Can not understand Kimber design philosophy. Why would they design the gun to jam out of the box? I am in manufacturing of precision aluminum die castings and understand tolerances and stack up issues. But for the life of me a guns number 1 function to fire reliably.
Bought the gun for the beauty and reputation of 'finest'. But found my Tactical is jamming over 30% of first first 100 rounds, was so disgusted I stopped. Will work thru all the suggestions; change Spring, Magazine, 500 rounds.
But doubt that I will ever truly trust this gun. Am extremely disappointed. Have a H&K USP compact that has NEVER jammed in the 3 years I have owned it. Best described to me on this form when I was first considering a Kimber vs. Stuff'Kimber builds to tight tolerences for high accuracy (FLUFF -which is okay if you know this up front) where other manufacturer's build for dependability and reliability within their own outstanding accuracy and 'looser' tolerences (STUFF).Now, don't get me wrong, I bought the Colt that time, ans was greatly satisfied, however I do OWN a Kimber Custom II now, and like it! But it does jam about every time I shoot it thru the first few hundred rounds.Kimber says right in the maunal to shoot 500-600 rds before the gun passes its 'break-in' period.
Again, that's okay if you know it up front, but this is why I don't recommend Kimber's for immediate carry guns for my friends.Hope this Helps. Would you recommend Wilson Combat weapons?Am looking for Reliable, Build quality, Superior machined/finishes, Accuracy.Wilson makes great guns. That's why you pay $3000 for one. There are other semi-custom makers out there but for the money, it's hard to find a better value than one of the baseline Kimbers.(I say that even though I own a Wilson, Baers, a Brown, Colts, Springfields and Kimbers.)You need to lube the gun very well, get some decent factory ammo (this disqualifies anything that has 'Blazer' in the name,) and keep shooting it.
It also helps to put the gun in the hands of an experienced 1911 shooter to see if the issues are still there. Shooting a 1911 is a bit different than shooting a USP.
Can not understand Kimber design philosophy. Why would they design the gun to jam out of the box? I am in manufacturing of precision aluminum die castings and understand tolerances and stack up issues. But for the life of me a guns number 1 function to fire reliably. Bought the gun for the beauty and reputation of 'finest'. But found my Tactical is jamming over 30% of first first 100 rounds, was so disgusted I stopped. Will work thru all the suggestions; change Spring, Magazine, 500 rounds.
But doubt that I will ever truly trust this gun. Am extremely disappointed. Have a H&K USP compact that has NEVER jammed in the 3 years I have owned it.I totally agree, and no doubt will be bashed for it. I own a few handguns which are built to a lot tighter tolerances than my Kimber, which have worked 100% out of the box. Just because a handgun is 'tight', does not make it a good handgun. If I wanted a handgun to 'finish' after I bought it, I would have gone another route. Having to shoot 500 rounds, then replace magazines, springs, polish feed ramps, adjust extractors, etc.
On a brand new (expensive) handgun is total, b.s., and I doubt many of the people who call this internet trash talk would accept this kind of 'quality' in automobiles, cell phones, etc. Yet a lot of them get mad over valid complaints about a tool some of us stake our lives on.
Like Kruzr said. They need to be well lubed as well as clean and not limp wristed.Right.
And all of the other well documented problems come down to this, and nobody has a valid issue that this doesn't solve.Maybe I am holding my Kimber incorrectly, but switching grips when I hold my Gold Cup, SA TG01, or Walther P88, SIG P210? Maybe if I remember to switch grips, and douse it in oil it will work like my other handguns.Can you tell me how this will improve the slide release on the first round of a full magazine? Have now cleaned and oiled. To be honest, did not clean the gun out of the box. Did read the manual and stripped the gun which did not look greasy. Learned my lesson. Will try again later this week.Change in subject.Are Kimbers really the same/original 1911 design?
Unchanged except for material? 100 year old design, true?If so, it is very interesting from a historical point of view, as a important relic. But can it compete on performance to newer designs?Kimber's are not a copy of the original 1911, don't think anyone is doing that.I can understand your disappointment, but hang in there and try to get it working right.
Kimber does not ship guns ready to shoot. Start with a good clean and lube.
