And I mean little.
 |
| Next to the LCP... yeah, that's small for a 9x19! |
I think some of the ability to get it so small is that it's an aluminum alloy frame, rather than polymer like most small autos these days. I'd imagine the Al lets you get thinner parts and still retain strength. That being said, it's still pretty light (17oz dry) even with an aluminum frame and stainless steel slide.
Despite the looks, the insides are nothing like a 1911. It is striker-fired, has a captive recoil spring, but no barrel bushing or swinging link. It does, however, use much of the ergonomics from the 1911; same grip angle, ambidextrous safety and ambi mag release in the "right" places, and replaceable grips, to name a few. Crimson Trace has already announced laser grips for them as well.
The gun apparently only ships with one mag, but extended 8 rounders will be coming soon as well.
I don't know exactly why, but the little thing is appealing to me. It's got nice lines, and great ergonomics with all the controls where they belong. I'm quite partial to the "stainless" model (really still an aluminum frame, just finished in silver Kimpro.) I could see my self with one and a couple 8 rounders if they hold up well.
Again, The Kimber Blog has a bunch of photos and a couple videos up, if you're interested, go check them out.
Posts
8 comments:
Sigh. This gun LOOKS awesome until you see how fat it is. 1.2" wide...
Wait, that number sounds familar. That's the exact same width as an M&P9c.
Lose 0.8" off the barrel and 0.4" off the length of the grip - in return for HALF of the magazine capacity.
When will a maker other than Walther (PPS) and Kel-Tec (PF9) wake up and realize that people want a thin 9mm?
I don't know... it doesn't look that fat though. http://kimber1911pistols.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/kimber-solo-carry-09.jpg
It's thinner than a 1911, which is known for being thin. http://kimber1911pistols.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/kimber-solo-carry-11.jpg (Kimber lists the Custom II's frame as 1.28" for comparison.) And my Custom II feels much thinner than my M&P9 (I'm at work right now, so I can't just grab and measure, but I will when I get home) and I can't imagine the C model being any thinner than the full size.
My M&P9 measures a hair over 1" thick at the slide, compared to .9" for the 1911. The widest part of both guns, the grip (and I've got the fat one on the M&P and some thick CZ Grips G10 scales on the 1911) are 1.38" on the M&P and 1.3" on the 1911.
It seems like S&W gives you an average measurement on their site, and Kimber gives you the maximum width.
Mine measures around 1.2" with the smaller grip, which I use. 1.28" at the ambi slide releases.
In that first picture, it appears that the Solo slide is just as thick as the 1911 slide, it's just that the Solo has nice bevels everywhere, making it look smaller than it is.
Don't get me wrong, this gun *looks* like an excellent carry gun...till you see how fat it is.
It still doesn't look fat to me. Going off the side by side with the 1911, the widest part looks like right across the safety. The rest of it looks about as thick as the 1911's slide, which is less than an inch.
Shelly at gunnuts.net posted this hands-on observation:
"It had a nice double action trigger and is over a quarter inch wider than the LC9, making it less convenient for deep concealment carrying – which I’m still pretty sure is the point."
I think my antagonism towards this product may win you over yet, Fred. :)
Perhaps, but I never did much care for the looks of the Rugers much, so we'll see.
I care about looks in a shiny 1911 that I might open carry. For a deep concealment slim 9mm, I wouldn't care if it was purple. I just want it to run, be thin, and be as ergonomic as possible. Not costing over $600 or so is another nice trick.
Post a Comment