Kimber 1911 ??
- Thread starter Doug44
- Start date
Mainsail
Member
This is Kimber's 1911 reputation:
Shooter A has one or more and they're the best 1911 he or she has ever owned.
-or-
Shooter B has one or more and they've been nothing but trouble, jam-o-matic, collection of **** parts that Kimber refuses to even consider repairing under warranty.
That's why I don't own a Kimber 1911. North of $1K is not a gamble I'm willing to take, especially given their poor customer service. There are too many other options as good or better for the money. I think Kimber at one time relied too heavily on their (previously good) reputation; people were paying more to own a 1911 with the Kimber rollmark. Unfortunately they squandered that away.
Shooter A has one or more and they're the best 1911 he or she has ever owned.
-or-
Shooter B has one or more and they've been nothing but trouble, jam-o-matic, collection of **** parts that Kimber refuses to even consider repairing under warranty.
That's why I don't own a Kimber 1911. North of $1K is not a gamble I'm willing to take, especially given their poor customer service. There are too many other options as good or better for the money. I think Kimber at one time relied too heavily on their (previously good) reputation; people were paying more to own a 1911 with the Kimber rollmark. Unfortunately they squandered that away.
retrieverhunter
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 45
This is typical internet BS.
While I’m not personally a fan of Kimber 1911’s, I have owned several, and they were really good guns.
In my opinion, a better option in about the same price point would be a Dan Wesson 1911, but Kimbers definitely aren’t junk.
mckenney99
Member
Many years ago I bought a Kimber Pro Carry II in 45acp which is their Commander sized 1911 with an alloy frame, that utilizes a standard non-ramped barrel. I have noticed that the feed ramp in the frame is battered from trying numerous types of jhp's there are significant dents (not quite gouges). Eventually, if I live long enough, I'll send the gun off to have a fully ramped barrel installed to eliminate the alloy feed ramp battering issue. The gun shot fine with my 200gr lswc and plated 200gr reloads and ball ammo but it balked on numerous types of jhp defense ammo. After trying several different brands, the only thing that turned out to be 100% reliable was the old standard Federal 185gr Hi-Shok 45A load.
I also have Kimber SS Target II's in 10mm and 38 Super that have fully ramped barrels and they shoot extremely well and have so far been trouble free.
I also have Kimber SS Target II's in 10mm and 38 Super that have fully ramped barrels and they shoot extremely well and have so far been trouble free.
I have six Kimber 1911's. Five .45 and one 10MM. They have been good guns. Any issues I have ever had they took care of immediately. They were responsive and on one, a Solo, the CS rep diagnosed the issue on the phone and then said that he was sending me a return shipping label because even though he was sure that there was no problem they wanted to look at it anyway. In one week the gun was returned with a full written explanation of what they found and what they did to remedy the issue.
They are expensive, but one gets what one pays for. What I have found with their 1911's is that all are basically the same and the prices increase with what they have added on. The most expensive is just a basic gun with added "stuff" i.e. engraving, "scales" colored parts, round butt, etc.
I have zero problem recommending them to anyone who wants a quality 1911. ALL 1911's require practice as the cocked and locked system is different from other guns out there. A novice who has little experience with guns and no experience with 1911's is more prone to have issues than a person who has experience with them.
They are expensive, but one gets what one pays for. What I have found with their 1911's is that all are basically the same and the prices increase with what they have added on. The most expensive is just a basic gun with added "stuff" i.e. engraving, "scales" colored parts, round butt, etc.
I have zero problem recommending them to anyone who wants a quality 1911. ALL 1911's require practice as the cocked and locked system is different from other guns out there. A novice who has little experience with guns and no experience with 1911's is more prone to have issues than a person who has experience with them.
jjmIII_Ruger
Member
Springfield Armory or if you want to spent a little more, get a Dan Wesson.
I have three Kimber 1911s in .45 ACP.
I’ve owned my Gold Match 2 for nearly 20 years and it outshoots the Gold Cup I used to own. It’s been extremely reliable in both Bullseye and tactical shooting.
I carried this Kimber Ultra Carry II for almost a decade and once broken in it was relentlessly reliable and very accurate for a 3” 1911 (and far more accurate than the average 5” 1911).
I currently carry this CDP II and it was extremely reliable right out of the box and is again quite accurate.
