Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 1/17/2002 8:49:27 AM EST
So here is the dilema. I want to buy a decent 1911 for carry that is going to be reliable. First I went and put a Mil Spec Springfield on layaway that I was going to customize ($449). The some of you suggested that I go with the Mil Spec Colt ($525). Then I started thinking about just getting the Kimber Custom ($629). The question that I have is, am I going to be all that much better off with the Kimber? I heard that Kimber makes frames for Wilson Combat which I think is cool.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:18:30 AM EST
You should go over to www.1911forum.com to read up about the 3 you are looking at. I am the same bunghole that posts in the Kimber forum. Read about the type II safety on the Kimbers.
Here is the Kimber forum.
Here is the Springfiled forum:
And, here is the Colt forum:
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:41:22 AM EST
The Kimber is a great out of the box "custom" handgun. I'm sure that you wouldn't kick yourself for buying it.

However the Colt will be more collectible - if you're into that kind of thing. And if you don't "customize" it.

I'd be a bit wary of the Springfield. I've heard rumors (remember rumors aren't always true) that current manufactured Springfield M1911's have cast and not forged frames. That being said, I have an old bare bones stock Springfield M1911 of which I'm very fond.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 10:57:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Schnert:
The Kimber is a great out of the box "custom" handgun. I'm sure that you wouldn't kick yourself for buying it.

However the Colt will be more collectible - if you're into that kind of thing. And if you don't "customize" it.

I'd be a bit wary of the Springfield. I've heard rumors (remember rumors aren't always true) that current manufactured Springfield M1911's have cast and not forged frames. That being said, I have an old bare bones stock Springfield M1911 of which I'm very fond.

Schnert: Not flaming you, but your comments are similar to many others posted here...I am responding to them in general:

Yeah, I'd be real wary of the Springfield because the idiots at the FBI Hostage Rescue Team picked Springfield over Kimber hands down. Oh yeah, and the Special Forces guys in our Army (Green Berets and Delta) don't like their Larry Vickers guns that are made from a Sprinfield MilSpec frame and slide.

THE MOST DESIRED 1911 GUN IN THE WORLD is a Larry Vickers full-house gun. And yes, it's made on your run-of-the-mill Springfield frame and slide.

But don't give a second thought about the Kimbers...no SWAT, federal, or military organization is standardized on them, so they must be good.

Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:19:35 AM EST
I guess the other option would be to pick up the Springfield and then with the extra money that I would have spent on the Kimber I could put the money on the Colt. Decisions, decisions!
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 11:23:04 AM EST
I would have no problems buying any one of those 3. If I had to choose between them, I would go with the best price. Just me though!

...and yes, a Vicker's Springfield is f'ing AWESOME!
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:01:26 PM EST
I stand by my recommendation that the Colt is the best value, whether you want to leave it alone or heavily customize it. A smith will probably have to do less to get it running the way you want than he will with the SA gun, so you may end up saving money. But if you just want the usual bells-and-whistles that the general public goes for, get a Kimber. I've had good experiences with them.
Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:16:14 PM EST
Dear Tailgate,

I own all three (Kimber, Colt and Springfield) and I was just offering my opinion to someone who was considering buying an 1911. Personally I don't care what the FBI has chosen. In fact, the FBI's track record in the past few years might lead some to strongly question any of their decisions.

As for my warnings regarding Springfield - I beleive that I was fair in identifying unsubstanciated gossip from truth. I even mentioned that I'm rather fond of mine.

Thank you for your consideration, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Link Posted: 1/17/2002 1:31:22 PM EST
I've been collecting & shooting 1911's for almost 25 years, so here's my opinions:

Colt - the new Colt Government models are really nice basic 1911's. The workmanship is outstanding (as opposed to just a few years ago), they have very good stainless barrels, the sights are plain but nice, the ones I have inspected or own have pretty good triggers and they are accurate. The downsides are plastic MSH, plastic trigger and they often shoot a little high versus point of aim. I put a taller front sight on mine, but that may be an individual issue. The plastic parts function fine, but I replaced them because they just didn't "feel" right. I think this is a great 45 for $500.

