Category Archives: Uncategorized

Subtle Improvement

Shooting Illustrated 

 

 

 

Published in ”Shooting Illustrated” August 2009

Bill Wilson Carry Pistol

 

Bill Wilson is no stranger to the shooting world. His CQB pistol graced the cover of Shooting Illustrated’s November 2005 issue and was the subject of a full length feature entitled “The Perfect IDPA Pistol.”

Given IDPA’s emphasis on designing match scenarios that might duplicate potential real life street encounters, it was not surprising that much of my evaluation focused on CCW requirements in addition to match rules. Upon completion of the article, I purchased the CQB from Wilson, and it became the number one gun on my CCW permit. Until now, I did not expect to find an all-steel 1911 that I would prefer for street carry.

 Wilson Combat recently created the Bill Wilson Carry Gun, and as you might expect when one is introducing the next generation of a great handgun, the new carry pistol is not vastly different from the successful CQB. That said the minor changes are truly worthwhile and quickly appreciated. Overall dimensions remain the same; a slide shortened from a standard 1911 to accommodate a 4.1 inch barrel, and a frame reduced in height to 5.25 inches overall (with the 7 shot magazine installed.) Like the CQB, the new model handles both the 7-round magazine (recommended for concealed carry) and slightly extended 8-round magazines that are easily concealed in spare carriers without revealing any unusual lumps or bulges. Internal configuration, cuts and polishing is essentially the same on both guns which accounts for the superb accuracy and reliability of a Wilson 1911.

Wilson

The first 15 rounds through the Wilson were a mix of bullet styles and weights. Functioning was perfect and, at the group at 15 yards offhand, indicate that whatever ammo is fed to the new gun, it will reliably handle any threats to its owners life and well being.

 Most noticeable and having the greatest impact on my shooting the new gun is the modified Ed Brown bobtail on the shorter grip frame. Normally this rounding of the base is only done on full-size 1911. On the smaller frame, the curvature is not as severe, but the change is dramatic in terms of comfort during firing, and the more magazines fired in a range session, the more you’ll appreciate the increased comfort. Because of the bobtail treatment, the base had to be modified slightly making the gun feel a bit smaller, but shot-to-shot recovery didn’t seem to be compromised. The rounded edge of the back strap is fully checkered just as it is on the CQB, but there is no longer a distinct edge to create abrasions on your palm. A couple of years ago when I first acquired the CQB, I spent some time at Thunder Ranch and ended up applying bandages on the second day and changing guns on the third day. In a recent trip to Gunsite with the Carry Gun I was able to comfortably complete the week long class without having to apply any patches to my palm. For me, the bobtail is much more important on a downsized 1911 because the sharp edge of the backstrap doesn’t extend below the palm swell, but rather is driven into the meaty part of the hand by the recoil of each round. Given that steel is harder than flesh, can you say “Ouch!”

 The other “comfort” revision is the G10 grips. These feature radial lines instead of checkering with the edges of each line slightly rounded. Tactile control is still excellent, but long term abrasion in an extended class is reduced. Call me a sissy if you like, but I like those grips. The single thumb safety lever, set up for right handed shooters, is smaller on the new carry gun. I think it’s a good idea if you can reduce the size of a component on a CCW weapon without compromising performance, and over the 5 day-class, I did not notice any difficulties in operation when presenting the gun from concealed carry. The slide stop pin has also been shortened with the frame countersunk on the right side. This change does two things. One, it will allow the use of Crimson Trace grips with no interference from a protruding pin. Second, you may need to modify your disassembly technique slightly when you clean the gun. There are also serrations on top of the new gun’s slide for the purpose of reducing glare. Firing both the old CQB and the new pistol in the bright Arizona sunlight I did not notice any difference in glare from either gun, but most of our outdoor shooting was during morning hours with the sun behind us. Still, I would rate this as a worth while addition on a carry gun.

