Kimber 1911 Rimfires

grumpybee · Post by **grumpybee** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:51 pm

Anyone have any experience or thoughts on the Kimber 1911 rimfire pistols? I'm looking to upgrade from my Ruger Mark III Target and am looking at the S&W 41 but hear it is really picky about cartridge brand. Kimber is kind of unique but don't know how they shoot -
A Walther GSP is another possibility.....but would like to stick with American made if possible just because I'd like to see someone under our flag keep their job -

Thanks

Rover · Post by **Rover** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:21 pm

The Model 41s are not fussy about their ammo. You're right in thinking some brands won't work though.

I haven't heard of anyone having problems shooting CCI Standard through them, and that stuff is pretty common. All the Eley, RWS, and Fiocchi work just great in my gun.

SK, Wolf, and Aguila don't work in my 41, so I don't use them.

I haven't seen any Kimber I thought worth buying.

641 · Post by **641** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:06 pm

bking · Post by **bking** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:01 am

I haven't shot a Kimber .22, but have owned & competed with a new 41, an old Hammerli 208, and a new Pardini. The 41 was reliably unreliable (with cci sv). The Hammerli was much more reliable, the Pardini has been even better than the Hammerli.

dronning · Post by **dronning** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:55 am

If you are looking for a 1911 22lr conversion the Marvel is the standard. Nighthawk also has the rights to produce the Marvel.

I shoot a Marvel and love it. During Bullseye matches I have met many other people that shoot 1911 conversions and so far all have been Marvels.

Dave

jackh · Post by **jackh** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:00 am

dronning wrote:If you are looking for a 1911 22lr conversion the Marvel is the standard. Nighthawk also has the rights to produce the Marvel.

I shoot a Marvel and love it. During Bullseye matches I have met many other people that shoot 1911 conversions and so far all have been Marvels.

Dave

Just a clarification.

"Marvel" can be three different conversions.

"Marvel Precision" are conversion units from a separate company. Not from Bob Marvel.

"Bob Marvel Custom Pro" units were associated with Advantage Arms.

"Bob Marvel Custom Pro II" units are associated with http://www.nelsoncustomguns.com/

"Nighthawk" units are rebranded from Nelson.

I am very impressed with the Nelson unit either branded by Nelson or as Bob Marvel Custom Pro II. The Nighthawk unit is essentially the same, but the chambering I believe is not as precision compared to the Nelson or Custom Pro II. The Nighthawk is probably a good choice for Action shooters.

The Kimber and Ceiner type units are not favored as well in Bullseye circles.

Misny · Post by **Misny** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:57 am

JackH said, "The Kimber and Ceiner type units are not favored as well in Bullseye circles."

Jack, it must be the holiday season that tempered your comments regarding the Kimber and Ceiner .22 conversions, LOL. I don't even consider them accurate enough for plinkers. Have a Merry Christmas!

GunRunner · Post by **GunRunner** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:22 am

moving from a ruger to a kimber is going backwards.

grumpybee · Post by **grumpybee** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:01 pm

Thanks for the replies - sounds like the Kimbers have very few fans. The deputy sheriffs out here love them - but those are the 45s and of course not necessarily bullseye pistols. The conversion kits might be interesting if I have the spare coin sometime.

Is the S&W 46 as finicky as the 41 in terms of ammo? I'm not sure I understand the difference between the 41 and the 46 other than the 46 is the "lower cost" model - which probably means lower quality.

I'll look at the Pardinis and the Hamerillis

Thanks again

kle · Post by **kle** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:20 pm

grumpybee wrote:Thanks for the replies - sounds like the Kimbers have very few fans. The deputy sheriffs out here love them - but those are the 45s and of course not necessarily bullseye pistols. The conversion kits might be interesting if I have the spare coin sometime.

Is the S&W 46 as finicky as the 41 in terms of ammo? I'm not sure I understand the difference between the 41 and the 46 other than the 46 is the "lower cost" model - which probably means lower quality.

I'll look at the Pardinis and the Hamerillis

Thanks again

The 46's finish wasn't quite as nice as the 41, and the grips were plastic vs. the 41's wood finish. If you're familiar with the Hammerli 208 and 215 (.22 LR pistols), or the S&W Model 27 and Model 28 (.357 Magnum revolvers), it's kinda like that - the 215 is the 'budget' version of the 208, as the 28 is the 'budget' version of the 27, but essentially they are the same gun.

Jar-hed · Post by **Jar-hed** » Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:05 am

I have little experience with the Kimber .22 conversions, so I can't really comment on their suitability as bullseye guns. I do have experience with the S&W Model 41 and would like to comment on that since it was discussed in this thread. My experience was totally negative. It really disappointed me, because I had admired them for years, and finally took the plunge ($1K new). The fit and finish was as expected, at least outwardly. The grips were some of the most beautiful you can get on a production gun. Alas, that is where the good news ends. The gun was so unreliable that I could not use it for competition. Way too many double alibis. You can never be competitive with those. The problem was not failure to feed or failure to extract. It was the Model 41 version of "stovepiping". The ejected shell casing gets trapped between the rib and the next cartridge. A lot harder to clear than a real stovepipe in a 1911. The frustrating thing is that it is such a common problem (the internet is full of blogs on the topic) but S&W has done nothing to correct it. They just keep shipping those guns out. Every review and blog I have read that said the owner returned it to the factory for repair ended the same way: No change. Even if you were lucky enough to find one that functioned reliably, there are two other reasons why I think it is a poor choice for a Bullseye gun. 1.) The chamber/slide design makes it difficult to use commercially available dry fire chamber plugs. There are work-a-rounds for that, but that brings me to 2.) The magazine disconnect also makes dry firing a lot more laborious than it should be. Some shooters have disabled their magazine disconnects, but then I have read that makes them technically illegal under NRA rules.

