BarryinIN

I like the 10mm just fine. I had a G20 and G29 at the same time (and a S&W 1006, and later a Colt Delta Elite). I liked shooting the G29 more than the G20, because the grip fit my hand better. The full-size 10mm/.45 Glocks feel terrible to me, but the compact versions' grip is shaped slightly different and it makes a big difference. I could shoot the G29 better than the G20 too, and I always thought the grip difference was a big reason why. I didn't think recoil was much harder than the G22/23, and always guessed the wider grip probably made it feel that way. Yes, I was using real-deal 10mm ammo, and not the FBI stuff. But I'm Glockless now. My 10mm is a Colt Delta Elite. I like it and the 10mm it shoots. I shoot anything from 175 grain bullets at 850 fps to 210 cast at 1310 fps in it. It eats 'em up and shoots them pretty well.

Why would one replace the rear sight? I already gave one reason and you quoted it, but I'll cut and paste it here: If they don't fit tightly in the dovetail and need replaced, they need to be a standard size. If they aren't, even by a little, your savings will be quickly forgotten by the resulting aggravation. When manufacturers make something other than standard sights, I worry, and it's not without reason. If they have a GI-type sight and get it a little oversize, you can save it by going to a sight that uses a larger DT. If they start with a larger sight using a larger DT, and get that cut oversize, you might not have anything to work with. Here is another reason. I'm not saying they have, but they wouldn't be the first to put on a different rear sight for the sake of it looking cool while getting the height wrong. If the sight uses a Novak or Wilson cut, you can replace it easily. If it uses something else, you might be stuck. Can't happen much? Go to any 1911 site and run a search on these words: Springfield shoots low Especially look for posts from six or eight years ago. A lot of the SA Loadeds that have non-Novak-made Novaks have a rear sight that is too low (I think by about .050"). Luckily, they used a standard Novak cut, so it is easily replaced...after spending $35 and up for another sight. The alternative is going to a lower front sight, but that might be getting a bit lower than most like. If they had used a non-standard cut, things would have been a lot more serious. I'm not saying the Novak-esque sights on the above pictured American Classic will have any of these problems. I don't have any way of knowing. But I'd want to make sure I could get a sight that can correct them if it did. Odd reason to question it? I don't think so at all. About the extended slide stop: That is definitely an extended slide stop on the gun in the picture above. I won't repeat it all again, but very little good can come from them (probably no good) in return for plenty of bad. The one pictured above puts the tip of the slide stop in a good place for the firing hand thumb to contact it and either lock it open when you don't want it to, or keep it from locking open when you do. But my point was: Question things pushed as "features". They are often "featured" in the trash can later.

Just taking a quick glance at them, it looks like you are looking at 1911s in the mid $400s or a little more. Taking an equally quick glance at Gunbroker, I see Springfield GIs in the low $500s. Bud's Gun Shop is out of stock on GIs, but they were $514 when they had them. I would, without hesitation, spend the extra $50-75 and get a Springfield. Maybe neither the RIA or American Classic are complete unknown quantities, but in comparison to SA, they might as well be. Or, put another way, while you may not see anything to make the Springfield worth the extra 50-75, I don't see enough savings to get one of the others. If I'm going to do something like that, the difference needs to be a lot more significant than the sales tax and a box of ammo. Yes, I'm comparing SA's basic model with their gun that has extra "features". Ignore the "extras" and focus on the basic gun. Yes, one may have some more "features" than the bone-stock Springfield, but are the extras actually good things? For example, look at just two of them- The Novak-"style" sights: Do they use a standard dovetail cut? If they don't fit tightly in the dovetail and need replaced, they need to be a standard size. If they aren't, even by a little, your savings will be quickly forgotten by the resulting aggravation. When you sight over them, the sight picture shouldn't be much different than that of the SA GI sights, which are bigger and bolder than actual GI sights. Not enough difference to be worth the dovetail risk to me, that's for sure. Extended slide stop: I won't beat around the bush here. This is not a plus, but a negative. I doubt it will make your mag changes any faster, but will bite you in other ways. If it did make mag changes faster, you would see them on the guns of top IPSC shooters...and you don't. You did for a brief time, but not since about 1975, and even then not by the best shooters. What they will do is provide more surface area to contact by accident while shooting, locking the slide open in mid-magazine. Maybe you won't carry this gun to save your skin, but in a range gun this would get too annoying about the second time it happened. And, if you "ride" the thumb safety by locking your thumb over the top of it (as most schools teach) you stand a good chance of your thumb touching it or bumping it on recoil and causing the opposite- keeping it from locking open when empty. Maybe not as potentially dangerous as inadvertently locking open in a carry gun, but almost as annoying in a range gun. Yeah, I hate the things personally, but if you want to see someone who really hates them, talk to firearms instructors. It's hard enough to track down malfunctions sometimes, without wondering if the shooter's own thumb is causing it. Look past the "extras". I like SAs OK, but I'm not in love with them so much I come running to wave the SA flag when 1911s come up. I just don't see a reason to get something else in that ballpark price range. Maybe it makes me a 1911 Snob to prefer the Springfield at $50 more, but so be it. When the FBI's SWAT teams and Rob Leatham trade their SAs for Phillipine 1911s to save $50, I'll reconsider. Other than that, I have no opinion.