 The new gun has several relief cuts that strike me as being well thought out and useful. The front half inch or so of the slide has been reduced in width. It may not save much weight, but depending on how you execute a press check, you might find the new configuration helpful in grasping the slide with the support hand. There’s also a relief cut in the front strap just behind the trigger guard. Perhaps it let’s you get your hand in higher and tighter into the grip, but it’s so small that I really couldn’t notice a functional difference between the two guns either when holding or firing. The final relief cut is in the left grip panel behind the mag release button, and this did have some tangible benefits. I’ve never been able to drop a magazine on a 1911 without shifting my shooting hand grip simply because I don’t have particularly long fingers/thumbs. With Wilson’s new carry gun, I still have to rotate a bit, but it’s noticeably less movement than is required on the CQB, much more comfortable to execute, and much quicker to recover. This is the kind of change whose value will depend on your individual dimensions and operating technique for an evaluation, but even with only a partial improvement, I like the change.

 The last change noticed was the “U” shaped notch in the fixed rear sight. I believe the purpose of this is to make sight acquisition a bit faster in a life-threatening situation. Perhaps it did, but I couldn’t tell. In fact, the entire time on the line I didn’t notice the difference. Sight pictures on both guns are extremely similar simply because you don’t see the bottom of the notch where it’s rounded. Neither could I detect any difference in the amount of light visible on both sides of the front blade, even when shooting slowly. The only thing that struck me as slightly different was that the first 15 shots fired offhand with three different Black Hills loadings at 15 yards seemed to have more of a lateral spread than usual. I know Wilson pistols shoot one-hole groups in the hands of testers at the factory shooting from a rest, and while I didn’t expect exactly the same results, I felt the vertical spread (about 1 ½ inches) was more representative than the horizontal spread of something like 2 ½ inches. As stated, when I got into the class, both worked superbly. For the record, I was wearing corrective lenses and I’m quite new to “U” notch rear sights.

 I can’t fault the Wilson’s reliability. By being abusive, I was able to cause malfunctions, but it was only by breaking all the rules. After firing 2 to 3 boxes of ammo (without first cleaning the gun,) I put the gun away dirty and un-oiled for two weeks before going to Gunsite. Again without cleaning or lubricating, I shot the gun for two days of class. When the gun failed to go into battery, some oil cured the problem until late in the third day when the same failures reoccurred. Additional lubrication continued to cure the problem but for shorter periods of time. As the instructions state, clean the gun and it will (and did) work flawlessly. The only “failure” not attributed to my atrocious behavior was on the third day when the “Wilson” escutcheon in the left grip panel fell off. A call to John May in Arkansas revealed that this was one of those occasions where the least expensive adhesive worked the best and the expensive glue failed. Problem fixed forever.

 I’ve succumbed to the Siren calls again. No, I’m not buying a new carry gun because my existing CQB is tied to my CCW permit by serial number, and changing things like this is California would be a nightmare. But I am having my CQB remodeled to the new Wilson Carry Gun. It’s that good.

 

Portable .44 Magnums

 

Published in “Shooting Illustrated” June 2007

Buffalo Bore

Buffalo Bore's 340-grain +P+ . 44 Magnum loads have an overall cartridge length of 1.752 inches, but they pose no problem for the Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan's cylinder. The Hogue Tamer Monogrip completely surrounds the grip frame in soft rubber, which makes shooting even these powerhouse loads in the 2 1/2-inch snubbie bearable.

In the shooting world, “magnum” means a cartridge or firearm larger than nor­mal in size, performance or both. When Smith & Wesson introduced the .44 Magnum in the mid-’50s, the company housed the cartridge in its existing N-frame revolver. While the round’s performance exceeded that of existing handgun cartridges, the gun’s size was neither unmanageable nor intimidating—until you fired it for the first time. Ruger’s original .44 Magnum was a bulked-up Flattop single-action revolver. The frame size was slightly larger than we were accustomed to, but the grip remained rather small. This seemed like a good idea—again until you touched off your first full-power round.

