[jwalker497]

Which on these would you choose for Carry and why? They are very similar in specs with the Colt being slightly lighter and cheaper. The Kimber also has a model that comes with the CT laser Grips.

 

[RETSUPT99]

I voted Kimber Ultra CDP because I have had one for my EDC for a couple of years without a problem, but either would be a great gun...which one call your name when you hold them?

This summer I switched my EDC to a Glock-36...for reasons other than dependability.:comeandgetsome:

 

[pangloss9]

I voted for the Colt because I think lighter is better. My coworker bought a Kimber Ultra Carry II with crimson trace grips back in the summer. I've shot it several times. It's a very nice gun. However, it often it fails to feed the last round and jams with the round half way out of the mag. In all fairness, I suspect the problem is with the mag. Whatever the reason, it happened four times in about 80 rounds last Saturday.

 

[1911-45]

I have a COLT defender Dehorned it and replaced the guiderod. Lightweight and Accurate.....

 

[TX-JB]

I have a Tactical Ultra and think it's great...Using Wilson mags will improve function 100%... the factory mags are poor...

 

[NoNameMan]

I voted for the Kimber because I have experience with it. I don't have experience with the Colt, but I'm sure it is a good gun too.

All of my Kimbers have been reliable. Early it its life, the Ultra CDP experienced some failures to feed. These malfunctions disappeared and the gun became my EDC for the time. I eventually let the Ultra go and got an Elite Carry (CDP Compact). It has not malfunctioned yet.

 

[mrog71]

I have the Kimber UC II with the crimson trace sights. The gun is awesome. I was going to buy the Defender mainly because it was cheaper, but I got an awesome deal on this gun. It shoots great, conceals great, and I love it. No FTF yet.

My brother in law has the Defender. It seems like a great gun too. Probably can't go wrong either way. I would handle both in the store and go with what feels better.

 

[jahwarrior72]

i have no experience with either, but i know people who have one or the other, and i'm friends with a shop owner or two. from what i gather, i'd get the Kimber. less issues out of the box, and great customer service, unlike Colt, who seem determined to go out of business by having some of the worst customer service in the world.

 

[TheTomcat]

Ive had and have both and I like the Kimber. They are both superb and really in a blind taste test you couldnt tell the difference, but the Kimber seems more "comfortable" to me. I have allways been a Colt man. But this thing is awesome.

 

[OD*]

i'd get the Kimber. less issues out of the box, and great customer service, unlike Colt, who seem determined to go out of business by having some of the worst customer service in the world.

Funny how these things go, my experience has been the complete opposite.

 

[SpringerXD]

....unlike Colt, who seem determined to go out of business by having some of the worst customer service in the world.

:blink:

Are you serious? I've heaerd nothing but 100% rave reviews on Colt's customer service. A couple of years ago, I needed a recoil spring for my Defender and they were out of stock. I called Colt just to ask if they knew anyone who might have one. The lady put me on hold for a couple of minutes, then came back, got my name and address, and sent me one for FREE from the service department. I even bought this gun used.

 

[JD]

I'd have to go Colt.

While the Kimber may be better equipped, at least you don't have to worry about your barrel rusting away on your Colt. Or that pesky break in period, or that goofy Swartz safety, or the hit or miss QC....


I know, I know, there are more happy Kimber customers than there are of us disgruntled ones, but don't discount our "bad luck" it can happen to you too. :smoke23:

 

[JD]

And not to pick on Jah, but these two posts don't match given my experience with 4 Kimbers and 5 Colts.

i have no experience with either, but i know people who have one or the other, and i'm friends with a shop owner or two. from what i gather, i'd get the Kimber. less issues out of the box, and great customer service, unlike Colt, who seem determined to go out of business by having some of the worst customer service in the world.

i'm a firm believer that a good gun shouldn't need a break-in period. my Taurus PT1911 has had exactly one jam since i bought it, on an old flat nosed Hornady, and i've lost track of how many rounds i put through; it's well over 1,000, at least.

in fact, i've never had a gun that needed to be broken in. triggers mat smooth out, and slides may wear, but considering what a gun may cost, it should work out of the box.

Kimber mandates a 400 - 500rd break in period. Some need it, some don't.

 

[gasmitty]

My choice was Kimber, hands down. Colt abandoned the civilian handgunner years ago, and neither their product quality nor their politics are on a par with Kimber's.

 

[tangoseal]

Kimbers good but they do not manufacture alot of the metal parts. They are made at Springfield to my understanding.

I could be wrong.

Anyways my carry is a 4" Tactical Pro II. I wanna get a 3" soon.

 

[JD]

Kimbers good but they do not manufacture alot of the metal parts. They are made at Springfield to my understanding.

