Shield .45 vs Kimber Ultra CDP II?

I have a 9 Shield and love it. Was thinking about a larger caliber carry weapon. Anybody have any experience with both of these? In California it will be harder to get a .45 Shield, and the Kimbers are readily available.

Obviously completely different platforms, love the feel and trigger of the Kimber, but thinking it would be better for consistency keeping same platform.

Help me decide.

Well, not a Shield, but I did own a M&P .45 compact, and own a Kimber Ultra Carry ll.

Some thoughts - Weight was about even. The 1911 flatter, and carried a little better. The .45c was almost reliable. It did hang up 3 or 4 times in about 500 rounds, mostly 230 ball. The Kimber Ultra, in about 800 rounds, twice with my reloads that were a little too long OAL. Sights about equal. Sweet trigger on the Ultra, and my main complaint, rough and notchy on the .45c

The Ultra is far more accurate, but either are combat accurate. 7+1 capacity for the Ultra, not sure the new .45 Shield. Recoil in either was snappy but controllable, though I find my big hands keep position better with a 1911.

The main difference is going to be a completely different operating system. The 1911, being a SA pistol, carried cocked and locked, you are going to have to relearn muscle memory and manual of arms, as well as take into account that light, crisp trigger pull - excellent for the range, but a potential problem in social use without a lot of practice.

If you just want to replicate what you are used to, in a larger caliber, then the Shield is probably the way to go. If you are keen on learning a new system, and willing to put in the practice, you might enjoy the Ultra. By the way, some shorty 1911's have given rise to lack of reliability issues. I believe this has been addressed by Kimber dual captured recoil spring system, keeping the gun in proper "time", at least it has with mine, and several others friends own. If you can find a range that has both to try before you buy, that would be ideal. By the way, if you like lasers, the Crimson Trace Laser Grips are a nice option on the Ultra, and don't require a special holster - not sure what's available for the Shield.

Larry

I own a Sig Ultra that is very close to the Kimber. Shoots phenomenal, a favorite of mine, and often accompanies me when I travel. It's still a 1911 and requires some diligence. The Shield 45 is going to be taking its place for a couple reasons. Both are on par when it comes to shootability and accuracy. Mag availability is an issue with the shield right now, but that should be resolved over time. Biggest decision factor is value. If for some reason my Ultra gets confiscated, stolen, or lost, every bit of $1000 goes out the door. Something happens to the shield, cut that loss in half and go buy another.

I recall someone posting on another forum about being pulled over by LE on a traffic stop, individual was authorized to carry and notified the officer. Officer essentially took control of the individual's firearm, a 1911 worth well over $1000. Wasn't particularly familiar with the type of weapon, but managed to make it safe. Subsequently set the safe firearm on I believe the hood or may have been the trunk. Firearm slid/fell off the vehicle, hitting the pavement, and damaging the finish of the weapon. It is what it is, but makes one think about the firearm they carry..

I went from a Kimber Ultra to a Shield 9. Stick with the Shield 9. It's smaller, lighter, more controllable, higher capacity, more reliable, cheaper to shoot, and cheaper to replace.

Give that you can buy about 3 shields for the price of that Kimber, comparing them on features and quality is probably not a fair comparison. You expect them both to be reliable but I'd expect the Kimber to be smoother and more accurate. Like someone said though, accuracy in a subcompact defensive pistol is a relative term. Also, as mentioned above I'd it a big factor is, if you don't already have the skills required to use the Kimber as a defensive weapon, are you willing to spend the time to develop them? Can you get the Shield model without a safety in CA? If not, then that does narrow the gap a bit in operating complexity. If it is available, the Shield with no safety in much easier to bring into action if things get hairy. I'd also be a bit concerned about carrying a cocked and locked single action trigger as a civilian as a day to day carry gun. But, that could be due to my very limited experience with 1911s.

The Shield is not available in CA because it's not on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. There are two ways that; Private Party Transfer (PPT) or Parent to Child (PTC) transfer.

The PTC can only be done if you have a parent living out of state. They can buy one and then transfer it to you in CA later. This is a dangerous route because it could be considered a Straw Man purchase which is a federal crime.

The PPT is very unlikely for the Shield 45 since it can't be bought new. There are only three scenarios where it could happen:

• Someone buys one in another state and then moves here and decides to sell it as a PPT.
• Someone does a PTC transfer and then decides to sell it.
• A police officer buys one (they're exempt from the roster) and then decides to sell it via PPT. There is already one police officer in prison because of this so, this is unlikely too.

