Kimber

[jeffo]

Thanks for all the info. The one that caught my eye is in Shooting Times March issue.

[Erud]

I have had 3 of their 1911's. 2 of the pistols(Pro Carry II and Ultra CDP II) had lots of problems. FTF's and FTE's with lots of different ammo. Got rid of both. The 3rd pistol was an Eclipse Target II that I bought used and it was excellent in every way. Never had a malfunction of any sort and I shot it a ton. Ended up selling to a buddy who needed it more than I did and he still has it, as far as I know. The Eclipse is a 5" steel pistol and the other 2 were 3" and 4" aluminum. Don't know if that's where the problems came from, but I suspect it was a factor. I am a believer in the 5" steel 1911 as it was designed and have several others of other brands that all function well. Don't really have any use for any of the smaller versions now as they just don't make sense to me for a carry piece.

I also had one of their rifles, a Montana .308. I wanted to love it, but I ended up hating it. It was light and tiny and handled great. It shot every load into a perfect 2.5" triangle at 100 yards. These are 3 shot groups from sandbags with a $1000 factory rifle, mind you. 2 trips back to the factory did nothing to improve it's accuracy and the tech staff in NY said that it "shoots within spec". They also said they replaced the stock, for some reason, though I suspect they never did. Not sure why they would have needed to replace it if it was within spec. Their literature for the Montana's specifically states that the stock is "Glass Bedded" - it is not. When I asked the tech on the phone about that he said that they didn't have to glass bed them because each stock was custom-molded to the exact action that it would be mated to. I saw no evidence of that in the rifle that I had and can't really make sense of that whole idea from a manufacturing standpoint, seems like it'd be pretty tough to do. I also asked why they advertise it as "glass bedded" when they tell you on the phone that "It doesn't need to be glass bedded" and he got mad at me. I had a heck of a time selling that one as I would not pass it off as a "tack driver" and basically had to wait for somebody looking for a project to get rid of it.

It was also brutal to shoot, though that is to be expected from a 5# .308...

So, overall, my experiences with Kimber have not been favorable, but that Eclipse sure was a nice gun.

[mkoda]

Kimber makes a lot of 1911s and a lot of models, their QC has been called into question in recent years after they tried some techniques to keep down manufacturing costs. A lot of noise about MIM parts has been made but I for one realize that a lot of manufacturers use MIM and most of the yelling is much ado about nothing. I for one don't own a Kimber, I know more than one Joe that does and they all love them to pieces from Custom IIs to the Tactical Pro Model, and if I had the spare cash and ran across a super deal on one I'd be hard pressed to turn it down.

[jeffo]

I've cooled off on the Kimbers. I have 3 SA's with no problems so far. My next 1911 might be DW or Ed Brown. Thanks for all the replies.