.45...Kimber, Para, or Springfield???

J

John D

New member
Got the big bore revolvers and .22 autos....have always wanted a 1911. Done lots of reading and pretty much narrowed it down to these three manufacturers. Plan on spending between $500-$700 for this pistol.

This isn't for matches or concealed carry or pin shooting or anything exotic - this is strictly to have a good solid .45 that shoots straight without jamming, feels good in my hand, and looks great.

Sooooooo, which brand and which model?
 
Go with a Kimber. The custom model is the base 1911 and the "target" model has adjustable sights. Right in your price range. The adjustable sights will add about 75 to the price, as will stainless.

For lots of info about the 1911s, check out:

http://www.1911forum.com/
 
Owning four full-sized 1911A1s -- an old (pre-WWII) Colt MilSpec, a Kimber stainless Custom/Classic, a Springfield stainless Loaded, and a Springfield ArmoryKote TRP -- I have to endorse the 2001 Springfield Loaded models.

Kimber clearly makes excellent 1911A1s, and I am not denigrating them. However, the new Springfields are every bit as good, in my opinion slightly more durable and reliable, and -- most important -- Springfield's lifetime warrantee and customer service are decidedly better than Kimber's.

I have read too many Para-Ordnance "horror stories" on TFL to feel comfortable with any of their 45s.

I respectfully suggest you check some of the hundreds of archived TFL threads re this question, to help you make an informed decision.

Good luck.
 
Get an old Colt. :D

I'm serious. Shop around a bit and you CAN find MK IV Series 80 or even Series 70 pistols for good prices. I've seen blued Delta Elites for as low as $550, but that's a whole other ballgame... :cool:

Owned a Kimber, it was an extremely good piece but for some reason I have picked up a "Gen-U-Wine" Colt craving (well, at least the old ones).
 
Go with the Kimber. For the money they're really nice guns. I own 2 and have never had a single ftf/fte on either one.
 
I have or had Colts, SA, Auto Ordinance and Kimber 1911 pistols and I would recommend Kimber. Colt and SA pistols are nice too but IMHO Kimbers are a step above. As for Paras, I never had one but have shot several. I've seen a lot of Paras that work well but quite a few were real dogs.
 
I just picked up a used Kimber for $450 and am very happy with it.

It is tight, has a good beavertail and flat mainspring housing and good trigger.
 
For the price you're talking, you can get either a Kimber Classic Custom, possibly a Kimber Classic Stainless (if you shop around), Springfield Milspec, Springfield Loaded parkerized, Springfield Loaded stainless, or a Colt 1991A1 parked or stainless.
So, if you go Colt, you are stuck with the plain jane model that is best used for customization, which you may or may not want to do.
If you go Springfield or Kimber, you get a gun with all the extras already on it.
So, now that we've narrowed it down to Kimber or Springfield, let's take a look at those two.
The Springfield will be about $75 cheaper, but will also have more sharp edges, if that's important to you. The Kimber will be a bit more accurate and have a better trigger pull, while IMHO the Springfield has the better sights.
Your choice. I would go with the Kimber, but the Springfield is a good choice too.
 
RWK: I gotta disagree with you about Springfield's customer service. I think it sucks.

I sent a loaded model 1911 that was jamming to them a total of 4 times, and they could never get it fixed.

Sold it, bought a Kimber, never had a problem.
 
FWIW, I recently read that Kimber's frames are made by S&W. It was an article in one of the gun rags that was 'defending' S&W, complaining about collateral damage from the boycott.

As for Springfield's customer service, I'm about to find out. Got a double stacker that a gunsmith tells me is unsafe. The frame is out of spec. I've put about 200-250 rounds through it. Patterns like a shotgun, too. I'm shipping it back tomorrow. If you are interested in how that turns out, drop me a line.
 
I own a Kimber, a Springfield and a Colt. Despite all of the posts on this site to the contrary, I've had (almost) no problems with any of the three makes.

The Kimber is by far the best of the bunch. It was also by far the most expensive. It is a Gold Match stainless. I have over 23,000 rounds through it with no work done to it at all, except I change the springs when I shoot in the bullseye league. Next to the custom trigger below, the trigger on this gun is the best I own.

The Colts are both fine guns. I had one converted to 9x23 Win by Dane Burns, from 38 Super. As part of the conversion, I had him change the trigger to a custom trigger. The other is a Gold Cup that has never had any work, and has not been fired all that much.

The last is a Springfield base model that I bought not too long ago. This gun suprised me, as it rivals the Kimber in accuracy. I just sent it off to a local smith for a trigger job. Not because it had to have it, but because the rest of the gun shoots with such accuracy, I may shoot it, along with the Kimber, in the league.

I have never owned a Para, so I don't feel I can comment on it.

Casey
 
FWIW, I recently read that Kimber's frames are made by S&W.

That would be incorrect. Kimber buys the raw forgings for their frames and slides from many vendors, Smith and Wesson among them.
 
FWIW, my 3 Paras have digested everything that I have put through their throats. The only jam-a-matic was the P10 due to the fact that I was limp wristing the little pistol. If I was going with a new 1911 from a factory I would not shy away from a Para.

The problem with Paras that so many have lamented here was usually because of a weak mag springs and an old follower design.

My P12 & 13 have digested 15000 rounds between them in 45acp/400 CB and have less then 25 malfs between them (10 were from a TIGHT barrel link on the Bar Sto 400 CB barrel for the P12 in the first 350-400 rounds, the others were from the lightly loaded swc target load before I replaced the springs). My P16 has had no malfs in either .40S&W or 10mm with 1200 rounds through the pistol.

Kimber makes a good pistol. And yes they support S&W, no matter how many apologists stand up for them (man, those guys are like Bill Clinton fanatics aren't they? :D :rolleyes: ). If that bothers you, don't buy a Kimber. Does it take away from the quality pistol they make? No.

The new Springfield Armory Loaded line offers a quality pistols also.

Pick the one that offers you the features that you want and the one that feels best in your hands.

Derek
 
One doesn't have to be an "apologist" to see that the claim that Kimber "supports Smith and Wesson" is a load of crap.
Kimber buys (or bought, I am not sure they still do) Smith forgings because Smith offered the best forgings at the best price. Kimber's duty is to sell the best gun they can at the best price...that is their foremost duty. They aren't required to run background checks on the companies from which they buy raw steel. And anyone that thinks they should has lost contact with reality.
 
RikWriter and automainea . . .

I believe you will find the 2001 Springfields have essentially eliminated the "sharp edges" problem you mentioned.
 
Why do people say that Kimber frames are made by S&W? Everything I'd heard before said they were made by a company called Jericho that also made them for Wilson Combat. :confused:

Quoting gunsmith Dane Burns FWIW:

"Kimber, Wilson Combat, and McCormick frames and slides are the same, differing only cosmetically. They are all produced on the same line at Jericho's plant."

http://www.burnscustom.com/kimberhigh.html
 
CastleBravo, some people say that because they are misinterpreting the facts. Kimber buys raw steel forgings from Smith and other companies and machines their slides and frames from the forgings at the Jericho plant.
Some people hear this and somehow twist it around to make the statement: "Smith and Wesson makes Kimbers slides (or sometimes they say frames) for them."
And no matter how many times anyone sets the record straight on the matter, there always seems to be someone around who persists in spreading the lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top