Kimber Products Really That Good?

[bigmike45]

I have had two Kimbers. A Custom TLE II and a Custom II. Both worked flawlessly out of the box and several thousand rounds later have had no problems. I highly recommend them.

I recently traded (for it's trade value) the Custom II and several other guns for something I have wanted for a very long time. A Wilson CQB. I am in heaven. I kept the Custom TLE II because I really like the way it shoots.

I have several friends that have Kimbers. One guy has at least 1 of almost every gun they make. I have gone shooting with all of them, many times, and have never heard them utter a negative word about their Kimbers.

 

[ssr]

If you want a 1911 I would certainly get one. It may open up a whole new world for you (or not). They do not all need tweaking or long break ins. The vast majority of mine functioned flawlessly.

I have many 1911s of all makes. But I have zero interest in grip safety linked firing pin safeties. I wouldn't take a Kimber II (or S&W, etc.) if you gave it to me for free.

 

[Berg01]

If I pay $800 for a new pistol I expect it to be reliable without a trip to a gunsmith.

Unfortunately, these are made by man, and not by God; a high-volume production house like Kimber is going to put out a "few" bad apples from time to time. For $800.00, I'd rather have my SW1911, but I know a lot of guys with Kimbers, many of which needed tweaking and tuning at some point, and these are pretty damn good guns.

 

[buzz_knox]

I just got a NIB Warrior, and to these uneducated eyes, the fit/finish surpasses anything I've seen from a non-custom job.

 

[MrChicken]

My experience:

Kimber compact, internal extractor: reliable up to about 200 rounds and then needs cleaning to prevent occaisional FTF. Never needed factory repair.

Kimber TLE II, internal extractor: reliable to 400 rounds and beyond between cleanings, has had several thousand rounds through it since last failure. Never needed factory repair.

Kimber Pro Carry HD II, external extractor: good single shot pistol. Never know when failure will occur, might be after first shot or run for a 100 rounds or more. Has had 3 extractors replaced, been to Kimber once for repair.

All of my Kimbers are finished out nicely, no rough machining etc... The sights are good, easy to use and the night sights are very bright. All came with good triggers in the 4 lb range.

 

[45auto]

Although you will read individual cases of "short barreled" 1911s working fine, in general most will say they are not as reliable as the 4-5" 1911's...not nearly!

So, if you want a short one in 45, I'd stick to Glock.

If you just want a 1911, try a 5" for the first one IMHO.

Kimber did a great job before their poorly designed series II and their "work in progress" external extractor. Buy their well finished internal extractor models without the series II. Safe bet!

 

[Elmer]

Do you know the story of the Denver PD ban? It seems it revolved around Denver PD wanting to issue ammunition that had a too short OAL to function reliably in anyone's 1911.

Well Jeff, I don't know any more about Denver's position then is stated in their memo. I do know that when some of San Diego's individually owned Kimber's wouldn't function with Federal HST 230, Kimber told them it was their ammo also. Only problem was, San Diego had approved quite a few other .45's, including several other 1911 models, and none of them had any problems. They told them it was too hot, but when San Diego chrono'd it, it was slower than the Winchester.

By the way, several of San Diego's guns wouldn't work with ball either, and some of them had parts break with very few rounds through them.

Even if we disregard the parts breakage, and the guns that didn't work with ball, if a gun is so finicky that it will only work with a small selection of currently available duty ammo, while the other rounds works fine in other popular weapons, should it be marketed as a police duty weapon?

I do agree that what an agency issues, shouldn't be taken as an endorsement, especially in the larger agencies, where politics can play a big role. Just ask CHP. They'll tell you their S&W 4006's are the best pistols on the planet......

 

[Bronco45]

I own 2 Colt's: one a Gov't Model Series 70 that I just put $250 in parts into to make it reliable again. (extractor, sear, hammer, grip safety, and flat mainspring housing. The other is a Colt CCO and it is like new and shoots 5" groups at 25 yds.

I had a Kimber Compact II and it shot 2.0" groups at 25 yds with 200gr SWCs over 6.0grs of 231 all day long or until I run out of ammo.

I did have a slight jamming problem with the Kimber but I went to the Wilson magazine and the jamming went away.

Someday I will sell both Colt's and buy a 4" Eclipse Kimber.

 

[..]

Jeff White said:

Chris Corino, Kimber's LE rep is a former police officer and works very hard to make sure that they are putting out a product that is suitable for defensive use. Chris goes as far as recommending the right duty ammunition for both reliability and terminal effects.

That's not a plus Kimbers choke on more than they'll eat.