I'm happy with my Kahr. In fact, it did what I never thought would happen- It bumped the J-frame from my pocket. I am, however, batting .500 with Kahrs. I love my current one, but the first Kahr I had was not as successful. The first one was an all-steel MK9- their "micro" model with smaller grip and slide compared to their standard K9. It's slide would sometimes fail to fully close on a chambered round (or to be all cool and stuff, an FTRB-Failure to Return To Battery). It got better as it went along and after getting some help from my gunsmith, but it still did it once every hundred rounds or so. Not bad for a range gun, but potentially tragic in a carry gun. I blame the recoil spring system. The MK9 uses a dual recoil spring arrangement that is similar to the Seecamp system (I heard Kahr licenses it from Seecamp but don't know that for certain). I found that one of the springs didn't exert pressure on the slide through full travel. It stopped pushing on it just short of fully closed. Right about where it stopped when I got the FTRBs. When working the slide by hand, you could feel where that spring stopped doing anything. I looked at two new ones in the gun shop- same thing. I poked around online and found a couple of similar cases. I decided it must be a thing that could happen with the design and there wasn't much to do about it, so I got rid of it. Two important things: 1- I have heard Kahr made a change there. I don't know what they did, if anything, but that's what I hear. It has been 10 years, so they could have made a dozen changes. 2-The K9/P9 size Kahrs use a single recoil spring. I would assume the larger T9 does too. With a single spring system, the problem should be eliminated. Ordinarily, I might swear off a gun after something like that. A few things kept the Kahrs on my mind, however. For one thing, I heard they had fixed that, which helped me feel better but maybe wouldn't have been enough. The thing that kept nagging me was that aside from those hiccups, I loved the design. It was palm size yet held only a round or two less than guns that were considered "service size" 9mms not very long before. Once I knew the K9/P9 used a single recoil spring, which should fix the only complaint I had, I wanted to give them another try. The catch there was that the MK9's grip frame was just short enough to work with my pants pocket. The slightly longer K9/P9 grip would probably be too long. That's when I found out about the Covert models. The Coverts used Kahr's standard length K9/P9 slide and barrel, but the shorter MK/PM length frame. The best of each. I found one with the polymer frame (PM9 Covert), bought it, and after testing it enough to become confident in it, I've carried it as my BUG ever since. That's been maybe seven years or so by now. Sure enough, the single recoil spring has been fine. I have had zero troubles with it. I shoot it regularly in practice by either shooting it deliberately or to practice BUG use (I load it with FMJ and put it back in my pocket, so when I run my other gun dry or have a rare malfunction, I pull the Kahr and shoot it). I've used it in a couple of classes, and shot at least one IDPA match with it (and should do more). No gun is perfect and they all will fail sometime, but this one has been just fine so far. So I had one Kahr that was lacking some, and one that I dearly love. I know a 50% average doesn't sound good, but I tend to cut some slack to itty bitty 9mms no matter who made them. We are asking a lot of them. I am far from the oldest dog on the porch, yet I can easily recall when the S&W 39 was considered small. When the S&W 469, then later 3913 came out, some people marveled at them. Every early article on the HK P7 talked about how small they were. Remember the Detonics "Pocket Nine"? Today's Kahrs, Kel-Tecs, Ruger LC9s, etc, are tiny in comparison to any of those, yet they only hold a round or two less. Not very long ago, we didn't even dream of a 9mm that small. I think we are pushing the ragged edge here, and asking a lot of a 9mm this size.

