Kimber 3" 1911 Jamming problems...
- Thread starter kashton
- Start date
- Status
gudel
Member
you better put your flame suit on
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Hey, flame on!
I was a die hard 1911 carrier for longer than some are old these days. I got tired of dealing with the "lemons" and while the Colts were good right out of the box, some still needed some work to work for me, sights, MSH/triggers, grips, etc, not to mention prices, I moved on.
I tried my first SIG a couple of years ago and never looked back. Sold "most" of my 1911's and reinvested the money in the SIG's. They come with everything I want and do work, right out of the box with no break in necessary, just load the mags and go. I just recently bought #11. If you think good 1911's are an addiction, SIG's are MUCH worse!
I was a die hard 1911 carrier for longer than some are old these days. I got tired of dealing with the "lemons" and while the Colts were good right out of the box, some still needed some work to work for me, sights, MSH/triggers, grips, etc, not to mention prices, I moved on.
I tried my first SIG a couple of years ago and never looked back. Sold "most" of my 1911's and reinvested the money in the SIG's. They come with everything I want and do work, right out of the box with no break in necessary, just load the mags and go. I just recently bought #11. If you think good 1911's are an addiction, SIG's are MUCH worse!
you better put your flame suit on...
Ya' think...??
Actually the 1911 pistol has been my favorite for over a half century, and I've shot some that went back as far as 1912. My beef is with the current makers that took a fine old design and degraded it. What was once a legendary weapon has been reduced to being a big-boy toy that must be “tweaked” and “broken in” before it’s expected to be reliable and work. It’s a darn shame… and worse!
Bring on the war... I' ready...
Jamie B
Member
Others here are much more intelligent than I regarding the 1911.
I have a SA Micro LW that is a fantastic carry gun. I did several things to ensure reliability:
1) Throated and polished the barrel
2) Replaced the OEM extractor with an EB, which made a world of difference
3) REplaced the OEM FPS with an EGW. I put a very slight bevel on the edge, which slowed the slide enough to allow reliable pick up of the subsequent round
4) Keep it well-lubed
5) Change the recoil spring assemble on a regular basis
It is a great carry gun, and runs perfectly.
Regards!
Jamie
I have a SA Micro LW that is a fantastic carry gun. I did several things to ensure reliability:
1) Throated and polished the barrel
2) Replaced the OEM extractor with an EB, which made a world of difference
3) REplaced the OEM FPS with an EGW. I put a very slight bevel on the edge, which slowed the slide enough to allow reliable pick up of the subsequent round
4) Keep it well-lubed
5) Change the recoil spring assemble on a regular basis
It is a great carry gun, and runs perfectly.
Regards!
Jamie
It's a fairly expensive gun. Why do you have "to do things to insure reliability?" wasn't the manufacturer responsible for seeing to this?
The barrel comes throated. Removing more metal could be counter-productive, and even leave the case head unsupported.
Why was this necessary? Are you saying that you had to start replacing parts in your expensive, new gun from git-go because what the manufacturer used wasn't any good?
So the manufacturer's firing pin stop wasn't any good either? Maybe they don't know how to fit a firing pin stop, or simply out of ignorence use the same stop that goes into their other models?
Must be a bit messy to carry around...
So the recoil springs either aren't any good, or over-stressed because of a questionable design, right? My old Colt L.W. Commander is also reliable, but never required the fussing around you seem to be going through.
I don't mean to bug ya'... just point out that it is sad to see today's 1911 style pistol buyers spending big money to buy what in effect is a project gun that has to have more money spent on it to get it right. In past years it wasn't necessay to rebuild new guns because they worked right in the first place.
If buyers of Glock, SIG, Beretta, and even Ruger pistols don't have to go through this sort of thing, why should buyers of 1911 style pistols have too?
johndoe1027
Member
Jamie B
Member
Fluff, I was simply communicating my experience.
I am well aware of what I am doing, and I use common sense.
Responses like this is why I rarely waste time communicating online.
I am well aware of what I am doing, and I use common sense.
Responses like this is why I rarely waste time communicating online.
Well I did say...
Isn't this a fair and accurate description of what you did?
My remarks were more intended for those that were following the thread, and were thinking about buying a pistol. I'm not sure it's common sense to buy an expensive handgun that has to be rebuilt to be right. I have well over a half-century's experience with the 1911 pistol, and I can assure you it wasn't always the way it is now.
If today's buyers are willing and financially able to do things your way, it's their business and I have no objections. But some who are new to the game might like some insights about how things are before they lay their bucks down on the counter. Clearly some aren't getting the message, because we continue to get thread after thread, and post after post, from (usually) new owners that have bought a lemon.
