View Full Version : NIGHTHAWK or KIMBER?
my next 1911 purchase has come down to this,sell my nighthawk talon to fund a wilson cqb,or sell my nighthawk to buy a kimber custom II and cutomize it ? I am by no means bashing my nighthawk, it has been completely reliable through well over 6k.BUT ON THE OTHER HAND SO HAS MY KIMBER RAPTOR. So my question is sell my nighthawk or buy a kimber and make it to my specs? The only reason i am considering selling my nighthawk is due to the rear sight which is a novak adjutable . I just pefer a fixed rear like the 10-8. any kimber custom II EXPERIENCE is appreciated.
Army Chief
03-07-09, 02:02
Try as we might to make reasoned comparisons, there really is no comparison. A Nighthawk or Wilson Combat pistol is really a different class of weapon than a Kimber. That isn't said as a knock to Kimber at all, because price point is certainly relevant, but you're really comparing apples and oranges.
Sights can be changed, but you can't recoup lost bench time under the hand of a master, and that makes all of the difference in the world where the 1911 is concerned. Just because you cannot easily see or even feel the difference does not mean that it isn't there. There is a reason why die-hard 1911-types will shell out $2,500 or 3,000+ for a gun that has a competent lineage.
I once faced a similar situation with a Wilson Classic (and was considering a swap to the CQB or Protector), but in the end, decided that the adjustable sight unit was sufficiently robust as to render most of my concerns mere vanity. In fact, after years of doing my best to put that to the test, I went right back out and bought another Classic. If it ain't broke ... :)
AC
I have a Kimber Custom II that I customized.
Two issues as I see it. First the Swartz safety. You should research Swartz and decide for yourself. For me, if I had it to do over I would not get the Kimber for this reason. Second, MIM. Again, research and decide for yourself. But Kimber has a significant number of MIM parts, which they do well. However I now have a bag of Kimber MIM parts that I replaced with tool steel parts. The Kimber slide & frame, and probably the barrel too, are very good.
At the end of the day, I'd have been better to have either bought a custom (read: Wilson, Nighthawk, Ed Brown), or stock-standard Springfield Mil-Spec to customize and gone from there. That is what I would do if starting over because you get to a higher level faster & cheaper.
For my second project 1911 I did buy a Mil-Spec Springfield and proceeded to replace just about everything with tool steel to my liking.
YMMV. Good luck.
If you're going to sell an already running semi-custom pistol just because you want something new, I'd recommend getting a Caspian frame and slide and sending it to a pistolsmith. Unless you just want the rollmark, it doesn't make much sense to buy a Kimber, Colt, Springfield, etc. just to tear it down and build it back up again.
That said, between the choices you listed, I'd go for the custom job. I'm really wanting to send my Stainless II away for a rebirth but can't quite swing the cash right now.
Littlelebowski
03-07-09, 07:57
Can you outshoot your Kimber? Are you at the point that you wish it was more accurate? If not, please invest in ammo and a class.
I don't get it-you've got a completely reliable Nighthawk, one of the more highly regarded 1911-pattern pistols, and you're considering selling it solely because you don't like the rear sight?
This is probably a blatent restatement of the obvious, but why not simply change out the rear sight? It's not as if this is an unheard of procedure, and there certainly are plenty of excellent alternatives-other Novak sights (I personally prefer their wide-notch on my Nighthawk), 10-8, Heine, Yost/Heirloom Precision...
Best, Jon
MarshallDodge
03-07-09, 10:34
I vote to stay with the Nighthawk. The sight can be changed.
The last Raptor I looked at was really well finished and I am sure it shot well, I just can't do the Schwartz safety and therefore wouldn't build on a Kimber.
MIM doesn't scare me although I would prefer tool steel parts in some areas. There was some discussion on 10-8 and the 1911 forums and the census was that they see as many parts break of both types. My opinion is that areas like the hammer, sear, and extractor would be better if made from steel because of the heat treating process and how the parts are fit to the gun.
Even the big boys use investment castings for some of the parts like the thumb safety and beavertail so when a manufacturer says "no MIM" that does not mean that all of the parts in the gun are steel.
The problem with the Novak adjustable sight is that it is a distinctive cut to the slide and you can't simply just install a different rear sight. I know this because I too have the same rear sight on mine and would have swapped it out if I could. That rear sight is the only thing I would have made different about my Nighthawk.
With that being said, there's no way I'd take a Kimber over a Nighthawk. I also own a Kimber and there is no comparison between how those two are built. And Kimber does not make a pistol suitable for building upon. I've replaced all the MIM parts and customized mine, but no matter what I do to it, it'll never be on par with a semi-custom. On top of that, many of the best smiths won't even work on a Kimber. That, in my profession, would be a clue.
decodeddiesel
03-07-09, 16:42
I don't get it-you've got a completely reliable Nighthawk, one of the more highly regarded 1911-pattern pistols, and you're considering selling it solely because you don't like the rear sight?
This is probably a blatent restatement of the obvious, but why not simply change out the rear sight? It's not as if this is an unheard of procedure, and there certainly are plenty of excellent alternatives-other Novak sights (I personally prefer their wide-notch on my Nighthawk), 10-8, Heine, Yost/Heirloom Precision...
Best, Jon
This is exactly what I was wondering.
Bolt_Overide
03-07-09, 17:46
Nighthawk vs kimber?
thats like ferarri vs yugo....
