Broken Kimber right side bobbed safety

[Coder]

safety broken.jpg

This is the second genuine (ordered 2nd one direct from Kimber) Kimber safety that has broken this same way. The first time the broken piece scratched the heck out of the gun

I had to replace the original right side with a "bobbed" piece to accomodate the crimson trace grips.

The original right side safety seems to be made of much better metal than the bobbed one.

Pretty sure I got it installed right. Hard to do wrong...and the gun passed full safety checks after installation.

I guess I'm going to have to see what Kimber will do for me. I've not heard good things.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[CDW4ME]

I wonder if the safety broke because of a void in the MIM?

[Coder]

I wonder if the safety broke because of a void in the MIM?

Could be, but both broke in exactly the same way.

[Coltman 77]

Very sorry to read this Coder. Have you contacted Kimber customer service about the issue?

[C hawk Glock]

MIM or not, something is not right. I challenge anyone to see if they have enough thumb strength to break a thumb safety. The funny part is that I was thinking about putting one of these bobbed ones on my Custom Covert II because os the crimson trace.

Edit:

After taking a look at your picture a bit closer, that looks pretty small and maybe it could break. Does Wilson many any that a smith could put on?

[QKShooter]

If that firearm is your daily carry self-defense firearm then you may wish to consider not replacing that part with yet another MIM part.

Also if you're not actually using the "ambi" feature on your thumb safety then just get rid of the ambi and opt for a "thumb safety upgrade" regarding the part quality.

[automatic slim]

I would buy a fully machined safety and bob it myself. That's pretty incredible, I've never seen one break before. It should be covered by warranty if it's a Kimber part, but I wouldn't replace it with the same thing if it's your carry piece.

[C hawk Glock]

If that firearm is your daily carry self-defense firearm then you may wish to consider not replacing that part with yet another MIM part.

Also if you're not actually using the "ambi" feature on your thumb safety then just get rid of the ambi and opt for a "thumb safety upgrade" regarding the part quality.

Good advice, he may just want a lefty safety. That piece really does look small because it's bobbed for the CS.

[OldVet]

If that firearm is your daily carry self-defense firearm then you may wish to consider not replacing that part with yet another MIM part.

Also if you're not actually using the "ambi" feature on your thumb safety then just get rid of the ambi and opt for a "thumb safety upgrade" regarding the part quality.

That was my thinking also. Unless you're a leftie, get a quality left-side (rightie) safety and move on. MIM, what crap.

[vietnamvet66]

That does not look good at all. I was thinking of a kimber a year or so ago, but after reading some of the problems on here, maybe not so much now. I know that some of them seem to be real good gun's, but for the money, Iwany to be sure i'm getting a good one.

[AKsrule]

.

FYI - threre are lots of MIM parts in Kimbers........

[gasmitty]

Ah, the old "MIM parts are no good" thing has surfaced once again. It's been a few months since the last debacle.

If Metal Injection Molding in and of itself resulted in poor-quality, sub-standard parts, I assure you that the aerospace industry (my vocational 'home') would have abandoned it years ago. People who rail against MIM frequently paint with a broad brush. There are as many ways, if not more, to make a low-strength, poor quality part from bar stock as with the MIM process. The next commercial aircraft you ride on probably has a ton or more of MIM parts on it.

Just as Kimber moved quickly away from the external extractor design on their 1911s several years ago, the minute the cost of warranty service exceeds the cost of putting higher quality parts on the gun, you can bet your sweet bippy they will move to understand the quality/reliability lapses and fix them. Survival in a smallish market dominated by discretionary-money purchases depends on it. I'd like to know for certain if the parts reported as failed were indeed MIM, or simply machined bar stock.

Gunsmiths in general don't like MIM parts because by design, they are not meant to have significant material removed by conventional gunsmithing means such as filing and grinding. The parts also don't take a finish as uniformly as parts cut from bar stock.

While I'm on the soap box, a similar situation to "all MIM is bad" exists with respect to cast versus forged parts. "Everyone knows" that cast frames and slides are inferior to forged ones, right? If we're talking about knife blades or crankshafts, make mine forged, please, but for gun parts? The answer is "it depends." In a notable example, Browning moved to cast slides on the Hi-Power when the forged slides started cracking at a low round count on their .40 S+W models, and now I believe all their slide frames are cast.

Offered as a general FYI.

[AKsrule]

Ah, the old "MIM parts are no good" thing has surfaced once again. It's been a few months since the last debacle.

Well , apparently the U.S. Govt is stricter about Guns than Planes
----------

Govt. Pistol Contract

Solicitation Number:
W52H09-10-R-PSCSV

Notice Type:
Sources Sought

Synopsis:
Added: Jan 12, 2010 8:06 am
TACOM Contracting Center Rock Island is seeking companies with experience in semi-automatic 9MM pistol manufacturing. The government intends to issue a solicitation in the near future for M9 Pistols utilizing a government designed technical data package with military specifications. The Government designs include mostly machined steel parts with tight dimensional and geometric tolerencing. In some cases, investment casting is allowed. Many components have a carburized case, with specified hardness. The receiver is an aluminum forging. The slide is a steel forging and must be high pressure tested as well as tested for fracture toughness. All components must be corrosion resistant, as such, protective coatings are specified. The pistols must pass all the testing called out in the weapons specification, including but not limited to, targeting and accuracy, reliability, and interchangeability. The intended solicitation will result in a 5 year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract evaluated using Best Value/Tradeoff process. The evaluation criteria, guaranteed minimum quantity and maximum contract quantity will be defined in the solicitation.
--------------------

See anything about MIM there ?

[Coder]

Thanks for the replies. I'll be contacting Kimber tomorrow AM. I'll report back my experience.

Good news is that this is not my EDC and that I just picked up a Glock 23 a few days ago anyway.

I do love this gun. This is the only problem I've had with it.

[gasmitty]

Well , apparently the U.S. Govt is stricter about Guns than Planes
See anything about MIM there ?

Stricter? I don't think so - just different. "Stricter" presupposes that older is better. From your quote I'd simply infer that the spec-writers are continuing with what was written two decades ago. Didn't think for a minute that Government procurement agents who put specs like that together are up to speed on the metal-working industry. I deal with military agencies regularly, and I'd be charitable if I said they weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Might get one or two who know their stuff, but... not as an organization.

And BTW, by Gov't interpretations, a MIM part which is subjected to a polishing process on a "machine" could easily be interpreted as being "a machined steel part."