Colt or kimber?

I have never shot a Colt Revolver, but my father curses the Colt name up and down because he is convinced their revolvers are "crap." He says their older revolvers, the SAA mainly, are good but their later DA revolvers were junk. He seems to think you are only paying for a name when you buy a Colt DA Revolver.

They seem nice to me but I have never had the pleasure of shooting one.

Colt vs kimber

I own or have owned 9-1911's in the last 20+ years, 4 or those are/were colt 1911's . 3 Commanders and 1 compact. The compact is and has been my carry gun for over 15 years. It has been utterly reliable, never failed to feed anything from 200 SWC target loads to 230 hardball. It will hold 2-3" @ 50' with any good ammo.

That being said, I recently had the chance to shoot a Kimber Crimson Ultra Carry. Wow! It also fed anything I ran through it but in a group of less than an inch at 50'. And that was shooting one handed with a called flier.

My opinion is that while both are good, I'd definitely get the Kimber if the choice was open again.

FWIW

cyclopsshooter said:

Their revolvers-

Click to expand...

the only complaint is they stopped making them.

Colt defender, or a combat commander. Kimbers aren't worth the price in my opinion.

I would buy the Colt.

Colt

I have colts and kimbers. Colts function well so do my kimbers. Kimbers are fitted together much better than the Colts and are more accurate. I have always felt the kimber is like a colt that has been tuned up.

I really like my old Kimber. I wouldn't sell it or trade it. Except for a STI. Fired one last week. Will have one by next year or before.

I own a Kimber, Colt, and Springfield...the Kimber TLE II was the lowest priced and actually my favorite. As I posted earlier, I ran 1000 rounds w/o cleaning through 4 brands of mags and ZERO problems. It is the one I trust the most.

With the Colt you get better base parts and marginally more reliability. With the Kimber you get better finishing.

I will of course vote Colt...but then I really do not like "mini" 1911's.

But, If I did buy one again, it would be a Colt.

I'm voting for Colt because of my good experiences with the brand. On the other hand, I have no experience with Kimber and maybe if I did, I'd change my vote. Or maybe not.

Happy with the fifteen or so Kimbers I've owned, had a few Colts, admittedly not as many as I've had Kimbers, will never own another Colt. 'Nuff said.

As far as brands are concerned, I must be the luckiest sob on the face of the earth because I have both and both work well. I would buy either. How they work after it leaves the store has a lot to do with maintenance. I made sure I did my part.

However, my 1911s are all fullsize. For shorter .45acp weapons, there are SIGs, Glocks, HKs, etc, that more reliable, IMHO.

Think what you want guys or gals; but I have personally seen a few new Colt
1911's that were not up to snuff; so Kimber isn't the only one in town with
QC issues. One problem I found was on a Colt high $$$ pistol (forgot the
exact model; but it had a bead blasted electroless nickel frame]; and came
from the factory with a canted feed ramp. This pistol is in our show case,
priced at more than (>) $1700~! For the money difference,
give me a Les Baer TRS .45 ACP~!

Colt easily. Kimber pistols are junk, pure and simple. Not what they used to be, and price is too high. Stay with Colt!

Colt easily. Kimber pistols are junk, pure and simple. Not what they used to be, and price is too high. Stay with Colt!

Click to expand...

Don't believe everything you read on the errornet. A good running Kimber will hold it's own against any Colt.

Kimber pistols are junk, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

Shows how some people just don't know what they're talking about.

I know, marketing is the reason Kimber sells 10x more pistols than Colt annually. Yep, has to be marketing. Colt is a fine product, no doubt. Kimbers are junk, pure and simple. LoL. Good one.

I would go with a Colt. Less MIM parts in it, has a forged frame and slide, and if I MUST have a firing pin safety, give me the Series 80.

Out of 3 Kimbers and two Colts, the Kimbers were dogs. The Colts had 0 problems. But none of that matters to me anymore since I run Glocks now.