I could be wrong.

Anyways my carry is a 4" Tactical Pro II. I wanna get a 3" soon.

You are. Other than maybe the mainspring cap, pins and springs, I don't think that SA and Kimber have any parts that even look remotely the same. SA uses different hammers, different main spring housings (Kimber uses plastic, SA still uses metal), different triggers, different safeties, different sights...

Of course this:

Virtually every part of every Kimber is manufactured from the finest raw materials in the state-of-the-art Kimber factory right here in America.

Might also have been a clue.

:bier:

 

[OD*]

My choice was Kimber, hands down. Colt abandoned the civilian handgunner years ago, and neither their product quality nor their politics are on a par with Kimber's.

Could you elaborate on this opinion?

 

[gasmitty]

Could you elaborate on this opinion?

Happy to.

Colt ownership was all over the map since the crippling UAW strike in the late '80s. To their credit, Colt invested heavily in new tooling for the model O (the 1911 line) around that same time period, replacing WWI-vintage production tooling. That alone was responsible for a quantum improvement in quality and fewer hand-fitting processes, but the lingering problem was that the talented and experienced work force at the time was out walking picket lines for 4+ years.

The strike ended with the sale of Colt to investors, including the Connecticut state pension fund and the UAW. None of those owners was interested in firearms, just profits. With the loss of big military contracts in the early 90's, Colt was again on the verge of bankruptcy and new investors took the company over. They put some "gun people" into key roles, but it was too little too late, and with the lingering stink of "scab built" guns (few of us gunnies in CT wanted Colts back then), sales just never returned to serious profitability. Ruger, Glock and S+W took not only the sure-money cop market, but the "civilian" market as well.

In the late '90's, one of the top execs at Colt made a profound statement about how "'civilians" [I put the word in quotes because some military person picked on me for using the word to differentiate between cops and non-cops. ] should have to undergo Federal training and licensing to own a gun. There was a hue and cry about that statement, and I believe those were "career-limiting" words for that individual. But a lot of us took that to mean that at its heart, Colt was simply not interested in civilian sales of modern, high-quality firearms. There is more than a vestige of this sentiment which remains, as you will read "Law Enforcement Only" on the receivers of the 6900-series carbines, which are perfectly legal in the majority of states. Colt will only advertise its fixed-stock AR models to the civilian shooters.

Meanwhile, the Colt revolver line was discontinued because the production tooling was at end-of-life, and would require a significant investment to replace. With the handgun market dominated by autoloading pistols, the profitability wasn't there, so the Cobras and Pythons and Dick Specials all went away.

About the only new products Colt produced which worked well and were popular in the marketplace were the Mustang-Pony-PocketLite and Government .380 series pistols. These were discontinued during the Clinton era and corporate politics played a part (i.e., Colt thought they would buy favor with the Clinton administration by discontinuing an obviously concealable pistol).

Back to the mainstay of the remaining Colt line, the Model O. The new tooling and manufacturing processes helped maintain profitability, but the majority of the "gun people" making those guns were gone after the strike and the downsizing. Again, there were no gun people running the company either, and quality has simply suffered. It remains to be seen if the new Colt boss - a retired Marine general - can turn them around.

Most of the quality comments do not apply to the Colt AR-style carbines, primarily because this is a late 20th-century design, and newer and more robust (fault-resistant) manufacturing processes were dictated by the original customer, the US military. ARs simply do not demand the level of skill in final assembly and fitting that revolvers and 1911s do.

In contrast, Kimber grew based on their reputation as a producer of high-end, semi-custom rifles and expanded their product line into handguns. They are a company created by gun people and run by gun people, and pay attention to their markets without having to kiss union butts or curry political favor. There have been a couple of quality hiccups along the way, like the external extractor which appeared several years ago but which lasted maybe 2 years at the most (lots of field problems). Isolated examples of "they couldn't fix my gun" exist, but overall they are committed to expanding their market and you don't do that by ignoring customer problems. We still don't really know who owns Colt these days (we know it's Zilkha, but we don't "know" them as we know Edelman, the owner of Kimber).

If someone gave me a Colt pistol made in the last 10 years, I wouldn't turn it down; they are not a bad pistol but they just haven't kept pace with the market or the industry, and they are top-dollar guns.

 

[ECHOONE]

definetly Colt,I personally think Colt is just a more reliably built pistol over the Kimber.Kimber has to many problems for the price they charge,few hundred more and you could have a true Custom 1911.Granted they have some innovated sweet looking pistols but way over priced and need to work on quality control!

 

[Dakota97]

I'll just say that I own both Colts and Kimbers and a Kimber is what I carry every day.