kimber: pros and cons

[mattja]

1-500 shot reliablity with a couple ive owned, oddly enough the cheaper ones were better :/

Not odd at all. It makes perfect sense. The mid- to high-end Kimbers are manufactured with tighter tolerances to achieve "match" accuracy. 1911s were designed to run a little loose to improve reliability. Now you have companies like Kimber making them tighter but failing to put in the hand fitting necessary to make them reliable as well.

This is why you hear of problems with $900 Kimbers and Springfields, but not so much with the GI and Milspec guns that run a little looser, like the original 1911.

And you don't hear about problems with Ed Browns, which are match guns with many hours of hand fitting to make them as reliable as a Glock.

This is why for me, I either get a milspec and build on it or get an Ed Brown or Wilson that is match built and properly hand fitted for reliability.

[redcliff]

sorry but your comparing the sucky 40 cal glock to a 45 1911. Try a 45 glock instead they are extremely accurate and are a glock.

btw if you need another reason to heres like 50

http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90

I like Kimbers and they are a good version of a 1000 year old pistol design but we've moved on since dirt was born.

Nothing against Glocks, but I really don't care if my 1911 can sit for 12 years underwater or go 2000 rounds without a malfunction from lack of cleaning or lubrication (although my Springfield Pro is built to do just that).

I'll stick with the 1911's ergonomics, accuracy, vastly superior trigger and safeties. And I'll be sure to lube them at least every few hundred rounds and clean them every 1000 and maintain their utter reliability.