——-
Kimber 1911s unfortunately have an undeserved reputation for unreliability and parts breakage. That stems from a number of factors related to the user:
1) Kimber 1911s do have tight frame to slide fits and do require a break in period of 200 to 500 rounds in most cases to reach full reliability. Unfortunately many shooters don’t understand this and/or won’t break the, in before passing judgement or trying to “upgrade” them.
2) Way too often shooters want to “upgrade” their new Kimber 1911 and do so before breaking it in and before understanding 191s or what they are doing to it in engineering terms. This has led to a particularly bad reputation for the short barrel models, particularly the Ultra Carry. The reason for that is pretty simple. The shorter barrel pistols have less slide over run and in fact there is almost none in the Ultra Carry compared to a 5” 1911.
So when the owner sets out to “upgrade” one, they do things like changing the recoil spring to a heavier one (thinking this will work better, reduce felt recoil, or produce more reliability with heavy loads) or installing a shock buffer. A heavier recoil spring and/or a shock buffer will reduce the slide over run in these shorter barrel models and reduce reliability.
A heavier recoil spring should only be used if the loads are indeed well over factory spec and are in fact battering the frame. I don’t use one even with +P loads as it adjust isn’t needed. There is also no free lunch. The idea people had in installing a heavier recoil spring is that it will reduce battering of the frame. That’s true in one direction, but when the slide comes forward again that extra energy from the spring, compressed over a shorter distance, is released over a shorter distance on the way forward and results in greater slide velocity that batters the barrel and frame when the slide goes back into battery.
Conversely a lighter recoil spring should only be used with light loads and bullets lighter than the normal 185 grain low end of the factory .45 ACP amp range. For example if you already shooting 155 gr SWC plate loads, you might want a lighter spring.
In short, unless there is a really good reason and the stock spring doesn’t work - after you have broken the pistol in with at least 500 rounds - leave the recoil spring alone and don’t start playing engineer thinking you are going to “upgrade” the pistol.
The same also applies to the extractor and the magazine. I’ve commented at length in prior posts about 1911 magazine feed lip design and the different point shapes the tapered lip/GI magazines, semi tapered Hybrid/Commerical op magazines, and the parallel/wadcutter lip magazines are designed for and how the feed lips and bullet shape and length interact with the feed ramp to produce reliable feeding, or not when you mis match them. I’d also commented on extractor issues that result when you mis match them. Do a search and you can probably find one o fit hose posts. But again, unless you have a really sound reason, stick with the stock Kimber magazines.
3) In addition, way too many shooters don’t understand that recoil springs wear out and that they wear out faster on the shorter Kimber 1911s. The spring like for an Ultra Carry is 800 rounds and it’s 1200 rounds for the 4” pro series pistols. If you are not replacing the recoil spring on schedule, you’ll have issues with the slide rebounding off the frame with insufficient slide over run time and unreliable feeding.
4) The Schwartz firing pin system has a number of detractors. They seldom realize that Schwartz worked for Colt and developed this system just before WWII and that Colt intended to make it standard on the 1911. Given the imminent entry into WWII the government asked them not to introduce a new type into service with different parts that were not compatible with existing 1911s. After WWII, with the world awash in surplus 1911s the low sales of post war 1911s didn’t make the change economically worthwhile. That’s too bad as tying the firing pin safety to the grip safety meant adding a firing pin safety had no effect on the trigger.
Fast forward about 40 years, number of 1911s out there and the number of shooters trained to field strip a 1911 created problems however when Kimber adopted the Schwartz system. Most shooters of the period when re-assembling a 1911 after field stripping it would hold the grip frame in their hand with the .grip safety fully depressed and put the slide backs on the frame. That works wing on the early commercial , GI, and Series 70 commercial 1911s, but it doesn’t work so well with the series pII Kimbers with the Schwartz system.
When you depress the grip safety, the stud in the frame is pressed up where it then engages and presses up on the pin in the slide that blocks the firing pin. It’s a very simple and straight forward system compared to the Series 80’s trigger activated system. However it means when you re-assemble the pistol you cannot just grip the grip frame in your manly hand and slam the slide back on the frame. It that’s what happens with shooters who don’t read the manual and don’t understand the system. They try to put the slide back on the frame and come up short when the slide contacts the raised stud. Not knowing what’s going on they back up and ram the slide on harder. If you ram it back hard enough you can get the slide to over come the leverage of the grip safety and get the slide back on.
