A member on another forum has kindly offered to help me resolve my gun issue.

I have the choice between this and this.

Same gun. Just one inch difference in overall and barrel length. Will be used for plinking and home defence. Never to carry.

Thoughts?

 

Never to carry? Get the 5" barrel. It'll be a little more accurate at the range.

Bench shooters who think that a few lbs/foot of energy make any difference will argue also that a bullet out of a 5" barrel has more punch than out of a 4", and while they're technically correct, there would be no measurable difference in lethality.

 

FWIW, a 1911 was never meant to be a compact, or sub compact... Go purist on this one...

 

+1 . . .

 

Why not look at a better gun. kimber has MIM (metal injection Molding) in their parts. I would look at les baer, wilson or ed brown.

 

I once saw a Kimber that had blown up. The slide was blown nearly in half with a chunk out by the ejector. Seems that the owner, who was an avid reloader, loaded his ammo improperly. Thankfully neither he nor anyone else was hurt. The owner of Gunmaster in Garland, TX kept it around (maybe he still does) as testament to why he hates Kimber.

That said, I own a Kimber Tactical Ultra II and love it. It works every time and it's very concealable.

All of your recommendations are fabulous 1911 manufacturers. FWIW Hossfly loves his Nighthawks and Chokeu2 is really happy with his Taurus PT1911.

 

At this point, those guns don't get you anything extra for the money, or a "name". I've never had a Kimber work great out of the box. My Wilson had hiccups within 150 rounds. And I'd never buy a Les Baer, too much for a name.

The whole MIM argument is as overblown as the one about 9mm not being an effective round.

Like Aj said, I've got a Taurus PT1911 that I'm THRILLED with. I've never had a 1911 work so well out of the box, and continue working as well as it has. This thing has been "glocklike" in its reliability and utility. My Kimbers, Para's, Wilson have been like PMS'ing women. Good days and bad days. I carry my PT1911, the others come out once in a while or a range day, or a three gun, just for kicks. I'd use the PT, but I enjoy keeping it carry ready.

 

FWIW I take whatever chokeu2 says about guns as gospel so go with his suggestions!

 

I thought wilsons were better than that... I would be unhappy with those also if I had problems in 150 rounds. You should try out a les baer though... They are great guns and cost less than wilsons and ed browns. They are far from a gun that you "pay for the name"

I can understand your loyalty to the Taurus though... back in the day all my friends were buying sig's and I bought a CZ-75 because they didn't cost as much and had a great reputation. Turns out, when I went shooting with my friends and their sigs... my gun shot just as good, if not better. That kind of performance makes a fan out of anyone.

 

None of the major brands of guns are "bad". Heck, even KelTec makes a reliable gun. HKs are overpriced and overrated but they're great guns and I can't fault anyone for buying one. With the limited production 1911s and shotguns, you can spend over $10K for a finely crafted gun that shoots well but won't be more reliable than a Glock or Mossberg.

I like the feel of the PT1911 and may pick one up. I may also be getting a FN 9mm because I like the feel of it too. Finally, much as I hate to admit it, I'm kind of fond of the HK45.

Question is this- I've got over 50K rounds through my Glocks. The only time they've ever misfired or stovepiped a round was with reloads bought at a gun show. Given that these guns are for personal protection and they need to work every single time, why should I bother with anything else? I can answer my own question- I just like collecting them. Still, no gun gives me the same peace of mind as a Glock.