NC: Alchohol Enforcement buys "Junk Kimbers"

$1,055 each were so unreliable they got rid of them. Agency officials say the Kimber .45-caliber pistols repeatedly malfunctioned during training exercises, with rounds jamming, sights breaking and the weapons' safety buttons sometimes falling off

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/06/NC-law-enforcement-pistols-no-good/UPI-29261297026775/

Good thing they didn't spend THEIR money. Throw 'em in a pile and try again...there's more where that came from!

I'll take one of the turn ins if I can get a deal!

they probably never fired the recommended 500 shots out of them.

This story is a year old, further investigation shows some possibly shady motives. It looks like to me they are using taxpayer funds to enhance their personal firearm collection. The officers could buy their Kimbers for $1!!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/07/2039969/costly-ale-guns-fail-get-traded.html

I find it very hard to believe that Kimber would allow this to stand....its just too bad for business...and all the major gun mfg's really do care about their reputation....you can bet your ass

I'm gonna call on this one

PhillipM wrote:This story is a year old, further investigation shows some possibly shady motives. It looks like to me they are using taxpayer funds to enhance their personal firearm collection. The officers could buy their Kimbers for $1!!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/07/2039969/costly-ale-guns-fail-get-traded.html

WHAT!? First they are going to trash Kimber's rep all over the news. Then they are going to, like you said, "enhance their personal firearms collection". Again, "someone has some splainin to do". I have been looking around the Web, cannot find anything where Kimber is defending themselves, or had defended these accusations of falling apart guns. Not surprising though, Kimber stands on their own merit. If I had the spare cash on hand, I would buy one tomorrow.

TankerHC wrote:WHAT!? First they are going to trash Kimber's rep all over the news. Then they are going to, like you said, "enhance their personal firearms collection". Again, "someone has some splainin to do". I have been looking around the Web, cannot find anything where Kimber is defending themselves, or had defended these accusations of falling apart guns. Not surprising though, Kimber stands on their own merit. If I had the spare cash on hand, I would buy one tomorrow.

Yeah that is some . The firearms weren't good enough for their service carry but they bought them up at $1 each?
As far as Kimber's reputation, I think they will let that LEO's rep and history speak for them.

[quote="jakeg823"
Reliability is an issue with any tightly made gun, especially higher end 1911s. Heck it's an issue with any 1911.[/quote]

I take issue with "any 1911". One hundred years ago they shot the trials pistol 6,000 rounds with no failures.

http://gunworld.com/2011/03/09/the-first-100-years-of-the-1911-automatic-pistol-caliber-45-model-of-1911/

THE TEST: MARCH 15 1911

The Ordnance Command narrowed the field to two guns: the Savage .45 Caliber Pistol, Model 1911 and the Colt Model of 1911 Special Army. Over the course of two days, the pair went head to head in a duel to the death, so to speak.

Each pistol was to fire 6,000 rounds, in 100-shot strings, after which, the gun would be allowed to cool off for five minutes. After every 1,000 rounds, the firearm would be cleaned and oiled prior to resuming the test. In addition, each weapon would be required to shoot damaged/dirty/rusted ammunition, to simulate conditions encountered in battle.

Think about it. Each bullet weighs 230 grains; there were 6,000 bullets, which works out to about 197 pounds of lead blowing down the barrel, and the shooters’ hands probably ended up in worse shape than the gun’s mechanisms.

The Savage performed admirably: only 37 breaks or malfunctions in 6,000 rounds.

The Colt Model of 1911 Special Army met expectations: no breaks, malfunctions or problems while doing the job it was supposed to do: shoot 6,000 rounds.

PhillipM wrote:

jakeg823 wrote:
Reliability is an issue with any tightly made gun, especially higher end 1911s. Heck it's an issue with any 1911.

I take issue with "any 1911". One hundred years ago they shot the trials pistol 6,000 rounds with no failures.

http://gunworld.com/2011/03/09/the-first-100-years-of-the-1911-automatic-pistol-caliber-45-model-of-1911/

THE TEST: MARCH 15 1911

The Ordnance Command narrowed the field to two guns: the Savage .45 Caliber Pistol, Model 1911 and the Colt Model of 1911 Special Army. Over the course of two days, the pair went head to head in a duel to the death, so to speak.

Each pistol was to fire 6,000 rounds, in 100-shot strings, after which, the gun would be allowed to cool off for five minutes. After every 1,000 rounds, the firearm would be cleaned and oiled prior to resuming the test. In addition, each weapon would be required to shoot damaged/dirty/rusted ammunition, to simulate conditions encountered in battle.

Think about it. Each bullet weighs 230 grains; there were 6,000 bullets, which works out to about 197 pounds of lead blowing down the barrel, and the shooters’ hands probably ended up in worse shape than the gun’s mechanisms.

The Savage performed admirably: only 37 breaks or malfunctions in 6,000 rounds.

The Colt Model of 1911 Special Army met expectations: no breaks, malfunctions or problems while doing the job it was supposed to do: shoot 6,000 rounds.