No other manufacturer that I am aware of does that. I have been involved in the purchase of both Smith and Wesson and Glock duty weapons and niether manufacturer cared what duty ammo you intended to use.

That's because they'll run with anybodys premium HP's, like any modern pistol should.

If the superior ergonmics of a 1911 type are a good enough trade off for the preventative maintenance that goes with a 1911 then by all means carry one.

Superior? What were you saying about "blanket" statements? Needing a full time gunsmith to keep your gun from puking is not "preventative maintenance".

Let's just be careful to compare pistols of like types before making blanket statements about reliability.

 

[birddog]

That's not a plus Kimbers choke on more than they'll eat.

Huh? Our Ultra-CDP won't choke on ANYthing. High end factory rounds, low end factory rounds, and every .45acp handload variant I've come up with have all fed flawlessly. 0 malfunctions of any kind.

 

[Elmer]

My experience:

Kimber compact, internal extractor: reliable up to about 200 rounds and then needs cleaning to prevent occaisional FTF. Never needed factory repair.

Kimber TLE II, internal extractor: reliable to 400 rounds and beyond between cleanings, has had several thousand rounds through it since last failure. Never needed factory repair.

Kimber Pro Carry HD II, external extractor: good single shot pistol. Never know when failure will occur, might be after first shot or run for a 100 rounds or more. Has had 3 extractors replaced, been to Kimber once for repair.

About 33% failure. Just about what I've heard.

Am I goofy to think that's not acceptable?

 

[Moondancer]

My opinion? Yes. I have a Series I Compact CDP bought NIB in late 2000 / early 2001. This is my first 1911; I'd been strictly a revolver guy until then. Until last Christmas, it went with me every day out and about. (Got a Kel-Tec P3AT at Christmas time and it goes with me now about 50/50.)

The only failure I've ever had with the Kimber was a failure to return to battery one time whilst target shooting. I would guesstimate it had had around 300 rounds through it without cleaning or wiping it down at all. I nudged it home with my thumb and kept on shooting. After a good cleaning that night, never had another issue at all.

I do have to say that after having revolvers for so long, the Para LDA might be a valid option sometime some, though!

 

[DHart]

Moondance... I've got one of those as well... The two early-model production Kimbers I've posted pics of in this thread have been very reliable. Here's an old pic of the Compact CDP

I'm ok with the early Kimbers with internal extractors and without the Series II Schwartz system... but about the time Kimber went to Series II... they seemed much more oriented toward making and marketing whiz-bang flashy-styled guns and the emphasis on basic functionality seemed to go out the window. They're still doing it with the Warrior and all of that.

The time, energy, and money Kimber puts into "window dressing" and marketing is amazing... and that's what's really pumping them into the marketplace. Personally, I prefer a clean, simple 1911 that runs like a top. My Government sized Stainless shown earlier in this thread is just that... very basic and simple... and runs flawlessly. My Colts are that way as well.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I've had 4 Kimbers for quite some time. Three are 3 inch barrel Ultras. The last bought is a Tactical Ultra and IMO the best of the best.
My friends have a mixed bag of about a dozen Kimbers.

The only real problem I've seen with Kimbers is I want to buy another one and lately Kimber hasn't come out with one that I like better than the TU.

A friend has 5 or 6 Kimbers and his wife bought him a $2,000 Wilson last year.
I thought I might buy one for something different.
A little while ago we were shooting and I shot the Wilson. It had a feeding problem and I laid the gun over for him to see.
He said, Yeah, it's been doing that.
I said, Since when?
He said, Since it was new. I wish I had the $2,000 back to buy a couple more Kimbers.
I think I'll just stick with Kimbers.

 

[DHart]

Funny thing I noticed after I had bought quite a few 1911's... many production-grade Colts and a few premium priced 1911's... once you're at the quality of a Colt production gun, there's no correlation between spending more money and gaining reliability.

In fact, it seems the opposite is true... the production grade Colts seem to consistently be much more reliable right out of the box than the premium and super-premium priced 1911's. Granted, there can be a nice "cool factor" to some of the Wilsons, Baers, and Browns, but bottom line: they're no more reliable than a Colt and in some cases, far less so. The holy grail of 1" groups at 25 yards or 50 yards or whatever "carrot" that is offered often compromises functional reliability or is done at the cost of incompatibility with all types/brands of ammo.

For the precision bullseye distance shooter that's nice to have, and the reliability compromise isn't life threatening. But for the guy who wants a reliable 1911 for defense use, you don't have to spend any more than about $650 for a mil-spec Colt to get perfect reliability right-out-of-the-box, with any quality factory ammo, any quality magazine brand.

