I just spent another half-hour tinkering with a new Kimber 4-inch Tac II, which is quite a beautiful gun and a delight to shoot.
But since it cost something like $1,100 bucks, I'm quite disappointed that the cliches from the 1970s and '80s still seem to be true: Spend big bucks on a .45 and you still need to WORK on it.
And no, I (and the owner, my son) have no interest in the "send it back" dance. Time without the pistol and shipping costs are NOT something I have any patience for. I'll do it myself, thank you (And yes, I have actually built up a 1911 from a bare frame and the durned thing worked!).
So, here's the list, in order of our discoveries:
1. Extractor would NOT snap over a round chambered from other than the magazine. Opinions may vary, but I don't consider that abuse of the pistol, and I can point to fully FOUR other ones which function that way just fine. Originally, all that would happen was denting the rim. So I stoned it and it will now snap over, but only from a slight running start. Can't just ease it forward and then grab the slide and help it over, like the other ones do. Turns out the outboard (right-hand) side of the "nose" is not long enough to put the slope on without turning the hook into razor-sharp and actually making it start to disappear.
Oh, the extractor also did not have the current state of the art beveling on the bottom faces, either.
2. The slightly extended ejector fed about 15-25% of the empties into your face. A little extra tension on the extractor, done while futzing around with problem #1, cured that. A bit disappointing for a pistol with a lowered and beveled ejection port, but those two things at least reduce the incidence of dented case mouths.
3. The slide stop has no "slope" or detent/"dimple" to keep it from automatically engaging in the middle of a string *if a Shok-Buff is installed*. Now, being an aluminum-framed pistol, I would think that the maker would expect a certain percentage of their customers to be interested in using a Shok-Buff. I've worked on it a bit, so now it engages only about once every 100 rounds (tested and observed this morning). Okay, still not ready for prime time at this point, but it is doable.
4. This may or may not be fair in the context of using a Shok-Buff, but the 1/8-inch reduction of rearward slide travel keeps the forward edge of the slide stop cut from pushing the slide stop down when the slide is pulled back all the way. Yes, that's the primary cause of #3 above--the slide stop has a place to bounce UP into when the slide is hitting its rearward limit of travel.
5. The mag release was not dimensioned properly and would drag on the magazine, for NO drop-free, if pressed in fully. The radiused portion opposite the catch (as in on the left side) is where the problem was. Kinda sad watching a shooter do the "Glock-Off" shake to dump the mag while reaching for the reload (that maneuver got its name from the early NON-drop free magazines the Glock 17 came with at first. Even the G-22 in .40 came with them in the old days). That one got fixed this evening. I have nothing against using MIM-parts in that setting, but at least FINISH them instead of relying on the stupid mold! Turns out the steel is stainless, too--would not take any cold blue when I got done relieving the drag point.
I've had two separate SIG P226s, and they just worked out of the box with no fiddling from the beginning and always have since, for about $500 LESS than this Kimber.
One of the comparison M1911s is an old Remington-Rand that was built into a National Match gun back in the 1960s, complete with a match barrel (genuine USGI NM). It feeds some imitation H&G 68 200-gr SWCs with a too-small meplat better than the Kimber.
Oh, #6: When polishing the breechface tonight, I could see that the machining, or perhaps lack of it since the metal has big pores consistent with the slide being cast, too (I doubt THAT was MIM, but who knows these days...), there were three horizontal "low spots" sort of like gentle dips, the middle one centered on the firing pin hole. I wouldn't expect them to affect feeding that much, but it was a bit of a disappointment. First time I've ever seen that, including an old Astra and a newer Kel-Tec.
So, more testing to see whether the latest tweaking fixed it.
AFIC, any pistol costing $600 or more should just work out of the box. If not, either the maker is not up to snuff, or the design in just plain bad. I really don't believe that the M1911 design is bad, cause comparable guns like Colt Gold Cups have always worked fine, from all accounts AND personal experience.
