Wilsons in 9MM

[Tom R]

Jim, How are your 9MM/1911s setup for ESP? These are single stacks?

[Jim Watson]

Nothing fancy, my main match gun is a Colt 1991A1 9mm with FO front sight, King's rear, S&A beavertail, S&A mag well funnel, and 3.75 lb trigger.
I use Wilson ETM, Tripp, and Metalform magazines. Standard ammo is a 147 gr RN at 900 fps.

MixMaster A is similar but is built on a Springfield alloy frame. A full size 30 oz 9mm is a FINE little ESP, but this one is a parts gun and has not been as reliable as the Colt, although I think I have it sorted out this season. This is the one I would like to replicate as a Wilson Classic.

[Tom R]

An interesting (and relevant) discussion going on over at Pistol-Forum.com. I suspect many of you might've read the ongoing series by Todd Green of selected pistol endurance tests. For example, last years was a Gen 4, Glock 17, which followed an HK45, etc. - results are on his other website Pistol-training.com. An avowed non 1911 fan, Green has selected a 1911 chambered in 9MM (unfortunately not a Wilson) for this years evaluation. Hes been very creative (and cagey) in making this announcement and it takes a bit of reading the thread to get there.

Here's a link to the page with final details, (more or less). Anyway, for those of us thinking about a 9mm 1911.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...OUNCED!/page10

Here's a cool link to his training website where he announced the pistol via a very ingenious "puzzle problem"

http://pistol-training.com/archives/6661

[WilsonCombatRep]

Originally Posted by Tom R

An interesting (and relevant) discussion going on over at Pistol-Forum.com. I suspect many of you might've read the ongoing series by Todd Green of selected pistol endurance tests. For example, last years was a Gen 4, Glock 17, which followed an HK45, etc. - results are on his other website Pistol-training.com. An avowed non 1911 fan, Green has selected a 1911 chambered in 9MM (unfortunately not a Wilson) for this years evaluation. Hes been very creative (and cagey) in making this announcement and it takes a bit of reading the thread to get there.

Here's a link to the page with final details, (more or less). Anyway, for those of us thinking about a 9mm 1911.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...OUNCED!/page10

Here's a cool link to his training website where he announced the pistol via a very ingenious "puzzle problem"

http://pistol-training.com/archives/6661

Well, I am a fan of Todd's blog and tests but this is destined to be a failure in my opinion. A 9mm 1911 is a great target gun and great practice/training gun but not always a great "duty" gun for a multitude of reasons.

[Tom R]

WCR,
Ok, Ill bite - whats your list of shortcomings....

[WilsonCombatRep]

Originally Posted by Tom R

WCR,
Ok, Ill bite - whats your list of shortcomings....

The 5" 1911 is designed around the .45 ACP cartridge. Slide stroke. Engineering. Width and depth of magazine. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Colt figured out how to modify a 1911 to make it work in .38 Super when more velocity was needed to penetrate the body armor of the roaring 20's and then again in the 1950's with 9x19 when the US started on the road to Nato compliance. In the 50's they used a Lightweight Commander has the base for the 9mm. It wasn't until the mid 1970' that Colt made another 9mm 1911 in 5" guise.

It can work. We can make them run extremely well with good ammo and mags.

However-A 9mm 1911 will never be as inherently reliable as a .45 ACP 1911 -with all things being equal.

I am not going to write a book on the subject here because this is well documented on various forums but 1911 reliability is very ammunition specific. There is a reason likely 90% of the 1911's we build are in .45 ACP.

[.45_ACP]

Originally Posted by WilsonCombatRep

Well, I am a fan of Todd's blog and tests.

Me too, in fact I followed his Glock 17 Gen 4 test with great interest because I happen to own one of these troubled guns. After several mods Todd got his test gun to run reliably but there is a design flaw that Glock still hasn't fully resolved. Glock released a new ejector which fixes some but not all of these weapons. Anyway, this ISN'T the glocktalk forum so I'm sorry for digressing.

I agree with you WCR that 1911's are most reliable when they have 5" barrels and are chambered in .45 ACP. My screen name should be a clue to that. That said, Todd is an interesting guy and I like the way he tests and presents his information so I'll probably follow along even though I have no interest in buying a 1911 chambered in 9mm.

[WilsonCombatRep]

Originally Posted by .45_ACP

Me too, in fact I followed his Glock 17 Gen 4 test with great interest because I happen to own one of these troubled guns. After several mods Todd got his test gun to run reliably but there is a design flaw that Glock still hasn't fully resolved. Glock released a new ejector which fixes some but not all of these weapons. Anyway, this ISN'T the glocktalk forum so I'm sorry for digressing.

