TexasCHLforum.com

It seems like both are the same. Which one is more concealable?

The Glock is about 1/4 inch taller than the Kimber, and weighs about four ounces less. They're about the same length. The Glock holds 15+1 of 9mm, and the Kimber 7+1 of .45 ACP. So once you get to that point, comparing these two is sorta apples and oranges, IMO.

Stupid wrote:It seems like both are the same. Which one is more concealable?

The red highlights what would appear to be easier to conceal numbers.
Kimber;

Specifications: Height (inches) 90° to barrel: 4.75
Weight (ounces) with empty magazine: 25
Length (inches): 6.8
Barrel: Length (inches): 3

Sights: Radius (inches): 4.8

Frame: Width (inches): 1.28



Glock 19;

LENGTH
174 mm / 6.85 in.
HEIGHT
127 mm / 5.00 in.

WEIGHT
595 g / 20.99 oz.
LOADED (~)
850 g / 29.98 oz.


WIDTH
30 mm / 1.18 in.

BARREL LENGTH
102 mm / 4.02 in.
LINE OF SIGHT
153 mm / 6.02 in.

conflicting! *smile

I currently have a G19. Should I get a Ultra CDP II then?

I have an Ultra Carry (it’s a little old, so it’s not a II) and a G19. I can carry both concealed, but the Kimber wins hands down for comfort, especially with an IWB holster. The width of the slides seems to make the big difference in comfort for me.

My wife also says it’s easier for her to detect the Glock then the Kimber, but in both cases, she has to look very hard and she knows what she’s looking for, so I would call that a tie.

Because of the comfort factor, I find I carry the Kimber more then the Glock.

Should you get the Kimber? The answer is of course YES! You can never have enough firearms , and there will always be one more to add to the collection . For me, the current target is a compact 45 XD. I wonder what the one after that will be???

Stupid wrote:It seems like both are the same. Which one is more concealable?

Your definition of the same is different than mine. I have a Glock 19 and a Kimber PRO CDP II. The Kimber conceals easier, and the Ultra is considerably smaller than my Pro.

The real question is would you rather have 16 rounds of 9mm or 8 rounds of .45?

To answer your other question though, yes you need to buy the Kimber.

KRM45 wrote:The real question is would you rather have 16 rounds of 9mm or 8 rounds of .45?

My point exactly. And for me, it's .45 ACP.

I held a G19 today at B&S guns - and a G23. Nice pistols, but I think my Kimber Tactical Ultra is a smaller pistol where it counts. Shorter barrel, slimmer profile IMO.

I'll still probably end up with a G19 eventually though :)

I put a Ultra CDP II and a G19 together today. The CDP is significantly smaller and thinner.

I know the 16 rd from G19 feels bottom less, but I would rather carry a gun that is easier to conceal so that I will carry it more.

Just hope I will like shooting it and it is reliable. My G19 is utterly reliable since day one. Put almost 1000 through it without any problem. It just felt bulky when carrying.

Who knows about the Kimber though?

My Kimber Ultra has been very reliable for me. For practice, I use reloads (copper jacket, flat nose in 200 Gr) and my carry ammo was Winchester SXT (230 Gr), and recently I’ve been giving the Speer 230 Gr for short barrels a try. The results so far have been very good on the reliability (~500 rounds to date).

Now I’m probably starting a war here, but my G19 has proven to be more reliable then my Kimber . I have never had a stoppage with my Glock, and unfortunately I can’t say the same for my Kimber. So before the lynch mob starts, let me qualify the statement.

Both weapons are approaching 10,000 rounds. The Kimber has had problems, and every time it was with reloaded ammunition and generally after very long sessions at the range (>500 rounds without cleaning). I use Winchester 231 powder, and it’s not exactly the cleanest burning propellant.

I have never had a problem with “carry� ammunition or the cheap white box 230 Gr FMJ. But the facts are, my G19 has never failed…
But I have seen stock G19’s fail. The last Suarez training I attended had at least 5 Glock’s fail on the line, several were G19’s, and by the way, none of the 1911's had problems .

