1911Forum banner

CQB vs. CQB Compact

1015 Views 5 Replies 4 Participants Last post by  traevin
For those of you who have either owned or spent a good amount of time at the range with both, what kind of differences (i.e. reliability, concealability, accuracy, weight, etc.) did you notice?
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
553 Posts
The CQB Compact, which I own, is much more concealable due to its size, of course. However, that said, if the Les Baer TRS didn't exist, I'd purchase a full size CQB for regular carry. The full and compact are both accurate, reliable, etc. Just the difference in size and what you already own should dictate whether you go for one over the other. The compact is very stable in the hand, for it's size as well.

------------------
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,876 Posts
They both shoot well. The compact has a cone barrel with no bushing. This gun only weighs six ounces less than the full-size, so you know that some of the weight lost in the down-sizing was put back into the barrel. It is thick and helps to provide muzzle-end weight.

So the compact is definitely not a lightweight gun, but it is a good down-sized concealable combat gun. I have over 900 rounds through my compact with no problems as long as I have used Wilson mags. Neither my compact nor full-size CQB likes metalform mags.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
553 Posts
DoubleNaught--Good description of the barrel and weight of the compact with regard to performance. Your synopsis was right on the money.

------------------
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top