WANTED: DEFINITIVE answers as to whats wrong with Kimber 1911's.

[JiminAZ]

I have had three.

First was a Clackamas marked fullsize. Sent it to Vickers as a base gun for one of the two 1911forum guns he built. Got a call about a month later Larry said the slide was out of spec. IIRC it had to do with the extractor hole being out of location enough to cause problems and of course that was non fixable. Larry GAVE me a Caspian slide he had laying around and fitted it to the gun. Still running that sucker today. The other fellow who had one built sent a newer production Custom Carry for the job, LAV discovered that they were using stainless on "blued" guns. Kinda made a difference when he went to finish the gun! At least mine was on a true carbon steel frame.

Second is another Clackamas marked fullsize. I haven't run it enough to know if it has issues but so far so good. Bought it a few years ago and just haven't shot it a lot.

Third is a Series II fullsize custom carry (the base model). Has the Schwarz safety, no problems with it through a fair amount of shooting and I have checked the timing and done my best to make the Schwarz safety malfunction. It works fine. The Schwarz safety uses a little MIM pin to push the FP block, so I can see how people damage it holding the grip safety down as they assemble the gun. Put a set of Heinie sights on it and some nice wood grip panels and I use it mostly for introducing new shooters to the 1911 platform. I have run it in a few matches and it hasn't burped. Very accurate. Honestly I think it could serve as a carry gun in a pinch.

My view is that Kimber is best at the base 5" model (Custom Carry). Higher level models get you cosmetics and checkering and such, but the underlying gun is no different.

Kimber is very good at marketing. I meet gunshop commandos regularly who have the bug for this or that "Kimber Custom Shop" gun, and are invincibly convinced of the superiority of said model. Whatever.

My experiences with their CS were poor, but that had to do with Montana rifles. Won't be spending any more money on Kimber stuff unless I find another Clackamas marked gun used.

On the MIM thing, I'm an engineer and have lots of experience with the stuff. It outperformed tool steel punches in our high speed stamping operations. Done right it is actually superior to tool steel.

But Kimber in general has had some problems with their MIM. I suspect it is sorted out by now.

[JiminAZ]

Oh yeah I had a fourth. Buddy sold me a Target Match or something like that. Had polished blued flats with a stainless frame. Pretty gun with a Bomar type rear. Shot just fine but it shot no better than my other Kimbers (which are very accurate). Trigger was no better or worse but it was a looker.

Some guy posted a WTB years ago and just had to have it and I happily sold it to him and put the money into something less target oriented.....

[arbninftry]

I had a Kimber SIS model , bought it new 2008 time frame. Took it and put 250 rds through it. The frame mounted ejector broke off and the rest worked loose. I called the CS line and after a run around, a lady got on and ran my serial number. She said it was just under the year mark. I said wtf are you talking about. Apparently Kimber will only warranty for a year. Now, I told her I had just bought it, and she happily stated Kimber only will do warranty work for a year after it leave there possession. So if that gun sits on a dealers floor for two years and you buy it, and something is not right with it, you are screwed. I have been used to Springfield and Colt, if it is something they did, they will send you a ticket. Not Kimber, if its over a year you are on your own.

So, that is what is wrong with Kimber. Or at least my story on why Kimber sucks.

On the flip, I have an original Clackamas Model, it runs great. It is good to go, I think my bitch is with the warranty end. Produict support type stuff. Kimber YONKERS sucks.

[Ned Christiansen]

Kimber 1911's: Triggers are usually great, "despite" MIM parts. I purposely destroyed a Kimber MIM'd hammer once by crushing it in a vise, it took quite a bit of effort. I have found Kimbers to be very good in the accuracy department despite often being able to see telltales in the barrel where the locking recesses were cut. Like most brands, like most 1911's under, say $2500, they are not perfect.

Chambers are typically tight-- which has nothing to do with the accuracy. My accuracy experiences are all after reaming the chambers to standard SAAMI specs-- for the sake of increased reliability.

Feedramps are very often shallow in the frame. Throating for feeding in the barrels is-- well, I guess it works for some people. It just doesn't look like what 1911 smiths do to optimize feeding reliability.

The exterior extractor debacle. In three iterations they still didn't get it right and finally, quietly offered to replace your slide with one having the original style extractor.... IF you came to them with a problem That whole exterior extractor thing was about what was better for manufacturers, not for end users..... but of course it was heavily marketed as an improvement-- which it absolutely could have and should have been if they (the gun industry in general) had gone to the trouble of getting it right instead of getting it on the market right now. Many that got into it didn't get it right. Some of them found that no matter the advertising budget, people were onto it not working. The ones that did get it right had consulted with Alex Zimmermann. I dunno, maybe some got it right without him but Kimber did not get it right.

