GunTalk-Online.com

Hi Everyone, I have been looking at a Ruger Mark III Target for a while now. I know I'm going to have to put a bit of money into it to get the sights, and trigger feel I want out of it.

The last few days another option is lurking in my mind. A Kimber Rimfire. It has the advantage of being a bit lighter(28oz vs 41oz) and has the 1911 size and feel.

I know I could get the 22/45 to get the grip of a 1911 with the Ruger action, but until it's offered in a metal frame; FORGET IT!

So, what is your opinion? Both are nice guns, can you make an argument for one or the other?

I voted for the Ruger MKIII because I have experience and a highly favorable opinion of these pisols (MKII 678 SS Tapered Target Barrel & MKIII 678 SS Slab Side Goverment Competetion).

I don't have experience with the Kimber rimfire and out of curiosity, checked out the rimfire pistol section at Kimber's website. For about the same price as a Kimber you could get a S&W 41, have you considered the S&W 41

I voted Ruger because that is what I bought. I'm ready to VQ it this month.

If I were going to drop the price of a Kimber .22 lr, I'd get an S&W M41. The Kimber conversion kit may be a better option if you want a 1911 weight and feel.

I have two 22/45's and they are excellent shooting pistols. No problem with them. I looked at a .22 conversion kit for my 1911 a while back. Decided against it because I could buy a .22 pistol for the cost of the kit.

I voted for Ruger because for the price of a Kimber I can buy 3 Rugers or better; will the Kimber shoot 3 times as good as the Ruger? People drop the name Kimber to impress other people at times. A friend and I have 1911's, both basically the same model with the 3 inch barrel and aluminum frame, mine is a Springfield Armory and his is a Kimber. He tells me how good it shoots but I see no targets. He never carries his and mine rides my hip pocket holster every day.

Remember, it's not the shooter but the shooter.

If I was entering a competition, I would get the best pistol and ammo money could buy. But if I want to just shoot for enjoyment. I go for the Ruger.
A friend has $2000 Hamerlli(.22). I can out shoot him with my High Standard Military Citation Model.
When I decided to buy another .22, Ruger was the first name on my mind.
They are fine pistols. And like most experienced shooters will tell you. No matter
how good of a shooter a person is, they cannot out-shoot the pistol.

PISTOLERO wrote:If I was entering a competition, I would get the best pistol and ammo money could buy. But if I want to just shoot for enjoyment. I go for the Ruger.
A friend has $2000 Hamerlli(.22). I can out shoot him with my High Standard Military Citation Model.
When I decided to buy another .22, Ruger was the first name on my mind.
They are fine pistols. And like most experienced shooters will tell you. No matter
how good of a shooter a person is, they cannot out-shoot the pistol.

Right, I always say "It's not the shooter but the shooter"

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty set on the Ruger. Just wanted some other opinions.

I keep thinking about the weight difference, ease of field stripping/maintenance, and 15 shot capacity in the Kimber(w/ optional magazines, fun for plinking!)

Greener: I just don't like the look of the S&W 41. I know it's an excellent gun, but I'm just not into it.

lucam wrote:Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty set on the Ruger. Just wanted some other opinions.

I keep thinking about the weight difference, ease of field stripping/maintenance, and 15 shot capacity in the Kimber(w/ optional magazines, fun for plinking!)

Greener: I just don't like the look of the S&W 41. I know it's an excellent gun, but I'm just not into it.

This is amazing, after 100 views only 9 vote were cast.

I'd probably go with the Ruger for a couple of reasons. First, I like the longer barrel of my Hunter version (6 7/8'') as opposed to the 5" barrel of the Kimber. Second, it is about $300 cheaper. The main drawback to the Ruger is the field stripping, but even that is not so bad if you just do the basic field strip. I have done mine 3 times now, and it isn't any hard then any other gun IMO. As already has been said, the gun is a "way'' better shooter than most people, and always will be. The gun is Very reliable. I shoot about 300 rds at the range in a single visit, and virtually zero failure. It just pounds them out. The Kimber would probably be as reliable, but I don't think it can beat the Ruger.
Bottom line: you gotta get what you want to get. Good Luck
haka

If your goal is simulate shooting a 1911 with a .22, then the the Kimber might be ok, but with the aluminum frame it's quite a bit lighter than a regular 45. If you just want a decent target .22, then I'd lean towards the Ruger. You could probably get a much better trigger on the Ruger, even if you have to send it out, and it would be considerably cheaper.

If you really want a pseudo .45, I'd get a Marvel and a lower like the Rock River (if still available), or build one from a Springfield GI or milspec .45. That's what I did, and it's really fun to shoot (but not very cost effective after all is considered).

Steve.

I voted for Kimber, based on reliability and customer service. If you ever need customer service go Kimber. In my limited experience, after six unreturned phone calls to Ruger's customer service, I will never buy another Ruger product. One the other hand, I called Kimber's customer service twice, with questions about fitting their .22 conversion to my Govt. model 1911. I spoke directly to a service tech. both times and got my questions answered immediately. What a difference!!!! By the way, the Kimber conversion functions reliably and is accurate, as well.

I voted Ruger for a few reasons.
I've always liked steel frame over aluminum/polymer/titanium for target shooting. For target shooting you want a little heft. If you were looking for a rimfire to emulate the feel of a 1911 I think you would want something that could come close to emulating the weight of a 1911 as well as grip angle (this is assuming your "real" 1911 is steel frame) -- a 1911 with a loaded 10rounder is going to weigh around 20oz more than the Kimber rimfire. If you went with the Kimber and you ever wanted to mount optics on it you would have to get it drilled and tapped where as Ruger already does that for you.

Lastly I've been of the opinion for about a year now that Kimber is a bit over priced for what you get.

Georgezilla wrote:
Lastly I've been of the opinion for about a year now that Kimber is a bit over priced for what you get.

You Too, eh? I have had that same opinion for a much longer period of time.

bearandoldman wrote:

You Too, eh? I have had that same opinion for a much longer period of time.

You and I seem to be in a rather small but growing club Everyone at the ranges I frequent seems adore them. My opinion of Kimber only started this time last year because I was looking into all the different companies that make "match quality 1911's". I noticed that the Kimbers price was on par or more than RRA, Les Baer and getting a mil-spec accurized -- but the quality was not nearly on par.

And it just so happens that I find the same true about their rimfires.

It's my understanding that Kimber used to be a big custom shop like RRA or Les Baer. However at some point they mechanized the whole process and stopped doing real hand fitting and did not lower their prices accordingly. But this is all hearsay to me -- Although the quality of their older firearms versus the new ones seem to verify these claims.