Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/3/2002 7:31:17 PM EDT
OK let's open this can of worms. I narrowed my selection for a first 1911 down to these two. They are the same price at my local dealer and are similar in features with the Springfield adding Novak night sights and wood grips. The trigger on the Springfield seems crisper with no takeup. There is about 1/8" takeup on the Kimber. Fit and finish on both is equal. What do you guys think?
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:56:32 PM EDT
I'm partial to Kimber. Mine is not a II series though & I really like the trigger on it.

I don't think you can go wrong with either handgun brand.

Link Posted: 1/3/2002 8:54:24 PM EDT
KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER


Need I say more?
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 9:11:18 PM EDT
I did not like my Loaded Springfield at all. I traded it for an HK USP45
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 9:32:12 PM EDT
SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 10:36:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR_Kennedy:
I did not like my Loaded Springfield at all. I traded it for an HK USP45


Thats funny that you posted that. I saw the post and was going to post the exact same thing. I am in the process of buying a HK 45 right now. I had the loaded springfield and had nothing but problems with it. I just think if you buy a gun for 700 it should fire reliably out of the box. Needless to say the springfield didnt. After the HK I'm thinking of getting a Sig P220 ST. Anyway, dont get a springfield loaded. I have, however, heard lots of good things about the mil spec 1911
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 10:52:12 PM EDT
My Kimber Pro Carry is awesome. I just bought an Ultra Carry II and I am less impressed with it. It shoots great but the series II firing pin block is pissing me off! It prevents my UC from going into battery. It doesn't happen all of the time but it shouldn't happen at all! It did it to me about 15% of the time when I recently put 200 rounds through it. Guntests recently rated one of Kimbers series II pistols a No Buy and after reading their report I learned that they had the exact same problems that I did. From what I understand, Kimber doesn't acknowledge that there is a problem with the safety so I don't think I'll bother sending it back to them. I think I might have an idea of what the problem is. The firing pin block looks like it could easily be disabled but I'm sure a prosecuter would eat that shit up if I ever had to use it for self-defense. No Thanks!
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 11:09:57 PM EDT
I have a Springfield Champion. The trigger isn't the greatest in the world. Also, the serial number and "made in brazil"(ugh) engravings look like they were done with an electric pencil. For what it's worth, I had an earlier model that was stolen, and it seemed to finished/fit better.

If I had to do it over again, I'd probably go with the Kimber. Not sure where Kimbers are made, but "made in brazil" on my Springfield really annoys me. It also doesn't eject to the same point reliably, meaning while I'm trying to look cool on the range I occasionally get a casing bounced off my head. I'm probably going to give it to Clarks and have them do some work on it. For the basis of a custom 1911, it's fine, but the Kimbers I've shot/seen are better out of the box.

Why not save a couple hundred more bucks and get a low end custom?
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 6:20:38 AM EDT
KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER
KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER KIMBER

No, really . . . Kimber.

Link Posted: 1/4/2002 6:35:01 AM EDT
Primarily I have rifles and only a couple of pistols for carry guns.

I always figure in the cost of a trigger job when buying a pistol.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 7:01:48 AM EDT
Recently I had to make this exact same choice. Both pistols fit and finish was perfect. The Springfield had about a 5lb trigger that was very crisp and it was stainless. The Kimber had a really light trigger at about 3 1/2lbs and was blued. The Kimber was about $50 cheaper. I ended up going with the Springfield because I love stainless finish and the Kimber's trigger was way to light for my taste.

From what I read they are both fine pistols, it just depends on what feels best to you.

sgtar15
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 9:32:39 AM EDT
Well, both Kimber and Springfield Armory have taken a step backwards lately, IMO. Kimber has added the firing pin stupidity parts, and Springfield has added the mainspring lock. Of the 2, the Springfield is the most easily fixed, as all you have to do is replace the mainspring housing with a standard steel part. If you can find a Kimber that isn't a type II, I would consider it.

My own Kimber Stainless Compact benefitted from a steel arched mainspring housing (tossed the crappy plastic part) and a Wilson bullet-proof extractor. Now it runs fine.

Heh. I sold my USP .45. Worked fine, but my 1911s were finer!
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 10:31:42 AM EDT
Pretty tough choice and although both are good deals for the money I'm not sure one is really any better than the other is. With the Springfield (assuming you're referring to the PX9109L) you get a parkerized gun that already wears a very good set of night sights, not so with the Kimber. However, the dehorning job on Springfield's is no where near as good as the job done on Kimbers. Kimber barrels and the way they fit into the slide is also better than Springfield. Also, Springfield's front strap and dust cover dimensions are way out of spec (extra metal) but so is Kimbers slide stop notch (not really a big deal). The biggest differences are in the parts, Kimber uses way too much MIM (IMO) for parts that should be bar stock. Such as extractors and more importantly slide stops. Not that Springfield doesn't use MIM for hammers, sears, etc. just like Kimber, and not to say that MIM can't be done correctly but slide stops should be bar stock (easy fix). For my tastes Springfield uses a more user friendly grip safety and that would need correcting on the Kimber along with a better set of sights. So assuming the pros and cons of each wash each other out I would choose the Kimber. After shooting it to make sure it was reliable I would have it modified to fit my tastes (new grip safety, sights, standard recoil set up, etc.). Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 10:49:11 AM EDT
I have owned both and currently carry my Kimber on duty.

Sold my Springfield awhile back, bad thing. oh well live and learn. It was a mil spec but we upgraded some; new trigger, new commander style hammer and smoothed it up a bit. It was a fine pistol. Never had a problem out of it.

Got my Kimber. It is a great pistol. Just qualified with it, Wed. I did my part, the pistol did hers. Shot high 290's out of a 300(Score isn't finallized yet).

I also carry my Kimber for my secondary on our SRT. I have no problems what so ever in it's reliability and performance. Actually during our tactical carbine school, while doing transition drills. It was very comforting to transition to the Kimber and see it make HUGE holes in the target vs. the little bitty .223 holes.

You will not wrong with either weapon. If you buy one and it gives you problems, make the manufacture stand by it's warranty. It 's your money, your the consumer and it's your life, accept no compromise!!!!

Pakrat - out!
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 12:42:01 PM EDT
All things being equal on the guns, the Kimber will out-shoot the SA in terms of accuracy almost every time. The reason? SA uses (still) a two-piece barrel while virtually every other mfgr uses a one-piece. I had to have a Wilson NM barrel put in my SA in order to make my groups look like I wanted them to.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 4:05:25 PM EDT
EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER EITHER

They are both pretty damn good. !
I had a SA, shot IPSC thru the mid 1990's with it, LOVED IT, then got an SV hi-cap, missed the SA.
Now I have a Kimber and love it too.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 5:24:16 PM EDT
If you can finger both, pick the one you like. I have seen Springfield's that range from Excellent, to so so. If you can look at the Springfield and it seems nicer than the Kimber, get the Springfield! If I had to order I would get the Kimber, I think there quality control is a little better.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 5:46:15 PM EDT
I'll second what bunghole said. The Series II firing pin safety is what keeps me from purchasing the Eclipse. Beautful gun...just don't like the idea of more parts on the 1911...just more stuff that can go wrong. Plus its their first attempt at it, unlike SIG & Glock.

Of course, you can still get a Kimber that does not have the Series II built into it...like the Custom Target Stainless for example...incredible accuracy from that gun (great groups)...not sure you can do much better even with a more expensive gun.



Top Top