My son asked me to look up some initial info on afew 45's he's interested in looking at when he comes back from deployment.Not sure where he's gonna be able to handle them, maybe he has already, we dont get to talk much.So if anyone has experience with the following 2 chime in please. I dont have a specific model but just in general.

Kimber Tactical & Springfield Operator.

Between those two I would recommend the Springfield for two main reasons. First, in my experience the Springfields are more reliable, I've seen a number of Kimbers have problems. This is not to say that all Kimbers have problems, just whenever I see a factory 1911 break, its likely a Kimber. This perception might be skewed because Kimber might sell more guns. The second reason I suggest Springfield is because they are a series 70s gun instead of the Kimber series 80s. The big difference is that series 80's have extra parts to make a firing pin drop safety. These are extra parts which are small and fiddly. Springfield uses a titanium firing pin with an extra power firing pin spring to solve the same problem and passes the California drop tests just like Kimber does. The advantage is easier parts interchangeability and whenever there are fewer parts, there are fewer parts to break.

 

Just the other day I handled a stainless Springfield TRP operator and I was really impressed how well it was fitted, I've seen custom guns with worse fit and finish.

is he looking for a 1911 or just a .45acp gun?

 

I like the sig 220. Reliable and I like sigs. Recoil isn't bad.

 

AS far as 1911's go, I would look at S&W and STI. If he has a big Budget, I would be looking at Ed Brown.

is he looking for a 1911 or just a .45acp gun?

 

I like the sig 220. Reliable and I like sigs. Recoil isn't bad.

 

AS far as 1911's go, I would look at S&W and STI. If he has a big Budget, I would be looking at Ed Brown.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing, check out the Sig 220. I don't own one, but have shot them. High quality and very nice shooters. I do have a P226 .40 S&W which has been a fantastic piece. It has never hi-cupped and has been 100% reliable with over 2500 rounds through it.

 

In 1911, I have a Springfield Trophy Match which has been 100% reliable. I have heard good reports on the TRP.

definatly the 1911.

Between those two I would recommend the Springfield for two main reasons. First, in my experience the Springfields are more reliable, I've seen a number of Kimbers have problems. This is not to say that all Kimbers have problems, just whenever I see a factory 1911 break, its likely a Kimber. This perception might be skewed because Kimber might sell more guns. The second reason I suggest Springfield is because they are a series 70s gun instead of the Kimber series 80s. The big difference is that series 80's have extra parts to make a firing pin drop safety. These are extra parts which are small and fiddly. Springfield uses a titanium firing pin with an extra power firing pin spring to solve the same problem and passes the California drop tests just like Kimber does. The advantage is easier parts interchangeability and whenever there are fewer parts, there are fewer parts to break.

 

Just the other day I handled a stainless Springfield TRP operator and I was really impressed how well it was fitted, I've seen custom guns with worse fit and finish.

 

 

Big +1 on this one Vlad! BTW Kimber uses a better system than the series 80 Colt. Though I still don't like it!

Another vote for a 1911.

 

Harry

Springfield Armory has an excellent reputation, not only for their 1911 line, but for their excellent customer service. I shot a rental Kimber 1911 and did like that gun also. There are so many good choices out there, including Colt's, Springfield XD's, S&W, M&P, CZ etc.. Best narrow it down and bring him to a range that has a good variety of guns, like Shore Shot. For one price he can shoot as many guns as they have in that caliber. Also, I'm sure that most members here, myself included, would be happy to let him take their guns for a spin. In .45 ACp I have a Colt Combat Commander (steel frame) and a Ruger P90 which is a tank and not the most popular .45 out there. Shoots good though.

BTW Kimber uses a better system than the series 80 Colt. Though I still don't like it!

 

You are right in that is different, its a Swartze safety not a series 80, my bad there. I'm not sure if its better though, but I don't want either.

1911, Glock 21, XD45, M&P45, Taurus 24/7 OSS 45acp, Sig P220, HK 45, FNP 45, Stoeger Cougar, anything I missed?

