[RikWriter]

Tachyon said (at the end of the old thread):
I'll paraphrase Bill Wilson from his book "Combat Auto"
If someone put a Colt, a Springfield and a Kimber on the table and told you you could have one of them free and for nothing, which would you pick?


The Kimber, no question about it.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

 

[Roger D]

RikWriter:

OK, I'll bite - and hard.

I don't have any experience w/ Springfield.

I'd choose the Colt.

Why???
Because Both of the Kimbers have been fundamentally bad.

How???
The first (Gold Match Fall '99 manufacture) had an adjustable sight which didn't and was so poorly fitted into the "dovetail" (and I'm being kind), the gun wouldn't hold 2feet at 10 yards. Needed a new slide and rear sight - this a $1,100 pistol with 200 rounds through it the first day I picked it up.

Number 2 - Compact CDP, the thumb safety fell off last night! Yup, right when the hammer was falling on some vicious +P+ SNAP CAPS (during dry fire)!!!. 500 rounds through this piece of engineering marvel.

None and I mean none of my Pre-War Commercials, Pre-Series 70's, Series 70's and even the 80's have had any problems like that - minor glitches yes, parts falling off - NEVER.

The Kimbers are popular and certainly work well for some - but I've had enough.

Happy Fathers Day & regards,

Roger

 

[jrchilds]

Seems that Colt is making a fine pistol, gone to hell??? Don't think so.
Jack

 

[jrchilds]

Originally posted by jrchilds:
Seems that Colt is making a fine pistol, gone to hell??? Don't think so. I would pick the Colt.
Jack

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by Roger D:

None and I mean none of my Pre-War Commercials, Pre-Series 70's, Series 70's and even the 80's have had any problems like that - minor glitches yes, parts falling off - NEVER.

I hate to break it to you, but Colt isn't making any of those anymore. It's folly to compare Kimber or Springfield or even the new Colts to series 70 and pre series 70 Colts, because most people don't have the chance to buy those. They can either buy a new Springfield, a new Colt or a new Kimber.
Of those, the clear best choice is Kimber, followed by Springfield, then Colt.



------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

 

[FirearmsPlus.FL]

Originally posted by RikWriter:
I hate to break it to you, but Colt isn't making any of those anymore. It's folly to compare Kimber or Springfield or even the new Colts to series 70 and pre series 70 Colts, because most people don't have the chance to buy those. They can either buy a new Springfield, a new Colt or a new Kimber.
Of those, the clear best choice is Kimber, followed by Springfield, then Colt.

Colt doesn't make 80 series guns?
Obviously you dislike Colt. For myself personally, I'd take the Colt, then the Kimber. Either gun will have similar reliability, it just comes down to features. I like white dot sights, and the undercut trigger guard.
::shrug::

 

[Roger D]

RikWriter:

Right you are, most of those pistols aren't being manufactured any longer, but they are available to just about anyone at Gun Shows, On Line Auctions, Shotgun News, Gun List, Your handy Local Dealer and on and on...

Often, these Colts can be had for LESS than a new Kimber. For example, last month I bought a Series 70 Gov't Model absolutely new in its box, hang-tags & papers out of GunList for $700 + $25 shipping. I'd stack that up against a Custom, Target, Gold Match or just about anything else Kimber makes which sells for even hundreds more.

I'd advise anyone to do a little research, its amazing whats out there if you only look.

Please let me know why Kimbers are better than the current crop of Colts - I don't know anything about them.

Best regards,

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger D (edited 06-17-2001).]

 

[Simian]

I too had problems with a CDP model Kimber. It was the Ultra. The problem was with the mag release, sounded gritty and was not easy to/did not fully depress. It was a recurring problem. Also had a Pro Carry SLE. The accuracy was alright. I was able to outshoot it with a 1991 pre-stainless barrel and such. I'd take the Colt.

------------------
Simian

NRA Life Member

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by FirearmsPlus.FL:
Colt doesn't make 80 series guns?
Obviously you dislike Colt.

Obviously no, I do not dislike Colt. I own three Colt 1911s and like them all. What I dislike are people who ramble on and on about how "if it's not Colt, it's a copy" and how the other brands are no good and Colt is the only 1911 worth having.
The fact is, Kimber and Springfield have done a better job in the last 3-4 years than Colt has. They deliver just as good or better of a product at a better price.
That doesn't mean Colts are BAD, but it does mean they are not the best value for the buck right now.
I just think it's ridiculous how the Colt partisans can't admit that.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by Roger D:

Right you are, most of those pistols aren't being manufactured any longer, but they are available to just about anyone at Gun Shows, On Line Auctions, Shotgun News, Gun List, Your handy Local Dealer and on and on...
Often, these Colts can be had for LESS than a new Kimber. For example, last month I bought a Series 70 Gov't Model absolutely new in its box, hang-tags & papers out of GunList for $700 + $25 shipping. I'd stack that up against a Custom, Target, Gold Match or just about anything else Kimber makes which sells for even hundreds more.


