SIG vs Kimber 4" 1911 , cont'd
Got locked out while I was typing this in response to the last thread. . .boy I hate that!
quote:511PE
Ever wounder why Lexus's head lights seem to biodegrade faster than most U.S.A. made vehicles?
No, actually I haven't spent a lot of time pondering the street life of Lexus headlamps. But agreeing for the sake of argument that this claim about Lexus plastic is true, I'm not sure what it has to do with where Kimber and/or SIG source their gun parts.
Either "American made" means something, or it doesn't. Which is it?
Again, for what its worth, Kimber makes its 1911 frames in-house in Yonkers, NY. Sig-Sauer manufactures its 1911 frames in-house in Exeter NH.
The SIG frames are cast, and they use forged slides.
The Kimber frames and slides are forged, but most of the other solid components are MIM (which SIG avoids).
What exactly all this means is the subject of another 100 posts, but suffice it to say that Ruger builds all its revolvers from cast parts, and they're recognized as the strongest production revolvers on the market. "Cast" does not necessarily mean "inferior", and neither does "MIM". That comes down to what alloys are being used, how well the manufacturing process is conducted, and what the parts are being used for. Lower cost in non-critical parts IS potentially a real-world advantage.
quote:The 1911, I understand was re-calibrated into a .45 from something like a .38 for a Government contract.
Well, that's true, but Browning didn't just take his .38 auto, widen the barrel and frame, and release it as the 1911.
The final version that we all know and love was a fairly significant re-design of the original .38 auto design over several iterations and several years, including significant feedback from the military and actual shooters.
quote:Internal firing pins blocks, external extractors, ambi controls, bull barrels, fully ramped barrels, link-less barrels, radial-used barrel feed ramps, pistol lengths shorter than Commander length, full length guide rods, & reverse recoil spring plugs are not how the 1911 was initially designed or introduced.
Well, in fact the Colt Commander was first designed in the early 1950s, some 25+ years after JM Browning died. So if you want to get all "purist" about 1911s, those are "johnny-come-lately" mods too! [;)]
If you are actually looking for something like what John Browning put out in 1911, then you probably don't want either a SIG *or* a Kimber at all (let alone any 4" gun). Both of these are modern interpretations of Brownings 100 year old design, with a number of changes to make them more suitable as modern combat guns.
quote:When something is changed something is lost.
True, though ideally something is also gained.
For example, do all your 1911s maintain the barely visible 'pimple' sights from the original Browning 1911 pistols? I hope not! Is it then fair to say, that "losing" those terrible sights wasn't such a bad thing? [;)]
A bit more seriously, I'm not going to argue about which changes are "good" and which aren't, though I mostly agree with that rundown above. But in any case, handgun design didn't stop in 1911.
Its fair to say that a few things have been learned since then, and that if Browning were alive today building guns, his .45 probably *would* contain some of the design elements he didn't include in 1911.
Now, I do think that if you don't like the way a particular 1911 looks or feels, those are perfectly fair reasons to avoid it. Just realize that look and feel issues are subjective things. Internally, the Kimber and the SIG are far more similar than different. If your metric is "must have visual design cues of a Colt" then do what I suggested in the original thread and just buy an actual Colt.
quote: Kimber is a proven quality standard in 1911 design. I believe they started with the 1911 design, not fallow after everyone else to keep up with the Jone's. I find it odd that Smith&Wesson actually has a design like the 1911, because the Smith&Wesson was what most who seemed to not want a 1911
In a nutshell, Kimbers big innovation was to introduce wide use of MIM parts in 1911 pistols so they could build a high-quality gun yet keep costs down. 20 years ago, that was really "out there". Today nearly everyone is using cast and/or MIM parts (including, I think, Colt).
SIG may not have been building 1911s quite as long as Kimber has, but they have been doing so for several years now, and they have good people on their team. Given its reputation and the quality of its other guns (ever hear of the SIG p210?), I'd like to think SIG can replicate a 100 year old design correctly!
To add a bit of irony here, I believe at various points in time, Caspian of VT made 1911 frames for SIG, Smith, *AND* Kimber! Again, while there are differences in internal safeties and extractors, in fact most of the parts will still interchange between all these different guns. Ultimately, they're more similar than different.
Smith got into the 1911 business for the same reason that Taurus and SIG did. . .specifically because lots of American shooters want these guns, there was (and is) a huge market for 1911s, and Smith felt like it had to have a piece of that market segment. Same exact reason its making AR-15s.
Interestingly, the company that *should* be putting out all the 1911s (and AR-15s), namely Colt, effectively got priced out of the market by Kimber and the others.
quote:511PE
Ever wounder why Lexus's head lights seem to biodegrade faster than most U.S.A. made vehicles?
No, actually I haven't spent a lot of time pondering the street life of Lexus headlamps. But agreeing for the sake of argument that this claim about Lexus plastic is true, I'm not sure what it has to do with where Kimber and/or SIG source their gun parts.
Either "American made" means something, or it doesn't. Which is it?
Again, for what its worth, Kimber makes its 1911 frames in-house in Yonkers, NY. Sig-Sauer manufactures its 1911 frames in-house in Exeter NH.
The SIG frames are cast, and they use forged slides.
The Kimber frames and slides are forged, but most of the other solid components are MIM (which SIG avoids).
What exactly all this means is the subject of another 100 posts, but suffice it to say that Ruger builds all its revolvers from cast parts, and they're recognized as the strongest production revolvers on the market. "Cast" does not necessarily mean "inferior", and neither does "MIM". That comes down to what alloys are being used, how well the manufacturing process is conducted, and what the parts are being used for. Lower cost in non-critical parts IS potentially a real-world advantage.
quote:The 1911, I understand was re-calibrated into a .45 from something like a .38 for a Government contract.