For some unexplained reason they actually thought that what they bought should work when it came out of the box.
And it didn't...
Isn't this a fair and accurate description of what you did?
My remarks were more intended for those that were following the thread, and were thinking about buying a pistol. I'm not sure it's common sense to buy an expensive handgun that has to be rebuilt to be right. I have well over a half-century's experience with the 1911 pistol, and I can assure you it wasn't always the way it is now.
If today's buyers are willing and financially able to do things your way, it's their business and I have no objections. But some who are new to the game might like some insights about how things are before they lay their bucks down on the counter. Clearly some aren't getting the message, because we continue to get thread after thread, and post after post, from (usually) new owners that have bought a lemon.
For some unexplained reason they actually thought that what they bought should work when it came out of the box.
And it didn't...
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Old Fuff,
Your pretty much describing why I got away from the 1911's and went to SIG's. Even with the Colts, I usually have to change a couple of things for me, though the guns usually work fine otherwise, unlike a lot of the copies. I will say that a good throat and polish job is often needed on the older Colt and the GI guns that were designed to feed hard ball and you want to use SWC's or some hollow points.
As far as the 1911's go, its always been my experience that the closer you stay to the original specs, the less troubles you will have. Good sights, and a the proper MSH/trigger length for you, are about all you need. Most of the fancy add ons and tight, non spec tolerances are the cause of all the troubles. That 1911's slide should rattle a little on the frame when you shake it.
4 of the last 5 1911's I bought had issues right out of the box that required attention. Of the 11 SIG's I've bought, 0 have required anything but ammo to work, right out of the box. Which would you choose?
Your pretty much describing why I got away from the 1911's and went to SIG's. Even with the Colts, I usually have to change a couple of things for me, though the guns usually work fine otherwise, unlike a lot of the copies. I will say that a good throat and polish job is often needed on the older Colt and the GI guns that were designed to feed hard ball and you want to use SWC's or some hollow points.
As far as the 1911's go, its always been my experience that the closer you stay to the original specs, the less troubles you will have. Good sights, and a the proper MSH/trigger length for you, are about all you need. Most of the fancy add ons and tight, non spec tolerances are the cause of all the troubles. That 1911's slide should rattle a little on the frame when you shake it.
4 of the last 5 1911's I bought had issues right out of the box that required attention. Of the 11 SIG's I've bought, 0 have required anything but ammo to work, right out of the box. Which would you choose?
Chuck R.
Member
I've got two Baer's that defy this logic.
My Concept V 5" has over 16K through it now, the last 15K have been flawless. I still think the couple FTFs in the first 1000 rounds were magazine related. I've put a little over 1200 rounds through it in a weekend with just a couple drops of oil on the rails and barrel hood.
My CCW gun is a Baer Stinger, close to 5K and has never bobbled once.
Most of my shooting is with 200 grain LSWCs over 5.3 WW231.
I've also owned a couple reworked Colts that didn't rattle. They can be built "tight" and still function if put together well.
Chuck
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Its been my experience that the guns that are tight, tend to be more finicky and problematic. Thats fine (well not really) for a "games" gun, but not one I'd want to risk my life on.
I'm also talking about using a box stock gun, right out of the box, not something that has been tuned for the "games", and at a cost probably twice plus that of the standard model. As Old Fuff pointed out, if I paid extra for something fancy, it had damn well work a LOT better than a stock gun, and not be finicky.
If your willing to put up with, and put the money out for, the more prevalent "problematic" 1911's these days and are willing to put out the time and money to figure them out (good luck), thats fine, its your gun, and if you plan to carry it, your life. I've always had better luck with the "sloppy", original spec Colts and GI guns when it comes to function. Their accuracy and triggers have also been fine for what I wanted them for.
I'm also talking about using a box stock gun, right out of the box, not something that has been tuned for the "games", and at a cost probably twice plus that of the standard model. As Old Fuff pointed out, if I paid extra for something fancy, it had damn well work a LOT better than a stock gun, and not be finicky.
If your willing to put up with, and put the money out for, the more prevalent "problematic" 1911's these days and are willing to put out the time and money to figure them out (good luck), thats fine, its your gun, and if you plan to carry it, your life. I've always had better luck with the "sloppy", original spec Colts and GI guns when it comes to function. Their accuracy and triggers have also been fine for what I wanted them for.
