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

For what it's worth, I've had more problems with my Kimber than with my Para, and the Kimber cost twice as much.

I'd purchase any of the above though a Wilson KZ is pretty tempting as well.
 
I recently bought a Kimber Custom and couldn't be happier. Only 500 rds so far but no feed problems and the accuracy is very good.
 
If it's strictly going to be used as a range gun, go with a Springfield because the sharp edges won't be an issue. The Springfield has much better sights and will serve your purpose better as a plinking gun at $75-125 cheaper than the Kimber.
 
Get this one!
circle.gif


eclipseII_web.jpg
 
Either a Kimber or a SA is a good choice. both have advantages/disadvantages. One meaningless disadvantage of the SA that I can't seem to overcome is the 2 piece barrel. 2 piece and barrel just don't go in my mind, even though I've never heard of a problem with it. OTOH, in the Kimber you also have a 2 piece full length guide rod, and I HAVE had mine come unscrewed at the range. All things considered, I find the Kimber's more to my liking. I disagree about the sights on the SA being "better". Sights are like stereo speakers in that it isn't a one size fits all. I prefer the sights on the Kimber over the SA.
Overall, the suggestion to go Colt isn't too bad either, since my Colt Custom Carry Commander will outshoot both of my Kimbers. In fairness though, the Colt did spend a brief time in Colt's custom shop and it was a bit over $800.00 out the door.
 
Another vote for the 1991A1. They may not be quite as pretty as the Kimbers and the SA's, the recent run of 1991A1's are tight without being problematic, and don't worry about two piece barrels. Colt has been using them for years, and give very acceptable accuracy. Kimbers are very tight, and most of the ones I have seen from my friends take some shooting in before they are reliable, but having said that, the Kimbers do group well on the average. SA's seem to run well out of the box, but here in North Texas, you can buy 1991A1's for less than $470, a bit less than the SA's.
 
Lemme get this straight for those who are in favor supporting a boycot of S&W...

If someone would buy a S&W, they would be sell out and supporting a company that has supported giving away our rights. Which many have said is a bad thing to do.

But a company that buys a S&W product (forgings, frames, slide stops whatever) is not a sell out? :rolleyes:

If a company lists on their website that guns are unsafe, or a company decides not to sell ammo, they are sell outs and waffling to the anti gunners and we are to AVOID those companies because they are sell outs.

And again, a company that supports S&W is not a sell out but S&W is a sellout? :confused:

Derek
 
From the choices you're providing, I'd go w/ the Springfield. Don't' wanna add anymore confusion to your decision making process. Just get one and have fun shooting it!;)
 
Since you asked...I say go with the Kimber.
It is the only one of the three that is actually made in the USA.

1rst ..Springfield employs Brazilians to make most of the parts.
2nd...Para employs canadians for the same purpose.

and 3rdly Both of those places have severly oppressive gun laws.


Buy a Kimber, regardless of the nay sayers, you'll be glad you did.
 
AC's & 45's

The foreign made argument doens't have too much merit nowadays. Prime example, look at your computer or television set. Glocks, HK, SIG, etc etc.

As for Springfield's two piece barrel, there hasn't been a documented case of it failing. One of my gunsmith buddies swear that it can be just as accurate as any Kart or Barsto with a bit of tweaking. He's the same guy that does metal work for Larry Vickers, Mark Morris, Don Williams, etc so he's not an idiot :)
 
CASPIAN, OF COURSE

I have a bit of experience with all three, and IN GENERAL the Kimber brand seems to be MORE ACCURATE, MORE RELIABLE, and provides a higher level of owner satisfaction.


If you buy a Kimber or Springfield you WILL get a decent gun.
 
Springfields are junk, I had a v-10 ultracompact champion which at the time was the $800 fitted in Geneseo Il, flagship of the line.
Poor barrel to slide fit, slide to frame fit, patterned like a shotgun, trigger pull varried between 8 and 12 pounds, sharp edges sloppy machining on the internals poor reliability, it was junk.

Take alook at the 1911 forum and see the two stainless springfields that had the slide crack in half. JUNK GARBAGE.


Get a Kimber, or an old or new Colt. You wont be sorry.
 
I can only comment on the brand that I personally have experience with.

I own 2 KIMBER pistols, an ULTRA CDP for concealed carry and a CLASSIC STAINLESS for general range use.

I'm very happy with the performance, quality, & value for the $ of both, and would recommend them highly. For your intended use, I would suggest the CLASSIC CUSTOM or the CLASSIC STAINLESS, depending on your finish preferences.
 
I chose the Springfield.

Why? It is good out of the box, and a great platform to send out for customization.
 
Springfield? I'll sell you one cheap

No I wouldn't do that. I would never pawn the piece of garbage off on an unsuspecting soul. Been back to the factory twice now and still the most unreliable firearm I have ever owned.

I have had the best luck with my Colt Gold Cups. 100% out of the box and always outshoot my friends Kimbers.
 
my springfield trophy match was not far from pos out of the box
and two trips back to the factory did not seem to make it any
better.
bought a kimber and couldn't be happier with it
just my 2 cents
good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top