I doubt VERY seriously if the particular 1911 that was submitted for the Army test was a straight-off-the-assembly-line untested piece. I imagine Colt's best guys went over it with a fine tooth comb and test fired it a bunch before it went to the trial to ensure that it was an above average example.

I find it very hard to believe that this batch of Kimbers performed as badly as alleged.

Too many PD's and other agencies out there use Kimbers for their QC to be off that bad.

Something here doesn't add up.

Brutus wrote:

PhillipM wrote:

jakeg823 wrote:
Reliability is an issue with any tightly made gun, especially higher end 1911s. Heck it's an issue with any 1911.

I take issue with "any 1911". One hundred years ago they shot the trials pistol 6,000 rounds with no failures.

http://gunworld.com/2011/03/09/the-first-100-years-of-the-1911-automatic-pistol-caliber-45-model-of-1911/

THE TEST: MARCH 15 1911

The Ordnance Command narrowed the field to two guns: the Savage .45 Caliber Pistol, Model 1911 and the Colt Model of 1911 Special Army. Over the course of two days, the pair went head to head in a duel to the death, so to speak.

Each pistol was to fire 6,000 rounds, in 100-shot strings, after which, the gun would be allowed to cool off for five minutes. After every 1,000 rounds, the firearm would be cleaned and oiled prior to resuming the test. In addition, each weapon would be required to shoot damaged/dirty/rusted ammunition, to simulate conditions encountered in battle.

Think about it. Each bullet weighs 230 grains; there were 6,000 bullets, which works out to about 197 pounds of lead blowing down the barrel, and the shooters’ hands probably ended up in worse shape than the gun’s mechanisms.

The Savage performed admirably: only 37 breaks or malfunctions in 6,000 rounds.

The Colt Model of 1911 Special Army met expectations: no breaks, malfunctions or problems while doing the job it was supposed to do: shoot 6,000 rounds.

I doubt VERY seriously if the particular 1911 that was submitted for the Army test was a straight-off-the-assembly-line untested piece. I imagine Colt's best guys went over it with a fine tooth comb and test fired it a bunch before it went to the trial to ensure that it was an above average example.

Colt's best weren't good enough. John M Browning supervised it's manufacture personally.

ETA: It was not an above average example anything, it was a prototype. With 100 years of service in the field I find it remarkable they only functionality mods to the pistol tend to ruin reliability. Also remember this was with unhardened steel slide.

PhillipM wrote:This story is a year old, further investigation shows some possibly shady motives. It looks like to me they are using taxpayer funds to enhance their personal firearm collection. The officers could buy their Kimbers for $1!!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/07/2039969/costly-ale-guns-fail-get-traded.html

Also note this from the article:

ALE director John Ledford said the Kimber pistols repeatedly suffered such problems as rounds jamming during training exercises, broken sights and the weapon's safety button sometimes falling off. He made a deal with a local firearms dealer to swap the pricey pistols for less expensive handguns without spending any additional money.

If these Kimbers were so sh*tty, why was this dealer willing to trade them straight across for SIG's that were reportedly worth $718?????

There's something screwy going on here.

PhillipM wrote:

Brutus wrote:

PhillipM wrote:

jakeg823 wrote:
Reliability is an issue with any tightly made gun, especially higher end 1911s. Heck it's an issue with any 1911.

I take issue with "any 1911". One hundred years ago they shot the trials pistol 6,000 rounds with no failures.

http://gunworld.com/2011/03/09/the-first-100-years-of-the-1911-automatic-pistol-caliber-45-model-of-1911/

THE TEST: MARCH 15 1911

The Ordnance Command narrowed the field to two guns: the Savage .45 Caliber Pistol, Model 1911 and the Colt Model of 1911 Special Army. Over the course of two days, the pair went head to head in a duel to the death, so to speak.

Each pistol was to fire 6,000 rounds, in 100-shot strings, after which, the gun would be allowed to cool off for five minutes. After every 1,000 rounds, the firearm would be cleaned and oiled prior to resuming the test. In addition, each weapon would be required to shoot damaged/dirty/rusted ammunition, to simulate conditions encountered in battle.

Think about it. Each bullet weighs 230 grains; there were 6,000 bullets, which works out to about 197 pounds of lead blowing down the barrel, and the shooters’ hands probably ended up in worse shape than the gun’s mechanisms.

The Savage performed admirably: only 37 breaks or malfunctions in 6,000 rounds.

The Colt Model of 1911 Special Army met expectations: no breaks, malfunctions or problems while doing the job it was supposed to do: shoot 6,000 rounds.

I doubt VERY seriously if the particular 1911 that was submitted for the Army test was a straight-off-the-assembly-line untested piece. I imagine Colt's best guys went over it with a fine tooth comb and test fired it a bunch before it went to the trial to ensure that it was an above average example.

Colt's best weren't good enough. John M Browning supervised it's manufacture personally.

Precisely my point. The pistol submitted for the test wasn't just an average run-of-the-mill 1911.