Well, that's true, but Browning didn't just take his .38 auto, widen the barrel and frame, and release it as the 1911.
The final version that we all know and love was a fairly significant re-design of the original .38 auto design over several iterations and several years, including significant feedback from the military and actual shooters.
quote:Internal firing pins blocks, external extractors, ambi controls, bull barrels, fully ramped barrels, link-less barrels, radial-used barrel feed ramps, pistol lengths shorter than Commander length, full length guide rods, & reverse recoil spring plugs are not how the 1911 was initially designed or introduced.
Well, in fact the Colt Commander was first designed in the early 1950s, some 25+ years after JM Browning died. So if you want to get all "purist" about 1911s, those are "johnny-come-lately" mods too! [;)]
If you are actually looking for something like what John Browning put out in 1911, then you probably don't want either a SIG *or* a Kimber at all (let alone any 4" gun). Both of these are modern interpretations of Brownings 100 year old design, with a number of changes to make them more suitable as modern combat guns.
quote:When something is changed something is lost.
True, though ideally something is also gained.
For example, do all your 1911s maintain the barely visible 'pimple' sights from the original Browning 1911 pistols? I hope not! Is it then fair to say, that "losing" those terrible sights wasn't such a bad thing? [;)]
A bit more seriously, I'm not going to argue about which changes are "good" and which aren't, though I mostly agree with that rundown above. But in any case, handgun design didn't stop in 1911.
Its fair to say that a few things have been learned since then, and that if Browning were alive today building guns, his .45 probably *would* contain some of the design elements he didn't include in 1911.
Now, I do think that if you don't like the way a particular 1911 looks or feels, those are perfectly fair reasons to avoid it. Just realize that look and feel issues are subjective things. Internally, the Kimber and the SIG are far more similar than different. If your metric is "must have visual design cues of a Colt" then do what I suggested in the original thread and just buy an actual Colt.
quote: Kimber is a proven quality standard in 1911 design. I believe they started with the 1911 design, not fallow after everyone else to keep up with the Jone's. I find it odd that Smith&Wesson actually has a design like the 1911, because the Smith&Wesson was what most who seemed to not want a 1911
In a nutshell, Kimbers big innovation was to introduce wide use of MIM parts in 1911 pistols so they could build a high-quality gun yet keep costs down. 20 years ago, that was really "out there". Today nearly everyone is using cast and/or MIM parts (including, I think, Colt).
SIG may not have been building 1911s quite as long as Kimber has, but they have been doing so for several years now, and they have good people on their team. Given its reputation and the quality of its other guns (ever hear of the SIG p210?), I'd like to think SIG can replicate a 100 year old design correctly!
To add a bit of irony here, I believe at various points in time, Caspian of VT made 1911 frames for SIG, Smith, *AND* Kimber! Again, while there are differences in internal safeties and extractors, in fact most of the parts will still interchange between all these different guns. Ultimately, they're more similar than different.
Smith got into the 1911 business for the same reason that Taurus and SIG did. . .specifically because lots of American shooters want these guns, there was (and is) a huge market for 1911s, and Smith felt like it had to have a piece of that market segment. Same exact reason its making AR-15s.
Interestingly, the company that *should* be putting out all the 1911s (and AR-15s), namely Colt, effectively got priced out of the market by Kimber and the others.
0
-
Just to re-iterate a point of beantownshootah's, Kimber brought out a custom gun at standard factory prices.
Things like Dovetailed target sights, lowered and flared ejection ports, beavertail grip safeties, speed triggers, and commander style hammers were all custom things that you could have done to your Colt.
Kimber brought it's 1911 to the market with all of those things already installed at the factory.0 -
quote:Originally posted by drobs
Just to re-iterate a point of beantownshootah's, Kimber brought out a custom gun at standard factory prices.
Things like Dovetailed target sights, lowered and flared ejection ports, beavertail grip safeties, speed triggers, and commander style hammers were all custom things that you could have done to your Colt.
Kimber brought it's 1911 to the market with all of those things already installed at the factory.
Beavertail grip safety?
Lowered and flared ejection window?
Ring hammer?
Dovetailed visible sights?
But that's not how John M Browning designed the gun!!! [;)]
OK, a bit more seriously, on Kimber, it wasn't the first company other than Colt to offer 1911s, and I'm pretty sure that many of the "custom" features were also available on other guns at the time Kimber started putting out 1911s. For example, various Colt series 80 guns had (and have) the lowered ejection port, ring hammer, dovetail sights, etc from the factory. . .so long as you were willing to pay for these things! Customization, of course, existed 20 years ago, but there was a lot less demand and consequently fewer makers of aftermarket parts to pick from.
Again, Kimbers specific innovation was heavy use of MIM parts (eg hammer, safety, sear, trigger, etc), letting it put out "custom" guns at a relatively low price point compared to Colt.
Nowadays most of the 1911 makers offer most of these "custom" features either standard or as options: Springfield, Smith, Para, even Rock Island, etc.
Heck, even Taurus offers a 1911 with forged slide and frame, beavertail grip safety, match-style trigger, dovetailed (though unfortunately non-standard) sights, extended ambi-thumb safety, front and back checkering, beveled mag well, etc, for only $600. How does it do this? Same as Kimber did 20 years ago. . .it makes all its small parts in house using MIM, plus of course Taurus can take advantage of cheaper labor in Brazil.
So I think the question of what Kimber did 15 years ago is somewhat mooted.
Right now the market is so saturated with 1911 pistols from various makers, I can see why it might be difficult to differentiate one from another, let alone separate the hype/BS from reality.0 -
Reading all this stuff on 1911's from people who know their s""t makes me want to shoot my BadA "s kimber 9 mm the b"" ch bout cleaning it! 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments