Best 1911 CMDR under $800.00?

[CMDR Perry]

I can get a new base Remington for $597, a Ruger in SS for $625 or a Para Elite for $767. I am asking for the Pelican expert input on these 3 spoons, all in 45 ACP.

Thanks in advance, DP.

[id10t]

Inexpensive but not cheap, I love my GI model Rock Island.

They offer a "tacical" model in commander format (different beaver tail safety, extended ambi safety, better sights than GI style, a few other minor differences). And I think you can get a deal wiht a 22 conversion to go with it all as a package.

I'm also on a FB group for local (to me) spoon trading/selling/buying/swapping and there is a guy selling a Para Ord. Warthog - he wants $500 for it...

[KFC911]

I can't comment on any of those, but I've had my Colt Combat Commander (steel, heavier, minimal recoil) for 'bout 35 years now. When you say Commander (not Combat), I think of lighter weght). I wouldn't trade mine for anything, but the Ruger in SS would certainly get some attention from me...YMMV.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

When I think about getting a new 1911 I don't think of Remington or Para.

Remington has been declining in quality quickly over the past few years as they reorganize, relocate, and cut costs. They are part of "The Freedom Group" which seems bent on running their businesses into the ground.

Para hasn't been worth considering since well before they left their Canadian factory (2007). They too are owned by TFG and--if they are not already--will probably be made alongside the Remington 1911s.

I would go with the Ruger.

[Seahawk]

They are all fine pistols, hard to go wrong with any of them.

I have had very positive experiences with Ruger pistols in other than .45 SS models...I do not own a Ruger semi auto .45. I have a Colt Commander (my Dad's gun from Korea and Vietnam) and a Kimber.

That said, if I was looking, hard to argue: Ruger SR1911CMD 45 ACP Stainless Semi-Automatic Pistol

[HardDrive]

I'm shocked by the decline in Remington quality. Compare a new 870 to one from 25 years ago. Junk.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

I'm shocked by the decline in Remington quality. Compare a new 870 to one from 25 years ago. Junk.

All true. My son and I were gifted an 870 from the 70's a few weeks ago. What a fine shot gun.

We were also given a Fox Sterlingworth from the 40's. Mister Dave is going to get to help us with the wood on that one.

[CMDR Perry]

Yes I agree the Ruger is a very good value for the money. For a long time I was considering a Kimber Pro Carry II in 9 mm but they are pricy. I was not aware of the Para pistol quality issues. That's too bad as the Elite model Commander has some nice features not found on the Ruger 1911. DP

[BlueSkyJaunte]

IMHO, with low to mid-grade 1911s you're better off shopping for a solid "base" gun and spending a little later on options rather than going for the whole package. Things like sights, grips, fire control parts (safeties, triggers, etc) can all be handled by even a mediocre smith.

The base of the gun - quality castings/machinework/fitting for the slide, frame, barrel fit, etc., are hard and/or expen$ive to fix. These are the things you want to be done correctly at the factory--and in your price range I would trust only Ruger.

[Mericet]

In the current market and the choices you offered, the Ruger is the best option.

[on2wheels52]

If those are the only candidates I'd go with the Ruger.
Jim

[onewhippedpuppy]

Springfield makes a fine piece, and are reasonably priced. I have a Mil-Spec that I really enjoy, it would be a great basis for a custom build. Springfield also has a huge variety of pre-built 1911s that would be cheaper than paying a gunsmith to do it for you. I've never met anyone unhappy with Springfield products, I know a lot of people that use an XD for CCH.

[CMDR Perry]

Yes the Springfield's are nice but the Compact Range Officer is never in stock. They do make a full size SS target pistol in 9MM I can get for $920.00 with taxes and fees.
I need to go find one in a local gun shop to see how it handles. I plan to look at the Sig Sauer Nightmare also.

[fred cook]

I have a Sig 220 in .45 ACP that is just about the same size as the Commander pistol. It may be slightly thicker, but it offers a double action/single action trigger as well as a safe hammer drop. I also have a Colt Commander (lightweight version) in .38 Super. Given a choice between these two, I would most likely carry the Sig. A good used 220 should fall in your preferred price range.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by KC911

When you say Commander (not Combat), I think of lighter weght).

There is a Commander and a Lightweight Commander. The only real distinction that makes a 1911 a Commander is a 4.25" barrel as opposed to a 5" one. Both use full size frames, and all parts except the slide and barrel are interchangeable. A regular Combat Commander has a steel frame, while a Lightweight Commander has an aluminum one. For heavy range use, I'd go steel frame every day. For regular carry duty and occasional range use, Lightweight makes more sense.

Mr. Higgins, correct me if I'm wrong.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

There is a Commander and a Lightweight Commander. The only real distinction that makes a 1911 a Commander is a 4.25" barrel as opposed to a 5" one. Both use full size frames, and all parts except the slide and barrel are interchangeable. A regular Combat Commander has a steel frame, while a Lightweight Commander has an aluminum one. For heavy range use, I'd go steel frame every day. For regular carry duty and occasional range use, Lightweight makes more sense.

Mr. Higgins, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think autos are Higgy's realm, but I might be wrong....hey there's a first time for everything . Rick you know WAY more about these than I do too...personally, I never heard them referred to as Lightweight Commander back in the day. "Commander" used to denote the aluminum alloy version and Combat Commander was the steel version. I'm sure "somebody" will set me/us straight though

[on2wheels52]

I believe you have it correct KC, at least by Colt's definition of the things. I think the Commander came out in the early 50's, and the Combat C in the early 70's.
Jim

[Mericet]

Are you sure that the frame is the same for the full size and Commander versions Rick? If so, is it only for Colts? I checked my full size Para and Nighthawk frames against a Caspian Commander frame and the Commander frame is shorter.

[Rick Lee]

Well, a lot of Paras have double-stacked grips that are totally different from other 1911s. Last time I had a Commander and full size Springfield, I'm almost positive everything except the barrels and slide were identical. Pretty sure I swapped some parts between them for a little while.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Mericet

Are you sure that the frame is the same for the full size and Commander versions Rick? If so, is it only for Colts? I checked my full size Para and Nighthawk frames against a Caspian Commander frame and the Commander frame is shorter.

The dust cover on a proper Commander frame is indeed shorter than that on a Government-sized frame. The guide rod abutment and rails are also 0.100" shorter (i.e. set further back). There are manufacturers that simply lop off the front of the dust cover on a Gov't frame to make their Commander model, but they do this at the expense of reliability. That 0.100" is needed for sufficient slide travel so the gun cycles properly.

Colt's designation is "Commander" for the alloy frame and "Combat Commander" for the steel frame version.

Then there's the CCO - an Officer's frame with a Commander slide. Hell, I've seen a 3" slide on a hacked-up Government frame. People do all sorts of weird things...