However, it beats the bejeezus out of of the stud. Eventually it breaks and the pistol won’t fire. The pistol gets blamed even though it is 100% operator induced. Properly re-assembled, without the grip safety not depressed, the slide goes on smoothly and the Schwartz system is both reliable and durable.
5) Finally, a large percentage of the Kimber hate comes from people who did one or more of the above, and then posted on the internet. The result is a lot of the hate for Kimber 1911s is expressed by people who have never owned one, but instead know a guy who heard from a guy that said <insert your favorite Kimber beef here>.
Unless you are hearing from someone who actually owned one, broke it in, read the manual and knows how to assemble it, and didn’t mess with it and try to “upgrade” it, you need to take their comments with a large grain of salt or just ignore them altogether.
——
The failure to comply with the break in period, user/ignorance induced issues related to the Schwartz system and users trying to upgrade the pistol (often before they’ve even shot it) account for pretty much all the failures with and complaints about the Kimber 1911s.
As stated above, I own three of them in 3”, 4” and 5” sizes and all of mine have been extremely reliable and have held up well over over a decade and well over 40,000 rounds between the three of them.
I’ve owned my Gold Match 2 for nearly 20 years and it outshoots the Gold Cup I used to own. It’s been extremely reliable in both Bullseye and tactical shooting.
I carried this Kimber Ultra Carry II for almost a decade and once broken in it was relentlessly reliable and very accurate for a 3” 1911 (and far more accurate than the average 5” 1911).
I currently carry this CDP II and it was extremely reliable right out of the box and is again quite accurate.
——-
Kimber 1911s unfortunately have an undeserved reputation for unreliability and parts breakage. That stems from a number of factors related to the user:
1) Kimber 1911s do have tight frame to slide fits and do require a break in period of 200 to 500 rounds in most cases to reach full reliability. Unfortunately many shooters don’t understand this and/or won’t break the, in before passing judgement or trying to “upgrade” them.
2) Way too often shooters want to “upgrade” their new Kimber 1911 and do so before breaking it in and before understanding 191s or what they are doing to it in engineering terms. This has led to a particularly bad reputation for the short barrel models, particularly the Ultra Carry. The reason for that is pretty simple. The shorter barrel pistols have less slide over run and in fact there is almost none in the Ultra Carry compared to a 5” 1911.
So when the owner sets out to “upgrade” one, they do things like changing the recoil spring to a heavier one (thinking this will work better, reduce felt recoil, or produce more reliability with heavy loads) or installing a shock buffer. A heavier recoil spring and/or a shock buffer will reduce the slide over run in these shorter barrel models and reduce reliability.
A heavier recoil spring should only be used if the loads are indeed well over factory spec and are in fact battering the frame. I don’t use one even with +P loads as it adjust isn’t needed. There is also no free lunch. The idea people had in installing a heavier recoil spring is that it will reduce battering of the frame. That’s true in one direction, but when the slide comes forward again that extra energy from the spring, compressed over a shorter distance, is released over a shorter distance on the way forward and results in greater slide velocity that batters the barrel and frame when the slide goes back into battery.
Conversely a lighter recoil spring should only be used with light loads and bullets lighter than the normal 185 grain low end of the factory .45 ACP amp range. For example if you already shooting 155 gr SWC plate loads, you might want a lighter spring.
In short, unless there is a really good reason and the stock spring doesn’t work - after you have broken the pistol in with at least 500 rounds - leave the recoil spring alone and don’t start playing engineer thinking you are going to “upgrade” the pistol.
The same also applies to the extractor and the magazine. I’ve commented at length in prior posts about 1911 magazine feed lip design and the different point shapes the tapered lip/GI magazines, semi tapered Hybrid/Commerical op magazines, and the parallel/wadcutter lip magazines are designed for and how the feed lips and bullet shape and length interact with the feed ramp to produce reliable feeding, or not when you mis match them. I’d also commented on extractor issues that result when you mis match them. Do a search and you can probably find one o fit hose posts. But again, unless you have a really sound reason, stick with the stock Kimber magazines.
3) In addition, way too many shooters don’t understand that recoil springs wear out and that they wear out faster on the shorter Kimber 1911s. The spring like for an Ultra Carry is 800 rounds and it’s 1200 rounds for the 4” pro series pistols. If you are not replacing the recoil spring on schedule, you’ll have issues with the slide rebounding off the frame with insufficient slide over run time and unreliable feeding.
