I am trying to decide between a Kimber .45 ultra compact (3") and the Springfield lightweight compact .45.
I have been all over this forum as well as the 1911forums. I cannot seem to find the answer to my questions very easily.
What I am looking to know is this:
Which maker’s gun is the most likely to work the best straight out of the box? I understand there is a breaking period, but I have heard too many stories of having to send them back to the shop to get them straight. No gun is perfect and each manufacturer can have problems.
Full disclosure - I am leaning towards the springer.
Well, one of the reasons you can’t find a good easy answer to your question: there isn’t one.
Go pull 3 Springfield’s off the shelf, and they’ll all be just a bit different. Same with Kimbers. Run 500 rounds through each of those 6 guns, you would probably have a couple run ok, one or two not run well at all, and maybe one would be great. It is just hard to say because of the nature of a 1911 and all the parts that have to be fitted, and tolerances that have to be adhered to make the gun function. Not even well, but just to function.
And then you’re also dealing with an inherently problematic version of the platform: if you boil it down to its simplest form, a 1911 is designed to run FMJ on a 5" form factor. Anything smaller has been redesigned, and if you do your research and talk to the folks who make guns run really well, they’ll tell you that smaller than a 5" is a compromise.
Personally? I run a 4" Kimber and it runs really well. But it will soon be replaced by a 5" that I’m having custom built. The 4" runs well, but not “perfectly”. But then again, it is a mechanical device- can it ever be perfect?
A lot of folks say you have to break in a 1911, and to a line built gun there’s a bit of truth to that. But still, it’s not unreasonable to expect to have a smith tune up a 1911 to get incredible reliability.
Is there a reason you’re looking at a 3.5" versus a larger frame? Even a commander sized slide on an officers frame?
Good info. I am mostly looking to figure out which one my odds would be the best with. Do I have a greater chance of getting a decent or great pistol with the Springer or with the Kimber.
I am looking at the Springer Loaded Micro Compact because I am looking for an everyday carry gun. I want a small and lightweight 1911.
The Kimber I am looking at is the Ultra Carry II. However, I am not a fan of their extra safety. I have heard it can cause problems and is a solution to a nonexistent problem.
They are the same weight and same size, but the Kimber is a bit less in $.
I own a Springfield Micro-Compact. I did have a feeding/magazine issue when I first bought it years ago. (I bought it the first year they were produced, whatever year that was) Springfield sent out their modified magazine and I have not had an issue since.
I must admit, I carry it a lot and shoot it very little. I did shoot it in some “BUG” gun matches and still practice with it, but nowhere near as much as I do my 5" guns.
Between the two, I’m more impressed with Springfield Armory’s warranty and customer service. As was said previously, you’re already dealing with “an inherently problematic version of the platform”, so if you do get a bad roll of the dice, I’m more confident in SA’s response. The one time I sent a slide back to SA for repair, they sent a mailing label and had it back to me in a week.
Plus, I share your misgivings about the Kimber Swartz safety.
As an aside, I’ve wondered if Smith & Wesson’s ‘E’ series external extractor might have an effect on some of the reliability issues with the shortened 1911s.
“Which maker’s gun is the most likely to work the best straight out of the box?”
Neither. Micro 1911’s from any vendor are substantially less likely to run reliably than a full size 1911. Keep in mind with 1911 pistols that calibers other than .45 ACP and barrels shorter than 5" induce increasingly greater problems. I personally will not use any 1911 with a Schwartz firing pin safety (like on the Kimber II pistols) as I have seen high numbers of them fail; the Colt Series 80 firing pin safety is the only one I might trust for urban LE use, but they have also been known to fail in harsh environments (particularly surf zone and high dust) so I generally prefer a standard USG style 1911 pistol w/o firing pin safety.
If you want a micro carry pistol, you would be FAR better off and much more likely to have a reliable pistol out of the box by getting a G26 or M&P9c…
It baffles me why someone would carry a 1911, much less a micro 1911 as their primary weapon system in this day and age. Can we get over the trigger and focus on capability and functionality?
The Apex FSS trigger is the most 1911 like trigger I’ve seen in a polymer pistol…trigger issue solved for less than the cost of either of those 1911’s.
And yet, it is an SA vs Kimber thread… There’s no “Vs” buying a Kimber over SA = a better understanding of what makes a quality 1911 needed on your part. If you take the advice of those who have forgotten more about the 1911 then most (including me!) will ever know, people like Yam, Vickers, etc, that answer would be very clear: SA
Let it be known however neither gent will ever recommend 1911 platform guns so far out of it’s original spec, e.g., the short barrel, which greatly reduces their reliability. If you want a compact CCW gun, get something designed to be one, not something forced into being one, which cause all manner of problems.