Hawk
Member
Old Fuff said:
At the risk of having to dust off my nomex suit, it's my surmise that we as gun owners will cheerfully accept responsibility for stuff the average automobile owner wouldn't tolerate.
"You're limp-buckling the seat belt, so the car stalled on the highway. You need to firmly tighten the belt with both hands until your tongue turns black. If for some reason you don't have full use of both hands you're screwed."
"You need another 20,000 miles to break it in - using only summer-blend "ball" fuel of 93 octane or better. During this time it will sometimes stop running for no apparent reason and the parking brake might release itself randomly."
"We didn't complete the assembly or finishing work on your $35K automobile - you need to mail it to Carroll Shelby with a check for between 30 and 230 percent of the sticker price - he'll make it run. You could also use a local shop of your choice. Regardless, it'll void the warrantee."
"The fuel line and pump is a PoS and won't correctly feed fuel to the motor - this should be replaced by Wilson 47D fuel feeding mechanisms at your expense - everybody knows they need to do this so there's no reason for us to furnish fuel systems worth a wet slap."
Bushwah.
Our expectations of our weapons have tanked to such an extent we've lost the ability to discern used oats from new oats.
Les makes good (and understandably expensive) guns that stress accuracy, and they function well if they are kept absolutely clean and lubricated. And yes, their owners usually keep them that way. Still, that tightness that promotes accuracy increases the chance of malfunctions under less then optimal conditions. The same owners also tend to brag about how “my gun is tighter then your gun is,” and “mine shoots tighter groups then what you got.”
From a practical point of view a shooter can’t take advantage of all this additional accuracy except in careful slow-fire cadence. While this is expected in bullseye target matches, I doubt you’ll see it happen in more serious uses. In most instances the combatants dump the contents of their magazine as fast as they can, and the trigger finger keeps twitching until the slide locks back. This may or may not be good in a fight, but it’s a sure thing that it isn’t conductive toward taking advantage of Les’s fine-tuned pistol’s accuracy.
But that may not matter, because Baer-buyers, like the rest of us are highly unlikely to get into a gunfight, and even less likely to get into one where the additional built-in accuracy matters. His guns go to shooting ranges, and those that carry them on a regular basis do so because they believe that what they have is actually better. That’s fine, and it’s their money. But I will go with Jeff Cooper’s concept of what a WEAPON needs to be, and leave the toys to others.
At this point I’m going to back off. The subject is interesting, and the discussion has been informative. But I sense a serious case of thread-drift, and probably a new thread discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the tighter, high-end pistols when used in a WEAPONS CONTEXT might be in order. We’ll see.
Chuck R.
Member
Old Fuff,
I've got to admit it's kind of funny how you throw the "toy" moniker around.
Care to expand on this? How many rounds have you seen a Baer go before it started malfunctioning? How many rounds should a "serious" pistol be able to go before malfunctioning? My average range session is about 300-400 rounds, I've taken a couple combat pistol classes where the round count was similar per day and I haven't had a problem.
I headed out this morning after posting and put a little over 300 rounds through my Stinger doing some IDPA drills. Now granted, the conditions on my range don't exactly replicate trench warfare, but I don't think that many SD scenarios do either. Also, since I only carry one spare mag, the chances of hitting the point of burning off my lube and the fouling impairing the pistol's functioning also seem pretty remote.
After today my Stinger broke the 5K mark, how much more do you think I have to shoot it before I don't have to consider it a "toy" and it's safe to carry?
Chuck
I've got to admit it's kind of funny how you throw the "toy" moniker around.
Care to expand on this? How many rounds have you seen a Baer go before it started malfunctioning? How many rounds should a "serious" pistol be able to go before malfunctioning? My average range session is about 300-400 rounds, I've taken a couple combat pistol classes where the round count was similar per day and I haven't had a problem.
I headed out this morning after posting and put a little over 300 rounds through my Stinger doing some IDPA drills. Now granted, the conditions on my range don't exactly replicate trench warfare, but I don't think that many SD scenarios do either. Also, since I only carry one spare mag, the chances of hitting the point of burning off my lube and the fouling impairing the pistol's functioning also seem pretty remote.
After today my Stinger broke the 5K mark, how much more do you think I have to shoot it before I don't have to consider it a "toy" and it's safe to carry?
Chuck
Well it’s this way…
“Toy” is a short form for “big-boy toy,” which a lot of the current 1911 style pistols are. Their makers believe this, and they make them accordingly. The term (or word) is met to be descriptive and not necessarily derogatory.
Les makes excellent pistols, but I’m not sure they are superb weapons because of this guy Murphy who made some law that says in effect, “that anything that can go wrong… will, and usually at the worst possible time.”
