Which full-size 1911 would you buy (assuming the $2,000 Les Baer/Wilson Combat/Rock River Arms, etc. is not "in the cards"). Haven't seen much written on the Para Ordance, but generally good things about the Springfield and the Kimber. I've held them all, and I can't say for sure that one feels "better" in my hands. How do these brands compare on quality, accuracy, durability, etc.? Thanks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Springfield vs. Para Ordance vs. Kimber
- Thread starter Oscar
- Start date
I have not had the chance to try the Springfield Loaded models, only the milspec ones, but of the three I have to go with Kimber. Para Ordnance makes a fairly good gun, but I don't care for their trigger or their sights. Plus you have to replace the plastic magazine catch right out of the box or it will wear out quickly. Springfields have a rep as reliable guns, but from what I hear here they have a bit of a problem with sharp edges.
Although you may read a few bad reports on Kimbers here, but from personal experience I can say they are the absolute best 1911 for the money made today. Have had nothing but 100% reliability and exquisite accuracy out of the four Kimbers I have owned.
Good luck in your decision.
Although you may read a few bad reports on Kimbers here, but from personal experience I can say they are the absolute best 1911 for the money made today. Have had nothing but 100% reliability and exquisite accuracy out of the four Kimbers I have owned.
Good luck in your decision.
Daren Thompson
New member
I bought a Kimber Classic Stainless target on Friday. Merry Christmas to myself. The gun is great. Around 75 rounds fired and no malfunctions of ANY kind. About half those rounds were homemade cast lead reloads that sometimes will not go fully into battery in my P-90. The problem is the ammo not the gun. I figured the Kimber might be a little worse with this ammo as the Kimber is a much tighter gun. Wrong, like I said no malfuctions. The gun is more accurate than I am. I say buy the Kimber.
Hope this helps
Later
Daren
Hope this helps
Later
Daren
Geschutzfeuer
Inactive
If you can find a better deal for the money than a KIMBER please let me know. I have had three and all were great. I would avoid custom shop products and stick to the base models. As ammo and experience go down range dress the gun with Wilson or Ed Brown parts. Hint MMC has a drop in adjustable sight for the KIMBER same as the ones on the Les Baers.
MDC
MDC
Oscar, I've got some of each, Colt, too. I've always considered 1911 pistols to be basic platforms, to be improved/changed to get the gun I think I need/want. That said, my Kimber Gold match hasn't been touched.If I could only have one, for carry or competition, that would be the one.
hi oscar!
you asked, so i'm going to offer my humble answer. if you are going to buy a 1911, and are a bit cost conscious, buy a base model kimber. they are the best bang for the buck, even among the kimber line.
as for springfield, i've said this before, but if you can find one that is nice and tight, and shoots reliably, keep it and spend the money to get a good dehorn job. to quote what i wrote on a different post, a hard malfunction clearance drill on a stock springfield will become a bloody hands drill automatically (the bloody hands drill is a great drill anyways!).
personally, i think that a gun is a tool, and if the tool works, use it. that being said, i prefer a tool like a kimber over one like the springfield because the springfield loaded models still use two piece barrels (rifled part press fit to barrel hood/barrel feet part to save money), they still use staked front sights, their frames are imported and of questionable hardness, and fit of parts seem *generally* behind kimber's quality. also, kimber makes slides and frames for nowlin custom, wilson custom, and mccormick custom (as well as most of mccormick's parts)- and while springfield makes the highly-publicized fbi gun, and sold some slides to usmc, i know of no major custom shops purchasing major components from springfield.
as for para-ordnance, my first gun was an alloy p13 which had major frame failure after only 1500 rounds. although your results may vary, my recommendation based on my experience is to avoid para alloy guns. i've put collectively tens of thousands of rounds through through kimber aluminum framed guns (ultras, pro carrys and my favorite compact al's) and never had a problem with their frames which are machined out of solid aircraft grade aluminum bricks. back to para, their steel frames are generally regarded as being soft as well. plus, they are series 80 (ick!).
but again, i'm just spewing forth my personal preferences- my bottom line is that if it shoots reliably, and you can shoot well with it, its a keeper, no matter who's logo is on the gun.
best of luck!
joe
------------------
www.skdtac.com
tactical accessories for self-defense and le
you asked, so i'm going to offer my humble answer. if you are going to buy a 1911, and are a bit cost conscious, buy a base model kimber. they are the best bang for the buck, even among the kimber line.
as for springfield, i've said this before, but if you can find one that is nice and tight, and shoots reliably, keep it and spend the money to get a good dehorn job. to quote what i wrote on a different post, a hard malfunction clearance drill on a stock springfield will become a bloody hands drill automatically (the bloody hands drill is a great drill anyways!).
personally, i think that a gun is a tool, and if the tool works, use it. that being said, i prefer a tool like a kimber over one like the springfield because the springfield loaded models still use two piece barrels (rifled part press fit to barrel hood/barrel feet part to save money), they still use staked front sights, their frames are imported and of questionable hardness, and fit of parts seem *generally* behind kimber's quality. also, kimber makes slides and frames for nowlin custom, wilson custom, and mccormick custom (as well as most of mccormick's parts)- and while springfield makes the highly-publicized fbi gun, and sold some slides to usmc, i know of no major custom shops purchasing major components from springfield.
as for para-ordnance, my first gun was an alloy p13 which had major frame failure after only 1500 rounds. although your results may vary, my recommendation based on my experience is to avoid para alloy guns. i've put collectively tens of thousands of rounds through through kimber aluminum framed guns (ultras, pro carrys and my favorite compact al's) and never had a problem with their frames which are machined out of solid aircraft grade aluminum bricks. back to para, their steel frames are generally regarded as being soft as well. plus, they are series 80 (ick!).
but again, i'm just spewing forth my personal preferences- my bottom line is that if it shoots reliably, and you can shoot well with it, its a keeper, no matter who's logo is on the gun.
best of luck!
joe
------------------
www.skdtac.com
tactical accessories for self-defense and le
Ned Roundtree
New member
I have a Kimber Gold Match and Springfield Trophy Match. Quality, fit and reliability great. The Springfield Trophy Match is extremely well built and tight. The Springfield is new and not entirely broken in yet. But both seem to be equally matched. When the Springfield has some more rounds through it, I'll test both in ransom rest to get definitive answer. But my gut tells me I will love both. Not a Para fan. Glocks are built for reliability. Stay with the Springfield or Kimber. My two cents.
------------------
Courage is only fear that has said its prayers.
------------------
Courage is only fear that has said its prayers.