I'm a huge 1911 fan. However, the design is not optimal with a short barrel. The smallest 1911 I'll have is a 4.25" Commander. I have no trouble carrying that one.

If you can get a Shield 45, by all means carry that one. I believe it will be more reliable than a small 1911.

Rastoff said:

The Shield is not available in CA because it's not on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. There are two ways that; Private Party Transfer (PPT) or Parent to Child (PTC) transfer.

The PTC can only be done if you have a parent living out of state. They can buy one and then transfer it to you in CA later. This is a dangerous route because it could be considered a Straw Man purchase which is a federal crime.

Click to expand...

Actually no it's not the least bit dangerous or unusual. Purchasing a firearm as a gift with no intention of keeping it for yourself is completely 100% legal and is expressly listed as a legal purchase on the 4473 instructions. As long as the gift gun is purchased with the buyer's own funds it is legal, period. It would only become a straw purchase if the person receiving the "gift" were to have given the buyer the funds to pay for the firearm.

Anyone may take any chance they want. I'll continue to tell people to be careful with it.

My ca. 2000 Ultra Carry has been my favorite cold weather SD carry for a very long time now. Thousands of rounds through the tube and I cannot recall the last time I've experienced any sort of FTF/FTE with all manner of factory ammo.

I continue to trust this pistol implicitly.

berudd said:

Give that you can buy about 3 shields for the price of that Kimber, comparing them on features and quality is probably not a fair comparison. You expect them both to be reliable but I'd expect the Kimber to be smoother and more accurate. Like someone said though, accuracy in a subcompact defensive pistol is a relative term. Also, as mentioned above I'd it a big factor is, if you don't already have the skills required to use the Kimber as a defensive weapon, are you willing to spend the time to develop them? Can you get the Shield model without a safety in CA? If not, then that does narrow the gap a bit in operating complexity. If it is available, the Shield with no safety in much easier to bring into action if things get hairy. I'd also be a bit concerned about carrying a cocked and locked single action trigger as a civilian as a day to day carry gun. But, that could be due to my very limited experience with 1911s.

Click to expand...

The Shield with the safety is no more complicated to use than the Shield without the safety. You simply don't use the safety - the trigger and action on the 2 models are identical. The Shield with the safety is not "cocked and locked" like a 1911. It's more like the lock on revolvers, which you don't have to use if you don't want to.

Buy the Ultra.

My choice would be the Shield. That's just based on my personal feeling of which is more reliable and safe to carry. The fact that you're already used to the platform is what I see to be the icing on the cake. I love 1911s, even though I only have four of them, but I personally like them for fun and prefer to carry other platforms for defense.

I own an Ultra TLE Stainless and have been very pleased with it. It shoots nice and is comfortable to carry. Admittedly, I do not have a Shield. The closest I have to compare is an old 3rd Gen. I alternate carry and am fine with either. The big question to me is whether or not you're okay with carrying a 1911 cocked & locked and will you remember to engage/disengage the safety when the adrenaline is pumping?

Longhorn1986 said:

The big question to me is whether or not you're okay with carrying a 1911 cocked & locked and will you remember to engage/disengage the safety when the adrenaline is pumping?

Click to expand...

Bingo !

I tired to like single action 1911 versions but I could never get pass that cocked and locked, even though every striker fired handgun is cocked and locked, the difference is psychological cause we don't see it. The problem with the 1911 style is you need that safety. The only safety I want on a defensive handgun is my finger and what is between the ears, there is enough other things to worry about if the need arises.

I never felt worried about carrying my Glock but yet I just could never get passed seeing that hammer cocked even though more people have probably shot themselves with a Glock


But do they ever carry nice, can't get any slimmer in an auto loader, they lay nice and flat against the body and of course no one can deny the classic look of them.

Oh well, I'm now thoroughly content with my revolver.
(and what a beast it is)

HKSmith said:

The Shield with the safety is no more complicated to use than the Shield without the safety. You simply don't use the safety - the trigger and action on the 2 models are identical. The Shield with the safety is not "cocked and locked" like a 1911. It's more like the lock on revolvers, which you don't have to use if you don't want to.

Click to expand...

Well, that is all true of course. But, I grew up hunting where the gun was always on safe until you mounted it to fire. So, not engaging a safety when the gun has one if somewhat of a mental block for me. I know its no different than using the model without a safety but old habits die hard.

Mulebuk Sam said:

Bingo !

