I own a small fortune (10) in 1911s (stock and full customs) in 3 calibers, the Glock 21 and Sig 220, well actually several each of Glocks and Sigs in different calibers. I have been lucky in the fact that Ive been able to fire hundred of thousands of rounds of .45s. Admittedly the 1911 is my favorite by far, but Ive put thousands of rounds through my Glock 22 and Sig 220 also.
IMO you cannot go wrong with any of the 3 pistols makes cited above. I have only one Kimber a CDP, although an ultra compact the pistol shoots really well, especially at self defense ranges (2 to 10 yards), feeds every thing Ive put in the magazine. Fit and finish is excellent, trigger minimal slack, no creep and breaks clean. This pistol was built in early 2000, so it may not be representive of the current model Kimbers.
The Glock I bought right after the G21 hit the market in the early 90s. What can you say about a Glock? they simply work The trigger will never be any thing special, more than accurate enough for defensive work and they feed damn near anything. Chuck Taylor, a well known self defense/combat shooting instructor has a G19 that at last count has 175,000 rounds through it without a fail to fire/ fail to feed/ fail to eject attributable to the pistol. Quite a feat for any fire arm. The Glock may be the most rugged pistol of the 3, able withstanding a bunch of abuse. Noteworthy is the fact that it is rare to see rust and or corrosion on a Glock, due to the Tupperware frame and finish on the metal parts including all internal metal parts. If you go with a Glock, ditch the plastic stock sights and pick up a set of after market steel nite-sights. In my experience the Glocks do not carry concealed as well as other makes. Good ergonomics although the grips are too large for many folks to properly grip and index the pistol.
The Sig, like the Glock has minimal controls, slide release, mag release and take down lever. The Sig is a high quality piece of work, decent sights out of the box, but Novaks are better. The drawback to the Sig, IMO is the double action first round. The transition from double action first round to single action causes many folks problems. That first round is difficult to get off fast and accurate for many folks. It can be done but takes practice. Great ergonomics and again the large grip and long reach to the trigger make the pistol difficult to shoot for many folks.
The 1911s, folks would have you believe that they are the hardest to shoot, most unreliable and HOLY CRAP YOU CARRY IT LOCKED AND LOCKED, YOU MUST BE CRAZY, YOU NEED YEARS OF SPECIAL TRAINING TO DO THAT! Hogwash, it does require a different manual of arms and trigger management is different, the safety must be disengaged in preparation to fire and the trigger stroke is much shorter than the SIG or Glock. With practice these things become 2nd nature. The need to master only one short, crisp trigger press is one of the features that make the 1911 easy to shoot well. As opposed to the Glock or Sig, the longer the trigger stroke the more difficult to hold the pistol on target during the stroke. I view the frame safety of the 1911 as a plus, especially on a defensive gun. Regarding reliability, in the past 10 years or so, Colt, Kimber and host of others have incorporated reliability work into the out of the box stock guns. Another plus for the 1911s is the fastest aimed first round, due to the single action trigger. It is just easier to shoot well.
All of these pistols are more than accurate enough for defensive work or casual plinking.
Just my druthers, Id go with the Kimber they are a fine pistol.
Steve
) but I just think maybe the manual of arms of the SIG would suit me better. I'd just like to have both I guess.
