What's wrong w/ Kimber Series IIs?
- Thread starter HKguy9
- Start date
There actually IS a problem with the Series II Kimbers. The grip safety has to be completely bottomed out before the FP plunger will allow the firing pin to move forward. This is fine when you're standing there at the range, giving the pistol a firm grip. But if you hold the gun with a weak or insecure grip the pistol will not fire. I discovered this while doing some weak-hand shooting drills. The gun just went "click". I didn't know what was wrong until I went home and played with it awhile, and discovered that the plunger doesn't release the firing pin until the moment the grip safety reaches maximum depression.
Commander Fan
New member
My Series II parts 'fell' out when I changed the rear sight. And they ain't going back in.
The origional 3 safeties(grip, thumb, and half-cock notch) are all that are needed. The firing-pin rebound spring itself can prevent a 'drop-on-muzzle' discharge.
Along with the hangup that is reported when the transfer-bar and plunger overlap, the 'Kimber range grip' must also be applied to fire. The grip safety must be bottomed-out on the frame.
A defensive arm must get the first couple shots into the attacker, regardless of grip-hold. This is why many of the best educated defensive shooters and builders, 'pin' the grip safety. It's not just the competitors.
Travel at your own risk.
The origional 3 safeties(grip, thumb, and half-cock notch) are all that are needed. The firing-pin rebound spring itself can prevent a 'drop-on-muzzle' discharge.
Along with the hangup that is reported when the transfer-bar and plunger overlap, the 'Kimber range grip' must also be applied to fire. The grip safety must be bottomed-out on the frame.
A defensive arm must get the first couple shots into the attacker, regardless of grip-hold. This is why many of the best educated defensive shooters and builders, 'pin' the grip safety. It's not just the competitors.
Travel at your own risk.
Check out http://www.Pistolsmith.com/ and http://www.1911forum.com/.
There are a number of threads on this issue by some very knowledgeable people, including 1911 smiths. There does seem to be a very real problem with the safety that Kimber has been reticent to acknowledge -- the upside is that there seems to be some consensus that the bugs can be worked out.
There are a number of threads on this issue by some very knowledgeable people, including 1911 smiths. There does seem to be a very real problem with the safety that Kimber has been reticent to acknowledge -- the upside is that there seems to be some consensus that the bugs can be worked out.
Commander Fan
New member
Same would be true if they all stuck with the Series 70 lockwork, only better.
Baer and the others pass the California Drop test with this design.
Baer and the others pass the California Drop test with this design.
automainea
New member
i have had no problems with neither of my series II kimbers and i have tried to duplicate what i have heard from others on different forums but have had no problems
Commander Fan
New member
The safety system is PASSIVE to the trigger system. It is not possible.
GUNTESTS reviewers just don't know how to fire a 1911. A look through the archives shows this. They are always taping down the grip safeties because they couldn't get them to fire otherwise. A person who is familiar the the 1911 can accomplish this. I roll my eyes when I read the aricles sometimes.
Open up a Series II Kimber. You will see the tranfer-bar rides in it's own slot on the right side of the frame. It's the SERIES 80 Colts that involve contact with the firing system.
I don't know what everybody's worried about. The S-2 parts are out in 5 minutes. I call it the 'Series II reliability mod'.
GUNTESTS reviewers just don't know how to fire a 1911. A look through the archives shows this. They are always taping down the grip safeties because they couldn't get them to fire otherwise. A person who is familiar the the 1911 can accomplish this. I roll my eyes when I read the aricles sometimes.
Open up a Series II Kimber. You will see the tranfer-bar rides in it's own slot on the right side of the frame. It's the SERIES 80 Colts that involve contact with the firing system.
I don't know what everybody's worried about. The S-2 parts are out in 5 minutes. I call it the 'Series II reliability mod'.
CF, the problem with removing the safety parts on a gun used for defense is civil liability. Even if a shooting incident has nothing to do with what you did to the safety, the opposing councel will often use anything (however irrelevant) to paint you as either an evil person or a reckless one. Having removed a safety device will be used to show that you have no concern whatsoever for anyone's well-being, especially that of your "victim". They'll then pull a rep from Kimber or Colt in to testify that they do not recommend removing the safety parts (after all, they'll gladly say anything to safeguard their own ass). It'll then be up to you to drag somebody else into the courtroom to prove that removing the parts was necessary. Why was it necessary? Because the parts compromise the ability to fire the gun. On cross-examination, you'll be reminded what the manufacturer said. The parts work fine, proven by all their product testing (would they say anything less?).
In a nutshell, the only time you should remove those parts is if the gun is purely a competition pistol, and not to be used as a defensive one! If you don't like the safety parts, then get a different model without them. Thank goodness Colt is making Series 70 guns again, at least for awhile.