Then you'd lose. I own a Series 70 Gold Cup and it is not as accurate as my Gold Match. The trigger is not as good. The Kimber has been 100% reliable. I love the Gold Cup, but if I had to choose between them I wouldn't think twice...it would be the Kimber every time.
Also, the fact is you can buy a Kimber Classic Custom for around $600 and older Colts are going for at least $100 more than that, and they are not worth that kind of jack.


I'd advise anyone to do a little research, its amazing whats out there if you only look.


I'd advise you not to assume so much about other people's knowledge. I know there are old Colts out there, but very very few of them find their way to gun shops and the ones that I see at shows are incredibly overpriced. I managed to find a good deal on my big-letter series 70 Gold Cup...$700 in the box with papers. But I see that gun for over $1000 all the time at shows, and it is not worth that much money.


Please let me know why Kimbers are better than the current crop of Colts - I don't know anything about them.

They are better because they have comparable features for less money with just as much quality and usually better accuracy.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

[This message has been edited by RikWriter (edited 06-17-2001).]

 

[dsk]

Well, throwing myself into the argument I have old Colts, new Colts, and non-Colts. I think in the end there isn't much to choose other than what you prefer. My choice is the same as Roger D's, for the old stuff. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the new stuff either. I just like the way they finished them in the old days.

[This message has been edited by dsk (edited 06-18-2001).]

 

[FirearmsPlus.FL]

Originally posted by RikWriter:
Obviously no, I do not dislike Colt. I own three Colt 1911s and like them all. What I dislike are people who ramble on and on about how "if it's not Colt, it's a copy" and how the other brands are no good and Colt is the only 1911 worth having.

I can see that, I just think you're going a little extreme the "other" way in response.

The fact is, Kimber and Springfield have done a better job in the last 3-4 years than Colt has.

I think Colt began turning around production around 97, with the intro of the Pony. The Defender in 98 also was a great introduction and an excellent weapon (that's what I have
I think the XS was a superior gun to the Kimber, for a comprable price. (Stainless vs Stainless)
The XSE is a step backward, brought on by money issues. The price is now above a Kimber's by 60-80 bucks. I do believe it's a matter of features with them. Comparing grip safeties, manual safeties, sights, etc...
Both are very well built.

I think the rollmarkings on the Colt is better looking. That's a minor issue and personal opinion of course.

I have only seen a few SA Loaded guns, since we don't stock them (too many problems in the past, and there's just no demand for them anymore)

 

[Roger D]

RikWriter:

Initially, any one of my Colts shot better than my Gold Cup. Many did even after Kimber replaced the slide and sights. Your experience is obviously different. I was hoping for similiar results, especially after spending over $1,000 1999 dollars.

My CDP is out of action from dry firing. I have the sales receipt for that gun - $1,089 and it fell apart. This kind of performance is not to be recommended - particularly in a defensive weapon. If the new Colts are similar in performance (even forgetting price), then I'd choose not to buy those either.

As for making assumptions, I don't - was simply pointing out that I believe it wise to consider used Colts as viable alternatives. Others of course will differ.

Regards,


Roger D


[This message has been edited by Roger D (edited 06-18-2001).]

 

[Tachyon]

To be fair to Bill Wilson, the comment I paraphrased was in the context of building a custom gun on a production frame.

To actually answer the question that this topic asks isn't as simple as the Kimber fans or Springfield fans would want to believe.

Colt experienced financial difficulty several times, and continues to experience the pressures of the market today.

They lost the M16 contracts to FN (A foreign company) shortly after the military changed to a foreign design and manufactured pistol (Beretta). During the difficulties Colt experienced, the State of Massachusetts stepped in and bought a good portion of the company. This is the same MA that has the laws preventing the sale of pistols manufactured after a certain date. (You MA residents could fill me/us in on that date if you wished.)

Springfield and Kimber started to agressively market functionally equivalent pistols that were made with less expensive parts, labor and manufacturing processes.

Colt, which is a unionized company, didn't have the operational flexibility to "source" parts and streamline their manufacturing processes.

Thus, the jewel of the American small arms industry was run almost into oblivion.

