Kimber: Is their use of carbon steel a cost savings measure?

[JasonWilliam]

This came up in a recent discussion, and later again in PMs with between myself and someone else. What is your opinion?

Does Kimber use a carbon steel barrel to "cut corners"? Are there other reasons, advertised or not, that Kimber might use carbon steal instead of "stainless"?

I am of the opinion that Kimber does not use carbon steel as a cost savings measure. I believe they use it because many competition shooters prefer it. I have no evidence of this officially provided by Kimber, so really it is only my opinion. I feel this way because of my experience that says many competition shooters will choose carbon steel as a matter of preference.

Thoughts?

PLEASE do not turn this into a brand name bash fest. Its an honest question that deserves honest answers. If something is your opinion, please say so. If you have "proof", please provide it. Thanks!

[michael t]

I think their cutting corners myself.

[JasonWilliam]

michael: why do ya think so?

[publius]

I think they are cutting corners also and I know that no competition shooter is going to use a Kimber barrel.

[evan1293]

All I know is that some of the loosest fit Kimbers I've shot were tack drivers. That's nearly impossible unless a gun has a good quality barrel.

[JohnKSa]

Stainless steel is more rust resistant.
Stainless steel is more expensive.
Stainless steel tends to be harder to machine.

So stainless steel isn't employed to save money or to make manufacturing easier, it's used to provide a feature that the purchaser wants and is willing to pay extra for.I believe they use it because many competition shooters prefer it.Where are you getting your information that competition shooters prefer carbon steel barrels to stainless steel?

I don't think there's really any practical difference beyond the corrosion resistance in handguns, but from what I can tell, competition shooters in the rifle sports tend towards stainless steel barrels.Does Kimber use a carbon steel barrel to "cut corners"?Ok, a question for a question. You want to know if they're cutting corners. I want to know why they would leave their carbon steel barrels unfinished?

[noyes]

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/barrel_making.htm

1911-A1 Barrels & Accuracy:
Fit slide to frame (tighten); parkerizing or bluing included
Fit match barrel & bushing (.45ACP, non-supported chamber)
Fit fully ramped & supported chamber match barrel (Specify barrel & bushing or bull barrel)
Fit match bushing only to barrel & slide (5” pistols only)
Modify frame for ramped & supported barrel
Fit & install custom cone style compensator & match barrel (Includes rebluing or parkerizing)
As above, except barrels with supported chambers
Fit & install custom bushing style compensator & match barrel (Includes rebluing or parkerizing)
As above, except barrels with supported chambers

[JasonWilliam]

Where are you getting your information that competition shooters prefer carbon steel barrels to stainless steel?(Just to be clear, I said many prefer. Not all, by any means obviously.)

Nothing official. Just what I've read, what I've heard at the range, what I've seen and asked and been told.

The logic, as I understand it, is that carbon steel is harder than the "stainless" used in production pistols. I quote stainless because I'm not sure what alloys we're talking about here (I haven't seen any manufacturer really advertise that. Except the high end guys.). So the idea is, just like in knifes, the carbon steel will hold its rifling longer (like a carbon steel knife will hold its edge longer) than stainless. Which, in turn, means barrel stays more accurate longer, and that replacement doesn't need to happen as often.

By all means, please correct me if I'm wrong about any of that?

[Sturmgewehre]

Stainless is harder than carbon steel. It's a fact that stainless is harder on machine tools, thereby shortening the life of the tool and driving the cost of manufacturing up. On an individual barrel, the cost is relatively low. Multiply that by 60,000 a year and the cost becomes something that catches the eye of bean counters.

Kimber leaves their carbon barrels in the white to give the illusion that they're using the more expensive stainless barrels like their competition. There's absolutely no other excuse for leaving carbon steel in the white.

Kimber's have a reputation for rusting. I've seen more than a few factory Kimbers rusted right out of the box. On a carry pistol having carbon steel in the white is an extremely bad idea, and it's not even a good idea for a range weapon. Simply touching carbon steel with your finger starts the corrosion process almost immediately.

[JasonWilliam]

Sturm, thanks for the info. Questions:

Its really hard to talk about hardness when we don't know what alloys we're talking about, but as I understand it, the more carbon, the harder the steel. I've checked several sources that have confirmed this (here (http://ezinearticles.com/?High-Carbon-Steel-vs-Stainless-Steel-for-Your-Hunting-Knife---Which-is-Better?&id=833414) for example).

Can you explain what you mean when you stay stainless is harder than carbon? Do you have some info on which stainless alloys are being used? How about which carbon alloys? Heat treat method?

All these would seem to factor into deciding this. And if you are aware of the alloy Kimber uses, and perhaps a competitor uses we can look up their hardnesses on an SAE chart and know for sure.

Regarding why Kimber leaves them white... well you seem to be implying some sorty of sneakyness or underhandedness there. I'd rather this didn't turn into a brand bash, so if we can leave that sort of implication out of this, that would be great.

As for rust... again that's not really something I'm asking about here. I believe a properly cared for carbon barrel will avoid any rust issues at all. Pretty sure its a non issue when proper gun care is implemented.

[JasonWilliam]

Wups I edited out my quote from Kimber. After rereading, it doesn't apply here since they're talking about the frame material and not the barrel material. My bad.

[shepherddogs]

You likely won't find many Kimber barrels in competition guns. You will find a lot of Kart barrels though. As far as I am aware they only come in carbon steel. So that sort of debunks the myth that carbon steel barrels are inferior.