In a nutshell, the only time you should remove those parts is if the gun is purely a competition pistol, and not to be used as a defensive one! If you don't like the safety parts, then get a different model without them. Thank goodness Colt is making Series 70 guns again, at least for awhile.
dsk,
While in theory, your statements make sense, I have to disagree in real world application. I have heard people state this repeatedly that deactivating a safety device can/will cause civil liability problems in the event of a shooting. But can you give me a single case in which this has proved true? I can see where if you removed the series 80 safety and then dropped the gun and it went off and killed someone, but if you just shot someone in self defense and the safety had no bearing??? There is a difference in being liability conscious and being paranoid.
While in theory, your statements make sense, I have to disagree in real world application. I have heard people state this repeatedly that deactivating a safety device can/will cause civil liability problems in the event of a shooting. But can you give me a single case in which this has proved true? I can see where if you removed the series 80 safety and then dropped the gun and it went off and killed someone, but if you just shot someone in self defense and the safety had no bearing??? There is a difference in being liability conscious and being paranoid.
Commander Fan
New member
If I'm tetsifying in a court room, it means I am still alive, and survived a deadly force encounter.
If it's because I'm testifying about a negligant discharge, it's my own damn fault. My finger should have been off the trigger. I would damn sure want to be compensated if some 'dumb ass' shot me. At least for the doctor bills and loss of work.
You will notice Brownells sells the 'Frame Slot Filler'. It says in print, "Convert Series 80 to Series 70". I'm sure a similar Kimber version will come out also. The sale of these products address some prior problems with the origional system.
I could just order a Caspan slide without the fp-block cuts. But it would funtion exactly the same as it does now.
I was just like dsk in the past. But in my state there is no case history of the firearm's design(or modifications within) or ammunition, being the deciding factor in the outcome of any deadly force case. And I studied Constitutional Law for 2 years while obtaining my Law enforcement degree.
My 1911 would already be considered 'less than factory safe' anyway. I changed the factory ambidextrous safety to a single side. Actually, I ground of the right side paddle and soldered the shaft together in the center(for now). Doing this moification disabled one of the origional factory safety features, right?
Any modification to the handgun could be considered in the 'courtroom theory', even the replacement of factory sights. You could also make the argument that only ammunition marked 'Personal Defense' should be used, now that it's so easily available.
I'm just not going to worry about it.
I had to come back and address something by editing. I hope dsk didn't think I was attacking him. I have gotten lots of usefull information from his posts at pistolsmith.com, as well as TFL. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, he pinted me towards the Wilson replacement safety I was looing for. Thanks, dsk-That longer shelf was what I needed. Take Care
If it's because I'm testifying about a negligant discharge, it's my own damn fault. My finger should have been off the trigger. I would damn sure want to be compensated if some 'dumb ass' shot me. At least for the doctor bills and loss of work.
You will notice Brownells sells the 'Frame Slot Filler'. It says in print, "Convert Series 80 to Series 70". I'm sure a similar Kimber version will come out also. The sale of these products address some prior problems with the origional system.
I could just order a Caspan slide without the fp-block cuts. But it would funtion exactly the same as it does now.
I was just like dsk in the past. But in my state there is no case history of the firearm's design(or modifications within) or ammunition, being the deciding factor in the outcome of any deadly force case. And I studied Constitutional Law for 2 years while obtaining my Law enforcement degree.
My 1911 would already be considered 'less than factory safe' anyway. I changed the factory ambidextrous safety to a single side. Actually, I ground of the right side paddle and soldered the shaft together in the center(for now). Doing this moification disabled one of the origional factory safety features, right?
Any modification to the handgun could be considered in the 'courtroom theory', even the replacement of factory sights. You could also make the argument that only ammunition marked 'Personal Defense' should be used, now that it's so easily available.
I'm just not going to worry about it.
I had to come back and address something by editing. I hope dsk didn't think I was attacking him. I have gotten lots of usefull information from his posts at pistolsmith.com, as well as TFL. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, he pinted me towards the Wilson replacement safety I was looing for. Thanks, dsk-That longer shelf was what I needed. Take Care
I've heard too many prosecutors call an automatic a revolver to be concerned that they would know that a pistol had been modified or even that safety parts were a part of the design.
That argument is the angle Mas Ayoob has been using to sell magazine articles/books for about twenty years. You have about as much chance of hearing those arguments in court as getting hit by a meteorite.
That argument is the angle Mas Ayoob has been using to sell magazine articles/books for about twenty years. You have about as much chance of hearing those arguments in court as getting hit by a meteorite.