 

All are good, all can be shoot if you go to a meetup this summer.

Between the Kimber and Springfield, I say Springfield. Sometimes, Kimber's can look nicer, but overall reliability I'd give an edge to Springfield. Springfield has a lifetime warranty - doesn't matter if you're the orig owner or not...Kimber has a 1 year warranty. Springfield has a reputation for some of the best customer service in the industry ( I can personally vouch for that), Kimber I hear is less than that.

 

 

I also have a Sig 220, a certified pre-owned from the factory. Has been dead nuts reliable, boringly reliable. However, it recoils more and just doesn't feel as good in my hand as a 1911. It mostly sits in the safe these days.

 

 

One last thing. 1911s can SOMETIMES be picky. Sometimes need a trip back to the factory, sometimes you need to find the magazines it likes the best. With a Sig, that's almost never an issue. But for me, its 1911 all the way.

One last thing. 1911s can SOMETIMES be picky. Sometimes need a trip back to the factory, sometimes you need to find the magazines it likes the best.

 

Buy CMC Power mags. If your gun doesn't work with them, odds are your gun as a problem.

Buy CMC Power mags. If your gun doesn't work with them, odds are your gun as a problem.

 

 

That's what I heard too. So before I bought my first 1911 i bought three of those mags. Couldn't get through 2 rounds without failure to feeds. Bought some upgrade kits from tripp research and they've been 100% ever since. Go figure.

Buy CMC Power mags. If your gun doesn't work with them, odds are your gun as a problem.

 

Wilson Combat mags are great too. Just picked up a few of their ETM mags recently and they are awesome... the factory mags that came with my S&W 1911 work really well too... no problems at all.

Buy CMC Power mags. If your gun doesn't work with them, odds are your gun as a problem.

I prefer Wilson's in my single stacks. Yes they cost more money, but they are much better than the CMC's.

I had issues with the CMC's in my .45

I prefer Wilson's in my single stacks. Yes they cost more money, but they are much better than the CMC's.

I had issues with the CMC's in my .45

 

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my experience the reverse is true. Also see Hilton Yam's take on 1911 mags.

Well, today my buddy and I put 100 rounds through my Sprinfield Armory 1911. The first time out with it I sucked! That is putting it nicely......

 

Today, after he watched how I shot (mainly squeezing the trigger) the first magazine and gave me some pointers, watch out! I had a lot of 9's and 10's at 10 yards. Ok, not too far, but for a newbie like me it was far enough!

 

Did some rapid-fire with 5 in the mag, did awesome! I am really suprised how little the muzzle would rise. Barely a pause between firings and I did pretty darn good with it.

 

Moved the targets out to 25 yards, much, much tougher with the low-profile military sights, would love to have a 3 dot setup on there, but at least I was hitting inside the ring!

Moved the targets out to 25 yards, much, much tougher with the low-profile military sights, would love to have a 3 dot setup on there, but at least I was hitting inside the ring!

 

Please please don't get 3 dot sights, sooner or later you'll regret it. Eventually everyone comes around to black on black, or fiber front on black rear. The dots are a crutch at first and shackles later.

Another vote for the Springer. Their reputation for their 1911's are stellar and their custom shop puts out some of the best product out there.

 

Please please don't get 3 dot sights, sooner or later you'll regret it. Eventually everyone comes around to black on black, or fiber front on black rear. The dots are a crutch at first and shackles later.

 

Never liked 3 dots, but I do like my Heinie Straight 8's (2 dots).

Please please don't get 3 dot sights, sooner or later you'll regret it. Eventually everyone comes around to black on black, or fiber front on black rear. The dots are a crutch at first and shackles later.

 

Um, speak for yourself. I like 3 dot sights. Either standard or night site, can't go wrong.

Um, speak for yourself. I like 3 dot sights. Either standard or night site, can't go wrong.

 

3 dot sights suck.

Deal with it.

Either standard or night site, can't go wrong.

 

Yes you can

Dots suck. That is the only thing wrong with the new Browning high powers. Give me an older one with black sights any day. But yes, front post, plain back works.

