People rag on Kimber, but...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well popeye my first 1911 was a Colt Gold Cup bought 40 years. I scrimped and saved for about a year before I could afford the steep $350 dollar price tag. Still have it and it is still accurate after 10's of thousands of rounds. Still has the original Colt Ellison sight although I had to replace a broken roll pin in it once about 20 years ago. Only problem with it is after all these years the trigger pull has worn to about a scary 2lbs. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Colt.
 
It’s funny how people say they don’t like the Swartz safety on Kimbers but have no problem with Series 80 style safeties on a variety of other guns, Colts included.
 
I would black out them serial # s JMO ' )
Y/D
I too would like to know why. I just posted a Kimber Classic Custom Target with serial #'s. What's someone going to do with a guns serial #?

Mine's apparently 20+ years old. I wonder if Kimber will give me the same treatment one day, if need be.
 
brutus51

I had the same problem with broken roll pins on my Colt's with adjustable sights. Ended up cutting down a same size drill bit to fit in place. Problem solved!
 
"I would black out them serial # s JMO "

I met my 4th ex wife on an internet dating service. She had a pic on the site with a sign across her chest. Little did I know she whited out the inmate # she wore at the graystone hotel and replaced it with "Hot Stuff". Serial #'s are important.
 
Have no problem with the safety just the MIM parts.
What about the MIM parts in Colts and other 1911s? Aside from the warranty and CS comments, the MIM is the second most common statement from Kimber haters. But those same haters seem to have no problem with the MIM in all the other 1911s. Funny how that works...
 
Last edited:
I too would like to know why. I just posted a Kimber Classic Custom Target with serial #'s. What's someone going to do with a guns serial #?

Mine's apparently 20+ years old. I wonder if Kimber will give me the same treatment one day, if need be.

It’s like people that sell their cars and cover their license plates. Like any of the hundreds of people each day that sees the car out driving magically can’t see the plate number.
 
I found this on another forum:

With regard to MIM technology, the following is from another forum, and was posted there by Mr. Herb Belin of S&W. I kept the article, but neglected to record WHERE (which forum) it was first posted.

Mr. Belin is (or was) Product Innovation Manager at Smith & Wesson, and before that was product Manager/Director of Emerging Technology at Smith & Wesson. He's a long-time employee, having worked there since 1981. This explains both the business case for using MIM parts, and the technical issues involved with MIM use. It also explains the related quality control issues, quality a continuing focus for S&W management.


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 successfully 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. Mechanically 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 customer’s 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 consistency. 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 for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities 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 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 snapped 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 metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally 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 were 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 achieve 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 didn’t 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 misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb
 
Wonderful post that you shared! That's great information from a source MUCH more educated and experienced than the fast majority of members here.

People don't know why they don't like MIM, they just don't. Kind of like they're just looking for an excuse to dislike Kimber, which goes back to my initial post about Kimber haters in general. "I don't like Kimber because they use MIM parts." (while being fanboys of other brands that use MIM parts) "I don't like Kimber because they use MIM parts." (while not having any concerns about plastic mainspring housings used on a large majority of 1911s). I find all of this stuff comical.

I'm an FFL dealer. I've owned more and more different 1911s that a vast majority of members on this forum. I own and sell everything except Rock Island so I have no brand that I favor over another. I just call things like I see them.
 
Last edited:
People rag on Kimber because for the most they don't own one. IMO. I have a full size 1911 Custom and years ago I had a Colt Gold Cup. Maybe it's due to the time difference in technology but my Kimber is a much better pistol.

I have owned several over the years, none were 100% reliable, and Kimber customer service was terrible. Maybe their guns don't jam as much now, and maybe there customer service is better. But I will never know for sure because I am not buying another one.
 
Kimber 1911's appeared in the mid 90's (as I recall). At that point I wouldn't buy any 1911 that wasn't a Colt. I probably had 15-18 1911's at that point, all Colts. I had 1 or 2 that were really accurate, the rest were acceptable at the range but all functioned 100% with the exception of those purchased used and required restoration tweaks to fix "upgrades" done by kitchen table gunsmiths. Along comes Kimber with a gun "Classic Model Custom" that has everything a typical 1911 owner wants. Tight slide to frame rails and barrel to hood fit, Novak style sights, skeletal hammer with upswept grip safety slanted slide and forward (yuk) serrations and a guide rod. Whoop de do! It was a wonderful gun for about $110 less than a standard Colt series 80. I bought a pre series 2 Pro Carry and really liked it.
When Kimber added the series 2 people were turned off by the safety system on the 2. Then Kimber had serious problems for a couple years with that safety system. That's when Kimber detractors really got their chance to point out their thought that it was junk. At this point Kimber had a BUNCH of models and their prices caught up to and surpassed Colt and Springfield. 1911 buyers were really PO'ed about buying a pricey Kimber that didn't work.
I think Kimber detractors still base their bad op pinions on the series 2 failures that by now are just old and obscure news. I still won't buy a series 2 Kimber. My only Kimber is a Classic model Custom made in '96.
I won't be getting rid of my Series 1 Carry Pro any time soon.
 