And shoot some FMJ round thru it. I have 4 kimbers and have had great luck with all. Start over at the range and keep track of what type of jams you get and post that, people here will help you thru it, you could end up loving the gun.you spent allot of money, don't give up yet.
Avoid the temptation to replace everything on your brand-new 1911 just to make it 'better'. Know what you're changing out and why. You may spend a lot of money fixing things that weren't broken to begin with. Shoot at least 500 rounds through it first, then decide what you don't like and want to improve. Regarding vintage 1911s, pre-1970 pistols are highly collectible in original, unaltered condition and should NEVER be refinished or modified as it completely ruins their monetary value. Can not understand Kimber design philosophy.
Why would they design the gun to jam out of the box? I am in manufacturing of precision aluminum die castings and understand tolerances and stack up issues. But for the life of me a guns number 1 function to fire reliably.
Bought the gun for the beauty and reputation of 'finest'. But found my Tactical is jamming over 30% of first first 100 rounds, was so disgusted I stopped.
Will work thru all the suggestions; change Spring, Magazine, 500 rounds. But doubt that I will ever truly trust this gun. Am extremely disappointed. Have a H&K USP compact that has NEVER jammed in the 3 years I have owned it.9 Kimbers and still no rust or jamming issues. Guess I'm doing something wrong.
I think it is safe to say that about 2/3 of your posts are complaining about your Kimber, you got a bad one, it happens with anything that is manufactured, cars, cell phones, guns, ect.I think I speak for more than one of us that have them and 'stake our lives on', get it fixed or sell it and by another Glock or a Sig.You obviousley are not happy with Kimber unless you are bashing them, constantly.I would never have guessed that my post would have gotten this kind of response. But I guess I should only post positives about a handgun that is clearly not right.I don't get this defensiveness from people with no stake in the company, but oh well.L.E.unfortunately I won't be able to test my Kimber for at least another 2 weeks. But in any case, Kimber should not put a serrated lever at the end of the slide stop if they don't want people to use it. I have tested the slide release and it is not 100%.Honestly though, I don't own another handgun with a slide stop/release lever which is not usable.
For that matter, my P88 has one on each side and they both work great. Seems to me that an American company can make at least one work well.To say 'if it doesn't work don't use it' really oversimplifies the fact that it should work, and every other handgun (I know of) with this type of mechanism, works. Once again, several comments coming up again, in yet another thread that prove 1911's aren't for everyone. Plastic guns and wheels guns suit more kids needs.None of the other guns that I mentioned in this post are plastic. For that matter, the only one that has an aluminum frame (other than my Kimber) is the Walther.But if you would like to compare out of the box reliability of my Glocks to my Kimber, I'd be glad to.L.E.If all Kimber intends this to be is a slide stop, they don't need the serrated lever.
I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army.
The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastrophic jam which caused him to discard the rifle.
Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point? Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?In before the 'Colt or nothing' crowd.
Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army.
The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.Correct.
The initial cartridges were loaded with a stick powder, but McNamara made them switch to a ball powder. That, combined with non-chrome chambers, led to the problems.Also, just as now, some unknowledgable leaders liked their troops to have bone dry rifles. The AR-15/M-16 will run wet (with oil) and dirty, but not dry and dirty. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army.
The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.this is what I've heard they were using shit powder.
Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.This is the answer you seek, OP. Major Dick Culver, USMC, has a website (Culver Shooting Page) and there is an article detailing some of the reasons the original issued rifles 'jammed'.The powder change and absence of cleaning kits was just the tip of the iceberg.The powder switch changed the pressure curve, causing the pressure to peak during the unlocking of the bolt and bolt carrier. Chroming the bolt and carrier helped with powder fouling but the slickness of the hard chrome actually accelerated the unlocking process, leading to the extractor shearing through the case rim, leaving a empty case stuck in the chamber. Cleaning rods had to be used to punch the empty cases out of the guns, but ( for the Marines, anyway) only cleaning kit per issued rifle was sent to Viet Nam. So in no short time there was a shortage of cleaning rods. Early photos sometimes show tape loops on M16 handguards so a cleaning rod could be carried to punch out empties. The magazine situation was crazy at first, as well, with something like two 20-rd magazines per rifle, per Marine.