Keep the NH.
Sell the Kimber, use the proceeds to get something else.
FWIW, I have owned Baer, Colt, Kimber, NH, Para, Springfield, STI, SVI, a Henie custom, and a YoBo custom.
Some of the above I still own, some I don't.
I'm a 1911 armorer and have worked on several Kimbers and got them running when the factory couldn't and wouldn't make them right.
I have an idea of what quality is and isn't.
IMO, the only Kimbers worth owning are the Series 1 guns.
Keep the NH.
Sell the Kimber, use the proceeds to get something else.
+1. I cannot see selling an NH--a beautifully made, semi-custom gun which you have already proven is a great shooter--and DOWNgrading it to an inferior brand. If you want to customize something, why not customize the NH?
+1. I cannot see selling an NH--a beautifully made, semi-custom gun which you have already proven is a great shooter--and DOWNgrading it to an inferior brand. If you want to customize something, why not customize the NH?
I can see going from a NH to a Wilson. I can't see going from a NH to a Kimber. Ever. To really gut out the Kimber and pay a smith to do it (if you can't do it yourself) to get the level of the NH, would cost approx what the NH or Wilson will cost, and I still woudn't consider the Kimber the equiv of the NH or Wilson. To throw an additional thought, personally, at NH/Wilson prices, I can get a true custom gun built using the best of the best parts from all manner of companies to my personal needs/wants/specs for a real one of a kind gun. Unless I simply wanted the brand name of NH et al, that's the route I generally go. Or, buying base GI SA, or old Colt series 70, etc and having a build out on that. I had a Ti framed commander built on a Caspian frame and slide using various parts to my exact specs, and it cost approx that of a Wilson. This was the results:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/TiCommander1.jpg
Sidewinder6
03-09-09, 14:02
Another Nighthawk vote here but a full sized one.
I don't get it-you've got a completely reliable Nighthawk, one of the more highly regarded 1911-pattern pistols, and you're considering selling it solely because you don't like the rear sight?
This is probably a blatent restatement of the obvious, but why not simply change out the rear sight? It's not as if this is an unheard of procedure, and there certainly are plenty of excellent alternatives-other Novak sights (I personally prefer their wide-notch on my Nighthawk), 10-8, Heine, Yost/Heirloom Precision...
Best, Jon
Jon,
Pretty sure it's because of the Novak adjustable rear sight.
"The only reason i am considering selling my nighthawk is due to the rear sight which is a novak adjutable . I just pefer a fixed rear like the 10-8. any kimber custom II EXPERIENCE is appreciated." Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe the 10-8 rear will fit in the Novak adjustable rear sight cut.
Yep, I think that you (and others, like Federale) have nailed it-after checking, I realized that the Novak Adjustable sight dovetail is unique.
Perhaps Novak themselves have an interchangable sight that would be more acceptable to the original poster. Currently according to their chart 10-8 specifically does not have a rear sight for that dovetail (but it might be worth a call to Hilton Yam for confirmation).
I suspect that a custom gunsmith could relatively easily create an acceptable solution, given time, money, and appropriate amounts of silver soldier...but it might be disproportionately expensive to what the original poster is willing to pay. It might be well worth a call to Nighthawk custom themselves to explore alternatives at this stage.
Regardless, I still recommend that the original poster is far better off remaining with the Nighthawk than switching to a Kimber-but I do stand corrected regarding an easily interchangable rear sight switch-thanks.
Best, Jon
On top of that, many of the best smiths won't even work on a Kimber.
Haven't heard that one. Examples?
Haven't heard that one. Examples?
The Schwarz safety system on the Series II guns is not something that many smiths want to mess with. There's a reason why people recommend buying a 70 Series Colt or a Springfield or even a Series I Kimber for a good base gun.
Not only that, but the spotty Kimber quality control and well reported reliability issues have also caused people to shy away from working on them.
If you want to read what several well-regarded gunsmiths and serious end-users think of Kimber, go to 10-8 Forums and start searching for Kimber threads. And if you still don't believe me, call around to some gunsmiths and see what they tell you. I did and guess what? All the modifications to my Kimber Series II were done myself.
A top smith can likely weld over your dovetail on the NH, and re-cut it for a standard dovetail. I know I've seen it done for the front.
If you want to read what several well-regarded gunsmiths and serious end-users think of Kimber, go to 10-8 Forums and start searching for Kimber threads. And if you still don't believe me, call around to some gunsmiths and see what they tell you.
Interesting. I know John Harrison will work on them, other 'smiths I have no first hand experience with. Don't know about the "serious" end user either, but my expectations have been met with my Kimber.
Interesting. I know John Harrison will work on them, other 'smiths I have no first hand experience with. Don't know about the "serious" end user either, but my expectations have been met with my Kimber.
I'm glad your expectations were met. Mine definitely were not.
And the smiths and users guys I'm referring to at 10-8 see sample sizes of significantly more than one, two or ten Kimbers. And guys who see a lot of Kimbers almost unanimously report that Kimbers have been a crap-shoot when it comes to reliability and quality. As one who lived through all the problems with my own Kimber that are exactly the same issues that are reported all over the internet, I can tell you that I'm glad yours works and meets your expectations.
And the Swartz system is generally not looked upon as a good thing.
