While they've built a lot of pistols and 284 units out of 750k isn't alot - consider that those 284 units are spread across the country here and about 50% of them had a failure.
It don't give the warm fuzzies and that's from a guy who bought 2 of them in 1998/9 and had zero issues.
Fact is, today, Kimber isn't the only place to get a 1911 with semi-custom touches at a good price with good results. In 1998 they kind of were the only ones and that's why people flocked to them.
I'd take a NM serialized Springer or Ruger anyday and not feel bad that it's "not a kimber" - actually, rather than drop the money on a Kimber - I'd save a bit and get a Les Baer.
1900 or so gets you a new Les and I can't say that I know of anyone who'd claim that Kimber does the 1911 better than he does. Wicked accurate pistols from the results I've seen.
I went back and read the other thread to figure out what you were talking about.
You're big issue seems to be the limited information available in the poll. Which is a valid issue and worth noting.
But the limited information in the poll or the unscientific way it was gathered doesn't negate the fact that 44% of folks here who responded about Kimbers had "failures".
In one factory I worked in about 2 years ago, they were implementing statistical process control. One job went to QC, and because the customer was expecting statistical proof of process capability, QA took samples of the lot. No parts actually were found out of spec, but predicting the lot's variation - easy to do if you have real skills, like math - suggested there were a fair number of bad parts in the lot. QA rejected it.
The plant supervisor was furious, called the inspection BS, and said he'd check all the parts himself, to prove they were all good. He spent three days doing it, and wound up finding slightly more bad parts than the statistics predicted. He admitted defeat.
If I was trying to claim that a slight difference in failure percentages was a big deal, after checking 50, 100, or even 500 guns, I'd being trying to read too much info into the data. But when a couple hundred people report on a product, and almost half have complaints, that's not "meaningless".
In one factory I worked in about 2 years ago, they were implementing statistical process control. One job went to QC, and because the customer was expecting statistical proof of process capability, QA took samples of the lot. No parts actually were found out of spec, but predicting the lot's variation - easy to do if you have real skills, like math - suggested there were a fair number of bad parts in the lot. QA rejected it.
The plant supervisor was furious, called the inspection BS, and said he'd check all the parts himself, to prove they were all good. He spent three days doing it, and wound up finding slightly more bad parts than the statistics predicted. He admitted defeat.
If I was trying to claim that a slight difference in failure percentages was a big deal, after checking 50, 100, or even 500 guns, I'd being trying to read too much info into the data. But when a couple hundred people report on a product, and almost half have complaints, that's not "meaningless".
So is a sample size of 284 valid for 743000 units?
Did you use the link I provided to find out the production of the other 1911 manufacturers?
And that is the problem with the "poll" - it is totally meaningless.
If I was thinking of buying a new truck and asked 284 friends how they liked their Fords, and received 125 negative responses about Fords, I'd hesitate to buy a Ford truck. Regardless of how many they produce every year.
And that is the problem with the "poll" - it is totally meaningless.
If I was thinking of buying a new truck and asked 284 friends how they liked their Fords, and received 125 negative responses about Fords, I'd hesitate to buy a Ford truck. Regardless of how many they produce every year.
And you would too.
Well think about what you said for a moment: Do you know of any truck that gets perfect scores from it's owners? Of course there are products that are pure doo-doo, and reviews help you avoid them. But this poll isn't a collection of reviews.
The poll in question asked about malfunctions. It didn't ask if the owners sold the pistol and bad-mouthed it on forums. Once again, the meaningless nature of the poll is revealed.
The poll is fundamentally flawed. You can't determine anything from it.
While they've built a lot of pistols and 284 units out of 750k isn't alot - consider that those 284 units are spread across the country here and about 50% of them had a failure.
It don't give the warm fuzzies and that's from a guy who bought 2 of them in 1998/9 and had zero issues.
Fact is, today, Kimber isn't the only place to get a 1911 with semi-custom touches at a good price with good results. In 1998 they kind of were the only ones and that's why people flocked to them.
I'd take a NM serialized Springer or Ruger anyday and not feel bad that it's "not a kimber" - actually, rather than drop the money on a Kimber - I'd save a bit and get a Les Baer.
1900 or so gets you a new Les and I can't say that I know of anyone who'd claim that Kimber does the 1911 better than he does. Wicked accurate pistols from the results I've seen.
