For someone who shoots primarily 9mm in an auto, but would like to own a 1911 some day, is there any reason to pick a 9mm 1911 over the classic .45? I am of course talking about a traditional single stack commander sized 1911. Yes it would be adding a new calibre to the stable, but while the 9mm is effective in ending threats, the .45 may be even more capable. Would I not be selling myself short ballistically for gaining those 2 extra rounds of 9mm? After all, if I was going to pick a gun this size in 9mm, why not just stick with my Glock or Sig? Also what of reliability? isn't the original design more reliable with the .45?



Sound off 9mm advocates and 1911 traditionalists. Are commander sized 1911's chambered in 9mm parabellum forward thinking, or are they dumb as hell for concealed carry?

Not dumb. 
.45 ACP is not the only caliber production 1911s were manufactured in for non-range use.
IIRC 1911s in .38 Super were popular in Latin America back in the day, the round still has a following in competition shooting today, and is in no terms anemic.    Not that far off from 9mm in terms of power. 
So no, a 1911 single stack in 9mm isn't dumb at all.

Why not use a 1911 style built around the 9mm to begin with:

Not at all dumb.  Regardless of caliber, the 1911 platform is proven. 106 years of history, and modern technological improvements, make for a formidable combination.

Not that far off from 9mm in terms of power. 

I would love a 1911 in .38 super, but I thought that .38 super was significantly more powerful than either 9mm or .45.

The 38 Super Auto modern round is more powerful in terms of muzzle energy than the 9mm or the 45 APC standard loads.  A typical 130grain load delivers just shy of 500 lb-ft of energy at the muzzle, well over standard pressure 45 ACP or 9mm Luger.  9mm +P will equal the muzzle energy, but using lighter 115 gr bullets that have a lower sectional density.  The 45 ACP +p will also match the energy in a 200 grain bullet, but again the sectional density of that bullet is lower.

Please explain.  How is a 200 gr. .45 in. bullet, lower in sectional density than a .357 in. 130 gr. bullet?  I'm not a ballistician, but that right there makes no sense.  Or am I missing something?

Sectional density of 0.140 with a bullet weight of 200 and diameter of .451".


Sectional density of 0.147 with a bullet weight of 130 and diameter of .356".


Sectional density of 0.146 with a bullet weight of 130 and diameter of .357".


Sectional density is the ratio of mass to area.  The 200 grain 45 ACP looses because it is more bigger in diameter than it is more heavier in weight.

I am not saying a 200 grain 45 ACP +p won't sting just a bit.

But, all else equal, like speed, bullet construction, target medium, the bullet with the higher SD will penetrate further.  And the 38 super 130 grain has 220 fps of speed on the 200 grain 45 ACP +p.

The 38 super was popular on both sides of the law in the gang wars of the '30's for its ability to defeat bullet proof vests of the day - Something the 45 ACP and 9mm Luger would not accomplish.

It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison, with modern .45+p ammo against a similar target.

Anybody got a 1930's vintage vest they'd be willing to part with? 

Ok, so follow up question.

No doubt the 9mm is effective out of any platform and the same goes for the 1911. Now why would I choose a 1911 commander in 9mm when compared to my Glock 19 or Sig P228? What does it do that they don't? Unless one is just married to the 1911 platform, I am not sure I see the point other than the reduced cost in training ammo.

Continue with your input! 

One simple answer would be ergonomics.  The 1911 point more naturally, than the Tupperware.  Can't speak for the Sig, I've never fired one.

Honestly, this is one of those reasons that we always tell shooters to 'buy what fits you the best.'

Because while you and many others sing their ergonomic praises, I can't shoot 1911s worth a damn.  They just... don't fit me.  For the guys that they fit, I can see the appeal - they are fine weapons - but for my purposes a BHP fits so much better.  Even Glocks fit me better than 1911s.

The very reason I don't own a Glock, I can't hit the broad side of a barn from inside.  Though isn't the BHP similar in ergo, to the 1911?  Wasn't it the predecessor to the 1911?

Though isn't the BHP similar in ergo, to the 1911?  Wasn't it the predecessor to the 1911?

Successor, but no, not really.  The 1911 is thinner (can be fixed with fatter grips) and longer in the grip.  The length is what throws me off.  A BHP is a double stack, but is still very sleek of a grip.

The closest 1911 grip combination that I have come up with is a beavertail with an arched MSH, and wearing Pachmayr American Legend grips.  Short to medium length trigger.

Ah, I see, never even held a BHP, let alone fired one.  I put Hogues, or Pachmayrs on everything, or buy them already with.  I've got large-ish hands.  The only thing I've ever found that I didn't think needed anything is the Coonan.  Now there's a hand filling work of art.

Now that's the 1911 I should buy  . It wouldn't add a new round to my collection and it is well proven.

But, all else equal, like speed, bullet construction, target medium, the bullet with the higher SD will penetrate further.  And the 38 super 130 grain has 220 fps of speed on the 200 grain 45 ACP +p.

All things being equal? 
Bigger bullets make bigger holes.  The point of a pistol bullet is to make a hole.  The bigger the hole, the better the hole. And if that hole transits through a vital, even better yet.

http://madogre.com/?page_id=1172