1911Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

247 Posts
Originally posted by vapors750:
I wouldn't be so certain....see the other thread here about Kimbers Service.

First, I have used the custom shop with excellent results. Dennis always took care of me with no delay. I read the service thread and don't doubt the validity of others claims. Fortunately my experiences have been different.
Allow me to explain why I think the Kimber is a better product.
A side-by-side comparison of my Kimber Stainless vs. my Springfield Loaded (stainless) model yields the following conclusions. (I have looked at many examples of each to make sure mine is a representative one.)
The exterior finish on the Kimber is in a different league. There are no visible machine marks anywhere. The ejection port shows smooth radius with no visible machine marks. The cocking serrations are radiused at the bottom as is the bottom edge of the slide. The sights fit tightly into their dovetails. The rear sight sits flush with the rear of the slide. On my Springfield the cocking serrations and the bottom of the slide WILL cut you. There are visible machine marks left on the bottoms of all of the cocking serrations. The ejection port has sharp edges that have not been radiused. Machine marks are evident. The rear sight stops way short of the rear of the slide. The slide to frame fit of the Kimber yields no discernable play in any direction. The Springfield is loose enough to rattle when you shake the gun.
The Kimber grip safety fits tighter in all dimensions than the one on the Springfield. It allows a much higher grip. The finish is the same color as the frame. The Springfield finish appears to be plating and does not match the frame. The Kimber frontstrap has a higher cut under the trigger guard, too. The trigger on the Kimber fits in the frame with much less side-to-side and vertical slop than the one on the Springfield. All of these slight dimensional differences contribute greatly to a more comfortable hold on the Kimber. The last major difference of the two guns on the exterior is the much larger and "squarer" aspect of the grip on the Springfield. This is a shooter preference area, however. Other exterior differences that I appreciate on the Kimber are the extended magazine release and the allen screws for the grips and mag release.
The Kimber barrel is fit tighter in all dimensions, too. There is no discernable play at the muzzle or hood and the bushing fits tight. The Springfield bushing is loose and the barrel hood may be depressed with light pressure. Lockup on the Springfield is repeatable, however, and accuracy is not bad.
Finally, the Kimber hammer, sear and disconnector, while MIM, are fit to much beter tolerances and produce a crisper trigger directly from the factory. The half-cock notch on the Kimber hammer is cut so as to protect the sear from damage should the hammer ever fall forcefully to half-cock. The Springfield lacks this cut. The Kimber sear shows signs of at least some polishing on the nose while the Springfield shows none.
These are the reasons I believe Kimber to be superior to Springfield. Your comments are welcome.
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.