The rest of the ammo was on stripper clips, and the plan was to reload each magazine as it was emptied.Culver wrote a letter to his congressman about how boys were dying over there because the official Corps policy was to insist nothing was wrong with the rifle. IIRC, the Commandant himself called Culver 'disloyal' but eventually the powder and cleaning kit and magazine situation was fixed. By the early seventies many of the jamming issues had been eliminated. This is a stupid question to try to answer. How the hell should we know? Maybe it was contributing factors that we today consider the majority of the reasons leading to a malfunction back then.Or for all we know, it was just a damn malfunction. Weapons still jam to this day.
Asking why in the field will get you killed. And unless you have every component of the system and the round that failed present and unaltered after the fight to analyze, asking why is futile.And holding a negative view of a weapons platform simply because of one failure at the wrong time when your life depended on it is sentimental stupidity. The inanimate object failed when you needed it. It didn't single you out. It didn't care. It wasn't personal.
If the weapon in question and other similar weapons had serious and persistent issues leading up to this, then a negative view of the platform is more justified.All that aside, even if the weapons back them were a piece of shit that is no basis for a negative outlook on the modern variants. I don't have to have special knowledge of anything to see that it is the leading item in use for that task and come to the conclusion that it is justified. Curious but I thought the 'bad' guns had probably been replaced by the time the TET offensive occurred. If so then perhaps his jam wasn't caused by the original issue.And although most explained it I had also thought the original M-16(or whatever designation it had during testing) was also tested using a chrome lined chamber which the first guns shipped to VN didn't have. The lack of chrome lining AND the powder change together caused the main problem. The thought the gun didn't need cleaning didn't help either.
Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this?
Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.Pretty much dead on. Originally Posted By Rotors-R-Cool:This is a stupid question to try to answer. How the hell should we know?
Maybe it was contributing factors that we today consider the majority of the reasons leading to a malfunction back then.Or for all we know, it was just a damn malfunction. Weapons still jam to this day.
Asking why in the field will get you killed. And unless you have every component of the system and the round that failed present and unaltered after the fight to analyze, asking why is futile.And holding a negative view of a weapons platform simply because of one failure at the wrong time when your life depended on it is sentimental stupidity. The inanimate object failed when you needed it. It didn't single you out. It didn't care. It wasn't personal.
If the weapon in question and other similar weapons had serious and persistent issues leading up to this, then a negative view of the platform is more justified.All that aside, even if the weapons back them were a piece of shit that is no basis for a negative outlook on the modern variants. I don't have to have special knowledge of anything to see that it is the leading item in use for that task and come to the conclusion that it is justified.it seems there are more than a few others that have done some research.I give your rant 2/10. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive. The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.Actually, they switched powders to one that gave more velocity but was gummier. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive.
The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastrophic jam which caused him to discard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?He was most likely using an XM16E1, which did not have a chromed chamber. The M16A1, adopted in 1967 (but didn't replace all of the E1s overnight) had this corrected, and later A1s added a chrome bore as well. Originally Posted By BamaInArk:Curious but I thought the 'bad' guns had probably been replaced by the time the TET offensive occurred. If so then perhaps his jam wasn't caused by the original issue.And although most explained it I had also thought the original M-16(or whatever designation it had during testing) was also tested using a chrome lined chamber which the first guns shipped to VN didn't have. The lack of chrome lining AND the powder change together caused the main problem.
The thought the gun didn't need cleaning didn't help either.original test AR15s and early M16s did not have chromed chambers or boreSEC DEF said it didnt need it when colt and the army said it needed it, on the grounds that if the M16 needed chromed chamber/bore, Stoner would have made it that way from the start. So it was pressed into service as is,the powder was use dno because it was cheaperit was used to bump up velocity and cyclic rate.
Which caused the fouling and the gun parts to fail faster since it let the gun fire at a faster rate then was spec. Originally Posted By BamaInArk:Curious but I thought the 'bad' guns had probably been replaced by the time the TET offensive occurred. If so then perhaps his jam wasn't caused by the original issue.And although most explained it I had also thought the original M-16(or whatever designation it had during testing) was also tested using a chrome lined chamber which the first guns shipped to VN didn't have.
The lack of chrome lining AND the powder change together caused the main problem. The thought the gun didn't need cleaning didn't help either.My dad mentioned the issues they had too, he said it was one of the reasons that he was glad to be carrying the M60. I guess that was right up to the point that he was they first one shot in the ambush walking out of Hue. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build.