Over the years, Smith & Wesson made some internal and external changes in its .44 Magnum handguns but has continued to chamber the cartridge in the double-action N-frame revolver. Shortly after its introduction, Ruger dropped the Flattop .44 Magnum (until its reintroduction as a commemorative edition in 2005) and began producing some larger-framed .44 Magnum revolvers, in both single- and double-action versions. We were offered two single actions, the Super Blackhawk and the Bis-ley, and two double actions, the Redhawk and Super Redhawk.
The frame sizes on these Rugers were larger than on the original Flattop, and barrel lengths were either longer or compa­rable to earlier guns. The idea was to make the new revolvers more durable to handle a continuous diet of full-house magnum loads, and to make them more controllable and comfortable when fired by less-experi­enced handgunners. An additional benefit was the increased cylinder length allowed the use of heavier, longer bullets for large, dangerous game.
There’s been a slight reversal of the trend lately. Downsized options are now available for those who want a big-bore handgun for self-defense rather than hunting. Ruger is offering both its Redhawk and Super Red­hawk with shorter barrels that make them easier to carry. This is not an attempt to produce a .44 Magnum that would compete with handguns designed for concealed carry, although both guns, particularly the stubby Super Redhawk Alaskan, can be easily covered by a jacket should the user venture from wilderness to civilization. And the .44 Magnum is certainly an ade­quate, if slightly overpowered, cartridge for self-defense. Ruger’s real target audi­ence is the backpacker or woods wanderer who might venture into country inhabited by predators larger and tougher than man, and who understand that dialing 911 is a useless gesture.
Some similarities between the Redhawk and Super Redhawk are apparent. Their cylinders are the same, but the Super Redhawk’s frame extends 1 3/4 inches far­ther forward than the Redhawk’s. The breech end of the Super Redhawk’s barrel has a couple extra inches of frame wrapped around it, which makes it look much beef­ier when viewed from the business end. Both guns have adjustable rear sights with a white outline surrounding the notch. Front sights are black, ramped blades, but the Super Redhawk’s is all black, while the Redhawk’s has a red insert. The Redhawk’s front blade is pinned through the integral barrel rib, but the Super Redhawk’s blade is silver-soldered into a slot in the top of the frame. Normally the Redhawk is equipped with either a 5 1/2 or 7 1/2 inch barrel, and the Super Redhawk features a 7 1/2 or 9-inch barrel. The new Redhawk has a 4-inch barrel, while the Super Redhawk’s barrel has been cut to 27; inches, or flush with the front edge of the extended frame. I’ve always thought the standard Super Red­hawk looked ugly with its barrel sticking out of the stretched frame, but the snub-nose Alaskan is built like a small Abrams tank and is almost as impressive.
Comparison of Barrels

The muzzle of the Alaskan (left) is flush with the front of the distinctive, extended frame that characterizes the Super Redhawk. Despite the short barrel, alt that metal in the frame gives the little thumper a weight of 41 ounces.

Grips are considerably different on the two guns, mainly because their grip frames are not the same. The Redhawk grip frame looks like we expect a grip frame to look—the frontstrap and backstrap deter­mine the final size and shape of the han­dle. In contrast, the Super Redhawk has an undersized “stub” handle that allows the use of whatever size and shape grip you like. Hogue finger-groove grips are on both guns, but the grips on the Alaskan surround the back of the grip frame and provide a cushioning effect between gun and hand when fired. There is also a softer piece of blue rubber inside the top of the grip that cushions the web of the shoot­ing hand from the classic “thump of the hump” administered by the recoil of heavy loads in a double-action revolver. The Red­hawk’s grips expose the steel backstrap but generously fill the space between frontstrap and trigger guard. They also extend below the grip frame providing a comfortable resting place for the last fin­ger of the shooting hand. I didn’t find the felt recoil of either gun objectionable, but the Super Redhawk was more comfortable when hot loads with bullets weighing 300 grains or more were fired. If you have very large hands, you might prefer the larger grips of the Redhawk.
Shooting the compact .44 Magnums from Ruger was fun, but I need to be clear about limitations. For me, a 4-inch barrel is about the minimum length I can hunt with using an iron-sighted belt gun, and I prefer 5 or even 6 inches. Besides the issue of sight radius, my eyes just aren’t what they used to be. Given that, I would be comfort­able hunting with the 4-inch Redhawk at ranges up to about 50 yards, but only if I’m wearing some sort of shooting glasses with corrective lenses. It’s much easier for me to hunt with a scoped pistol, and in fact that’s now mandatory for me during the low-light conditions of early morning or late afternoon.
Ruger .44 Magnum

