Kimber Question

[TexasEd]

Looking at the Kimber Pistol. Why are the older series I (Oregon) pistols better than the Yonkers NY pistols. Is it a Pre-64 thing or not.
If they are better (Classic Custom) where can I find one. Not much luck on Broker or America. Thanks for the help.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Kimber Oregon 1911 style pistols are not easily found, but are out there if you keep looking. I don't think that the Oregon guns are neccessarrily better than the Yonkers guns. There was a period when many pistol makers were using MIMS parts and these parts eventually developed some problems. It is my understanding that Kimber has gone back to stamped or machine parts, instead of MIMs. Both of my Yonkers made Kimbers have been very reliable.

 

[rbernie]

The older Kimbers (pre-Series II) do not have a firing pin safety. Some folk value that 'originality'.

 

[Oro]

It is my understanding that Kimber has gone back to stamped or machine parts, instead of MIMs.

Recent Kimbers are chock-full o'MIM. But the supposition is that MIM technology and the places where it works and won't have been learned and reliability issues have been greatly reduced. Colt has largely stopped using MIM on newer guns and from what I have heard and seen only the disconnector and magazine catch. They used to make the sear with MIM technology, but I think they've stopped (could be wrong on that point).

Kimber and SA both use a substantial amount of MIM in their assembly compared to Colt. I was really surprised to see a MIM bbl. bushing on a new SA last week. That's a part Colt machines from barstock, for example.

 

[tbreihan]

Recent Kimbers are chock-full o'MIM. But the supposition is that MIM technology and the places where it works and won't have been learned and reliability issues have been greatly reduced. Colt has largely stopped using MIM on newer guns and from what I have heard and seen only the disconnector and magazine catch. They used to make the sear with MIM technology, but I think they've stopped (could be wrong on that point).

Kimber and SA both use a substantial amount of MIM in their assembly compared to Colt. I was really surprised to see a MIM bbl. bushing on a new SA last week. That's a part Colt machines from barstock, for example.

My new Elite Combat actually has a barstock disconnector. The magazine catch, to my eye, is cast stainless. It may be MIM, but the right side is machined and it looks like regular metal... identical to the machined sides of the wire-EDM'd hammer.

I think the sear is MIM, but I'd have to go back and look. If so, it appears to be the only MIM part in the gun.

 

[Oro]

If you machine mim, it looks like barstock. If you machine cast parts, you usually still see voids. So if your mag catch looks like barstock, it probbaly is MIM. The two reliable ways to detect MIM are to look at the unmachined surfaces, or to compare the weight - MIM will be lighter than a comparable barstock or cast piece.

They change this periodically, and the trend is towards less MIM with Colt. My information was from 18 months ago and matches what's on my newest Colt, which is about that old. If newer ones have less I would not be surprised.

You are aware they recalled your Combat Elite the other day to replace the thumb safety, correct? I think all new Combat Elite models are included. You can go to their web site to check.

 

[schmeky]

For the OP, many of your questions could be answered in this "History of Kimber".

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=183961

I have one of the very early $625.00 "Yonkers" models. I still have the price tag that was attached to the pistol when I bought it about 14 years ago. It has earned it's place in my cache of pistols as the best 1911 I have ever owned, and I've owned many.

Kimber started in Clackamas Oregon, then moved their tooling to Yonkers, New York. Clackamas Kimbers are collector items, more highly prized than my early Yonkers version. Kimber set the 1911 world on it's ear when they began making 1911's. I am fortunate to have one of the very early series Kimbers.

 

[tbreihan]

If you machine mim, it looks like barstock. If you machine cast parts, you usually still see voids. So if your mag catch looks like barstock, it probbaly is MIM. The two reliable ways to detect MIM are to look at the unmachined surfaces, or to compare the weight - MIM will be lighter than a comparable barstock or cast piece.

They change this periodically, and the trend is towards less MIM with Colt. My information was from 18 months ago and matches what's on my newest Colt, which is about that old. If newer ones have less I would not be surprised.

You are aware they recalled your Combat Elite the other day to replace the thumb safety, correct? I think all new Combat Elite models are included. You can go to their web site to check.

That's great info, Oro! Thank you. I will check Colt's website regarding the recall.

 

[Kruzr]

Kimbers today have essentially the same amount of MIM parts as they did when they were introduced in 1996. The original ones also had MIM bushings which were replaced by machined bushings in mid 1997.

The guns marked Clackamas were in fact made in Yonkers. Kimber didn't have their manufacturing FFL for the first 6 months of their production so they were rollmarked from the Oregon plant. The Oregon facility was shut down when the license was approved for Yonkers.

The only reason the Clack guns are in demand is because there were only about 7500 guns made with the Oregon rollmark. I don't see a whole lot of difference in the guns between my Clack, my 2001 Stainless Target, and my 2002 Pro CDP as far as fit and finish go. With a combined round count of about 65K rounds through the three guns, I'm still waiting for my first MIM breakage. I have broken Ed Brown and Wilson parts on on my other guns......go figure.

The Series II guns came out in 2001. There was 5 years of Yonkers production of guns without the FP safety.

BTW, if you machine a MIM part, it would be an example of poor manufacturing economics. The whole point of using the MIM process is to produce parts that require no secondary machining.

The way to identify a part made by the MIM process (the steel is the same as any other) is to look for the mold popper marks. A MIM part will have a circular mark on it somewhere. This is what pops the part out of the mold before it goes to the ovens.

MIM will be lighter than a comparable barstock or cast piece.

MIM parts for firearms are about 96% the density of a billet. They are typically a few percent more dense than many castings, not less. If you can feel a 4 or 5% difference in weight when holding a gun part, then your hands are far better calibrated than mine!

 

[schmeky]

With a combined round count of about 65K rounds through the three guns, I'm still waiting for my first MIM breakage.

I have over 10k rounds through my Classic Custom and still have all the original internals. The only internal item ever replaced was the barrel bushing, and that was elective.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I don't think that machining a MIMS part on one or two critical surfaces is cost inefficient? I was an engineer for 40 years working on medical devices. I never had any experience with MIMS, just machining, forging and diecasting of metal parts. Even die cast parts usually need some machining after casting.

Personally, I don't shoot enough rounds through my pistols to crack a frame but I don't have a polymer framed pistol. My present 1911 is a stainless steel, Kimber-Ultra Eclipse II, Custom Shop. My son talked me out of my Pro Carry II. I lke the smaller frame.

 

[tbreihan]

The Colt magazine release appears to be machined on the right side simply to match the brushed finished of the receiver.