I agree with you WCR that 1911's are most reliable when they have 5" barrels and are chambered in .45 ACP. My screen name should be a clue to that. That said, Todd is an interesting guy and I like the way he tests and presents his information so I'll probably follow along even though I have no interest in buying a 1911 chambered in 9mm.

My Gen4 Glock went to the GUN SHOW and never came back.

[.45_ACP]

Originally Posted by WilsonCombatRep

My Gen4 Glock went to the GUN SHOW and never came back.

I have thought long and hard about doing the same but I'd like to get it to run a little better before I do that. It still doesn't eject reliably and I don't want to stick somone with it. I wish Glock would just buy it back from me and destroy it but as you know things don't work that way.

I'm kind of hoping there will be a class action suit against Glock for the Gen 4's which is one of the main reasons I'm still hanging onto it. Perhaps the lawyers will force a recall or buyback.

Shortly after buying the troubled Glock I bought a S&W M&P 9 which runs like a Swiss watch. If you are ever in the market for another (relatively) inexpensive poly pistol I highly recommend this gun. The stock trigger lacks a good reset but Apex Tactical offers some excellent solutions for that if it's an issue.

[WilsonCombatRep]

Originally Posted by .45_ACP

I have thought long and hard about doing the same but I'd like to get it to run a little better before I do that. It still doesn't eject reliably and I don't want to stick somone with it. I wish Glock would just buy it back from me and destroy it but as you know things don't work that way.

I'm kind of hoping there will be a class action suit against Glock for the Gen 4's which is one of the main reasons I'm still hanging onto it. Perhaps the lawyers will force a recall or buyback.

Shortly after buying the troubled Glock I bought a S&W M&P 9 which runs like a Swiss watch. If you are ever in the market for another (relatively) inexpensive poly pistol I highly recommend this gun. The stock trigger lacks a good reset but Apex Tactical offers some excellent solutions for that if it's an issue.

Mine ran OK, I just didn't trust it.

[Tom R]

WCR,

My, "well Ill bite...." was directed at this sentence you wrote, "A 9mm 1911 is a great target gun and great practice/training gun but not always a great "duty" gun for a multitude of reasons. "

Your answers are essentially what we've been talking about on this thread and another in the Wilson Combat section for a couple weeks now. I think, the story of reliability issues with 1911/9MM are very well documented, here and else where to the point that they have become the thing of legend.

You know the old saw, "repeat something often enough and people will tend to think its fact" - so, its fun to challenge legends from time to time. When you sift through the responses from current Wilson owners we heard from and if you read a bit further past that link to page 10, (it goes on to page 24), I posted, there's some interesting folks chiming in, and interesting folks participating in Todd's selection process....

Now I thought you would address more pragmatic issues like, weight, size, capacity, etc.

Tom

[cory]

Originally Posted by WilsonCombatRep

It can work. We can make them run extremely well with good ammo and mags.

Yes, you certainly do.

[scw2]

Originally Posted by Tom R

Street wisdom says the 1911 doesn't work so well as a 9mm. Reading through various postings here, however suggests owners of Wilson 9s don't agree.

There is wisdom in shooting 9 these days. Ammo cost heads the list. Lower recoil/muzzle jump, (even if we're not supposed to admit this) counts for something. There are lots of alternatives for a pistol chambered in this caliber, but none offers the advantage of training with the same pistol as the 1911/45, (If you're into those). Admittedly, if one's choices are governed by game rules, (USPSA, IPSC, IDPA, Bullseye, PPC) there doesn't seem to be a happy place for a single stack 1911 chambered in 9. And last, modern high performance defensive ammunition blurs traditional caliber differences on the ah, er... other end of things, if that's your need.

If anyone can make a 1911/9mm run well, surely Wilson must head the list.

In a conversation with Scott at Wilson a short while ago this subject came up. He said something that challenged my thinking and opened up a new set of questions. I don't carry. I'm a target shooter and therefore was naturally thinking about a full size CQB in 9. Scott, suggested however, for a nine he preferred the recoil impulse and balance of the Pro (or Compact) 4" barrel. He, (I hope I'm quoting him accurately), said he believed the mass of the slide of the full size 5" presents a bit of a challenge to the volume of gas pressure generated in the 9mm and that the reduced mass of the 4" guns ran and felt better.

I confess, since I don't carry, prior to this conversation, I was dismissing all of the compact sized guns. As cool as they are, why a Stealth or Bill Wilson Carry for range use? Having owned a Colt Commander years ago, the 4" Professional with full size grip, in 45 would seem harder to shoot, (as well as the 5"), and isn't really any easier to carry.

But thinking of our conversation, things get interesting. A nine doesn't need the mass of a government model for shoot-ability. I'm guessing as outside dimensions of the barrel are the same, all other parts are common, the smaller bore of the 9, means this pistol size for size, model for model is naturally heavier. So the lesser recoil of the 9 and "adjusted" mass of the 4" begins to make sense.