The packing ability of a 4-inch barrel meets the versatility of the .44 Magnum in Ruger's latest addition to the Redhawk family. With a beefy frame and an elongated cylinder, the revolver can handle a variety of ammunition for hunting or defending against large and dangerous game, including Buffalo Bore's 340-grain cast +P+ stomper and Cor-Bon's 225-grain DPX load.

However, I became infatuated with the short-barreled Alaskan. I liked almost everything about it, including its smaller grips, minimal felt recoil, handy length and remarkably smooth double-action trigger. And while I would rate it as an excellent defensive big-bore revolver, I wouldn’t take it hunting as my primary handgun. Firing at a 40-yard target, I could not keep all my shots in the black. I could pretty well keep them on the paper, within a 9-inch circle, shooting offhand, but I felt I was just barely on the ragged edge of acceptable marksmanship. Restricting my effective hunting range to less than 40 yards isn’t something I would want to do. That said, the Alaskan would be my first choice for a carry gun if I were fishing or just hiking through bear country, like maybe Alaska. The .44 Magnum with heavier bullets is a major defensive load against big critters, and I felt absolutely confident in my abil­ity to use the little Super Redhawk at close range with no concern for the recoil gener­ated by the more powerful loads. Carried on the belt in a lightweight nylon holster, this stainless steel powerhouse would be the perfect companion for an extended foray in fair weather or foul.
I would, however, make one modifica­tion to the Alaskan. With .44-caliber bul­lets ranging from 240 to 300-plus grains, I used up much of the rear sight’s eleva­tion adjustment capability at the 40-yard range. When the gun was on, the rear sight assembly rode quite high in its notch in the topstrap. There was no danger of the elevation adjustment screw popping out of the sight assembly since there were at least another three revolutions avail­able before the threads disengaged. When the screw was that far out, though, the tension applied to the assembly by the two coil springs was not consistent, and the sight moved so easily that it did not seem like precise adjustments were either achievable or maintainable. It’s not that big a deal considering the ranges at which the gun would most likely be used, plus a fix is incredibly simple. I would have a competent smithy file a little off the top of the front blade so the rear sight doesn’t have to be dramatically elevated to prop­erly sight-in the gun.
Fact is, both revolvers would make excellent trail guns. The Redhawk’s extra 1 1/2 inches of barrel gave me some addi­tional range, while the Alaskan’s shorter barrel and smaller grips made it more com­fortable and portable. With both Rugers chambered in .44 Magnum, the odds are you can find ammo almost anywhere. You may still have to let Brother Bruin have your salmon, but with either of these guns on your hip, your retreat will be much more orderly and confident.

Para Enters the GAP

Shooting IllustratedPublished in “Shooting Illustrated”, May 2007

It’s a simple formula: If you want to increase the number of rounds carried in a pistol, you must increase the size of the magazine. Unless you have a pistol like a Broomhandle Mauser, you’ll also have to increase the size of the grip frame that houses the magazine. Shrinking the size of the ammunition allows a reduction in grip size, but that normally requires a reduction in bullet diameter, and many of us adhere to the principle that big bullets stop hos­tile behavior faster than smaller ones. To be more specific, you can’t make .45-caliber pistols smaller than those in 9 mm or .40 caliber, given the same frame size and bar­rel length. If your hands are too small to control a high-capacity .45, you’ll have to settle for a handgun of lesser caliber.