It's not the first Baer I've heard having problems. They're the exception to the rule, though. Everybody makes a bad gun now and then. Everybody. Something that strikes me as odd though, is the pattern I'm starting to see. The two I know of with problems were like this one in that the problems were numerous and repetitive. Those guns went back at least twice each. A couple others I know of have been as close to perfect as a mechanical object can be. Perhaps when Baer turns out a gun, they go all the way- either problem-free or problematic. I'd still like to have one though. But if I had any trouble at all, it might be time to consider dumping it right then.

I think it's sight picture, and probably your trigger finger position and movement. You have an oval group. While the group center is off to the right, it is oval vertically, which I'm thinking is a mix of a couple of things. Hitting to 3:00 usually means the trigger is not being pressed exactly perfectly straight to the rear, and it's getting a rear/right pull. When the shot breaks, the trigger keeps moving (and so does the gun muzzle) in the direction it was going before the shot. The vertical spread, if it is evenly high and low as it looks here, is usually from sight alignment error. If the front sight is not your complete absolute focus, stop and start the shot over. If I learned nothing else from my brief period shooting handgun silhouette, it was the importance of focusing on the front sight. Vertical shot errors killed you in that game, and any time, ANY time, my front sight started to "fuzz" as the shot broke, it was a miss: Sometimes high, sometimes low. That said, I suppose it's possible the high shots were one error (unlocked wrist) and the low shots another error (squeezing entire hand with the fingers) but it looks so even that I doubt it. Besides, squeezing the grip with all fingers usually sends them low and left and that's not what's happening here. BTW, almost everyone squeezes the entire grip along with pressing the trigger, and it's hard to stop, so you are lucky in that regard.

The P226 and 239 can be had in 357 Sig also. Maybe more. I had a 229 and 239 in 357 Sig. Accurate and good ballistics, but loud and not the easiest cartridge to reload. For whatever reason, even though it's around the same speed in better loads, the 38 Super doesn't seem as loud to me. It's sure easier to reload. But a 38 Super won't fit in a 9/40 size gun like the 357 Sig will, if that is important to you. I want to get a 9x23 sometime. I've seen a few being shot, and it's pretty...exciting.

FHN 45s? Big gun. Might be an OK pistol, but I never could get past the size. I do notice that I don't see a lot of them around. Might mean something, might not.

It was not the finest example of Ruger's work. Proof that everyone, and I mean everyone, turns out a piece of junk sometime. Truthfully, aside from compact ones (that are doomed from the start in my opinion), the only 1911s I've had that didn't work fine right out of the box were ones I bought used. It always turned out to be something I suspect was "helped" by a previous owner. Every new, or used but un-screwed-with used one, was fine. Browning HiPowers are another, btw. They seem to gobble up everything just fine. I always read how the old style HiPower feedramps were designed for ball ammo only and some won't feed JHP but I haven't seen that.

I think the Decelerator and Limbsaver feel about the same consistency, but the Limbsaver is thicker from what I've seen. That may not be true across the board, but the ones I've seen for the same guns were that way. Sometimes thick is good and other times the thick and soft ones feel too "squirmy" to me when the gun is in place. I'm not sure what new Remington one you mean, but the ones I think they called "R3" looked to be a Limbsaver in a Rem package, and maybe even still had the Sims Vibration Labs logo on them.

Shorten the stock. I know it may sound like it would make it feel worse, but it lets you bring the buttplate/pad in closer to your centerline. This gets onto more meat/muscle and out of the "pocket" we have been told is the place to be forever. The pocket is a pocket alright- a pocket of skin and bones that gets rattled with every shot. The first defensive shotgun class I took was three days and a few hundred rounds. The instructor started off teaching us this and nobody got beat up. I got one little lightly bruised spot and it was when I didn't have the gun in the right place (I had it in the usual spot out of habit). If you look at "tactical" shotgun stocks, they are usually shorter than standard (or at least available in short length), and this is why. If you don't want to cut your stock off- and I can't blame you for balking at doing a permanent alteration for what sounds like a crazy idea- buy another stock to experiment with. Shotgun stocks, especially plastic ones, are fairly plentiful. The junk boxes of gun shops often have old stocks for popular shotgun models and I've seen Remington plastic stocks at WalMart. If you can find a "youth" stock, they are usually about right for most people, and maybe a bit long still.

