Are Kimbers good to go, or trash?

[Havok1]

This is where the end of the argument would be, if people published failed rates because it wouldn't matter how popular something is. How popular something is in a way is irrelevant. KelTec being a great example. They are very popular lol but they make guns as if they are high on coke. Keltec has been the target of a strange supply and demand issue in the past. People still flock to them despite almost everyone in the industry knowing they produce junk.

For me, and after having hands on experience with a lot of 1911 brands, the one thing I have always given Kimber an F on is value. They have gotten better with asking prices, but for the asking price, they seem to generate a lot of controversy. They appear to generate more than others. Because none of us have access to failure rates, again, if more people in this thread say they had problems, that's relevant. Superficial, but sometimes superficial feedback matters.

Here's an example:
Sig p320. Compact. Tan frame, N/S. Excited about it. Take it up into the woods with some American eagle ball. Stove pipes every third round. I was shooting third gen Glocks for ages, without any of them having feeding issues. Even some getting fed sub gun ammo. Despite the logic of thinking about failure rates and getting a lemon, I said: f this POS.

Drove back into town. Traded it for an XD. XD shot everything.

For the same asking price (At the time) Kimber was a joke compared to an IWI 1911. A flat out joke.

I do agree that a lot of Kimbers guns are not a good value. I don’t think their more expensive guns are worth what they ask.

Popularity does matter when it comes to statistics. If the failure rate= number of failures/number of guns sold, then we need to know how many guns there are in order to accurately compare the failure rate of one product to another. One online retailer posted their list of best selling 1911s, and of the top 20, 8 of them were Kimbers. If we only look at the number of failures, then if kimber produces 50000 1911s, and another company produces 10000, and the only thing that is looked at is the frequency that each one is brought in to a shop for repair, the smaller company could have a failure rate that is 4x higher than kimber and still be considered the better gun. If kimber produces 5x as many 1911s as another company, then it they have the same level of QC, then it would be reasonable to see 5x as many have problems.

 

[Sam7sf]

I do agree that a lot of Kimbers guns are not a good value. I don’t think their more expensive guns are worth what they ask.

Popularity does matter when it comes to statistics. If the failure rate= number of failures/number of guns sold, then we need to know how many guns there are in order to accurately compare the failure rate of one product to another. One online retailer posted their list of best selling 1911s, and of the top 20, 8 of them were Kimbers. If we only look at the number of failures, then if kimber produces 50000 1911s, and another company produces 10000, and the only thing that is looked at is the frequency that each one is brought in to a shop for repair, the smaller company could have a failure rate that is 4x higher than kimber and still be considered the better gun. If kimber produces 5x as many 1911s as another company, then it they have the same level of QC, then it would be reasonable to see 5x as many have problems.

That's the obvious math. I said popularity doesn't matter in a smart ass extreme example; keltec.

It's interesting the image the gun community has of Kimber. Fake news? If so, how can it be debunked?

 

[Vaquero]

I don't know who makes magazines for Springfield.
I do know using them fixed issues with a remington and a kimber 1911.

There's just not a cheaper or easier fix.

 

[Sam7sf]

I don't know who makes magazines for Springfield.
I do know using them fixed issues with a remington and a kimber 1911.

There's just not a cheaper or easier fix.

I think they are CZ/Dan Wesson mags. Maybe. The reason I say that is when I ordered a GI guide rod, from Springfield, it shipped direct with a CZ part number and logo.

Springfield, is known for resale and outsourcing.

 

[zackmars]

I do agree that a lot of Kimbers guns are not a good value. I don’t think their more expensive guns are worth what they ask.

Popularity does matter when it comes to statistics. If the failure rate= number of failures/number of guns sold, then we need to know how many guns there are in order to accurately compare the failure rate of one product to another. One online retailer posted their list of best selling 1911s, and of the top 20, 8 of them were Kimbers. If we only look at the number of failures, then if kimber produces 50000 1911s, and another company produces 10000, and the only thing that is looked at is the frequency that each one is brought in to a shop for repair, the smaller company could have a failure rate that is 4x higher than kimber and still be considered the better gun. If kimber produces 5x as many 1911s as another company, then it they have the same level of QC, then it would be reasonable to see 5x as many have problems.

You do not have those stats. You also don't know the level of kimbers QC, what rates a reject vs an accept. You don't know what percentage of guns slip through kimbers QC process.


So we, as consumers, have to make due with reviews. Singular examples of the product.

Occasionally, you might get someone who deals with large(er) amounts of the product. It might be a gun store owner, a range officer, a police armorer.

No one is telling you or anyone else to take any of the above as gospel, but you are going past that. You refuse to accept anything other than a manufacturers proprietary info, or reviews from owners that exclusively support your position, to the point you've tried to paint those who you disagree with as trolls, people in fantasyland, etc.

