Any Kimber fans here?

[LS2Tuner]

I know I already mentioned the Dan Wesson. But, if I really wanted to spend Kimber money on a 1911 I would just buy a nice Colt Series 80 Government and do some custom work to it. That way it would be a real Colt 1911 and would be customized to exactly what you want. It would probably cost about the same. I have 2 1911s...a Colt Commander and the Dan Wesson Government and I love them both.

When I got rid of my Colt Gold Cup and upgraded to the Para it was the best "upgrade" I have done with my firearm collection.

[jad628]

Glocks are for fags and women I've owned a Glock 19 and 23 but I just don't like them. I have a .45 Springfield XD which I like alot but that thing is sooooo heavy with a full mag. MUCH better quality than a Glock or S&W M/P.

Sidearms are part of my livelihood. Your comments about Glocks and the M&P series are completely off base. Springfield makes good firearms I agree, but a XD is not "MUCH better" than a Glock or M&P.

Glock has twenty years more experience in the polymer frame business and their products have been proven over that time.

[jad628]

I've been thinking about picking up a Kimber Pro Carry or a Tactical Pro II but I don't know alot about that brand. Alot of people seem to like them but I've always been a Springfield fan when it comes to 1911s. I looked at Wilson Combat and Les Baer pieces but DAMN those are expensive as hell!! Thoughts?

Let me explain this in F-body LS1 terms:

A Kimber is like an SS. It is a premium version of a product that usually has everything the buyer wants.....in stock form, and is less likely to be modified.

A (example) Springfield 1911 is more like a Z28. While it has the main, basic, performance levels of the SS, it will likely be purchased by someone who will want to modify it to a level that exceeds what a Kimber has in stock form, at a price that is lower.

Does that help?

Kimber makes excellent firearms. If you have the means and want to keep it as is, buy it. You will be satisfied with the goods.

[Packy]

Let me explain this in F-body LS1 terms:

A Kimber is like an SS. It is a premium version of a product that usually has everything the buyer wants.....in stock form, and is less likely to be modified.

A (example) Springfield 1911 is more like a Z28. While it has the main, basic, performance levels of the SS, it will likely be purchased by someone who will want to modify it to a level that exceeds what a Kimber has in stock form, at a price that is lower.

Does that help?

Kimber makes excellent firearms. If you have the means and want to keep it as is, buy it. You will be satisfied with the goods.

Very well put! Also keep in mind what you are going to intend on using it for... Some guns are better suited for certain types of use.

[nitrox28]

Sidearms are part of my livelihood. Your comments about Glocks and the M&P series are completely off base. Springfield makes good firearms I agree, but a XD is not "MUCH better" than a Glock or M&P.

Glock has twenty years more experience in the polymer frame business and their products have been proven over that time.

It's not completely off base. I've owned a couple and the overall quality was good. They never jammed. They shot straight. My XD was just better in all aspects.

[jad628]

It's not completely off base. I've owned a couple and the overall quality was good. They never jammed. They shot straight. My XD was just better in all aspects.

Well we'll leave it as a polite disagreement. Glocks work when they are supposed to. Many, many tests, both by Glock and independent research, have confirmed that. Excellent durability and above average accuracy for a combat grade pistol. #1 priority with a weapon is that it fires when you pull the trigger. Glock is a leader in that respect.

Our department was issued a number of S&W M&P's for our own trials. Half were fired straight out of the box - with only a preliminary cleaning - for 10,000 rounds each. Not a single one failed or had a breakage.

The other half were exposed to different types of abuse. One was dropped off a building, several others were put in rubbermaid bins full of sand or mud, shaken violently and then left to let the material soak into the nooks and crannies, then fired. It took a LOT to make them fail to cycle.

I personally do not like the rake angle of the Glock grip, and much prefer the more 1911-ish style grip, but that doesn't make it a bad design. I carried my Glock 23 for about five years and fired several thousand rounds through it. Never a bobble and the lowest I ever shot was a 99.2 (two rounds in the seven area...barely). The S&W 99 on the other hand proved to be a mediocre handgun and prone to breakage and stoppages. Both made it a liability for a carry gun. S&W realized that, and the M&P series proves it. I put the M&P on par with Glock offerings as the two best polymer frame pistol series on the market. The XD series are very close, but they just don't have the "duty carry" history that helps to solidify it as a primary choice.

Packy made a good point about picking a firearm based on what your needs are. Not many military folk will dispute the reliabilty of an AK47. It goes boom, period. Is it a quality weapon? Not from manufacturing standards; stamped metal, plain wood, etc. Accurate? Well, at shorter ranges it's fine. Go past 300 yards or so, it ain't the best choice. Both the rifle and the round aren't designed to be tack-drivers. Still, in close contact with a foe, the AK is a good choice. Thousand yard + sniping? Only a desperate man would consider it.


Same holds true with the Kimber question here. It's all a matter of what the purchaser expects of the weapon. For normal, practical pistol use, a Kimber is a fine choice.