Wouldn't feed ball ammo. Regular 230 grain FMJ round nose ball ammo. Winchester (USA) and Federal in both regular red box and American Eagle. I took it to the range one time. It was shoot, clear it, shoot, clear it, shoot and maybe feed one, shoot, clear it. Both mags, same deal. Re-lubing, more lube, wiping down to less lube, no help. To add to my annoyance, most empties came back into my face. I might have investigated further, but when one of the empties got behind my glasses and gave me a little burn I had enough, cleared it, shoved it back in it's case and took it back to the gunshop and kissed it goodbye the first chance I got. But as I said, I must have got the one bad one they ever made because everyone else thinks they are wonderful and I've seen evidence to that fact.

I had a P90 for a brief time. It is high on my Worst Guns Ever Owned list. From listening to reports from owners for the past 20 years, it seems to have been the only bad one to come from Ruger too, so there you go.

Truthfully, I don't usually like Pachmayrs on semiautos, feeling they are too thick (I call them steel belted radials) and grab my clothing when carried concealed. But now that you mention it, the P225 grip could use a little more shape to it's cross section. I like my carry guns flat, but it might be a bit too flat, if there can be such a thing. And you said you aren't going to carry it anyway. What I'm so awkwardly trying to say is: I think that particular gun/grip combo would make a good feeling, well shaped, grip for shooting.

And yes, range rules can be odd. I once belonged to a range where you could shoot any handgun on earth, but no rifle other than .22 rimfire or black powder/muzzleloaders. I could shoot a Contender in .223 or 45-70, or a muzzleloader with the ballistics of a 45-70, but couldn't dare bring a .22 Hornet rifle. Velocity limits in indoor ranges I can understand, because velocity is the enemy of the armor backstop, but limits like that are pretty arbitrary. Yet I also understand they needed something clear and simple to follow.

I love the Lee-Enfield. I only have one (a Fazakerly No. 4) but wouldn't mind having a few dozen more. There was a saying about WWI rifles that the Americans had the best target rifle (Springfield), the Germans the best hunting rifle (Mauser 98), but the UK, they had the best battle rifle (L-E). I think that's about right. If I was heading off to war and limited to a bolt action, that would be my first choice. With the finer milled rear sight used on some No. 4s (or even better- a Parker Hale sight) and some bedding tuning, they are no slouch on the target range either. I've never shot cast through either of my .303s (I have a Pattern 14 also) since I bought a bunch of 123 grain bullets for the 7.62x39. Those work well as an economical paper poking bullet that shoots pretty well, at least to 100 yards. What's the name of that bullet mould company in Australia? Cast Bullet Engineering? I hear they make great moulds, and quite a variety for the .303.