Probably won’t change your mind, as a lover and owner of 1911s myself, it’s not the right gun for most people most of the time.
If I’m going to carry a 1911 and not a Glock I will only carry Government length guns. I have seen nothing but problems out of micro 1911’s from ANY maker. A Commander length IMHO is as short as you want to go if reliability is your primary concern. Even then, I would probably have it gone over by a top grade smith.
In todays day of modern firearms, I think that there are better options out there for compact carry guns.
I’m having a ard time fathoming why you would want to spend that kind of money on either pistol, when you know that reliability is an issue with both of them
I would NEVER trust my life to a 1911 with a barrel less than 4.25", and preferrably 5". Properly carried, a 5" 1911 is more concealable than a Glock 19 or M&P Compact. You’re getting full ballistics of the .45 ACP from a 5" gun and the extra barrel length when carried IWB actually stabilizes the gun better.
I could see spending the $$$ for the bobtail S&W “E” series 5", or better yet, the bobtail Dan Wesson, but I’d never waste money on the two guns you seem to be interested in. They’re nothing more than a novelty and you’re more likely to have issues than not. But hey, it’s your money and your life, so do what pleases you! :rolleyes:
Because a 1911 has some advantages depending on the user and the situation. It can be a very versatile pistol. Even a full size 1911 is fairly easy to conceal due to the fact that it’s extremely thin. So you can have a full size defense pistol in an excellent defense caliber with you if needed. If you have ever carried a pistol concealed, you’ll notice that width is far bigger issue than length. Is a Glock, Sig, HK etc conceable? Absolutely, but you have to dress around them. A 1911 takes less effort to conceal. Is one of the newer designs, more efficient? Yep. So like everything, there’s a trade off here and in some situations, I think the 1911 is the better choice. If you’re a guy that won’t maintain the gun or spend what’s necessary to maintain it, it’s not a good choice. As I said, depends on the situation and the user.
I’m having a hard time understanding this as well.
OP, it is your money, but when people like LAV, Hilton Yam and Doc say neither is a good choice to defend your life with, I would stop and think again before buying either gun. The last thing I want to be thinking about during any type of fight is whether my equipment will fail me or not. I’d rather concentrate on the task at hand. Also, are you aware that Wilson Combat won’t produce a 1911 with a barrel shorter than 4". This says something immediately.
Just my opinion and as previously stated, it’s your money and your life.
I inadvertently posted in the 1911 forum where people can be apologists for the platform’s shortcomings as a combat pistol… I realized that I might have started some thread drift. Let’s leave it here before we get any more off topic.
LAV rocks a Glock, and Yam and Doc are pretty big M&P proponents. Just sayin’. Okay now we can officially stop the thread jack!
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I’m not saying that the 1911 doesn’t have shortcomings. I was saying the 1911 also has it’s strengths and everything is a compromise depending on what you want to use it for. Also, based on the OP’s original choices, I think we’re talking CC gun, not duty gun.
Since you quoted me, I’m not sure what you’re responding to here. I was saying to the OP that he might want to reconsider his choices based on what many SMEs say about micro 1911s. In short, I was agreeing with what Doc has said earlier and what I think you’re saying now; which is consider something else such as a Glock 26 or M&P-C if he wants a micro gun.
The Schwartz safety is a problem waiting to happen. It can be damaged by simply assembling the pistol with too much force while holding it improperly, and you won’t know it until it fails.
I have a Colt alloy officer’s model, and for the size there are better choices out there. If you’re heart is set on a micro 1911 be prepared to troubleshoot the pistol and stock up on recoil springs.
I had a Kimber CDP 3". It ran perfect. I put about 1500 rounds through it before I traded it.
That being said it did run flawlessly for me. My friend not so much. His friend it ran okay. Ive found if you dont really hold on to the small 1911s they wont cycle right, atleast thats the only thing I could conclude since it didnt run right for them, but they would hand it over to me and it would run perfect again.
I carry a 5" 1911. I tried to love glocks and I just couldnt get into them. I could shoot them pretty well and the capacity was nice, but I picked my 1911 back up and fell in love with it all over again.
IDPA really proved to me why I carry a 1911. I could shoot faster and more accurate with a 1911 than I could my glock. It also just felt “right”. Its hard to describe, but I felt I had to fight to shoot the glocks well and the 1911s I could shoot perfectly without trying
Probably wont be going back to polymer handguns again
