Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Critical Review of a Kimber 1911

  1. #1
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking

    Critical Review of a Kimber 1911

    The last thread on Kimbers and their issues got my curiosity up. Lot's of opinions. Not much solid data. What I hope this to turn into is a data point in the discussion. Statistically, the argument can easily be made that this is not a representative sample size, and there is a great deal of validity to that. That said, it beats out conjecture IMHO.

    Here is the subject of the discussion (next to the reference point, a known reliable Wilson CQB Elite):



    A comparison is necessary because standardized dimensions don't exist. Therefore, measuring against a known good reference is the next best option. Please don't construe this as a critique of Kimber. First, comparing a $1k kimber to a $3.5k Wilson isn't really "fair." What I intend on doing is comparing the critical dimensions of the Kimber to the Wilson. This includes extractor shape and tension, ejector shape, slide stop shape and geometry, feed ramp geometry and breech face geometry.

    Some pictures of the parts:









    First thing I noticed was corrosion on the barrel just forward of the chamber. Which means I'm going to be eating crow on another forum. It also means the stainless steel Kimber uses is a very low chrome steel. I'm unsure of the logic behind this, because 410 wouldn't have corroded in this case.

    More tomorrow when I have both next to each other on the surface plate.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Licorice Bootlegger JDM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Looking forward to this.
    Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ

  3. #3
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Concur. This has EPIC written all over it.

  4. #4
    I have personally experienced and heard many recountings of the Kimber barrels rusting. Not on the Series I that I still own but rather on a happily departed CDP II. Rusted overnight, seemingly.
    #RESIST

  5. #5
    Site Supporter Mjolnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Not sure, really
    Yep. I hang out at gun stores - kills the urge to purchase anything - and I've noticed surface corrosion is not at all uncommon on Kimber's stainless steel barrels. I will lube 1911s sitting in cases as some are "dry" and if you let the Kimber's get lose lube "you can hear the corrosion." A damned shame...

  6. #6
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking
    Adding a Desert Warrior, CQB-E and a Colt S80 to the mix.

    A cursory examination of these guns indicates if there is something really out of wack with Kimber, it's not present in these two. The 10mm is mine, the DW is a Border Patrol buddy's. Both are stock, save the FLGR on the 10mm.

    I'm still stewing over the rust on the barrel. I don't like eating crow.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seminole Texas
    wow. that is a disturbing amount of rust.

  8. #8
    Dot Driver Kyle Reese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by fixer View Post
    wow. that is a disturbing amount of rust.
    Agreed.

    I'll be following this closely. Looking forward to more info!

  9. #9
    Member SecondsCount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by blr View Post
    Adding a Desert Warrior, CQB-E and a Colt S80 to the mix.

    A cursory examination of these guns indicates if there is something really out of wack with Kimber, it's not present in these two. The 10mm is mine, the DW is a Border Patrol buddy's. Both are stock, save the FLGR on the 10mm.

    I'm still stewing over the rust on the barrel. I don't like eating crow.
    I am a bit confused. Is the Kimber in the above pictures the same caliber as the Wilson?

    Does DW = Dan Wesson? I don't see any pictures of a Dan Wesson??

    The issue I have with Kimber is that you can get a good one on Wednesday and a bad one on Thursday. Their quality control is lacking for the price paid.
    -Seconds Count. Misses Don't-

  10. #10
    New Member BLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Left seat in a Super Viking
    DW - Desert Warrior. Sure, a sample of one is very questionable. However, it was suggested elsewhere that Kimber uses "different dimensions" for their guns. I'm hoping that, if so we can see it. Also, while only a sample of one, a detailed examination of a couple of Kimbers should be an interesting discussion IMO. Like I said, this is just one data point. But it's hard numbers to look at too.

    Some time with a feeler guage, mic, caliper, and test indicator in a vertical mill provided the following.


    Extractor:
    Gun Hook Depth Hook Width Rim Clearance Tension
    10mm CQB 0.035 0.075 0.070 0.0005
    10mm Kimber 0.027 0.071 0.074 0.001
    EB (unfitted) 0.037 0.067 NA NA
    LB PII 0.043 0.070 0.070 0.001
    Kimber DW 0.032 0.070 0.075 NONE
    Breechface: Perpendicular to Rails Flatness
    10mm CQB 0.0003 0.0000
    10mm Kimber 0.001 0.001
    LB PII 0.0000 0.0005
    Kimber DW 0.002 0.0005

    Notes:
    Inspection of the breech face and extractor indicated that the Kimber extractor had no polishing and minimal beveling. Polishing is of arguable importance, but beveling is vital. Wilson had the most polishing/beveling. The EB and LB extractors, aside from hood depth were virtually identical. The breech face of the Kimbers were fairly smooth, but were the least square and true. I have no idea if the numbers above are "within spec," but I would think so. Neither gun has been "problematic." The Kimber DW extractor had a gross machine error (or file error) on the rear of the extractor hook. This, when inside the gun, was within the frame, so failure due to this is unlikely.
    Overall, I'm surprised at the variation hook depths. Otherwise, the guns seem to be fairly consistent.

    The extractor measurments were done conventially. The breechface dimensions were taken as follows: the rails were assumed to be the reference point (the validity of this is arguable, but we needed a place to start). A 0.0001" test indicator was used to determine if the breech face was flat and perpendicular to the rails.


    Pictures to follow tonight.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •