Springfield versus Kimber 1911s...Opinions Please?

A

Anthony

New member
Hello Everyone,

Springfield Armory and Kimber both make excellent sidearms, but I was wondering which was better. I own a heavily customized Colt Lightweight Commander in .45 ACP, but would like to add a full sized 1911 to my collection.

Does anyone have an opinion as to which full sized 1911 is better? If yes, why?

Thanks for the help.

- Anthony
 
Anthony, you're going to get a ton of opinions. This is a subject that's been debated often. I compared both and it literally came down to a coin toss for the Kimber. It's a good gun, but so is the Springfield. So, for now, just sit back and wait for the fireworks to start.

Dick
 
Springfield - boxy, good sights, crappy mags, sharp edges
Kimber - crappy mags, crappy sights, crappy customer service, tight slide to frame fit

are just some of the comments made in the past. Do a search on this forum and type in Kimber Springfield and you'll get a ton of hits.
 
springfield - better prices

Kimber - more money but not many mods needed to suit owner

I like kimbers alot but I think I am going to get a springfield if they every past the drop test. The reaon is just in price. I can get the gun and modify it as time goes on.
 
This is turning into a debate not unlike the 9 vs 45 debate.

I like to be able to customize my handguns. Its the hotrodder genetics that are ingrained in many guys. Take a factory production and make it unique. Not necessarily better, just different, just My Own.
Guns like the Glocks, and HK USP series... They are mostly "Done" and there are not a lot of options for them.
You cant even change the grips!
Now a Springfield lets you have a lot of room to specify your own alterations... Kimbers come Mostly Done as well.
 
I own a Springfield fully loaded a Gold Cup with all the bells and whistles and a Kimber Custom Classic Target. I carry and use the Kimber because it is more accruate and reliable.
 
Kimber: More "polished", meaning a better fit and finish over all. No sharp edges, tighter-slide-to-frame fit.

Springfield: Less expensive, great value for the dollar.

Best thing to do is get your hands on several models of each and see what you think.

P.S. I bought a Kimber Classic Gold Match and I'm glad I did!
 
I opted for a Springfield and had some custom work done to my specs. I've owned four Kimbers in the past and had problems with three of them and wound up geting rid of all of them. The Springfield is exactly the way I want it. I've put at least 1000 (conservative estimate)rounds through it without ONE malfunction. I can't say that for any of the Kimbers I've owned
Daddycat
 
I've got both...a "pre-Enhanced" Stainless Springfield 1911A1 AND a Kimber Stainless "Custom Target". For the money, the Kimber is, IMHO, a BETTER VALUE...lots more features, MOST OF WHICH I'd have gotten ANYWAY, but as a "package" on a factory-built gun, I end up saving money-on the "beavertail" grip safety,the "target trigger" with overtraval stop, the "match-grade" hammer and sear, the adjustable sights, etc. Not to mention that the Kimber's out-of-the-box triggerpull is VASTLY SUPERIOR to the Springfields...AND, the Kimber is "fitted up" tighter, with a better-quality barrel. BTW, NEITHER has yet had a malfunction of any kind, WITH good-quality mags and ammo...had the SA about six years, the Kimber a year-and-a-half. If you like the SA "Loaded" and the Kimbers okay out-of-the-box, my advice would be to go with the Kimber...just seems BETTER MADE, more for the money...IF you're looking for a "platform" to be FURTHER MODIFIED, then buy whichever one you can get cheapest!!!....mikey357
 
The only reason I chose a Kimber Custom Classic over a Springfield "Loaded"...

Standard dovetailed front sight on the Kimber. If the Springfield had this, I would have just bought the first one I saw.
 
I own a Kimber Custom/Classic and a Springfield "loaded" -- both full-sized, all stainless, fixed sight models. Essentially, they are equivalent 1911A1s from two first-rate manufacturers. Without question, both are excellent semiautomatics. Overall, I would give the slight advantage to Springfield. I realize this is a sample size of one. I also agree with most of the earlier comments re finish, bulk, and so forth.

Much like Honda versus Toyota, both are outstanding in virtually all respects. One area where Springfield is the clear frontrunner is customer service and lifetime warrantee.
 
Are Springfields difficult to field strip?

