"Hand fitted" kimber?

[jeffrice6]

Does it make you any happier if some one filed the rails to spec instead of the machine doing it with a Carbide or Diamond tip cutter?

Yes it does! Sold 4 Kimbers to finance my Baer........

As I posted earlier, Kimber makes great 1911's, but "hand fit" & Kimber should never be in the same sentence ~

[JTROKS]

A tight tolerance gun is not meant for defensive use, however my Kimber Eclipse Pro II Custom Shop is not a rattle trap, nor a fine Swiss watch. It is very reliable and gives excellent accuracy for defensive purposes.

[peter95]

I have the Kimber Gold Combat II and its a phenomenal 1911. Shoots just as good as some of my $2k+ 1911's and i'll never get rid of it.

Not sure if its hand fitted, but it is one of their flagships.

[Matt P]

Agree, it is a trade off. I finished reamed both the barrels of my two Kimber Warriors, out of the box they worked great with factory new ammo. But had feeding problems with my handloads, the chambers were tighter then any other 1911 I owned.

So to understand what you typed, you opened up your chambers to accommodate your handloads.
You do realize a tight chamber to cartridge is normally desirable for consistency.

Why not just be more careful in reloading? You say factory ammo feeds fine.
Opening up chambers can allow for more brass stretch/expansion and create future unsafe conditions.
Most gunsmiths would discourage altering chambers beyond SAAMI standards.

What part of the chamber are you removing metal from?

[LowThudd]

So to understand what you typed, you opened up your chambers to accommodate your handloads.
You do realize a tight chamber to cartridge is normally desirable for consistency.

Why not just be more careful in reloading? You say factory ammo feeds fine.
Opening up chambers can allow for more brass stretch/expansion and create future unsafe conditions.
Most gunsmiths would discourage altering chambers beyond SAAMI standards.

What part of the chamber are you removing metal from?

FWIW, my Custom II wouldn't feed some hard cast lead SWC. It is a MATCH barrel, so tight chambers. Match guns are sometimes reamed for a specific bullet shape, these are left tight. I agree with StormVet, the chamber is tight.

[stormvet]

So to understand what you typed, you opened up your chambers to accommodate your handloads.
You do realize a tight chamber to cartridge is normally desirable for consistency.

Why not just be more careful in reloading? You say factory ammo feeds fine.
Opening up chambers can allow for more brass stretch/expansion and create future unsafe conditions.
Most gunsmiths would discourage altering chambers beyond SAAMI standards.

What part of the chamber are you removing metal from?

My handloads are fine, well within specs, problem was the barrels if in spec at all were extremely tight and short. While doing a simple 'plunk' test with my handloads they pass perfectly in my Wilson barrel, two EB barrels, two Springfield barrels, a Colt barrel and two four inch Kimber barrels. Not to mention a Wilson case gauge. But would fail miserably in the two five inch Kimber barrels. Three or four easy turns with the finish reamer opened up and lengthened the chambers to were the rounds would drop all the way in and fall out with gravity just like the other barrels.

Now I ask you were my Kimber barrels a little tight or are all my other barrels and my case gauge over sized.

[Ranger20]

I have an early Kimber custom classic made prior to the Swartz safety guns. The ejector is pinned. Minimal MiM parts. It's fitted well and shoots better for me than any of the dozen 1911s I've had. Or the few semi custom guns I've shot. I prefer the original Kimbers. The slide has numbers internally matched to the frame perhaps the early ones had more hand fitting

[LowThudd]

I have an early Kimber custom classic made prior to the Swartz safety guns. The ejector is pinned. Minimal MiM parts. It's fitted well and shoots better for me than any of the dozen 1911s I've had. Or the few semi custom guns I've shot. I prefer the original Kimbers. The slide has numbers internally matched to the frame perhaps the early ones had more hand fitting

Nope, Kimbers were CNC from the beginning. That was how they kept their cost low, while maintaining a tight fit. It's been their business model from day one.

The Avatar...1952?

[stormvet]

Ranger my post about tight chambers my sound like I'm bashing Kimber but I'm not. Aside from thier tendency towards tight chambers, I think they are well made 1911s. Their vision on advancing the 1911 make in the mid to late 1990s is really what started the modern 1911 explosion.
I own or have owned Kimbers ranging in built years of 2001 to 2014, all of them have had pined ejectors. Never have had a part break on me and have generally been very happy with them. My only complaint with them is the tendency for over tight chambers and sometimes ill adjusted extractors.
I prefer my Warriors to my TRP, sometimes I have to force myself to take the TRP just to make sure I put some rounds through it.

[Win231]

No, but they sure do like to give you plastic mainspring housings and mag releases, MIM galore, tons of loose breech, godawful checkering, poor slide to frame fit, only one mag, write fake claims of a "custom shop" on some of their guns, and a long history of known barrel rust. If thats your thing, go for it

S&W's "Performance Center" does the same thing.

Whatever wows the ignorant & easily impressed. It's discouraging that they find people who will spend extra money, thinking they're getter something better.

It costs big time to hand fit a pistol & use quality materials; check the prices of Wilsons. I bought a CQB in 2003 - it was around $2,000.00. They're over $3,000.00 now.

[Win231]

Tighter tolerances enhance accuracy, not necessarily reliability. In fact one can come at the expense of the other.

That's where the hand fitting & high price come in.

9,200 rounds through my Wilson without a malfunction. Groups under 1" at 25 yds.

[nahpungnome]

S&W's "Performance Center" does the same thing.

Whatever wows the ignorant & easily impressed. It's discouraging that they find people who will spend extra money, thinking they're getter something better.

It costs big time to hand fit a pistol & use quality materials; check the prices of Wilsons. I bought a CQB in 2003 - it was around $2,000.00. They're over $3,000.00 now.

The CQB pod uses a lot of CNC now, but the price is still $3000.

[Jimi Jah]

Shoot it 500 rounds and that will "hand fit" it in. Break in is the hand fitting.

There is no substitute for that from any factory.

[SamGoldstein]

Agreed. I like mine just fine.

I've had my Custom II for 14 years. No rust, good checkering, and accurate. Customer service is exceptional. I do hate the plastic mainspring housing, but guess what? I have a Colt Series 80 that also has a plastic mainspring housing. My Kimber is more accurate than my Colt.

[SamGoldstein]

I have a half dozon Kimbers and they all shoot and function perfectly. The Raptor is the prettiest of all of them.

Now for hand fittings, there is no need to hand fit the rails if your cnc machine cuts it to perfect size. Does it make you any happier if some one filed the rails to spec instead of the machine doing it with a Carbide or Diamond tip cutter?

^This.