It was unbelievable the number of failures the Kimbers would have even after the required break in amount that Kimber always says. The Pro Carry made a trip back to Kimber and came back worse.

larryh1108 said:

I know, marketing is the reason Kimber sells 10x more pistols than Colt annually. Yep, has to be marketing. Colt is a fine product, no doubt. Kimbers are junk, pure and simple. LoL. Good one.

Click to expand...

Part of it is the marketing... but most of it is that Kimber just builds way more pistols than Colt does. They both sell out, but Colt hasn't pulled its head out of its butt and ramped up production the same way that Kimber has.

Kimber without a doubt is a better-run company.

Part of it is the marketing... but most of it is that Kimber just builds way more pistols than Colt does. They both sell out, but Colt hasn't pulled its head out of its butt and ramped up production the same way that Kimber has.

Kimber without a doubt is a better-run company.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, Colt has a little more actual hands on in the manufacturing process than others. So it stands to reason that if Kimber is doing more of the work by machine they should be able to put out more pistols.

I have read from more than one source that Kimber is king when it comes to marketing. Face it, they market the same way Glock does.

A better run compnay, in what way? Becasue of their marketing? I would rather a company pay more attention to manufacturing and improving that process and investing in better equipment and so forth than investing in multiple page advertisements in multiple magazines.

As I said earlier, I know longer have 1911's. But my history of shooting the 1911 includes 3 Kimbers, 2 Colts and two Springfields. All three Kimbers suffered problems, two were corrected and one returned in worse condition than when sent. The Colts ran well with one loosing a front sight. One Springfield suffered reliability issues due the two piece guide rod unscrewing while firing. The Mil-Spec ran like a top but had a heavy trigger pull. After making its way through the Custom Shop that was the sweetest 1911 I had owned. Wish I still had it but it was really a safe queen due to me shooting Glocks better.

Every now and then though the 1911 bug flies around a like mosquito but still hasn't bitten.

Back in the late 90's I had 3 Kimbers and they were great, sold them all off after a $1000 Super America had to go back to Kimber 5 times and the service manager told me I was crazy and should just sell the rifle. Thing shot brass straight up into the scope base and dropped it back into the chamber, of course they refused to mount a scope for testing it.

Since that time I have compared Kimbers to whatever I was buying and generally came to the conclusion that they are resting a bit on their laurel's and probably about $200 of every Kimber goes towards their extensive advertising. Let's face it, due in large part to marketing & fancy milling they are the Glock of the 1911 world.

A month or so ago I decided to buy a compact 1911 after selling my EMP 9mm and I had my heart set on the STI. I went to a local shop who stocks a lot of 1911 and had about 10 compacts to choose from (they don't sell Kimber, for a reason).

I looked at 3-4 STI's, 3-4 Colts and a few Springfield's. i was a bit disappointed in the fit and finish of the STI's, all of them. Two of them wouldn't lock back on anything but Wilson Mag's and they had fairly sloppy safeties. Of the Colts, the New Agents were the best overall and one Defender was a bit sloppy but still pretty nice. The Springfield's were nice but $100 more across the board. I went with the Colt Talo New Agent and have no regrets. Decent trigger and 250 flawless rounds so far.

Fast forward a couple of weeks and I find myself in the market for a 9mm 1911, went to another shop the had a good deal on the Smith Pro Series and while I was there compared it to the Kimber Aegis II. The Kimber was $200 more and honestly didn't hold a candle to the Smith. The Smith had more features, less MIM and a better trigger that was about 1.5# less. Overall it also had better fit and finish.

My buddy has an older Kimber in .40 and loves it. After about 2000 rounds the extractor broke which I thought was premature but Kimber did fix it for him and he was happy with the speed.

Sorry for the long post, just sharing some experiences.

I sold my KIMBERS, do yourself a favor and go with the COLT

My kimber has not had a single issue. Great finish. Awesome sights. I greatly enjoy it!

Can we get some explanation on the what makes a top quality pistol "junk"?

Split the difference and get a Springfield.