[STAGE 2]

I read a piece on these new 1911's in American rifleman and they seem to be something along the lines of what I'm looking for, an all business 1911. Anybody own/shot one of these pistols. My main concern is reliability and longevity, and to make this less abstract the competition is a CZ 97. Thoughts appreciated

[Skunkabilly]

Hmm...I don't have one, and I'd hate to point you somewhere else, but if no one replies in the next day or so, I'd check: http://www.1911forum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=27
I see TLE2 threads there all the time.

[Cal4D4]

My kid just got the "TLE". So far (1k or so), very reliable. Ditch the Kimber mag and buy Wilson's or equiv. premium mags. Night sights (Mepros?) seem a little off (low) in their regulation to ball ammo. Rubber grips ok with a .45. Kimber quality. Check other models to see if you care if it is series I or series II.

[tlhelmer]

That is the second time I have heard the Kimber TLE shooting low and grouping poorly.

[JimC]

After a lot of reading on the Custom TLE II, I bought one yesterday. My decision had nothing to do with the current articles
about LAPD SWAT purchasing this pistol but the info was nice to read.

As previously stated, there's a lot of info on the 1911 Forum on the Kimbers.

Fit and finish seem real good. The pistol is quite tight for an out of the box 1911 style pistol. It has a lot of features that are desireable that would run a lot more $'s as an after thought on a more stock pistol.

I've put a lot more $'s into custom Colt's in the past to get what I did in the TLE II.

I ordered 6 Wilson 47D mags from Brownell's. They seem to be the mag most use in Kimbers and have no problems with.

I hope to get to the range with it in the next couple of days. ;)

[Sisco]

I have a Custom II which is basically the same thing as the TLE except it lacks the front strap checkering & night sights.
Like JimC said fit & finish are good and it is tight. I've run about a thousand rounds through it with no failures using the factory mag and a couple of CMC Shooting star mags.
I'm very pleased.

[PCRCCW]

Ditto...I picked a LNIB Custom 2 up for a song a couple of weeks ago. Not a bushing mark on the barrel...

I cleaned it and shot it....put in an 18.5 Wolff spring, Mep Nights and smoothed some bits and pcs up....its a nice shooter.

Ive got a couple of things on the way for it. Ill have to take a pic of it in a week or so and you can see what I mean.

Mine doesnt shoot low...it seemed to shoot high at first but has
regrouped" as they say...

I love this gun. Shoot well

[Handy]

In reference to reliability/longevity; does the Swat version come with MIM parts?

[JimC]

In reference to reliability/longevity; does the Swat version come with MIM parts?

I think the best source for an answer to that would be Kimber direct...914-964-0771. ;)

There might be something on the 1911 Forum about this. ???

The manual that came with my pistol states that the warranty is for one (1) year but, I spoke with Kimber CS this morning and they told me that they warranty their pistols for as long as the original owner owns it. :)

The one thing I didn't like about the TLE II was the plastic main spring housing so, a couple of minutes work and it now has a steel one instead.

[STAGE 2]

I went to kimber's website and found this..

"Metal Injection Molding (MIM) is a process Kimber pioneered in the gunmaking world. Small parts like the slide release, thumb safety and sights are made by this method. MIM parts are far superior to castings used by other manufacturers, and essentially have the strength of those machined from steel."

What is the deal with MIM and is statement actually true. More importantly does the CZ use this same process?

[Handy]

I've never heard that CZ uses this process, but their slide releases also seem to break. I think CZ is more into older type milling/forging construction.

I think the key to this one is, who is using castings for what on other 1911s?

From what I've heard, MIM produces hard, but not strong parts that occasionally crack in half. This is how Kimber keeps the dimensions tight and price down.

[PCRCCW]

Ok....some redirection. Bill Ruger was and is the King of MIM parts...Sorry, Ruger fans...your guns have MIM parts in them..for over 20 years.

CZ's have NO MIM parts....Handy, they did have a bad run of slide stops. These were the ones that got all of the "Air Time" on CZForum and TFL awhile back.

When Kimber started the MIM parts thing they had "Teething problems" like many other companies with new parts....since they got the parts right, they havent had any trouble and actually have less trouble than other non MIM parts do.

Done properly MIM parts are actually stronger than Cast parts and mimic Forged parts for Rockwell results and
other characteristics of good steel.

Get either a 97 B or Kimber.....Either way you wont be sorry......

