Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 10/21/2003 5:20:29 AM EDT
I am looking at buying either a kimber gold match, or a springfield loaded. The springfield is a few hundred less in cost but does not have the adjustable sights. I know they are both nice guns. I have shot the kimber and like it a lot, but I have been reading good things about springfield too. What do you guys think about which one is a better buy?
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 5:33:31 AM EDT
What are you using it for? Unless its just a range gun, skip the adjustable sight models.

Both are high quality handguns.
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 5:39:47 AM EDT
Right now I mainly shoot for practice at the range. In the future I may want to shoot some competition. I am on a pistol team at work, but there I have to shoot my duty weapon.
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 5:54:36 AM EDT
I can tell you from personal experience that kimber has crappy customer service. I understand that in manufacturing you will always have a few lemons but when you spend close to $900 on a high end kimber you would expect them to own up to a problem and fix it. It took me four times to of having kimber replace the front night site before I got fed up with it and paid to have a diffrent brand put in and sold the gun. I will never buy another kimber because I feel they do not stand behind there product. Plus there head and prices have gotten really swollen in the past few years
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 3:45:32 PM EDT
Thanks woodrow, I think I will go with the springfield.
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 5:33:14 PM EDT
I have a Springfield (loaded, stainless)that I am very happy with. It has Novak sights which are not adjustable. For a few more dollars you can get the Springfield with the adjustable sights.
The Springfield is a great choice IMHO.

Jim Hall
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 6:05:53 PM EDT
At the risk of hijacking the thread, may I suggest a Wilson for very little more than what you'd pay for the Kimber? A Wilson is a far superior 1911 to the Kimber, IMO.

My .o2
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 6:30:30 PM EDT
I just bought a used Wilson CQB and I LOVE it.

I looked at Kimber real hard and once I held the Wilson and looked at it even used it was a way better gun than the new Kimber Gold Combat I looked at.
Link Posted: 10/21/2003 11:14:07 PM EDT
If I were you, I'd skip the adjustable sights. 'Fixed' ones can still be drifted if you know what you're doing (or have a good pistolsmith on call), and tend to be more durable.
Link Posted: 10/22/2003 6:05:34 AM EDT
Springfield. I love mine.
Link Posted: 10/23/2003 8:03:03 PM EDT
I'd also recommend the fixed combat sights. Low snag is good.
Link Posted: 10/23/2003 8:23:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 3:42:06 AM EDT
Thanks for all the replys, you have all been a great help, I will let ya know what I end up with.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 4:52:32 AM EDT
I think if I were to get a .45 right now...since I already have a 1911... I'd get a CZ97B... I've heard they are the shiznit. Very accurate right out of the box. I read a review recently, a guy was getting nice one-ragged-hole groups OUT OF THE BOX. And it's almost not noticeably larger than the 1911.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 5:10:34 AM EDT
I'm also looking for a .45 to add to the safe. I am going to a gun show tommorrow to look and handle a few models. I had Kimber on my list, the Tactical Custom or CDP Custom, but if they don't stand behind their product I'll pass.

I want to look at a Sig P220, S&W 1911, and Springfield TRP and Black Stainless. I have read many, many good posts on the Sig P220. Most everyone seems to like the pistol but they say it is too big for carry. I like the 1911 design and look but I have read an alarming no. of posts about reliability issues with 1911's. Mostly extraction problems and FTF problems with hollow point ammo. I want something that is gonna work outta the box without time and $$ spent with the smith to make it work right. GunBlast gave the S&W 1911 a good review. It has an external extractor which they say is a great improvement over the original internal design. It's priced right too ~$600 - $700. I don't know too much about Springfields. I have read good and bad about them also.

Guess I'll go take a look. I'd like to come home with a new buddy. I will most likely not simply because I'm not knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision.

Shabo
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 3:49:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2003 3:50:51 PM EDT by thedr13]
Springfield "LOADED" S/S.
I have one and can not see spending more for a 1911. It is accurate as hell and very reliable. I've said it here before.... Why spend a grand- plus, for a 1911 when you can have quality for under $700.
Link Posted: 10/27/2003 2:32:48 AM EDT
[flame-suit-on]
There's 2 kinds of Kimbers: the cheap ones, which aren't worth crap, and the expensive ones, which aren't worth crap.

There's 2 kinds of Springfields: the cheap ones, which aren't worth crap, and the expensive ones, which aren't worth crap.

Get yourself a Wilson, Les Baer, RRA, or Valtro.
[/flame-suit-on]
Top Top