2011-12 Kimber 1911 full size .45 acp

I been on him to come to a match for months. He has the best possible gun you can buy for production. He has a Glock. He just needs a belt, and some mag holders. I think he has a serpa holster. I always heard the same thing about the kimbers out of the box being finicky, but he got it sunday and put what he had through it with out much trouble. I don't think 95% of gun owners ever get to those type of round counts on a gun. But I'm gonna try. Just gotta keep my dillon pumping.

Will_M wrote:

2nd ammendment wrote:Hey Will, I will be glad to give you an update; however it may be a while with those numbers. Seriously, what is your favorite production 1911 and why. I get your point.Thanks, Brent.

No offense intended whatsoever. The only experience I have with Kimbers is seeing them at matches occasionally and at the range when I'm practicing. Several times I've seen them have some trouble, even with hardball ammunition. I think a lot of this is due to the magazines that ship with the guns. If you have any trouble, try out some better magazines.

My personal favorite production 1911? I really like some of Springfield's higher end models (TRP, Loaded, and I briefly got to handle a Range Officer recently that I liked) and STI makes a nice 1911 in my opinion.

I didn't mean to insinuate that your gun was a bad one. Where are you located in the state?

I started shooting USPSA with a full size Kimber. Never had a problem once I threw the kimber mags in the trash where they belong. Why a manufacturer will cheapen their product with something like that I will never understand.

I'm not a fan of MIM parts, but they seem to be just about everywhere these days. Pretty sure there are some in the CZ's mentioned by several folks above and that Springfield and STI are using them some too, now. MIM can be decent in certain applications but doesn't do so well in others. For example, 1911 grip safety? Probably fine. 1911 thumb safety, firing pin stop, extractor, etc? No thank you. I'm not sure if it was cast or MIM, but I replaced an extractor for my brother-in-law in his Springfield GI that had a clear mold line. It had few rounds on it but wasn't holding tension at all. While they will last for a reasonable around of time and rounds stock, most gunsmiths won't do trigger jobs on MIM hammers and sears because they won't last. I believe the surface is hard but if cut through, the remaining surface is not as hard and will wear rapidly.

The slide stop, and the extractors in the CZ break at 25k round intervals. The hammers, sears, ejector cage, frame, slide and barrel are all seemingly indestructible.

Ha I didn't mean to turn this thread into an anti-MIM rant. It's obviously not the ideal process, but it also wouldn't be used if it wasn't strong enough in the majority of cases(or at least I hope not ha). Obviously it's not the strongest, but like DBC said, I can see where it is fine for some low stress parts.

As much MIM bashing as I've seen on other forums(1911forum in particular), mine is one of the few cases were I've seen anyone actually be able to say "MY part failed because it was MIM" or just happened to be MIM, and not "my cousin's uncle's friend's dad's barrel was MIM and I heard it blew up" or the like.

Sorry, I'll take responsibility for the drift. I've been around and looked at afterward quite a few broken parts. One slide stop, several thumb safeties, a rear sight or two, extractors, ejectors, and a firing pin stop come to mind. Almost all were MIM or cast, although I couldn't tell you on a couple and one extractor was "bar stock". I've been present when other parts broke, too, but I didn't look at them and couldn't tell you what they were. It frustrates me that the manufacturers are going so far to maximize their profit without regard for what is best for the finished product. Maybe I am unrealistic though. It is all about the bottom line after all.

On the CZ's, I knew about the slide stop but not the extractor, but I consider them generally fairly durable and reliable. I think their adjustable rear sights have been known to break on occasion, too, so fixed have become popular. I don't know how the adjustable is made, but I would suspect MIM. Heck, the fixed may be too, but that is an example of one being fine and the other not to me. I believe they use some MIM in the fire control parts, but so do S&W revolvers and lots of other guns these days and I haven't ever heard of any issues so they are probably fine. We did have a shooter down this way shear a barrel lug on a CZ in the last couple months. I spoke to him but haven't seen it personally and wouldn't blame it on material or anything just yet. It could have been one bad part with a flaw, bad fit, or something else. Also, it was in a CZ Tactical Sport in .40, so major power factor may have played a part. Will be interesting to see what customer service does for him.

Back to Kimbers, they are usually fit pretty well and consequently generally shoot pretty accurately.

Kimber was one of the first companies to use MIM parts in a 1911 and they are the reason people don't like MIM parts. Their CEO at the time, contracted MIM parts from the lowest bidder in the name of higher profits and all the parts were junk. Not because the parts were MIM but because of the quality of the MIM parts. It almost bankrupt Kimber for the second time. Too bad that CEO is now at SIG, where profits are up but quality seems to be taking a dive.

There is nothing wrong with high quality MIM parts,they are used in aircraft engines,cars and medical equipment. Wilson Combat used them in their lower priced guns for years, then change to cast, due to customer complaints about the MIM parts,because of the MIM equals junk myth.

MIM parts can be held to higher tolerences and cost less to make than steel parts. Steel parts have a high amount of waste during machining adding to the cost. Small steel parts like sears are hard to machine and require hand fitting most of the time, where MIM part can be cast almost prefect and usually don't require fitting. As much as we would like to think they are, production guns aren't build by gunsmiths, they are built by production line workers who probably don't know a thing about the gun they are assembling. So the companies need parts that a trained monkey could drop in and not have to fit, that's one of the reason they use MIM parts and for the almighty higher profit too.

For a race gun that is going to be shot 10,000 times a year, steel parts are a must, for a gun the normal owner is going to shoot 500-1000 (probably alot less) times a year MIM parts are fine. Myself, it doesn't matter what brand 1911 or if their parts are MIM or steel, I am eventually going to change all the internal parts to Ed Brown steel parts because those are what I prefer.

Are 1911s that much harder on MIM parts than other gun designs? You never hear people complaining about the MIM parts in Glocks,S&Ws,Springfields,etc that have MIM parts.

Like DBC said Kimbers are good guns, they have a few models I would love to own, their having MIM parts wouldn't stop me from buying one.

Just my YMMV

Hey Guys, Thanks for all the advice and reviews! Brent.