “CDP” stands for “Custom Defense Package,” The Pro CDP employs the wider notch and leaf McCormick-style “combat sights” with Meprolight tritium insets for quick low-light target acquisition. It’s interesting to point the gun down a darkened hallway to see how far off our basic intuitive pointing of the gun can be. It’s instructive. I like these sights.

Somewhat more controversial is the full length guide rod employed by Kimber and many other 1911-clone builders. M1911 purists are fond of quoting the old saw, “the berm at Gunsite is littered with full-length guide rods.” The M1911 and Colt Commanders have partial-length guide rods. The partial length guide rod reduces the weight of the gun and enables the trigger-guard-and-spring-plug press check. Proponents of the full length guide rod say the FLG gives more consistent lock-up and better reliability. This is one of those debates that is interminable, like .308 vs. 30-06, but the fact is that most pistol builders, including those building 1911s have adopted the FLG. The Pro CDP uses a FLG. The slide is disassembled by trapping the recoil spring with a small wire tool that comes with the gun. When you lose the tool, and you will, you can easily replace it with a paper clip straightened and bent into an “L” shape.

The Pro CDP sports another evolution away from the classic Browning design: it eliminates the barrel bushing in favor of a bull barrel. This innovation isn’t new with the Pro CDP. Kimber started using it with their Compact model. Bull barrels aren’t new either. Karl Schuemann has been building them for many years and they have been used in pistols from Clark Custom, Para-Ordnance and many others. For maximum accuracy and reliability, the barrel bushing of the M1911 should be hand fitted by an expert. Eliminating the bushing simplifies the design and removes one thing that can be a source of problems. Is the bushing-less design superior? For guns with barrels of 4″ or less, I think it is. Commanders and Government Models seem to function pretty well with bushings, but smaller guns do seem to benefit from the bushing-less design. The compact Kimbers with bull barrels that I have tested have been wonderfully accurate and reliable.

Hitting what you aim at:
Accuracy of the gun is quite rewarding (see test target). I find it easy to put the bullets where I want them to go with excellent consistency. No complaints here.

Trigger:
The trigger is OK, but not great. It is 4.5 lbs. with a little bit of creep. It will smooth out with some use, but I think a “Custom Shop” gun could be a bit cleaner.

Value:
With an MSRP of $1140, the Pro CDP is not cheap. Kimber claims that by installing all of the “custom” features at the factory at production time, the user is saved $500. When Kimber first began to provide factory guns with custom features, this was certainly true and the Kimber Custom was far and away the best value in factory produced 1911’s at that time, especially if you wanted the standard package of custom features on a Government Model pistol. These days, with Springfield Armory, Colt, Para-Ordnance, and most other manufactures building the standard custom features into their guns at production time, the added value pitch is not as persuasive as it once was. The Pro CDP is a beautifully built pistol, but I would like it better at a price point between $800 and $900.

Cosmetics:
This is the place where I have the most ambiguous feelings about this gun. If your aesthetic for guns and gear is tactical flat black, you won’t like this pistol. If, on the other hand, you like a little flash, this pistol will speak to you. One of the delightful characteristics of the 1911 is that it does lend itself to interesting custom finishes and visual effects. The high-end custom shops, like Clark, Wilson and Brown, have been producing two-toned 1911s for a number of years, and it’s an eye-catching effect. The contrasting and alternating tones of black and stainless components create a visually interesting effect. The vibrant orange-red color of the grips completes the visual impact, placing a warm and moderating tone between the stark black and silver colors. This styling has been grabbing my attention in display cases since Kimber first introduced the CDP line of pistols. It’s an attractive pistol, but I haven’t bought one for myself. It’s just a bit too flashy for me. Really, my favorite “look” is the “I’ve fought my way through a dozen wars and I’m better than ever” look.

Notable negatives:
While it is true that I have definitely acquired “champagne tastes” in 1911 pistols and my complaints are tiny things that a thousand others wouldn’t even notice, a couple of things really bothered me. I could see a slight sliver of daylight under the ejector and under the front sight base (we’re talking jeweler’s loupe stuff here, not big gaps). Both parts are firmly attached to the gun, and will probably never cause a problem, but for a $1140 “Custom Shop” gun, I should not see any space under these parts. It would really annoy me to see the front sight flying away at some point in the future. The checkering on the grips is coarse and sharp, not really comfortable. I think a finer checkering should be used. The mainspring housing is gray plastic. I don’t have the problem with the plastic MSH that some people do – they reduce weight, don’t rust, and are actually kinder to your hand than a steel one – but this one looks cheesy.

