Having read a lot of reviews, both good and bad, I decided to look into Kimbers further. I noticed the Tacoma PD approved them for officer’s use (http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/Tacoma_ProCarry.htm), and even said they found a very low failure rate.
I know Kimber uses MIM parts, though I haven't seen more than two cases of their slides locks actually cracking and really haven't found any cases of the frames cracking. It seems the few cases of cracked frames could often be linked to hot loads, weakened slide return springs, or people using too soft of springs. I talked to a gun smith who kept insisting the 4" Kimbers use a 20LB return spring, after digging I found they are 22lbs.
And finally, the break in period seems to be part of the problem. I know a Springfield XD or Glock can be picked off the shelf without really being broken in, and may be expected to shoot fine. With the tolerances being what they are on so many 1911's, so very tight, they seem to be picky on lubes sometimes, especially when over or under lubricated.
When I first took my Kimber Pro Carry II out, I manually cycled the gun (not slamming it, of course) 300 times, then tore it down and cleaned/relubed it. After 200 rounds of FMJ at the range, it was firing fine and not jamming.
It seems Kimber has received back press recently, with a lot of people not liking the MIM pieces. I know the 1911 is certainly a more picky gun to make reliable than a Glock or Springfield XD, but it seems like the overall design itself is so standard, it would be hard for one particular company to have a really poorly made version, unless using bad materials or poor tolerances and workmanship.
When it all comes down to it, what do Dan Wesson, Wilson, etc, really have over Kimber? I know the difference in overall tolerances, but is there really a difference in reliability?
Other than the general fact every gun company will have a lemon here and there; are there any fundamental reliability problems really specific to Kimber?
I know Kimber uses MIM parts, though I haven't seen more than two cases of their slides locks actually cracking and really haven't found any cases of the frames cracking. It seems the few cases of cracked frames could often be linked to hot loads, weakened slide return springs, or people using too soft of springs. I talked to a gun smith who kept insisting the 4" Kimbers use a 20LB return spring, after digging I found they are 22lbs.
And finally, the break in period seems to be part of the problem. I know a Springfield XD or Glock can be picked off the shelf without really being broken in, and may be expected to shoot fine. With the tolerances being what they are on so many 1911's, so very tight, they seem to be picky on lubes sometimes, especially when over or under lubricated.
When I first took my Kimber Pro Carry II out, I manually cycled the gun (not slamming it, of course) 300 times, then tore it down and cleaned/relubed it. After 200 rounds of FMJ at the range, it was firing fine and not jamming.
It seems Kimber has received back press recently, with a lot of people not liking the MIM pieces. I know the 1911 is certainly a more picky gun to make reliable than a Glock or Springfield XD, but it seems like the overall design itself is so standard, it would be hard for one particular company to have a really poorly made version, unless using bad materials or poor tolerances and workmanship.
When it all comes down to it, what do Dan Wesson, Wilson, etc, really have over Kimber? I know the difference in overall tolerances, but is there really a difference in reliability?
Other than the general fact every gun company will have a lemon here and there; are there any fundamental reliability problems really specific to Kimber?