And the smiths and users guys I'm referring to at 10-8 see sample sizes of significantly more than one, two or ten Kimbers. And guys who see a lot of Kimbers almost unanimously report that Kimbers have been a crap-shoot when it comes to reliability and quality. As one who lived through all the problems with my own Kimber that are exactly the same issues that are reported all over the internet, I can tell you that I'm glad yours works and meets your expectations.
And the Swartz system is generally not looked upon as a good thing.
Ehhh, I'm not sure about the crap-shoot.
I don't doubt that there are those that prefer one brand or another, or have seen more problems with brand x than others, but there really is no way to know the percentage of problem Kimbers vs. those that run like they should. Kimber pumps out too many pistols to paint with a broad brush.
As for the Swartz, I doubt anyone who shoots the 1911 will tell you they prefer a firing pin safety. Comparing the series 80 to the Swartz, I'd honestly rather have the Swartz. I've never shot a series 80 that I couldn't tell it was there. The Swartz, though, when properly fitted, is almost undetectable. I've heard about Kimber's problems fitting the Swartz, however, so if that is your issue I can't really argue. I can say I haven't personally had or talked to anyone that has had issues.
Ehhh, I'm not sure about the crap-shoot.
I don't doubt that there are those that prefer one brand or another, or have seen more problems with brand x than others, but there really is no way to know the percentage of problem Kimbers vs. those that run like they should. Kimber pumps out too many pistols to paint with a broad brush.
As for the Swartz, I doubt anyone who shoots the 1911 will tell you they prefer a firing pin safety. Comparing the series 80 to the Swartz, I'd honestly rather have the Swartz. I've never shot a series 80 that I couldn't tell it was there. The Swartz, though, when properly fitted, is almost undetectable. I've heard about Kimber's problems fitting the Swartz, however, so if that is your issue I can't really argue. I can say I haven't personally had or talked to anyone that has had issues.
Well, better minds than mine have concluded that Kimbers are a crap shoot and they're basing their opinions on having seen and used (and fixed) a lot of Kimbers. I'm glad yours works, but if you want to really get into why it is not hard to come up with hundreds of threads that report problems with a Kimber, then you can start by reading the very reasoned and well-informed opinions of the guys at 10-8.
You actually stated the problem with Kimber when you said that they pump out too many pistols. They're building tight 1911s as fast as they can and they're not putting them through the finishing touches that are necessary to make sure that the tight 1911s that they're building are actually reliable. It isn't hard to build a tight 1911. Its hard, time consuming and expensive to build a tight 1911 that's reliable. Kimber passes that onto the consumer with their "break-in" advice. Sorry, but a poorly built 1911 doesn't fix itself by shooting it. Mine didn't. And there's reports all over the internet from people who had to immediately send their brand new Kimber back. Kimber is interested in selling as many pistols as they can. They're not so much interested in making sure that the pistols they build work properly when they leave the factory. To do that would take time and money and Kimber is interested in making money, not spending it.
To bring this back to the topic, the difference between a Nighthawk (or another true semi-custom) is that those makers do build a tight 1911 and they also take the time to make sure that they're not only tight, but they're fitted properly and they're actually reliable. That's why Kimber shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence with Ed Brown, Les Baer, Wilson, Nighthawk or the Springfield Custom Shop, just to name a few.
Well, better minds than mine have concluded that Kimbers are a crap shoot and they're basing their opinions on having seen and used (and fixed) a lot of Kimbers.
Not to go tit for tat, but wouldn't most pistolsmiths see more "problem" pistols vs. perfectly functioning ones? Also, if Kimber makes more 1911's than anyone else, wouldn't it stand to reason that more of them would be seen by a given pistolsmith? Seems like law of averages to me. Without any hard numbers though, we're both just making educated guesses.
Kimber passes that onto the consumer with their "break-in" advice. Sorry, but a poorly built 1911 doesn't fix itself by shooting it. Mine didn't.
You're correct, poorly built pistols don't shoot thier way to reliability. But some intermittent problems do go away with more rounds down range. Just about every pistol I've ever owned needed a little range time before it ran like I wanted. Besides, what's the big deal about shooting 500 +/- rounds through a new pistol to test fuction?
That's why Kimber shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence with Ed Brown, Les Baer, Wilson, Nighthawk or the Springfield Custom Shop, just to name a few.
On this we can agree, except I've never considered Springfield's custom shop to be on par with the other's named. You don't have to tell me what 10-8 says about Springer's though, I've seen the 10-8 Operator. :D
Not to go tit for tat, but wouldn't most pistolsmiths see more "problem" pistols vs. perfectly functioning ones? Also, if Kimber makes more 1911's than anyone else, wouldn't it stand to reason that more of them would be seen by a given pistolsmith? Seems like law of averages to me. Without any hard numbers though, we're both just making educated guesses.
The Kimber repair department would see most of these pistols as the ones I'm talking about are the ones that never, ever work correctly and get shipped back under warranty.
Kimber has that information and you can bet that they're never going to give up how many of their pistols have to come back. What information you can get is from people who see a lot of these pistols. And they're nearly unanimous in their belief that Kimber is not a good choice. And go read the threads in 10-8 where they very specifically list exactly why they don't believe that Kimbers are a good choice.
