Kimber Solo Carry Range Report

[Shoot_First]

I took my new Kimber Solo Carry 9mm pocket pistol out for a couple of range sessions. Generally the new Kimber product works well with 124 or 147 grain carry ammo, but I had 12 FTEs out of 50 rounds of WWB 115 grain FMJ. I found the trigger pull to be springy but very smooth with a glass-break release of about 7 lbs (7.2 lbs as measured on a Lyman digital scale). The accuracy was superb. I am not ready to replace my shorts and flip-flops Ruger LCP carry piece with the Kimber Solo, at least not until I have confidence in its reliability. Here are a few photos:

[Terlingueno]

If I bought any pistol and had 12 failures to eject out of 50 rounds I would consider it broken and send it back.

[Shoot_First]

by Terlingueno » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:16 pm

If I bought any pistol and had 12 failures to eject I would consider it broken and send it back.

I was preparing to do that, but called Kimber tech support first. Kimber says the Solo was designed to run with 124 gr. or heavier bullets and that "some" weaker 115 gr. loads would not reliably cycle the slide properly. They recommended I test further with their recommended loads and if the FTE problem remained to contact them again for return instructions. That's where I'm at now... looking for some Kimber recommended rounds to shoot... so far no luck!

[pbwalker]

If I bought any pistol and had 12 failures to eject out of 50 rounds I would consider it broken and send it back.

but don't tell that to the Kimber owners...

[MoJo]

Recoil impulse has a lot to do with how a gun functions. I wouldn't rely on WWB 115gr FMJ in that gun. If it ran well with 125 gr and 147 gr ammo that's what I'd proof the gun with. The Gold Dot 124gr +P short barrel load is optimized for use in pistols with barrels shorter than 3.5 inches. The extra "Oomph" of the +P will help to make up for a sloppy grip and poor lubrication. How many rounds have you shot through the gun?

How did the NATO 124 gr run? NATO spec 9mm is +P or +P+ depending on who you ask.

[HotLeadSolutions]

If I bought any pistol and had 12 failures to eject out of 50 rounds I would consider it broken and send it back.

And I dont buy the whole ammo problem either. FTE's can be and often times are the worst malfunction to have.
Feeding problems maybe ammo. FTE...inspect the extractor for burrs or gunk.

I had a multitude of extractor issues on my Kimber ProCarry Eclipse. The solution was finally getting rid of it.

Please keep us posted, it looks like a decent little carry piece...and regardless of how I feel about Kimber, I really want it to be a good weapon.

[Shoot_First]

by MoJo » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:31 pm

Recoil impulse has a lot to do with how a gun functions. I wouldn't rely on WWB 115gr FMJ in that gun. If it ran well with 125 gr and 147 gr ammo that's what I'd proof the gun with. The Gold Dot 124gr +P short barrel load is optimized for use in pistols with barrels shorter than 3.5 inches. The extra "Oomph" of the +P will help to make up for a sloppy grip and poor lubrication. How many rounds have you shot through the gun?

How did the NATO 124 gr run? NATO spec 9mm is +P or +P+ depending on who you ask.

Kimber recommends 24 rounds of 124 gr. for break-in. I have 175 rounds thru it so far with 75 being 124 gr. or 147 gr. I have seen the same discussion about 9mm NATO stuff. At this point I plan to stick with Gold Dot for carry unless I find something better.

[gigag04]

12 out of 50 failures with any factory ammo is unacceptable. The Kahr PM9 and Keltec 9 can run WWB fine. I no longer buy into the Kimber fanboy hype so their excuses won't work.

[HotLeadSolutions]

12 out of 50 failures with any factory ammo is unacceptable. The Kahr PM9 and Keltec 9 can run WWB fine. I no longer buy into the Kimber fanboy hype so their excuses won't work.

I find it funny that the signature right above your post reads:
"Kimber TLE II as my truck piece. Kimber Ultra CDP II for carry. Ruger LCP is my BUG. "

At least the two kimbers are backed up by a Ruger...

Sorry...Couldn't resist!

[Chemist45]

Kimber says the Solo was designed to run with 124 gr. or heavier bullets and that "some" weaker 115 gr. loads would not reliably cycle the slide properly. They recommended I test further with their recommended loads and if the FTE problem remained to contact them again for return instructions.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me:
- The gun was designed for 124gr or heavier loads.
- The gun "Works well" with 124gr or heavier loads.
- 124gr or heavier bullets are easy to find. (Look for Remington gold saber, speer gold dot, Winchester Ranger etc.)

So, are people upset because this gun doesn't function well with the cheap WWB they can buy at Walley World?
I confess I am confused by the attitude: "It doesn't function with ammo it wasn't designed for - so it must be junk."

[A-R]

Kimber says the Solo was designed to run with 124 gr. or heavier bullets and that "some" weaker 115 gr. loads would not reliably cycle the slide properly. They recommended I test further with their recommended loads and if the FTE problem remained to contact them again for return instructions.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me:
- The gun was designed for 124gr or heavier loads.
- The gun "Works well" with 124gr or heavier loads.
- 124gr or heavier bullets are easy to find. (Look for Remington gold saber, speer gold dot, Winchester Ranger etc.)

So, are people upset because this gun doesn't function well with the cheap WWB they can buy at Walley World?
I confess I am confused by the attitude: "It doesn't function with ammo it wasn't designed for - so it must be junk."

Does it say 9mm or 9x19 or such on the slide & barrel? Or does it say "only 9mm ammo 124 grain or heavier from a specific set of manufacturers"?