[Sturmgewehre]

Regarding why Kimber leaves them white... well you seem to be implying some sorty of sneakyness or underhandedness there. I'd rather this didn't turn into a brand bash, so if we can leave that sort of implication out of this, that would be great.
Just because I say something you don't like or perhaps don't agree with doesn't mean I'm a "basher". Let's try to keep this civil, shall we? The last thread got locked because civility was lost (and I admit my hand in it). So if you can avoid calling me a basher I bet we get much further this time around.

As for rust... again that's not really something I'm asking about here. I believe a properly cared for carbon barrel will avoid any rust issues at all. Pretty sure its a non issue when proper gun care is implemented.
If what you were saying were true, we would have a virtual plethora of in the white handguns on the market. "Properly cared for" unfinished carbon steel is an oxymoron to me. There's a reason every single manufacturer out there applies a protective finish to carbon steel. It's not because they think it looks pretty, it's because it's a necessity.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Forums/guns/ultra_carry.jpg

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m167/tharmsen/Forums/guns/tle_2.jpg

That's what happens when you leave carbon in the white. These two Kimbers were still on the dealers shelf (two weeks old) and they had already rusted. If they had been properly finished, this rust wouldn't be there. Worse, they also had signs of rust in their bores.

This isn't a unique incident. It's actually quite common. All Kimber would have to do is apply a finish to the barrels to avoid this problem, but then they wouldn't have that stainless look of the competition. Again, why else would they leave unfinished steel in their guns? Can you honestly say there is some benefit to doing this?

[Sturmgewehre]

You likely won't find many Kimber barrels in competition guns. You will find a lot of Kart barrels though. As far as I am aware they only come in carbon steel. So that sort of debunks the myth that carbon steel barrels are inferior.
I haven't said carbon steel is inferior to stainless. I have said if left unfinished it's prone to rust. I honestly don't think, from a performance perspective, that carbon is inferior to stainless. But in a carry gun I would NEVER have unfinished carbon steel in my gun. I wouldn't have unfinished carbon steel in any firearm I use.

The question is, why does Kimber leave their barrels unfinished?

[JasonWilliam]

Sturm... no. No that is not the question. I asked a very specific question, that did not include any mention of rust nor any mention of Kimber's motivations beyond cost savings.

I'm confused as to why you're mentioning either here, and I'd like you to stop. Please.

[Sturmgewehre]

Sure thing, I'm out.

[JasonWilliam]

Well, you don't have to leave :) You made an interesting comment or two and I asked a couple questions in response. I'd love to read your answer (or anyone's answer) to those questions, if you're willing. It will help me understand this issue quite a bit.

Specifically:
Can you explain what you mean when you stay stainless is harder than carbon? Do you have some info on which stainless alloys are being used? How about which carbon alloys? Heat treat method?

All these would seem to factor into deciding this. And if you are aware of the alloy Kimber uses, and perhaps a competitor uses we can look up their hardnesses on an SAE chart and know for sure.

[JohnKSa]

So that sort of debunks the myth that carbon steel barrels are inferior. I didn't say that carbon steel barrels in pistols are inferior, I was asking where the information about competition shooters preferring carbon steel came from.

As demonstrated by the link in noyes post, competition shooters who buy Lilja rifle barrels overwhelmingly prefer stainless steel. That seems to be the norm in rifle competition where barrel wear is a major issue. It is commonly accepted that stainless rifle barrels last more rounds before accuracy drop-off becomes an issue.

Frankly, as I said previously, I don't think that makes a practical difference in pistol barrels. That gets us back to corrosion resistance being the primary (if not the sole) benefit to using stainless steel in pistol barrels.

Clearly there IS a benefit or no manufacturer would spend extra money to buy stainless steel stock or deal with the extra hassle of machining stainless steel. Nor would any purchaser spend the extra money for a finished stainless steel product.Can you explain what you mean when you stay stainless is harder than carbon? Do you have some info on which stainless alloys are being used? How about which carbon alloys? Heat treat method?All irrelevant. No gun barrel is hardened to anywhere near the limit of what the best carbon or stainless steels can take. In other words, the hardness of the barrels has very little to do with the type of steel used and is rather based on the decision of the designer/manufacturer.So the idea is, just like in knifes, the carbon steel will hold its rifling longer (like a carbon steel knife will hold its edge longer) than stainless. Some tests indicate that stainless holds an edge better than carbon steel in some applications, but that's neither here nor there as knife steel is hardened to a level FAR above the hardness of a gun barrel.

Second, rifle competitors commonly accept that stainless steel barrels last longer than carbon steel barrels.I asked a very specific question, that did not include any mention of rust nor any mention of Kimber's motivations beyond cost savings.

I'm confused as to why you're mentioning either here, and I'd like you to stop. Please. Leaving carbon steel barrels unfinished is almost certainly an example of "corner cutting" to save cost. It is certainly relevant to the topic at hand.

It looks to me like you want to prove that it's not a cost cutting measure to use unfinished carbon steel barrels instead of using stainless steel or finished carbon steel. That's going to be a really tough row to hoe, in my opinion.

Your primary alternative explanation, that competition shooters prefer carbon steel remains unsubstantiated. If you really want to make any progress, I'd start by providing evidence to substantiate that explanation/claim.

[2cooltoolz]

deleted, sorry I was drawn in

[johnbt]

I have no idea.

My Stainless Gold Match has a stainless barrel. There were a number of Kimber models that came with stainless barrels. That was 1999, don't they still offer guns with stainless barrels?

John

[JasonWilliam]

Geez. I'm not trying to "prove" anything.

