Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/1/2003 6:30:52 PM EST
O.K. these things are around $1000 so I want to get it right the first time. Which brand is best?

I already own a Springfeild and the local gunsmith said that $350 to $400 accurizing job would get me to 2.5" groups at 25yds. Add another $120 for a beavertail safety and extended thumb safety to the $300 I paid for the pistol(good deal for a milspec with trijicon night sights) and I'm up to around $850 for it. The smith said that SA was a better pistol that a Kimber because SA mills their receivers while Kimber cast theirs.

At $850 I could buy a new Kimber Custom II with night sights, checkered frontstrap.

Which one is best? Will the Kimber Custom II shoot a 2.5" group at 25yds?
Link Posted: 8/1/2003 6:50:08 PM EST
You're stepping into a world of speculation and personal preferences.... Just to let you know.

Springfield and Kimber are about on par with eachother as far as quality goes. 'Smiths like the Springfield mil-specs because they are good base pistols, and they have the most work that needs to be done.

In 1911s, I've got a Springfield Mil-Spec, a Kimber Target Eclipse and a Custom made 10mm... They all shoot within my ability. I suggest you look at what options you want and how much you are looking to spend.

That being said, I would suggest getting the Kimber. The reason? Because then you would have two very different pistols based on the same design. And everyone knows, two pistols are better than one.

Link Posted: 8/1/2003 6:57:55 PM EST

There really is no BEST 1911 as BEST is too subjective to definition.

These would be on my list in the $1000 range



Link Posted: 8/1/2003 7:05:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2003 7:08:04 PM EST by Boomholzer]
my take is that the base kimber custom feeds better vs the springfield loaded.
But you pay more for the Kimber.

Kimbers really only interest me as a factory concealed compact carry arm. I like the CDPs but have been unwilling to fork out the dough. Still, I stick with the Springfields. (the colt defender is another topic).

As far as 5" 1911's, there is nothing the Springfield can't do compared to the Kimber. I find the triggers very comparable. Actually late mil-spec springfield 1911's have a great stock trigger.
Really the only difference between Kimber & SA (besides the outward finish) is the mags and the feed ramp. Factory springfield mags IMO are junk.
Link Posted: 8/1/2003 8:48:43 PM EST
I shoot a Springfield, my wife shoots a Kimber. I'd say they shoot about the same.

This is her Kimber. 100 rounds of PMC 230gr ball at 10 yards.

She knows how to use it.
Link Posted: 8/2/2003 2:35:31 PM EST
Springfield "Loaded".
I can completely eliminate the red bullseye of a standard pitol target at 20 yds. consistantly, with eight rnds. This is right out of the box with a 5 in. barrel.
I just can't see where spending another $500 for something else can improve on that.
I have also shot clay pigeons laying on the side of a hill at 75 yds. with this pistol.
I highly recommend Springfield 1911's.

Link Posted: 8/2/2003 3:57:10 PM EST
No offense to your gunsmith but he's asking WAY too much $$$$, IMO.

I too have a mil-spec SA 1911A1 & I had a Wilson NM barrel ($150) installed ($75, IIRC). Sumbitch shoots BETTER than a Gold Cup now.

I did have the trigger replaced but no real "trigger job" done. I also declined to have the slide tightened.

IMO, Kimbers are fine guns but they have a lot of stuff on them that I don't want to have nor pay for.

FWIW, there's plenty of top-notch aftermarket barrel makers out there: Bar-Sto, Nowlin, Wilson, Ed Brown, etc.

Unless you're rolling in it, I'd go the replacement barrel route before I replaced the gun.

My .o2
Link Posted: 8/2/2003 4:19:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2003 4:22:01 PM EST by Garand1911]
go with a COLT

i dont like kimbers (personal thing)
with springfields ive seen the tip of the beaver tail broken off (tactical model), 2 piece barrels ..eck. seen pics of broken slides.

the slide is made to mil-spec (which is fine), which means looser tolerances or "breathing room"(for reliablity when dirty), but some of the barrels ive seen are not mil-spec, they are made larger around the chamber to fit tight into a loose mil-spec slide(no more breathing room), i guess to make them more accurate.

IMO, doing this is a waste of time, they lose the "when dirty" "breathing room" reliablity.
they might as well start out with a tighter spec slide (like most 1911 makers) and standard barrel, and get the same result (no breathing room).
except then they wouldnt be able to call it "mil-spec".
and if they used a standard barrel then it would be totally reliable with "breathing room", but could/would loose accuracy.

some of the SA barrels ive seen would not fit in any other manufacturers slides because of the enlarged chamber area.
but it would fit into a USGI slide and brazilian mil, because of the "breathing room", which it no longer has because of the stoopit enlarged barrel.

this is just my personal assesement of whats going on with SA, i could be wrong.

what does a $350-400 accurizing job consist of?
if its just a action job then that seems pretty steep. my smith did a action job, beavertail and some other stuff for under that price, and hes very well known.