Gun and Magazine

A .45-caliber hole in the muzzle of the Para-Ordnance CCO GAP belies its shortened grip frame. Chambered in .45 GAP, the pistol comfortably puts big-bore firepower into smaller hands.

Bullets

Though the .45 GAP case is about .1 inch shorter than that of the .45 ACP, the stubby cartridge gives up little in ballistic perfor­mance. The muzzle velocity of the Federal Low Recoil 185-grain Hydra-Shok .45 GAP load (left) is listed as 1,090 feet per second, while the cartridge pushes a Winchester WinClean 230-grain brass-enclosed-base bullet to 875 feet per second.

About four years ago, Glock bent the rules when it introduced a .45-caliber pistol with a smaller grip size. Glock simply shortened the .45 ACP case by about .1 inch, and the result was a cartridge that could still shoot standard .45-caliber bullets weighing from 185 to 230 grains but fit in grip frames originally designed for a 9 mm. The new cartridge was called the .45 GAP, which stands for Glock Automatic Pistol. Federal developed and produced the first ammuni­tion for the new cartridge, and Winchester started manufacturing loads the next year. For marketing purposes as much as any­thing else—and so no one could say the .45 GAP was inferior to the .45 ACP—both ammo companies worked hard to duplicate the old cartridge’s ballistics in the shorter case and pretty much succeeded. Since the laws of physics do not allow for any free lunches, there is an enhanced recoil impulse to get this performance from the smaller case, but it’s not enough to bother anyone accustomed to shooting the .45 ACP. The resulting Glock 37 did have a smaller grip, which in turn offered more control to shooters with smaller hands.

Para-Ordnance apparently believes the cartridge will sell, or at least that it has enough merit that a Para pistol chambered in .45 GAP will sell. The company’s initial model strikes me as being an excellent can­didate for the stumpy .45 for a couple of rea­sons. First, it is built on Para’s Light Double Action (LDA) platform. Without dwelling on all the LDA features, it is a double-action-only 1911 that requires just a slightly longer reach from the backstrap to the trigger than do standard-size 1911s. Because of that, folks with small- to medium-sized hands or short fingers should realize even greater benefits from the shortened grip frame of the .45 GAP pistol. The LDA trigger needs a lon­ger pull than a single-action 1911, but not nearly as long as a double-action revolver. Additionally, stock Para LDAs have a much smoother and lighter pull than out-of-the-box double-action revolvers, so with the shortened grip frame and proper trigger reset, follow-up shots should be greatly facilitated for shooters with tiny paws.
Para offers the .45 GAP in its Compan­ion Carry Option (CCO). It’s an all-steel gun with a single-stack magazine that holds seven rounds. With one in the pipe, that’s eight rounds of full-power, .45-caliber ammo in a downsized pistol.
The barrel is 3 1/2  inches long. A three-dot sight system consists of a semi-fixed rear and a blade front dovetailed into the slide. A screw in the top of the rear sight can be loosened to provide windage adjustment. The CCO GAP has the flush hammer typi­cal of Para LDA pistols, but it also features a bobbed beavertail safety, which is a big advantage in a gun that may be carried inside clothing. Two other very appropriate features are the grooves on the frontstrap and the bumper pads on the two magazines furnished with the pistol. The frontstrap grooves are like shallow half moons that help control the gun in rapid fire but, when held lightly, still permit the shooter to change his grip. Para calls these Grip-tor grasping grooves. The Griptor grooves, a checkered backstrap and the slight grip extension provided by the bumper pads combine to enhance the shooter’s grip of the gun and make recoil quite manageable.
Almost all testing with the CCO GAP was done with Winchester’s 230-grain full-metal-jacket loads. That’s partly because it was most of the .45 GAP ammo I had available, but also because I thought a 230-grain bullet would provide more of an apples-to-apples comparison with .45 ACP performance and controllability. I did fire a few rounds of Federal’s 185-grain jack­eted hollow points to check reliability of the gun. In truth, if I were carrying a .45 GAP for self-protection, it would be loaded with 185-grain jacketed hollow points for maximum performance. Reli­ability with both loads was 100 percent, but before saddling up with jacketed hol­low points for the streets, I would spend more time with this ammo for familiarity and total confidence.
I managed some range time with Barry Dueck, a former Marine and nationally ranked IPSC multi-gun shooter. Prior to our day on the range, he hadn’t spent much time with Para’s LDA pistols. A seri­ous competitor, his first test was to run the gun against the clock. Specifically, he checked split times of the CCO GAP versus a single-action 1911 he uses in competi­tion. The splits ran about .02 second slower for the LDA than for the standard 1911 during the first couple of runs. As he warmed up, split times on both guns came down, although the difference between the two guns still remained about the same.
None of Dueck’s shots wandered outside a 4-inch-diameter circle in the middle of his target. He concluded that with addi­tional range time, he could compete with an LDA, and he did not notice any adverse effects associated with the reduced grip size and slightly higher recoil impulse of the .45 GAP cartridge. More importantly, with absolutely no prompting on my part, he said that the smaller frame LDA gun in an honest .45 caliber would be outstanding for inside-the-waistband carry.
gun in hand