I tired to like single action 1911 versions but I could never get pass that cocked and locked, even though every striker fired handgun is cocked and locked, the difference is psychological cause we don't see it. The problem with the 1911 style is you need that safety. The only safety I want on a defensive handgun is my finger and what is between the ears, there is enough other things to worry about if the need arises.

I never felt worried about carrying my Glock but yet I just could never get passed seeing that hammer cocked even though more people have probably shot themselves with a Glock


But do they ever carry nice, can't get any slimmer in an auto loader, they lay nice and flat against the body and of course no one can deny the classic look of them.

Oh well, I'm now thoroughly content with my revolver.
(and what a beast it is)

Click to expand...

You're correct that it is a mental thing to get comfortable with carrying a single action pistol cocked and locked. So, if one is not willing to put in the time to train and overcome that mental block its probably best to carry something else.

I would say though that a striker fired pistol is not really cocked and locked in the same sense that at 1911 is. While it is ready to fire by simply pulling the trigger, that trigger pull require significantly more effort than a 1911. There's also the safety build into the trigger of these guns so its much less likely that some other unintentional contact with the trigger will cause a discharge.

While many seem to be OK with carrying the safety equipped Shield with the safety disengaged I doubt you will find anyone that would recommend carrying the 1911 without the safety on.

Depends on which platform you like the most. They are both guns, but the operating system is very different. I cannot understand why folks who think nothing about owning and shooting and carrying a revolver have problems with the idea of a striker fired semi auto. I understand that this situation exists. I have owned both styles of operating systems, and I have many years of experience with revolvers. I am much more comfortable with those and with striker fired guns. I will say that for me personally, if I were to choose a 1911 style handgun, it would not be a Kimber. No offense meant to anyone who likes them. I think a person ought to carry whatever fits their hands best and whatever they can have great confidence in and shoot their best with. For me, that list includes S&W revolvers, M&P semi autos, and the Shield models without reservations.

I'd say its all mental considering there are no safeties on double action revolvers and they simply go bang by someone executing an overly long trigger cycle. Same for most striker fire weapons w/o a safety except the trigger cycle is typically less pronounced that a DA revolver.

My M&Ps have safeties and it's a natural transition between them and a 1911. Currently own three non-safety striker fire weapons and my thumb instinctively tries to depress a safety even though there is none. They have been retired, or on my "to trade" list. My primary pocket carry weapon is a Sig P938 riding in a Desantis pocket holster, cocked and locked, and never had a problem.

berudd said:

You're correct that it is a mental thing to get comfortable with carrying a single action pistol cocked and locked.

Click to expand...

Bad_Andy said:

I have a 9 Shield and love it. Was thinking about a larger caliber carry weapon. Anybody have any experience with both of these? In California it will be harder to get a .45 Shield, and the Kimbers are readily available.

Obviously completely different platforms, love the feel and trigger of the Kimber, but thinking it would be better for consistency keeping same platform.

Help me decide.

Click to expand...

Ok, so there has been a lot said her and it makes one think which way to go. If the 1911 platform appeals to you, (like it does me), go with the Kimber. I have owned one for 4 years and have shot aal hand loads and factory loads and I personaly have not experienced a failure in loading or firing "EXCEPT" I sometimes ride the slide. This causes a FTF. One thing no one has mentioned here is a neat little system the was or is distributed by Cylender and Slide. Its called "Safety Fast Shooting System" I purchased this and installed it in my CDP and its a very cool system. It allows you to carry Cocked and Locked with the hammer down. After the draw, you pull the thumb safety down and the hammer snaps back to the fire position and you shoot it like a normal 1911. I urge you to look into it before making a decision here. I really like it and since your learning a new platform anyway, use it in conjunction with your training. Its fast and secure.

Safety Fast Shooting System

kthom said:

I cannot understand why folks who think nothing about owning and shooting and carrying a revolver have problems with the idea of a striker fired semi auto.

Click to expand...

Approximately 5.5. pound pull out of the box when I had my Glock. (I didn't even look at that trigger the wrong way)

We have no safeties and we need none on a DA revolver, out of the box my Governor is close to double or more of a out of the box standard Glock. But the pull is smooth and consistent.

Took me a long time to psych myself up into carrying a Glock.
No fear now but I also got drilled in safe gun handling (NRA approved and sponsored thank you very much), ironically most people shoot themselves when they go to field strip and clean. I use to clear in a 15 gallon can full of sand in my closet.

The reason I'm back into revolvers is I simply don't trust semi-automatics. (that's another story)