Regarding hardness of the steel... I haven't heard that before; that hardness is irrelevant. As I understand it, temps inside the barrel can reach 1300deg, plenty hot enough to anneal. I'll see what I can find on this and post it up as well.

Has anyone actually asked Kimber, or other manufacturer's like Springfield? I think I'll send off a email later this morning.

[JasonWilliam]

Just did some quick googling regarding barrel steel hardness, and this came up. I found it to be a very good read, although a bit incomplete. They pretty clearly say that 416 Stainless is a poor choice for barrel use, but they don't say which steel they use instead:

http://www.schuemann.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=66qvYywiHmo%3D&tabid=67&mid=445

Again, this gets back to needing to understand what alloys we're talking about here. Apparently its not enough to just say "carbon steel" and "stainless steel". We need to know what alloy of each, if we're going to compare.

[RickB]

Some of the best aftermarket 1911 barrels are made by Kart, and they use only carbon steel. Les Baer pistols have (or did have) Kart barrels, and they're left in the white because bluing them would quickly result in a rather ratty appearance, from the slide rubbing the exposed part of the chamber. I have Kart barrels in two of my guns, and there are certainly no corners being cut, there. You will find that a lot of production "stainless" 1911s have only the major components made from stainless, and the small parts are mostly plated carbon steel, so it's no surprise that Kimber would use carbon barrels, too.

[JasonWilliam]

Interesting Rick! You're Kart reference led me to do a little more reading... and I came up with this:

http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/afmmain.aspx?faqid=18

Its sure seems to me that hardness is a key element in all this.

Anyone know if Kimber barrels are "4150 ordnance steel"? Anyone know if they're "chrome lined"?

Composing an email to send off to Kimber now...

[Rinspeed]

Fred Kart is fond of saying "Stainless Steel is great for pots and pans!" I made the statement in the other thread that I think carbon steel is a much better material than SS for barrels. I should have said for 1911 barrels not just barrels because I know there are a lot of bench rest rifle barrels made of SS but I have no idea what type of SS.

[JasonWilliam]

I shot an email off to Schuemann thanking them for their info regarding 416. I also asked them what alloy they use, and why, and if they have any info on what others use. Here's their response:

Jason,

416 can be a good or a bad choice. There are many different grades of 416 much like there are many different guns out there. The key is to use the proper configuration for the proper use.

We use only the highest grade 416R which has a very low sulfur content. (The R stands for rifle grade) The metallurgical content of each grade needs to be evaluated to ensure that it will meet the specifications of use. All of our material is purchased from one source and inspected at the mill prior to shipment.

It is also important to heat treat the material in a vacuum furnace and temper it to the correct level. Our process is the best for pistol or rifle use. Many other manufacturing methods may induce stresses during their process and/or use several machines during the process, our barrels do not move from machine to machine during manufacture and thus keep the true position during the process.

I can not comment on what everyone uses in their barrels but it is safe to say that they are trying to meet a cost point on their components and provide a product a certain price range. Many of the manufacturers use barrels from overseas, we use USA materials and produce all of our barrels in our Washington facility. Being in aerospace Manufacturing/Engineering/Management for over 20 years I look at things in a different prospective then most and quality is our goal.

He went on a bit more to give me some background on him and the company, but the above is the meat as it applies to our discussion.

I'm growing more and more convinced this isn't a simple issue. Its not enough to point at "stainless" and call it superior, its not enough to point at "carbon" and say its superior, or vice versa.

Either way this is really interesting!

[RickB]

And, the quality of a barrel installation is at least as important as the barrel itself. If you have a top-flight bullseye 'smith fit one barrel, and Bubba fits the other, it's very unlikely that Bubba's gun will perform better, even if the barrel was more accurate. One of the gunrags did a 1911 barrel test some years ago, mounting the barrels in a fixture that would remove barrel fit and human error from the equation; it was soley a test of barrel accuracy. Some of the barrels were high-end aftermarket brands, one was a G.I. contract barrel from WWII, etc., and there wasn't a whole lot of correlation amongst the source of the barrel, the material, the price, and the accuracy. The accuracy of a fitted barrel is about the fitting, as much as the barrel.

[BigJimP]

Interesting discussion ....

in general I think they're probably using carbon steel - because its cheaper to machine for them or for their vendors - so I would say it probably is a cost savings for them on some models. I don't know if Kimber is making their own barrels or not ...and I doubt they'll tell you.

I don't know that there is a plus on either side / but all things being equal - I'd rather have a stainless barrel. I only have 2 Kimbers - one is a Tactical Pro model, 4" and I think it has a carbon steel barrel and retail was around $900 a few yrs ago / one is a Gold Combat Stainless II and I know it has a stainless barrel in it - and retail was around $1,500 a few yrs ago. As far as my higher end guns / like Wilson Combat ( I have a CQB and some Protector models $ 2,500 - $3,000 ) - they all have stainless match grade barrels ( but I think they make some models of their guns with carbon barrels too - but not sure )...

I think more than the material the barrel is made from / its the way its fit into the gun / with the bushing or a bull barrel or cone barrel, etc that makes it a better barrel ....and a better gun .... At the mid level pricing / I think all the mfg's are looking at ways to cut some costs and compete with the cheaper imports on the low end especially - so it doesn't surprise me to see carbon steel barrels in $1,000 mid priced 1911's ...

I don't have any idea what the "big shooters" spec in their guns ....but its kind of like buying Calloway golf clubs / I can buy a set at my local pro shops ...but I'm not convinced they're exactly the same clubs that the sponsored pros are using .... they might look the same / but I doubt they're the same... Same thing on guns / Enos, Latham, Miculek etc ....might be getting something a little special ( that you and I can't really buy ) ...