I remember reading somewhere that Wilson would only guarantee reliability with certain ammo brands which were on the "recommended" list. Same goes with magazine brands. What a bunch of hoey, I thought. If I can get superb reliability from a $650 Colt with any ammo/any magazine, you would think a $2000 Wilson could do the same. But apparently not.

I will add that I do feel it is money very well spent to buy a 1911 with premium grade small parts (no MIM). This is the area where many manufacturers cut costs... MIM parts are cheaper to make. But they are NOT of better quality. I will spend premium money for a 1911 which contains little to no MIM. Current production Colts contain only 3 MIM parts (sear, disconnector, and magazine catch). Replace those three parts for around $70 and you have an MIM free 1911 that is as reliable as anything you can buy for any amount of money. Colt has done their best to continue to build their guns with high grade (though more costly) parts. Kimber and Springfield's production guns have basically sold out to all small parts being made by MIM.

So for me, there is a real "sweet spot" in today's vast world of 1911 brands and models where you get generally high-grade parts and metallurgy, assembled in a production-grade pistol, built entirely in the USA, tolerance-designed for consistent reliability right out-of-the-box with any quality factory ammo and any quality magazine, for a moderate price. (That sweet spot is branded Colt.)

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm a Sig/HK/CZ guy, and I expect any auto I buy to be as accurate and reliable as my Euro guns. I have a Series II CDP Compact (4" barrel) that has NEVER HAD A PROBLEM. Over 1400 rounds and counting.

Granted, I've never even used the factory mag, as I already had some Wilsons and trust those more. Bear in mind that with any auto, particularly 1911s, the magazine has ALOT to do with reliability.

 

[DHart]

An important point about "tightness of fit" on a 1911

I think it bears noting and Kimber clearly addresses this fact in their note to the Denver PD above:

Kimbers are built to a very close degree of fit tolerance... closer than you will find on Colts. The general public seems to think that this tightness of fit is a sign of higher quality. It is not true that a tighter fit means higher quality... all a tighter fit means is a tighter fit. If that impresses someone, so what?

Time and time again it becomes apparent on all the forums which discuss 1911 functionality ======> tight fitting tolerances are closely associated with finnicky functioning, fickle acceptance of varying brands or types of ammo/bullet designs, and operational failure... especially after firing a number of rounds where powder residue begins to accumulate.

Now think about how the original 1911, Colt, is made. You will consistently hear reports of typical operational reliability right out of the box with Colt 1911's... they are purposely built with the right amount of clearance (some might think "not very tight") which enables the guns to function with a very high degree of reliability with various types and brands of ammunition and magazines. In short, Colts have the tolerances built in which enable great reliability under a wide variety of parameters. And this "less-tight" tolerance of fitting allows the accumulation of powder residue, dirt, whatever without compromising the proper function of the pistol. This is where a great degree of reliability is created... the fitting of the pistol. The next time you hear someone say that Colt's aren't as tight as Kimbers you can realize that's a good thing and that's why Colts are reknown for reliability.

And think about this, what brand of semi-auto pistol seems most reknown for out-of-the-box reliability.... Glock, right? Check out the tolerance in Glocks fitting... you will find that they too have the correct degree of "play" to enable an exceptionally high level of reliability with a wide range of ammo and after firing a large number of rounds.

The fact that Kimber will openly attest to having unusually tight tolerances and publish that they will not guarantee performance with any but a select list of ammo types should be enough for most intelligent consumers to conclude that if reliability is the #1 factor in their 1911 purchase decision, Kimber should probably not be at the top of their list!

Beyond that, their use of the Schwartz firing pin safety system (all Series II Kimbers) and the fact that they use the lowest cost MIM parts in their guns should be a very clear indication that while Kimbers certainly have "curb appeal" with their catchy and trendy designs, they are not necessarily the highest quality nor the most reliable 1911 you can buy for the money.

Just some food for thought. Not saying all Kimbers are unreliable, many of them can be and are very reliable... especially the early pre-series II Kimbers. But I'm simply reviewinga few of the basics of 1911 functionality as regards tightness of fit, tightness of chambers, firing pin safety systems, and quality of small parts.

 

[DHart]

I'd like to share something which was published sometime ago (I believe on the 1911Forum) which I filed away. Unfortunately, I cannot recall who the source is, or I would credit the author... but the content is what's especially important.

"Tightness of slide to frame - the real truth

I have to agree that I find the idea of a "break-in period" reprehensible in a service/combat grade weapon, while acceptable for a "Match/range bag gun" so long as it is labeled as such by it's manufacturer.