The CCO GAP is a double-action-only pistol, but the LDA mechanism keeps the distance from the backstrap to the trigger nearly as short as that of a single-action 1911. Shooters don't need big mitts to easily reach the trigger.

I also put the CCO GAP in the hands of for­mer Navy gunner Alena Gomez. This young lady is a fan of the 1911 and owns a couple ranging in size from a scandium-frame Smith & Wesson to a long-slide Springfield in .460 Rowland. She enjoys shooting them and has no trouble controlling the full-size 1911s, even in a rapid-fire string. Gomez stands a towering 5-foot-nothing and has extremely small hands. The idea was to see whether she could comfortably reach the LDA’s controls. She was completely taken with Para’s LDA trigger and felt very much in control of the pistol.

I should note that both Dueck and Gomez went through their drills starting with the Para already in hand. As a high-level competitor, I would expect Dueck to suffer a slight loss in speed learning to draw a gun with a different grip-to-trigger configuration, even though it’s still a 1911. I’d also expect him to overcome that dif­ference very quickly. I doubt Gomez, as a recreational shooter and someone who is in the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit, would have any more problems mastering a Para LDA carried concealed versus a standard 1911.
It’s still not clear whether the .45 GAP will survive in today’s competitive market. Its closest rival, the .45 ACP, is the most successful defensive cartridge in history, at least with regard to long-term survivability. Are there enough people with tiny hands concerned about self-defense to make the cartridge a commercial success? Would they prefer a small-frame LDA pistol to other can­didates? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but Para-Ordnance has created a dandy pistol to address these issues. Any­one who fails to try the CCO GAP may miss a potential favorite self-defense handgun.
Para-Ordnance
980 Tapscott Road
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1X1C3
                 (416) 297-7855   (416) 297-7855             (416) 297-7855   (416) 297-7855

Compact Nines

Published in “Shooting Illustrated” March 2007

It’s become trendy in recent years to trash any defensive handgun with a  bore diameter less than .4 inch. Slogans abound, but one of my favorites is, “Friends don’t let friends carry mouse guns.”
It would be interesting to find a genu­ine ghost whisperer to interview a few of the people on the receiving end of a prop­erly placed 9 mm. I’d be very surprised if any of those folks would categorize it as a mouse gun.
Admittedly, discussions of defensive handguns and calibers usually focus on their ability to produce one-shot stops. The argument for a defensive handgun with a bore diameter of at least .4 inch stems from the basic premise that big bores are more effective stoppers than small ones. With­out debating this premise, which ignores the excellent one-shot stop record of the .357 Magnum, it only holds true if the defender is able to properly place his or her shots. I would suggest that a miss with a .45-caliber handgun has less chance of stopping an assailant than a torso hit with a 9 mm.