Tight 1911 pistols are nothing new. Pistolsmiths starting building them in the years before World War Two, Frank Pachmayr being one of the first. Colt even got into the act with their first National Match .38 Super and .45 pistols, which were introduced in 1932.
But these were target pistols, intended for shooting at paper targets – timed and rapid fire at 25 yards, and slow fire at 50. In this environment accuracy was more important then reliability because lives weren’t at stake, just honors and trophies.
At Camp Perry they had up to 6 ranges going, with 100 competitors to a range. If you had a malfunction one got to shoot the string over, but just once. When the .45’s were up there was never a time that that extra string didn’t have to be fired, because at least a couple of dozen of those competitors had trouble.
Now several dozen jams out of 5 or 6 hundred shooters may not seem bad, but if it was something serious I sure those competitors would have seen things differently.
Over decades the 1911 Service Pistol’s reputation for unrivaled reliability under any circumstances or in any environment, was won by pistols made with a certain deliberate looseness in certain places. They were not however, sloppy loose. Today some makers have unwisely tightened up those calculated clearances, and to put it bluntly – too high a percentage of their output doesn’t work. This doesn’t necessarily apply to Les, but I’m personally more interested in a weapon that doesn’t require half a case of ammunition be put through it before it can be trusted. This is particularly true when I might be giving up some reliability in exchange for additional accuracy that I probably wouldn’t be able to utilize.
Anyway, your pistols seem to be working fine, and I’m delighted.
“Toy” is a short form for “big-boy toy,” which a lot of the current 1911 style pistols are. Their makers believe this, and they make them accordingly. The term (or word) is met to be descriptive and not necessarily derogatory.
Les makes excellent pistols, but I’m not sure they are superb weapons because of this guy Murphy who made some law that says in effect, “that anything that can go wrong… will, and usually at the worst possible time.”
Tight 1911 pistols are nothing new. Pistolsmiths starting building them in the years before World War Two, Frank Pachmayr being one of the first. Colt even got into the act with their first National Match .38 Super and .45 pistols, which were introduced in 1932.
But these were target pistols, intended for shooting at paper targets – timed and rapid fire at 25 yards, and slow fire at 50. In this environment accuracy was more important then reliability because lives weren’t at stake, just honors and trophies.
At Camp Perry they had up to 6 ranges going, with 100 competitors to a range. If you had a malfunction one got to shoot the string over, but just once. When the .45’s were up there was never a time that that extra string didn’t have to be fired, because at least a couple of dozen of those competitors had trouble.
Now several dozen jams out of 5 or 6 hundred shooters may not seem bad, but if it was something serious I sure those competitors would have seen things differently.
Over decades the 1911 Service Pistol’s reputation for unrivaled reliability under any circumstances or in any environment, was won by pistols made with a certain deliberate looseness in certain places. They were not however, sloppy loose. Today some makers have unwisely tightened up those calculated clearances, and to put it bluntly – too high a percentage of their output doesn’t work. This doesn’t necessarily apply to Les, but I’m personally more interested in a weapon that doesn’t require half a case of ammunition be put through it before it can be trusted. This is particularly true when I might be giving up some reliability in exchange for additional accuracy that I probably wouldn’t be able to utilize.
Anyway, your pistols seem to be working fine, and I’m delighted.
kashton
Member
This thread seems to have strayed from it's original intent, but thank you for all of you who have put in some positive input
Short barrel .45 ACP pistols
I really think that a Browning link action pistol with a barrel length less the four inches is asking for trouble. They just are too finicky in my experience to trust.
You usually can find a magazine that will work and maybe you can find a brand of ammunition and weight that will work if you spend enough money.
I have a Wilson Professional with 4.0 inch frame. That is about as short as I will go in a 1911 style.
I did have a Smith and Wesson CS 45. It fed everything flawlessly. It had a very highly polished, fully supported chamber.
I sold it to a friend who gave it to his daughter.
Not a well known or often seen pistol, but a good one.
I really think that a Browning link action pistol with a barrel length less the four inches is asking for trouble. They just are too finicky in my experience to trust.
You usually can find a magazine that will work and maybe you can find a brand of ammunition and weight that will work if you spend enough money.
I have a Wilson Professional with 4.0 inch frame. That is about as short as I will go in a 1911 style.
I did have a Smith and Wesson CS 45. It fed everything flawlessly. It had a very highly polished, fully supported chamber.
I sold it to a friend who gave it to his daughter.
Not a well known or often seen pistol, but a good one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