Also, to be clear, I was talking about pistolsmiths who take a base gun and build it up (as opposed to someone who might be trying to just simply make a Kimber reliable). Two different things. Series II guns are not thought to make very good base guns. There are too many parts that are out of spec, too many parts that need to be replaced and Kimbers are too expensive to start with. My TLE currently consists of 3 of its original parts. I have built it up myself as a project and its a nice pistol but nearly everything needed to be replaced - including the entire slide. Using that TLE as a base gun and building it up cost far more about what a brand new Wilson or Nighthawk would cost. You think that's cost effective? (And I got a good discount on the TLE). It isn't. And a true pistolsmith hasn't touched it, so that cost hasn't been factored in.
I bought a 70's series Colt, had it worked over by a pistolsmith and updated and refinished it for a fraction of the cost that my Kimber cost me. Think they're really comparable guns? I'd take the Colt any day as would anyone else.
You're correct, poorly built pistols don't shoot thier way to reliability. But some intermittent problems do go away with more rounds down range. Just about every pistol I've ever owned needed a little range time before it ran like I wanted. Besides, what's the big deal about shooting 500 +/- rounds through a new pistol to test fuction?
Function testing and breaking in a properly built pistol is not the same as running through rounds in the hopes that problems fix themselves. I guess you were lucky enough to not have to deal with Kimber's repair people, but they wouldn't look at the pistol until I told them 500 rounds were through it and they gave me a half a dozen excuses for why the pistol didn't work properly, all of which were my fault. As it turned out, once they took the pistol back, it needed an entirely new slide, different extractor system and a refitted barrel for it to work properly. This same story is repeated all over the internet by disappointed Kimber customers. Unless and until Kimber realizes what a break in period really is, then they've going to continue to send pistols out the door that won't work properly no matter if 5 zillion rounds are put through the pistol. In my case, that would take a while as I could never get more than a single magazine through mine without one of three different malfunctions occurring.
On this we can agree, except I've never considered Springfield's custom shop to be on par with the other's named. You don't have to tell me what 10-8 says about Springer's though, I've seen the 10-8 Operator. :D
Where would you put Springfield's custom shop?
sigmundsauer
03-14-09, 11:37
I faced a similar dilemma. I loved my NHC GRP for the relatively simple, robust fighting pistol it was. Unfortunately, I simply could not acclimate to the Novak Extreme Adjustable rear sight, and I came to reject using the pistol on account of the sight alone. There was nothing that could be done to correct it due to the proprietary dovetail. So, I traded on a NHC T3 at a local dealer at a fair price, which was equipped with the Heine Ledge Straight Eight sights and I couldn't be happier. I am not a 1911 guy per se, but I find the T3 to be the ideal 1911 for my purposes. It hasn't seen the round counts that some of my other pistols have, but it has been 100% thus far.
I would avoid Kimber, and stick with Nighthawk. Wilson is OK too, but why change? They are very similar and I like NHC's offerings a lot.
Tim
Function testing and breaking in a properly built pistol is not the same as running through rounds in the hopes that problems fix themselves. I think I already agreed with you on this, but you're making it sound like a Kimber conspiracy to build shitty pistols and just tell everyone to go break em in. If that's your position, you're certainly entitled to it.
Sounds like you had a pretty bad experience with both the external extractor and Kimber's customer service. The extractor was probably a bad idea to start with (although S&W has made it work) and I've talked to a few people who don't think a NY attitude and customer service mix. Fair enough.
We should probably all move on...
Well, considering that I actually drove to Yonkers, met the people at Kimber and dropped the pistol off myself, I'm pretty sure that things were not lost in translation.
I sincerely hope you don't live far from Yonkers.
I'm also wondering why you didn't just rid yourself of this monster, rather than drive to Yonkers and still replace nearly the entire pistol with your own hands. You said youself you've got too much money and time in this thing. And you still don't like it or trust it as you do your Nighthawk or Colt? If I screwed with a pistol half that much, I'd be sleeping with the damn thing. :)
You're either the reincarnation of George S. Patton, or WAY overpaid. :D ;)
I sincerely hope you don't live far from Yonkers.
I'm also wondering why you didn't just rid yourself of this monster, rather than drive to Yonkers and still replace nearly the entire pistol with your own hands. You said youself you've got too much money and time in this thing. And you still don't like it or trust it as you do your Nighthawk or Colt? If I screwed with a pistol half that much, I'd be sleeping with the damn thing. :)
You're either the reincarnation of George S. Patton, or WAY overpaid. :D ;)
Well, since you asked, I drove it there because (1) this was under warranty, it never worked and they were both giving me excuses for not taking it back and making me pay for the shipping and (2) I actually wanted to meet the people who were telling me that the problem was that I must be both under and overlubing the pistol at the same time:rolleyes:. So I dropped it by when I happened to be in the area.
After they did eventually fix it (my instructions were that they were not to return it to me until it was fixed and I didn't care how long it took), it ran fine, you know, like it should have when I took it out of the box for the first time. And since the resale value on it isn't all that great, I decided I'd just turn it into a project gun and slowly piced the gun apart and put it back together. Like I said, it has exactly 3 original parts left on it. Its a range gun and I have a lot of those. But there is no way that it ever was or ever will be on the level of a semi-custom or a pistol that's been worked over by a real gunsmith.
Alright, it would appear we are VERY clear on where each person stands in regards to their personal issues, or non-issues with Kimber.
Continuing on down this line is just a measuring contest that I don't really care to witness any longer.
Thanks!
Ehhh, I'm not sure about the crap-shoot.
I don't doubt that there are those that prefer one brand or another, or have seen more problems with brand x than others, but there really is no way to know the percentage of problem Kimbers vs. those that run like they should. Kimber pumps out too many pistols to paint with a broad brush.
As for the Swartz, I doubt anyone who shoots the 1911 will tell you they prefer a firing pin safety. Comparing the series 80 to the Swartz, I'd honestly rather have the Swartz. I've never shot a series 80 that I couldn't tell it was there. The Swartz, though, when properly fitted, is almost undetectable. I've heard about Kimber's problems fitting the Swartz, however, so if that is your issue I can't really argue. I can say I haven't personally had or talked to anyone that has had issues.
As the Swartz has no path/connection at all to the trigger, you can't tell the difference. S&W seems to have done a solid job with fitting theirs, and many report the SnWs to be some of the most reliable out of the box 1911s they have owned, me included. I have had 3 to date, from lowest to highest priced in their line, and they were all very reliable. One has at least 50k on it. I do understand why some will not purchase a gun with this system in the gun and respect that, but like most things, it's clearly some companies doing X well and some not, ergo Smiths EE works well (as they have a lot of experience with the EE) while Kimbers mega problems. Just some added thought to the issue, vs pushing one side vs another here.
Wilson or Kimber?!?! Wilson Combat 5" CQB would definitely be my choice, then again I already own one :D
Alaskapopo
03-17-09, 12:28
Were I in the market for a 1911, Kimber would probably be the last manufacturer on my list.
I know many Kimber owners and gunshop/dealers who think the Kimber is a fine pistol.
I've yet to meet a knowledgeable gunsmith who believes current Kimbers are good guns or a good value.
As for Ron Cohen (the guy who left Kimber to run SIG), there is no question that he's taken that same "lots of different colors & configurations" approach from Kimber, along with substantial cost-cutting in parts and QC that plagued Kimber in later years, and remade the SIG brand. In his defense, while the company may be losing LE contracts left and right, its commercial sales have skyrocketed and the company is making a lot more money than it did five years ago.
Right on with this post. Also Kimbers quality varies with each pistol now greatly.
I wish they made guns like they did when they first started. I bought this series 1 back when Kimbers first hit the shelves and its a good gun. The new ones have a lot of issues.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Semi%20auto%20pistols/IM000797.jpg
Pat
Were I in the market for a 1911, Kimber would probably be the last manufacturer on my list.
The last? Really?
http://www.olyarms.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/pistol-1911/full-constable.jpg
This isn't last? :)
As for Ron Cohen (the guy who left Kimber to run SIG), there is no question that he's taken that same "lots of different colors & configurations" approach from Kimber, along with substantial cost-cutting in parts and QC that plagued Kimber in later years, and remade the SIG brand. In his defense, while the company may be losing LE contracts left and right, its commercial sales have skyrocketed and the company is making a lot more money than it did five years ago.
So we should expect QC and customer service to improve then?
So we should expect QC and customer service to improve then?
You mean at Kimber? Cohen has been gone for five years. I haven't seen anything to indicate the current owners and managers are interested in improving the product line to any significant degree. They're selling every gun they can make and getting few enough back that it's massively profitable. They don't care if "serious" or "hard use" shooters shun the product. That just means fewer prima donnas, fewer worn out guns, and fewer people putting Kimbers through serious abuse.
From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense. For those who want a serious 1911, it just means they need to look somewhere else.
You would recommend an Oympic Westerner over a Kimber? What about a Thompson/Kahr? A Taurus?
I never thought Kimber was the cat's ass, but IMO, they're ahead of several other brands.
The difference is those other brands don't market or price themselves as something their not. Kimber, like DPMS in the AR world, does.
-B
Were I in the market for a 1911, Kimber would probably be the last manufacturer on my list.
I know many Kimber owners and gunshop/dealers who think the Kimber is a fine pistol.
I've yet to meet a knowledgeable gunsmith who believes current Kimbers are good guns or a good value.
As for Ron Cohen (the guy who left Kimber to run SIG), there is no question that he's taken that same "lots of different colors & configurations" approach from Kimber, along with substantial cost-cutting in parts and QC that plagued Kimber in later years, and remade the SIG brand. In his defense, while the company may be losing LE contracts left and right, its commercial sales have skyrocketed and the company is making a lot more money than it did five years ago.
My experience with Kimber has been a little different. Of course I always used Series I guns and never had a bad one. Unfortunately, Series II guns weren't nearly as reliable.
However, I am always surprised by the number of people who will spend a lot of money on a Para and have one malfunction after another during a match and still defend and tout them as great guns. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Nighthawk vs kimber?
thats like ferarri vs yugo....
Correct.
C4
I think I already agreed with you on this, but you're making it sound like a Kimber conspiracy to build shitty pistols and just tell everyone to go break em in. If that's your position, you're certainly entitled to it.
Sounds like you had a pretty bad experience with both the external extractor and Kimber's customer service. The extractor was probably a bad idea to start with (although S&W has made it work) and I've talked to a few people who don't think a NY attitude and customer service mix. Fair enough.
We should probably all move on...
Kimber (like DPMS) uses only the cheapest parts and pushes them out the door. This is a recipe for disaster and is why very few "serious" users run a Kimber (or a DPMS).
I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open. YMMV.
C4
Kimber (like DPMS) uses only the cheapest parts and pushes them out the door. This is a recipe for disaster and is why very few "serious" users run a Kimber (or a DPMS).
I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open. YMMV.
C4
The only Kimber that seemed to get a (short lived) thumbs up from "serious" users, was the Warrior. Enthusiasm with those really "in the know" about 1911s didn't last long however as quality control and other issues popped up quickly. Kimber and Para are two brands I would never give $$$ to personally, though I have been told by a few smiths I trust that Para's quality seems to be improving at least...thought there?
The department that I work for allows the 1911 for duty use. I see a lot of different brands carried by my co-workers. Nighthawks, Wilsons, Les Baers, Ed Browns, John Jardine guns, Kimbers, S.A., and the ones that I built.
I get more requests to fix Kimbers than anything else. Especially the Warriors and the TLE 2s. Can the Kimbers be made to be 100% reliable? Yes, but it takes a little bit more TLC to make it so.
I use to carry a Custom shop Kimber (Gold Combat Stainless 2), but I had to do more work to get it 100% relaible with our issue duty ammo (Federal 230 gr. JHP +P). All the MIM parts had to go also. After that it was fine. What do I use now for my duty gun? My custom Glock 21SF. Does it shoot as good as a custom 1911? Not really, but close, but it's 100% reliable and if it gets jacked up, I can get another one cheap.
I feel that the 1911 is a great gun, but it is a design that needs a lot of TLC to make properly. You can't replace proper hand fitting with modern means to make parts and hope it all goes it works.
Kimber (like DPMS) uses only the cheapest parts and pushes them out the door. This is a recipe for disaster and is why very few "serious" users run a Kimber (or a DPMS).
I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open. YMMV.
C4
Are you picking on me? :p
I must be the only SOB on the planet that owns a junk DPMS and a junk Kimber that hasn't had to send them back or fall apart out of the box. None of the 4 Kimbers I have don't run. Wait, don't tell me. That is a statistically small sample and doesn't mean anything, and I should do more than fire 500 rounds a year, slow fire. ;)
Having owned these pistols for much longer than my junky ol' DPMS, I have had the opportunity to put a few more rounds down range. In roughly 11k through the 4 combined(a paltry number for sure, but it's the best I can do), I've had exactly 7 malfuctions. 3 were mag related, 2 were extractor tuning issues, and the other 2 were probably me as they never reappeared. The last one was this past Thursday though... think I should sell 'em all now?:confused:
Grant, I'd encourage you to go back and read my first post in this thread. While I think the "I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open," comment is a bit much, I never said that Kimber is the way to go. I responded to a disgruntled Kimber owner and this thread spiraled downward from there. The OP would do well to just hold on to his Nighthawk. My advice was go full custom. My comment about sending my Stainelss II away was just a daydream, and I doubt anyone took it for anything more. Just to be clear, I understand that some have had issues with Kimber. I have not. I am happy with mine but in no way am I supporting the position that Kimber is the best 1911 out there.
Now skip over that last part and lets fight about why Kimber sucks. :rolleyes:
ETA: I did have a few additional problems on my Target and Stainless II's. Weak springs. Track the rounds better and change every 1k or so and no problems.
Are you picking on me? :p
I must be the only SOB on the planet that owns a junk DPMS and a junk Kimber that hasn't had to send them back or fall apart out of the box. None of the 4 Kimbers I have don't run. Wait, don't tell me. That is a statistically small sample and doesn't mean anything, and I should do more than fire 500 rounds a year, slow fire. ;)
Having owned these pistols for much longer than my junky ol' DPMS, I have had the opportunity to put a few more rounds down range. In roughly 11k through the 4 combined(a paltry number for sure, but it's the best I can do), I've had exactly 7 malfuctions. 3 were mag related, 2 were extractor tuning issues, and the other 2 were probably me as they never reappeared. The last one was this past Thursday though... think I should sell 'em all now?:confused:
Grant, I'd encourage you to go back and read my first post in this thread. While I think the "I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open," comment is a bit much, I never said that Kimber is the way to go. I responded to a disgruntled Kimber owner and this thread spiraled downward from there. The OP would do well to just hold on to his Nighthawk. My advice was go full custom. My comment about sending my Stainelss II away was just a daydream, and I doubt anyone took it for anything more. Just to be clear, I understand that some have had issues with Kimber. I have not. I am happy with mine but in no way am I supporting the position that Kimber is the best 1911 out there.
Now skip over that last part and lets fight about why Kimber sucks. :rolleyes:
ETA: I did have a few additional problems on my Target and Stainless II's. Weak springs. Track the rounds better and change every 1k or so and no problems.
When I told you that serious users don't have a high opinion of Kimber, I think you rolled your eyes. The truth is, a lot of serious 1911 shooters wouldn't use a Kimber as a door stop. There are numerous reasons for this and many of them have been documented in this thread. You like yours? Good for you. Nobody said you shouldn't. But there's well documented problems with Kimber the company and their pistols, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. And that has a lot to do with why guys like Grant and Todd are typing what they did.
I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open. YMMV.
C4
I personally would not use a Nighthawk to hold my door open.
. . . . .
Get it? Because if I had a Nighthawk (my dream 1911) it would be on my hip.
