jfh
Member.
As noted in another thread, I picked up the Elite Match 10mm last week. I made it to the range last Thursday and I shot it and the Kimber Stainless Target II 10mm I bought last summer.
The EM-10mm (my own name) is a hard gun to find--Tanfoglio apparently only makes the 10mm Elite Match version in limited amounts, and EAA never knows when they will arrive, or how many. I spotted one on Gun Broker on January 6th--and when I called my LGS on Monday morning to see if he could get one, he already had one in stock! WTH, Christmas bills payoff can be put off a month--and off I went to pick it up.
I've owned a standard EAA Large Frame SS .45ACP for about fifteen years, and a 'compact' full frame .40 S&W Carry Comp package for nearly the same time. Both have been reliable performers, and the only real complaint I've had centers on the inherent design issue of the 'negative' barrel angle relative to the slide necessitating a high rear sight and / or a very short front sight.
Last summer, when I started shooting again after some years away, I wanted to shoot another 10mm besides my current guns, so I picked up a EAA 10mm top end for the .45ACP frame. It worked flawlessly, as did the three magazines--but the accuracy was indifferent--perhaps 3+" at 25 yards.
The Elite Match had features I wanted in my next pistol, so I looked into getting one and found I would simply have to wait until they got into the pipeline again. Meanwhile, I bought a Kimber Stainless Target II in 10mm and broke that in.
What follows is my 'immediate reactions' to the Elite Match and the first range session with it. Since I have a perspective about 10mm shooting again based on that Kimber, I'm including some comments about that as well.
Witness Elite Match 10mm--CURRENT FEATURES:
1. different rear sight, replaceable front sight The current 10mm model as shipped from the factory has a an LPA fully-adjustable, designed somewhat like Novak carry sights. see this picture. I did a quick tweak to move the group upwards while at the range and it appears to be sufficiently adjustable. However, it was disappointing to see it shipped with a 'carry'-type blade--recessed, but all black with no outlines, instead of a match / target blade, which is available from LPA and could have been installed.
The front sight is the design they've been shipping recently--a front-oriented dovetail, and set in place with a torx screw on top. Plain black, with almost a patridge-type profile. The one shipped on the slide was, for my taste, a bit narrow (IOW, it did not fill up the blade slot as much as I'd like.) If the other widths are readily available, this will be an easy changeout for me to do.
2. Extended safety, extended mag release. For my size hand, the safety is in a perfect location to ride it while shooting. If that is NOT your shooting style, there's room below the safety to drop your thumb in nicely without impinging on the mag release. The extended mag release does not protrude so far as to make accidental mag ejection likely.
3. SA-only trigger: Unlike the conventional CZ-type trigger in which there is the option of a double-action pull on the first shot with the hammer down, the trigger on the Elite Match models is SA only, and the hammer must be cocked. It is fitted with a stopscrew. I estimate the pull to be about five lbs, and it has a touch of grit in it--really, only what I would expect to find on a new trigger that a gunsmith had not worked on.
4. Barrel and slide: The current catalog and specifications call it a match barrel. Mine showed no fitting marks, however. It is better fit to the slide, and the slide to the frame, than the switch-top I bought last summer. In fact, the slide fit is very good for an out-of-the-box guns. However, there is no bushing for a better barrel fit, and there is somewhat noticable 'looseness' at the muzzle in the vertical axis.
5. Other features: pebble-grained rubber grips; duotone finish--SS frame, beadblasted with sanded / brighter flats; blued release, safety, hammer, and slide. Vertical serrations on front and back straps; mag well bevel cast into frame. NO barrel bushing; heavyweight slide design. Comes in a 'deluxe' Italian-designed carrying case c/w lock, manual and documents, and one large-capacity magazine.
6. Weight: with magazine, unloaded: 42.2 oz. with magazine, loaded w/15 rounds 200gr: 52.0 oz.
I paid $479.95 (Plus ST) for it on January 7.