I've been trying to help my father-in-law decide between the same two brands for his first .45, & I've heard pretty much the same points as are mentioned in this thread. One thing that was mentioned at the local gun shop was that the design of the Springfield's guide rod made it tough to tear down. Since it was already a little past closing time, I didn't ask him to elaborate. Can anyone shed some light on this aspect of the debate. Thanks in advance!
 
The New Loadeds

Looking at Springfields webpage, it seems the Loadeds have been updated. Dovetailed front sight, tritium Novaks, carry bevel treatment. Seems they have listened to the desires of the public and made the changes. I'm still happy with my box stock parkerized full sized "old style" Loaded. I never did get the sharp edges though...
 
Oak '58

The Springfields use a 2 piece guide rod. You need a flat blade screwdriver (or perhaps now a hex wrench) to unscrew half the rod from under the bushing. Now the pistol strips as normal. I replaced the 2 piece with the standard GI plug because I swap the slide with a .22 conversion and like the ease and avoid the "doh!" if I don't have a hex wrench or screwdriver.

Never used a one piece full length guide rod so I'm not familiar with the stripping procedure...
 
Springfields

First off, you can't talk intelligently about Springfields have this or that or cost this or that or don't have this or that.

I have a springfield Custom Carry that I bought about 10 years ago now. It is virtually the same as the current FBI model. Cost (after returning to have night sights installed and the Slide refinished, about $2000.00.

I have never seen any reason to complain, nothing to add that it doesn't already have, and it has functioned flawlessly through countless (I did not keep track) rounds. Never a serious problem in ten years. Will it feed bricks- Yes! Is it accurate -Yes! It's as good in every way as a Wilson (which I have my eye on) or Baer or anything else.

All these companies have different models and you can spend as much as you want to spend to get what ever you want on your pistol and I can name over a half dozen companies in addition to what you have cited that will produce you an automatic pistol as fine as you will ever want. Springfield went down a check list and asked me if I wanted each one. My advice is to save up nd buy exactly what you want it to be.....Heck, for nearly everyone of us it will last a lifetime unless they take-um away from us.

Now if you buy off the rack, it's going to ber trade off and a crap shoot. But Springfield will make it right if it isn't right when you get it. I guess most other companies will too......Crap shoot. Good Luck.

PigPen

P.S. what's up over at AR15.com??
 
At about the same time I bought my Kimber Custom Target, my buddy bought a Springfield. Of course we compared notes and shot each others guns extensively and the bottom line is that they are fairly equivalent.

Both of the guns were 100% reliable right out of the box.

The Kimber was a bit more accurate with both Win. "Hardball" and Win. Super Auto Match and with various handloads - there's probably some load out there that the Springfield "likes" that would throw this, but overall the Kimber is more accurate, though not significantly so.

The Kimber has (had?) that damned plastic mainspring housing which you have to replace. I hear the newer ones have a steel one... anybody know?

The Springfield has more edges and sharp projections - I'm not sure this an issue for most people since if you want to carry concealed, you're going to get a compact - I don't know if the Compact Springfield is better in this regard.

Oh, and I think this is important - the Kimber is American made, the Springfield isn't. I think this should be considered.

They are both fine guns for the price.
 
Check out the updated Springfield web site:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-a1load.shtml

It's been updated considerably since I was there last. The new Loaded does have alot of new features, the loaded chamber indicator, PC locking system (too bad), carry bevel and dovetail front site. Also, the serrations on the slide are now widely spaced, like the Kimber. Too bad, I thought the old design looked better.

I've heard that the Kimber uses a number of plastic parts, does anyone know what they are? I've also seen work that the SA has a "2-piece" barrel, what's this all about? Does the SA barrel have a integral feed ramp, like a CZ? Thanks in advance.

Bri
 
The only plastic part in a Kimber is the mainspring housing. I would not lose any sleep over that. The only SA that has a ramped barrel is the 9mm. If they are offering a .40 then it would most likely have one as well. I currently own three Kimbers, two in .45 and a .40. I have owned SAs in the past and did not have very good luck with them. The biggest difference in the two is accuracy. I have never owned a Kimber that would not group under 1 1/2" at 25 yds. The .45 and the 9mm SAs that I owned struggled to get under 3" at 25 yds. Kimber seems to do a better job of fitting the barrel than SA. I do not like the two piece barrel that comes in the SA either. Triggers are not an issue as both SA and Kimber can be fixed easily. I do like the grips that come on the SA guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top