But back to the Kimber’s…Even though my Ultra has been very reliable, my wife’s Kimber CDP is a different story. It seems to be finicky about the ammo used, and will periodically lock up with Federal carry ammo and white box JHP, but so far has been reliable with Win SXT 230 Gr, Corbon 165 Gr +P, and Speer 230 Gr (short barrel). As you can probably tell, I’m a little partial to 230 Gr for carry ammo .

I have no problem with carrying my Kimber, or trusting my wife with hers. Even though I have had stoppages, it was never with my carry ammo, and even with the reloads, it’s generally only after the weapon gets dirty.

I would suggest that before you carry the Kimber, you take it to the range and put at least 200 rounds of your planned carry ammo through it, without stopping to clean. Do it as if you were defensive shooting. Draw and shoot 2 handed, strong hand, and weak hand. If you get stoppages, try other ammo. Pay particular attention to weak hand shooting. For most people, that’s their weakest grip and that can lead to failures. If your ammo goes 200 rounds without a stoppage, I would suggest you're good to carry.

The reliability of my wife’s Kimber improved dramatically when I had her switch to Wilson magazines. The Kimber mag that came with her gun seems to be a piece of junk. I haven’t bothered to change the spring/follower in it since I had plenty of Wilson’s. Also, I use the Kimber for practice of clearing failures. It’s good practice since I never know when it will jam, but it will at least once every 20-30 rounds.

I suspect you'll like the Kimber, it's a great carry weapon...

Skiprr wrote:

KRM45 wrote:The real question is would you rather have 16 rounds of 9mm or 8 rounds of .45?

My point exactly. And for me, it's .45 ACP.

I have the Kimber Ultra II. Tactical. Along with the size being great to carry it also is a dream to shoot. 3 BIG white dots are nice too.

It may sound blasphemous given that I'm known for carrying a 1911. But, I'll take 16 rounds of 9mm over 8 rounds of .45 where the discussion is a choice between the Glock 19 and a short-stroking, 3-inch 1911.

I've carried, shot and trained with both platforms enough that I'm convinced the Glock 19 is a superior platform overall. The difference in concealability is negligible to me. The 1911 feels better in hand and has a superior trigger. But the Glock 19 offers greater reliability, lower recoil, higher capacity and a longer sight radius.

Something John Farnam said to me once was also driven home in a confrontation last year. John told me that the vast majority of times we have to point guns at people, we'll not have to shoot them. The decision may be made to do so but when the situation is fluid, more often than not the decision may have to be aborted. It is these times that the short and unforgiving trigger of the 1911 may not be so beneficial. I didn't fully appreciate what John meant until I had to abort the process myself.

G.C.: Do you have the same concerns about a Commander-sized or full-sized 1911? Or is it just the three-incher (and a slide-stroke length that JMB probably never foresaw)?

I think he's talking more about the trigger.

Skiprr wrote:G.C.: Do you have the same concerns about a Commander-sized or full-sized 1911? Or is it just the three-incher (and a slide-stroke length that JMB probably never foresaw)?

Skiprr wrote:G.C.: Do you have the same concerns about a Commander-sized or full-sized 1911? Or is it just the three-incher (and a slide-stroke length that JMB probably never foresaw)?

Assuming we are talking about .45caliber pistols, I do have the same concern about Commander length 1911's. The reason being, Commanders and 4-inch/Champion length guns run the same short stroke length as the old "Officer's" models. So, they suffer the same problems combined with greater reciprocating mass in the slide. That extra energy adds up over time and probably contributes to a shorter overall life for the gun.

Ultimately, I prefer to stick with JMB's original 5-inch design for 45ACP. There is less room and time to accomplish the normal extraction, ejection and feeding process in the shorter guns. There are reliable Commanders, I own two of them, but you can't escape the fact that there is less margin for error in those guns. It's also worth noting that none of the "elite units" that inspire many of us to carry 1911's, have ever chosen any the shorter varieties. MEUSOC, USASOC, Delta, FBI HRT, and just about every SWAT team that has ever authorized the 1911, all cited reliability as a major concern and all chose the Government Model. Think about that long and hard before being sold on the idea that shorter 1911's are just as reliable as the full-size 1911's.