I'm curious, what is this forums experience? 9 in a 1911? Which model - Pro, Stealth or BWC? Bull barrel or flanged? Flatwire?

I have a bob tailed light weight Pro in 9mm. I love the gun. It is flat shooting with little recoil. I use flush mounted mags for carry guns in bob tail. Initially, finding flush mags that worked in this gun gave me fits. I have settled on MecGars which have performed 100 percent over about 600 rounds. The Wilson mags have always worked well.

The gun functions well using recoil springs from 11 to 14 pounds. I use the gun with a second, 38 Super barrel and now leave the 14 pound spring in all the time. The gun is over three years old. If ordering today, I would get the 13 pound flat wire spring because I have had good luck with a flat wire in a 5 inch Government and I like 13 pounds if you ever go to a 38 Super/9mm combo.

My Pro shoots Speer, Corbon 9mm 125 grain and DPX, and Wilson defensive ammo with no problems, although I probably have not shot more than 150 defensive 9mm rounds through the gun do to the cost, especially of the Barnes bullets.

I like the bull barrel. Very easy to field strip the gun and may help a little with recoil, but I cannot prove that last.

I will know a lot more about 4 inch versus 5 inch Wilson 9mms in a couple of months because I have a 38 Super/ 9mm Government coming. It will have a flat wire spring.

Good luck,

Craig

[lwrkeysfisher]

Originally Posted by WilsonCombatRep

Well, I am a fan of Todd's blog and tests but this is destined to be a failure in my opinion. A 9mm 1911 is a great target gun and great practice/training gun but not always a great "duty" gun for a multitude of reasons.

I understand that the Spec Ops 9 is not a true 1911; however, do you hold the same opinion of it? Or do you think the Spec Ops 9 would make a better duty gun than a true 1911 9mm or other double stack 1911 style 9mm's (ie. 2011)?

[WilsonCombatRep]

Originally Posted by lwrkeysfisher

I understand that the Spec Ops 9 is not a true 1911; however, do you hold the same opinion of it? Or do you think the Spec Ops 9 would make a better duty gun than a true 1911 9mm or other double stack 1911 style 9mm's (ie. 2011)?

The Spec-Ops 9 while not a true 1911 does have a 1911 lineage. We made some internal changes so it matches the power of the 9mm cartridge more effectively like ejection port lock-up (like a Glock or SIG), lighter slide, shorter slide stoke and of course the hi-cap magazine.

I do think the Spec-Ops is better suited to the 9mm caliber than a "true" 1911 but it is a very different animal from a feel, balance and handling perspective.

[Rideandshoot]

I bought a Lightweight CQB compact used about a month ago. So far I have 225 rounds of 124 grain JHP reloads through it plus another 150 rounds of 115g FMJ. No problems of any kind. The gun was originally purchased in 2008 and it came with 3 fairly conventional looking magazines with metal followers one of which is stamped "kimber" and 2 that have what a "M" stamped on the bottom. The original owner said that the gun came with the 'older style' magazines. It also came with 3 of the newer magazines with the plastic followers which the original owner purchased later. The 350 rounds mentioned below were fired from all 6 magazines. I actually like the 'M' stamped magazines for carry because they fit flush.

Just to make sure all is good with conventional magazines I'm going to put 150 124 JHPs through it tomorrow with the conventional magazine.

The other comment that I think is worth making is that 9mm ammunition varies a lot in terms of power. There was a substantial difference between the 124g JHP and the 115 FMJ. The 124g was loaded at the high end of the standard data and the 115 around standard. For tomorrow I have types of factory ammo to try... +P 135g Hornady and Federal +p 147 HST. These should be a step function hotter still...

Here's a comparison of the old IPSC power factor which is really just a measure of Momentum...

115g reloads... 138000
124g reloads... 143750
135g Hornady... 151875
147g Federal HST... 154350

[10d]

My wife wanted a 9mm 1911 and liked the looks and feel of a Kimber tac pro at a GS.She bought it and she can shoot 2 inch groups at 10 yards offhand using 147 grain LFN handloads.It shoots even better with win 147HP's.
I can shoot 2 inch at 25 yards with it off sandbags.It runs fine so far and I think a 4 inch bull barrel is the way to go in 9mm.I got a wilson mag for it and it works well and the kimber mag works well.I like the light weight.
If a Kimber works well I think a Wilson would work also.I like 10mm's and 45acp but 9mm isn't as bad as some think they are in a 1911.

[Racerdj]

A Wilson Stealth in 9mm is a blast to shoot!

[blr]

The 9mm represents an intersting test of the performance envelope of the 1911, similar to, but on the opposite side off the evelope as the 10mm.

