Posted: 11/23/2004 4:17:45 AM EDT
| With all due respect to everybody in these forums, I have been following the discussions for aproximately a month. I am currently in the market for a 1911 pistol, Nevertheless I cannot make a decision between these two makers. So WHY SPRINGFIELD OR WHY KIMBER. I am particularly interested in people who have owned or own both , not replies that tell me how good yours is without having owned the other. So give your best argument , and at the end give me a model for 1000 dollars , full size from kiber or springfield only. I am posting this same topic in both forums to attempt to eliminate some bias. Go ahead. |
This is an old post I put together after getting my first two "entry-level" 1911 pistols. The first was a Kimber Custom II, followed by a Springfield Mil-spec. Hope this helps you some. Sorry if it's too long.  ------------------------------------------------- This post takes a look at the Kimber Custom II and Springfield Armory Mil-Spec 1911 pistols through the eyes of a 1911 newbie. When I went looking for my first 1911 pistol, I didn’t want to spend a fortune. I wasn’t even sure I was really going to like the 1911 design. I had heard I could buy a basic 1911 without the extra features and I could always add features later. I learned the hard way it might be easier to get those features up front and save some time and money in the long run. Anyway, it seemed a lot of guys were in the same boat as me looking for a first, inexpensive but good quality 1911. The two pistols I heard most often mentioned and compared were the Springfield Armory Mil-spec and the Kimber Custom II. Looking at the two pistols and handling them in a shop, I had a hard time understanding the differences in the pistols. They looked and felt about the same to me. I bought the Kimber Custom II first because I got a great deal on it. Several months later I bought the Mil-spec. It wasn’t until I owned and shot both pistols that I realized the Kimber offered a LOT more pistol for the meager price difference. I’m hoping this post helps point out some of the differences in these two pistols for anyone thinking of getting one of these. Here are both pistols (Kimber is on the bottom):  Here is a comparison of the main features of both pistols. Keep in mind these are my observations and my opinions. Grip Safety and Hammer This is the single most important difference to me between the two pistols. If for no reason other than the beavertail grip safety, the Kimber beats the SA hands down. I didn’t understand the importance of this component until I first shot the SA Mil-spec. The Mil-spec’s thin and downward curving grip safety digs into the web of my hand while shooting. In fact, it has drawn blood on most of my range visits. This what people mean by “hammer bite”? Here are some pictures of the Mil-spec’s grip safety.    Compare that to the Kimber. The Kimber’s wider, upward curving beavertail safety is much more comfortable. It also allows me slightly better control of the pistol because it fills the web on my hand better.    Thumb Safety The thumb safety of the Kimber is longer then the SA’s. It extends nearly to the middle of the pistol grip panel. The SA’s safety doen’t even extend to the grip panel. Here is the Kimber:  And here is the SA. Notice how much shorter the safety compared to the Kimber.  The Kimber’s safety is also very smooth to operate. The SA safety feels very gritty, like two pieces of metal rubbing together. Much more pressure is needed to engage or disengage the safety on the SA compared to the Kimber. Front Serrations The Kimber has them, the SA doesn’t. Some people like them. I don’t use them. I just mention it because it is another difference and may matter to you. Maybe someone will clue me in to why they are a valuable feature. Sights Both the Mil-spec and the Kimber Custom II have fixed sights. For those of you wanting adjustable sights on the Kimber, you can buy the Custom Target II. It’s the same gun except for the adjustable sights. These pistols are for plinking, target shooting and, possible, self-defense. For the last reason alone, I feel a defensive pistol should have fixed sights. If these were target-only pistols, I’d have gotten models with adjustable sights. I now also understand the importance of night-sights on a defensive pistol. Oh well, maybe next time. The Kimber has black sights. The SA has three white dots, two on the rear and dot on the front sight blade. I wish the Kimber also had these. I like them better than the black sights. Now, just to be nit-picky, I don’t like how the top of the SA’s front sight blade is slanted ever so slightly toward the rear. The Kimbers front sight blade slants slightly towards the front (muzzle). Why is this important? Because the SA’s front sight blade drags the inside of my leather Galco holster. The Kimber is very smooth to draw out of the holster with no dragging at all. Kimber’s front blade. Notice the serrations.  SA’s front sight.  Grip Panels The Kimber’s grip panels are a nice firm rubber. Even with sweaty palms the Kimber doesn’t slip in my hand. The SA has plastic grips that don’t feel as comfortable as the Kimber’s. Enough said. Main Spring Housing The Kimber’s mainspring housing is flat. The SA has a slight swell to it. I find the SA to be more comfortable in this area. You can see examples in the pictures already posted. Trigger The triggers on both pistols are very smooth. The only slight advantage of the Kimber is the slightly longer trigger. The length difference is just enough that on the SA my trigger finger starts to curve back a little too much. Does this make sense? After shooting multiple shots with the SA, I find I’m no longer using just the tip of my trigger finger. Key Lock The SA has a key lock in the main spring housing. The Kimber doesn’t have this. I find it unnecessary, but not something I care strongly about one way or the other. SA key lock (on the left):  Accuracy and Performance I’ve shot mainly Winchester “White Box” ammo through these guns. Both guns have run flawlessly after a few thousand rounds through both. I’ve even run Winchester SXT hollow points through both without failure. I should mention I’m primarily using Wilson 47D magazines. I do also shoot both guns with the factory magazines that came with them. Both pistols are very accurate. I haven’t shot either from a bench rest, but they’ll both stay on a 3” Shoot-N-C dot at 20 yards, if I do my part. Summary For a little extra money, the Kimber is a lot more gun. The things I think are absolutely necessary upgrades on the Mil-spec are the beavertail grip safety and the manual thumb safety. I’ve come to realize these are not drop-in, plug-and-play parts. They require fitting and are, more than likely, something I don’t want to attempt to install. Both are good pistols. Both have been utterly reliable and dependable. I wouldn’t have any problem trusting my life to either pistol. Again, I’m only making comments based on my own experiences. Other people may have different experiences and/or opinions. Hope this helps some of you who are looking for that first “entry level” 1911. Please feel free to add your comments, impressions and opinions about these two fine pistols. |
| Just to add, since I originally wrote that post I've taken a few classes with that Kimber. I absolutely love that pistol. The only real down-side to it is a lack of a front night sight. Both pistols have been flawless but I much prefer the Kimber if for no reason other than the Springfield gives me some serious hammer bite. |
|
I had a Springfield TRP Stainless. There was a razor-sharp jagged edge at the top rear of the magwell that would prevent magazines from being fully inserted until it was filed down. The ejector is not pinned in but relies on green loctite to keep it in place, however my TRP missed the loctite application and I had to do it myself. Lastly it shot about 4-5" below POA. I fixed the first two myself, the last was rectified by Springfield sending a taller front night sight. There was some speculation why so many guns shot 4-5" below POA. Some theorists suggested that Springfield was trying to get a tighter lockup by using a longer link, but didn't change the front sight height, resulting in the POI drop. Once mine was shooting POA I sold it. I took note as well that David DiFabio used to be a Springfield TRP Pro fan but now recommends the Kimber TLE/RL and TLE above Springfield. FWIW I now have a Kimber TLE/RL and a Compact CDP and am ordering a Tactical Custom. I have never had any problems with my Kimbers like I had with the one Springfield. All that said, I have considered getting another Springfield because the "lawyer parts" are easier to remove than on the Kimber. And the Springfield still has an internal extractor last I checked. |
|
I haven't owned both, of the two I own Kimber. My one experience that may lend a bit more input is a day at the range when there was another 1911 shooter, we both kind of noticed each other among a group of young renters yelling and trigger jerking. When they left we checked out each other's guns. His was a really cool looking SA Loaded with an O.D. coating. Mine a Kimber Eclipse. We swapped and his gun was accurate; can't comment on reliability as I only went through four mags. What stuck out was his SA Loaded had a noticeably looser slide/frame fit than my gun; I didn't mention anything about it. He said he'd put 400 rounds through it-- the gun should have started to run from kinda tight to smooth at that point. Not loose. I had 1,200 through my Kimber then. I've put another 2K+ through it since and it's feels just as good as then in terms of fit. |
Is this really a fair comparison? Why not compare the Kimber to one of SA's loaded models? My dealer has two SA 1911A1 Parkerized PX9109L's for $630 out the door. The Kimber Custom II is $750. What am I getting for the extra $120? I could care less what Kimber did in the past, and will not pay for a name. I also do not agree with the statements made in this thread about Kimber having better overall fit+finish. They are both equals in my book when it comes to fit+finish. In my opinion the SA is a far better deal. The PX9109L or any SA "Loaded" has allot of options you will not find on a Kimber in this price range; Novak night sights, beavertail grip safety, and the ambi grip safety quickly come to mind. The only negative with the SA is the ILS bullshit, but that can be removed with a $20 mainspring housing and five minutes worth of installation. The Kimbers Series II safety is far worse and permanent. |
|
Va_Dinger, you make a good point about the Custom II vs. the Loaded instead of just a Mil-spec. The reason I originally looked at (and bought) both of these pistols was because they were the "entry level" pistols from both companies. The Kimber is more expensive than the Mil-spec and is closer priced to the Loaded. Point taken. I also agree with your comment about the fit. My Springfield is actually a little tighter than my Kimber. The only reason I don't shoot the Mil-spec more than I do is because of the hammer bite. If that pistol had a beaver-tail grip safety (like the Loaded!), it would be a lot more comfortable to shoot. |
I gave my comparison of a practically new SA Loaded to my Kimber Eclipse in terms of fit. The Eclipse runs higher than the Kimber Custom but the cost is for features other than standard fit. I know what I felt; I've got nothing against SA, but do think Kimber the better 1911. |
I have fit beavertails and while making that first cut into the frame is a little stressful, it isn't that hard. You might be interested in this drop-in beavertail for your Mil-spec. Brownells - Kings grip safeties You would want #203 with that hammer. The most you would have to do in fitting this part would be to file down the trigger stop until it works. It is not as pretty as a fitted beavertail but it is functional and stops hammer bite. My vote is for Springfield. You can get all the features mentioned and more on the loaded models for about the same price. Lifetime warrantee with good service. Series 70 trigger. |
