[fla32]

Hello,

I wanted to find out people's opinion of the Wilson tactical elite. It is in the price range of a full custom 1911 and costs considerably more than a CQB. However, it has a cone barrel, magwell, and non-MIM internals and safeties. Also, I've been told the tactical elite has more hand fitting than the CQB or protector. As an alternative, I've been considering a CQB, a Les Baer (which would require a few modifications, such as the mag well), or an Ed Brown.

I had considered a full house custom gun, but I called several gunsmiths and the waiting period is considerable. I wanted the pistol for this summer, and I've found a few dealers who have Wilsons and Les Baers in stock.

The gun will see a lot of time at the range for 15-25 yard shooting. It may also serve as a home defense weapon. Thanks.

 

[Will Fennell]

I'm sure the TACTICAL ELITE is alot of pistol. I'll handled a couple, but never shot one. I do have 3 other WILSON pistols, a Stealth, CQB, and a KZ45. Faced with the parameters and needs you seem to have, I think I would do what I just did, and custom order a CQB the way you want it. I got a CQB, but upgraded the hammer and sear to the WILSON tool steel parts. I had the extractor and slide stop upgraded to the WILSON BULLET PROOP parts, and I changed the mainspring for WISLON's version of the WEDGE mainspring. Oh yeah, and I spec'd the Coco bolo grip. The cost of the upgrades was minimal, and you will still be ALOT cheaper than the TACTICAL ELITE. Enough to get several cases of S&B Hardball, buy some holsters, take some training, etc.

Speaking of MIM parts and WILSON's. I got the KZ-45 and left the MIM hammer and sear in as a kind of test. I wanted to see how the MIM parts lasted, so I have been keeping a close eye on them. I've got only about 3500 rounds through the gun so far, but the parts are holding up fine. Trigger pull has remain constant, and there doesn't seem to be any undue wear. The guys at WILSON claim the thing about MIM parts is that they MUST be fitted so that they mate together well, and then they last just fine. Since the KZ45 is sorta a 'test' for me, I'll keep using the MIM parts and see for myself.

Back on topic, WILSON doesn't seem to be as backlogged as they used to be, so I think you may be pleasantly surprised at the short wait to get a CQB the way YOU want it. It doesn't hut to ask.

I love mine, its the best running Government model I own, or have ever owned. That includes guns from Ed Brown and Les Baer.

 

[Robe]

I agree with Will. The CQB makes a great user gun...except for the Armor Tuff finnish. I am sure the tac Elite is very nice. If money is a concern, the CQB will be great. Mine is running very very good for me and is plenty of gun for defensive classes and carry. I also have a Baer Thunder Ranch. This also a very good gun for the money, but I think it is a liitle too sharp edged for defensive/carry use as it is and requires a good 700-1,000 rounds thru it to loosen up the barrel/bushing fit to be considered broken in. The CQB is ready to go right from th box.

 

[Guest]

I have the "tactical Elite" mine was built almost 9 years ago as a CQB. The CQB pistol used to be the gun they call the Tactical Elite. I ahve always liked this pistol even with the heavy barrel, it is nose heavy, but it is very easy to fire well.
I have recently purchased a Les Baer TRS that is far superior to the "new" model CQBs and I know where three will be for sale tomorrow. for more info see my other post.

 

[Andy]

I think that the cone barrel is a waste of money on a defensive pistol that will be packed around. It will also be barred from IDPA competition, and perhaps, IPSC Limited 10. I would go with ordering a CQB or Protector set up the way you want it with a mag well. If you want more weight up front, have Wilson put in a Tungsten guide rod. That way, if you decide to carry the gun, you can decide how much weight you want to pack around - or not.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, I will bite. DeFabio, where are the CQBs for sale? What other post are you talking about?


Andy, why are cone barrels a waste of money for a carry gun?

 

[Guest]

Ok,
Alias, the CQB's were sold, and two additional Les Baer guns are in route to replace them.

As to heavy cone barrels I am not sure of the comment as it makes little practical sense, the heavy cone barrels are easier to shoot and I like them.

The other posts on the CQBs are on this board as are my TRS posts in reference to same.

 

[Andy]

Well, Dave, if you like cone barrels, more power to you. As for this not making sense, well, we're not debating whether the earth is flat or round. I find the standard Gv't model easy enough to control, and if I want more weight up front, a tungsten guide rod is easy enough to slip in. For a gun to pack around more than a couple of hours, why add more weight (and money) if you don't really need it? We're also not talking about competition shooting, here, either. The main thing is to suit yourself in your carry pistol. Apparently, you and I really like Les Baer pistols and have nothing but good things to say about them. Dane, on the other hand, who is an acknowledged master 1911 pistolsmith, wouldn't give a plugged nickel for 'em. Does this make sense? I'll bet it does to Dane. Ciao! Andy.

 

[gyp_c2]

Geez...they can't be "that" much heavier! You're losin' the weight of the bushing and whether it has a FLGR or not is up to you...You lost me on this part...? Just not a big deal as far as the difference in weight. As far as IDPA, I thought that anything that was a part of any production pistol was allowed, even the bull barrel...as long as it wasn't an add on. Or is there a length qualification as well?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Actually, the cone barrels can be significantly heavier. Imagine removing the bushing from a regular 1911 slide. Note how large the hole is without the bushing versus the hole for the barrel in the bushing. That extra space, and then some, is occupied by a lot more barrel metal in the cone barrel guns. Depending on the maker, the barrel may be significantly thicker along much of the length of the barrel from the crown to the link. Some cone barrels I have seen flare more at the crown end and therefore have less metal, hence less weight, but still more than the standard barrel.

I would not be surprised that the cone barrel difference in weight is more than that of a full length guide rod.

 

[gyp_c2]

I don't know...I guess I could weigh them...Maybe a better way to put it is that I don't notice THAT much difference...Just me...some are more sensitive I'm sure...

 

[John Lawson]

If you carry a pistol, you are expecting a possible confrontation. In this state, we teach our officers to fire a MINIMUM of 2 rounds. That's a double tap. The cone barrel will deliver overlapping shot holes, if you know how to shoot...and it's surprising how many who claim to know how, can't control their pistol in double or triple taps.
Certainly, you could add a tungsten guide rod to hold the muzzle down. In the old days, shooters even taped weights to revolver barrels. Today, we have nicely made heavy barrels that do the job nicely.
If you find a pistol fitted with a heavy barrel too heavy to carry, you can always find an aluminum frame pistol.
The first time you try a triple tap on the range with your tungsten guide rod equipped pistol and somebody with a bull barrel shows you the difference in time and grouping, you will make up your own mind what is right to carry. Too bad they don't make depleted uranium guide rods. They would be heavier yet.
And, finally, who is going to take their LaserMax sight recoil spring follwer out to replace it with a solid tungsten follower with no laser? You can use a LaserMax AND a heavy bull barrel...I do.

 

[Jim Watson]

According to Layne Simpson, a heavy barrel adds about 1.5 ounce; a tungsten guide rod is 3 oz heavier than GI, about 2 oz more than steel full length. But, a heavier barrel is adding weight to the recoiling mass of the gun and not just ballasting the frame. The only cone barrel gun I have shot much had noticeably softer recoil than a similar one with bushing barrel. It took a lighter recoil spring, too.

 

[Rob Longenecker]

The mass of the cone barrel is said to delay the barrel unlocking slightly, somewhat cushioning the recoil impulse.

The original Clark pin guns had solid unvented compensators, relying on the extra mass added to the barrel and longer sight radius to produce the desired result.

Disclaimer: I am simply repeating what I have heard for years, having no way to measure "delayed unlocking" and no certainty that this is important. It may be no more important than, "Do you want fries with that?"

Opinions?

 

[Guest]

I blieve the phrase "opinions vary is very applicable" here.
I have all types of 1911s some with cone barrels, some with bull barrels, some with comps, carry comps, ramps, no-ramped, linked and linkless.

Pick what you like and go with it and if you find something that is faster and more accurate or as accurate go with it or don't.
With the exception of an M82-A1 that I had to carry on an 11 mile "hike" run, I have never found a gun to be too heavy and I have spent more than 100 hours straight with one on, there have been many days where no less than two 1911s and a 4" N frame were strapped to my belt with an M4 in my hands and an 870 strapped to my back.

I have always found it to be a belt/holster/personal size issue. If a gun is too heavy for you, it is probably to big for you or you are using the wrong holster/positioning for your body type.

My earlier point is just that I have an early CQB/Tactical Elite with the cone barrel and it is the best pistol Wilson has ever built IMO, your opinion will obviously vary, but again I fail to understand how a difference of two-four ounces can make a gun too heavy.

 

[Shane1911]

On 2001-06-22 15:08, David DiFabio wrote:
...there have been many days where no less than two 1911s and a 4" N frame were strapped to my belt with an M4 in my hands and an 870 strapped to my back.

Dave, you gotta get further away from Philadelphia!!!

 

[Guest]

Shane,
Afghanistan brother, only in Afghanistan.
In PA we don't need that much hardware for anything beyond the line to buy my daughters NSync tickets......

 

[Shane1911]

On 2001-06-22 15:27, David DiFabio wrote:
Shane,
Afghanistan brother, only in Afghanistan.
In PA we don't need that much hardware for anything beyond the line to buy my daughters NSync tickets......

LOL Dave! Ain't it the truth - been there, done that!