In many cases, a criminal has been stopped by the mere presence of a hand­gun with no shots being fired. I’m not sure whether these occasions involved big- or small-bore handguns, but I do believe a potential victim’s demonstrated confidence when holding a handgun has a big influ­ence on an aggressor’s decision whether to stop or press the attack.

The confidence level of most citizens relates directly to their proficiency. Since 9 mm handguns are usually mastered more quickly than big bores, particularly when training and practice sessions are minimal, confidence begins to show earlier. This is especially true for a person of small stature or with small hands.
Early attempts to popularize the 9 mm for self-defense focused on large handguns with high-capacity magazines—an approach driven by the police market and its use of external-carry pistols. When Florida opened up its concealed-carry policies and started a nationwide trend, smaller guns began receiv­ing more attention. But the double-stack frames of the high-capacity nines, while read­ily available, weren’t the optimum approach.
 
A few companies offered some slimmer, single-stack guns, but these candidates didn’t possess the inherently desirable characteristics of the classic 1911. Now two major American companies, Kimber and Springfield, are making downsized 1911s in 9 mm, and while both guns are distinctly 1911, there are some noteworthy differences. Unlike many of the new hand­guns I have the opportunity to evaluate, both guns had some run time in the hands of a professional trainer and a couple of new shooters.

Above: The EMP magazines had base pads and held one more round than the Aegis II, but the Aegis II had checkering on the frontstrap. While features varied, reliability of both was flawless, and shooters may have a difficult time choosing one over the other

We’ll look at Springfield’s EMP first. EMP stands for Enhanced Micro Pistol, which is a bit of an understatement when you look at the major changes Springfield has made to its regular micro pistols. While the EMPs sport a 3-inch barrel like the company’s .45 ACP Micro model, its slide has been shortened, which required shortening a number of other components like the firing pin, firing pin spring and extractor.
Knowing they were onto a good thing, Springfield’s engineers shortened and nar­rowed the frame—the single most impor­tant component in the interface between shooter and handgun. This required short­ening the trigger bow, the end result being what Springfield refers to as a short-action 1911. While this was a substantial re-engi­neering effort, it made excellent sense when building a gun around a cartridge smaller than the .45 ACP.
Springfield had already successfully built a 1911 around the .45 GAP cartridge, which simplified the 9 mm project. The difference in frame sizes between the EMP and a standard 1911 is obvious when looking at the base of the frames with the magazines removed.
Springfield spared no expense in opti­mizing the EMP for concealed carry. All the sharp edges were radiused and fixed sights with tritium inserts have been dovetailed into the stainless steel slide. The frame is a blackened, anodized alloy with a beavertail grip safety and ambidextrous thumb safe­ties. Thin, cocobolo grips are checkered and have the attractive Springfield logo. The magazine holds nine rounds and has a small bumper pad extension providing plenty of room for the pinky finger on the shooting hand, even for those with larger paws. Overall it’s an extremely handsome, practical concealed-carry pistol.

Springfield includes a molded holster and magazine carrier with every EMP. That makes the package ready to go as a concealed-carry pistol, right off the shelf.

