I recently sold a Colt Lightweight Commander because I decided I liked the Government Model better and because I felt the ligthweight was too light weight: I wasn't as accurate on follow up shots with it.
If I were to get another it would be steel.
The Colt was 100 percent reliable out of the box. So are two GMs I've purchased. You might check out the 1911 forums for complaints by maker. Unlike other makers, few Colt complaints concern function. Colt, incidentally, has a proprietary, dimpled, barrell design that does seem to be a better mousetrap when it comes to feeding hollowpoints. People do complain about cosmetics, though. So you might think about that before buying one via Internet. Nice to be able to inspect it first. Colts have substiantially fewer MIM parts, if you care about that. The warranty is forever too.
I think the S&Ws are neat. But the front strap checkering is too sharp for me.
Some folks say that reliability is pretty harder to obtain with lengths shorter than 4.25 inches. If true, that'd limit you to Colt, S&W, Para and I'm not sure who else among mass makers.
My whole view of 1911s is this: The original Browning design, expressed as a 5-inch, 7-shot, slightly loose fitting pistol, was reliable. Any change from those basic design parameters has the potential -- potential -- to affect reliabilty. Can Commanders be reliable? Sure. But I bet, in general, out of the box, a greater percentage of basic, mil-spec guns is reliable than of their shorter brethren or fancier, more target-oriented cousins too.
You asked for opinions, those are mine, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert.
Max
