NIGHTHAWK or KIMBER?

[greene]

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]

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

[LDM]

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.

[Triton28]

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]

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.

[JonInWA]

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]

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.

[Federale]

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]

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]

Nighthawk vs kimber?

thats like ferarri vs yugo....