Notable positives:
I like the Meprolight tritium night sights. They’re bright and they really would assist in getting the gun oriented in a night time defensive situation. I like the 30 lpi checkering on the front strap and bottom of the trigger guard. The weight is great. It feels much like a Lightweight Commander, but even lighter. I put a full mag in and holstered it. The comfort brought about by the reduced weight is immediately noticeable, especially in the holster. Slide to frame fit is excellent. I haven’t made up my mind about the melt-down treatment, but a lot of people seem to like it. Trigger and accuracy were excellent right out of the box. Reliability is typical of Kimber: it runs right straight out of the box with any kind of ammo you feed it.

Summary:
The Kimber Pro CDP II is a pistol I would feel perfectly comfortable in carrying in the defensive role or for use in a tactical match. It is a visually appealing pistol with superb accuracy and rock-solid reliability. Its heritage proceeds from the Colt Lightweight Commander, and its design reflects 90 years of learning and experience with the M1911 single action autoloader design.

Specifications
Caliber	.45
Capacity	7 + 1 (or 8 +1 with extra-capacity magazine)
Operation	Single Action M1911-pattern autoloader
Barrel	4″ match grade bull barrel, twist rate 16
Length O/A	7.7″
Height	5.25″
Width	1.28″
Weight	28 ounces
Grip	Checkered Rosewood
Sights	Low profile tritium Meprolight night sights
Finish	Matte stainless steel slide with melt treatment; black anodized aluminum frame
Magazines	3-standard, 7-round
Warranty	Limited Lifetime

 

By Darryl L. Rowe

I visited my local dealer with the intention of replenishing my ammo supply and window shopping. Looked to see if there were any Gunsite Service Pistols on the shelf but instead saw a sexy looking number with “Kimber Custom Shop” on the slide. Having seen it, I had to run my hands over it and check the trigger…I vaguely remember staggering out of the store with the feel of overheated plastic in my hip pocket and a box labeled “Kimber.”

A “Series I” version…very smooth. Used? Yes, but apparently very lightly used – I had whipped out the Surefire in the store and scoped out the barrel and inside the mag-well and breech, etc. Some wear (rather, a slight discoloration of the frame where a hand gripped it) and for the rest it was nice and shiny and new-looking. I’d say 98%…no less than 95%. A little powder sludge at the top of the firing pin stop and on the breech face which wiped right off. N-i-ice trigger. Much better than I’m used to on the 1991A1. The Custom Shop brochure in the box was dated 1999.

From a rest, slow-fire, it was probably insulted at my marksmanship ability. Nevertheless, the rounds were in the 8-ring at 25 yards (remember, I haven’t fired in a year). Using an unbraced Weaver hold and standing there I got reasonable “social work” accuracy out to about 15 yards in slow-fire mode but predictably worse if practicing “hammers” or “controlled pairs.” No insurmountable problems and significantly better than my 1991A1 which I used to create a baseline for comparison. The lighter, smoother trigger was most of the advantage in my opinion.

Took it to an impromptu match and it markedly improved my scores (having not fired a shot in almost a year), I was pretty much in the A zone at the 3 and 5 yard marks drawing from concealment on the timer. The sights helped, but a minor gripe is the front sight:

1. The tritium is either going or it wasn’t much to begin with since you can’t see it at night unless you hold the pistol almost up to your nose. The rear dots are easily visible. Perhaps too visible.
2. The front sight dot is harder to pick up than the dots on the rear sight in daylight and forget at night.

I’m very happy, so far. At the 10-yard line I moved outside the A zone a bit, but that is the shooter, not the gun and let’s not mention the 25-yard line (I tried braced kneeling but my hold was wobbly) and let us just say that I was on the paper much more than I would have been with the Colt 1991 I’ve been carrying and using for years. Nothing that can’t be fixed with some serious practice.

Now, being a dedicated Cooper-ite I wanted to make the following changes: 1) replace the ambi thumb safety with a strong-side only thumb safety; 2) replace the long trigger with a short trigger but keep the 3.5-4# break; 3) put on some slimline grips; 4) remove the extended magwell and either replace the mainspring housing or put a set-screw in it to protect the magwell threads (just in case); and 5) do something about that front sight.

