Ruger 22/45 vs Kimber conversion

[Rem700]

I have been thinking of buying a 22 auto and these are what I have narrowed it down to.
Prices are comparable for what I want.
So what do I get the dedicated Ruger or the conversion for the Kimber?

[45usp45]

I'd get the Ruger.
You may at some point decide to buy a reliable pistol and get rid of the unreliable ones.
Than your kimber conversion would be useless.

[Stradawhovious]

I'd get the ruger as well, not for the same reasons as our Kimber hating friend above, but just for the sake of having another complete firearm. I will say however, I did have a conversion (Ciener, not Kimber) for a while, that worked like a champ on my Kimber.

[justaguy]

I would say two complete guns. Unless your sole purpose is to practice more with your 1911.

[Rem700]

I already got rid of the unreliable ones, Thats the reason I have Kimber Pro CDPs pre series II for EDCs.
I have a couple of Kimber Gold Matchs that dont get used much at all and thought I might put a conversion on one. I hear the point about another complete gun but do like the trigger on my Kimbers. After posting I started doing more research and I am now thinking about the Marvel 1 it appears Midway runs them on sale at times for around $350, I read that the Marvel 1 is Bullseye accurate not that I am capable but it would be kinda nice to know the pistol is capable. Decisions decisions

[JFettig]

having had 2 22/45s I say get the 1911 conversion.

A ruger 22/45 feels nothing like a 1911....


Jon

[Belgiboy]

I absolutely love my Kimber but I would go for the Ruger (or better: Browning Buckmark) too for the same reasons as mentioned above, better to have two complete firearms. One reason why I don't own the Ruger yet is that I have heard from very reliable sources that they are a humongous pain in the butt to strip down and put back together. I wonder if anybody has any experience with that.

[Don L]

I've had my 22/45 for about six years, and it's worked flawlessly. I use it for introducing folks to handgun shooting. There's two extra steps to reassembly, which I consider just a slight inconvenience. The thing's been great!

[zachs]

I have a kimber 1911 and a 22/45 and I'd have to say get the kimber conversion, not knocking the ruger at all but in hindsight I would have been better off with one gun and more time getting used the the trigger and feel of the kimber. I agree with one of the other posts the ruger feels nothing like the kimber.

[SIGP240]

Unfortunately, you are comparing oranges to apples. Off the shelf, the Ruger will not qualify as a target weapon until it is heavily modified. We are talking, barrel, trigger, grips, sights or red dot, weights here. (I'd allow +$500 for this route). Call Jim Clark and "git er dunn" Now, the Kimber is a fair over the counter start toward a target pistol. The conversion (Ceiner) or Kimber conversion (also Ceiner) will make you 45 into a 22. As you know, the conversion is generically dimensioned to work on any frame on any day. You will not end up with a Hammerli 208s, so don't lose you focus on relality. Fortunately, the Kimber trigger job is above average, so you are partially on your way to a nice gun. IMHO, just run to Gunbroker and pick up a H-S Victor or Citation and settle in...Just make it job one to upgrade the grips! It's only MONEY, and the whole gun will always go up in value, the 22 conversion will never appreciate like a whole gun. I'd avoid S&W M-41's, as a rule; I have had 6 of them over time and they continuously are looking and being cheaper over the years. My 60's era M-41 is still ok, if you throw Rink grips ($160) on it. Otherwise, keep shooting. BTW, I know a couple old farts that shoot at BV with me and they have Buckmarks, with good results.

[JoeH]

I believe that STI makes a .22 conversion. All their stuff seems to work really well.