Witness Elite Match 10mm--RANGE PERFORMANCE:
1. NO FTFs, FTEs, and no malfunctions at all in approximately 80 rounds fired. This included feeding from the one magazine shipped with the pistol and with the three I got last summer (one with the slide, two purchased from EAA). All mags seated properly, but there is a tendency to not catch. This appears to be a very minor issue of the thickness of the plastic base pad, and can be readily fixed by light filing on the top of the pad if needed. Each magazine held 13 rounds; so I guess we can call this a 13+1 pistol, or large-capacity. I questioned this capacity at this time, as I remembered it fitting 14+1 last summer; this time I didn't try cramming them in. Maybe I miscounted. I do remember 15+1 last summer wasn't worth the effort. All of these are OEM mags--that is, they all have the "T" (tanfoglio) logo stamped in them.
Update: when I weighed it for the figures above, I had no particular problem inserting 15 rounds into one of the magazines.
2. Accuracy: "uncertain:" It was an abysmal day at the range for me--old eye syndrome. Since I target shot at our club outdoor range this summer, this time at an indoor range I found the lighting contrast too low, the 'booth' environment inhospitable, and an inadequate setup for attempting 'benchrest' shooting. Here's a link to about rounds 37-44 that were fired from this gun. Note that I was firing eight-round magazines to afford a direct comparison to the Kimber; the #1 round is the left-most. Because of my performance, I see no distinct group or accuracy characteristic yet. The loads shot were the reloads I used to break in the Kimber ST II-10mm--5.2 gr. of 231 under a 180-gr. TMJ. In the Kimber, that load is 2" accurate at 50 yards; I have no idea of what an accurate load of the EM-10 will be.
As with all EAA and CZ-75 designs, there is that negative slope to the barrel inside the slide. This necessitates a high rear sight, and AFAIK, it has existed from day one. As a result, the as-shipped rear sight (screwed down) shot about 5" low at 15 yards. two quick adjustments brought it up to about 1" low, I think.
OK, I'm back to finish this up--had an appointment yesterday and I had to stop.
Kimber Stainless Target II 10mm--CURRENT FEATURES:
Since no revisions are needed to the factory spec list, I'll simply reference that here.
The Kimber also has its slide fit to the frame, has a match and ramped barrel, match bushing, a BoMar-type Lo-Mount nicely fit to the slide--and that damned plastic mainspring housing. I fitted the Hogue fingergrip wraparounds immediately--that's the grip I put on all my "range" 1911s. I also will be installing a Barret SS magwell, as soon as I can find one, and I will update the plastic MSH to an Ed Brown one.
Weight: with Hogue grip and magazine, unloaded: 39 oz. loaded with 8 rounds, 200gr: 44.2 oz.:
I paid $959.95 (plus ST) for this pistol late last July, and had I been buying from my current / favored LGS, I would have gotten it for another $20-25.00 less.
After shooting one box of a (brand-unremembered) factory TMJ ammo, I built up a typical TMJ lighter reload (5.0 gr. 231, 200TMJ--new Starline Brass, WLPs and used that for the break-in. The first target shot with those reloads (15 yards, outdoor range, bench rest) is here: The #1 shot is the right-most--so this is a nominal 1.25" group. I was very pleased.
This pistol was really tight--even slow-but-continuous 'target shooting' would heat it up noticably. So, I resolved to do a complete break-in. There was the odd FTF with my older 10mm reloads with the factory (Kimber-branded) magazine. I also tested and shot from the several STI 10mm mags I own, with mixed results there. (These magazines generally need to be tuned up, BTW).
Kimber Stainless Target II 10mm--RANGE PERFORMANCE:
By about round 200, the Kimber was heating up much less and shooting better. At about round 350, we had a club shoot one evening when it was raining--so we shot from the 50 yard line, under our rain & shade canopy, at an assortment of reactive targets. I had never shot at 50 yards before, and after a bit of practice I found I could reliably ring a 12" plate in a measured rapid fire. Further, I could regularly (but intermittently) hit bowling pin "heads" we would set up on one table. The latter was eye-opening, so to speak--I'd never experienced that kind of accuracy from a semiauto pistol before--not even my S&W 52 would do that. By this time, the reload ammo was 5.2 gr. of 231 under a 180-gr. Hornady TMJ, and that recipe is the one I used in the comparison last week.