ChipEck · Post by **ChipEck** » Thu Dec 26, 2013 3:14 pm

Kimber 45 is very good. Their 22 conversion is 98% garbage! and this is if a two inch group off sandbags at 50 feet is acceptable. The magazines for the conversion are made of plastic and start wearing out after 500 rounds, which leads to jams.

So 45 Kimber is very nice.

22 Kimber conversion is JUNK!

Chip

Bob3700 · Post by **Bob3700** » Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:16 am

Early Kimber 22 conversions were actually made by Ciener. The magazines are metal and the accuracy, while not bullseye competitive, is much better than 2" at 50 ft.

My conversion will hold the 10 ring at 20 yds and never misses a beat with CCI SV ammo.

The Marvel units are definitely the standard but are more costly than the Ciener or Kimber units.

I can tell you that a 22 conversion on a 45 will put a smile on your face that is very difficult to wear off. They are a hoot.

Bob

Rover · Post by **Rover** » Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:21 pm

I put 101 rounds of RWS Target Rifle through my M41 today with only one bobble; a "Pooter" that didn't cycle the action but didn't stovepipe.

The guy next to me started the match with excellent results, but soon had multiple stoppages with his Ruger.

Despite that, a decent Ruger with a trigger job and good grips can be a formidable shooter.

I once did a test with a single M41 using four different barrels. No two were accurate with the same ammo and would malfunction with the same ammo that perfectly worked in other barrels.

MajD · Post by **MajD** » Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:09 pm

The older 41's are very reliable. I bought mine in 1972 and used it in competition until 1983. I ran it on Remington SV back then and now I use SK pistol match. The only thing I have done to the gun was a new factory recoil spring a couple of years ago. Last year I put a scope on my 71/2" barrel and tested a bunch of ammo at 50 yards off sand bags. Everything held the X ring with best groups going 1.25". That is after tens of thousands of rounds through the gun. Now I do get the occasional FTE after I clean the gun but after a few rounds it runs faultlessly. Buy a 41 from the 60's or 70's and you will have a great gun.

jps2486 · Post by **jps2486** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:55 pm

If you plan to shoot competition, any of the 1911 conversions are indeed a step backward. These are good plinkers, at best. I've shot my old 41 for many years with no problems, and its accuracy was superb. I then switched to a Hammerli 208s which was a large improvement. There are no 1911s that will shoot as good as these.

I'm now in the twilight of my years and don't compete very often. I sold these guns, but now shoot a Ruger with a VQ trigger kit. While the trigger is OK, it's not anywhere as good as the 41 or the 208, but the accuracy is just as good. I can still shoot an 850 out of 900 in our monthly outdoor matches at 25 and 50 yards.

If you are younger and serious about this, consider a Pardini, Walther, FWB, Morini, or something along this line. You won't regret it.

Jon Eulette · Post by **Jon Eulette** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:47 pm

I read the last response and just had to take the time to respond. I'll start from the beginning; started shooting BE with Ruger Gov't model. Consistent high 880's. Got a Hammerli 208 consistent high 880's and a high of 895. That 208 on a good day with best ammo AMU had to offer was a 1.5" pistol at 50 yards. Most hammerli's are not tack drivers. My Marvel 1911 .22 conversion holds 1/2" all day long with the 4 types of ammo I ran through it. I've shot a 100-8x @ 50 yds and many 100-10x targets at 25 yds. John Zurek regularly shoots 890's with the Marvel. Same grip as .45, so you're not reinventing the wheel when you start the CF match. I don't see how that could be going backwards!

dronning · Post by **dronning** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:06 pm

jps2486 wrote:If you plan to shoot competition, any of the 1911 conversions are indeed a step backward. .....

I have to agree with Jon E on this and disagree with you. The Marvel design in it's original or current design are tack drivers. There are many Marvels in the top 100 at Perry.

I replaced my Marvel Unit 1 with a Nelson Custom Guns (Marvel Custom Pro II design) and couldn't be happier.

Dave

jps2486 · Post by **jps2486** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:12 pm

Sure, Marvels may be tack drivers, but the triggers on 1911s can never match the two stage triggers on dedicated target guns like the Pardinis, Hammerlis, etc. I don't care how well they are tinkered with.

jackh · Post by **jackh** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:44 am

jps2486 wrote:Sure, Marvels may be tack drivers, but the triggers on 1911s can never match the two stage triggers on dedicated target guns like the Pardinis, Hammerlis, etc. I don't care how well they are tinkered with.

Opinion.

Sure the 208s trigger is great. Personally I like a single stage better. If I find a good trade for a single stage 208, I will do it. My favorite trigger is the fantastic clean break on a good revolver.

TargetTalk

Kimber 1911 Rimfires

Kimber 1911 Rimfires

Kimber

Re: Kimber

Kimber - a viable .22 bullseye gun?

1911 Conversion a step backwards??????