 

[V-Tach]

Well......his username is......................Havok1......lol.....

I'm actually enjoying the back and forth......it's been civil and that is appreciated.............

 

[Maverick44]

I got curious so I went through the entire thread again and kept a record of who actually had first hand experience with Kimber's 1911s, and if they had issues. I did not even consider 2nd hand accounts for this. Those were not included in the below numbers.

18 people have admitted to owning one. 5 have had an issue, and one maybe had an issue?. One had a magazine issue, but I didn't count that one since it's not the gun's fault. Anyway, roughly 28% (not counting the maybe) of the people who have personally owned a Kimber in this thread have had an issue. That's not an acceptable failure rate.

There have been AT LEAST 29 Kimbers owned by people in this thread, and AT LEAST 7 of those guns had issues. That's about a 24% failure rate. Again, not acceptable.

4 people (separate from the "owned a Kimber" group) have personally seen or had issues with a Kimber.

At least 2 have seen large numbers of malfunctioning Kimbers come through their shop.

There's only a small number of people on this forum, and even fewer in this thread, so you cannot say that these numbers are true for the whole country. HOWEVER, such a large number of failures in such a small number of people does hint at possible quality control issues with Kimber 1911s.

That's enough for me to not consider buying a Kimber in the future, especially at the prices they command.

 

[Havok1]

That's the obvious math. I said popularity doesn't matter in a smart ass extreme example; keltec.

It's interesting the image the gun community has of Kimber. Fake news? If so, how can it be debunked?

No idea. Reputations are difficult to change.

 

[zackmars]

No idea. Reputations are difficult to change.

It can be easier than you think.

The only thing people really hold onto is getting stabbed in the back. Go ask ruger or s&w about that.

 

[Havok1]

You do not have those stats. You also don't know the level of kimbers QC, what rates a reject vs an accept. You don't know what percentage of guns slip through kimbers QC process.


So we, as consumers, have to make due with reviews. Singular examples of the product.

Occasionally, you might get someone who deals with large(er) amounts of the product. It might be a gun store owner, a range officer, a police armorer.

No one is telling you or anyone else to take any of the above as gospel, but you are going past that. You refuse to accept anything other than a manufacturers proprietary info, or reviews from owners that exclusively support your position, to the point you've tried to paint those who you disagree with as trolls, people in fantasyland, etc.

that’s fine, as long as you don’t ignore the potential for bias to occur, and end up thinking those examples prove more than they really do.

 

[Sam7sf]

Havok1, you don't work for Kimber? lol.

You're responses are strangely protective of the brand. I'm kidding, about my question.

 

[msharley]

For the money?

A good used Kimber Target 1911 is tough to beat....

I have sent 300,000rds down the pipe with this one. (on barrel #3)

This was one of the first Kimbers in Western Pa.

Youngest son has a Kimber Target.

Nephew has a couple Kimber Targets (all used)

 

[Sam7sf]

For the money?

A good used Kimber Target 1911 is tough to beat....

I have sent 300,000rds down the pipe with this one. (on barrel #3)

This was one of the first Kimbers in Western Pa.

Youngest son has a Kimber Target.

Nephew has a couple Kimber Targets (all used)

How old is that one?

 

[zackmars]

that’s fine, as long as you don’t ignore the potential for bias to occur, and end up thinking those examples prove more than they really do.

What bias? I don't have any skin in the game for, or against kimber, and I've said a number of times my information is anecdotal.

It's no more valid than what any other poster here has said. Don't take my word as the golden truth, but don't tell me it's not valid because it didn't come from the mouth of kimbers pr team, or that it doesn't count because i didn't pay money to own the brand in question.

 

[msharley]

How old is that one?

Early '90's...

K0012xx

 

[Sam7sf]

Seems to be another thing I have read and heard...The older ones are fine.

 

[Grumps21]

My Wilson mags from then were junk too. 10 47ds. They are supposed to be legendary and may be now.

I found mecgar mags always work in everything.

Mecgar is also the OEM for some manufacturers. I’ve never had a problem with them either

 

[zackmars]

Mecgar is also the OEM for some manufacturers. I’ve never had a problem with them either

People have said mec gars dont like feeding the last round of JHP's, iirc. I had a few but only used fmj through them

 

[oldag]

I've never seen a 1922 run properly.

That is an AR style assault fully semiautomatic black 1911.

 

[oldag]

So, are we all in agreement, Wilson Combat mags are legit? Not that it matters, I already hit the order button, but just making sure.

Checkmate is solid. Ed Brown are good, but I strongly suspect they are actually manufactured by Checkmate.

Can't recall the other brands I have used off the top of my head.