At the end of the 500+ rounds of break-in, the Kimber ran much cooler, and noticably smoother--but there does appear to be some minor peening of the slide at the release stop. I plan to look at this more closely and either call Kimber for an RMA or do some minor fitting here.
Break-in continued uneventfully, and I shot about 550-600 rounds through it before I diverted to my "38+P replica loads" reloading project and put all my time into my j-frames and those rounds.
Coming back to it "cold" after five months or so away gave me a chance to evaluate it again, both by itself and in comparison to the EAA Elite Match.
EM-10 and ST II-10 comparisons:
Here's a link to a simple photo showing the two pistols side-by side. Other than width and thickness of the magazine floor plate, the two pistols are virtually identical in LOA and HOA.
1. Finish: I consider the ST II to be a bit better-finished that the EM-10. The original factory grips (rubber) had the flash removed; the EM-10 rubber panels did not. The blued slide on the EM-10 appears to be a "thinner" bluing. So, the quality of the finish goes to Kimber--but by very little: A uniform semi-matte beadblast finish on all major components is hardly a time-intensive finish.
2. Fit: The EM-10 appears to be fit as well as the Kimber, save for one area--the barrel / bushing issue. I also suspect the barrel is not of the quality that the Kimber's ramped barrel is--in fact, there are some bumps in the EM-10's ramp that show up in the soot on it now.
The SA trigger on the EA-10 is, in its un-'smithed / factory state, actually a bit better than the Kimber trigger. Both pull about the same, and the EA-10 still feels new, but the Kimber has some creep in it that, while it smoothed out in the break-in, shouldn't be there.
3. Accuracy: As yet undetermined--but I will, because of the fit on the EA-10 muzzle, give the edge to the Kimber.
4. "Shootability:" Although I am a real 1911 afficiando, in this fresh comparison I will call the EA-10 much more shootable. The double-stack frame width cushions the recoil well; the added weight does the same. I've generally preferred an arched mainspring on my 1911s, and I find the straight mainspring on this Kimber frame without the benefit of that small Barret add-on magwell to have a 'friction point' on my palm under the heavier recoil of the narrower 1911 frame. In summary, the CZ-75 design is every bit the ergonomic "update" to the 1911 design it was intended to be.
5. Sights: While it's a bit of personal taste, I do prefer the full target blade of the Kimber BoMar, and the appearance of a lo-mount over the EA-10's LPA smaller blade and "high" setting for POI adjustment. Part of this can be fixed by changing the LPA blade--but, overall, the Kimber sight appears to be more durable as well.
Summary: The Kimber comes out on top, kind of--but mostly because of subjective values on my part about the quality of the components and the total "fit" of the parts. It should have better parts since it cost twice as much. Since the ergonomics are virtually identical, the "feel" in shooting both guns gives the benefit to the Elite Match.
If Tanfoglio / EAA shipped the Elite Match series with a barrel bushing, I would consider it the functional equal to the Kimber--a pistol that costs twice as much.
As far as company support goes, Kimber appears to provide better factory service. But even that is debateable, if the "Kimber QC" threads are any indication.
Because I tend to be a value / cost buyer if other factors are nominally equal, I'd buy the EAA Witness over the Kimber Stainless Target II were I purchasing a 10mm for the first time. The benefits of the CZ-75 design improvements over the traditional 1911 design cannot be overstated.
Jan. 18: Kimber CS contact re slide stop notch peening: Getting these posts written spurred me on to send a closeup picture of the slide stop notch to Dennis, the "repairs" rep at Kimber. In addition to the picture, I was completely forthcoming about shooting reloads, and I posed several questions about warranty and / or cost of service for this problem.
Within three hours I received a phone call from Dennis. Speaking to the problem at hand, his opinion was that the pistol did not need to be serviced at the shop, but merely needed to have a 16-lb recoil spring fit. (That had been my assessment, too, but I wanted to see how Kimber would address this.) He further assured me that something like this was / will be handled under warranty. I was completely satisfied with the factory response, and this kind of contact certainly tends to minimize the issues of Kimber QC and CS that bashers love to post.