MIM is really an amazing process. To have a part shrinkage rate that accurate, consistent and predictable as to not require final machining is incredible. I’m impressed. MIM and CNC machining have really changed machined part technology.
As a retired mechanical engineer, I can appreciate this.
 
Yeah, go to the 1911 forum and see how long Colt warranty turnaround time is!
 
Bottom Gun, thanks for the post! I have read up some on MIM. The different alloys that can be added, and how they are mold injected and heat treated to bond. Some similarities to the sintered metals. I'm sure in the infancy of MIM, as with most any new process, there was an amount of teething involved. But if the process is done correctly, with the proper alloys, I can see where there is strength and cost savings at the same time. Even machined, none MIM parts, if machined or heat treated incorrectly, or of the wrong alloy for a set application, will have ill effects on the longevity of said part.

As a toolmaker, I understand that with each machining process, there is tooling that needs designed and made. And replaced when worn. My experience has been with crankshafts (20+ operations) and torque converters (Don't know if I can count that high operations :D ). Engineering and making of tooling has a high cost. That is not including the machines needed to perform the work. So with the minimal amount of machines for the MIM processing, it would/should use less floor space per part that the tradition methods.

I would love to see the processes of MIM in action.
 
As someone who some years ago worked at a LGS where we were a "master dealer", I observed a disturbing number of these pistols come back for warranty service.
Having worked at three different shops, all with gunsmiths and two with public ranges, that’s my experience also. Our gunsmiths got tired of seeing broken ones, our ranges got tired of seeing rental guns and customer’s guns that didn’t work, and our retail shops got tired of selling guns we didn’t feel comfortable standing behind.
 
Nothing wrong with MIM parts if done correctly, based on the article it appears Smith & Wesson did their homework and refined their process before implementing them into their products. It appears Kimber just went with it on their customers dime hence the reason I've gone through 3 sets of adjustable sights. Maybe if they spent a little of their advertising budget on refining the process no one would be complaining. Can't wait until they get into 3D printing.
 
I have owned them and some were fine, others were not. Overall my take is that for the price you pay, Kimbers are too expensive for what they are. I'd rather spend a little more and get a much nicer 1911, plus I really feel like they offer one core 1911 and the only real difference between any of them are cosmetic in nature, but those slight cosmetic differences they feel the need to charge a lot of dough for. I remember buying a DW CBOB years back that was about $1K new and it was 10x the gun any Kimber is, it was then that I realized that anyone who praises Kimber 1911's haven't owned anything nicer.
 
I have owned them and some were fine, others were not. Overall my take is that for the price you pay, Kimbers are too expensive for what they are. I'd rather spend a little more and get a much nicer 1911, plus I really feel like they offer one core 1911 and the only real difference between any of them are cosmetic in nature, but those slight cosmetic differences they feel the need to charge a lot of dough for. I remember buying a DW CBOB years back that was about $1K new and it was 10x the gun any Kimber is, it was then that I realized that anyone who praises Kimber 1911's haven't owned anything nicer.

I mostly agree.

But I disagree with the part in bold as a general statement. The Kimbers I've had have been good, and my Warrior stacks up well with other guns in its price bracket (which is generally less than any of the excellent DW options, or was when I bought my Kimber) and the other two I had cost about $600 each, and they were very comparable to guns in the 600-800 range.

For reference, my favorite 1911 is a DW VBob and I do have a Wilson CQB currently in the safe.
 
...it was then that I realized that anyone who praises Kimber 1911's haven't owned anything nicer.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty ignorant thing to assume. I praise Kimber 1911s for what you get for the price and I have and do currently own a LOT of nicer 1911s. So I'm personally an example that your assumption is flat WRONG! So continue assuming if you like, just do so going forward knowing that youf assumption has been proven wrong.

I can tell you, as a dealer myself, the Kimber 1911s that I get in stock are, dollar for dollar, better fit and finished that a majority of the other 1911s they compete with in pricing.
 
...plus I really feel like they offer one core 1911 and the only real difference between any of them are cosmetic in nature, but those slight cosmetic differences they feel the need to charge a lot of dough for.

Oh please do elaborate on this, I'd like to hear your justification for this belief. They only offer one core 1911? Really? The 1911 platform in general has not significantly changed for a long time. Every brand is offering the same basic guns with slight cosmetic differences and features at higher prices. That's not something that's specific to Kimber. All brands do this!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top