In general, the smallest of 1911's are not known for their reliability. If I had to bet on which one of these two would be the more reliable, I would put my money on the XD.

As for accuracy - is stock form, I think it would be a wash......

PhilR.

I used to carry and XD SC9 for a year and a half. I was very accurate but a bit blocky for me. I decided to try a 3" 1911 since I loved my 5" Kimber TLE so much. I bought a Kimber Ultra CDP II and within a month and 500 rounds, I sold my XD SC9 and now carry the CDP II all of the time. The advantages I see are that the 1911 is thinner for better concealment, bigger round for stopping power, (even though it carries 3 fewer bullets) and it has a much much better trigger. Weight, height, length, reliability, accuracy, I have found to be equal in these two guns.

I've not yet had any reliability issues with my CDP II, with well over 1000 rounds through it. Most reliability issues with 1911's occur with guns chambered for calibers other than .45.

FWIW-I was also looking for a 3" 1911 compact and was looking at the Springfield as well. I must say the GI sights on that gun are small and hard to see. I didn't get to shoot the gun, just hold it, but the sights look like they would be hard to use. Never had a XD in my hands but I would have to guess the sights would be better than the GI.

Just my .02

Springfield makes a pretty good 3" 1911. But still it has to come down to what feels best to you. If it was me I'd get the 1911, but the one I'm looking at is a Para LDA at the moment.

Originally Posted by DevilsJohnson

the one I'm looking at is a Para LDA at the moment.

If you get one, I'd sure like to hear (read) about it....

PhilR.

I've shot a Black Watch and Tac-Four. Both were really cool. The Tac is a double stack and the higher cap is pretty nice but I'm not as fond of the feel as much. It's just too...1911 like to be that wide I guess to me. The triggers in both are amazing
and the Black Watch is really accurate for it's size. I was really impressed. I have two Para Ord (LTC & P16) as is. I'd gladly get more of them.

FWIW, I used to carry a 3" .45ACP Taurus and found countless threads about not having enough velocity from a .45ACP round shot from a 3" barrel. I read and read but never really found a conclusive answer.

I didn't really like the Taurus after a piece of it broke. I carry an XD40 subcompact now and stayed out of the 3" .45ACP arena.

Originally Posted by dkendall

In the next few days I'm going to either purchase a SpringField XD Sub .40 or a 1911 3 Inch. I was thinking about the SpringField GI 1911 Micro Compact. Which one would be the most reliable and accurate? I plan on buying a gun that is going to last me the first time. I have narrow my decision down to these 2. I'm trying to keep my price right around $500 - $600. If their is any other compact 1911 that I should look into please let me know.

Both of these guns will shoot more accurately than most people are ever capable of, with 3" pistols. The XD will likely be more reliable, because the engineering and workmanship have to be almost perfect for a 3" .45 ACP to be reliable enough for concealed carry. The XD has a sparkling reputation for reliability, whereas modified 1911 clones in .45 do not.

And lastly, if you are even able to find the Springfield GI 1911 Micro Compact, it will likely cost at least double what an XD can be had for. In that same vein, you should probably also consider that in the event you ever have to fire it in self-defense, it may go into an evidence locker for a long time, or disappear entirely...all this depending upon which jurisdiction you are in, of course.

Personally, I prefer function over form in a CCW. Glocks, XD's, Kahr's and S&W's in the compact 9mm's fit the bill nicely, and are more than adequate, if you shoot them well...and they can still be found in the price range you suggested.

springfield emp 9mm reliable and acurate

3" 45 1911 style?
if it were me i would get a glock 36 and save a lot of money for the ammo
the glock 36 is within 0.1" dimensions with the 1911 and a lot cheaper and a lot more reliable

From everything I have read, and some personal experience, it is kind of hit or miss with the 3" 1911's. I had a Kimber CDP way back that was spotty, a Springfield 3.5" I never could get to finish a mag of anything without a bobble, a Colt Agent that worked great but threw brass back at my face and a Kimber Aegis that liked hollow points but not typical fare ball ammo. They are an attractive idea and when they work people seem very pleased. Question is for the price of entry versus the potential risks is it worth it to you?

My humble opinion is that if you are limited on funds and not so familiar with the 1911 platform then there are better options out there and within the $500-$600 range. I have never owned an XD but it is one of the brands that is very highly thought of on this and other forums. It would be cheaper and have a much greater likelyhood of being problem free. But, having said that, if your dying to give a shorty 1911 a try as I have more than once it just may be an itch you've got to scratch. All really depends on your personal risk tolerance and what you want.

Tuefelhunden

Originally Posted by jacksmatrixxx

springfield emp 9mm reliable and acurate

And also over $1000, which is way more than the OP wanted to spend.

There have been some very good models mentioned in this thread. Since there is a $$ figure mentioned then it leaves out some of the Les Baers, Wilsons, NightHawks etc that I would have recommended. In the mid price range, I favor the Kimber Ultra Carry and the Sig 245 or 220 Carry. I own all three and all these pistols are well broken in now and will take any ammo that I feed it. After that I like my Para OPS, Glock 36 and Ruger 345 in that order. There is nothing wrong with the 40 caliber, but I prfer the 45. If you can try as many of these pistols as you can and then decide which suits you best. Good luck and have fun doing the research.