Printable View
Am looking at finally making the plunge for my first 1911 and am debating between the Tactical Ultra II and the Tactical Pro II. :danceban:
Any have experience with either of these two? Is the only difference the 3" vs. 4" barrel (both in 45)?
I assume the 3" will have more kick but more easily to conceal?
Thanks for your input!
I would want the 4 myself...,but I allready have a sub-compact gun.
I own the Pro but have shot both...they kick about the same. The 3" has a double spring (like the Kahr Compacts). I have a VMII for the 4", my friend carrys his 3" in a no name fanny pack...one round less in the three...see which feels better in your hand because the grip is shorter on the 3"..hope that helps.....
I have the Tactical Ultra II and carry it regularly. I normally carry a Glock 36 or 32 but find the Kimber just as easy to carry as the G36 and easier to hide than the G32. Unless I'm carrying against bare skin, like under a loose shirt in the summer, and then the ambidexterous safety bites into skin pretty good. The Tactical Ultra II is very accurate, easy recoil (for me at least), and never had a feed problem except with low weight hollowpoints like Corbon 165 gr because the sharp nose of the bullet digs into the very upright feedramp of the Kimber. I solved this issue by carrying Powerball 165 gr which never fails to feed, or 230 gr Hornady TAP or 230 gr Golden Saber. I have no problems with the grip at all but I don't have bearpaws for hands. The Kimber is a beautiful gun IMHO (and many of my friends opinions also) and I feel totally confident of its ability to do what I want it to do when I need it to do it. Other than a Glock, a cocked and locked 45, is my favorite carry gun.