Jim H.
The EM-10mm (my own name) is a hard gun to find--Tanfoglio apparently only makes the 10mm Elite Match version in limited amounts, and EAA never knows when they will arrive, or how many. I spotted one on Gun Broker on January 6th--and when I called my LGS on Monday morning to see if he could get one, he already had one in stock! WTH, Christmas bills payoff can be put off a month--and off I went to pick it up.
I've owned a standard EAA Large Frame SS .45ACP for about fifteen years, and a 'compact' full frame .40 S&W Carry Comp package for nearly the same time. Both have been reliable performers, and the only real complaint I've had centers on the inherent design issue of the 'negative' barrel angle relative to the slide necessitating a high rear sight and / or a very short front sight.
Last summer, when I started shooting again after some years away, I wanted to shoot another 10mm besides my current guns, so I picked up a EAA 10mm top end for the .45ACP frame. It worked flawlessly, as did the three magazines--but the accuracy was indifferent--perhaps 3+" at 25 yards.
The Elite Match had features I wanted in my next pistol, so I looked into getting one and found I would simply have to wait until they got into the pipeline again. Meanwhile, I bought a Kimber Stainless Target II in 10mm and broke that in.
What follows is my 'immediate reactions' to the Elite Match and the first range session with it. Since I have a perspective about 10mm shooting again based on that Kimber, I'm including some comments about that as well.
Witness Elite Match 10mm--CURRENT FEATURES:
1. different rear sight, replaceable front sight The current 10mm model as shipped from the factory has a an LPA fully-adjustable, designed somewhat like Novak carry sights. see this picture. I did a quick tweak to move the group upwards while at the range and it appears to be sufficiently adjustable. However, it was disappointing to see it shipped with a 'carry'-type blade--recessed, but all black with no outlines, instead of a match / target blade, which is available from LPA and could have been installed.
The front sight is the design they've been shipping recently--a front-oriented dovetail, and set in place with a torx screw on top. Plain black, with almost a patridge-type profile. The one shipped on the slide was, for my taste, a bit narrow (IOW, it did not fill up the blade slot as much as I'd like.) If the other widths are readily available, this will be an easy changeout for me to do.
2. Extended safety, extended mag release. For my size hand, the safety is in a perfect location to ride it while shooting. If that is NOT your shooting style, there's room below the safety to drop your thumb in nicely without impinging on the mag release. The extended mag release does not protrude so far as to make accidental mag ejection likely.
3. SA-only trigger: Unlike the conventional CZ-type trigger in which there is the option of a double-action pull on the first shot with the hammer down, the trigger on the Elite Match models is SA only, and the hammer must be cocked. It is fitted with a stopscrew. I estimate the pull to be about five lbs, and it has a touch of grit in it--really, only what I would expect to find on a new trigger that a gunsmith had not worked on.
4. Barrel and slide: The current catalog and specifications call it a match barrel. Mine showed no fitting marks, however. It is better fit to the slide, and the slide to the frame, than the switch-top I bought last summer. In fact, the slide fit is very good for an out-of-the-box guns. However, there is no bushing for a better barrel fit, and there is somewhat noticable 'looseness' at the muzzle in the vertical axis.
5. Other features: pebble-grained rubber grips; duotone finish--SS frame, beadblasted with sanded / brighter flats; blued release, safety, hammer, and slide. Vertical serrations on front and back straps; mag well bevel cast into frame. NO barrel bushing; heavyweight slide design. Comes in a 'deluxe' Italian-designed carrying case c/w lock, manual and documents, and one large-capacity magazine.
6. Weight: with magazine, unloaded: 42.2 oz. with magazine, loaded w/15 rounds 200gr: 52.0 oz.
I paid $479.95 (Plus ST) for it on January 7.
