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.

Why do you want a Series 70 Colt ? They are good guns. Heck, I've owned one since 1971. But I don't see them as as refined a gun as the modern Kimbers. E

E, I would give you a modern Kimber any day in trade for a Series 70 Colt, let's trade first then I will tell you why....

I have owned a few Kimbers and currently own an Ultra Raptor that I really like. The only reason I don't care for the S&W or SIG is the external extractor - it's a purist thing.

Purist?

Nothing wrong with the Ultra Raptor, but it would be tough to find a '1911' farther off the reservation.

People act like the 1911 sprang from JMB's loins fully formed, or it was handed to him on a mountaintop like the ten commandments. For chrissakes, it took him like 10+ years to develop iterations of the basic design, and various features like the grip safety and grip angle were foisted on him by the Army. Of course, if its primary importance to you is as a religious totem rather than a tool, I guess things like the extractor could make you foam at the mouth.

You might as well tell us. My Mk.IV, Series 70 has a history with me so it's never going to be sold or traded. E

I bought a kimber from a member here who worked for kimber so her kind off polished it up a little but it has been nothing but a joy to own and shoot. It sits ne xt to my bed ready to rock and roll if need be.

One thing I don't like about my Kimber pro caryy is that I need some stupid little device to dissassemble the barrel/spring assembly from the slide.

The reason I want a Series 70 is because during the course of a couple years, I worked at a recreational pistol range at Camp Pendleton and had the opportunity to shoot a lot of differnet hand guns. As a fan of the 1911, one of my coworkers considered selling me his series 70 for a good price, but he ended up backing out of the deal. He let me shoot it, and I'll be damned if that pistol didn't shoot like a million bucks. I have not shot any handgun as accurately as I did that one, and I have wanted one ever since.

Just a WAG since I am real far from being a 1911 expert, but the Colt Series 70 had a spring finger collet � four �fingers� grasping the barrel instead of a solid round one - which supposedly held the barrel more firmly and repositioned it to the slide more exactly.

My Series 70 was extremely accurate, it would cut raggedy one hole groups at 25 yards even with the issue tiny military style sghts.

One caveat is that those spring fingers could and did break. One of mine did and it tied up the gun solidly with the slide half way back, two people had to grab it and give mighty heaves to finally pull the slide back to unjam that finger. . It would have been a real downer had I really needed the pistol in operation, no way to easily clear that jam.

Since I was more interested in reliability than target grade accuracy we replaced it with a solid collet and it ran perfectly from then on.

So true. Funny how people forget that the current love for 1911's didn't even start until Kimber started manufacturing them in the late 90's. Now everybody makes a good 1911.

I think I speak for many people here when I say........huh????

I'm sorry but I fell in love with the 1911 when I got to own a Colt Gold Cup Back in the 70's. I'm still kick myself for selling that one.
When I got interested in combat shooting a few years later, I spent a day shooting up some extra target wadcutter ammo in my grandad's old 1911. That long triggered, and flat main spring framed 1911 really impressed me with it's handling and "shootability" on that day. I've conveted them ever since. E

Where in the H did that come from?..................Hb

You need a history lesson or help reading?

I really don't have a horse in this race, but I will offer this observation about one gun: my Kimber Eclipse Target II is easily the best-shooting pistol I've ever owned (and thus far, 100% reliable). It's not going anywhere I don't go.

...I can't speak for VaHillbilly, but I'd settle for an explanation of Kimber's impact on the "current love for 1911's"---maybe you were just being sarcastic (I hope).

The Kimbers are great unless their a II version.

Kimber was the first mass-produced 1911 that was worth a crap. Better than Colt and good enough to give the custom made lines a scare.

Suddenly, anybody could buy an off-the-rack 1911 with all the features of custom guns - at a little over $500. Colt was pure excrement, and Springfield Armory hadn't figured out how to build a good gun yet. Para was Canadian and only shined in the high-cap frames - which Mr.Bill killed with his 1994 "crime bill". And Kimber is extremely popular today, even in the face of a lot of competition.

Why don't you know this? Can't stop playing video games long enough to google it yourself?

I think he's just delusional and a smart azz to boot, he may just be some kid on daddy's computer passing out insults..............Hb

...where the heck did that come from? What's wrong with you? Not really interested in getting into a pissing contest, just trying to figure out why you think that Kimber is the catalyst for 1911 popularity. Based upon what you've said, I still don't know the answer, but I do wonder what color the sky is in your world.