 

Ray ray, go try one.

Dots are not my favorite (I prefer fiber optic or black too), but I certainly wouldn't say they suck. I will take your word that they suck for certain applications or the things you compete in.

If someone wants to become a well-rounded shooter (i.e. competent with different handguns), then I don't think using them is conducive to shooting guns with different style sights well.

Some people are just looking for basic competence shooting a handgun, and aren't interested in becoming an IPSC guru. I think the 3-dot sighting system is useful for the shooters that set up targets at 7-15 yards and shoot away. I don't consider them a hindrance on a handgun that you would be using for home defense.

TBH at 7-15yards a guttersnipe type sight works too. Its not that 3dot sights are some how broken and dont work, it's that they don't allow you to get the most out of the gun.

Vlad G, please explain...... Three dot sights won't let you get the most out of the gun?

 

I am not touching the sights on my 1911, they will stay the way they are for now. I have a Beretta that is waiting for me to pick-up, 14 more days until the state "allows" me to use my next permit. Anyway, that gun has three dot sights on it. I will get to run them side by side and see how different they are.

Ok so here is why I disagree with with 3dot sights, I guess I should have explained earlier.

 

1) Most 3 dot sights I've seen have alignment issues. This can present itself either because when the dots are aligned the top of the front sight is not aligned with the top of the rear sight, or because the dots are not drilled perfectly centered (specially the front one), or because the paint in the dots is chipped/dirty/unevenly applied. Not all 3 dot sights have this problem but most of the ones I've seen had some form of one these problems. Yes, they could be made right, and I'm sure some are.

 

2) There are various theories for what makes a good ratio of front sight width to rear sight width. I subscribe the theory that says the rear sight notch should be twice the perceived width of the front sight when the sights are aligned. Basically I like to have half a front sight width worth of light on either side of the front sight. For me and others this allows for precise sight alignment. This however leads to needing either a very wide rear notch which leads to more slop or a fairly narrow front sight. A narrow front sight tends to not have lots of room for a painted dot. A fiber front sight can work well in a thin format because the fiber can very thin and immediately visible.

 

3) Painted dots work ok-ish in good light, but if you get used to looking for them you end up spending a lot of time searching for them and trying to align them in poor light. This can be solved by tritium vials (and fluorescent paint sucks as it quickly stops glowing or gets covered with crud) but they tend to be fairly thick requiring beefy front sights, and I think skinny is better.

 

4) Dots get dirty. Once they get dirty finding them and aligning them gets harder.

 

5) In bright light the front painted dot can produce a wash-out effect for the front sight making it a bit harder to see it accurately.

 

6) Aligning top of front sight and rear sight is more natural brain exercise, all you have to do is make a flat plane and see equal amounts of light on either side of the front sight (which is also why like the front to rear width ratio mentioned above). Making a straight line out of 3 circles is not the most natural thing and then trying to make sure the circles are equally spaced is a harder brain problem. Sure, is doable, it is harder.

 

7) 3 dot sights raise questions of where you zero your gun. If you zero to hit under the front dot, then your front sight partially obscures what your aiming at. If you zero to hit on the top of the front sight now you either have to aim low or align the dots and then look at the front sight top.

 

For me 3 dot sights offer not noticeable benefit and have to many draw backs, I replace them as soon as I possible. In order of preference, my favorite is a flat (and preferably serrated) rear with a thin fiber optic front sight, next is a flat rear with a skinny black front sight, next the 2 dot sight (like the factory Sig sight for example), followed by everything else. I'm not going to say 3 dot is the LEAST preferred one because I'm sure someone can come up with some steam powered rubic cube type sighting system that requires me to solve differential equations to align them, but it is pretty much to the bottom of my list.

I own a three dot Kimber so I guess I'm really screwed.LOL.

What the fugg.

 

I get hammered for calling HKs junk and everyone bashes me. Then someone bashes 3 dot sights and it's okay? Really?

 

To Each his own!

And for the record you can put electrical tape on my sights and I'll still hit what I'm aiming at. And now I'm done