Postal Bob Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 My Kimber Custom Tactical II is all steel, steel mainspring, and correct firing pin stop. I did remove their series 80 version of the firing pin block when I replaced the changed the rear sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salsantini Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I agree with steviestermo. Kimber uses a lot of MIM parts. The perception is that this is inferior. I own one Kimber which I replaced all the mim parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunBugBit Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I've never been one to join in too much with the Kimber-bashing. I wasn't really aware of how much/little they support the shooting sports. I'll just say I'm happy with my choice of shooting Springfields for my competition guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chips0410 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 The only Kimber I had didn't run worth a crap but have shoot a few of my buddy's that run really good just seems hit or miss with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertg5322 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Kimbers come with plastic MSH, Springfield uses a POS ILS system MSH. Both get tossed with regularity if the gun is used by anyone shooting USPSA. As are the steel ones that don't have a magwell. Springfield has as many MIM parts as Kimber, and if the internet is to be believed the only mfrs that use less are Dan Wesson, Colt and STI. Of course Kimbers use forged frames and slides, where some other manufacturers don't. Does this make a difference, I don't know. Some say yes, some say no and most wouldn't know the difference if someone didn't tell them. Of course, even a Kimber (which ain't cheap) can be upgraded to real steel internals, a MSH/Magwell and a decent front sight and still come in a lot cheaper than a Dan Wesson. I have a Springfield (9mm), Kimber (.40S&W) and Les Baer (.45ACP). The Les Baer is nicer feeling, and required the least input from me (magwell and ambi thumb safety), but doesn't shoot enough better than the Kimber, which I modified and turned into a .40 cal gun, or the Springfield (in which I changed all internals to Cylinder & Slide parts (sear was trash, C&S kit was so cheap, I figured just swap all ignition parts), swapped the bushing and slide stop (to remove top-end slop) to justify the price difference. All are accurate, all run perfectly, and all are smooth. The Les Baer has front strap checkering, which I like, but the others have skate tape, which I like too. With regards to the Kimber firing pin safety, I never had an issue with it before I changed the gun. When I modified the gun, I simply filed the little pin that stuck through the top of the from to activate the plunger in the slide and voila!!!, out of commission. I needed the part that was inside the gun to be a spacer so I couldn't just remove it and throw it away. I know a few people with Kimbers, they all run well, are relatively tight (tighter than the Springfields I've seen), smooth and work well. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Kimber, but I'd stick to .45 cal, as they don't use the ramped barrel for their 9mm guns. Not sure if it makes a difference, but seems almost everyone making 9mm and .40 S&W 1911 guns uses a ramped barrel, so I'll stay with the herd on these calibers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambluemax Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Kimbers are assembled for the masses...as are springfield, colt, smith and wesson, sig, ect. Kimber figures their average customer will shoot 800 rounds through any given gun, so they are trying to satisfy that customer at a certain price point. Now even the casual USPSA enthusiast will pound that out in a season, if not two or three times that. At the higher round counts small parts will break, wear out, or be changed because of user preference. To say this is not true of other similar brands is not true. I have a springfield TRP that has been my go-to match gun for years and years. Its not worn out, but it does feel tired in subtle ways. Also, the hard core enthusiast or athlete is going to shoot enough that they would value the enhancements and premium parts in custom guns, and its going to feel that way for years and years and years. So in their mind it isn't match ready until it has a certain trigger or other accessory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleddog30 Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) I've been shooting a Kimber Gold Combat II for the past 10 years without complaint. If I were to buy another 1911 in 9mm to compliment my current .45acp, I'd absolutely consider using a Kimber as my base gun to build an awesome Single Stack/Classic division blaster around. Over the years I have swapped out a bunch of parts on my current Kimber (adjustable sights, magwell, competition safeties, flat trigger) but it's nothing unusual to customize those parts in any 1911, and I shot it for a long while as stock. I agree with Greyhounder that the biggest hold-back for Kimber in USPSA is Kimber's lack of support for our sport. I don't think this is anti-USPSA in any way (I HAVE seen some video of Kimber shooters, but they may have been more IDPA... or just employees wearing the shirts???), but rather (I believe) they've chosen to concentrate their support for Olympic style bullseye shooting instead. As far as Kimber staying out of USPSA, this hurts them in two ways: 1) we tend to support the companies that support us; and, 2) their guns aren't out-of-the-box competition ready because they don't have the benefit of USPSA shooter input in designing their guns. Instead, they tend to build guns that have "tactical" safeties, sights, etc., etc., with I think one exception that is more bullseye in nature. The excellent gunsmith (and GM shooter) I use actually likes to work on Kimbers, though he says that not many are brought to him. He told me that the QC of Kimbers is excellent. In his words, a stock Kimber is only "80% there" but every single gun is exactly the same 80%, vs. other manufacturers that may have an awesome "90% there" gun come off the assembly line, immediately followed by a gun off the same assembly line that is only "70% there" due to sloppy fit. With a Kimber, you always know exactly what you're going to get and can plan accordingly. Kimber, are you listening? If so, feel free to give me a call, LOL! I have 2005 Team Match II, internal extractor, with approx 11,000 rounds thru it. About the only thing I have changed on it is the springs and front sight. The team match series are a bullseye gun and that's what I shoot with it most of the time. The gun shoots tight groups if I do my part. It had the typical FTE issues during break in. Since then no issues and it eats any ammo I feed it. I have also shot it in practical/tactical matches and done fairly well. I also have a Springfield RO, in 45 ACP, that's is no were as smooth and does not have the fit and finish as good as the Kimber. I too, wish Kimber would support more of the shooting sports. But I don't think it's going to happen. There are folks that like them, folks that don't, and folks that are stuck on the use of MIM parts. To each his or her own. Shoot what you like. I do. Edited August 15, 2015 by Sleddog30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 I have no idea what they were (age, version etc.) but when I started shooting matches there were a couple guys at the one club with Kimbers who couldn't shoot a 4 stage match without some sort of malfunction. Religiously, match after match. It because the standing joke when someone had a malfunction with a 1911, to lean into someone and whisper "Kimber". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkvibe Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 My Kimber has a metal MSH. I dunno. I bought it in 2006 I think. Eclipse Target II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviesterno Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 I don't think they are bad, I just don't know that they are worth the jump in price and for a company with limited support of these sports. a trojan set up well from Dawson is $1200 ready to run (add a magwell if you want it) A range officer (again from Dawsons, is $998 with ICE magwell and trigger work a Kimber team match is $1400 but still needs FO sights and a magwell. I can't imagine it's much nicer or more ready for SS than the RO or Trojan above. Almost all shooters will eventually mod to their preferred style of stuff. It sure helps to have a platform that's most of the way there. When I started, I shot SS with a springer GI because it's what I had. tuning it up to compete would have cost more than just buying a loaded, which was more suitable anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertg5322 Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 "a trojan set up well from Dawson is $1200 ready to run (add a magwell if you want it) A range officer (again from Dawsons, is $998 with ICE magwell and trigger work a Kimber team match is $1400 but still needs FO sights and a magwell." A more apt comparison would be a Custom II Target, which is in the same realm and similar price point as the SA and STI listed above. If you can get past the firing pin safety and MIM parts (which almost manufacturers use these days) they're functional guns with forged frames and slides (again not sure that makes a difference but some really care about it) that are relatively well fit. Are there issues, of course. Does their customer service suck, if the internet is to be believed, yes, but I never had to deal with them in this fashion on the one Kimber I own. It worked for 15,000 rounds as a .45 and another 5,000 rounds so far as a .40 S&W. Same as my Springfield and Les Baer. The Kimber was fit better and ran smoother than the Springfield, and not as good as the Les Baer, cost less than the Springfield (full disclosure; I live in California, the Springfield 9mm sells for a premium here, so cost comps are most likely not relative in this case), and only required ambi thumb safeties (I shoot left handed), magwell, front sight and some minor trigger work to be USPSA ready. Same as the other two. When I turned it into a .40 cal gun (with STI slide, Series 70 type), disabling the FPS in the frame was simple and cost nothing, and it now uses standard parts, though the FPS was never an issue for me; it never malfunctioned or didn't disengage when I was using the gun. I see tons of STI Trojans at matches, and the owners love them. STI supports the game, so there's that. I have no issues with them, but in California, they have been deemed "unsafe" by my bureaucrats so I cannot own them without paying a huge premium, which I refuse to do. Same with Springfield RO guns. Sucks to be here, but that will change after retirement, at which point I'll need a bigger safe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) I see tons of STI Trojans at matches, and the owners love them. STI supports the game, so there's that. I have no issues with them, but in California, they have been deemed "unsafe" by my bureaucrats so I cannot own them without paying a huge premium, which I refuse to do. Same with Springfield RO guns. Sucks to be here, but that will change after retirement, at which point I'll need a bigger safe... I'm with you all the way, brother!!!!! For my part, if I were going to have a custom 1911 built to my specs, I'd likely start with a Custom II, as stated above, and swap out pretty much everything, exactly as I'd do if I had a Springfield or a Colt. Just give me a good frame and slide to start with, along with a fresh credit card to use at Brownells (and Dawson and Ed Brown and etc), and the gunsmith will handle the rest. The Kimber has a good frame and slide, so there ya go. Edited August 15, 2015 by jkrispies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) My stainless STI Trojan in .45ACP came with a plastic main spring housing and a plastic trigger. Kinda disappointing for a $1,200 gun. IIRC, I called STI about it and their response was that those were the two most likely parts to get swapped out. Anyway...just an FYI... There was a time when some CEO or CFO from Sig got the same job at Kimber (or vice versa). At both places while he was there quality went into the crapper. There is a reason a lot of people call it MIMber. Kimber's idea of supporting our sport(s) is buying the back cover of NRA's American Rifleman magazine. Edited August 15, 2015 by Chills1994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 I think the main reason they are not popular is that they don't support our sport. They advertise in Front Sight but you will never see a Kimber on a prize table and they do not sponsor shooters. I have been shooting a Kimber for about 10 years now but I wouldn't buy another one. There are too many other guns out there for me to deal with Kimber. STI and Springfield are big supporters of our sport and all of my 1911 style guns that I have besides the one Kimber are Springfields or STIs. I agree with those who say that Kimber's Series I guns were better than most mass produced guns in terms of basic fit and finish. The new Kimbers I have seen were not. Mine has 30-40k rounds on it. The only parts ever changed were the barrel and bushing because I blew it up with an undercharged round and firing another one behind it. Other than that and springs and front sight/magwell, it is as it came from Kimber 15 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cactusbrew Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 A guy who squads with me "used" to shoot a Kimber for SS. Maybe it was him, maybe it was his reloads, but he never finished a match with out at least 3 or 4 jams. That kimber would stove pipe, FTE, or something. Once he sold his Kimber and went to another platform he never had a problem. It could've just been a lemon but we still give him crap for that Kimber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loudgp Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) I shoot a Kimber tactical custom 2. 5" with no issues in ss . Running 230g hand loads. Only thing I did was polish the slide to frame and adj trigger. And change spring out to adj to my loads. Has been reliable. And never any real issues. I also carry a eclipse pro 2 in 4.25. Sent in for cases being ejected straight back. But again no ftf or such. Both accurate. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited August 16, 2015 by Loudgp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhounder Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Just an observation, people who run Kimbers for the most part, like them,basically replace the same parts/add the same parts or tune to their liking as much as every other brand. They advertise in all the magazines back pages,costly so maybe the added price. IMHO you go to a match,read Front Sight or other mags,see the Pros, see the sponsorship shirts watch the better shooters the Name Kimber is not there. So you think there must be a reason for STI, Springfield, S&W, etc not Kimber true or not. To ignore such a customer base, one that buys as often as us competitors is as can be seen their loss. Edited August 16, 2015 by greyhounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRush Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 My first pistol was a Kimber. I wish it wasn't. I had problems for years before I flushed the Kimber parts out and had a new top end built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cactusbrew Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Very good points Greyhounder. To ignore a segment of the shooting industry that spends TONS of money each year on this sport is mind boggling. I'm actually surprised more manufacturers aren't involved in this game at a bigger level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipper046 Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 I have an older Classic Gold Match that I started USPSA with. Gun shot great....and still shoots great. Never had an issue with it, and it is extremely accurate. Also had a newer Tactical Ultra....had numerous issues with FTF's...ended up trading it away in lieu of trying to get it to run properly.... So I'm kinda 50/50 on Kimber....older stuff seems good...newer stuff not so much.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 I have an older Classic Gold Match that I started USPSA with. Gun shot great....and still shoots great. Never had an issue with it, and it is extremely accurate. Also had a newer Tactical Ultra....had numerous issues with FTF's...ended up trading it away in lieu of trying to get it to run properly.... So I'm kinda 50/50 on Kimber....older stuff seems good...newer stuff not so much.... This discussion makes me think of every time I hear somboday say, "I've got a 1965 Ford/Chevy/Dodge that runs like a top. If Ford/Chevy/Dodge can make a vehicle that lasts 50 years like this one, then they've got my business for today!" People say this failing to realize that the Ford/Chevy/Dodge of 50 years ago is not the Ford/Chevy/Dodge of today. My Kimber is fantastic, but it was also built by the Kimber of 10 years ago and not today. Maybe things have changed...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertg5322 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I have an older Classic Gold Match that I started USPSA with. Gun shot great....and still shoots great. Never had an issue with it, and it is extremely accurate. Also had a newer Tactical Ultra....had numerous issues with FTF's...ended up trading it away in lieu of trying to get it to run properly.... So I'm kinda 50/50 on Kimber....older stuff seems good...newer stuff not so much.... This discussion makes me think of every time I hear somboday say, "I've got a 1965 Ford/Chevy/Dodge that runs like a top. If Ford/Chevy/Dodge can make a vehicle that lasts 50 years like this one, then they've got my business for today!" People say this failing to realize that the Ford/Chevy/Dodge of 50 years ago is not the Ford/Chevy/Dodge of today. My Kimber is fantastic, but it was also built by the Kimber of 10 years ago and not today. Maybe things have changed...? You generally don't hear from people who have something that works. They just go on with life. Someone with something (don't matter if it's a car, gun or lawn mower) that doesn't work will let the world know of his misfortune. The interwebs have only made this more prevalent. Then you have to kind of extrapolate what it actually means if a few people are complaining about a company's product. Are these people a big segment of the owners of this product? Hard to tell. My Kimber was/is fine, but it's just one of many. My Springfield was loose and had crap parts, though it worked well as long as you don't mind a gritty, creepy trigger and a rattly frame to slide fit. It was reasonably accurate and perfectly reliable but the trigger and rattle bothered me. It's better now, and didn't cost too much to "fix", but for what I paid it should have been good from the start. I'd wager most out-of-the-box 1911s in the <$1,000.00 range are probably similar to the ones I got. Some will be better, some worse, but all usually work well enough. The tinkerers among us (you know who you are) will never be satisfied, and we wouldn't know what to do with a gun we couldn't tinker with. I know production class guns seem to be better, though they still suffer heavy triggers and occasional other issues. Not sure why this is, but I know every Beretta 92 I've held has been smooth and worked well from day one. Same with Glocks, XDs and CZs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) I have an older Classic Gold Match that I started USPSA with. Gun shot great....and still