Within the body of imagined versus actual movement research, investigators have discovered that mentally simulated (imagined) movements, like real actions, are controlled primarily by the hemispheres contralateral to the imagined limb. Furthermore, evidence indicates that the left-hemisphere exhibits greater fMRI activity and shows better imagined movement accuracy. From this information it has been suggested that right-handers have an advantage, in view of dominant left-hemisphere control. However, these studies have failed to examine the behavior of strong left-handers. To address the question of the left-hemisphere advantage, 62 strong right- and left-handers (N = 62) were compared on judgments of imagined reachability to visual targets lasting 150 ms in multiple locations of midline, right- and left visual field (RVF / LVF). At each of the three general locations, seven targets are presented – three above actual reach and three below. Data were analyzed to examine total error and distribution of error. In addition, analysis of variance procedures were employed to determine estimates of error in terms of mean bias; that is, the direction of bias in reference to over- or underestimation. In regard to within group results, we found no hemispheric or hand use advantage for right-handers. Left-handers revealed no hemispheric advantage, however there was a significant hand effect, favoring the non-dominant limb, most notably in LVF. Overall, left-handers displayed significantly more errors, especially in LVF using the dominant limb. These finding are explained in regard to a possible interference effect for left-handers, not shown for right-handers when executing imagined movement in RVF using their dominant limb. In regard to distribution of error, although the range of incorrect responses was small, both groups produced the greatest frequency of errors around target 4 (actual maximum reach) and 5. Both groups, in similar fashion, overestimated at the Midline position by slightly under 2 cm; a findings that supports previous research. The comparison of groups on RVF and LVF responses however, yielded a different profile. In general, right-handers displayed a tendency to underestimate in the respective visual fields by just over 1 cm. In comparison, errors for left-handers in RVF and LVF were gathered closer to target 4 with overall responses showing a slight tendency to overestimate by .5 cm. However, given the narrow difference between the groups, caution should be taken in interpreting any advantage.