The problem is, tight isn't necessarily right. Larry Vickers is on to something here - a gun can be right without being so tight as to compromise service reliablity and still be more than accurate enough for it's intended purpose. Frame slide fit is one of the LEAST important dimensions in achieving 1911 accuracy - barrel/slide fit is vastly more important. But all the gunshop Commandos are SO Impressed by a tight slide - and don't know any better! (The tight slide guns give a false impression of greater accuracy in the Ransom Rest used by most gun writers these days. Because the frame is returned exactly to the same point, a gun with more frame/slide clearance will group relatively worse in a Ransom Rest, but will do fine if you line up the slide/barrel assembly and it's sights EACH TIME BY HAND. See the recent article in American Handgunner about Ayoob vs. the Ransom Rest for confirmation.)

The problem is in our expectations. A 2 1/2-3" group is plenty for any realistic usage a service handgun will be put. Give me a mission for a handgun that cannot be achieved with this accuracy level, please. But everyone worships the "snug is good" god out of ignorance - and Kimber and Springfield cater to this market. To quote the original 1911 guru, Col. Cooper, "Having lost sight of their goals they are redoubling their efforts." What is it you are going to use this pistol for? Matches? Match guns can choke occasionally. Service/carry? It better not choke on you!

I recently had the pleasure of examining a 1913 "US Navy" Colt that was in excellent mechanical shape, with all early period parts intact. What was revealing is that it was fitted EXACTLY like two brand new plain Colt Government Models (one ss, one blue) in our shops display case. That is to say, perfect barrel fit, with no detectable play at the barrel hood and almost none at the bushing, and slight but obviously consistent slide/frame play.

Upon discussing this topic with Colt's Handgun Plant Foreman at the Shot Show two years ago I discovered that this was not an accident or sloppy manufacture, but was John M. Browning original design intent - firm barrel for accuracy, slight slide/frame tolerance for absolute reliability. Giving the powder, brass, lead, copper shavings someplace to go was part of the design. (We are not talking worn out WWII sloppy guns that have had their parts mixed with other guns a dozen times stuff here, these are deliberate design tolerances.) Colt uses the same CNC equipment everyone else does - and the tolerances are purpose chosen, not accidental. Glock pursues the same policy, just a bit looser yet. Glock's generous tolerances and oversize chambers are a large part of their reliability - and why you shouldn't try to reload used Glock brass.

Colt is aware of the "gunshop Commandos" beliefs, and has tightened up the guns as much as they think is prudent. Their goal is to have a functional "out of the box" product, with no or extremely limited break-in required. If you need or want tighter, they will happily sell you a Custom Shop built Special Combat Government or a Gold Cup, but I have yet to encounter any Colt with the overtight problems common in Kimber and Springfield armory guns. One Kimber 4" gun was brought to our shop because the customer had experienced at least one malfunction per magazine over "300 painful rounds". He was a lot tougher than me. I advised him to return it to Kimber under warrantee, although we could have fixed it for him. The problem is attempting to guarantee National Match tolerances on a production line. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Just hope nobodys life is riding on it when it chokes.....

If you want to get to the real truth, read Kimbers current 1911 catalog. They do mention that their very top (well over $1000)models get put into a machine fixture that "cycles the guns hundreds of times". But if you buy a standard Kimber, it's a crap shoot. We are still back to tolerance stack up.

Tighter just isn't necessarily better - and is seldom necssary for the vast majority of users. It's just bragging rights, guys."

 

[tex_n_cal]

I have firsthand experience with five Kimbers, and two of the five were not worth keeping - and both of them were $1000+ guns.

I will stick with the Colts, thank you

 

[Zach S]

My Kimber Experiances:

My Compact Stainless generally gets oiled every 100 rounds or so, the slide gets pulled off and the feed ramp/framerails get wiped off every 300 rounds or so, a fresh (wolff 22lb) recoil spring every 500 rounds, and I detail strip and clean it then. Unknown number of rounds, I'd say I've put around 3k through it, and I got it used. The FLGR was replaced with a standard one, and all the mags are Wilson 47-OXs. Otherwise its stock, and runs 100%.

My Classic Stainless gets a little oil every 100 rounds or so, and I'm right around 1500 rounds on the (wolff 16lb) spring I put in it when I got it. Stock, with the exception of the wilson 47 magazines, short guide rod and matching spring plug. I havent had the slide off of it, its never been cleaned, its never failed to go bang.