Link Posted: 8/3/2003 12:51:42 AM EST
Please go to any of the several 1911 boards and read upo on the series II Kimbers. You wont want one after that. Even on the Kimber owners forums you will find dozens of threads about guns that misfire becuase of problems with the series two firing pin safety.
Link Posted: 8/3/2003 2:05:08 AM EST
I just got me a Sistema Colt and took it straight to my smith to be tuned, I'll keep you posted on the results. If it turns out like some of the others I have seen I'll be in LOVE again.
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 7:11:31 AM EST
Of the 2 brands around that price range, I would select a Kimber as they seem to be higher quality guns. Colt Gold Cups are over-priced, and I have not had good experiences with Springfield's production 1911's.

If you can save a few more dollars and buy a 1500 dollar Les Baer, it would be well worth your while...
Link Posted: 8/4/2003 8:54:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Of the 2 brands around that price range, I would select a Kimber as they seem to be higher quality guns.

See this thread:


Incidents like this. A broken slide stop in less than 300 rounds is why you should run away sreaming from any series II Kimber.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 9:48:01 AM EST
Yet another reason to just fudge it all and go with a good custom gun. Better quality in every way.
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 11:57:39 AM EST
Garand have you seen this lately or are you a colt man who can't take the way that the new SA's are kicking ass right out of the box. All of your talk about breathing room and slides and and and and...is not even mentioned on any of the three 1991 boards that I am on...but I see a lot of people happy with springfield's and I have yet to see one of the mythical two piece barrels.....
Link Posted: 8/5/2003 3:36:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2003 3:39:34 PM EST by JohnBlade23]
Went today and looked at some Colts. They were stainless steal and the finish on them IMO didn't even come close to Kimber or SA's.

Oh Ya, the Wilsons were SWEET! $2000.00 though!
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 12:10:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/6/2003 12:15:27 AM EST by Garand1911]
yeah im a colt guy, but even then id rather start off with a caspian frame and build the gun up from there.

i HAD a 2 piece enlarged chamber SA barrel in my possession for a few months, but sold it.
i met MANY people wouldnt have anything to do with it because of the 2 piece design(so it cant be just me), not saying its bad, and never heard of a failure with it, but it is a cheaper way of making a barrel.
ive seen SA barrels which were not enlarged around the chamber, so this may or may not be a new thing.
the enlarged chamber (outside diamter) barrel would not fit in many different slides that i tried, but it would fit in a military slide (USGI and brazilian).

I CAME UP WITH MY OWN CONCLUSIONS on why SA makes/made this type of barrel. so they could produce a gun and call it "mil-spec" and maintain a tighter frame to slide fit for more accuracy.
my conclusions MIGHT be Wrong, since i dont work for SA.

i pretty much just posted that overly long THEORY, so people can be more aware of those barrels when buying a used SA barrel, because it might not fit there modern spec slide.

if i still had the barrel or get another SA barrel with enlarged chamber or 2 piece design i will post pics.
Link Posted: 8/6/2003 8:29:10 AM EST
Thanks garand, My last post was a little too confrontational, so thanks for taking it well. I have shot a ruger p-series and a 22/45 for a number of years, I recently purchased a walther p-22. Out of these, The SA mil-spec is the gun I love. It is dead on and seems to shoot better that the ruger 22/45, which is for target shooting. I don't have any problems with ammo, the slide fit is tight and it hits where I point it. This gun is well on its way to teaching me to shoot better. I have a better grip with it and it seems to "poinht" better. I am very happy with springfield and would not hesitate to reccomend them to someone else. You will notice that I have not listed another .45. I am comparing this gun to the unbreakable p-series, the deadly accurate 22/45, and the quirky but fun p22...it is still the gun I want to shoot.
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:20:27 AM EST
I'm one of the Colt converted. 7 year SIG shooter.Not much experience with Springfield, but been hering bad stuff about the M1As lately. Same with Kimber, only direct info on the 1911s. Colt has a bad rep, especially for the 80's and early 90's, but I wouldn't trade my Delta for anything. Put a beavertail on it and that's it, shoots waay better than I do and 100% reliable. Even the series 80 monkey motion is growing on me.
Top Top