I have to disagree. I'm hardly an expert, especially when it comes to the development of the 1911 or high-end custom guns. I got my first 1911 type in 1982 and have been shooting them ever since though. Colts are/were hardly "excrement". They were the standard by which all others were judged for a long, long time. Colts were always fine shooting ball ammo. Where they failed was in shooting hollowpoint ammo and this was not even an issue until hollowpoints became prevalent back probably in the mid-seventies. Target shooters and reloaders would shoot SWC ammo and Colt's typically would not feed this either, unless you got the National Match/Gold Cup. That particular gun was definitely an answer for those who wanted an out-of-the-box gun with features rivaling custom 1911's.

By the '80s we were seeing several manufacturers making 1911's and competing with Colt's. Springfield Armory, MS Safari Arms, and Auto Ordnance come to mind. The gun that really revolutionized things IMO, was the Norinco. Norinco started having their 1911's imported here in the late eighties and they would feed hollowpoints. Suddenly, Colt was forced to offer a 1911 that would feed something other than ball ammo, which is something they had never done before unless you paid extra for the Gold Cup. The 1991A1 came out and Colt quietly upgraded their other guns. Now most name-brand guns feed everything, but give credit where it belongs, sadly, to the Chinese.

Nope, not even close to the truth. Especially with Norinco. Norinco was an excellent CHEAP starter platform - at least they were heat-treated - something that AutoOrdinance couldn't seem to do right (AO's were major POC). But a Norinco was mil-spec 1911 - not a modern* 1911.

Kimber's were tight, heat treated, came with everything you used to pay a smith to do, and feed all bullet profiles reliably. Suddenly Colt was something to wipe your rear with - why buy a Colt, which you had to immediately send to a smith, when you could buy a rock-solid Kimber off the rack? For a while, you couldn't give a Colt away.

SA didn't make a modern 1911 until long after Kimber was dominating the market. And the rest of the manufacturers you mentioned are gone because they produced a crappy product.

Kimber was the first company to sell a very good mass produced modern 1911. And that is what started the 1911-revival - and I'm still seeing young guys buying a modern 1911 for their 1st pistol.

* "modern" is not what your grandfather carried in WWII.

"For a while, you couldn't give a Colt away."


Hey dla, if you know anyone that wants to give away their Colt 1911, let me know! :-)

IIRC, Kimber bought out an out-of-work aerospace company that was a victim of Clinton era defense cuts (remember "Falling Down?") They were then in possesion of the most sophisticated CNC cutting/tooling equipment in the gun industry. This made a much more precisely manufactured 1911 possible without a lot of hand fitting, supposedly.

Rockburner I got seconds behind you for the Colt give-a-ways!

Every company has its time with issues no doubt. I was born and raised not far from the Big Blue Onion. I knew a lot of people that worked there from goodtimes to bad. When companies are run by bean counters that only look at the bottomline bad things happen. When companies go public and have to answer to investers again bad things happen.

Another problem that Colt like many other manufacturing companies here in CT and the Northeast faced was lossing skilled machinist,deburrers, file workers to higher paying aerospace companies. Something that really doesn't get published in gun magazines. Not a mile as the crow flys across the Connecticut River was the then still Mighty Pratt and Whitney/ United Technologies. In the hight of the 70's and 80's it was a sure thing a family member worked there or for a vendor of theirs.

Then came the 90's and well things changed here drastically and fast. Not making excuses for bad choices and Unions that surely killed the Northeast Manufacturing businesses forever. But there is always more to the story, "Your story,their story, and Somewhere in the middle the truth".

1911 history as recorded in Bizarro World.

....life's very simple and uncomplicated for you dla.

I believe that what he's trying to say (vary badly) is that Kimber was the first manufacturer to offer beavertail safeties, hi-viz sights, etc. before that, you had to buy a Colt with pimple sights and send it off to a pistolsmith to get it all tricked out.

How should I say this? B.S!

I unfortunately had to sell my pre-Series-70 Colt National Match, manufactured ~1967 IIRC. And not everyone makes its equal.

Hey, if you've got a better answer then lets hear it. I'm amazed at how some of you think your singular 1911 experience proves me wrong. Talk about your bizarro world.

Well to quote John Wayne, "Life is tough, and its tougher if your stupid".
Read, learn and then post.

thanks dla---I appreciate your heart felt sentiment and will aspire to not be stupid anymore. Perhaps if you posted more, I could read and learn and maybe aspire to your level of logic. Thanks.
Your pal,
G

Same here. I have a 70 Series and an 80 series Colt. I like them but prefer my Kimber Custom Carry II. The 70 series is my least favorite and it will bite the web of a careless shooter. I know. Were I to sell any, the Kimber would be the last and the 70 series the first.