This is my problem with all "finicky " guns. If the gun only runs well with particular loads in a given caliber, then it is not properly marked if it simply says "9 mm ". I understand all guns have preferred ammo - my Walther PPS (a direct competitor to this Kimber) doesn't shoot Federal HST as accurately as Gold Dot or Hornady CD. But the gun WILL RUN with HST, or WWB, or Monarch or any other 9x19 ammo I feed it. It's a matter of degree with a "good gun".

If a gun will not function with factory ammo in the designated caliber, that's a significant problem in my book for a self-defense sidearm. For a highly tuned competition race gun, being finicky enough to not function with certain loads is understandable. But not in a self defense gun. How do you know that wear, slight neglect, unseen accumulated dirt/grime in small, tight areas won't soon render this gun inoperable with other ammo? Maybe over time you'll start to get FTEs even with 124-grain JHP ammo too?

Point is a self-defense gun should at least FUNCTION with any ammo in it's designated caliber. If the tolerances are too tight for some ammo, then the gun is built more for ultimate accuracy than for ultimate reliability. I'll take a 2-inch grouping reliable gun over a 1/2-inch grouping unreliable gun EVERY time.

But I'm a lifelong Glock devotee, so anything less than Perfection in reliability doesn't cut it for me.

[Aggie_engr]

But I'm a lifelong Glock devotee, so anything less than Perfection in reliability doesn't cut it for me.

Gen 4 blocks? Hopefully your gun ends up working just fine, as I'm sure you have invested quality money and time in the decision of purchasing this firearm.

[G.A. Heath]

Kimber says the Solo was designed to run with 124 gr. or heavier bullets and that "some" weaker 115 gr. loads would not reliably cycle the slide properly. They recommended I test further with their recommended loads and if the FTE problem remained to contact them again for return instructions.

Seems pretty cut and dried to me:
- The gun was designed for 124gr or heavier loads.
- The gun "Works well" with 124gr or heavier loads.
- 124gr or heavier bullets are easy to find. (Look for Remington gold saber, speer gold dot, Winchester Ranger etc.)

So, are people upset because this gun doesn't function well with the cheap WWB they can buy at Walley World?
I confess I am confused by the attitude: "It doesn't function with ammo it wasn't designed for - so it must be junk."

Does it say 9mm or 9x19 or such on the slide & barrel? Or does it say "only 9mm ammo 124 grain or heavier from a specific set of manufacturers"?

This is my problem with all "finicky " guns. If the gun only runs well with particular loads in a given caliber, then it is not properly marked if it simply says "9 mm ". I understand all guns have preferred ammo - my Walther PPS (a direct competitor to this Kimber) doesn't shoot Federal HST as accurately as Gold Dot or Hornady CD. But the gun WILL RUN with HST, or WWB, or Monarch or any other 9x19 ammo I feed it. It's a matter of degree with a "good gun".

If a gun will not function with factory ammo in the designated caliber, that's a significant problem in my book for a self-defense sidearm. For a highly tuned competition race gun, being finicky enough to not function with certain loads is understandable. But not in a self defense gun. How do you know that wear, slight neglect, unseen accumulated dirt/grime in small, tight areas won't soon render this gun inoperable with other ammo? Maybe over time you'll start to get FTEs even with 124-grain JHP ammo too?

Point is a self-defense gun should at least FUNCTION with any ammo in it's designated caliber. If the tolerances are too tight for some ammo, then the gun is built more for ultimate accuracy than for ultimate reliability. I'll take a 2-inch grouping reliable gun over a 1/2-inch grouping unreliable gun EVERY time.

But I'm a lifelong Glock devotee, so anything less than Perfection in reliability doesn't cut it for me.

Funny my Gen4 Model 19 exhibited the symptoms of "too light a load" when it came from the factory, Glock CS said if I didn't want to wait on a new spring I could continue to break it in or shoot the 124gr. or heavier ammo it was designed for...

[gigag04]

Does it say 9mm or 9x19 or such on the slide & barrel? Or does it say "only 9mm ammo 124 grain or heavier from a specific set of manufacturers"?

This.

[A-R]

Gen 4 blocks? :skep

Funny my Gen4 Model 19 exhibited the symptoms of "too light a load" when it came from the factory, Glock CS said if I didn't want to wait on a new spring I could continue to break it in or shoot the 124gr. or heavier ammo it was designed for...

Gen 4 Glocks are not "real" Glocks

But seriously, I don't own a Gen 4 Glock. And I don't own any early Gen 1 Glocks that also had problems. Only Glocks I've ever owned have been Gen 2 and Gen 3 guns and every one of them has been as close to perfection as you can reasonably expect from a firearm. My first Glock 23, which I still own, has had one FTE in it's entire 13-year life (no idea on round count, but easily over 10,000) and that was with Blazer aluminum ammo because the extractor shredded the flimsy aluminum case head (looked like a can opener wedged into a beer can). Only other problem it ever had was some failure to lock the slide back on last round because of user error (I was unknowingly resting my thumb on the slide lock lever. Most of those estimated 10,000-plus rounds were on all original parts/springs. Only replaced them about 2 years ago just because ... figured why wait to see how long they'd run without breaking.

Only other problem I've ever had with any other Glock is my Glock 27 popped a recoil spring guide rod (metal flange bent backward and spring popped loose). Talked to a few Glock armorers and none had even heard of this happening before. Put in a new guide rode and about 1,500 rounds later it's never missed a beat.

The Gen 4 Glocks seem like a rush job and a mistake in replacing the recoil spring system without complete testing. But even with that hiccup, most of the Gen 4 owners are now quite satisified with the new recoil springs that Glock sent out to rectify the problem.

Glocks still have subpar grips (even the new & improved Gen 4s) compared to better guns in that department. But in terms of reliability and durability, comparing a Glock to a Kimber is far from fair .... like comparing the probability of the sun rising to the probability of being struck by lightning