[JasonWilliam]

Thanks again Rick. And thanks for the thoughts BigJim. Good stuff.

Kimber actually called me in response to my email. I spoke with a representative who answered all my questions as best she could. Right up front, she said that they (Kimber) do not release information on exactly what alloy they use. Apparently, few others in this level of gun do either (I have a similar email into Springfield, so we'll see what they're willing to share).

She informed me that most of their full size guns employ carbon steel for their barrels. She also told me that they'll custom build one with stainless, as per order, and that a few of their older models come with stainless as well. She did say that those guns come with stainless as more for legacy purposes; its what fans of that particular model expect.

She was very willing to tell me which exact guns come with carbon, and which come with stainless. I got no sense whatsoever that it was some sort of secret, or that the info was purposely being obscured.

I point blank asked: "So when someone tells me Kimber uses carbon steel as a cost savings measure, what should I say?" She laughed and said that all of their barrels are "match grade" barrels, carbon or stainless, and that should pretty much end the conversation. Her point was, if cost savings was the issue, they would not go to the trouble of making them, and advertising them as, "match grade" barrels.

So there ya go. I don't like that they won't tell you what alloy they use, nor do they tell you how they heat treat or harden it. "Proprietary" information...

But is she right? Does the "hey its a match grade barrel" end the cost-savings debate?

[BigJimP]

I'm glad to hear they got back to you.

I don't think it will end your debate ....but like I said, I don't know as it really matters if its a match grade barrel / or if the gun comes with an accuracy guarantee. ( but none of the Kimbers come with an accuracy guarantee, as far as I know - not even their custom shop guns -- like Gold Combat Stainless, Raptor, etc ...

The deal breaker for me on a 1911 - is the feel of the trigger - how it breaks, resets, no slack, no slop, etc ....and I like all my 1911's with about a 3 1/2 lb trigger ...in a carry gun or a range gun, it doesn't matter to me. Then it comes down to looks and features ....so that's why I have a few of the Wilson Combat, Protector models ......all stainless, ambi safety, mag well, full length guide rod, night sites, cocobolo grips and a 1" guarantee at 25 yards ...and the only thing not to like is the price ...at around $ 2,885 today .....I think that's a good value for a great gun ( better than my Les Baer or my Ed Brown / and way better than my Kimber Gold Combat Stainless II ) .....in my opinion.

http://www.wilsoncombat.com/p_protector.asp

here is a photo of some of my 1911's ...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=54474&d=1259866336

at lower left is my primary carry gun --- a Wilson CQB 5" .45 acp / then a Wilson Protector all stainless in 9mm I think in this photo / Kimber Gold combat stainless .45acp / a Kimber Tactical Pro model in 9mm / and upper left Les Baer monolith in 9mm .....

[beltjones]

The only way the notion that they use carbon steel because it's preferred by competitors would hold water is if Kimber pistols were actually preferred by competitors. To my knowledge, that is not the part of the market they are focused on.

Now if Les Baer uses carbon steel because it's popular with Bullseye shooters that's a different matter. Ditto if STI/SVI use carbon steel because it's preferred by USPSA shooters. But Kimber's pistols aren't exactly targeted at the market of competitors, so I refuse to believe that Kimber is making significant design decisions based on what competitive shooters value.

[JohnKSa]

Its sure seems to me that hardness is a key element in all this.Typical barrel steel isn't hardened anywhere near the limits of what carbon or stainless steel alloys can do. It's not hard to find stainless steel alloys that can be hardened up to the high 50s on the RC scale without getting too brittle. Carbon steel can beat that by a few points getting up to the low 60s on the RC scale.

Barrels are hardened to only the mid 30s--some even softer.

If a manufacturer wants to make a barrel of hard steel, the choice of stainless or carbon steel isn't going to be the limiting factor. It's possible to make a barrel far harder than any on the market using either carbon or stainless steel.

As far as accuracy goes, the choice of steel type is virtually irrelevant. The manufacturing processes and fitting is going to make the difference here, not the materials.

As I said in my first post, the only significant advantage provided by stainless in this application is the corrosion resistance.

So it's cheaper to make/sell carbon steel barrels.

Do they perform as well as stainless steel?

That's really a meaningless question in terms of accuracy. If they're made and fitted right they'll perfom well since how they're made and fitted is really the issue.

But they obviously don't perform as well as stainless steel in terms of corrosion resistance.

Ok, a less expensive product that doesn't offer all the advantages of the more expensive product. Is that a cost cutting measure? What else you gonna call it without making up new definitions for common words?She laughed and said that all of their barrels are "match grade" barrels, carbon or stainless, and that should pretty much end the conversation.How is that an answer? The fact that they're ALL match grade barrels doesn't change the fact that it's cheaper to produce one than the other.

[Sturmgewehre]

Even more entertaining is calling up the manufacturer and asking them if their product is inferior to the competitions. What do you expect them to say, yes? :)

[noyes]

Amazin.....................

[JasonWilliam]

Still poking away, eh Sturm? Please explain how your last post adds to the conversation? Because it sure seems to me you're continuing to take cheap shots at an otherwise good discussion.

What I asked originally, if you'll kindly recall, is what alloy they use. They refused to provide that answer. So I asked the next logical question... since Kimber won't provide the info needed to directly answer the corner cutting question, what do they suggest an answer be? Did she give me a sales answer? Of course she did. But does that make her wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that there's a standard answer for what "match grade" is, so its hard to compare and therefore know for sure. Maybe someone has measured and compared different "match grade" and non match grade (standard?) barrels, and compared the tolerances?