4) The Schwartz firing pin system has a number of detractors. They seldom realize that Schwartz worked for Colt and developed this system just before WWII and that Colt intended to make it standard on the 1911. Given the imminent entry into WWII the government asked them not to introduce a new type into service with different parts that were not compatible with existing 1911s. After WWII, with the world awash in surplus 1911s the low sales of post war 1911s didn’t make the change economically worthwhile. That’s too bad as tying the firing pin safety to the grip safety meant adding a firing pin safety had no effect on the trigger.
Fast forward about 40 years, number of 1911s out there and the number of shooters trained to field strip a 1911 created problems however when Kimber adopted the Schwartz system. Most shooters of the period when re-assembling a 1911 after field stripping it would hold the grip frame in their hand with the .grip safety fully depressed and put the slide backs on the frame. That works wing on the early commercial , GI, and Series 70 commercial 1911s, but it doesn’t work so well with the series pII Kimbers with the Schwartz system.
When you depress the grip safety, the stud in the frame is pressed up where it then engages and presses up on the pin in the slide that blocks the firing pin. It’s a very simple and straight forward system compared to the Series 80’s trigger activated system. However it means when you re-assemble the pistol you cannot just grip the grip frame in your manly hand and slam the slide back on the frame. It that’s what happens with shooters who don’t read the manual and don’t understand the system. They try to put the slide back on the frame and come up short when the slide contacts the raised stud. Not knowing what’s going on they back up and ram the slide on harder. If you ram it back hard enough you can get the slide to over come the leverage of the grip safety and get the slide back on.
However, it beats the bejeezus out of of the stud. Eventually it breaks and the pistol won’t fire. The pistol gets blamed even though it is 100% operator induced. Properly re-assembled, without the grip safety not depressed, the slide goes on smoothly and the Schwartz system is both reliable and durable.
5) Finally, a large percentage of the Kimber hate comes from people who did one or more of the above, and then posted on the internet. The result is a lot of the hate for Kimber 1911s is expressed by people who have never owned one, but instead know a guy who heard from a guy that said <insert your favorite Kimber beef here>.
Unless you are hearing from someone who actually owned one, broke it in, read the manual and knows how to assemble it, and didn’t mess with it and try to “upgrade” it, you need to take their comments with a large grain of salt or just ignore them altogether.
——
The failure to comply with the break in period, user/ignorance induced issues related to the Schwartz system and users trying to upgrade the pistol (often before they’ve even shot it) account for pretty much all the failures with and complaints about the Kimber 1911s.
As stated above, I own three of them in 3”, 4” and 5” sizes and all of mine have been extremely reliable and have held up well over over a decade and well over 40,000 rounds between the three of them.
UncleEd
Member
Swartz, not Schwartz.
The Colt Series 80 firing pin
block/safety is a much better
design if one wants such
protection. And I think it is
wise that you should.
The Colt Series 80 firing pin
block/safety is a much better
design if one wants such
protection. And I think it is
wise that you should.
Last edited:
HOUSTON RICK
Member
Your money, your choice but I think you can get what you want for a lot less with other brands. Same for Colt/CZ. If you can find a Rock Island/ATI 1911 that you like, it may well fill your need. Going up a little higher there are the Remington and Springfield Mil Spec 1911's. The 1911 is a great, but old design; a lot of companies can now make them well. No need to go "premium" unless that is what you really want, but I drive a Camry.
LVSteve
Member
Especially when the example lower left appears to be in the military finish. Internet lore says only 937 of those came to the US.
Dan Wesson is a much better option. They have quietly built a reputation of having outstanding guns with excellent service. Far superior to Kimber. They just don’t advertise as well.
And your opinion is based on what?
The series 80 system has 3 moving parts and 3 separate arms all of which can be bent to greater or lesser degrees and affect timing of the system. Worse, if the hammer falls prior to the block lifting out of the way it will create striations on the plunger that will eventually cause the plunger to stick in the frame and render the gun inoperable.
In contrast, the Swartz system has 2 moving parts and is linearly actuated with a much lower chance of a failure, timing issues. If a time issue does occur, there is no damage to the plunger, and no cumulative damage leading to a failure.
In terms of the firing pins, the Series 80 engages a reduced diameter area in the pin. The Swartz system uses a larger diameter collar on the pin, so it’s a stronger pin.
The firing pin block plunger on the Series 80 passes through a cut in the extractor. If the extractor rotates in its stop, it can bind the plunger and cause a failure to fire. In contrast, in the Swartz system the plunger does not pass through the extractor and rotation of the extractor will not bind the plunger.
You can argue that any firing pin block system adds complexity and potential failure points. But you can’t successfully argue the Series 80 system is better or less failure prone than the Swartz system based on the engineering involved.
dsf
Member
I’ve owned a Pro CDP for a long time and love it! Mine is an early 1st series gun and it’s been trouble free. I talked a friend into buying an identical one a few years ago and he likes his too. I’ve seen a few others at shows and you may be better off with an older gun instead of a new one. The first series don’t have a firing pin safety and I think the quality was better. You will want to replace the recoil spring every 100-1500 rounds, especially with an alloy frame gun.
Mine has one of the nicest triggers of any 1911 I’ve shot. It’s almost scary light and I have inadvertently double tapped at the range when I got a little sloppy. It’s on the bottom right in the photo. Ignore the other stuff…
Pop quiz time for other posters - the most expensive items in this photo are ....
- The Kimber
- The Steyr GB
- The magazines
I thought Coonan magazines were expensive until I bought a GB.
Am curious, where might one of those brakes be found - if at all?
Last edited:
UncleEd
Member
BB57,
The Series 80 FP block parts are
actually fairly robust and getting
bent is not much of a possibility.
The FP safety plunger, while it rides
in a groove of the extractor, actually
helps keep the extractor from rotating
if it's that badly fitted. I suppose
great pressure in cycling/chambering
a round under the claw could move it.
But I've not heard or read any such
comments. Apparently you have.
With the Swartz system, the take down
and reassembly warning not to hold
the grip safety is counter intuitive in
handling a 1911. Otherwise the reports
of broken Swartz systems would not be
so prevalent. And face it, lots of
Kimber owners either did not read
the warning, forgot about it, especially if
they have other 1911 designs to care for,
and many guns are bought and traded
without manuals.
If one desires a replacement grip safety
from other manufacturers or after market
suppliers, I do believe finding one to
accommodate the "stirrup" armature of
the Swartz would be few to non-existent.
Regarding the reassembly of a Colt 80, it
is less likely for the handler to put his finger
on the trigger, raising the 80 Series aramature
and blocking the slide.
On a recently manufactured Kimber, it didn't
carry the model "II" designation and it
didn't have the Swartz system, the design
reverting back to the so-called Series 70
design or if you prefer the actual original
design. Wondered if Kimber is dropping
the Swartz.
The Series 80 FP block parts are
actually fairly robust and getting
bent is not much of a possibility.
The FP safety plunger, while it rides
in a groove of the extractor, actually
helps keep the extractor from rotating
if it's that badly fitted. I suppose
great pressure in cycling/chambering
a round under the claw could move it.
But I've not heard or read any such
comments. Apparently you have.
With the Swartz system, the take down
and reassembly warning not to hold
the grip safety is counter intuitive in
handling a 1911. Otherwise the reports
of broken Swartz systems would not be
so prevalent. And face it, lots of
Kimber owners either did not read
the warning, forgot about it, especially if
they have other 1911 designs to care for,
and many guns are bought and traded
without manuals.
If one desires a replacement grip safety
from other manufacturers or after market
suppliers, I do believe finding one to
accommodate the "stirrup" armature of
the Swartz would be few to non-existent.
Regarding the reassembly of a Colt 80, it
is less likely for the handler to put his finger
on the trigger, raising the 80 Series aramature
and blocking the slide.
On a recently manufactured Kimber, it didn't
carry the model "II" designation and it
didn't have the Swartz system, the design
reverting back to the so-called Series 70
design or if you prefer the actual original
design. Wondered if Kimber is dropping
the Swartz.
AJ
US Veteran
Over rated for what they are. You can spend much less money on pistols that are just as good. You are paying for the name.
shot my first Kimber last week, grand daughter boyfriend has a .45, looked to be alloy upper...side by side with my Colts gold cup....it was lighter, maybe a little more snappy,but shot very well..sights good, but overall, keeping my Colt....I'm old!