Actually, 125 malfunctions is so in the noise as to be laughable.
You bring up a good point though about "high-end" 1911's. Because of the shortcomings of the 1911 design, and the ignorance of the noobs that buy these things, a hand-fitted 1911 would be a much better purchase. There's just no way that Kimber can guarantee complete customer happiness. Kimber easily ships 10x as many pistols as Wilson a year.
Kimber made a name for themselves by producing a darn good 1911 at a competitive price. They are not in the same league as the LB's & Wilsons.
So is a sample size of 284 valid for 743000 units?
A sample size of 30 pieces would be a normal sample size for any size population & is statistically valid for calculation of standard deviation & other lot properties.
What may be less accurate than desired in the poll is what constitutes a "malfunction"............but no matter how you cut it 44% of the sample of 284 had at least one "malfunction" & for any poll or sample lot, that ain't good news.
This kind of "defect" or reject rate would put virtually any business out of business.........but I do think there's more here than meets the eye & it's likely in the definition of the defect.............although that definition is/was used for all the guns reported on.
For one thing, Kimber magazines are pure schitt & I throw all of them I come into contact with into the trash & magazines are likely the #1 cause of 1911 function issues.
So is a sample size of 284 valid for 743000 units?
For one thing, Kimber magazines are pure schitt & I throw all of them I come into contact with into the trash & magazines are likely the #1 cause of 1911 function issues.
MM
I agree and honestly all my 1911's get Wilson mags. However for the price wouldn't you agree that it should come with at least two serviceable magazines?
but I do think there's more here than meets the eye & it's likely in the definition of the defect
Doesn't your sample size require a frequency to be valid? You have a sample of 284/743134 produced over a 13 year period. Worse, you have no standard definition of what constitutes a "failure" (you basically have 284 untrained inspectors giving their opinion).
Yep, I agree with your point about defect definition. The 1911 is a mediocre design and "malfunctions" have more to do with break-in, or lack of lube, or magazines - none of which is really the pistol. But the user only knows that he has trouble.
Doesn't your sample size require a frequency to be valid?
No, you do not have a or sample size of 743,134; you only have a sample lot of 284 of which 44% have been reported as bad from a total production run of 734K.
Originally Posted by dla
You have a sample of 284/743134 produced over a 13 year period.
Statistically, it doesn't matter how many were produced; you only have a sample of 284 & the data contained in that sample.
The only way the data would not be valid is if it was all from a period of, say 2005-2012 & you were able to get another sample from, say 1999-2004 & that data (rejects) was substantially different.
So if there was a circumstance as above, the number of defects might be substantially different, but assuming the original 284 defects were taken from production over most of the total timeframe in question then the total produced is not really relative.
Originally Posted by dla
Worse, you have no standard definition of what constitutes a "failure" (you basically have 284 untrained inspectors giving their opinion).
But you have to accept that, within reason, the same standard for a malfunction is more or less consistent across all manufacturers listed in the poll; in other words, the Kimber reporters were no more or less critical or -ill-informed than those reporting on other brands.
And no, I don't agree that the 1911 is an "inferior" design; your opinion or view doesn't make it so.
Doesn't your sample size require a frequency to be valid?
No, you do not have a or sample size of 743,134; you only have a sample lot of 284 of which 44% have been reported as bad from a total production run of 734K.
Originally Posted by dla
You have a sample of 284/743134 produced over a 13 year period.
Statistically, it doesn't matter how many were produced; you only have a sample of 284 & the data contained in that sample.
The only way the data would not be valid is if it was all from a period of, say 2005-2012 & you were able to get another sample from, say 1999-2004 & that data (rejects) was substantially different.
So if there was a circumstance as above, the number of defects might be substantially different, but assuming the original 284 defects were taken from production over most of the total timeframe in question then the total produced is not really relative.
Originally Posted by dla
Worse, you have no standard definition of what constitutes a "failure" (you basically have 284 untrained inspectors giving their opinion).
But you have to accept that, within reason, the same standard for a malfunction is more or less consistent across all manufacturers listed in the poll; in other words, the Kimber reporters were no more or less critical or -ill-informed than those reporting on other brands.
And no, I don't agree that the 1911 is an "inferior" design; your opinion or view doesn't make it so.