John, thanks for post. It makes sense. It just doesn't matter what material it is, so long as its machined well and fit properly.

*****
For the record, some of you sure make it hard to learn anything around here. If you're not trying to make someone feel stupid for asking questions, you're ridiculing them for not understanding. I would have hoped for more from grown adults.

To those that genuinely are trying to help, you have my thanks.

[SVO]

I have Colts, Kimbers and a Norinco, and I consider the barrel material to be a non-issue. I'm sure at at least some of my Colts don't have stainless barrels and I don't think that Colt uses any kind of finish on the barrels. I'm pretty sure that our little yellow gun making brothers didn't used stainless in the barrel for the Norinco. I do think that the machining of a carbon steel barrels in general to be a cost saving due to being easier to machine. I don't find that to be dishonesty on Kimber's part. The only thing I have against the 3 Kimbers I have is the crappy caliber stamping on the barrel hood. If the Chinese can do a nice barrel stamping, why can't the boys from New York do the same?

[AZAK]

Does Kimber use a carbon steel barrel to "cut corners"?
Add, "unfinished/in the white" and the answer is: Yes.

Are there other reasons, advertised or not, that Kimber might use carbon steal instead of "stainless"?
No. Did Kimber give you any? They answered your questions for you: No.

But is she right? Does the "hey its a match grade barrel" end the cost-savings debate?

So are all of their "match grade barrels" equal?

Does that come with an accuracy guarantee? Straight from Kimber's site/ the Custom Shop page (The only custom shop pistol with an accuracy guarantee has a stainless steel barrel):

"The Super Match II .45 ACP is designed for action shooting or accuracy competitions, but most of them are carried for personal protection. Each one is guaranteed to have fired a 5-shot, 25-yard group measuring one inch or less center-to-center, and that kind of accuracy ensures confidence. Stainless steel slide, frame and barrel" ... "MSRP: $2225.00"


Get off of their "Custom Shop" page and even their "match grade" stainless barrels do not have this guarantee, even with "hand fitting by the custom shop" (But, they are stainless):

"The Gold Match II and Stainless Gold Match II are the finest production pistols offered by Kimber. Both feature a stainless steel match grade barrel that is machined oversized and then fitted by hand in the Custom Shop for accuracy. All flat surfaces are polished to a high shine that contrasts satin over the curves. The Team Match II is an “all go” version of the Stainless Gold Match, designed specifically for the U.S.A. Shooting Rapid Fire Pistol Team to use in action shooting competitions at national and international levels. Unique Team Match II features include 30 lines-per-inch front strap checkering and extended magazine well. ... MSRP: $1345.00

I didn't find that guarantee with the carbon "match grade" barrels on their lower priced pistols. (And note that even on the Stainless model, the barrel is not stainless.):

"Stainless II™
Specifications: Height (inches) 90° to barrel: 5.25
Weight (ounces) with empty magazine: 38
Length (inches): 8.7
Magazine capacity: 7
Recoil spring (pounds): 16.0
Full length guide rod
Frame: Material: Stainless steel
Finish: Satin silver
Width (inches): 1.28
Slide: Material: Stainless steel
Finish: Satin silver
Front serrations
Barrel: Length (inches): 5
Material: Steel, match grade
Stainless steel match grade bushing
Twist rate (left hand): 16
Sights: Fixed low profile
Radius (inches): 6.8
Grips: Black synthetic
Double diamond
Trigger: Aluminum Match Grade
Factory setting (appx. pounds): 4.0 - 5.0
MSRP: $964.00"

There is your answer again: Yes, cost savings is the reason.

[Dobe]

I think it has become a no-brainer. Kimber uses carbon steel for their barrels. Carbon steel is cheaper to purchase and to work on. Kimber tells the OP that it doesn't matter what they use, because their barrels are match grade.

Now define match grade, and by who's standards are Kimber barrels match grade?

By the way, I have 6 Kimber 1911's. What Sturm said was true. If Kimber were not trying to "suggest" to the public that their barrels were stainless, they would protect their barrels. I have more than one rust area on my Kimber barrels.

Kimber has a history of deluding the public. There was a time when Kimber sold stainless 1911's (frame and slide) coated with their standard finish. They never once informed the public that those handguns were not carbon steel. The suggestion to me is that it was cheaper to standardize on one steel, and merely coat the handgun. So, during that time period, if you bought a stainless Kimber 1911, you had a stainless Kimber 1911. If, on the other hand, you purchased a finished 1911, you had purchased a carbon or a stainless steel 1911. You simply didn't know, and what is worse, you assumed it was carbon, because the industry standard was to coat or finish carbon steel.

While stainless is more expsensive than carbon to both purchase and machine, it is still cheaper logistically to standardize on one steel. Smith & Wesson had done this at one time. It was difficult to find a Smith model, which wasn't stainless.

Footnote: While I am not a metalurgist, I assume that stainless used in gun barrels is harder than carbon steel, because of the amount of chrome content. There are many ways to make steel stainless. Stainless steel pipes used within many of the chemical plants have such a high nickle content that the pipes are not magnetic, and this type of stainless is relatively soft.

[Sturmgewehre]

Still poking away, eh Sturm? Please explain how your last post adds to the conversation? Because it sure seems to me you're continuing to take cheap shots at an otherwise good discussion.

My point is exceptionally relevant. Who here would ask any manufacturer of any product if their wares were the end result of "cost cutting" or the product of cheap components and expect them to say "yes, we cut corners where we can"?