The main problem when using cast bullets in any caliber is fit. A jacketed bullet is fairly forgiving of small differences between it's diameter and the bore diameter. Lead bullets...not so much. Not if the bullet is too small. And most are. The lead bullet absolutely has to fit the barrel. Usually, that means at least bore diameter. That's where you start, because a particular rifle might need a bullet well over the "accepted standard" size. This might be from variations in bore sizes from gun to gun that cause some to have slightly oversize bores, or it could be from the type of rifling used having a preference for larger bullets. Examples of each: I have a Ruger .44 Magnum rifle that prefers bullets .432" dia (.429 is std; it slugged at .431"). My Marlin 45-70 measures .458 (std) but needs at least .460 because their Micro-Groove rifling seems to prefer bullets big. May Marlin .41 Mag (Micro-Groove) is the same way, requiring cast bullets of .412 as bare minimum. Most commercial cast bullets are undersized. Or rather, they are the size they are supposed to be, but gun barrel will usually be oversize (At least, based on my measuring and from talking to other casters, bores tend to be big). Order cast .44 bullets and they will be probably be .429. Odds are, your barrel will be at least .430, if not .431, and might even be larger. A .429 bullet shot down a .431 barrel will slide, skip, strip...anything but fit. It's worse with 9mm bullets, because you will probably get .355 diameter and most guns I've checked were .357-.358. Only one was .355 diameter. At 750 fps, you might get away with it, but at 1200 or more you probably won't. Slowing down isn't needed because the bullets are cast lead. It's because they don't fit. Slowing down is a band-aid that reduces the effects of that. Buying cast bullets at a gun show or online and getting "the standard size" for your caliber might work, but it's because of luck. You get lucky sometimes and those bullets and your barrel match. Ordinarily however, if you slug your bore to see what diameter bullet to start with, you will do a lot better. Once I learned this, it changed everything with me and cast bullets. I've since used them in rifles up to 2400 fps (a .223) but try to keep them around 1800 fps because, well, there isn't much point in going faster unless I could go a lot faster. But the bullets have to fit. I also learned that harder didn't mean better. If the bullet fits, it won't need to be so hard you can't scratch it with a thumbnail (often suggested as a gauge). Harder might even be a negative thing after a point. The lube doesn't need to be hard like a crayon either. In fact, it's often better if it's softer, and a lot of people use the softest that will stay in place in the temps they shoot. The reason most commercially cast bullets use such a hard lube is because it holds up in shipping when the bullets might see high temps and/or rattling around. It looks sharp, too. Bullet lubes have advanced a lot in the past 50-60 years, btw, much like shotgun shell wads. There are exceptions to all of the above, as with most things. A rough bore will probably never shoot cast bullets well no matter what you do. Black powder cartridge guns will often (if not usually or even always) do better with a bullet at bore size or even under, because the rear will obturate (bump up) from the quick jolt BP gives it. You use a softer bullet to facilitate this. The base end will fit while the nose remains small enough to pass over/through the fouling from previous shots without deforming terribly. It becomes sort of a fireformed-to-fit-the-need bullet. And the .22 rimfires seem to be an anomaly. You can buy almost any ammo made, shoot a case of it through almost any gun, and when you clean the barrel the most lead you might see is a little gray-silver mark on the first patch. And only then if your solvent was really good. I've seen and heard a lot of speculation on why this is. It may not be such an anomaly because I think it's still mostly from bullet fit. The .22 bore has been standardized at .222" for well over a 130 years and makers do a good job holding to that measurement from what I can see (a lot are more like .221"). Search for cast bullet forums. I bet you will find the most common topic is bullet fit. (And by far the most common solution to problems.)

There is a used one at the local shop for $439. I just checked Gunbroker and saw three- one with a bunch of junk hanging all over it for around 800 and two more at 395 and 400.

Well, you asked a question people have argued over since there were cartridges to argue over. A .22 will kill a deer, as will a .700 Nitro, as could a .30-06 that falls somewhere in the middle. I bet someone could make a strong argument for any of the three. Before I would say "you need a ______" (not that I would) I would want more info. What ranges will you expect to be shooting, what size deer, etc. Sometimes, the best choice can be made based on checking what is most commonly stocked in stores in your area. A few thoughts though: Deer aren't elephants. It has only been in the last few years my state has allowed rifles for deer, and then it's basically lever, bolt, or single shot actions in handgun calibers of a certain size (a lever action .44 Mag for example). A lot of people have made it a crusade to get the biggest thing that will fit within the limits. The .458 SOCOM just fits, and I bet sales charts for that caliber would show a peculiar spike for Indiana. You can get top dollar for one right before deer season. I know of two places making custom guns in their own chamberings designed to be the biggest allowed by the regs. If you bring a .357 Mag lever action, these people will think you're nuts. Don't ask me why. Whatever you get, shoot it. And don't just sit at the bench and shoot a big black bullseye. Lay in the dirt, kneel down, or stand and shoot. Practice quick shots. In the three years since I joined the local conservation club, I have seen two people beside myself who did not fire every round from the bench. In the two weeks before deer season, the place is busy with guys who sit at the bench, fire three shots, getting the third one on paper and calling it good. It's not good. A gun/scope combo for $250? You mean both for $250? I don't know what you can get for that. I'd feel OK about some $250 rifles. I'd feel OK about a $200 scope (and there is nothing wrong with iron sights if they are decent ones to start with and your eyes are better than mine). All that said, and back to calibers... If nothing else, I think of this when the question comes up: There was a wise old outdoorsman and Army officer from 100 years ago named Townsend Whelen. He had the time, the means, and the employers that allowed him to shoot any gun he wanted for testing or for fun. He shot everything at everything. He had rifles made up that were custom in every respect, including one-of-a-kind cartridges they used. And he said... "The .30-06 is never a mistake."

I like...most of them. The 1911 has stood the test of time better than most mechanical objects. The M2 .50 caliber is still hammering away. I think the Auto-5 is a masterpiece and a showcase of his genius. The Superposed established a new type of gun for all practical purposes by moving the O/U shotgun from a custom-only proposition to being available through any gun shop (or even hardware store at the time). The BAR stands alone in it's class. The M240/FN MAG is more or less a BAR with the back half flipped upside down and feeding from a belt. The 1893/1897 pump shotgun created a class. The HiPower is the gun that made me appreciate the 9mm cartridge and is what I choose to carry nearly every day (but it's debatable as to who deserves the bulk of the credit- Browning or Saive). Browning himself said the single shot was his favorite because it was the one that made him. I know it doesn't have the "pinache" of a Sharps, but I think it was the most advanced of it's type. The lever action rifles 1886, 1892, and 1894 (and their follow-ons, the 65s, 71s, 64s, etc) will probably live forever. I'm the one guy in the country who doesn't like the 94 much, and while I prefer the simplicity of the Marlins, I like the smoothness and looks of the Browning/Winchesters. The 71 might be the most "outdoorsy" looking rifle ever. The pump .22s are the most neat and trim of any. The M1900 auto pistol isn't pretty, but it made auto pistols successful and popular. The Colt pocket autos are pretty- one of the nicest looking handguns ever, in my mind. The Woodsman is close behind. But my favorite is... The takedown .22 auto rifle. They aren't the most accurate, or most rugged, or even the smallest, but I love 'em. While I'm not much of an 1894 rifle fan, I appreciate the concept and thinking behind it. It supposedly came about so Winchester could have a simpler/easier/faster/cheaper to produce rifle. Until then, most Winchester lever actions were designed around a "family" of cartridges. That was nice for the the user, but complicated things for the manufacturer by having to make several models to cover all needs. While the 1894 was designed and sized for the .38-55 and .30WCF rounds, Browning made it adaptable to a wide range of cartridges by screwing the proper feed rails into the receiver. With those, the right barrel, and sometimes a few other parts, it could handle a wide range of cartridges. A company could make that one model and survive on it. Winchester practically did just that. The only Browning design I might say I don't like is the lever action shotgun. It never felt right to me. It handles odd and the action feels clumsy in operation. I think I've read he didn't care for the lever action shotgun idea much either, and only made it because Winchester had to have a lever action shotgun.

If the pictured gun is what they bought, I'm not at all surprised they had trouble. Whoever ordered them screwed up. I have yet to find a compact 1911-type that I would trust, and I sure wouldn't order a bunch of them to issue. Maybe if I could place a big order and test them all to find the better ones for issue, but I doubt that would go over. I haven't been here long enough to go on one of my rants about short 1911-types. Now is as good a time as any. Short 1911-types are a great way to ask for trouble. No matter who makes it or what it costs, a short 1911-type will never be as reliable as a full-size. Notice I said 1911-types, not 1911s. A 1911 is a steel frame, 5-inch barreled, 45 ACP chambered, single stack pistol. Variations from those listed things (and others) make them 1911-types, not 1911s. Those things are also risks. In my opinion, the farther one gets from that list, the more they gamble. It's also my opinion that all pistols are most reliable in their original form. Some are fairly forgiving in this respect. The 1911 isn't one of them. It was designed to function in a certain form- as a military sidearm- with little or no inkling of people trying to use them as a belly gun. When an auto cycles, a bunch of stuff has to happen. Each one has to happen within a certain window of time, and in the right order. When an auto's slide travel is reduced by shortening the slide/barrel, those windows narrow. I was bored one day and measured the slide travel on some 1911-types. Colt Gov't Model............. 2.136" Colt Commander............. 1.945" Kimber TLE (5").............. 2.144" Kimber Compact (4")....... 1.923" In the Colts, going from a Gov't to a Commander reduced slide travel by .191". In the Kimbers, going to a 4" reduced travel by .221". That's getting close to losing a quarter inch of slide travel, and that's a lot. Going to a smaller 1911-type like an Officers size the travel is reduced even more. And maybe we should double that loss because the travel is shorter coming back and going forward both. This is speculative and I can't prove it without instrumentation, but I have little doubt: In addition to traveling a shorter distance, I think the slide is moving faster too. It has less ground to cover for one thing, and for another it's lighter from the reduced weight. So now the "function window" is not only smaller, but time is compacted. The same functions still have to be accomplished at the right time, so that timing has to be even better. So what I'm saying is: The shorter slide 1911-types are less forgiving. If a 5" 1911 is fired and there is a small problem like a mag spring that's just a little weak, or a case rim is a little small and doesn't hit the ejector very well, the gun might still work just fine and you would never know the difference. If it happens on a Commander, it might work but you might feel it operate less smoothly. If it happens on an Officers ACP, it might malfunction. The margin of error is reduced. I want that margin increased. I don't think it's worth the risk in order to have a gun more or less an inch shorter. After trying to get a trustworthy compact 1911-type, I gave up. There was always some sort of problem. If I would have found one that worked OK, I would have always worried it was right on the edge of not working. I went to full-size only for a while, but have been carrying a Commander-length S&W some in the last two or three years. I won't go any shorter than that in a 1911-type. I love the 1911, but when I need a smaller gun... I carry something else.