Sobbing… when I got home from the match, I unholstered the pistol so I could clear it and clean it. The nice, pretty 30-lpi frontstrap checkering was “red” where it had touched my shirt. (Note: my 1991A1 has never done this in almost eight years of similar use.) So…liberal application of BreakFree and toothbrush cleaned it right up. Used up some Surefire battery time inspecting the pistol for any other places where it might need attention and found none. Okay, we’ll get sweaty and see what happens – one day and no problems, second day and a hint of color shows up – so I’d have to wipe it down daily with BreakFree where I had been dry-wiping the Colt and using BreakFree as little as once a week under similar circumstances, at least wiping condensation and sweat off at the end of the day with cloth where the Kimber tempted me to leave it oozing with BreakFree (well, maybe not “oozing” but …).

Did some research and it appears Kimber uses a higher carbon content in their stainless to make it easier to machine while making it less corrosion resistant. Supposedly Springfield and Colt use better mixes. So, okay I start thinking about having the gun hard chromed to make it better stand up to my “super” sweat. (Yes, being a Naval veteran I’m still somewhat…salty. )

Hmmmm. Replace safety, trigger, grips, front sight; remove magwell, hard chrome … Hey, this isn’t such a deal anymore! I could probably upgrade the 1991A1 to what I want for less than the Kimber cost already. And hard chroming would probably require some tweaks and break-in to account for the accretion layer of chrome (I guess). Hmmm….

Okay, that was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back… the Kimber is out of here. I don’t buy “stainless” merely to keep on performing “blued carbon steel” preventive maintenance. I’m spoiled by the 1991A1’s forgiving nature and just don’t want to deal with a need to do a close inspection and scrubdown if I miss a day or just get outside of my normal A/C environment and sweat it up. After 30 minutes on the treadmill I can touch it and see it discolor – and for that matter my Defender and AMT DAO Backup have even been on the treadmill with me – something I’d never consider now with the Kimber.

Love the Kimber Gold Combat Stainless – always will – hate the steel they used. If you aren’t overweight and a sweat-a-holic, and/or carry in other than an IWB rig you’ll probably love it too. Tom Givens is giving a class next month and that should help me get my marksmanship headed back in the right direction. As for the equipment, adapt and overcome with the 1991A1….

[Editor’s Note] I got a lot of e-mail about this article and the issue of corrosion on stainless steel. A number of readers pointed out that they had suffered corrosion on stainless Colts and Springfield Armory pistols. I have carried a stainless and alloy Kimber Pro Carry for quite some time and I have never suffered any problems with staining or corrosion and I have carried it in very sweaty, humid situations. My son, on the other hand, can just look at metal and cause it to corrode. He actually stains chrome plated Craftsman wrenches when he works with them. He raised rust spots on my Remington 870 with that flat black whatever-it-is finish they’re using these days, and it’s tough. On a recent camping trip, I opened a package of MRE fruit with my Benchmade Ares and its 154CM stainless blade, and it left a nasty blue stain across the blade. We all have different body chemistry and there is really no such thing as truly “stainless steel.” All “stainless” has a certain amount of carbon in it and there will always be some combination of chemistry and conditions that can stain or corrode it. I guess the moral of the story is to treat “stainless steel” as if it weren’t and coat it with a corrosion resisting oil like Mil-Comm.

By Syd

The Springfield Government Model 1911A1 is a great gun for target and competitive shooting, but it’s a really big gun, weighing 39 ounces empty. Its size makes it hard to conceal and it’s something of a burden to pack around all day. Although I love the performance of the pistol, I found myself longing for a smaller, lighter 1911-pattern gun, having the cool custom features that everyone likes in a 1911 and yet a reasonable price tag. At the same time, I didn’t want one that would be so small and light that it would sacrifice accuracy or be unpleasant to shoot.

I searched the Web, went to the gun shows, and cruised the shops looking for this “best of all possible worlds” .45. The Colt Commander was ok, but the finish and detailing were not where I thought they should be. The Colt Defender looked too fat and I was concerned that it might be too light to shoot comfortably. The new Colt CCO looked like it was made of plastic even though it isn’t. Additionally, I have some political issues with Colt at the time. The Springfield Ultra Compact and Champion just looked like chopped down Mil-Spec. The Springfield V-10 was attractive, but the barrel porting is not something I like and it disqualifies the pistol for IDPA shooting. The big-name custom shop pieces, such as the offerings from Wilson and Baer, while gorgeous, were just too doggone expensive. (I even tested a Glock 30 but found it too fat, too ugly, and lacking in accuracy. I will say that the Glock 30 is a nice pistol to shoot that’s easy on the hands but the Un-Safe Action trigger makes me nervous.)

I walked into one shop and the proprietor asked me what I wanted to see. I said, “A compact .45.” Without hesitation, he reached into the case and retrieved a Kimber Custom Compact. It was parkerized with diamond checkered rosewood grips. I liked it right away. The Custom Compact is a hybrid: an almost Commander length slide and 4″ bull barrel with an Officer’s grip. It takes Officer’s magazines, and comes with one 7-round Shooting Star. (I bought 3 more McCormick 7-round Officer’s magazines so I’d have an adequate load-out for IDPA. Even though the Kimber mag is a Shooting Star, there is a slight difference in the cutaway on the left side and when I first put the mags in the gun, they didn’t want to lock back the slide. However, in range testing, the McCormick mags functioned properly with no failures to feed or lock back.)

Other nice “custom” features on the gun include the McCormick skeletonized hammer and trigger, extended beavertail, checkered slide release and mainspring housing, McCormick Low Profile combat sights, overall de-horning, and single recoil spring. Since the Compact uses a bull barrel which aligns directly on the slide, there is no barrel bushing. Take-down is accomplished by locking back the slide and placing a small wire “disassembly tool” in a hole in the guide rod. With the “tool” in place, you gently release the slide lock and ease the slide forward, which traps the recoil spring and causes the guide rod bushing to slip out of the slide. Then the slide stop is removed, and the slide, guide rod and spring, and barrel can be removed for cleaning. I didn’t really like the wire tool disassembly arrangement, but after seeing the way the gun performed, I came to view it as a necessary evil to accomplish the reliability and accuracy that the gun displays.

Although I had read a couple of glowing reviews about this particular pistol, I had some apprehension about buying a Kimber product. I’ve followed their triumphs and defeats fairly closely. My first experience with a Kimber was with a Classic belonging to a colleague in a tactical shooting class. That particular pistol was an absolute jam-o-matic. While it could have been operator error or a poorly maintained pistol, it was a bad first impression. I was aware of problems with slide stops on some of the early models, of some after-market mags not locking back, and the sight problems with the early production Gold Match models. Most disturbing was buzz I continued to pick up about their customer service and custom shop. Personally, I don’t see how a service/custom shop can function without a test range, and it’s my understanding that the Kimber shop does not have a range for sighting in and reliability testing. With that said, the overwhelming majority of Kimber owners report tremendous satisfaction, accuracy, and reliability with their pistols. Since I know several decent 1911 mechanics, I decided to take a chance on the pistol with the idea that if I did get a problem gun there would be local technical support to iron out the problems.

Putting the Custom Compact through its Paces

The pistol has performed superbly. At four hundred rounds through the gun, it has experienced no stoppages, failures to feed, or malfunctions of any kind. Test ammo was Fiocchi 200g jhp and my own reloaded hardball.

At the outdoor range, shooting at thirty yards offhand, I could keep the shots in a saucer-sized area (A-zone on an IDPA target) with most grouping in a very tight little pattern two inches below center. I tried to jam it by shooting “gangsta” style, weak hand, rapid fire, and upside down. There were no stoppages. In the indoor range, shooting at 15 yards offhand, ragged holes were easy.

With reliability, accuracy, and magazines tested, the next step in checking out the pistol was to run it through an IDPA match. My scores were excellent, especially considering that it was a new gun with a longer Chip McCormick skeletonized trigger which has a different feel than the short trigger of the M1911A1. What I noticed the most was how quickly the pistol acquired the target and got back on target during double taps. The purpose of the tapered bull barrel design is to help in this regard because it adds some weight to the muzzle and balance to the gun.

One would not think that the reduction of six ounces of weight and an inch in slide length would make a huge difference in the way the gun carries, but it does. The handle is .4″ shorter than a government model, sacrificing one round in the magazine but adding to the concealability. At 34 oz., the pistol is on the heavy side, but with a good holster, it is not uncomfortable to carry for extended periods of time. The holster I selected for it is the Galco Quick Slide. It is quite comfortable and offers excellent concealment.

Is the Kimber Compact the “best of all possible worlds .45?” If it isn’t, it’s pretty darned close. When you take in the whole picture of appearance, features, performance, and cost, it looks like one of the very best options.

