SmallCaliberCentral

I learned a long time ago to take internet posts with a massive grain of salt, but it seems that the Kimber 1911s get a lot of bad feedback. I'm casually looking into the 1911 market and was honestly surprised to hear so many issues with newer Kimber 1911s, so I thought I'd ask you guys about experiences with them. I know that Rick has a lot of Kimbers and has been very pleased with them. I know many others who are equally as pleased. What gives?

In 1999 we got back to the truck after not finding any mountail lion tracks and a friend pulls out a Kimber ultra carry. He is a doctor and has a lot of guns. He set a 12 oz coke at about 10 yards and said try it. I said I have a good handgun and I dont want to brake my arm with a midget .45 He said try it it is cocked and locked. He told me that it had enhanced safties and explained them. I figured it had nothing in the chamber and thus when I flinched all would get a good laugh. The gun broke with an incredible trigger pull and the coke blew up. I shot the rest of the mag into the bottom of the can.

Monday after work found me at the gun shop planning to buy a little Kimber which I rationalized would cost about $300 because it was small. Not so. The shop owner said they were expensive and worth every penney. I didnt have the money so I put it out of my mind. Lately after several posts here from Rick in Oregon and others I have been getting the urge to get a Kimber stanless target model. I ask the doc if the big ones were as good as the little one and he said he has heard a lot of bad press lately. He thinks his is still among the best guns he has.

Like you, I would like to hear from others. They sure look sweet to me but I also liked the photos of the new Ruger. It would need new sights though so that would add to the overall cost.

Why would the ruger need new sights?

I have absolutely loved my three older Kimber 1911's. My favorite is a Stainless Classic. I also have an Eclipse and a Gold Match II. I have been very interested in checking out the new Solo (9MM). I was in the gun shop this past Saturday morning and someone brought their Solo back because "it wouldn't shoot". The owner and an employee took it out back and couldn't get it to fire consistently. If it fired, it stove piped the empty. If it fired and fed the next round, it didn't go into battery. Hardly what you want in a carry firearm. Maybe QC is slipping or they rushed this gun to market. I sure hope that Kimber gets the bugs worked out. The little pistol felt great and slipped in and out of a pocket very nicely.

Don't know about Kimbers but a few years back I tried a Springfield EMP at one of those shooting ranges. Sure was nice (and expensive) but even still, I'd read the reviews about them.

I have four Kimber 1911's, one is an older Clackamas, Oregon gun, the other three are from NY. All of them are .45 ACP of course, and every one of them runs 100% reliable, every time. I carry an Ultra CDP-II daily, and now with right at 800 rounds through the pistol, it has not jammed once in it's life with me.

Not an up to date pic....guess I need to get the "family" together for an updated one....



Some industry friends who handled the Solo also were not impressed. Shrinking a dinky carry piece to work with full power 9mm is an engineering feat that still may not have been completed with complete reliability. Not to worry though, I'd never trust my life to a 9mm anyway, so for me at least, the Solo is just academic. The neat little Springfield EMP is nice too, but again, a wimpy 9mm.

I'd hate to see Kimber tarnish their good name with an unreliable 9mm pocket pistol.

Huntsman22 my thought was that if you were going to compare the Ruger and the Kimber they would both need adjustable sights. I enjoyed your thread with the varmints and new grips. I guess I would see if I liked the sights on the Ruger and if they were set at the right point of aim then all would be well.

Thanks for the comments Rick. I got an earfull yesterday from a knowlagable shooter who said sort of what you indicated that the Kimbers were having trouble with 9mm not with .45's

sixshooter wrote:Thanks for the comments Rick. I got an earfull yesterday from a knowlagable shooter who said sort of what you indicated that the Kimbers were having trouble with 9mm not with .45's

I've been reading about quite a few issues with the .45's, which is what prompted me to start the thread. If you browse a few of the 1911 forums, you'll see what I mean. I don't want to imply that Kimber has a problem, though, because this is the internet and anyone can write posts on the threads. I just wanted to see what people here had to say. Based on what I've read in the past, I knew that there were quite a few satisfied Kimber owners. I just wasn't sure if they had newer 1911s that some people in the other forums are complaining about.

Mike, if it matters to form an opinion, out of five friends and myself that own a total of 11 Kimber 1911 .45's, in vintiges from the Clackamas days, up till last year, all 11 guns have completely satisfied owners. No issues at all, at least for these eleven pistols.

I bought my first Kimber about 6 weeks ago. A Custom 2 1911, nothing fancy! It shoots plenty fancy! I was totally impressed from the first mag on. I now have about 300 rounds tru her without a glitch. My son has a Taurus and Bye comparison my kimber is worth every penny. The trigger is so nice, safe and smooth. If I could afford one I would bye another tomorrow! Rack the slide and the tolerance is so tight and smooth! Awsome guns.
I picked up my 1911 custom2 from www.budsguns.com . I had it in a couple days and at 700.00 new a awsome price! Dont hesitate on a Kimber Period.

Rick in Oregon wrote:The neat little Springfield EMP is nice too, but again, a wimpy 9mm.

The one I shot was 40 S&W...

Jim White wrote:The one I shot was 40 S&W...

BIG difference, and nice gun. The EMP caught my eye too.....in .40 S&W, it changes the entire dynamic and becomes worth owning IMO. If for some reason a .45 was not available, the .40 S&W would definetly suffice. Isn't it great to have so many excellent choices in carry protection?

As a fellow on another forum uses for his byline: "A 9mm might expand, but a .45 never shrinks......" That sez it quite well me thinks.

Rick in Oregon wrote: As a fellow on another forum uses for his byline: "A 9mm might expand, but a .45 never shrinks......" That sez it quite well me thinks.

Agreed.

Haven't read to much about the EMP nor the availability of magazines and so forth. It was quite pleasent to shoot but they were quite spendy. Last time I looked it was pushing a Grover Cleveland ($1000) pretty hard.

Jim

Yep Jim, seems all the really nice pistols run around a grand (or more) any more. I'm thinking that Huntsman22 (Don?) here on the forum owns one of the EMP's in .40S&W and is quite pleased with it. Springfield literally shrunk every part of the 1911 platform to design and produce these neat little pistols.

Like most really cool things we lust over, they're usually quite spendy......

Mike,
Let me take a stab at what you have "heard".
There are alot of Kimber fans over here as well, some I have "worked on" due to the complaints.

In the .45 Auto Kimbers, it comes down to usually 2 things.
Most of the time, the person is limp-wristing the gun. Can happen with ANY gun. Basically the shooter is not properly holding the gun, and they "react" to the recoil before the slide can.

The other common issue is a combination of things: AMMO, CLEANLINESS, USE.
Kimbers come assembled with VERY tight tollerances. Until you shoot them, they can stove-pipe, or other maladies with lower than typical amounts of fouling in the action. This leads into the ammo. Folks around here love that cheap Commie-bloc crap. It is classically VERY dirty ammo. aggravates the first condition.
Cleanliness, Most of the folks I run into, don't really shoot pistols much(several years to get to 1,000 rounds). However the gun rides around in the jockey-box. A gun with Tight tollerances that is filthy.... You get the idea.