Her answer was clearly a deflection, and wasn't even relevant to the question you asked her. But you accepted it and even tried to present it here as a valid explanation for the use of unfinished carbon steel in barrels.

You don't know what "match" means? It means something is built to stringent specifications. It's a rather ambiguous statement to say something is of "match" quality as there is no accepted standard for "match" specifications. A manufacturer can claim just about anything is "match" quality.

[johnbt]

If Kimber is 'trying to suggest' their barrels are stainless, then why do they list what the barrel is made of in the product chart in the catalog?

They've done this ever since I bought my Stainless Gold Match in 1999. It was in the catalog then and it's still there. One column for steel and one for stainless steel. They still have models with stainless barrels.

Pages 58 and 59

www.kimberamerica.com/downloads/catalog/Kimber_2010_Catalog.pdf

John

P.S. - Match quality means the barrel doesn't rattle like a worn out military 1911. It doesn't necessarily mean it will shoot any better, but it probably will do better than 3 to 5 inches at 25 yards.

edited to add: www.rif.org

[Sturmgewehre]

If Kimber is 'trying to suggest' their barrels are stainless, then why do they list what the barrel is made of in the product chart in the catalog?
When someone goes to shop for a 1911, they look at different models on the shelf typically. If they check out a DW and it has a shinny stainless barrel, they're going to expect the next pistol to have the same. If it doesn't, the perception will be that the one with the black barrel is cheaper or is made of less expensive parts. So, the solution is to leave the carbon barrel in the white so it looks almost identical to the competitors model sitting on the shelf next to it. The vast majority of 1911 buyers have no idea what they're looking at or even what they're shopping for. Most of them are impressed with hokie features like "raptor" scales on wood grips and flashy names roll marked on the slide. Pure marketing.

I used to work in a gunshop and I would say 80% of the buyers of any particular gun were novices and could be sold just about anything.

There is absolutely no valid reason to leave a production pistol's barrel in the white other than to make it look like something it's not. If you can give me one valid reason as to why someone would not finish a critical component made of carbon steel with a protective finish, I'm all ears (or eyes).

Until then, it's clearly a cost cutting measure and it can be argued the practice is purposely deceptive.

[noyes]

stainless steel rubbing stainless steel causes galling hence different materials

[vladan]

Regardless if Kimber is cutting corners or not ( I believe they do ), leaving carbon steel in white is bad practice. Since Kart barrels came up as an example :

Posted by RickB

Some of the best aftermarket 1911 barrels are made by Kart, and they use only carbon steel. Les Baer pistols have (or did have) Kart barrels, and they're left in the white because bluing them would quickly result in a rather ratty appearance, from the slide rubbing the exposed part of the chamber. I have Kart barrels in two of my guns, and there are certainly no corners being cut, there. You will find that a lot of production "stainless" 1911s have only the major components made from stainless, and the small parts are mostly plated carbon steel, so it's no surprise that Kimber would use carbon barrels, too

Kart barrels are left in white by factory because they are GOING TO BE FITTED to the gun and THEN SUPPOSED TO BE BLUED by the gunsmith after fitting. There is no sense to blue barrel that will be fitted and add unnecessary step of removing bluing to properly re-blue the fitted part.

I have 1911 with Kart barrel fitted and blued and 1911 10mm Colt Delta Elite with blued barrel.

Also I am confused where the info about competition shooters preferring carbon steel barrel came from. Most ( if not all ) of guys I shoot use Barsto, Briley or similar SS barrels, even know of guy that got rid of his excellent ( his words ) Kart barrel to fit barsto SS.
But that may be our Florida's humid environment here, dunno...?

[Sturmgewehre]

stainless steel rubbing stainless steel causes galling hence different materials
Not an issue with the barrels. I've never seen a stainless 1911 with a stainless barrel show any signs of galling. Most of the baring surfaces are of different metals. The bushing is rarely the same material as the barrel, and the drop link is rarely the same material as the slide lock pin.

Stainless slides on stainless frames? Yeah, that's been an issue in the past.

[RG Stewart]

If cost-savings is not the prime motivator, and Kimber truly prefers the carbon barrels, what steps could they take to treat the barrel, to guard against corrosion, yet maintain the appearance of an all-stainless gun?
Just a curiosity thing...

[Sturmgewehre]

I'm not sure a finish exists that is durable and looks just like stainless. Perhaps they could do a matte hard chrome finish. It would be as durable, if not more so, than stainless and offer even better corrosion resistance. But then it would likely cost more than just putting a stainless barrel in their lower end guns.

[vladan]

viable options?
If cost-savings is not the prime motivator, and Kimber truly prefers the carbon barrels, what steps could they take to treat the barrel, to guard against corrosion, yet maintain the appearance of an all-stainless gun?
Just a curiosity thing...

Glock do that since day one - tennifer, its surface treatment of the steel, the black coat is parkerizing on top of tenifer treatment

[Wildalaska]

Everyhting is cheap on a Kimber, except the price tag.

Shows how effective marketing can be in gunrags

WildidevenratherhaveaspringfieldAlaska ™

[Dobe]

There was a time when Kimber made a nice 1911. This was before the end of the pre Series II. As a matter of fact, it is not a stretch to give Kimber credit for the increase of quality control of other 1911 manufactures, especially Colt ( and I have a few Colts too). Kimber sold that many, and had a satified customer base.

Something happened along the way. Kimber sold too many too quickly, I suppose. Quality dropped. There were extractor problems, an external extractor, no wait - let's go back to the internal extractor. There were magazine issues, and MIM breakage, and the Swartz system didn't always work well.

All of my Kimber 1911's, with the exception of one 9mm given to me as a Christmas present by my wife, are pre Series II Kimbers. I've not had a problem. Well, I did have an adjustable sight break off as the slide slammed forward on my Target Custom.

My Series II has had problems with the Swartz, but it's a range gun, so I don't really care. I'll never buy another, but I'm in no hurry to rid myself of the ones I own.

[HisSoldier]

Stainless steel isn't "harder" than carbon steel, it's like saying "Girls are pretty", some are, some not so much. Most 1911 barrels are made of half hard 416, which I know from personal experience is a dream to machine. 18-8 stainlesses tend to work harden under the cut, and that's why some folks think it's hard, "Take a heavier cut at slower speed and stay under the layer."

Common stainless is amazingly soft. 416 half hard is about 28-30 RC I think I recall.

See post #5, George Smith. http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=231584&highlight=stainless+barrels

Personally, I prefer stainless, living on the Oregon coast means the death of a gun will come quicker via corrosion than wear. Alloy steels are stronger, wear better and are less corrosion resistant.

Top accuracy over a long time = alloy steel (Non stainless, 4140 for instance.)
I thought I read that Kimber uses 4140 exclusively in their barrels?

[AZAK]

I am of the opinion that Kimber does not use carbon steel as a cost savings measure. I believe they use it because many competition shooters prefer it. I have no evidence of this officially provided by Kimber, so really it is only my opinion. I feel this way because of my experience that says many competition shooters will choose carbon steel as a matter of preference.

Now that you have seen many points of view on this matter, including the fact that (straight from Kimber's web site) Kimber's only accuracy guaranteed 1911 uses a stainless barrel, and (also straight from Kimber's site) that the pistols "designed specifically for the U.S.A. Shooting Rapid Fire Pistol Team to use in action shooting competitions at national and international levels" have stainless barrels, do you still continue to have the above opinion?

If so, what do you base this opinion on?

[Dobe]

What makes a piece of steel stainless, nickel, chromium? If it is nickel, then of course that particualr stainless will be softer than carbon steels. If made stainless by means of a higher chromium content, then I would think the stainless would be harder.

I remember talking with an employee of Randall Knives. He was telling me how much harder it was to forge and shape stainless blades, because it was among other things, harder. He also told me that good stainless could take a more keen edge. Again, because the steel is harder, and the edge would not roll as quickly.

I'm not suggesting a stainless barrel is more accurate than a carbon steel barrel. This is merely a discussion about the two types.

[Mike Irwin]

Only warning, folks.

I'm getting sick and damned tired of these threads turning into p issing matches.

Keep dipping into the personalities of the posters instead of the information that they post, and you might very well find yourself permanently banned from farther participation at TFL.

If that's not clear?

Tough, because that's the only explanation and warning that you'll get.

[beltjones]

I think it's basically been proven so far that the differences between carbon steel vs. stainless for pistol barrels are mainly corrosion resistance and cost.

I has also been proven that Kimber doesn't take any steps to proof their carbon steel barrels against corrosion, unlike many other manufacturers.

So unless someone can give a compelling reason why it makes sense to sell guns with "in the white" carbon steel barrels I think we have to assume that the reason Kimber does so is to reduce manufacturing costs.

[AZAK]

So unless someone can give a compelling reason why it makes sense to sell guns with "in the white" carbon steel barrels I think we have to assume that the reason Kimber does so is to reduce manufacturing costs.

And I would add, to have their barrels "appear" to be stainless.

Yes, I realize that one can verify the barrel material on Kimber's site or catalog; but, really how many do? I have mentioned this topic to a few gun shop counter folk, and most of them were surprised that most of the Kimber's barrels were actually not stainless, until noting the rust forming on the barrels when the slides were locked back on NIB under the glass Kimbers in their stores.

[Dobe]

Yup. The same reasons manufacturers went to cast parts, went to MIM parts, etc. That doesn't mean any of the forementioned will not work well, if properly manufactured, it simply means the process was changed for one main reason...reduction of cost.

[HisSoldier]

I might add also that if indeed Kimber uses 4140 I would call it an alloy steel barrel rather than a carbon steel barrel. Carbon steel has only iron and carbon with impurities, and while chromoly has carbon in it it also has important alloying agents.
BTW, I believe 416 is iron, Chromium and carbon, no nickle, which is part of why it doesn't have the corrosion resistance of other stainless alloys.
Strengthwise, and wearwise 4140 is well ahead of any stainless for barrel making.

But make mine stainless. :)

[JasonWilliam]

Now that you have seen many points of view on this matter, including the fact that (straight from Kimber's web site) Kimber's only accuracy guaranteed 1911 uses a stainless barrel, and (also straight from Kimber's site) that the pistols "designed specifically for the U.S.A. Shooting Rapid Fire Pistol Team to use in action shooting competitions at national and international levels" have stainless barrels, do you still continue to have the above opinion?

If so, what do you base this opinion on? Kimber's response, while somewhat understandable, was unsatifying to say the least. I would think that if they were proud of the materials they use, they would be happy to tell you about them. If not by disclosing what alloy they use, by at least addressing my "why use carbon steel?" question. To answer "hey its a match grade barrel" is sales, at its best.

So yeah, that sucks. And now, having seen it with my own eyes, I can 100% understand why so many have such negative opinions of Kimber as a company... and are so vehament and venomous in their direct, and indirect, comments. I don't share the negative bias, but I understand it.