Kimber - I own 3 and have handled and shot several others. The Kimber is the nicest finished of the 3 brands, feels the smoothest, has the best out-of-the-box trigger pull, comes with nice sights, and has the usual "full-dress" features such as beavertail grip safety, forward cocking serrations, full-length guide rod, etc. The Kimber will be tighter, more accurate (all of mine do 2" or better at 25 yds) and feel "more expensive" than the other brands you mentioned. I have never experienced any problems with mine except a loose plunger tube which I fixed because I have the staking tool. The downside is I don't really care for the profile of the grip safety (individual matter). Probably the best bang for the buck if slickness and features are important to you - however it doesn't say "Colt's Government Model" on the slide:-)

Springfield - I own one (which I have totally rebuilt) and know of several others. The SA frames are forged, but the frontstrap profile and dust cover profile are NOT per 1911 specs. They are larger, and the gun feels quite a bit different in the hand than a Colt, Kimber, Wilson, etc. They have inferior barrels (2 piece), a heavy and occasionaly gritty trigger pull compared to the others and the barrel fit is poor (not as accurate - mine would only do 4-5" before I fit a Kart NM barrel). The internal parts are often out of spec per the ordnance drawings, and I had to replace the sear & hammer to obtain the correct geometry so I could get the trigger pull down to 3.5# They also use Titanium firing pins with garage door springs to overcome the reduce firing pin inertia. I replaced all of that too. I know of several other SA's that exhibited reliability problems out of the box. YMMV

Bear in mind that Vickers and other custom smiths completely rebuild a gun, and often will even recontour the frame on a SA to feel like a "real" 1911. The SA Loaded you buy bears little relationship to a Vickers, HRT pistol or match race gun other than the name and the basic frame & slide forgings.

If you don't have to have all of the bells & whistles, I would get a Colt.
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 7:38:39 AM EST
I agree that "Colt" is the better investment gun, because of the tradition/recognition/etc.

Springfields do need work to be a serious combat pistol, no doubt. However, I would argue the same about Kimber...as most of their "loaded" features do not compare to other high quality parts (i.e. Ed Browns, McCormick, Heine, Les Baer, etc.). If you are going to work over a gun, buy the Springfield.

Now, if you can get the Colt CHEAPER or same as Springfield...jump on it. My recommendation would be to get as good a deal on the individual parts and pay a good gunsmith to doassembly/polishing/action work/etc. if you don't know how to do it properly yourself. For about $850 you'll have an AWESOME gun with a killer barrel and action...and be out the same cash as buying a stock Kimber.

Again, just my opinion.

Link Posted: 1/18/2002 12:23:03 PM EST
Colt sucks !
Get a Springfield or Kimber, you'll love it.
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 1:47:47 PM EST
If you have the dough for a Kimber save a little longer and get a Wilson. I bought a Kimber Ultra CDP (the compact) and a new full size gray Wilson which is the CQB with a full length guide rod. I love my full size Wilson. Its ALMOST to pretty to shoot. Never had a pistol that shoots this nice. The Kimber would feed S&B ball and Hydra-shocks but not 200gr SWC reloads. Not acceptable. Traded it AND a Para for a Wilson Compact Protector, black. Its like my dog, eats anything and licks its chops for more. The fit and finish is superb on both. Smooth as silk action, and the trigger is the best I have seen on both of them. The kimber WAS a really nice gun, nice shooter, good trigger, nicely made, but if it wouldnt feed reloads out of the box Im not gonna dick with it and the factory. If I didnt reload I might have kept it but it still cant compare to the Wilson Compact. My .02!
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 3:18:48 PM EST
Not that Wilson's aren't great guns, but the poor guy who started this was looking at a $500 gun, and now we're recommending $1500 ones. Not sure if this is helpful:-)

All of my Kimbers feed SWC reloads fine, but every gun is an individual.
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:00:07 PM EST
As far as the Springfield Professional goes just because the FBI chose it doesn't mean it is bad or good. Read the torture test it went thru with Kimber BTW and won hands down above all else. I would love to own a Vickers but $5000 for a .45 is a little out of the price range. Hell I love for him to teach me he is only down the road.
Link Posted: 1/18/2002 6:20:17 PM EST
I've decided to stick with the Springfield and use the extra money on an HK USC45. Then down the line I will pick up a colt 1911. Thanks for all the help, once again you guys have been very helpfull.
Top Top