Brett, quick question for you, Glock, Sig Sauer, or Kimber?
If you're asking for a recommendation, then I have to ask what the intent is. If you're considering a carry or general self-defense piece, then I say Glock. They're more affordable, have an immense amount of support in the marketplace, and they eat whatever shitty ammo you can get your hands on.
I love 1911's, have one (1943 Colt), and will have more. But I don't carry one for self-defense anymore because the more I train the more I realize I don't want to deal with external safeties or double-action triggers, I don't want the weight, and I want all the ammo in the gun that I can get. So I choose striker-fired, polymer framed, double-stack weapons - namely Glock.
Sigs are fine weapons, and I own a P220 that is an utterly beautiful gun. But it's a DA/SA so I don't carry it for defense, and it cost almost twice what I paid for the Glock 23 I carry. Sig makes striker-fired weapons, too, and they're great. But they're overpriced for what they are...you're paying for the name.
So if I can only have one gun, it's going to be a Glock 19 (9mm). Easy to shoot, easy to conceal, affordable, durable, and easy to find parts and holsters for. I could be almost as happy with the full-size Glock 17, but it's not as easy to conceal.
Since I don't have to settle for one gun, I actually carry the Glock 23 (.40S&W). Same gun, but the forty hits harder and penetrates deeper than the 9mm or the .45ACP.
But hey, if you're just jonesing for a 1911, get the Kimber and be happy. Last thing you want is to drop a bunch of money on a gun that isn't what you really want.
Some people say "shoot the one that's most comfortable and performs the best for you." I don't personally agree with that advice. Get the gun you want, and then shoot it until you've made it your little bitch.
That's my take.