Witness Elite Match 10mm--RANGE PERFORMANCE:
1. NO FTFs, FTEs, and no malfunctions at all in approximately 80 rounds fired. This included feeding from the one magazine shipped with the pistol and with the three I got last summer (one with the slide, two purchased from EAA). All mags seated properly, but there is a tendency to not catch. This appears to be a very minor issue of the thickness of the plastic base pad, and can be readily fixed by light filing on the top of the pad if needed. Each magazine held 13 rounds; so I guess we can call this a 13+1 pistol, or large-capacity. I questioned this capacity at this time, as I remembered it fitting 14+1 last summer; this time I didn't try cramming them in. Maybe I miscounted. I do remember 15+1 last summer wasn't worth the effort. All of these are OEM mags--that is, they all have the "T" (tanfoglio) logo stamped in them.
Update: when I weighed it for the figures above, I had no particular problem inserting 15 rounds into one of the magazines.
2. Accuracy: "uncertain:" It was an abysmal day at the range for me--old eye syndrome. Since I target shot at our club outdoor range this summer, this time at an indoor range I found the lighting contrast too low, the 'booth' environment inhospitable, and an inadequate setup for attempting 'benchrest' shooting. Here's a link to about rounds 37-44 that were fired from this gun. Note that I was firing eight-round magazines to afford a direct comparison to the Kimber; the #1 round is the left-most. Because of my performance, I see no distinct group or accuracy characteristic yet. The loads shot were the reloads I used to break in the Kimber ST II-10mm--5.2 gr. of 231 under a 180-gr. TMJ. In the Kimber, that load is 2" accurate at 50 yards; I have no idea of what an accurate load of the EM-10 will be.
As with all EAA and CZ-75 designs, there is that negative slope to the barrel inside the slide. This necessitates a high rear sight, and AFAIK, it has existed from day one. As a result, the as-shipped rear sight (screwed down) shot about 5" low at 15 yards. two quick adjustments brought it up to about 1" low, I think.
OK, I'm back to finish this up--had an appointment yesterday and I had to stop.
Kimber Stainless Target II 10mm--CURRENT FEATURES:
Since no revisions are needed to the factory spec list, I'll simply reference that here.
The Kimber also has its slide fit to the frame, has a match and ramped barrel, match bushing, a BoMar-type Lo-Mount nicely fit to the slide--and that damned plastic mainspring housing. I fitted the Hogue fingergrip wraparounds immediately--that's the grip I put on all my "range" 1911s. I also will be installing a Barret SS magwell, as soon as I can find one, and I will update the plastic MSH to an Ed Brown one.
Weight: with Hogue grip and magazine, unloaded: 39 oz. loaded with 8 rounds, 200gr: 44.2 oz.:
I paid $959.95 (plus ST) for this pistol late last July, and had I been buying from my current / favored LGS, I would have gotten it for another $20-25.00 less.
After shooting one box of a (brand-unremembered) factory TMJ ammo, I built up a typical TMJ lighter reload (5.0 gr. 231, 200TMJ--new Starline Brass, WLPs and used that for the break-in. The first target shot with those reloads (15 yards, outdoor range, bench rest) is here: The #1 shot is the right-most--so this is a nominal 1.25" group. I was very pleased.
This pistol was really tight--even slow-but-continuous 'target shooting' would heat it up noticably. So, I resolved to do a complete break-in. There was the odd FTF with my older 10mm reloads with the factory (Kimber-branded) magazine. I also tested and shot from the several STI 10mm mags I own, with mixed results there. (These magazines generally need to be tuned up, BTW).
Kimber Stainless Target II 10mm--RANGE PERFORMANCE:
By about round 200, the Kimber was heating up much less and shooting better. At about round 350, we had a club shoot one evening when it was raining--so we shot from the 50 yard line, under our rain & shade canopy, at an assortment of reactive targets. I had never shot at 50 yards before, and after a bit of practice I found I could reliably ring a 12" plate in a measured rapid fire. Further, I could regularly (but intermittently) hit bowling pin "heads" we would set up on one table. The latter was eye-opening, so to speak--I'd never experienced that kind of accuracy from a semiauto pistol before--not even my S&W 52 would do that. By this time, the reload ammo was 5.2 gr. of 231 under a 180-gr. Hornady TMJ, and that recipe is the one I used in the comparison last week.
At the end of the 500+ rounds of break-in, the Kimber ran much cooler, and noticably smoother--but there does appear to be some minor peening of the slide at the release stop. I plan to look at this more closely and either call Kimber for an RMA or do some minor fitting here.
Break-in continued uneventfully, and I shot about 550-600 rounds through it before I diverted to my "38+P replica loads" reloading project and put all my time into my j-frames and those rounds.
Coming back to it "cold" after five months or so away gave me a chance to evaluate it again, both by itself and in comparison to the EAA Elite Match.
EM-10 and ST II-10 comparisons:
Here's a link to a simple photo showing the two pistols side-by side. Other than width and thickness of the magazine floor plate, the two pistols are virtually identical in LOA and HOA.
1. Finish: I consider the ST II to be a bit better-finished that the EM-10. The original factory grips (rubber) had the flash removed; the EM-10 rubber panels did not. The blued slide on the EM-10 appears to be a "thinner" bluing. So, the quality of the finish goes to Kimber--but by very little: A uniform semi-matte beadblast finish on all major components is hardly a time-intensive finish.
2. Fit: The EM-10 appears to be fit as well as the Kimber, save for one area--the barrel / bushing issue. I also suspect the barrel is not of the quality that the Kimber's ramped barrel is--in fact, there are some bumps in the EM-10's ramp that show up in the soot on it now.
The SA trigger on the EA-10 is, in its un-'smithed / factory state, actually a bit better than the Kimber trigger. Both pull about the same, and the EA-10 still feels new, but the Kimber has some creep in it that, while it smoothed out in the break-in, shouldn't be there.
3. Accuracy: As yet undetermined--but I will, because of the fit on the EA-10 muzzle, give the edge to the Kimber.
4. "Shootability:" Although I am a real 1911 afficiando, in this fresh comparison I will call the EA-10 much more shootable. The double-stack frame width cushions the recoil well; the added weight does the same. I've generally preferred an arched mainspring on my 1911s, and I find the straight mainspring on this Kimber frame without the benefit of that small Barret add-on magwell to have a 'friction point' on my palm under the heavier recoil of the narrower 1911 frame. In summary, the CZ-75 design is every bit the ergonomic "update" to the 1911 design it was intended to be.
5. Sights: While it's a bit of personal taste, I do prefer the full target blade of the Kimber BoMar, and the appearance of a lo-mount over the EA-10's LPA smaller blade and "high" setting for POI adjustment. Part of this can be fixed by changing the LPA blade--but, overall, the Kimber sight appears to be more durable as well.
Summary: The Kimber comes out on top, kind of--but mostly because of subjective values on my part about the quality of the components and the total "fit" of the parts. It should have better parts since it cost twice as much. Since the ergonomics are virtually identical, the "feel" in shooting both guns gives the benefit to the Elite Match.
If Tanfoglio / EAA shipped the Elite Match series with a barrel bushing, I would consider it the functional equal to the Kimber--a pistol that costs twice as much.
As far as company support goes, Kimber appears to provide better factory service. But even that is debateable, if the "Kimber QC" threads are any indication.
Because I tend to be a value / cost buyer if other factors are nominally equal, I'd buy the EAA Witness over the Kimber Stainless Target II were I purchasing a 10mm for the first time. The benefits of the CZ-75 design improvements over the traditional 1911 design cannot be overstated.
Jan. 18: Kimber CS contact re slide stop notch peening: Getting these posts written spurred me on to send a closeup picture of the slide stop notch to Dennis, the "repairs" rep at Kimber. In addition to the picture, I was completely forthcoming about shooting reloads, and I posed several questions about warranty and / or cost of service for this problem.
Within three hours I received a phone call from Dennis. Speaking to the problem at hand, his opinion was that the pistol did not need to be serviced at the shop, but merely needed to have a 16-lb recoil spring fit. (That had been my assessment, too, but I wanted to see how Kimber would address this.) He further assured me that something like this was / will be handled under warranty. I was completely satisfied with the factory response, and this kind of contact certainly tends to minimize the issues of Kimber QC and CS that bashers love to post.
Jim H.
Last edited:
