Springfield vs. Kimber

A

AAChang

New member
I've been debating getting a Kimber Classic Custom for my 21st birthday. However, my friend mentioned the other day that the Springfield "Custom Loaded" Full sized would be a better buy for me since it's cheaper to begin with and I wouldn't need to end up spending another couple of hundred upgrading the kimber (better sights, titanium parts, different springs). Another have experience with the new Springfield that could comment? Anyone prefer the Kimber and why?
 
I prefer the Kimber, and if you spend one penny on the Kimber after buying it, it won't be because you HAVE to. My Gold Match was just fine right out of the box, and is still going strong after 7,000+ rounds and not a single jam.
 
I own both (full-size, stainless Kimber Custom/Classic and full-size, stainless Springfield loaded). Both are excellent 1911A1-types. The Kimber will cost ~$100 more than the Springfield. In aggregate, I would buy the Springfield (particularly the older "loaded" model without in integral lock). One key factor in this decision -- since the two autoloaders are very similar, with marginal advantages in both directions -- is Springfield Armory's lifetime warrantee and really excellent customer service.

[Edited by RWK on 02-27-2001 at 02:13 PM]
 
I'd go with the Springfield...Lifetime warrantee, and great customer service. FWIW, I'd get the "new loaded" and change the MSH to a non-locking version. The new models have dehorning...a long needed revision to the "loaded" line.
 
With a Springfield loaded, you get many features that normally cost extras on other manufacturer's 1911's. Springfield also uses Novak sights. The Kimber has McCormicks. The Kimber has an adjustable trigger for over travel. The Springfield does not have this feature. Kimber's frames are more rounded while the Springfield is boxy. The Springfield Loaded comes with 2 mags. While the Kimber has one. The front sight on the Kimber is dovetailed while the Springfield's is not.

Complaints: Springfield problems are normally related to feeding. In most cases, this can be rectified by using a Wilson or Metalform mag. Springfields also have quite a few sharp edges. If you plan on carrying it, you'll need a de-horning job.

Kimber problems are generally crappy mags, failure to lock on last round (crappy mag and or crappy slide stop), broken MIM parts and on occasion feeding (crappy mags).

If you decide on a Springfield "Loaded" in stainless, it'll take a couple of hundred rounds for break in.

Both guns out of the box are pretty accurate. The edge would go to Kimber.

Triggers are a toss up. Most production guns have some creep in them. If you plan on using it as a target pistol, check the triggers out carefully. Otherwise, you will need to get a trigger job from a good smith. That was my biggest complaint with my 3 Kimbers.

One last consideration is customer service. Should you have any problems, Springfield's reps are "generally" easier to deal with then Kimbers. This is not ALWAYS the case because you'll run into idiots with any outfit.

The price on both are relatively close. The difference is not enough to sway a decision one way or the other.

I owned a Super Match, Gold Match and Ultra Elite. The Super Match would not feed wad cutters and had a creepy trigger. The Gold Match jammed quite a bit. I even tried Federal Match ammo to find out if it was my reloads. After having both pistols jam with the Federal Match wad cutters, I came to the conclusion that the problems were not due to my reloads. My reloads were the same OAL as the Federal Match ammo.

I got a good smith to do reliability and trigger jobs on them and they flew after that. The only problem with the Ultra Elite was a creepy trigger.

So which is better? That's a tough one to make. Both are good guns. Both have their upsides and downsides. You'll get positive responses for both. If I had to pick between a Springfield Loaded or Kimber Custom Classic, even with all the problems I had with Kimbers, I'd still take a Kimber. Why? I generally buy a 1911 and picture how I would tweak it down the road. The Kimber is a great gun for customization. Springfields are no slouch either. I just personally prefer the Kimber slide and frame.

One last thing, just remember that I'm pickier then most when it comes to guns. Creep that I feel in the trigger, may or may not be acceptable to you.

YMMV just my .02
 
After already having revealed my bias, I'll back peddle a bit and tell you to just buy the one you really want. They're both fine guns and life is too short not to.

RJ
 
Thanks guys for the input, keep it coming. I don't mind spending more down the line to put the upgrades onto the Kimber, but I was just wondering if it is so much better than the Springfield to be worth the extra cost.
 
My dealer who sells both insists that the Kimber is a better value for the $$ spent. I have just acquired my first Kimber, an Ultra CDP, and am about to plunk change down on Custom Classic or Stainless Classic to be an "everyday" shooter.
 
Where does Springfield make their guns now? I thought I'd read somewhere that their guns are made in Brazil and Czech. now. If so, that's kinda sad as Springfield Armory was the country's first arsenal established in 1794, but I guess that's business!
 
My first 1911 was a Springfield "Loaded" in blue with cocobolo grips. My first day to shoot it, I went to the range and the two guys in the next two lanes saw the bright blue box as I came in. They both came right over and asked if they could shoot the Springfield--they offered their respective guns to me to shoot in exchange. One was a 1911 Colt custom shop effort with the most fabulous blueing on it that I have ever seen. The owner proclaimed it to be a $2500 gun and asked that I treat it gently.

The second guy had a Kimber Gold Match and it was gorgeous as well.

I faced a delimna--I'd never even shot my Springfield; did I want to "spoil" my first impression of it by comparing it to weapons that cost four and five times as much as it did? On the other hand, would I ever get another chance to shoot a Colt Custom or a Kimber Gold?

I shot their weapons.

Then I shot my Springfield.

The Springfield is STILL the only 1911 I own. It held it's own (in routine paper target shooting) with the other two and convinced me that I needed to spend my money on ammo and range time more than I needed to spend it on custom blueing and options...

I love my Springfield--my only complaint is that the guide rod wants to un-thread itself every hundred rounds or so...
 
The new Loaded Springfields might change the equation a bit. Most of the issues that ArmySon mentioned on the SA has been addressed. The front sights are now dovetailed instead of staked. They also have tritium inserts in 3 dot config. The previously sharp edges have been dehorned and a chamber loaded indicator was added.

Truthfully if you can actually handle the gun you will be getting, check out both and take the one that has the best fit and finish for the price. Also, keep in mind that changing the MSH on the SA should be about an addtional $30+ for the part.
 
I prefer the Kimber because of the less blocky grip. Turn them both over and look at the frame as if you are looking up the mag well and you will see the Springfield has a very square-ish appearance. Also,I have shot both,and the Kimber has a slight advantage in the accuracy department. Both are great guns and either will provide you many years of service.
 
I picked a Kimber over a Springfield based on the fit and finish of the respective models I handled. I don't have any recent experience, but it seems like they are pretty close. I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Pick the model that fits your "needs"
Z
 
Has anyone here seen one of the 2001 Springfield Loadeds? I've seen the web site catalog, looks interesting, but none of my local dealers have one in stock. How does pricing compare to the old ones?

Bri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top