Sorry couldn't resist.:)
Littlelebowski
03-19-09, 08:17
I've been very happy with my Series I aside from getting shot with it. Accurate and reliable. I really have no idea how much Wolf I've ran through it but it's a high number.
When I told you that serious users don't have a high opinion of Kimber, I think you rolled your eyes. The truth is, a lot of serious 1911 shooters wouldn't use a Kimber as a door stop. There are numerous reasons for this and many of them have been documented in this thread. You like yours? Good for you. Nobody said you shouldn't. But there's well documented problems with Kimber the company and their pistols, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. And that has a lot to do with why guys like Grant and Todd are typing what they did.
First of all, let me appologize to Shivan who tried to keep this thread on track.
Who brought up the "serious" end user? I think you did. I asked you for examples when you made this comment:
On top of that, many of the best smiths won't even work on a Kimber. That, in my profession, would be a clue.
Your response was to refer me to 10-8. I responded that John Harrison (top smith, right?) will work on them. That got skipped over because it doesn't support the argument that Kimber is the most god-awful 1911 ever made.
But that is really beside the point. Where did I say that "serious" end users should even consider Kimber? Which post of mine did I recommend a Kimber to anyone? I said I liked the ones I own. I offered up my experience (as you did), complete with a rough round count and what problems I've had.
Why is it some here really want me to be some ignorant fanboy who thinks "my" brand is the bestest and most awesome out there? Do you want to argue that badly?
In truth, the only issue I have is ambiguous blanket statements that either cannot be proven or are designed to piss people off. While I'm all for correct info and straight shooting, those comments are usually neither.
Other than that, we're all good. ;)
Back when the Warrior was one of the few 1911's with an integral rail that did not cost $2000+, I bought one. Knowing full well that it might need to go off to a competent gunsmith...
I have been happy with my copy, but do not venture to tell everyone that Kimber is the best gun for the money. It's not. I happen to like the three RRA's, one Wilson, one Ed Brown that I've owned, but I always use the Kimber.
The one I have is accurate and keeps running -- despite not having any mechanical work done on it.
I suppose I got lucky, and I suppose a lot of people will look down their nose at my "doorstop". Then again, I can/could have bought whatever I liked, and actually did several times. Howver, getting rid of a perfectly functional gun because some "serious user", or worse yet an internet personality, might snub it, would be silly.
Again that does not mean I would recommend Kimbers to a new 1911 buyer.
As to "best gunsmiths" working on Kimbers, it is kind of silly to buy an $1100 NEW pistol with the immediate intention of sending it off to Hilton Yam, Heirloom Precision, Chuck Rogers, etc. That's stupidity of the highest order. So it's really a point with little merit in arguing.
If you want a custom gun built up, buy a $500 Springfield "milspec" or $600-$700 used COLT and send it off. You save a ton of cash by buying cheaper base guns then to buy a Kimber with a lot of the "customizing" built in to the price, just to have it all scrapped for your 'smith to do the work again.
Your response was to refer me to 10-8. I responded that John Harrison (top smith, right?) will work on them. That got skipped over because it doesn't support the argument that Kimber is the most god-awful 1911 ever made.
Novak, Rogers and many others will work on them too.
I'd say the pool of gunsmiths who are vocal about their distaste for Kimber on the internet likely represent a small minority of the total pool of gunsmiths who can, and will, take a Kimber gun and make it a sweet custom blaster.
Littlelebowski
03-19-09, 10:21
I think that much of the bad talk about Kimber comes from a mostly unjustified fear of MIM parts and fallout from their external extractor debacle. Purely anecdotal but I've seen many Kimbers run well when run hard. Even an external extractor model. However, I had a problem child gun I fixed with a new extractor and promptly sold.
My gunsmith is an extremely knowledgeable guy that has no brand loyalty whatsoever. He was impressed with the build quality and accuracy of my Series 1 Pro Carry I sent to him. I've never seen an inaccurate Kimber myself but I have seen a few finicky ones.
There is a huge difference between early Series I Kimbers and later models. The early Kimbers were well made, quality tested guns with a great feature set being sold at an unbelievable price. Then once the company made its name, it started cutting corners and raising prices. To this day, there are people whose opinion of Kimber is rooted in those original gun rag reviews of perfect inexpensive Kimber 1911's.
M4C is the wrong place to tout a gun if you yourself realize it's not a good choice for the so-called "serious end user." Even the civilian hobbyists on M4C tend to run their guns hard because M4C is one of the few forums that seems to be populated by folks who appreciate the benefit of training & practice.
No one denies there are new production Kimbers that run well. But Kimbers have demonstrated a higher tendency to failure than comparable brands. If you knew that 20% of all Kimbers failed right out of the box, would you buy one? Probably not ... even though four out of five owners would tell you their Kimbers were perfect.
The DPMS analogy is perfectly valid. Are there people who own DPMS guns that run well? Yes. Are there people who run DPMS guns hard without too much trouble? Yes. Are there a lot more people who have problems with DPMS guns run hard than with other more respected brands? Yes. Do serious shooters, instructors, and armorers recommend against DPMS? Yes.
There is an entire world of people out there who would be perfectly satisfied with a Kimber (and a DPMS). Those folks don't tend to ask for gear advice at M4C. Just sayin' ...
No one denies there are new production Kimbers that run well. But Kimbers have demonstrated a higher tendency to failure than comparable brands. If you knew that 20% of all Kimbers failed right out of the box, would you buy one? Probably not ... even though four out of five owners would tell you their Kimbers were perfect.
You might be right. But you also might be wrong. At the risk of stiring up conspiracy theories, nobody here knows how many Kimbers fail out of the box. If Kimber makes 50,000+ pistols a year, even 5% failure rate would be 2,500+ pistols returned every year.
The DPMS analogy is perfectly valid. Are there people who own DPMS guns that run well? Yes. Are there people who run DPMS guns hard without too much trouble? Yes. Are there a lot more people who have problems with DPMS guns run hard than with other more respected brands? Yes. Do serious shooters, instructors, and armorers recommend against DPMS? Yes.
There is an entire world of people out there who would be perfectly satisfied with a Kimber (and a DPMS). Those folks don't tend to ask for gear advice at M4C. Just sayin' ...
Most people recognize that a Kimber is in a different class than a Wilson, Baer, EB, NH, etc. That much has been stated several times this thread. Most people also recognize that a DPMS is in a different class than Colt, LMT, DD, etc. The fact that "serious" shooters or instructors realize that very point should come as no surprise. Despite attempts by some, I don't think this thread (or the DPMS thread that Grant so graciously referenced) was ever about, "My Kimber/DPMS is just as good as your _____."
I'm getting the feeling that some people just want to have a pissing contest about how much they know or how hard they train. As always though, YMMV.
G34Shooter
03-19-09, 12:55
I'm getting the feeling that some people just want to have a pissing contest about how much they know or how hard they train. As always though, YMMV.
I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the concept of this M4C and that this is less catered to shooters that treat firearms and training as a hobby.
G34Shooter
03-19-09, 12:57
You might be right. But you also might be wrong. At the risk of stiring up conspiracy theories, nobody here knows how many Kimbers fail out of the box. If Kimber makes 50,000+ pistols a year, even 5% failure rate would be 2,500+ pistols returned every year.
Most people recognize that a Kimber is in a different class than a Wilson, Baer, EB, NH, etc. That much has been stated several times this thread. Most people also recognize that a DPMS is in a different class than Colt, LMT, DD, etc. The fact that "serious" shooters or instructors realize that very point should come as no surprise. Despite attempts by some, I don't think this thread (or the DPMS thread that Grant so graciously referenced) was ever about, "My Kimber/DPMS is just as good as your _____."
I'm getting the feeling that some people just want to have a pissing contest about how much they know or how hard they train. As always though, YMMV.
I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the concept of this M4C and that this is less catered to shooters that treat firearms and training as a hobby.
I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand the concept of this M4C and that this is less catered to shooters that treat firearms and training as a hobby.
Catering to "serious" shooting has nothing to do with the words used or the tone of the advice given. Plenty of times over the last several months I have seen good advice given without the chest thumping.
G34Shooter
03-19-09, 13:19
Catering to "serious" shooting has nothing to do with the words used or the tone of the advice given. Plenty of times over the last several months I have seen good advice given without the chest thumping.
I look at it as "Words of Wisdom" regardless of the fashion it is delivered, and IMO I have not seen any chest thumping... There are forums of a certain school that will go to the point of being insulting if you don't agree with them which would probably bother someone like you, then there are some of us who are thicker skinned than that. Don't take it personally if your preference in firearms is not well liked by some serious end users, instructors or industry professionals.
I look at it as "Words of Wisdom" regardless of the fashion it is delivered, and IMO I have not seen any chest thumping... There are forums of a certain school that will go to the point of being insulting if you don't agree with them which would probably bother someone like you, then there are some of us who are thicker skinned than that. Don't take it personally if your preference in firearms is not well liked by some serious end users, instructors or industry professionals.
Words of wisdom is a good way to look at it.
Nighthawk vs kimber? thats like ferarri vs yugo....
I personally would not use a Kimber to hold my door open. YMMV.
Nothing in these two quotes is meant to impart wisdom. I've seen training/background/job status used to back up statements just like this all over the forum.
At the risk of stiring up conspiracy theories, nobody here knows how many Kimbers fail out of the box. If Kimber makes 50,000+ pistols a year, even 5% failure rate would be 2,500+ pistols returned every year.
Certainly true. The point, which seems lost on those unwilling to hear it, is that Kimbers have a long-earned reputation for failing at a noticeably higher rate than comparably priced guns.
I'm getting the feeling that some people just want to have a pissing contest about how much they know or how hard they train. As always though, YMMV.
I don't even own a 1911 and honestly couldn't care less which one(s) you own. If you feel it's chest-thumping to relay experience to someone who is trying to decide on the purchase of an expensive piece of life-saving equipment, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I got a Kimber Warrior that came from the factory unable to reliably feed several brands of factory hardball when using Wilson 7 round mags and CMC powermags. It would often have failures to feed and sometimes the slide would lock back with rounds still in the magazine. Even after 500 rounds fired it had not worn in.
After over $400 and 3 trips to two different gunsmith it still was not reliable and had a variety of wierd types of malfunctions like having the ambi safety loosen inside the gun and prevent the safety from being disengaged, as well as eject a case in the middle of the string of fire and fail to feed the next round. The last one happened about 3 magazines into a practice session after it had previously been cleaned with Remington Golden Saber ammo. Since I did not trust the gun, I dumped it.
The early Kimbers may have been good, but the later ones seem to have a higer incidence of problems.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.