[Jdcassick]

Hi,

I just shot my first 1911 and I loved it. Amazing accuracy and control with the full size model. Would I expect to gave the same accuracy and control with the short barrel models, master pro carry etc?

Thanks!

 

[bigdog10]

The longer the barrel the better the accuracy. at least that's how it works for me.

 

[bigdog10]

Welcome from NY buy the way .

 

[Fleamac]

Welcome to the 1911 side of the street. Playschool plastic's for kids. Sorry guys...

Shorter the barrel, the less accurate your shot placement. Think of it like a rifle. A longer barrel gets your projectile more accurately on target. Now if you're looking to CCW, then you'd want a smaller (4.5" or less) gun. If you're getting one for 'fun', then get a full sized with rails, so you can accessorize. The bigger, physically, the gun, the less recoil felt in 45 and under cal's. A 50 cal Desert Eagle isn't too much bigger than a full sized 1911 45, but it has a hell of a kick. Hope this helps a little.

 

[Chuck43]

Welcome to the forum from Northern Illinois Jdcassick. I would say the 1" difference between the full 5" and pro 4" size pistols isn't going to make much difference. It wasn't until I started shooting an ultra 3" that I noticed the difference.

 

[Dude22]

Welcome from Ohio. Watch out, 1911's are additive.

 

[pbsdaddy]

I'm going to get flamed. In my opinion, any quality weapon can outshoot the average shooter. That means, the 3 inch 45 Kimber is every bit as good as you make it to be. General rules of sight alignment, (length of barrel) aside, within normal handgun distances, the average shooter isn't going to notice a severe difference.
And welcome to the group!!

 

[Jdcassick]

Thanks

Wow,

So many informative responses, so quickly! Thanks. Sounds pretty much like I thought. I currently have a springfield xds .45 and as you can imagine the plastic gun in this very small format jumps like crazy when fired. I was hoping that the steel/alloy make up would tame some of that kick even in the 3 to 4 inch barrel, but maybe not.

Any other thoughts/experiences will be appreciated.

Thanks again!

 

[Jdcassick]

Perfect! That's what I was hoping to hear as it would be a carry weapon. What models have you shot?

Thanks

 

[pbsdaddy]

I used to shoot a 7 inch Longslide competitively. It was not my first .45 fired but it was the first .45 I owned. There was very minor differences between that 7 inch barrel and my friends 5 inch standard. For what it's worth, I wasn't any more, or less, accurate with that 7 inch barrel than I was with my Browning HP and it's standard 5 inch barrel or his 5 inch .45. Of course, the Browning was a 9mm.
All that said, the recoil experienced is controllable by the recoil springs. A heavier spring will reduce the felt recoil and a lighter spring will increase the felt recoil. The problems arise when the change in recoil spring strength creates issues with feed, ejection and most important, frame/slide condition. Too heavy on the spring tension and damage will result to either the frame or slide, or both. Too light and the gun may not completely eject spent rounds or go into full battery.
You could order a set of springs one pound heavier and one pound lighter than your gun came with, (Kimber probably has them for other models). Try the new springs one at a time and see if you like the change and the change likes your gun. You could also order sets from Wolfe Springs, but they would not be Kimber original.

 

[Jdcassick]

Thanks for your help!

 

[Jdcassick]

Thanks very much!

 

[cundiff5535]

Hi,

I just shot my first 1911 and I loved it. Amazing accuracy and control with the full size model. Would I expect to gave the same accuracy and control with the short barrel models, master pro carry etc?

Thanks!

Jd, I think that the accuracy is going to be dependent on your own personal shooting ability. If you are an below average to average shooter, I do not think you are going to see to much difference in terms of accuracy. Control... I think the same. Most folks do not really understand what it means to really control a weapon. Since I do not know you, and have never shot with you, maybe you do?

With that said, if you have ever shot competition, took training seminars, have shot at a higher level, and understand most of this stuff, I would say yes, the control and accuracy of a 5" pistol is clearly there.

Welcome to the 1911 side of the street. Playschool plastic's for kids. Sorry guys...

Shorter the barrel, the less accurate your shot placement. Think of it like a rifle. A longer barrel gets your projectile more accurately on target. Now if you're looking to CCW, then you'd want a smaller (4.5" or less) gun. If you're getting one for 'fun', then get a full sized with rails, so you can accessorize. The bigger, physically, the gun, the less recoil felt in 45 and under cal's. A 50 cal Desert Eagle isn't too much bigger than a full sized 1911 45, but it has a hell of a kick. Hope this helps a little.

^I disagree with this to an extent. First, I personally do not think that .5" is very noticeable on a carry pistol. Seriously hold up a 4.5" M&P (or whatever) to your 5" 1911... its very minimal. When I was carrying a 1911, I ONLY carried a 5" pistol. Never any issues concealing it, never any problems with it getting snagged up.

The second thing is... a DE? That pistol is FAR bigger than a 5" 1911. Sorry it just is, The weight, size, all around.

I would NEVER carry a DE or own one (what a piece of shit that thing is, lol). When I was carrying my 1911's they were all 5" guns.

Welcome to the forum from Northern Illinois Jdcassick. I would say the 1" difference between the full 5" and pro 4" size pistols isn't going to make much difference. It wasn't until I started shooting an ultra 3" that I noticed the difference.

^^^Agree with this...

I'm going to get flamed. In my opinion, any quality weapon can outshoot the average shooter. That means, the 3 inch 45 Kimber is every bit as good as you make it to be. General rules of sight alignment, (length of barrel) aside, within normal handgun distances, the average shooter isn't going to notice a severe difference.
And welcome to the group!!

^^This too...

I used to shoot a 7 inch Longslide competitively. It was not my first .45 fired but it was the first .45 I owned. There was very minor differences between that 7 inch barrel and my friends 5 inch standard. For what it's worth, I wasn't any more, or less, accurate with that 7 inch barrel than I was with my Browning HP and it's standard 5 inch barrel or his 5 inch .45. Of course, the Browning was a 9mm.
All that said, the recoil experienced is controllable by the recoil springs. A heavier spring will reduce the felt recoil and a lighter spring will increase the felt recoil. The problems arise when the change in recoil spring strength creates issues with feed, ejection and most important, frame/slide condition. Too heavy on the spring tension and damage will result to either the frame or slide, or both. Too light and the gun may not completely eject spent rounds or go into full battery.
You could order a set of springs one pound heavier and one pound lighter than your gun came with, (Kimber probably has them for other models). Try the new springs one at a time and see if you like the change and the change likes your gun. You could also order sets from Wolfe Springs, but they would not be Kimber original.

Let me start by saying this is not a bash on you or your thoughts. Second, Ill say this.. a 7" slide may start feeling heavy and large and that has affected you.

In saying that, I can personally attest that my 6" slide radius will 100% out shoot my 5" slide radius as long as all the other things are equal (type of pistol, bullets, etc). You cant seriously compare a 9mm and a .45 as the recoil is just not the same. You also can not tell me that changing the springs on a pistol will make up the difference of the extra length of sight alignment. I am not sure why this was even posted under this question but since it was, ill try to explain what I mean...

First, imagine the front & rear sight being one inch apart - if you're off by 0.01", that's twelve MOA more than if the sights are 12 inches apart, and you're off by 0.01" - the longer sight radius enhances that precision.

Think about how a one inch group at 100 yds opens up to two inches at 200 yds. A one inch group at 200 is more precise than a two inch group, right? So look at it backwards. (I am using 100 yards to make the math simple, not because anyone is shooting 100 yards)

Extreme example: Say the front sight and the rear sight are only 2" apart. When you are aiming that setup, the sights will look aligned (and perfectly still) even if they are off by a couple thousands of an inch. Now take a handgun with a 10" sight radius. Those sights will never look still. And even if it looked like the sights were misaligned by .001" when the shot broke, that will still be 5 times more accurate that the 2" sight radius, that looked perfectly aligned even though they were off by a few thousands.

 

[pbsdaddy]

cundiff:
You make some huge assumptions and suggest they are fact. 1st, you have no idea how well or poorly I shoot, whether or not I am physically capable of handling the extra weight of the 7 inch barrel or if the grip was weighted to compensate and whether of not I am experienced enough to discern a difference in felt recoil.
Those items alone, in my book, disqualify you from making the statement about me that you did.

Now, let's go back to my post. If you read real slow, you'll see that I not only mentioned my 9mm, I also spoke to a friends standard .45. Having shot those guns, one right after the other, I feel I am qualified to speak to the felt recoil. The fact that I compare the recoil of a 9 to that of a .45 should not surprise anyone. Had you not intended to show me what for, you may have asked; "Geez, what loads were in that 9?" At least, on the surface, you would have been suggesting you were willing to review more information than you had. But, you weren't.
As for springs, I did not say or imply changing the springs would aid in sight alignment other than to suggest that reduced recoil would aid in getting the sights back on target faster. So, again, your assumptions were not only hasty, but incorrect. As for your math, good for you. Now try to accept this. Properly aligned sights are just that. You introduce an equation that had not previously been mentioned and call it your argument. Good for you. But if my 3, 4, 5 or even 20 inch sight line is proper, the distance between the front and rear is irrelevant. Assuming the shots are within the range of that given weapon.

 

[cundiff5535]

PBS, didn't mean to offend you nor was I trying to come off that way. Second, I never said you were unqualified to make your assumptions or statements. I have never shot with you nor have I seen you shoot so in that regard you are correct.

With that said, I stand by what I said as the sight radius points I made are simple and 100% factual no matter how much you want to say or think otherwise.

Again, I didn't mean to come off as a jerk, that was not my intent but, a longer sight radius no matter how you cut it will equal out to more precision shooting. As far as the other stuff, no need to dive in any further... We are far off topic at this point... My apologies for offending you

 

[pbsdaddy]

Cundiff, I am not going to argue the sight radius issue as it is correct. But then, so is, "But if my 3, 4, 5 or even 20 inch sight line is proper, the distance between the front and rear is irrelevant The difference between the two statements is, in my opinion, you are defining how it is easier to acquire proper sight alignment with a longer radius. I'm simply saying proper alignment is what is needed.
It's all good.