I actually like taking on a challenge and fixing things, but that's what I would have expected if the purchase had been a $500 cheapo-gun.
But since it cost something like $1,100 bucks, I'm quite disappointed that the cliches from the 1970s and '80s still seem to be true: Spend big bucks on a .45 and you still need to WORK on it.
And no, I (and the owner, my son) have no interest in the "send it back" dance. Time without the pistol and shipping costs are NOT something I have any patience for. I'll do it myself, thank you (And yes, I have actually built up a 1911 from a bare frame and the durned thing worked!).
So, here's the list, in order of our discoveries:
1. Extractor would NOT snap over a round chambered from other than the magazine. Opinions may vary, but I don't consider that abuse of the pistol, and I can point to fully FOUR other ones which function that way just fine. Originally, all that would happen was denting the rim. So I stoned it and it will now snap over, but only from a slight running start. Can't just ease it forward and then grab the slide and help it over, like the other ones do. Turns out the outboard (right-hand) side of the "nose" is not long enough to put the slope on without turning the hook into razor-sharp and actually making it start to disappear.
Oh, the extractor also did not have the current state of the art beveling on the bottom faces, either.
2. The slightly extended ejector fed about 15-25% of the empties into your face. A little extra tension on the extractor, done while futzing around with problem #1, cured that. A bit disappointing for a pistol with a lowered and beveled ejection port, but those two things at least reduce the incidence of dented case mouths.
3. The slide stop has no "slope" or detent/"dimple" to keep it from automatically engaging in the middle of a string *if a Shok-Buff is installed*. Now, being an aluminum-framed pistol, I would think that the maker would expect a certain percentage of their customers to be interested in using a Shok-Buff. I've worked on it a bit, so now it engages only about once every 100 rounds (tested and observed this morning). Okay, still not ready for prime time at this point, but it is doable.
4. This may or may not be fair in the context of using a Shok-Buff, but the 1/8-inch reduction of rearward slide travel keeps the forward edge of the slide stop cut from pushing the slide stop down when the slide is pulled back all the way. Yes, that's the primary cause of #3 above--the slide stop has a place to bounce UP into when the slide is hitting its rearward limit of travel.
5. The mag release was not dimensioned properly and would drag on the magazine, for NO drop-free, if pressed in fully. The radiused portion opposite the catch (as in on the left side) is where the problem was. Kinda sad watching a shooter do the "Glock-Off" shake to dump the mag while reaching for the reload (that maneuver got its name from the early NON-drop free magazines the Glock 17 came with at first. Even the G-22 in .40 came with them in the old days). That one got fixed this evening. I have nothing against using MIM-parts in that setting, but at least FINISH them instead of relying on the stupid mold! Turns out the steel is stainless, too--would not take any cold blue when I got done relieving the drag point.
I've had two separate SIG P226s, and they just worked out of the box with no fiddling from the beginning and always have since, for about $500 LESS than this Kimber.
One of the comparison M1911s is an old Remington-Rand that was built into a National Match gun back in the 1960s, complete with a match barrel (genuine USGI NM). It feeds some imitation H&G 68 200-gr SWCs with a too-small meplat better than the Kimber.
Oh, #6: When polishing the breechface tonight, I could see that the machining, or perhaps lack of it since the metal has big pores consistent with the slide being cast, too (I doubt THAT was MIM, but who knows these days...), there were three horizontal "low spots" sort of like gentle dips, the middle one centered on the firing pin hole. I wouldn't expect them to affect feeding that much, but it was a bit of a disappointment. First time I've ever seen that, including an old Astra and a newer Kel-Tec.
So, more testing to see whether the latest tweaking fixed it.
AFIC, any pistol costing $600 or more should just work out of the box. If not, either the maker is not up to snuff, or the design in just plain bad. I really don't believe that the M1911 design is bad, cause comparable guns like Colt Gold Cups have always worked fine, from all accounts AND personal experience.
I actually like taking on a challenge and fixing things, but that's what I would have expected if the purchase had been a $500 cheapo-gun.