O

You are on. Send me a pm. Oh yeah. My 70 doesn't have that collet finger stuff. It has a proper 1911 bushing.

O

There's absolutely nothing that a Series 70 Mark IV Colt brings to the table, performance wise, that a new Kimber doesn't as well, other than the fact that the Kimber has a FPS, which is easily gotten rid of or deactivated.

Every Series 70 that I've had my hands on needed the barrel to be throated & the magazines reworked (or changed out) in order to feed hollow point bullets reliably.........& the best of that era were the Super-Vel 190 gr loads at a little over a 1000 fps & they were very, very flat.

Kimbers (& most other top tier guns today including Colt) have throated barrels.

I love the older Colts, but they are what they are until you help them to become the equals of current top line 1911's.

MM

Mon..,

If the 70 Series brought something of value to the table they'd still be in production.

A VERY anti-(hand)gun state !!!!!

They are (page 14 of the 2012 catalog http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtPistols.aspx), minus the collet bushing. Demand was so high they brought it back. Not unlike Coke bringing back the original after the new Coke flopped.

The revival of Colt's quality control has been as epic as their previous decline was.

Saying that Kimber was responsible for the 1911's popularity is silly. There were millions in service before Kimber even started making .22 rifles, let alone 1911's.

Colt had union/corporate problems in the '80's and quality was hit & miss, but practical/action shooting was growing in popularity. That opened the door for Springfield & others. AMT made their clones, which were mostly junk, but interested a lot of people.

By the 1990's Kimber had reorganized & recapitalized after going bankrupt in Oregon. With new equipment they figured out that they could fit a gun tight, and coached their sales people to shake the gun in front of prospective buyers. Colts of the day rattled, and many new 1911 afficianados (me included) thought oh Kimber must be better. Kimber also was able to sell at good prices with the modern equipment, and the use of MIM for small intricate parts, like safeties and extractors.

Colt rebounded, the 1911 continued to be popular, and other folks got in the game, like Wilson, Baer, Ed Brown Sig, S&W, etc.

Of the production makers, I think Colt currently has the best batting average, but S&W is very close, and would get my nod for the OP's question. Kimber is not close, I've seen too many fail, and seen too many reports of failures. I have one in 10mm, and it's a fun pistol, but not reliable enough for defense.

This is neither here nor there, but somewhat related to the hijack at least; if anyone has data showing total 1911 sales in the US over say the last thirty years I would love to see it. Broken down by maufacturer and compared to other autos in general would be nice too while I'm asking.

I would like to see it too.

And they made an over-priced pistol missing all the features of a modern 1911.


Here we go into bizaro world again.....



What you are saying, and I agree, is that Kimber made a much better product and sold it for less money.


Back to bizaro world again...



Funny how you can forget about the smith work required to get a Colt to run. Or have decent trigger. Or feed something other than 230gr ball. Or have sights you could actually see. Or not snake-bite your hand.

See you seem to forget that Kimber was shipping a quality feature-rich 1911 while Colt was shipping doo-doo. That's why Kimber led the 1911 revival. Les and Bill wouldn't have been in the 1911 business if Colt had been capable of delivering a decent 1911. Every shake a Les or Wilson? They don't rattle either.

I'm positive that there many very, very good 1911 choices today, but back in 1997 when I was comparing the offerings, the Clackmas Oregon Kimber Classic was head-and-shoulders above anything else for the $.

Here's a little humor - a video that sums up the Obama experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4nvhAZ0vr0 - enjoy!

I am with DLA on this one. Lots of 1911's sold over the years, but there were NUMEROUS gunsmiths who were charging boo koo bucks to make them what they SHOULD have been anyway. Kimber made a ready to rock 1911 that outshot the Colt by a wide margin for a reasonable price. Other companies followed suit. Sure there were Randall's (I had one, OK gun) and others but the advent of the fully equipped, tight fitting frame/slide, good sights and trigger, beavertail grip 45 1911's began with Kimber and started the trend that we all now benefit from.

I had to hand polish a few parts on my last one to get it to run 100%, but such was a small price to pay, IMO, for the wonderful gun it was when I had it.

FWIW, Kimber is FAR from the only pistol manufacturer to suggest a break in period of firing before its guns are considered reliable. Kahr arms, Kel Tec, come to mind.

