Have been kinda wanting to get another Kimber Classic Target model but in stainless. Saw a Springfield Armory "Loaded Target" .45 today, first time I'd ever examined one, and was more or less impressed. Comparing features on the respective websites they are very comparable - beavertail grip safety, ejection port same, "target" trigger, "match grade" barrel and bushing (whatever that means behind the advertising copy), etc. etc. Plus the SA comes with an ambidextrous safety, something we southpaws appreciate. Prices are comparable as well, low to mid $800 for the best deals on gunbroker. The store where I saw this one wants $879.99.

The SA was tight, I'd imagine it would take some shooting to get really broken in.

I have the Springfield XDm in .45 and 9mm (made in Croatia), but I am mucho impressed with both of them. SA customer service was real good,too. AFAIK the 1911's are made in the USA, same as Kimbers.

So - any particular reason to favor one or the other? My old original blued Kimber Target was really accurate, as in sub-1 1/2" groups at 25 yards. Anybody know that the SA wouldn't be as accurate? I like the Kimber but for same-same features plus the ambi safety, any particular reason not to go back and try to talk myself into the SA?

Kimber classic Target II - http://www.kimberamerica.com/1911/custom-ii/stainless-ii#/1911/custom-ii/stainless-target-ii

Springfield Armory Loaded Target - http://springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=24

I'd go with the SA

I would too. I've got one. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether it's made in USA. Some Springfields are and some aren't. I dunno.

I'm not a Kimber fan so I would go with SA

I own both but I would buy the Springfield. It's got to be cheaper than a Kimber, & my SA is just as accurate as my Kimber.

Of the two I have only owned a Kimber Stainless Target II in .38 Super....most accurate and reliable out of the box Super I have ever owned.

Have lots of friends who have SA guns and many of my friends bought them in the late 1980s when they first came out. At the time the slides and frames were excellent...the internal parts were garbage. They have changed a lot since then however.

One thing I never liked about the SA was the frontstrap radius.... Don't know if it has changed but it used to be less than all the other brands. I could pickup 20 1911s blindfolded and could tell you which ones were the SAs because they just felt different.

Both are excellent...don't think you can make a mistake.

Bob

I thought it was just me that noticed the frontstrap thing (Essex frames are the same way) and I had to replace a bunch of the guts on the Springer I had back then, too.
I guess I'm just an old fossil, but I still like Colts the best of the 1911 bunch, and yes, I know they aren't perfect.......

10-years ago or more.

Colt or Baer

but of the two choices listed, I'd say SA by a small margin.

Me too. Have you looked at the Range Officer? My apologies if it's above your budget range, but I think it's worth a hard look.

Update: Despite all the votes for the Springfield, I went with a Kimber, and a blued one at that. Picked up my new Custom Target II last night, this will rectify the mistake of selling my original Custom Target model (almost).

I'm sure the SA is a great pistol but in the end I went with subjective feelings. I liked the Kimber better just because I liked it better.

Got it for a great price on gunbroker. NIB with free shipping and a $10 transfer fee on this end. I can buy an Accurate Molds 4 cavity H&G #68 clone and still be at about what I would have paid for the SA Loaded or Kimber stainless target model alone.