View Full Version : Sig 220 versus Kimber Target II

September 8, 2007, 10:17 AM
To those who have both pistols, which would you recommend for:

* 25 yard accuracy
* dependability / reliability

I've tried both, and in my hands, the 1911 Kimber seem to have much less perceived recoil, and was more accurate, so I'm leaning toward the Kimber. But, this is just based on one evaluation, so I'd like to hear from the experience of others.

Also, would like out of the box dependability & usability.


chris in va
September 9, 2007, 02:28 PM
Not sure on the Kimber, but my 15 year old 220 has been flawless with zero jams. I've heard similar reports about the 220 as well. A police officer even PM'ed me to highly recommend it.

September 9, 2007, 03:25 PM
I found Kimber to be more accurate, but I did have a jam so I'd say Sig is more reliable. I liked ergos of P220 better as well. Didn't notice much (if any) difference in recoil.

September 9, 2007, 04:17 PM
Accuracy is luck of the draw, reliability is all SIG, by a very long way.

September 9, 2007, 09:26 PM
Apples to oranges here. Two totally different pistols. If you are OK with a 1911 in condition one carry then you might pick the Kimber over the 220. If not, the 220 would be your best bet. I have both and the 220 is my night stand gun. If any of my 1911's are in cond. one they are in a holster designed for same and on my side. I don't like the idea of an unatended (hot) 1911.


September 10, 2007, 01:25 AM
$2400 Wilson combat (better than any kimber) Only Slightly more accurate than one of my Sig 220's. We're talking quarter and half inch difference at 25yds.

How many 1911 Armorers are out there to keep these things running right VS. Sig Armorers that you see?

Have you ever even seen someone advertise to be a SiG Armorer? Most likely because they're low maintence.

All my sigs have been dead reliable out of the box, and they've all seen enough rounds to call it a "torture test".

Get what works for you, but If I could go back I'd not buy my flawless Wilson and buy 2 Sigs with money left for ammo.

September 10, 2007, 08:27 AM
I have experienced more stovepipes with my kimber than with my sig. I dont know if it is due to the fact that the kimber is fairly new and the sig is well broken in. Then again the sig has never jammed...

September 10, 2007, 05:53 PM
Straight out of the box the sig is a reliable weapon accuracy is there and the price you can buy two to one vs. Kimber. Like there motto says, To Hell and Back Reliability!
Just my 2 cents.

September 10, 2007, 06:08 PM
IMO sigs have the reliability,accuracy difference is minimal,but with the price difference you could get a kel-tec for your pocket and a sig for your side!

September 10, 2007, 06:15 PM
Go Sig, you won't look back.

September 10, 2007, 06:18 PM
Buy a Custom II, internal extractor. Couple hundred bucks cheaper then the Sig, and, tack driving accurate. As the MIM stuff breaks, replace it with Ed Brown forged. Sig is lighter, better carry gun. Weight of the Kimber makes it easier to shoot.

Kimber frames, barrels, and slides are good stuff. It's when they start selling you anything other then that that the profit margin goes up, and, the fleecing begins...

S esq.

September 10, 2007, 06:20 PM
The Kimber target II model, is a relatively entry level 1911, even by Kimber standards. It is not a high end Kimber out of their custom shop - like the Raptor series or the Gold Combat Stainless, etc - and it's definitely not a high end custom gun like Wilson Combat. Is it serviceable - yes. Is it highly accurate - no but most of that is because you will probably have to have a trigger job done on the gun to really get it to a "match" quality.

The 220 series is a workhorse - not flashy - but a good solid gun.

But like others told you - it's apples and oranges - SIG 220 vs any 1911 is a very different gun. I like 1911's (probably my favorite style overall) but a SIG in 220 or 226 is a very good gun as well - just different. I think in terms of accuracy - you will find they are about the same. I think in reliability - the SIG will come out ahead of the Kimber. Even the high end Kimbers have some pretty aggravating feeding problems - and new out of the box, all of my SIGs, have performed without a problem.

If you really want to compare the 2 guns - look at the SIG revolution series and the Kimber - I think the SIG is the best of the two / but at least then you're comparing a 1911 to another 1911.

September 10, 2007, 07:22 PM
Take the Kimber.

September 10, 2007, 07:34 PM
I have a Kimber Ultra Tachtical II and love the way it shoots and its accuracy for a 3.5 in. barrell. Im looking at a Sig (226 in 40)as well but have never shot one. Cant wait, but Im afraid from all I've read I might have to own more than one. That may not be a bad thing tho.

September 11, 2007, 11:37 AM
Even If I wasn't a Giant SiG fan, I can't help but notice the frequecy of two statements "my sig was reliable out of the box and accurate" and "Kimbers have some big feed problems"

That should make all but the most die hard kimber-aholic take a step back and think before displacing that few hundred hard earned dollars.

September 13, 2007, 01:25 PM
Thanks for the responses. Seems like the consensus is that the Kimber will have a slight accuracy advantage (for satisfaction at the range), but the SIG should have the reliability advantage (for practical applications).

I've been leaning toward the Kimber, since this would mostly be a range gun.

Thanks again

September 14, 2007, 05:30 PM
Another thing to note: the Sig is easy to take down and clean. 1911's are a pain in the arse comparatively. I own both and enjoy both, but like most have said, the kimber's not as reliable. Both guns are more accurate than I am, so I can't tell one way or the other if one is more accurate. Since your leaning towards Kimber, get one and enjoy it. Then buy a sig.

Also, in case it sways your choice, I'm selling these nice 220ST CPO's for $605.

[email protected]