Kimbers ... are they really better? or different?

[UR2X3M4ME]

I keep coming back to the National Match style.

wut?? hun ok just noticed the word "style".




We can all argue 'till we become blue in the face but me, my hands and my eyes and all think alike: mister Kimber Gold Match gives us more fun and tighter groups so we made a safe queen out of miss National Match and her "style".

But yeah, she sure looks good!

 

[slug]

The only Kimber I've owned had light ripples through the rifling. They were smooth and probably harmless, except to my fragile ego. However, since I suck with a .45, neither my ego nor my opinion counts for very much.

 

[Mark-II]

wut?? hun ok just noticed the word "style".

We can all argue 'till we become blue in the face but me, my hands and my eyes and all think alike: mister Kimber Gold Match gives us more fun and tighter groups so we made a safe queen out of miss National Match and her "style".

But yeah, she sure looks good!

I'm the opposite. I don't shoot my Trojan any more since getting a NM. Beaver tails don't aid the single-handed grip, I've come to appreciate, and memory bumps are simply irritating - both features aid the two-mitt grip. The 1911 was designed as a 1-handed gun, and the old style has the most suitable ergos for that grip.

 

[UR2X3M4ME]

^^^

I never verified that and you make a sound argument that I must validate next trip to the range. I spoke as an IPSC shooter (and pervert): I have 2 hands and I use them everytime I can...

It is interesting because as much as I enjoy 2 hands with pistols, its only 1 with revolvers. It feels as revolvers were not designed for 2 hands. Hell, they are not fun with 2 hands. For me anyways.

However things are different with mister .44. For some dark and mysterious reason, I noticed that after an average of 6 rounds, it becomes more comfortable to have the left scratcher joining the right one on the grip. But again, that's just me.