The first Kimber I bought was a Stainless Gold Match Series I, from ~1999 or so, and I think today it's still the 2nd most expensive pistol I've ever bought. Yes it grouped well. 40-50 shots in, it would start jamming, unless it was cleaned. Whoever beadblasted the gun did a sloppy job, such as blasting areas that should have been left smooth, like the trigger raceway. It needed a trigger job, also partly due to too much creep in the trigger. I bought a Series 80 Gold Cup. It cost $500 less than the Kimber, did not jam, and shot just as well as the Kimber. In fairness, it needed a trigger job as well. The Kimber went down the river.

I've owned 21 different 1911's, buying my first ones in the mid-1980's, and have shot many others. I have one Kimber, as I mentioned, two Baers, and the rest Colts. I'm not sure what Obama has to do with 1911's, or why you think I'd drink his Kool-aid, but I'm basing my opinion on more than a small amount of data.

As far as Kimber's history goes, behold your Bizzaro world:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimber_Manufacturing

Got any more brilliant points to make?

You also forgot to mention that Springfield armory, not just Kimber, was gaining market share. I've owned one of them, and it was very reliable. In general I think SA builds a more reliable gun than Kimber. So does S&W.

And Springfield's frame and slide are forged, not injection molded.

Mark, you're a good guy and very knowledgeable, so I want to be clear my sharp reply above was prompted by dla's Obama remark and blatant errors, and was not directed at you. You deserve a thoughtful and polite reply.

When Kimber got into 1911's, they had a well deserved reputation as a quality builder of rifles. After their reorganization, they took up 1911's. Wilson Combat had started making complete guns in 1996, and Les Baer was at it about the same time. Colt was about broke and bled to death by Colt Industries, the holding company. Springfield was making 1911's by then as well, and IIRC, they tended to be tighter than Colts, too.

Kimber was and is very good at "perceived quality" issues - fit and finish, USA Made, styling, and handling qualities - taking lessons from other makers of that day. They were very well positioned in the market, and grabbed a lot of market share right off the bat. I think if you got a 1st or 2nd year Kimber, it was probably a heck of a bargain. By the time I bought my first one, the prices had risen, in some cases more than Colts, and the quality was, IMO, not so hot anymore. They clearly had a successful business in those days, but I am not sure you can call it a trend they started.

We definitely are lucky today that there is so much competition in 1911's, which helps keep quality up and prices down.

I don't own a 1911..but I have shot everyone else's!

I'd take either over a Wilson.
I know Wilson fans are everywhere. But I've never shot one that didn't jamb at least once.

Looking for S & W myself.

Problem with your bizaro history lesson is that you make it sound like Wilson and Baer started up after Kimber.

At least you got part right: Colt was shipping crap. Kimber shipped a better quality pistol with the features people wanted. Regarding prices, you compared a Cadillac to a Yugo with your personal experience of a Stainless GM versus a vanilla S80 Colt.

As far as prices today - yes they are shocking. But thanks to Obama's spending fueled inflation they will continue to rise. By the way, just glancing at a couple dealers, Colt Govt Model XSE blue goes for $250 more than a Kimber Classic Custom (equivalent features). I counted 98 different versions of Kimbers.

So, as you noted, it was Kimber that really started the 1911 revival, which is what I've been saying from the beginning.

Gotta corrrect that in fairness to Kel-Tec. K-T doesn't say any such thing. In fact, their manual states (paraphrased)...

(Emphasis, mine.)

Doesn't even sound like they're suggesting anything except that the pistol should work perfectly from the beginning.

Nothing in the manual or on their website about "break-in" period. I can't imagine, given the generous clearances in their pistols I've seen (including the one I own) why anyone would suggest they need a break-in.

BTW - to the OP...I have yet to hear of any S&W 1911 needing any sort of break-in, polishing, or whatever to make it work right. Kimbers, OTOH....plenty.

Read my posts again. I was comparing the Stainless GM to a Gold Cup, not a plain S80. Not sure where you got the idea I was saying Baer & wilson came after Kimber - I cited 1996 as the date Wilson started making complete guns, and Baer was at Springfield's Custom Shop for several years before he started Les Baer Custom, which was about the same time as Wilson did the same.

And I stated that I think Kimber borrowed ideas from other people, and positioned themselves very well in the market - at least initially. I do not think they can be credited with "starting the revival", as it was already started before they reorganized.

