[bob g]

I work hard for my money, as I'm sure you do. The cost is the same for a Kimber custom w/target sights or the SA custom loaded target. I will use as a range gun. Which is the best buy?
thanks,
bob g

 

[Orion]

Well, I'm willing to bet that in this forum you'll get more Kimber answers. If you have it posted in the Springer forum I bet you get more Springer answers. You tally the votes and throw out all the dimpled and hanging whatzit's

P.S. I'd say Kimber.

 

[Kevin-64]

I own both, in my opinion the Kimber is a better made gun.

------------------
Kevin

 

[n2299]

FWIW I am looking at a similar decision right now.

For me it's between the Kimber Custom Target, SA Loaded, or the Colt 1991 w/ new rollmark.

I'm leaning towards the Kimber at the moment. But I have been flipping back and forth between the Colt and Kimber so many times, I'm sure I will give you a different answer if you ask me again tomorrow.

 

[atilla]

Kimber!

 

[bowhunter]

I have had both and for my money its the Kimber. I have a Stainless Custom Target right now and it is better then any of the out of the box SA's I have owned.

[This message has been edited by bowhunter (edited 11-16-2001).]

 

[Gun Nut]

Originally posted by n2299:
For me it's between the Kimber Custom Target, SA Loaded, or the Colt 1991 w/ new rollmark.

As someone has already said, you are on the Kimber forum! But let me state my educated opinion.

I have held a Springfield Loaded and it seems fine for what it is. I think you are getting a good value for what you are paying for. You get lots of good features in the Loaded package and it certainly doesn't leave you longing for much. I would suggest to lurk on the Springer forum and listen to what people have to say about their guns. Part of what people say about Springer problems as opposed to what people say here about Kimber problems my help you to make up your mind.

Colt should be a decent gun also. If you are a Colt fan, they are making their best guns since 20 years ago. How long that will last...well that is the question. That company has been hit or miss from the 80s until a couple of years ago. I certainly think the Colt is also a decent purchase for the money. What I don't like about the gun compared to the Springer and the Kimber are the sights, thumb safety, and grip safety. The XSE models changed the parts from the XS models because of a contract issue with C-More and I just don't like 'em. YMMV.

I would hold all the guns you are interested in and see what fits you the best. Even find friends, or whatever that have the models you are interested in and go shooting with them. Maybe even rent a model out at your local range that does that stuff.

My opinion about the Kimber is that you get more features for the money than what Colt gives you. I think the Springer is feature rich for the price, and even gives you Novak's night sights. The Kimber is more expensive, but I think its feel, fit and finish make it worth the extra money. Again, YMMV.

 

[n2299]

Originally posted by Gun Nut:
..I have held a Springfield Loaded and it seems fine for what it is...

I agree that SA Loaded has good value for what you get. But the couple of SA that I have handle, I was impress with the fit and finish. I am also a little concern about SA's quality control.

Colt should be a decent gun also... What I don't like about the gun compared to the Springer and the Kimber are the sights, thumb safety, and grip safety..

I like the new 1991, and the idea of owning an "original". But I also know that one of the first things I would do to a Colt is replace all those parts you mention above.

.. My opinion about the Kimber is that you get more features for the money than what Colt gives you.... The Kimber is more expensive, but I think its feel, fit and finish make it worth the extra money...

That is about the conclusion I have come to.

 

[Kimberholic]

The recommendations you get here are completely unbiased. Go to your local Ford dealership and ask them if they prefer a Chevy or a Ford. But for what it is worth mine are great shooters and I would buy them again if I had to do it all over. I have shot two different Springfields and to me they just did'nt measure up to Kimber's quality. I, however, will never buy any Kimber II series guns. I don't believe the added safety is necessary or good for the design.

 

[MarkInND]

I guess the one thing that you should consider is the sights. You are looking at the Target model. Kimber is NOT very well known for making very good sights. My adjustable fell apart at the range with around 500 rounds through the gun (all light target reloads) and I had Kimber send me a new sight and the new sight seems loose and I forsee it also failing shortly. I will get the Heine fixed sight to replace the adjustable. I do not know what sights the Springfield uses. I also own a Colt 1991 and have fallen in love with it. Another thing to look at is the way the Springfield feels in your hands. They do not have the same radius on the front strap as the Colt or Kimber. Hold both, feel both and if possible shoot both and you will see that the Colt and Kimber are both good guns, but stay away from the target sights.

Mark

 

[DKN]

Just recently I went through the exact situation. I narrowed it down between a SA Loaded Parkerized with night sights and a Kimber Custom II, fixed sights with Walnut grips. Both were the same price. It seem that the SA gave you a little more for the money but I utimately went with the Kimber. Reason being, it seemed that there were a little less complaints about the Kimber, and the general consensus was that the Kimber was a little higher qualitity. I definately don't have any second thoughts.