My Polymer Stainless (BUL M5) gets a little oil every 100 rounds or so, the slide gets pulled off somewhere between the 750 and 1000 round mark, and at 2000 rounds it gets detail stripped, cleaned, and a recoil new spring. Its the only one thats given me any problems. It used to have a bad habit of slide-locking with ammo still in the magazine. I replaced the slide stop with another (MIM) part from CMC, and never had an issue with it again. Then I got a rescomp magazine catch that allowed the use of P14 magazines, and the magsprings wore out faster than I was comfortable with ('bout nine months or so). I replaced them with wolff extra power springs and started downloading by one. Two years or so later, they still have those magsprings, and it runs 100%. I'd guess about 250 rounds of trouble, and since then I've fired 8-10k trouble free rounds. Oh, as you could probably guess, it also has the short guide rod.

Due to a few pistols with broken MIM parts at the range/store, and much more online, I wouldnt buy a Series II (which is what seems to suffer the most MIM breakage) unless I got a good deal on one. When a customer asks for my opinion, I tell them about the MIM issues, and while they arent common enough to expect something to break, they're not uncommon enough so that it should suprise them if something does. This is one reason I think they reccomend the "break-in period," if something does break its generally during that time.

I wont buy one with an external extractor until they make one that doesnt need revised again, and again, and again (and again? How many times has it been revised anyway?).

As for a Series I, I'd buy every one that came into the store if I could afford to do so. So far, I've only collected three

As for current production pistols, I reccomend Colt and SA most of the time.

Sorry, I didnt mean for my post to be this long when I hit the reply button....

 

[Shear_stress]

Hi DHart,

Your points about tightness of fit are well taken. On any mass-produced semi-auto pistol (most of which have a fairly large tolerance stack) there will be a trade-off between reliability and accuracy. Where the "sweet spot" is between the two, ideally, depends on the intended application of the gun. Browning optimized the design of the 1911 to be trusted in life or death situations, while many modern manufacturers, responding to the demands of paper punchers like me, strike a balance skewed more toward range accuracy. Unfortunately, with the pistol market more saturated than ever, many current 1911 makers have also tried to cut costs wherever possible.

As for Kimbers, I can only speak from my experience. Unlike the straw-man "armchair commando", I did not waltz into the nearest gun dealer, drop a carny roll of bills on the counter and pick through the inventory looking for the tightest possible Kimber that was colored-coordinated to my starched and pressed BDUs. I was just shopping for an accurate .45 ACP range gun.

After doing a lot of research, it seemed that Kimbers, at least on paper, delivered the best accuracy of the "mid-range" 1911s. I went in recognizing the benefits and drawbacks that accurate range guns offer. This would definately not be a gun that I would trust my life to.

The upshot is that, yes, my Kimber is very accurate. It has also been problematic. However, the issues I have had did not have anything to do with the tightness of the gun. They had everything to do with an improperly tuned extractor--a true "rookie mistake" for any 1911 maker, let alone one that has been on the market long enough to know better.

We need to get past the name-calling and the nit-picking about whether tight tolerances are the downfall of the 1911. The real issue is that too many 1911 makers nowadays are coasting on the legendary reputation of Browning's design, a reputation that was earned. As a result, they feel they can get away with marketing what is, in some cases, junk. The result has been a bait and switch.

 

[21H40]

I have never heard so many positive comments about colts. The Colts I've seen that worked really well were 'smithed in the mid 70's and had thousands of rounds through them. The newer Colt's I handled didn't seem to shoot better or more reliably than my Kimber, but they definately cost more.

I haven't messed with any new Kimber. Mine is a CustomCompact, series I. I use the magazine it came with and a wilson 7 rounder. The finish showed a good bit of wear after a couple months of carry, and the trigger could be improved -- it's OK, but a 1911 can be GOOD, you know? Mine was money well spent. Maybe I got the best non-custom shop Kimber ever made, though.

 

[Elmer]

There are some great quotes in here, by some obviously knowledgable folks.

Some of the companies do seem to be a little scattered in their thinking about 1911's . Seems all show, no go pistols are pretty popular these days. I think they work on the theory that most don't shoot them much, and even if they do, it's mainly with white box 230 grain ball at very low velocities. Shoot some of these guns with honest to God hardball, or some of the hotter duty loads, and many of them won't work, or stuff will break. Even though the ammo is still well within SAAMI specs.

My 1911's pretty much work, (most of them are old Colt's), but I have to say, if I were choosing a .45 for social work today, I'd probably get one of the newer designs. Unless I could afford a Les Bauer or something similar.

 

[Fatelvis]

Elmer, what do you mean by "newer designs"?

 

[Elmer]

Elmer, what do you mean by "newer designs"?

Some of the newer guns aimed at police sales. You don't hear of this many problems with most police type weapons. (Like how I'm skating naming any one in particular? )

And in case you were going to say that most of them are Browning designs, I'm aware of that. I meant design in total, not just basic functions.