Shoot well

[Handy]

Where does Ruger use MIM? I know they are big into investment casting, but had never heard of MIM.

My understanding of MIM is that it is a material composed of fused sinters of decent steel. So while any given steel particle has good qualities, the question is really "how well are they fused together?".

In the end, MIM, like investment casting, is a money saving process rather than a process that produces a better part. Is it sufficient? Your call, but what caused said "teething problems", and what fixed it?

[Sisco]

Here is a statement from S&W about the use of MIM parts. Take it with a grain of salt if you must, but this is what they have to say about the subject:

From S&W, on MIM-parts...
Mr. Herb Belin of S&W posted this on another board
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have read with much interest the many comments in
this forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of
same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with
several impressions and they are "people in general
don't like/trust MIM parts" and "no one has said why"
I will take a stab at this issue and see where it
goes.
As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas
of our Mfg Process we took a long hard look at our
"Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that
any change in any of our products such as the use of
MIM components had to show equivalent or better
performance and durability to those components that
were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would
haunt us forever. The second consideration was to
determine if the change was too radical a departure
from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided
that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of
revolver hammers and triggers succesfully this would
truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more
important to a revolvers feel than the all important
Single Action Sear that is established between the
hammer and the trigger. Mechanicaly few places in a
revolver work harder than at the point where the
hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these
surfaces wear or loose there "edge" the "feel" is
lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts.
Over time we arrived at a point where our best
shooters could not tell the difference between a
revolver with the old style hammer and trigger and the
new MIM components. Special attention was given to
their endurance when used in our very light Magnum J
frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's.
None of our revolvers work their components harder
than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this
testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that
this change judged on the basis of durability and feel
was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customers
reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many
heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end
the decision was made to move ahead with MIM.

The issue of cost was only one of the considerations
in making this decision. Equally as important was the
issue of part to part uniformity and the result of
this of course is Revolver to Revolver consistancy. We
found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and
triggers required almost no Fitter intervention in
those areas during final assembly and final inspection
and Trigger Pull Monitor rejection rates dropped
markedly on finished guns. From an internal process
point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Lets shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM
process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many
of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM.
Typically when people complain and aren't specific in
the reason why, the problem is often created by a
departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is
indeed what is bothering some people when they view
MIM.
The term MIM stands fo Metal Injection Molding. It
holds some similaritys to Plastic Injection Molding
and many differences as well. To start we would take a
finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless
or carbon steel. Today even Titanium is being used in
some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder
and a thermoplastic binder (generally a Wax) forming a
slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a
precision mold and finally form what is known as
a"Green Part". This part is roughly 30% larger than
the finished part it will become at the end of the
process. Interestingly enough the Green Part at this
stage can be snaped in two with simple finger
pressure. The Green Parts are then placed in a
Sintering furnace filled with dry Hydrogen gas and the
temperature is brought almost to the melting point of
the metal being used. Over time the "Wax" in the Green
Part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part
shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this
stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to
99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a
metalurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionaly it is
finished and no machining is required. However the job
is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our
Heat Treat facility for hardening and in the case of
Hammers and Triggers, Case Hardening. Depending on the
particular metal alloy that was used at the start of
the process we apply a heat treat process that is the
same as would be used if the material was the older
wrought style. Final hardness, Case thickness and core
hardness are for the most part identical to parts
manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we acheive dimensional
precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old
parts were each machined from either bar stock or a
forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was
subject to machine variations, Cutter wear, operator
variations etc. If every operation was done exactly
right each and every time and the cutter didn't let
you down you would have produced a good part but
sometimes this didnt happen resulting in a rejected
gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy
customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to
very high tolerances and your cutters have to be
perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified
but all of this only has to come together one time.
That time is when the injection mold is made.
Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between
30,000 and 50,000 dollars. Once it is perfect every
part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have in
my view a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better
understand the MIM process.

Please forgive the spelling errors and missplaced
puncuation. I have no spell checker on this and the
phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb

Additional Point.

Currently S&W is paying about $1.20/Lb for stainless
steel barstock. Raw MIM stainless steel injectable
material costs $10.00/Lb."

[Handy]

Herb seems to be missing the fact that more than one brand of pistol utilizing MIM parts have had parts crack in half. The parts were of very nice dimension, finish and hardness, but were now two pieces, vice one.

Safety levers that shear off are known as "nontraditional" at S&W.

