What is Kimber thinking?

QUOTE: "... I have never had an issue with any of my Kimbers. I have found them to be extremely accurate out of the box and after running a couple of hundred rounds through them, never had any malfunctions..."

Regarding the wording of the above cited quote, am I to infer that you've needed to "run a couple of hundred rounds through them" before the malfunctions ceased (the infamous "break-in" period)? That would be an "issue" for me.
 
dgludwig said:
Regarding the wording of the above cited quote, am I to infer that you've needed to "run a couple of hundred rounds through them" before the malfunctions ceased (the infamous "break-in" period)? That would be an "issue" for me.
Click to expand...



Myself I like tightly built pistols and don't have a problem with shooting a couple hundred extra rounds to smooth some high spots out. I mean you have to shoot the damn thing anyway what's the big deal. Kimber could put them together like some other manufacturers where they are a total rattle trap when they are new. :confused: Of course they won't shoot the same tight groups when everything is so loose you can hear the parts hitting against each other.

A lot of people say those Les Baers are way too tight. I say the only ones that are too tight are the ones that sit in a safe. Shoot the hell out of them, that's what they are made for.
 
I mean you have to shoot the damn thing anyway what's the big deal. Kimber could put them together like some other manufacturers where they are a total rattle trap when they are new.
Click to expand...

I think that's a false dichotomy. Your options aren't needs a break in and is tightly fitted or doesn't need a break in and is a "rattle trap". There are plenty of what I could consider pretty tightly fitted pistols that can run well from the start. I don't have a huge issue with a break in period if I know it going in to the purchase, but I don't think making it seem like it's required to get a tight pistol is being objective. We also start getting into the definition of what is "tight enough".
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
I think that's a false dichotomy. Your options aren't needs a break in and is tightly fitted or doesn't need a break in and is a "rattle trap". There are plenty of what I could consider pretty tightly fitted pistols that can run well from the start.
Click to expand...




I fully understand what you are saying but 200 rounds is not very many. I usually shoot more than that every time I go out. The point I was trying to make was it doesn't matter one bit if it's a tightly fitted pistol, or a rattle trap, I'm going to shoot it several hundred rounds before I fully trust it.

If it has a couple issues in the first three hundred rounds I'm not going to worry about it. I still have to shoot it no matter what, I'm not going to trust any pistol I've only shot 60 times. On the other side I'm certainly not going to call the manufacturer and bitch that my new pistol is a POS when I've only shot 140 rounds out of it.
 
If it has a couple issues in the first three hundred rounds I'm not going to worry about it. I still have to shoot it no matter what, I'm not going to trust any pistol I've only shot 60 times. On the other side I'm certainly not going to call the manufacturer and bitch that my new pistol is a POS when I've only shot 140 rounds out of it.
Click to expand...

To me that depends on the type of pistol. I've owned 70+ pistols now and very few of them had issues in the first few hundred rounds that worked themselves out. Usually bad from the start was a bad time. But also what is the definition of a "couple issues"? I've seen that vary a lot from person to person. A failure to eject or extract in the first hundred rounds doesn't have me running to the phone, but it's something I'll notice. Then we get into the question of what is an issue versus an actual problem.

And again I am not saying any break in period is bad. I wouldn't carry a pistol that I hadn't put at least a few hundred rounds through anyway. I was just pointing out that I felt you were exaggerating a bit.
 
Sorry to hear Kimber can't seem to get you a sight that can keep itself together. I have a Classic Custom Target from around 1996 that runs pretty well, although I know in terms of Kimber lore it's probably a better made pistol that what's produced today. However, I will say it will not hold a candle to my Dan Wessons (I have a Specialist and a Pointman 9). The Pointman 9, especially, is a freaking laser and both DWs are smooth as silk and fitted like glass on glass. I honestly do not think you can do better than a DW for less than $1,500.
 
QUOTE: "... I've owned 70+ pistols now and very few of them had issues in the first few hundred rounds that worked themselves out. Usually bad from the start was a bad time..."

At my age and shooting experience, I've owned quite a few pistols in my time and have to say that has been my experience too. Most of the many pistols I've owned (and all that I still do) have not needed a "break-in" period before I could trust them with my life but the few that did never "corrected" themselves, no matter how many more rounds were subsequently run through the barrel.

The scenario that I don't want to experience is the one where two to five hundred rounds have to be expended before a company having a one year warranty agrees to fix a problem (on my dime in terms of shipping costs) and then another few hundred shots have to be made within the one year warranty period following the gun being returned before the pistol's reliability can be trusted. Obviously, any firearm being counted on for self-defense needs to be shot a sufficient number of times to insure its complete reliability.

I've never owned or shot a Kimber so I know nothing about them save what I've read on the internet and have heard from the couple of shooters that have them at my club. I am not of the opinion that (1), a pistol needs to be drum tight before it can be accurate and that (2), a tightly fitted pistol is one that necessarily needs to be broken-in before it functions as it it's supposed to (my Series 70 Colt Gold Cup and S&W Model 52 pistols are fitted very tightly but have always been reliable). But I am of the opinion that there are way too many pistols out there that are reliable straight out of the box for me to concern myself with cya break-in periods.
 
45Gunner said:
Always interesting to read of someone trashing Kimber. I own 8 different Kimbers. The oldest being over 25 years old and the youngest being several months old. I have never had an issue with any of my Kimbers. I have found them to be extremely accurate out of the box and after running a couple of hundred rounds through them, never had any malfunctions.
Click to expand...



Is your 25 year old Kimber a rifle?

The 1911's didn't come out until 1996. Maybe my math is bad.

By the way, I'm a Kimber guy when it comes to 1911's. I have 4. All full size, all steel. All excellent. None are 25 years old yet, though one is a 8/96 Clackamas.

I also have a Colt Government Series 80, and a Springfield Range Officer.

The Colt had to go back to the manufacturer to get it working reliably.

The Range Officer had to go back to Springfield because the glued in ejector fell out, when I took the slide off, after the first 150 rounds
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top