MM
Did the poll include the date of manufacture? If not, then you again have a totally meaningless sample. Why? Because you are not accounting for model type, or manufacturing runs. Kimber didn't build a single run of 743134 Kimber Classics ya know.
So your sample of 284 could all be from one problematic model produced in a couple of months of high workforce turnover. You just don't know. Meaningless.
Also, it is totally false to assume that 284 individuals are using the same definition of "failure". Some noob gets FTFs because he ran a tight pistol dry - he thinks the pistol malfunctioned whereas an experienced 1911 pistolero recognizes operator error.
If the 1911 were the epitome of pistol design there wouldn't be so many other designs. Like I said earlier, the 1911 was a seminal design and lots of others designers have improved upon it.
Did the poll include the date of manufacture? If not, then you again have a totally meaningless sample. Why? Because you are not accounting for model type, or manufacturing runs. Kimber didn't build a single run of 743134 Kimber Classics ya know.
So your sample of 284 could all be from one problematic model produced in a couple of months of high workforce turnover. You just don't know. Meaningless.
So you think the 284 where all from the same run in the same short period of time in production of a single run? You shot yourself in the foot this time no pun intended.
...and "malfunctions" have more to do with break-in, or lack of lube, or magazines - none of which is really the pistol.
My Kimber alloy frame cracked after about 8500 rounds. Kimber is telling me that it isn't their fault and to be prepared to spend $500+ on a new frame. So, that should be fun...
Did the poll include the date of manufacture? If not, then you again have a totally meaningless sample. Why? Because you are not accounting for model type, or manufacturing runs. Kimber didn't build a single run of 743134 Kimber Classics ya know.
So your sample of 284 could all be from one problematic model produced in a couple of months of high workforce turnover. You just don't know. Meaningless.
[/quote
So you think the 284 where all from the same run in the same short period of time in production of a single run? You shot yourself in the foot this time no pun intended.
Do you know otherwise? Where's your data? Show me.
Kimber has manufactured 743134 1911 pistols from 1998-2011 according to the ATF.
So what does 125 failures in a sample of 284 forum respondents mean in the grand scheme of the cosmos? Right - nothing.
But if you back up one level on the link I provided you'll get all the years and all the manufacturers. Sort of interesting.
I sell parachutes for a living we sold 700,000 over the last 5 years and only 150 people are dead because our parachutes did not open. We have an outstanding safety record.
...and "malfunctions" have more to do with break-in, or lack of lube, or magazines - none of which is really the pistol.
My Kimber alloy frame cracked after about 8500 rounds. Kimber is telling me that it isn't their fault and to be prepared to spend $500+ on a new frame. So, that should be fun...
Caspian would get you there for 1/2 that. Even if you have to spend a bit more to have the frame finished off by a good smith, you'd be ahead IMO. New frame = new firearm I believe. May as well strip out what you have for parts (slide, sights, internals if you're happy with em) and do up something new.
Caspian says their steel frames, all types, are guaranteed for life against cracking.
Check out Alchemy Custom Weapons good reputation on 1911 forums and their Facebook page as a ton of pics to see the level of work.
Kimber has manufactured 743134 1911 pistols from 1998-2011 according to the ATF.
So what does 125 failures in a sample of 284 forum respondents mean in the grand scheme of the cosmos? Right - nothing.
But if you back up one level on the link I provided you'll get all the years and all the manufacturers. Sort of interesting.
I sell parachutes for a living we sold 700,000 over the last 5 years and only 150 people are dead because our parachutes did not open. We have an outstanding safety record.
...and "malfunctions" have more to do with break-in, or lack of lube, or magazines - none of which is really the pistol.
My Kimber alloy frame cracked after about 8500 rounds. Kimber is telling me that it isn't their fault and to be prepared to spend $500+ on a new frame. So, that should be fun...
So where is the crack? Not all frame cracks are fatal and some are very common.
...and "malfunctions" have more to do with break-in, or lack of lube, or magazines - none of which is really the pistol.
My Kimber alloy frame cracked after about 8500 rounds. Kimber is telling me that it isn't their fault and to be prepared to spend $500+ on a new frame. So, that should be fun�
I'd say it is their fault. A proper barrel to slide lock would not allow the pistol to batter itself to oblivion
I've YET to meet someone with a Kimber that didn't have issues with jamming, feeding. They ALL needed some kind of break-in horseshit process. Just buy a Colt or a Glock and be done with it.