Nothing wrong with a Glock (if that's what one prefers). Just don't expect much of a 1911 for the going rate of a Glock. That should be obvious, but I guess not, because I see enough people spending $500 on a 1911 then trading it off six months later swearing off 1911s forever because "they are junk". Sometimes you get lucky. When the Taurus 1911s came out, I thought they might do better. The first four sold to people I know of around here got dumped (sold or traded) within a month or two of purchase because of various little problems. That's a small sample, but still- four out of four? The next one I knew about is still going strong. It belongs to a guy I see at matches who has shot the living tar out of it and is happy as could be. You never know. I think you do get what you pay for with Springfield (for example) up to a point...say, up through the TRP. After that, you still get what you pay for, but it gets harder to find the difference you bought.

I get what Steve is saying, I think. It costs a certain amount of money to build a good 1911. The 1911 design came from a time when people made guns, not just assembled them, and was designed accordingly. Labor was cheap, so guns could get more attention when made. The assembly line was a new and radical idea in manufacturing. Not needing long hours of hand-fitting, the 1911 was designed for military service and didn't need near as much attention as most guns of the time. But it still got more attention than most guns get today. They were very specific over how it was to be made, and from what materials. The 1911 extractor, for example, was designed to be self-powered to eliminate a spring and other parts, which was a plus for a military gun. But it came at a price. Every extractor had to be made correctly and from the specific type of steel called for. So while it doesn't need hand-fitting start to finish, a 1911 does have to be made right. That definition of "right" is narrower than with some other guns designed since assembly from parts bins became the norm. So yes, it costs a certain amount of money to build a 1911. If you spend more you might get more. But if you spend less, the savings have to come from somewhere. There is only so much room there. If one is spending Glock money, get a Glock. If trying to get a 1911 for a Glock price, don't expect much.

I think most .40s recoil sharper than .45s. Not necessarily more, but sharper/quicker, so it might feel like more. But recoil is a subjective thing. What one person feels is different from what the next feels. I don't, but I have heard more than a few people say they think 9mm recoil is harder to take than .45, for the same reason I just gave with .40.

They may be all snapped up. They were like most surplus rifles in the last 15-20 years: The racks were full of one type, then another type gradually replaced them as the first ones sold and another country got rid of theirs. In about 1989-90, it was the Garands and M1 Carbines from Korea. Then the SKSs came in. Then Enfields of all varieties. This would be about 2000. There were some German Mausers and Swedish Mausers sprinkled in about this time, then the Yugo, Turkish, and Czech Mausers filled the racks. Some Swiss K-31s slipped in there too. Now the places I saw all of those in the past have nothing but Mosin-Nagants and maybe a few leftover Turk Mausers. Six months from now, who knows? Look at the websites of some of the surplus sources like AIM Surplus, InterOrdnance, Samco, and Century Int'l Arms to get an idea of what is coming in now. I think the Czech VZ24s are about as close to a Yugo as is coming in now. EDIT: Samco shows some M24/47s from $180-210. https://www.samcoglobal.com/1-M24-47.html From looking at their other rifles, it looks like they put some of every type of gun back until everyone else runs out, then charge 2-3 times what they were when they were common. That's too bad, but not a bad business idea and it lets some of us procrastinators get things they missed. I sure would like another K-31...and Swedish Mauser...and...