Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns S&W 1911 vs Kimber 1911

I know S&W's are made in the USA.

Not sure if the Kimbers a 100% USA.

At and rate who mades the better?

Thanks

I have both & both are fine pistols & mine work perfectly but I've taken steps to be sure that they do.

If you cannot resolve minor issues for yourself, today, I recommend S&W over Kimber for a variety of reasons as I think your likelihood of getting a good one right out of the box is a little higher.

S&W also has a lifetime warranty; Kimber's warranty & service can be less than good..........I also don't believe that a gun needs 500-1,000 rounds to perform reliably, but that is likely the logic you will get with Kimber for any reliability issues you may have during that period with the gun. The mantra is "you have to break it in".

If you get a S&W, get one of the newer E-Series as it does not have the FPS system, unless, of course, you prefer that feature.

MM

Kimbers are all made in NY, USA.

The Kimbers usually need a break in period because they are fitted tight from the factory, something that is conductive to good accuracy in 1911s so I hear.

I vote Kimber.

Are the Brazil S&W's made in the same factory as the Springfields??

500-1000 rounds to break it in? Really? Seems like a copout to me---don't bug us about your problems. Yet I am hearing more and more tales of new gun buyers being told that. Can't they make a machine that reciprocates the slide and dryfires the thing for the required period?
I'm sure we'd not accept that thinking from any other high dollar purchase. As in: "I'm sorry Sir, but our refrigerators will malfunction for the first six months, you know, you gotta break them in for awhile". Or "We intentionally build our new Ford trucks to jam up at highway speeds for awhile--until it's broken in".
I'd say go with the one that claims to work properly from the box. Who can afford to waste 1000 rounds doing R&D the manufacturer should have done?

A friend of mine built six of the top ten finishers 1911s at last years Bianchi Cup. He breaks his guns in with 500 or so rounds before he gives them to a customer. When you have everything fitted that precisely sometimes things have to be tweaked a bit as the parts marry.

Kimber ain't building, or ever will build, a gun in the class with what my friend builds, so I'm not totally buying the 1000rd thing, but a few hundred rounds isn't an unreasonable request.

That's news to me. I believe you're confusing Springfield and S&W.

Yep. Here's a clue...

As I re-read my post I clearly had a brain fart. I meant that the Springfield armory 1911s are made both in the USA and Brazil.

S&W's made in Brazil ? News to me too.
I do understand that S&W makes the frames for Kimbers as well as it's own guns.
I own a simple, dead nuts reliable Stainless Target Custom Kimber. Never needed any breaking in. And it shoots several loads into 1.5-2 inches at 25 yds.
I've shot the S&W's. Really dig the trigger job our local smiths did on a buddy's. And I reaally like their grooved front strap. Also very accurate.
If I were to buy another 1911, I'd probably go with the smith. That's because they "talk to me" better than most of the Kimbers for some reason. But I certainly wouldn't turn down a sweet Kimber either. E

Haven't fired a S&W but i do like my kimber ultra carry.

Kimbers guns are made by Jerico Precision Manufacturing Corporation in Yonkers, New York. If you look closely at a S&W you�ll notice that many of the parts are identical to those Jerico makes for Kimber and Chip McCormick company; I�d be surprised if Jerico doesn�t make the frames as well, but who knows?

Understand that in today�s 1911 market, almost no one actually makes the entire pistol anymore, and many makers don�t actually manufacture a single part, rather they assemble and finish the parts that become the gun. Taurus is the only maker I know of that actually makes the entire pistol, from forging frames to pins, springs, assembly finishing to market. Colt�s actually forges frames for their 1911�s and makes the major parts and many of the minor parts. Colt�s union contract has some say so in any parts that are out-sourced.

Springfield buys both finished and 80% frames from Imbel in Brazil. According to a gentleman I know who has close connections to Imbel, while touring the Taurus factory he was shown a forge that was turning out 1911 frame forgings and he was told they were for Imbel.

Many of the 1911�s made today are an assembly of many of the same parts. So it really comes down to who assembles the parts best, or more consistently. This is why it�s often hard to say this 1911 is always better than that 1911. Kimbers and S&W�s are damn near the same gun, so it�s just a matter of who puts them together best. I currently own a S&W and I�ve shot oodles of Kimbers over the years and I honestly can�t say one is �better� than the other.

It's okay, GG, we understand - but we'll never let you forget it!

Kevin - which parts of the Ruger are not made by Ruger (just curious)? The rear sight says "Novak" - what else?

X2

I really don't know, the Ruger's so new on the scene. Ruger has been making 1911 slides and frames for nearly 20 years though for other makers. I don�t believe Ruger does any in-house MIM, so chances are any MIM part is not made by Ruger, and most any investment cast part is. Given the state of things, my guess would be that there are many parts not made by Ruger. Even though Ruger is THE pre-eminent investment casting house in the US, and an impressive manufacturing facility, the fact that there are oodles of very good quality 1911 parts makers out there would make anyone, even Ruger seriously think about what parts they want to make, and what parts are just easier to buy. Setting up casting is expensive. Setting up to manufacture MIM parts is REALLY expensive. If parts are already made and are cost effective, why re-invent the wheel. Ruger already made frames and slides�just source the internals and you�re good to go. This is all speculation on my part, don�t know for a fact how much of the Ruger is made in house. But understand that when I speculate, I�ve worked for manufacturers before and I have a good idea how they think.

The frames are made by Pine Tree Casting which is a Ruger subsidiary. PTC also manufactures frames for Caspian. If you look at the two raw frames they are identical - Ruger even uses PTC photographs on their website. The dead giveaway is the integral plunger tube.

I see semi-auto pistols as something that is going to operate better with a little fine tuning. I have a Kimber pro-carry and I had my ups and downs with it, especially during the break in period. But, I have a good load for the pistol, it shoots well, and I have dry fired and fired the gun to the degree that it is well worn from my hands. Today, it is as reliable as I could want, cheap to realod for and a pleasure to shoot.

Not that the Springfield or host of other 1911's are bad. I am waiting to happen upon a good deal on a Series 70 Colt.

SW uses an external extractor, Kimber uses an internal extractor, my next will be the SW E series.