Today, Colt is trying to return to its place of prominence in the industry. It's products have improved dramatically since the dark days of the '80s. Product design, manufacture and marketing are showing promise. In the meantime though, Springfield and Kimber haven't been standing still. They still use less expensive parts, outsourced and overseas subcontractors or vendors; and are able to deliver a product at a lower cost with more features than Colt can.

It's called a free market, capitalism or economic Darwinism. Sometimes companies get complacent and lose the domination they held at one time. Colt has done that. Sometimes companies are so late in realizing that they've made a mistake that they can't recover.

I really hope that Colt can continue to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and return to at least market parity.

To the Colt fans: Root for Colt. They are improving and may return to the glory that they once enjoyed. It will be a long, hard battle; but it can be done.

To the Kimber/Springfield fans: Remember the old military truism - Your weapons were manufactured by the lowest bidder. Are you comfortable with that?

 

[RikWriter]

Originally posted by Tachyon:

To the Kimber/Springfield fans: Remember the old military truism - Your weapons were manufactured by the lowest bidder. Are you comfortable with that?

You see, THIS is exactly what I was talking about. Up till this point, there was nothing in your post I would have disagreed with. But you, like most Colt partisans apparently, can't leave it at "I like Colt, I think they make a good product." You just HAVE to go bash the competition.
I am amazed that you don't see how juvenile this seems.
The fact is, neither Kimbers nor Springfields are made by the lowest bidder so that "military truism" is basically a non sequitur to this conversation and is thrown in simply as a mindless dig at the competition.
Sigh. Just depressing to see such a lack of objectivity.

------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure

 

[Redzone]

I'd choose the Colt. I already have a few and another would be good. If my selection was narrowed to the Kimber or Springfield. I don't know which I'd chose. It would then be down to the inspection process. Would'nt I look silly talking about the choice as obvious with a Colt? On the Kimber or Springfield Armory section.

 

[Tachyon]

RikWriter,

Kimbers, Springfields and yes, even Colts most certainly ARE made by the lowest bidder. That's what business is about. If you don't respond to the demands, no matter how irrational, of the market you find yourself playing catch up with someone else. That's what has happened to Colt.

Some companies make products to be sold in quantity, and their products reflect this. Others, (Les Baer and Wilson come to mind) make products from top notch parts with extra attention to detail.

If you want to throw those folks into the mix, Colt, Kimber and Springfield all make very poor products. Yes, I know about the Colt and Springfield Custom shops, and I presume that Kimber has the same. The fact is that these products aren't representative of the primary products sold by these companies.

This of course has nothing to do with the topic of Why did Colt go to Hell.

If you're posting in a Forum called "Colt" then you should pretty well expect fans of the Colt Company as well as Colt Products.

Since we (specifically I, but I think it applies to others as well) are a little insecure about the past and current state of affairs at Colt, we tend to be more critical of other companies.

Of course we would be wiser if we were to nod our heads and say, "Yes, we can learn from our mistakes and Kimber's example."

Unfortunately, we're a community of opinionated people who sometimes choose our opinions over wisdom.

I, for one, make no apologies.

Tom

 

[Redzone]

Well I can agree that the mass produced guns. Are'nt up to the performance of the Wilson or Les Baer 1911 based pistols. But on an equal to equal basis. I would take a 91 over a Loaded or Supermatch. I might change my mind if the Supermatch and 91 were free. And I could choose one of them.

 

[James]

I like Colt and I like Kimber. I think it is a toss up as to which one is going to be a better gun when you buy them. Each company has had its problems.

Personally, I don't understand why these threads keep popping up as it always generates the same back and forth brand loyalty (don't you guys get tired of reading it time and time again?)

Here's a suggestion: accumulate a few thousand rounds and come to NC. Pick your brand and I will choose the competing brand and we'll shoot until one of them stops or until our hands fall off just to see which one is better. If your gun outlasts mine then I will gladly admit that that particular Kimber/Colt is better than my Colt/Kimber.

After we are done with that, we can line up the mustangs/camaros and then go running in our Nike/Reboks/Asics

 

[CastleBravo]

Dang, I'm suprised this sucker is still around.

Oh, as for that Delta Elite... well, it broke. Dramatically.

It's off at BCP getting fixed as we speak. This makes the Delta Elite the only handgun I've owned that failed utterly. However, there is a good chance that that was due to somewhat "questionable" work done on it by a previous gunsmith so FWIW Colt probably isn't to blame for that one.

As for the free gun question, I'd take the Colt... because I could sell it for the highest price later! How dumb is that question? Have any of you people seen how much they CHARGE for Colts nowadays?

------------------
CastleBravo
The Pit: http://www.geocities.com/mr_motorhead/index.html