I've owned a lot of Kimber's in the past. All Series II pistols, with the Swartz safety.

No used generic Custom II should be over $600, IMO.
It's just not worth the money to get the standard one, for over 600, especially used.

I've owned the Custom II TLE II Raptor II etc, and all have been gutted, and rebuilt with Wilson, EGW, or Harrison Design parts.

I'm down to just the one now. A charcoal blued Royal II, with the bone grips, which I'm waiting on parts for.

Do yourself a favor, and get a Used Springfield, at that price range, rather than a Kimber.

Kimber's can be very hit or miss. I've had some good ones, that needed very little or nothing, and I've had some bad ones, that needed everything and suffered from rusting problems.

Early KIMBER 1911 pistols were 'hot and miss' without a doubt. What new company doesn't have problems? What well established company can claim perfection?

I have four KIMBER 1911 pistols and one revolver. I can honestly say I'd put them up against my DAN WESSON, SPRINGFIELD, or former S&W or COLT pistols any day. They may not be the quality of a DAN WESSON and certainly not a WILSON or NIGHTHAWK, but they exhibit good reliability and accuracy for a pistol costing much less. That's all I really want in a defensive pistol.

I tend to buy my guns gently used if possible. Whether one wants to pay $600 for a used XYZ pistol is a personal decision.

I have had a few Kimbers. First let me say that if you take away my obsession with shooting JHPs at matches they have been very reliable. IMO Kimber mags are only good for loading the "Barney" round. Both my Equinox (before being stolen) and Raptor which I used in USPSA Limited 10 performed great using Wilson mags.

I also have a 9mm Custom II that has been flawless. A close friend swears by Kimber and is his competition AND carry gun. BUT as I said I would not trust Kimber mags and I even changed the springs in the Wilson mags to stronger Wolfe to better feed the JHPs for competition. Why? You may ask. A profession shooter once told me they were slightly more accurate and I will take any small advantage.

Thanks for the feedback, everybody!

I think I'm going to take a pass on the Kimber, after all. Not so much because of the negative comments about Kimber and their product, but because I'm thinking I may wish to carry whatever 1911 I acquire from time-to-time. For that reason I think I want something other than bluing for a finish.

I think I'm going to go back to another LGS, take another look at a Ruger SR1911 I saw there, and, if I still like it after being spoiled by the P210 , perhaps see if I can make a deal with them.

I don't know who originally made the KIMBER mags or who makes them now. I've read CHECKMATE is the current supplier, but that's internet gossip. I'd suggest that if original KIMBER pistols were problematic the magazines may have been the root cause.

I have a bunch of WILSON and McCORMICK mags, because of their reputation. At the range I can't tell the difference in reliability/performance of KIMBER vs WILSON vs McCORMICK vs DAN WESSON magazines. I don't carry the KIMBER mags, I prefer polymer followers.

Being an old dude, I always find 1911 reliability discussions similar to this amusing. Regardless of the manufacturer.

How in the hell do you take a proven, 107 year old design that's gone through at least four major wars and produce an unreliable pistol?

That's rhetorical, of course. No doubt we could all easily come up with a bunch of reasons. Might be an interesting topic for another thread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nipper,

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:
Being an old dude, I always find 1911 reliability discussions similar to this amusing. Regardless of the manufacturer.

I'm an old-ish dude

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:
How in the hell do you take a proven, 107 year old design that's gone through at least four major wars and produce an unreliable pistol?

"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey." - John Ruskin (1819-1900)

That ^^^^^ is how.

Anyway, the Ruger's out. That LGS wasn't interested in my trade-ins. Another store was, but I didn't care for either of the used Govt. 1911s they had (Sig Scorpion and Rem. R1).

The search continues...

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Another store was, but I didn't care for either of the used Govt. 1911s they had (Sig Scorpion and Rem. R1).

The search continues...

The Remington R1 is a good solid 1911.

quote:

Originally posted by Sparkyk:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Another store was, but I didn't care for either of the used Govt. 1911s they had (Sig Scorpion and Rem. R1).

The search continues...

The Remington R1 is a good solid 1911.

An on-line friend of mine, who's a 1911 aficionado, says it may be the best production 1911 available today. Says it may be better even than some semi-custom 1911s.

Main complaint I've read we the finish isn't very durable?

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:
Being an old dude, I always find 1911 reliability discussions similar to this amusing. Regardless of the manufacturer.

