Kimber 1911 ??

[glenwolde]

An opinion from a non-1911 fan: I have two 1911's. One is a Springfield "Loaded Stainless Target" in 9mm and the other a Kimber "Gold Match II" in .45 ACP. While neither has really made me a fan of the 1911 the Kimber is the better gun to me. I figure I gave about the same for both. The Springfield was acquired in a multi-gun trade so it's hard to calculate. Also To be fair the Kimber was sold discounted as a display model but you couldn't tell from looking at it or shooting it.

I keep them because I guess everybody should have a 1911, and I'm even less of a fan of any other autoloader. I'll keep trying.

 

[03hemi]

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.

I have both 70 and 80 series and with a properly tuned trigger you can't tell the difference either. fwiw

 

[stansdds]

I have a Kimber 1911, it is a Stainless Gold Match, one of the early ones made in Oregon, before they became mass production pistols. It is a well built 1911. I agree, the current ones are over priced for what you get. Better bang for the buck would be Dan Wesson, Springfield Armory and Ruger. If you want a cheap range blaster, take a look at Tisas, American Tactical (ATI), or Rock Island Armory. Auto Ordnance can also be a good, low cost 1911, as long as it is not one of the old ones made in West Hurley, NY.

 

[Grayfox]

Kimbers are much like Glocks. Their fan boys just can't shut up about how great they are.
JMHO: Kimbers are over rated and over priced. Back when I was shooting IDPA regularly, I saw more Kimbers choke on the firing line that any other brand of 1911. I won't own one.

 

[hkcavalier]

My wife likes hers.

I carried a Solo STS Stainless for a couple years. Very finely machined, but picky with ammo and forget about anything but a very firm hold to get it to cycle.

Kimber .22 kit has been frustrating. Still searching for reliable mags. There's just something about the feed angle that doesn't work. It's...almost as if the platform wasn't intended for .22

 

[CajunBass]

I like the three I've got. I'm happy with them.

 

[C Islander]

I carry a Kimber Ultra TLE every day. I trust my life to it. I also own other Kimber's that have been flawless. Most of the negative comments are just internet BS.

 

[Toyman]

I'VE had this Kimber SIS for over 10years. I don't shot it much , never had an issue with it.

 

[jc2721]

I had two of the early Clackamas .45s, I kept the "better" of the two (lower serial number and it was "tuned" by one of the local bullseye shooters--the trigger is perfect). I kinda wish I kept the other one as well, but at the time having two of the exact same make, model and caliber seemed redundant.

I also bought a Stainless Target II .38 super, which I sent back to Kimber for a barrel change to 9mm (the original owner neglected the gun and the bore was rusted, Kimber changed the barrel at no charge to me). This was years ago but their CS did right by me, and then some.

I haven't shot either gun in a couple of years but this summer they're going back into the "rotation." Both guns have been reliable and accurate. They're also very plain looking, which is what I like--I don't really care for all of the cosmetics of the newer Kimbers, that's why I haven't bought any since the Stainless Target II.

I think they're good guns, but like my Smiths, my Kimbers are the older ones (lol).

 

[Rodan]

It's funny that Kimber threads always bring out more haters than Glock threads... Again, many of them have never even owned one.

I've owned a number of Kimber 1911s, and currently own a CDP Pro and SIS Pro. The CDP is my 2nd, only because I foolishly sold the first, and it's still my favorite CCW gun. I carried a TLE II RL Pro on duty for a few years back when rail 1911s were the new hotness. Also had a Kimber .22 conversion, which I regret selling to buy a TacSol conversion. The Kimber was more reliable and magazines were much cheaper.

The only problem I ever had was the TLE had issues going into battery when new... it was hanging on the firing pin safety. A bit of stoning, and a few hundred rounds and it worked perfectly. I have owned a lot of 1911s, and Kimbers no better or worse than any of the others. I've been around long enough to remember when a Dan Wesson 1911 was "cheap junk"...

FWIW, alloy 1911s are for carrying... steel 1911s are for shooting.

 

[BB57]

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.

It depends on what you are looking for. I'm by no means a snob when it comes to 1911s. I own or have owned over the years 1911s made by or wearing the brand of (in alphabetical order) Brolin, Charles Daly, Citadel, Colt, Kimber, Randall, Remington-Rand, Rock Island, Ruger and Springfield Armory.

None of them are the snobby semi custom guns like Ed Brown, Wilson Combat, etc. Some of them are low end and others are medium tier.

Over the years I have noted that the quality of lower tier 1911s has significantly improved. In the past, it took a fair amount of skill in both machining and fitting to manufacture a decent functioning 1911. However with the advent of CNC machining processes a decent 1911 can be manufactured and assembled with a lot less skill. I.e. even current/recent Philippine made 1911s work (surprisingly) well.

In terms of *production* 1911s I'd say Colt, Kimber, and Springfield Armory are probably the top three. The order is again alphabetical and we can and will all argue amongst ourselves what order they should be listed in in terms of quality.

Personally, I stopped being a Colt fan a long time ago. They've been trading on their name for the last few decades. Year after year I am amazed the company stays afloat as it is traded from one investment company to another with none of them really interested in producing quality firearms.

I used to shoot a Springfield Armory 1911 (back when they first started importing/making them) customized by a local gunsmith, but the current offerings just don't wow me. They've become over hyped and over priced for what they are.

You can argue that Kimbers have always been over hyped and over priced, but I've never gotten a bad one and they do a nice job of offering production configurations and options that are generally tasteful and appealing (with a couple exceptions where they are trying to appeal to the SA fan boys).

 

[BB57]

.../

/....Kimber .22 kit has been frustrating. Still searching for reliable mags. There's just something about the feed angle that doesn't work. It's...almost as if the platform wasn't intended for .22

The issue with the .22 LR conversion kits is often how well it fits to the frame. There are normal production tolerances between the slide, the barrel, the frame and the slide release lever that connects them. There also isn't much excess recoil energy to cycle the slide. The end result is that any drag at all between the mated parts will hurt reliability.

Remove the recoil spring and magazine and ensure that the slide moves smoothly on the rails. If it fails it could be slide to frame fit, or it could be the fit between the frame, barrel and slide at the interface created by the slide release lever that holds it all together.

With the delayed recoil locking operation of the center fire 1911s any differences in parts compatibility are addressed with different sized barrel links. However in the blow back operated conversion kits there is no barrel link and thus no method of adjustment for tolerances that stack badly.

In that case some judicious fitting between the pin on the slide release and the hole in the barrel (removing metal from the cheap part - the slide release lever) will relieve the excess drag and give good reliability. Get an aftermarket slide release lever (rather than screwing up the one you use with your .45 ACP frame) and see if fitting it helps.

I put a Kimber conversion kit on an old JPE frame I used to have on a Brolin 1911 in .45 ACP (and later with a .400 Corbon barrel) and that combination required a LOT of fitting.

 

[wbraswell]

I have a Kimber .45 Stainless Target Long Slide. It was the cheapest long slide you can get, and it has been completely reliable so far. With any mag I put in it. My Colts and my Springfield are also very reliable. The Kimber is nice, and looks good. I just don't know if it would endure a military torture test. But, that really doesn't matter for a range gun.

 

[AJ]

The issue with the .22 LR conversion kits is often how well it fits to the frame. There are normal production tolerances between the slide, the barrel, the frame and the slide release lever that connects them. There also isn't much excess recoil energy to cycle the slide. The end result is that any drag at all between the mated parts will hurt reliability.

Remove the recoil spring and magazine and ensure that the slide moves smoothly on the rails. If it fails it could be slide to frame fit, or it could be the fit between the frame, barrel and slide at the interface created by the slide release lever that holds it all together.

With the delayed recoil locking operation of the center fire 1911s any differences in parts compatibility are addressed with different sized barrel links. However in the blow back operated conversion kits there is no barrel link and thus no method of adjustment for tolerances that stack badly.

In that case some judicious fitting between the pin on the slide release and the hole in the barrel (removing metal from the cheap part - the slide release lever) will relieve the excess drag and give good reliability. Get an aftermarket slide release lever (rather than screwing up the one you use with your .45 ACP frame) and see if fitting it helps.

I put a Kimber conversion kit on an old JPE frame I used to have on a Brolin 1911 in .45 ACP (and later with a .400 Corbon barrel) and that combination required a LOT of fitting.

Interesting about getting another slide release for the pistol. My Colt Conversion Unit came with a slide release and IIRC it is numbered with a 2 to denote it is for the Conversion Unit. Will have to look closer and maybe get out my micrometer to check for differences.

 

[remshooter]

They're junk. Kimber does a great job at putting lipstick on a pig.

true ,. I sure learned that myself

 

[vinn]

KIMBER;

yes it is junk. any outfit that sells a gun that boasts "needs to be broke in" is stupid, or their product is made in some far away country.

 

[Laketime]

yes it is junk. any outfit that sells a gun that boasts "needs to be broke in" is stupid, or their product is made in some far away country.

You might want to inform les Baer of this.

 

[C Islander]

You might want to inform les Baer of this.

Or Wilson Combat and a whole lot of others. Must be a Glock fan....

 

[bowshooter1950]

My wife likes hers.

I carried a Solo STS Stainless for a couple years. Very finely machined, but picky with ammo and forget about anything but a very firm hold to get it to cycle.

Kimber .22 kit has been frustrating. Still searching for reliable mags. There's just something about the feed angle that doesn't work. It's...almost as if the platform wasn't intended for .22

I was having issues with the magazines that came with my kimber 22 kit and found they make a heavier magazine spring for them. Since I replaced them I have had no more problems feeding. Hopefully an internet search will locate the springs as I no longer remember where I bought them from....

 

[diyj98]

It seems Kimber puts out some great guns and some not so great guns. I've owned a few and found that the resale sucks compared to most other 1911's.