Kimber took a slightly different approach, perhaps because it had not downsized a 1911 frame for the .45 GAP. Rather than changing the basic frame and slide dimen­sions, the company took a 3-inch barrel/ slide and shorter frame, like those used on its Ultra Carry models, and installed the minimum-size components that would still make a fully reliable gun.
The result is Kimber’s 9 mm Aegis II, a two-tone gun like the EMP but with some slightly different touches. First, the Aegis II has reversed colors, a blackened stainless steel slide and an anodized alu­minum-alloy frame with a brushed finish. Unlike the EMP’s rounded hammer, the Aegis II has a bobbed hammer that does not extend beyond the back of the slide in the down position.
While both guns have serrations on their backstraps, only the Aegis II has a check­ered frontstrap for better grip control. At the rear of the slide, there are four, wide vertical cuts on the Aegis II and nine thin serrations slanted rearward on the EMP. The Aegis II has a single thumb safety for right-handed shooters and has been de­horned for concealed-carry market.
I’ve always liked the extra purchase provided by checkering on the frontstrap of 1911s, but given the minimum recoil of the 9 mm, it would not be a necessity for me on either of these guns. I also like the wider slide serrations on the Aegis II but can’t personally justify a need for a bobbed hammer. I believe in having ambidextrous safeties for “just in case” scenarios, but I wouldn’t get into any serious arguments regarding their necessity on a concealed-carry pistol.
The wood grips on the Aegis II are remarkably thin, and when combined with the slightly longer grip frame, they feel a bit narrower and slightly longer than those on the EMP. The bases of the Kimber magazines have been drilled for bumper pads, although they are not provided, so the magazines fit flush with the bottom of the frame. With the 9 mm’s minimal recoil, the lack of a definitive home for the pinky finger does not pose a control problem. The Aegis II magazine holds eight rounds.

The difference in frame sizes may not be great, but the grip frame circumference of the Springfield EMP (left) has been shortened. On the other hand, the Aegis II has slightly thinner grip panels, allowing both pistols to handle and feel very similar.

Like the compact .45 ACPs, the mini 9 mms utilize double recoil springs and a guide rod. For someone as clumsy as I am, disassembling and cleaning these guns is akin to learning to juggle sharp objects, but these features are regarded as neces­sary on compact 1911s, and I am getting more proficient.The reliability summary for both guns is simple: no failures in either gun with any ammo. I was helping a friend who had invited some family and friends for a day at the range. Attendees included a mother and two sons who had never fired hand­guns before. In loading one of the compact nines, the oldest boy did not release the slide but rather eased it forward, resulting in the slide not going fully into battery. A light push on the back of the slide resolved the problem, and when the correct load­ing technique was demonstrated, it never happened again. This was the only problem encountered during any of the range ses­sions with both guns. Interestingly, the hand sizes of the mother and sons varied from small on the youngest boy to medium on the mother to rather large on the teen­ager. All were quite comfortable shooting the small-frame nines, and while their com­bined experience was quite limited, their shooting was much better than I expected and their verbal inputs were honest and reflected no personal agendas.

As a Gunsite instructor, II Ling New spends i | a lot of time on the range. Although she usually uses full-size, double-stack handguns In her classes, she found the 9 mm Springfield EMP to her liking.

At the other end of the expertise spec­trum was Gunsite Academy instructor II Ling New. At something over 5 feet tall, New does not have large hands, and while she regularly utilizes full-size, double-stack pistols in her classes, she liked both compact nines and the enhanced controlla­bility the smaller caliber provided in rapid fire. She preferred the smoother, shallow slide serrations of the EMP. Recognizing the enhanced control offered by the check­ering on the frontstrap of the Kimber, she felt it was more than needed on the lower recoiling 9 mm, particularly in an extended practice or training scenario.

I did get some personal time with the compacts and was quite impressed. The usual snappy recoil of mini .45s is absent with the nines, and recovery time is much improved. Ammo fired included lots of Black Hills full metal jacket along with some Winchester and Federal jacketed hol­low points.
Perhaps the best summary I can give is to say that I rate these guns so highly both have become candidates for the final gun on my concealed-carry license when it’s issued. Deciding which one will require more range time with both guns before making such an important decision. But that’s another story.