How in the hell do you take a proven, 107 year old design that's gone through at least four major wars and produce an unreliable pistol?

That's rhetorical, of course. No doubt we could all easily come up with a bunch of reasons. Might be an interesting topic for another thread.

I've got a shelf of 1911's, including a Kimber (I didn't buy it, for the record). I like the 1911, but it will never match modern equipment for reliability, especially so long as the extraction consists of a bent piece of metal that's guaranteed to degrade into utter unreliability with time and use.

1911's stuffer most from magazine feedlips and associated problems, and seem to be more sensitive to magazine issue than many other firearms.

When I go to the steel shoots, the most experienced and highly ranked hands are often shooting fancy 1911's with fancy rigs, and invariably it's their weapons that fail.

sns3guppy, that "reputation" of 1911s has been what's kept me away from that platform lo these many years. (That and my first exposure being an honest-to-God U.S. Army 1911 on an indoor U.S. Army range. What a rattle-trap.)

But now I'm kind of in "collector mode" and want to see, for myself, what this 1911 thing is all about.

Don't get me wrong; I like the 1911.

There are some very nice 1911's out there (and some really cheap junky ones).

There was a long time standing sentiment that real men carried .45's and real men carried 1911's, and I think a lot of that was the influence of Jeff Cooper. If a 1911 is maintained: tuned and kept maintained, it's a fantastic platform.

If you want to know every last thing about the 1911, there is a poster on this site (and others) who has a very, very large collection of them who can chime in and answer anything you could ever want to know about the design, and chances are he has one of anything you might have a question about.

I would run from it . I had a 1100 full size CDP Kimber and right out of the box the hammer would follow the slide down , also a real nice looking Custom Tactical Two , and it jammed every time out . I still look at new one`s and they look good . a lot of them need sent back a few times .

I have owned 3 full sized Kimbers. One was about 10 years ago. Ran 99% of the time. Sold it.

2 years ago I bought a two-tone full size. Ran 100%. Traded it to a friend that I owed a favor. It runs 100% for him.

I have a Kimber Hero edition. It runs reliably with my various handloads and factory ammo. It is staying. I think the newer Kimbers are generally much better than those made 10 years ago.

quote:

I think I'm going to go back to another LGS, take another look at a Ruger SR1911 I saw there, and, if I still like it after being spoiled by the P210 , perhaps see if I can make a deal with them.

The Ruger SR1911 is a nice piece. I had the full size in stainless, and now have the commander size "Night Watchman". Both are completely reliable, have nice out-of-the-box triggers and are really accurate.

For just a range toy (lets be honest, 85% plus of 1911s are just range toys), I bought a basic Colt O1991 for under $700.

Only feed it FMJs and Lead the couple times a year it leaves the safe, but it works fine with some JHPs too.

jimmy123x, there is NO SALES ACTIVITY allowed in this forum, outside of Classifeds. You're new around here, so you didn't know this.

Given the recommendation of my on-line friend, the 1911 aficionado, I thought I should re-look at the Remington R1. Upon closer examination, most of what I read was "Unproven with 1911s," "The 700-series trigger fiasco," and "They're not long for this world." The reviewers liked the thing. More than that: The owners who'd given Remington a chance were happy, it seemed.

Biggest complaint I saw was the finish may not be particularly durable.

Then I noticed something: In everything I read, nobody mentioned a fiber-optic front sight, and the trigger comments were mostly "meh." The R1 I'd looked at had had a fiber-optic front sight and the trigger had been pretty nice. I also didn't recall noticing the lack of an extended beavertail.

Then I looked at R1 Enhanced reviews and figured out that was what my LGS was selling. That decided it:



Fit and finish are nice. Feels good in the hand and points well for me. My eyes like the sights and my finger certainly likes the trigger. The grip panels are nice and grippy, but I'm thinkin' it needs a pair of walnut grips or the like

It'll be Real Interesting to see how it shoots for me. I haven't shot with a 1911 in nearly fifty years!

Thanks, everybody, for your insights!

I have a Kimber Custom Stainless II. Purchased new in 2004. Shot extensively in PPC matches, and carried all through the desert southwest for many years. Been 100% reliable with Kimber mags, Wilson Mags, and old GI mags. It has put a few trophies on my wall and been a great gun. For my sample size of one, I have no complaints.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
I have a Kimber from the mid-90's with thousands of rounds thru it without a failure.

First gens were awesome but the quality fell after that for a variety of reasons.