Colt versus Kimber, your thoughts?

[SwampWolf]

I use my pistols for target shooting primarily, and I look for any collector/resale value if possible. I like well made, accurate guns of course, plus since I just collect and target shoot, I enjoy the fine look of great firearms as well. I'm not in a location that permits any type of carry, so guns are a sporting and aesthetic hobby for me. I love range shooting, and I enjoy admiring a solid, well made weapon with that classic, almost "art" type of look. Hard to explain with words, but I bet you all know exactly what I mean.

With the above criteria, I'd strongly consider Smith's Performance Center 945. Of course, it's not a 1911 per se but rather Smith's proven semi-auto chassis with 1911 controls. Beauty might be in the eye of the beholder but, IMO, "art" is an impossible to define (a pleasing proportion of things ?) absolute. In my eyes, at least, the 945 is a "well-made weapon with that classic, almost 'art' type of look." The only thing I'd change about it would be to make the grip angle the same as the 1911. Of course, some argue that that steeper Smith angle contributes to their exemplary reliability reputation (the cartridges being fed from the magazine into the chamber in a more straight-line attitude). I just prefer the aesthetics and the "feel" the 1911 grip angle affords.

 

[progunner1957]

Colt has some serious and ongoing QC issues. They seem to be getting better, but they are far from resolved. It is my impression that you are more apt to get a bum Colt than a bum Kimber.

I have heard people say the exact same things about Kimber.

I would buy a Colt or Springfield Armory over a Kimber. Why? Workmanship, reliability, less MIM parts - Kimbers are full of MIM parts as a cost-cutting measure, and the main reason: Kimber has the Schwartz safety and Colt and Springfield do not.

The Schwartz safety was invented by Colt in the 1930s and was a failure - Colt ditched it in favor of the series 70 design, and later the series 80 design. Kimber chose the Schwartz safety to avoid paying Colt a licensing fee for use of the series 70/80 design.

I had a Kilmber TLE II that I bought a couple of years back before I was aware of the Schwartz safety issue. The more I read and heard, the less confidence I had in my Kimber, even though I had not yet had any problems.

I recently traded the Kimber for a Springfield "Champion" 1911 (3.9" barrel, full-size frame) in stainless steel.

The frames of the Springfield 1911s are made in Brazil, and are stamped "Made in Brazil" on the underside in front of the trigger guard. Alot of people carp and b*tch about this, but upon disassembling the Champion, I found the workmanship on the frame - as well as the rest of the pistol - to be excellent. I have no complaints about the workmanship on the Champion at all.

About a year ago, I purchased a Colt Combat Commander XSE version in stainless steel. I was very pleased with this pistol - excellent workmanship, very good trigger pull and accuracy, no problems with reliabiliity. I ended up trading it to a friend, who is very happy with it.

IMHO, you can't go wrong with either the Colt XSE 1911s or the Springfield Armory 1911s. Alot of people like Kimbers, but with the Schwartz safety, I just don't trust them.

 

[Black Majik]

I'd go Colt. It's a legend, no MIM, no external extractor, no series II if you can live with the series 80 stuff.

Actually Colts do have MIM parts, but only a few parts are MIM on a Colt.

From a parts speculation, I'd go with the Colt, Colt uses better parts in their guns than the Kimber (heck most companies use better parts than Kimber). But the chances of a MIM part breaking isn't all that likely. Usually, if the part doesn't break in its early stages, then you're pretty much good to go.

Between Kimber and Colt, its a toss up. Both have serves well as my nightstand gun, I'd trust both. But, I'd try and get a Series I Kimber if you could (not current production pre-series II like the 25th anniversary). I mean a clackamas or earlier production Kimber. Seems that Kimber is having quite a difficult time producing guns that run properly. From the 1911 forum, Kimber definitely tops out on most # of complaints than any other maker. I know they have a high production count, but regardless... their percentage of producing a lemon is still quite high.

Colt, on the other hand, has gotten somewhat better. But they still make a lot of visual mistakes on a 1911 that should not be there. You figure for a company that has been making 1911s for decades they'd get things right. They're NRM Colts are excellent pistols, as well as the XSE and other lines, they run great. But its the asthetic faults on the Colts that bug me. Of course, theres the off drilled recoil plug holes, the overhanging slide from the frame, and the extractor that isn't flush with the rear of the slide. What also bugs me is how sharp those Colts come out. A slight dehorn cant be done to these pistols? Of course to some, the loose slide to frame fit bothers them, others it doesn't. For me, I like my guns to have a good slide to frame fit. Thats where I think Kimber did well in.

Tough call. Kimber vs. Colt. Honestly, I think I'd rather have a working MIMber than a working Colt. That horsey doesn't do me any different than any other quality maker.

The Kimber suits my needs better, even if they make their 1911s with those gawd awful looking grip safeties.

 

[Guntalk]

I really like Kimbers. Having said that, there are many 1911s out there, and more popping up all the time.

Taurus has a new one.

http://taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=1911B&category=Pistol