I've decided to hold onto the 10mm Kimber I have. After tweaking the extractor, it seems to feed better, and the ramped barrel is a nice feature for heavy loads.
I've decided to hold onto the 10mm Kimber I have. After tweaking the extractor, it seems to feed better, and the ramped barrel is a nice feature for heavy loads.
...and "malfunctions" have more to do with break-in, or lack of lube, or magazines - none of which is really the pistol.
My Kimber alloy frame cracked after about 8500 rounds. Kimber is telling me that it isn't their fault and to be prepared to spend $500+ on a new frame. So, that should be fun�
I'd say it is their fault. A proper barrel to slide lock would not allow the pistol to batter itself to oblivion
Bingo. Also this is where slide to frame fit really comes into play
Kimber pistols "look" good. You can buy a crappy looking SS Colt Commander with a plastic trigger for $1000 these days, the last blue steel one that I owned was an average shooter, but it did shoot ball every time. Odd that I paid $600 IIRC about 5-6 years ago and now they have almost doubled in price.
I've YET to meet someone with a Kimber that didn't have issues with jamming, feeding. They ALL needed some kind of break-in horseshit process.
Meet me; & no they all most certainly don't.
Some might need a little TLC; most all need a different (good) magazine, though.
How many have you had? If you have any left, I'll take them off your hands.
MM
Never had any, nor do I plan to. The magazine excuse is always a good one I expect. Like many things in life, once is coincidence, two is happenstance, three is enemy action. Being that this is probably the umpteenth time (that means a [bleep]) I've heard of Kimbers effing up, and from people I know and trust have issues with Kimbers, it's kinda like Yugos, never drove one, much less owned one, but with reasonable certainty I cast say they are POS...
I've YET to meet someone with a Kimber that didn't have issues with jamming, feeding. They ALL needed some kind of break-in horseshit process.
Meet me; & no they all most certainly don't.
Some might need a little TLC; most all need a different (good) magazine, though.
How many have you had? If you have any left, I'll take them off your hands.
MM
Never had any, nor do I plan to. The magazine excuse is always a good one I expect. Like many things in life, once is coincidence, two is happenstance, three is enemy action. Being that this is probably the umpteenth time (that means a [bleep]) I've heard of Kimbers effing up, and from people I know and trust have issues with Kimbers, it's kinda like Yugos, never drove one, much less owned one, but with reasonable certainty I cast say they are POS...
I've YET to meet someone with a Kimber that didn't have issues with jamming, feeding. They ALL needed some kind of break-in horseshit process.
Meet me; & no they all most certainly don't.
Some might need a little TLC; most all need a different (good) magazine, though.
How many have you had? If you have any left, I'll take them off your hands.
MM
Never had any, nor do I plan to. The magazine excuse is always a good one I expect. Like many things in life, once is coincidence, two is happenstance, three is enemy action. Being that this is probably the umpteenth time (that means a [bleep]) I've heard of Kimbers effing up, and from people I know and trust have issues with Kimbers, it's kinda like Yugos, never drove one, much less owned one, but with reasonable certainty I cast say they are POS...
Yea, stupid people think that way. Forum rumors go round and round and the gullible slurp it up. Thinking people know better.
I've YET to meet someone with a Kimber that didn't have issues with jamming, feeding. They ALL needed some kind of break-in horseshit process.
Meet me; & no they all most certainly don't.
Some might need a little TLC; most all need a different (good) magazine, though.
How many have you had? If you have any left, I'll take them off your hands.
MM
Never had any, nor do I plan to. The magazine excuse is always a good one I expect. Like many things in life, once is coincidence, two is happenstance, three is enemy action. Being that this is probably the umpteenth time (that means a [bleep]) I've heard of Kimbers effing up, and from people I know and trust have issues with Kimbers, it's kinda like Yugos, never drove one, much less owned one, but with reasonable certainty I cast say they are POS...
Yea, stupid people think that way. Forum rumors go round and round and the gullible slurp it up. Thinking people know better.
A top gunsmith personally told me that he gets more Kimbers that have a poor barrel to slide lug fit in the shop than any other brand and that they batter themselves to oblivion if this is not corrected. He also advised me to stay away from Kimbers
Yep stupid people gobble up BS, but it ain't the ones that know that Kimbers have problems
Being stupid has nothing to do with making blankets statements.
For every bad Kimber, there are lots that work just fine; same is true for most other high volume producers.
Colt was behind the curve for a long time & during that period, their guns were generally pretty piss-poor; they've now turned it around.
I'm not especially a Kimber fan & they are not at all on the short list of desired 1911's for me right now either, but I also know enough to know that all are not bad, & if there is an issue, most can be easily tweaked & will be fine.
And for you Jorge, regarding magazines, I don't make excuses about magazines or anything else for that matter, but some brands are just plain junk from a design & build standpoint, & Kimber is one of them.
MM: No issues. I will add I've never had a Colt 1911 with issues, not ever and for that matter, no issues with Glocks or Sigs either. Now when it comes to Rugers and Taurus' I did own them but not for long.
A top gunsmith personally told me that he gets more Kimbers that have a poor barrel to slide lug fit in the shop than any other brand and that they batter themselves to oblivion if this is not corrected. He also advised me to stay away from Kimbers
Yep stupid people gobble up BS, but it ain't the ones that know that Kimbers have problems
Total crap. Complete and total crap. Why? Darned few people shoot enough to "batter themselves to oblivion" with poor lug fit and even fewer would know to suspect such a condition. Total complete crap. Classic example of a mindless forum rumor.
The only folks who can sheer the lugs are competitive shooters or maybe somebody playing around with 45Super.
A top gunsmith personally told me that he gets more Kimbers that have a poor barrel to slide lug fit in the shop than any other brand and that they batter themselves to oblivion if this is not corrected. He also advised me to stay away from Kimbers
Yep stupid people gobble up BS, but it ain't the ones that know that Kimbers have problems
Total crap. Complete and total crap. Why? Darned few people shoot enough to "batter themselves to oblivion" with poor lug fit and even fewer would know to suspect such a condition. Total complete crap. Classic example of a mindless forum rumor.
The only folks who can sheer the lugs are competitive shooters or maybe somebody playing around with 45Super.
No not total crap, why don't you call and talk to him yourself?
If 125 out of a random 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean that Kimber has issues, then 162 out of 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean a damned thing either.
I also wonder if it is more the "ultra" 3 inch barrel guns that fail more than the pro or full size guns. I don't dispute barrel lock up etc because I just don't know, however the little guns have always been said hard to make run properly. I bet kimber sells a lot of the 3 inch barreled guns.
I love my Kimber 1911, always have. It did not start with issues, but in recent history would lock back with ammo still in the mag (NOT Kimber mags, but Wilson, McCormick, etc). Got a new slide stop, and not it runs like a top! A simple fix that seemed to develop over time.
If 125 out of a random 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean that Kimber has issues, then 162 out of 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean a damned thing either.
OK Barney, what were those issues? Do you know? Could you know? If you don't know then why are you spouting off on a forum. Honestly some of you posters here are sooooooooo stupid when it comes to forum rumors and half-truths.
If 125 out of a random 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean that Kimber has issues, then 162 out of 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean a damned thing either.
OK Barney, what were those issues? Do you know? Could you know? If you don't know then why are you spouting off on a forum. Honestly some of you posters here are sooooooooo stupid when it comes to forum rumors and half-truths.
I owned a Kimber TLE/II for about ten years. I never had any issues and probably put 12-15k rounds through it. Like an idiot I sold it. I recently purchased a Stainless Pro Carry II. The round count is at 450 with one malfunction. It is pretty accurate to boot.
The only downside is tha Blazer ammo tends to launch the empty cases directly between my eyes. Other ammo brands do not do that.
If 125 out of a random 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean that Kimber has issues, then 162 out of 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean a damned thing either.
OK Barney, what were those issues? Do you know? Could you know? If you don't know then why are you spouting off on a forum. Honestly some of you posters here are sooooooooo stupid when it comes to forum rumors and half-truths.
You're right - they all have issues. People were just too stupid to realize it on the ones that claim they didn't. Is about as legitimate as your assertions.
I know as much as you do and you're the aszhole spouting off that people didn't experience what they claimed. How do you know? Could you know? You're completely ignorant of what people did or didn't experience. As much as you claim I am at the very least.
You've proven exactly NOTHING in this thread, you've made some attempts at a point but that's not going very well for you.
If 125 out of a random 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean that Kimber has issues, then 162 out of 284 which is out of 750k worth of production doesn't mean a damned thing either.
OK Barney, what were those issues? Do you know? Could you know? If you don't know then why are you spouting off on a forum. Honestly some of you posters here are sooooooooo stupid when it comes to forum rumors and half-truths.
You're right - they all have issues. People were just too stupid to realize it on the ones that claim they didn't. Is about as legitimate as your assertions.
I know as much as you do and you're the aszhole spouting off that people didn't experience what they claimed. How do you know? Could you know? You're completely ignorant of what people did or didn't experience. As much as you claim I am at the very least.
You've proven exactly NOTHING in this thread, you've made some attempts at a point but that's not going very well for you.
dla has been on here before arguing with everyone because he thinks he is the only one who knows anything about guns. I pretty much decided to ignore his bullshit!
If you were making widgets and your quality survey consisted of pulling one part for complete inspection every 2500 parts (284 parts pulled out of 750,000) and 44% (125) of the parts you pulled failed the quality inspection then you must extrapolate back that 1/2 of your production had quality problems. So if you make 750,000 kimbers and pull 284 for inspection (one every 2500) and half of them fail inspection then you have to say that half the other untested guns would fail inspection as well.
If you were making widgets and your quality survey consisted of pulling one part for complete inspection every 2500 parts (284 parts pulled out of 750,000) and 44% (125) of the parts you pulled failed the quality inspection then you must extrapolate back that 1/2 of your production had quality problems. So if you make 750,000 kimbers and pull 284 for inspection (one every 2500) and half of them fail inspection then you have to say that half the other untested guns would fail inspection as well.
And I agree with you.
But, and this is key, nobody ever pulled apart these pistols and inspected them for defects (out of tolerance, etc.). All we have is some owner's recollection that the pistol failed. It may have failed, or the owner was just a tard, or the owner can't accurately remember, or who knows. And that has been my point from the beginning but the forum nuclear-rocket-scientists can't seem to grasp it.
Add to that the fact that we don't know the model or date of manufacture.
So the poll is meaningless. Even the shlt-for-brains wannabe statisticians can see that.
So the poll is meaningless. Even the shlt-for-brains wannabe statisticians can see that.
You're too smart to really believe that.
No, he's not; he's also not playin' with a full deck either.
So all the 'tards, got Kimbers; none of the other makes had 'tards for owners?
Thinkin' there's only one 'tard here............
MM
Wow! You've never explained how the poll ever made sense - ever. And yet you join the chorus of forum-morons?
This is the danger of using forums for your source of information - they are often wrong. If a guy doesn't stop and think for himself he can end up voting for Obama, selling his Kimbers and other really stupid stuff.
I'm not a Kimber fan nowadays as I think S&W's Customer service is reason enough to spend my money with S&W. I'm also not delusional enough to believe the 1911 is the end-all of pistol designs - if you want the best 1911 design buy a Sig P220
No doubt the poll is not dead nuts accurate, but it's not completely useless.
Assuming (statistician's word) that the 'tards are somewhat evenly distributed amongst the different brands, Kimber's defect rate is just too high to be acceptable; even if it was cut in half, to around 22-25%, that's still too high.
I have nothing at all against Kimber, but neither do I favor them.........if I were to buy one today I am 100% confident I would make it work just fine; in most cases I am sure the faults are minor.
So while the poll is not perfectly good, it's also not perfectly bad either, but it's a pretty good indicator of a representative cross section of guns over a period of time.
This is my last word on this topic with you; all you do is talk in circles & argue for the sake of arguing.
it just seems like you don't read a complaint about a Colt or a Springfield these days. On the other hand I think a guy that dumps $1300-1500 into a pistol expects a better than 50% chance the thing will run right. We have been spoiled by $500 Glocks I guess.
I have one too, a 10mm, which is nice for the fully supported barrel. After tweaking it does run well, now, and is accurate. It didn't when new, and it should have for what it cost.
I like mine just fine too but I prefer my Springfields. I just wouldn't say that all those who experience failures with kimbers just don't understand what a failure is.