The Kimber Solo as I understand it did not work well or hold up well. They had it all over the inner cover and back cover of the gun mags but again even with a large advertising budget they finally discontinued it. This is second hand info to me, full disclosure. I never owned one; I customized one and it worked in the 100 or so rounds I put through it; but they consensus is that they didn't work and were withdrawn from the market.

Is Kimber so different from other parts of the gun industry, or from other industries? I don't think so, not totally. We see it all the time in guns and other products-- here's something I wrote about it on another site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some comments on quality in the firearms industry (and industry in general).

You see issues in every industry, manufacturers put a product on the market because the market has called for it. They are in business to make money and if they offer this thing there is a demand for, it's a sure thing it will sell.

It doesn't even have to work reliably. To a certain segment of the market, it doesn't have to work as advertised, it just has to look as advertised. It has to seem as advertised.

They put it out knowing it's not fully developed or even knowing it's unsafe (cars are a great example). Sometimes in some industries they probably continue trying to improve it behind the scenes; other times it seems certain they don't. It's the mentality of "every one we make, flies off the shelf".

There will be some blowback from some of the people who buy it, but the manufacturer has already considered the cost of this and rolled it into the price: they're not going to lose money just because their product doesn't work. They know or hope or predict that the number sent back for re-work will be statistically tolerable and within budget. The policy will be to pretend you're the first one to have this problem, and suggest that you must be doing something wrong.

Some companies, let's narrow this back down to the gun industry now, some companies have rather made a habit of this, with models and features that are not fully developed or tested, designed to sell but not necessarily to work. Sometimes the product or feature is bad enough that even profuse amounts of advertising can't keep it selling; blowback and returns are enough that the cost to the company of warranty work cannot be absorbed by the padding added to the product's price. The internet and gun magazines are onto the issues and the manufacturer can't ignore and BS their way around it ("What? Oh that's a new one on us, no one else has reported this problem. Are you sure you're not limp-wristing it?"). Without notice, without fanfare, they discontinue the model or feature and maybe even quietly offer to replace faulty parts for a while.

Sending a non-working gun back is a great way to send a message to them that "we're not putting up with this" but my observation is that in the vast majority of cases (across many brands in the gun biz) the people that didn't make it right in the first place (and very likely knew it), will not be able to fix it. It will go to a person who is firstly, not a bad or lazy or stupid person but does not understand how these things work and has not been given adequate training or resources to address the issues. What they have been given is a check list: "Customer says gun does not extract; replace extractor. Customer says gun does not feed; replace magazine. Fire three rounds, advise customer it is working perfectly now, return gun. Remind customer that we said up front gun is expected to malfunction in first (200, 400, 1000) rounds", etc. AKA "break-in period". Puh-leeze.

My $.02.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


On the Swartz passive firing pin safety:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mXW...oA1bA&index=15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvpt...oA1bA&index=14

[Johnny Rico]

Kimber uses carbon steel for their barrels. Not a problem, but the barrels are left in the white. Depending on your location, the barrels may exhibit a tendency to rust.

[Corse]

I have 2, a clackamas 5” and an early Yonkers 4” officers size. The 5” is my training 1911 and I’ve had no issues with it. The 4” does require frequent recoil spring changes, but I’ve had no issues. Despite this, I would not buy a new Kimber today.

[Grand58742]

The only problem I have with one of the Kimbers I own is it doesn't always lock back on an empty mag. However, it's a Commander style 9mm, so that might have something to do with it.

[C-grunt]

My dad bought one around 2006ish timeframe. It was their target model called a Gold Medal Match or something like that. The thing shot very accurately but was unreliable. He took it to a well renowned 1911 smith here in the Phoenix area, I dont remember his name, who replaced a lot of the internal parts and gave it a polish job. After that it had very very few issues outside of parts wear. It got stolen a few years ago during a burglary and my dad passed away a couple years ago. I really hope one day it will be returned to me. I think he had around 30k rounds through that thing when it got stolen.

[tanksoldier]

The definitive answer is: Kimbers are designed to be range toys, not service weapons.

If you want a range toy, maybe that doubles as a house gun, they are just fine.

[T2C]

I have a few friends who own Kimber 1911 pistols and I still own a well worn TLE. When something breaks, a barrel needs replaced, etc., my friends bring their firearms to me.

Any feeding issues with Kimber pistols were quickly resolved by purchasing good magazines.

The downside of Kimber, IMHO, is the cost for shipping to and from Kimber for warranty work. Springfield Armory is good about covering shipping costs when performing warranty work. One of my Springfield Armory 1911 pistols required three trips to the factory before they got it right and they covered shipping each time. The other Springfield Armory 1911 only required two trips back to the factory for horrible accuracy issues and they paid for shipping on that handgun as well. Kimber would do well to copy Springfield Armory's warranty practices.