I glanced at Gunbroker - you can find several XSE's for sale under $1K, but Kimbers are about the same price, depending on the dealer and exact item. I'm glad you've got the free time to count 98 variations of Kimbers - I don't - but I think they need to do fewer styling exercises, and work to improve reliability. The buzz on them today is that they are substantially worse than any of the other major 1911 manufacturers.

Texncal,

Thank you for the kind words, no offense or such taken. I appreciate your posts and intel as well. Another of the good guys here,IMO.

Freeme, My intel regarding break in is frm the KelTec Owners group web site. You are probably correct that the Official position of Kel Tec is no break in neccesary but I have had a couple that shot better after some rapid fire smoke the gun up excercises. On the other hand, my wifes P3AT has never bobbled from day one, even dry with no lube and right from the box on a day that was well below freezing temps. Shat every type and kind of ammo We are VERY impressed with that little gun.

Uhhh. Minus the collet bushing it's not a 70 series Colt. So they didnt really bring it back because it brought nothing of value to the table it's just another 1911. My guess is, people really wanted something that wasn't an 80 series Colt. So you and Colt proved me right. Neither of you had to go to all that trouble

O

Out of curiosity, what makes the II version take a back seat to the pre-II version?

I have a CDP II and believe it is by far the best handgun I have ever owned. And i have owned quite a few Colts, both 70 and eighty series plus a few pre-70 series. Plus several SA's.

The SII has the Swartz-style firing pin safety, which is theoretically a good idea, but not always executed well. Colt tried it in the 30's and abandoned it.

Here is one thread on the subject:

http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=65284

...good catch OC---the Series 70 technically means w/collet bushing. Unfortunately Colt has accepted the colloquial use that currently is used for anything without a fps and now THEY use the moniker. Not sure how you define "value" - but Colt obviously saw some or wouldn't have gone to the expense to re-tool to make the guns sans fps. This year they're coming out with a full size Wiley Clapp Govt Model to match the Wiley Clapp Commander---both are non-fps guns, so they obviously see some "value" - you may not, but I suppose it depends upon what you're comparing their guns to.

Whether you were proven right or not is of course dependent upon your viewpoint----a little chest beating is good at times.

Nothing. Back when manufacturers were scrambling to meet various state's safety laws, they added a few parts to create firing pin safeties. Adding parts to solve a non-issue rankled the old forum geezers who then deemed Kimber "series 1" to be better than Kimber "series 2".


Obama's reelection plea - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4nvhAZ0vr0 -enjoy!

I suspect it actually costs less to make a Series 70. Not only do you lose the parts to have the FP block, but you avoid the drilled hole in the slide, and the lever cut in the frame. The Wiley Clapp guns are awfully appealing, may have to add one

The collet bushing is something I'd actually like to work with. Theoretically, it should get rid of all slop in the barrel, but they did have cracking and breakage problems. I'm not so sure that a little attention to detail wouldn't fix the problem, and keep the benefit.

... you're probably correct tnc, but they'd have to sell a bunch of them to pay for the re-tooling costs as I'm pretty sure their Series 70 equipment from the old days is long gone. Plus the expense of having two production lines/machines/tooling to manufacture both simultaneously.....it's really remarkable from a manufacturing standpoint that they do both. There would have to be quite abit of demand to justify it from a management standpoint.

I've got one and love it --- except that it's got some sharp edges that should have been "melted" that dig just alittle when you shoot. It's a great, comfortable all-day carry gun though.

IIRC, Irv Stone made some collet bushings on some of the BarSto barrels early on. I don't remember hearing of any problems with his, but once Colt had some issues with the fingers breaking and tying up the gun, it probably killed the demand for any collet bushings. FWIW, I never had an issue, but did see a couple that did.....one of those ideas that works great on paper and in reality as long as nothing goes wrong.....then the consequences outweigh the benefits.

Just my two cents here......I've owned four of the Kimber .45s at one time and still own two as I type ( slowly) this.
Two Kimber Classic.......one of which was a Yonkers piece, one Target and one Royal...still own one Classic and the Royal. Good, snug well made pieces with a couple of sharp edges, but for the most part just very good guns. 10-8 sight on one and pretty soon I'll get 10-8 with the widest notch and brass bead front for the Royal. The Classic gets carried al the time and was shot in two classes with nary a bobble. All of mine have been series 1 guns. No broken parts, no unexplained problems.....just work as slick as a cats backside.

If I were to get another 1911......it would be a S&W scandium Commander size piece. That is about as easy a gun to carry as any......hardly know it is there.