[TheFrontRange]

Just another Kimber vote here. I purchased a Custom ("Series I") fifteen months ago and it's had about 1400 rounds through it so far. Great pistol, the only mods I've made are to replace the rubber grips with a set of wooden ones from a friend's Eclipse II, Wilson Combat mags, and some skateboard tape on the frontstrap. I would think you'd be plenty happy with a TLE II.

[BigG]

Does that pistol have the standard barrel bushing or the "blunderbuss" barrel?

[Sean Smith]

MIM parts certainly APPEAR to be more prone to fluke horrible part breakages. When the reviewed the Dan Wesson Patriot over on 1911forum.com, the MIM magazine release (!) broke in half. :eek:

Go to the Kimber section of 1911forum.com and you will find plenty of stories of fluke part breakages...

[sanchezero]

JimC,

The one thing I didn't like about the TLE II was the plastic main spring housing so, a couple of minutes work and it now has a steel one instead.

Any idea if doing this yourself voided the warranty?

I know alot of mfgs are a little persnickety about this kinda crap.

:confused:

[Sean Smith]

It has a lot of features that are desireable that would run a lot more $'s as an after thought on a more stock pistol.

True, mainly because no self-respecting 'smith would install parts as cheap as the ones Kimber uses.

[JimC]

Sean Smith... I guess you're not a Kimber fan?

I'm sure there's a story in there somewhere after a comment like that. ;)

Any idea if doing this yourself voided the warranty?

Technically, I guess it would. :confused:

I don't see how it's going to be an issue and if it were, I would take the MS housing out before sending the frame or complete pistol back to Kimber.

I like steel better than plastic anyday. :D

[cratz2]

I really don't have a big problem with the idea of some MIM parts such sights or grip safeties but why anyone, individual or company rep would try to convince someone that a MIM sear or a MIM hammer is the equilavent of a quality tool steel part is beyond me... it's actually laughable. :rolleyes:

[Sean Smith]

Actually, I had an old Kimber that was pretty nice. The new ones look a little rough to me, though. But the parts Kimber sticks on their guns ARE cheaper and more sloppily installed than anything a decent 'smith would do.

[cratz2]

Originally posted by Sean Smith: But the parts Kimber sticks on their guns ARE cheaper and more sloppily installed than anything a decent 'smith would do.

Exactly... I understand trying to stay within a budget, esp 'when everyone else is doing it' but I don't understand why some folks spout off about MIM being equal in every way to the best tool steel. I mean, if you have some MIM parts and none of them fail, great! Good for you. I've never had any fail either but on a carry gun with a decent trigger job, what's bad about replacing the sear, hammer, disconnector, extractor and slide stop?

I mean, who has ever called up a smith that was building you a $2,500 gun and said, 'Oh yeah, by the way, don't be putting any of those Burns Ignition parts in my gun, I want McCormick MIM all around - inside too!' I don't think so.

[Yo]

The LAPD swat gun is polymer-coated if I understand the specs.

Bad idea in any gun that gets a lot of use. Any polymer, like Black-T or Bearcoat, is only a few mils thick. It quickly grinds away on the wear points, rails and muzzle. It also scratches easily, and you can't touch it up like with blueing. Parkerizing would be more durable.

But I guess jack-booted thugs need pretty black guns.

Personally I wouldn't want anything that said LAPD on it. I mean "New Kimber -- used by the gang that couldn't shoot straight." LAPD is rife with corruption and even the "elite" SWAT team has countless examples of bad busts, 'no-knocks' on the wrong residence and overall incompetence. No wonder they picked Kimbers.

[PCRCCW]

A small note on MIM parts....CMC parts are used through out Kimbers...they are infact MIM parts. After having my Custom 2 long enough to play with extensively....( a couple of hours! :D )

After polishing, reshaping and what have you to OEM Kimber MIM parts and aftermarket parts from Brown, Wilson and Bear...
The MIM parts are very very hard....much harder to shape and polish that the others...or at least as hard.

Im not an MIM expert by any means..but I know steel.
Theoretically, if the MIM process is done correctly you SHOULDNT have any problems with them. When a company takes on a new process like this...there will be teething problems. From what I gather the MIM parts which were the most problematic/got the most "air time" were the early ones.....

For what its worth......

Shoot well

[Doc]

there's lots of info on THR about the TLE II, here's something I posted regarding a problem I had with mine

TLE II Problem (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19994&highlight=kimber)