Three Years Later…

I felt that it would be worthwhile to update my original review of the pistol which has become my favorite handgun, the Kimber Compact. I bought it in the summer of 1998. I wanted a 1911 that was smaller than a Government Model but sturdy enough to stand up to a lot of match shooting and training sessions. At that time, this meant either a Kimber Compact, a Colt Compact, or a Springfield Champion (at that time, the Champion was a Mil-Spec with a 4″ barrel). Of the three, the Kimber appealed to me most, and I was intrigued with the new builder of 1911-pattern pistols. This was before Springfield Armory and Colt had seen the light and started to add the “custom” features to their guns such as extended beavertails, extended manual safeties, and snag-free combat sights. (Compare the sights, grip safety and magazine release of the Colt Compact to the Kimber.)

I haven’t been sorry.

Since ’98, the gun has been my constant companion for matches, training session, backwoods expeditions, road trips and daily carry. I have lost count of how many rounds the Compact has sent downrange, but I estimate it in the vicinity of 10,000. Spending as much range time as this with the gun has given me a certain confidence in it and comfortable familiarity that I don’t have with other pistols. I know it will put the rounds where it is aimed. I know it will go “bang” every time. I know it takes me exactly 1.43 seconds to get it out of the holster and put two rounds into the A-zone of a target. I don’t have to think about drawing it, sweeping the safety off, getting the front sight on the target and squeezing the trigger. My muscles have all that memorized. Actually, I don’t really have to use the sights because I know by the feel of the gun where the bullet is going to go. It isn’t fussy about ammunition. I have run all sorts of loads and bullet shapes through it, and it handles them all with equal aplomb. I have compared it head-on with hand fitted custom jobs costing three times as much and found that it compares quite favorably.

Troubles

Reliability: When the gun was new, it was perfect. Unlike many new 1911 pistols, it did not experience feed failures. Somewhere around 3,000 rounds I began to experience feed failures and an occasional premature slide lock. This really distressed me because the gun had been so clean up to that point. It took me a couple of months to scope out the problems. As it worked out, there were actually three problems rather than one.

The first problem was, that after thousands of reloaded rounds, the seating die on my reloading press had backed out just a bit and I was cranking out rounds which were too long. A second, and the most important problem was that my recoil spring had begun to spread out at the rear, to the extent that the slide would bind on the spring when it went fully to the rear during the recoil cycle. I may have exacerbated this problem by putting my recoil spring in “backwards” meaning the open end of the spring to the rear. (Note to Compact owners: the open end of the recoil spring goes toward the muzzle end and the closed end of the spring goes to the rear.) I always had doubts about the “metal injection molded” slide stop, and at this point in the gun’s life, it was beginning to look a bit battered. A fresh Kimber recoil spring, installed correctly, and a Wilson Bullet-Proof slide stop coupled with an adjustment of the reloading press, solved these problems. The second Kimber recoil spring lasted about another 2500 rounds when it too began to spread out at the back end and bind the slide even though it was definitely installed correctly. This time, I replaced it with a Wolff 22 lb. Commander spring and I have had no other problems since. I will add that when I needed customer support from Kimber, I got it promptly and it was helpful.

Finish: The gun came with your basic black phosphate finish. I have heard the Kimber phosphate finish criticized by more than one user, and it didn’t hold up for me. The Kimber phosphate finish does not seem to be as deep and tough as the mil-spec parkerization of the GI guns. During one camping trip, the gun was laying in the tent in a leather holster during a bad rain. The tent leaked and unfortunately, a pool of water gathered and soaked into the holster while I was asleep. By the time I discovered the problem, the chemicals in the leather had stripped a section of the finish off on the left side. I did my best to touch it up with cold blue, but it never looked really right. Finally, the rear stake of the plunger tube came loose and I knew it was time to go to a gunsmith. I had the gun parkerized by a local ‘smith, Danny Jackson, who really knows how to do a park job. Click here for before and after pictures of the parkerization.

“My Gun”

The Compact remains my favorite gun to shoot, the most familiar in my hand, the most trusted member of the arsenal. Were the proverbial doo-doo to collide with the air circulating device, it’s the handgun I would want at my side because I know that I would have the best chance of getting the job done with it.

“…I have now fired more than 1,500 rounds during my test and evaluation of the Kimber Compact Custom. There have been no stoppages of any kind…This is the first production-series compact caliber .45 ACP M1911-type pistol that requires no custom gunsmithing to bring its reliability up to acceptable standards. It’s ready to go, right out-of-the-box, and, like the full-size Kimber Custom Classic .45, it has all the custom features you need on a fighting .45. In conclusion, the Kimber Compact Classic .45 is simply outstanding.”

Peter Kokalis, Soldier of Fortune, 4/98