<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Commanders, Defenders and Officers Model 1911s</title> <atom:link href="http://www.gundigest.com/handgun-reviews-articles/commanders-defenders-and-officers-model-1911s/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.gundigest.com/handgun-reviews-articles/commanders-defenders-and-officers-model-1911s</link> <description>Expert advice from the world&#039;s leading authorities on gun values, gun prices, gun history, gunsmithing, shooting and tactical gear</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 01:45:56 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator> <item><title>By: Harold</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/handgun-reviews-articles/commanders-defenders-and-officers-model-1911s/comment-page-1#comment-1634</link> <dc:creator>Harold</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:32:45 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=53669#comment-1634</guid> <description><![CDATA[Warning: since I was a teen, the M1911 has fit my hand like a glove, for me it&#039;s ergonomically perfect so I may be a special case.I wonder if the author is overstating the issues with switching between a somewhat &quot;lightweight&quot; model and a normal one.  I own both a 100% steel (aside from the mainspring block) 5 inch model plus a Kimber Pro Carry (first generation), which is an aluminum frame 4 inch model.  I notice *some* difference when I fire them, but it&#039;s not marked, doesn&#039;t require adaptation and doesn&#039;t seem to make much difference in accuracy (then again I&#039;m not shooting bulls-eyes).I agree that a standard 5 inch steel model ideally would be the base of your M1911 collection (it&#039;s what I have for home defense) but don&#039;t be too afraid to try one of the smaller models and see how it preforms in your hands.  I can say the Pro Carry is nearly a joy to carry (still weights a bit much), and as usual the thinness of the M1911 makes it conceal pretty well.  I also would not be upset if the Pro Carry was the only one I had; it or an equally high quality model with the same features should be able to earn your complete confidence.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Warning: since I was a teen, the M1911 has fit my hand like a glove, for me it&#8217;s ergonomically perfect so I may be a special case.</p><p>I wonder if the author is overstating the issues with switching between a somewhat &#8220;lightweight&#8221; model and a normal one.  I own both a 100% steel (aside from the mainspring block) 5 inch model plus a Kimber Pro Carry (first generation), which is an aluminum frame 4 inch model.  I notice *some* difference when I fire them, but it&#8217;s not marked, doesn&#8217;t require adaptation and doesn&#8217;t seem to make much difference in accuracy (then again I&#8217;m not shooting bulls-eyes).</p><p>I agree that a standard 5 inch steel model ideally would be the base of your M1911 collection (it&#8217;s what I have for home defense) but don&#8217;t be too afraid to try one of the smaller models and see how it preforms in your hands.  I can say the Pro Carry is nearly a joy to carry (still weights a bit much), and as usual the thinness of the M1911 makes it conceal pretty well.  I also would not be upset if the Pro Carry was the only one I had; it or an equally high quality model with the same features should be able to earn your complete confidence.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: SmithKoWitz</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/handgun-reviews-articles/commanders-defenders-and-officers-model-1911s/comment-page-1#comment-1369</link> <dc:creator>SmithKoWitz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 05:19:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=53669#comment-1369</guid> <description><![CDATA[Very good article, although I can not say I totally agree with some of the thoughts about short barreled 1911&#039;s. I began my 45 1911 experience, shooting with the Kimber SIS Ultra. Awesome piece of work; very accurate and easy to handle; helped by it&#039;s heavyweight. I have shot a lot of different handguns (pistols and revolvers), still find this to be one of my favorites. Everything about it just feels good. I am hoping to check out a Kimber Super Carry HD in PRO  4&quot; size one day. I also have a Springfield TRP Full Size 5&quot;; it is an equally fine piece, though I still like the SIS better. I&#039;ve also looked at the new S&amp;W 1911&#039;s; might have to test ride one of these in the future, sure do feel nice in the hand. I noticed you didn&#039;t mention 3.5&quot; barrel 1911&#039;s. They are also another nice alternative if you want a carry conceal 1911.  I have a Rock Island 3.5&quot;. For a relatively inexpensive (less than 5 bills) 1911, it is a well made reliable piece.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good article, although I can not say I totally agree with some of the thoughts about short barreled 1911&#8242;s. I began my 45 1911 experience, shooting with the Kimber SIS Ultra. Awesome piece of work; very accurate and easy to handle; helped by it&#8217;s heavyweight. I have shot a lot of different handguns (pistols and revolvers), still find this to be one of my favorites. Everything about it just feels good. I am hoping to check out a Kimber Super Carry HD in PRO  4&#8243; size one day. I also have a Springfield TRP Full Size 5&#8243;; it is an equally fine piece, though I still like the SIS better. I&#8217;ve also looked at the new S&amp;W 1911&#8242;s; might have to test ride one of these in the future, sure do feel nice in the hand. I noticed you didn&#8217;t mention 3.5&#8243; barrel 1911&#8242;s. They are also another nice alternative if you want a carry conceal 1911.  I have a Rock Island 3.5&#8243;. For a relatively inexpensive (less than 5 bills) 1911, it is a well made reliable piece.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: hillsidekim</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/handgun-reviews-articles/commanders-defenders-and-officers-model-1911s/comment-page-1#comment-1368</link> <dc:creator>hillsidekim</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 22:28:10 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=53669#comment-1368</guid> <description><![CDATA[Nitpicking, I know, but &quot;idiom&quot; or iteration?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nitpicking, I know, but &#8220;idiom&#8221; or iteration?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Revolverdude</title><link>http://www.gundigest.com/handgun-reviews-articles/commanders-defenders-and-officers-model-1911s/comment-page-1#comment-1367</link> <dc:creator>Revolverdude</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 15:07:56 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.gundigest.com/?p=53669#comment-1367</guid> <description><![CDATA[I realize there are a ton of 1911&#039;s out there but you should mention the Sig line of 1911&#039;s.  The quality is the best.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize there are a ton of 1911&#8242;s out there but you should mention the Sig line of 1911&#8242;s.  The quality is the best.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 377/483 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: CloudFront: d3pvexk84ayvwf.cloudfront.net

 Served from: www.gundigest.com @ 2013-06-19 04:03:53 by W3 Total Cache -->