shoots great. Never had an issue with it, and it is extremely accurate. Also had a newer Tactical Ultra....had numerous issues with FTF's...ended up trading it away in lieu of trying to get it to run properly.... So I'm kinda 50/50 on Kimber....older stuff seems good...newer stuff not so much.... This discussion makes me think of every time I hear somboday say, "I've got a 1965 Ford/Chevy/Dodge that runs like a top. If Ford/Chevy/Dodge can make a vehicle that lasts 50 years like this one, then they've got my business for today!" People say this failing to realize that the Ford/Chevy/Dodge of 50 years ago is not the Ford/Chevy/Dodge of today. My Kimber is fantastic, but it was also built by the Kimber of 10 years ago and not today. Maybe things have changed...? You generally don't hear from people who have something that works. They just go on with life. Someone with something (don't matter if it's a car, gun or lawn mower) that doesn't work will let the world know of his misfortune. The interwebs have only made this more prevalent. Then you have to kind of extrapolate what it actually means if a few people are complaining about a company's product. Are these people a big segment of the owners of this product? Hard to tell. My Kimber was/is fine, but it's just one of many. My Springfield was loose and had crap parts, though it worked well as long as you don't mind a gritty, creepy trigger and a rattly frame to slide fit. It was reasonably accurate and perfectly reliable but the trigger and rattle bothered me. It's better now, and didn't cost too much to "fix", but for what I paid it should have been good from the start. I'd wager most out-of-the-box 1911s in the <$1,000.00 range are probably similar to the ones I got. Some will be better, some worse, but all usually work well enough. The tinkerers among us (you know who you are) will never be satisfied, and we wouldn't know what to do with a gun we couldn't tinker with. I know production class guns seem to be better, though they still suffer heavy triggers and occasional other issues. Not sure why this is, but I know every Beretta 92 I've held has been smooth and worked well from day one. Same with Glocks, XDs and CZs. Very true that the few complainers tend to get the air time, whereas the satisfied many often go unnoticed. I'll go on the record as saying that I've been very pleased with my Kimber, and after talking at length with my gunsmith about his experience working on them, I feel justified in that satisfaction. I haven't bought another Kimber since I bought my Gold Combat II a full decade ago (verified by the old receipt I found the other day), nor have I had long conversations with other Kimber owners in the meanwhile, so I can't rightfully comment on the newer Kimbers. However, in typing this, I'm realizing that this Kimber was literally the last pistol I bought-- ten years ago! I guess it says something to my satisfaction with Kimber's product that buying another pistol hasn't seriously crossed my mind in a full decade since getting this gun. Now, how many rifles have I gone through since then... hmmm......... Edited August 18, 2015 by jkrispies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertg5322 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Yeah, mine is from 2001, and it is the last Kimber I bought (not for any reason, I just don't see the need to own a bunch of guns that do the same thing, my 1911s are all different, 9mm, .40 S&W Single Stack, .40 S&W High Cap, and .45ACP) so I can't and didn't speak for the quality of newer guns or the efficacy of the issues others write of experiencing with them. Hell, I won't speak for the quality of any gun except the ones I have; they're the only ones I have any qualification to speak about. My Kimber was good, my Springfield was marginal (but easily and cheaply "fixed" and is not a very nice gun) and the Les Baer was without issue. The Caspian High Cap I built, so if it sucked, I have nobody to blame but me. And I try not to complain too loudly to others about the quality of my work on projects I do for myself. I'll just say I'd buy another Kimber or Springfield if I needed one, but I'd check fit and function at the shop before dropping the credit card. But that goes for a Les Baer as well. I'd probably opt for the Springfield just cause I like to keep it simple and they make their guns without the Swartz safety system. Easier to get parts that are generic. It'd be nice if there was a way of gathering complaint data from all manufacturers and organizing it, I think there would be little difference between the various manufacturers at the various price points, but that's just speculation on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loudgp Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I guess in the end you're going to pay to play. Every company has their issues. And well stuff breaks. Run what you can afford and feels good Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now