As has been said, the 1911 was designed around the 45, and what hasn't been said, is that was back in 1911 (give or take a decade). That means, more specifically, around the 45 using 1911 metallurgy and maching technology. More specifically, the 1911 was designed around the inertia (recoil operation) of a fired 45. Component weight, spring weight, barrel timing, recoil lugs, etc. were all set up to handle the 45. And just like every other machine, and specifically recoil operated firearms, there is a decently sized window of safe operation (safe meaning reliable in this instance). For example, if you take a CQB in 45, you have a wonderfully wide margin of error. So you can shoot +P 230g XTPs and switch to powderpuff 200g LSWC target loads seamlessly.

Now if you take that exact same platform, but chamber it in 9mm, your margin of error was just slashed. Simply changing spring weights, which is the bulk of the change for most 9mm 1911s, doesn't get you as far as is really needed to make a reliable platform. This is why ToddGs SACS guns get sluggish around 1500-1700 rounds between cleaning. To make a 9mm 1911 work correctly, you need to adjust the slide mass, spring weights, mag well, and locking geometry (kinda like WC did with the Spec Ops).

With any 9mm 1911, you are working with a reduced margin of error.

[WilsonCombatRep]

Originally Posted by blr

The 9mm represents an intersting test of the performance envelope of the 1911, similar to, but on the opposite side off the evelope as the 10mm.

As has been said, the 1911 was designed around the 45, and what hasn't been said, is that was back in 1911 (give or take a decade). That means, more specifically, around the 45 using 1911 metallurgy and maching technology. More specifically, the 1911 was designed around the inertia (recoil operation) of a fired 45. Component weight, spring weight, barrel timing, recoil lugs, etc. were all set up to handle the 45. And just like every other machine, and specifically recoil operated firearms, there is a decently sized window of safe operation (safe meaning reliable in this instance). For example, if you take a CQB in 45, you have a wonderfully wide margin of error. So you can shoot +P 230g XTPs and switch to powderpuff 200g LSWC target loads seamlessly.

Now if you take that exact same platform, but chamber it in 9mm, your margin of error was just slashed. Simply changing spring weights, which is the bulk of the change for most 9mm 1911s, doesn't get you as far as is really needed to make a reliable platform. This is why ToddGs SACS guns get sluggish around 1500-1700 rounds between cleaning. To make a 9mm 1911 work correctly, you need to adjust the slide mass, spring weights, mag well, and locking geometry (kinda like WC did with the Spec Ops).

With any 9mm 1911, you are working with a reduced margin of error.

Excellent explanation of a confusing topic for many shooters. Thanks Bill!

[Racerdj]

Forgot to add...ran fine on my reloads.

[Rideandshoot]

Just got back from my session this morning. 100 more 125g HP reloads without a so much as a hiccup through my alloy frame compact CQB. I also shot about 15 +P 147 and 135 g factory rounds. The ejected brass is tossed 20 feet. I'm really tempted to try a 14lb recoil spring and I'm going to call next week to see what a flat wire conversion would cost.

Note about 40 of the 100 rounds were fired from 'unconventional' positions. Unsupported, weak hand unsupported canted, Prone on right and left side and supported kneeling.

At this point I trust this gun completely.

[10d]

My wifes tac pro 9mm doesn't toss them that far but it has a 14 lb RS and a 23 lb MS.I tried a lot of different loads but 147's shot best.The more I shoot an alloy frame 4 inch bull barrel 1911,the more I like them.Good balance and no recoil.

[Scot in Vegas]

"Gents as many of you know I am not a fan of the compact 1911- I have seen way too many reliability issues with the Commander and Officers Model platforms; my attitude has been to stay away from them

I must report a significant change in that situation; I recently made a trip to Wilson Combat and filmed an episode for TacTV- not only was I EXTREMELY impressed with Wilson's quality and approach to building a 1911 ( I always have been a fan of Wilson Combat 1911's but I am even more of one now) but after I got the rundown of everything they have done to make a compact 1911 more reliable I can state beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you like to carry compact 1911 style pistols you need to be carrying a current Wilson product. Bill and the crew have made significant changes ( like the introduction of a flat wire spring) that allow for dramatically more slide travel which leads to more dwell time for the next round in the magazine to be pushed up into position for feeding. This is all a byproduct of Bill carrying a compact 1911 style pistol for years and really putting the time into it to optimize the platform.

I'm not saying a small format 1911 is for everybody but what I am saying is if you prefer one for CCW duties the current Wilson guns are the Gold standard - no doubt about it.

Hope this info helps some of you make an informed decision

Sincerely

LAV "

Recently posted by Larry Vickers. I am looking into a 9mm 1911 and will most likely go with a compact CQB from Wilson and stick to .45 ACP in 5" 1911's.

[westwood45]

Thanks for sharing Scott. Can you tell us where this was posted?

Thanks