Kimber problems

[Oldgringo]

Sorry folks, Kimber's quality ain't what it used to be. A well made and properly set up 1911 shouldn't take more than 200 rounds to "break it in." In today's era of CNC machining multiple trips back to the factory shouldn't be needed either. It looks like Kimber sold them junk.

Most of the short barreled "1911" pattern pistols don't work reliably over the long haul and are too finicky to issue across the board to LEOs. Going back to the SIG was a good idea.

It looks like there was some "special interest" involved. I'd like to see how this plays out.

It does seem that we hear more about Kimber's various shortcomings than those of other makes. Why is that?

[G.A. Heath]

I'm not saying that special training is needed beyond the manual of arms for that particular weapon (IE thumb safety down before pressing trigger), but basic firearms training like take care of the weapon, don't toss it around, ect. Sights don't just break, that's usually a sign of abuse. Were they properly cleaning and lubricating the weapon? Small guns also require extra skill/training to shoot properly, most people grab them and shoot them without thinking, then are surprised by the recoil and end up limp wristing them (Something that I suspect may be the case here). The broken sight indicates abuse, the "Safety button falling off" could go either way, although I am biased towards abuse due to the sight issue, and the high malfunction rate could be an indicator of poor firearms handling as well as defective guns. I am leaning towards the poor firearms handling because of the selection of this particular weapon.

To issue a compact 1911 as a duty gun is ill-advised for a number of reasons. The only reasonable reason one would want to issue such a weapon is for concealment, which the mag-well offsets a significant portion of the benefits gained from a compact 1911. This tells me that the person(s) in charge of the selection process did not know/care what their officers needed, if this is the same person in charge of training then that attitude probably carried over into that as well.

I'm not saying that the guns were not defective, but I am saying that poor training and improper care/maintenance are also likely to be contributing factors here as well. Additionally I would like to know what their armorer had to say about the cause of these issues.

[Excaliber]

Sorry folks, Kimber's quality ain't what it used to be. A well made and properly set up 1911 shouldn't take more than 200 rounds to "break it in." In today's era of CNC machining multiple trips back to the factory shouldn't be needed either. It looks like Kimber sold them junk.

Most of the short barreled "1911" pattern pistols don't work reliably over the long haul and are too finicky to issue across the board to LEOs. Going back to the SIG was a good idea.

It looks like there was some "special interest" involved. I'd like to see how this plays out.

It does seem that we hear more about Kimber's various shortcomings than those of other makes. Why is that?

Don't overlook the fact that Kimber is the largest manufacturer of 1911's by a long shot. A defect rate the same as other smaller manufacturers would translate into a much larger total number of units, making it more likely that you would hear about them.

I've owned 3 Kimbers, still have all 3, and never had any warranty issues at all. Maintenance consists of cleaning / lube after every range session and changing recoil springs on schedule. I would do that with any gun.

[The Annoyed Man]

What G.A. Heath and Excaliber said.

I'll bet that when you compare the actual percentages (not gross numbers) of Kimber's pistol failures to that of other 1911 manufacturers, they will be similar. Regarding using a 3" 1911 as a primary duty weapon, that's kinda dumb in my book - for the exact same reasons that using a subcompact Glock or a J-Frame snubby as a primary duty weapon would be dumb. Tiny guns are made for concealment purposes. When you're an LEO and you don't have to worry about "intentional failure to conceal," a larger duty weapon sized gun with it's longer sight radius and better grip length makes much more sense.

BTW, I've never had any difficulty shooting my 3" Kimber. Why? Because I knew it was a .45, and I expected .45 recoil plus a little bit and compensated accordingly with my grip, etc. But if open carry were not a legal issue here, I would likely choose to carry a full sized pistol more often than I do. I occasionally carry a full sized pistol now, but it does make concealment less easy.