My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive.
The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this?
Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.That's it. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive.
The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money. That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.All this is my understanding as well. I didn't get to Vietnam till October 1968. I was issued a brand new M16A1.
What Happens If A Gun Jams
I went to be a Forward Observer for a rifle company in I Corp. I was with them for 7 months in the field almost continuously.In that time I saw 5 rifle malfunctions: 2 were blow ups from dunking in a rice paddy and not draining the barrel before firing. 2 were clearly magazine related. 1 was a case head pulled off in an XM177E1.Mine never failed in any way and I did shoot it quite a lot including a 2 1/2 hour fire fight where I fired all my loaded magazines (28) and all but 7 rounds in my last magazine.
Originally Posted By M82Assault:It would be helpful if we knew the type of 'catastophic jam' to diagnose the problem.Round stuck in chamber from what I remember.early on you could not leave a round chambered overnight, otherwise it would swell and the rim of the cartridge would tear off leaving the casing behind.Please explain how this swelling might occur.Instead of the case swelling, surface rust forming on the chamber?I'm skeptical. Many of our guns did not have chrome lined chambers and overnight rust was not a problem. By '68 I would think the original rifles that had problems would have been recalled and fixed.My guess is it was something ammunition related. Case failure, rim tore off, etc.While I was in Iraq (contractor) we had AK's issued to the Ugandans in our company. One day at the range a case failed in the middle of the chamber, not at the rim and the hot gas of the firing basically welded the case into the chamber of the rifle. Myself and one of the Ugandans pounded the thing out back in the arms room using a cleaning rod, hammer, and a LOT of force (killed a couple cleaning rods in the process) only to find that the propellent gas had burned a 1/4 inch hole in the chamber and the rifle was unusable.
Not sure what the fuck was wrong with the round that did it, but that rifle was done as a weapon.Could something similar have happened to the OP's father's rifle? Originally Posted By 72coupe:I didn't get to Vietnam till October 1968. I was issued a brand new M16A1.
I went to be a Forward Observer for a rifle company in I Corp. I was with them for 7 months in the field almost continuously.In that time I saw 5 rifle malfunctions: 2 were blow ups from dunking in a rice paddy and not draining the barrel before firing. 2 were clearly magazine related. 1 was a case head pulled off in an XM177E1.Mine never failed in any way and I did shoot it quite a lot including a 2 1/2 hour fire fight where I fired all my loaded magazines (28) and all but 7 rounds in my last magazine.How did you carry them? In bandoleers, ammo pouches, pack? Originally Posted By 72coupe:I didn't get to Vietnam till October 1968.
I was issued a brand new M16A1. I went to be a Forward Observer for a rifle company in I Corp.
I was with them for 7 months in the field almost continuously.In that time I saw 5 rifle malfunctions: 2 were blow ups from dunking in a rice paddy and not draining the barrel before firing. 2 were clearly magazine related. 1 was a case head pulled off in an XM177E1.Mine never failed in any way and I did shoot it quite a lot including a 2 1/2 hour fire fight where I fired all my loaded magazines (28) and all but 7 rounds in my last magazine.How did you carry them? In bandoleers, ammo pouches, pack?4 bandoliers of 20 rounders and 1 in the gun for a total of 29. Originally Posted By saigamanTX:I've been thinking about this since I am in the process of getting together parts for a M16A1 build. My dad served from 1965 to 1970 in the US army. The incident which changed his opinion on the M16 happened during the Tet Offensive.
The base he was on was attacked and he returned fire but somewhere during the attack is M16 had a catastophic jam which caused him to discgard the rifle. Thankfully from what he told me he found another but the rifle jamming and almost costing him his life stuck with him forever.Now I was thinking about this and what could have caused this? Knowing my dad he took good care of his rifle and by 68 wouldn't he have been issued a cleaning kit by that point?The Army used the wrong powder to save money.
Why Do Hi Point Guns Jam
That, plus the fact the troops had been told the M16 needed no cleaning, the humidity, and the lack of chrome on the operating parts.this is what I've heard they were using shit powderYep. Ball powder was nastier. They should have stuck with the IMR powder originally specified.