On this end of the conversation, I think my question wasn't a good question. Its not really what I wanted to know. What I think I wanted to know was this: setting aside corrosion issues, does it matter if a "match grade" barrel is carbon steel or stainless? Thanks to all the explaination here... I think the answer is "no", even though there is no standard answer as to what the heck "match grade" is.

Kimber is using a less expensive material, and they're able to machine it for less as well. Yep... cost savings.

But, as I now understand, that's not really the question. The question is, is their efforts to save money on the barrel detrimental to the pistol and how it shoots? From what I'm reading here, the answer is nope... it just doesn't matter.

[beltjones]

But, as I now understand, that's not really the question. The question is, is their efforts to save money on the barrel detrimental to the pistol and how it shoots? From what I'm reading here, the answer is nope... it just doesn't matter.

If you consider increased susceptibility to rust to be detrimental to your pistol, then yes, it matters.

And if you consider that a gun with a rusted bore will shoot less accurately than one with a pristine bore, then yes, it matters.

I think what we have learned is that the the metal Kimber uses is just fine. However, their lack of rust proofing leaves a lot to be desired.

[AZAK]

In my understanding of the 1911, one of the most important aspects of accuracy is the consistent returning to the same POA/lock up.

There are a number of variables at work here, mechanically speaking, and what we are looking for here is consistent lock up.

Even looking at Kimber's site, for examples, they refer to "hand fitting the barrel" on the two main examples that I cited earlier.

As far as the materials used, I have not bought a newer Kimber for a number of reasons, one being the "unfinished" barrels; I was toying with buying a Kimber, but just can not do it when the NIB barrels already were forming rust. (Reminds me of buying a new car with no paint or primer.) And this makes me question the ethics/priorities/motives of the manufacturer.

While yes, an "unfinished" car or barrel may be initially functionally sound, I personally question why a manufacturer would provide it thus; especially when many/most/all? of their competitors do not.

[RickE]

The untreated carbon steel is one issue in itself, but I do know most carbon steel is harder than stainless. There are exceptions, but for the most part, it's true.

[JasonWilliam]

If you consider increased susceptibility to rust to be detrimental to your pistol, then yes, it matters.I don't. Proper care eliminates the rust concern, in my opinion.

[Rinspeed]

I don't. Proper care eliminates the rust concern, in my opinion.



If you get lazy any tool will rust.

[johnbt]

If people don't do their research before they buy, it's not my fault. The information is easily obtained. If you can't read, you can call and ask. Stuff is exactly what it is sitting there on the shelf.

When somebody asks a question that begins with the word why, I always think of what Arnold Jewell said in a magazine article many years ago about his triggers.

The interviewer asked him what he said when someone asked him why his triggers cost so much.

"They cost what they cost."

[johnbt]

And the 1911 barrel should be oiled or greased anyway. The old Colt barrels were blued and that wore off in a real hurry and they didn't fall completely apart as the decades passed.

It's sort of a non-issue from where I'm sitting.

And where I'm sitting is in sub-tropical Virginia at the western edge of the Tidewater. Stuff rusts here. The James River is brackish, and tidal, downtown and we're 100 miles from the ocean.

[larryh1108]

I have to admit that I learned a lot about barrels and steel with this thread. Very informative. It does appear that accuracy has more to do with fit than finish or composition but all play a factor. I am curious, though, is the OP trying to justify buying a Kimber, not buying a Kimber or just trying to learn as much as possible about pistol barrels?

[JasonWilliam]

Just learning. I look forward to owning and collecting several (more) pistols over the years. The more I know about those I own and those I hope to own, the more I enjoy them :)

[HisSoldier]

Finding rust on a gun is one of the worst feelings there is, Kimber says rust is caused by negligence, but they would, wouldn't they?

My guns reside in a heated safe, EZEEOX gets swabbed on the "rusting steel" guns, the stainless guns neither get nor need it, it's a simple thing to me.

If you only have five or ten guns it's not a big deal, if you have 50 or more rust becomes a consideration. I own guns, my guns don't own me.

[beltjones]

I don't. Proper care eliminates the rust concern, in my opinion.

Wrong. Any gun should be properly cared for, whether it's stainless steel, melonited, blued, etc.

However, a gun with steel parts "in the white" requires more effort to properly care for it to prevent rust, and is completely unsuitable to many environments. Untreated steel offers no advantages to the consumer to offset the increased risk of rust, and is therefore - no matter how many excuses people make - a detrimental feature.

[JasonWilliam]

Wrong. Any gun should be properly cared for, whether it's stainless steel, melonited, blued, etc.Of course. We agree. Care for your tools and you won't have issues.

How you care for it is dependent on your situation. For some of us, a light coat of oil is all that's needed. For others, more drastic measures are required. But either way "proper care" can and will prevent rust.

Wrong? Not at all.

[pythagorean]

I never knew the white barrel of the Kimber was carbon steel. I had assumed it was stainless every time!
I always clean and oil the barrel inside and out before re assembling any 1911 since there is friction with the barrel bushing--it only makes sense.
My blued Colt barrel shows some wear down to the shiny steel in the ejection port window but I have never seen rust collect anywhere on it.

About a month ago a soldier had returned from overseas duty and got himself a present, a Kimber 1911 full size. I can't remember the exact model but we were shooting side by side in the range and I was shooting my Colt 01918 WWI reproduction. He poked his head around the barrier and asked if it was a Colt WWI that he'd seen for sale along with his Kimber he got. I said yes and let him look it over. He dry fired it and said the trigger was excellent and better than his own Kimber. He couldn't believe it. He wanted to get a Colt 01918 after his purchase of the Kimber. He had read MIM and CNC on the Kimber--which is the modern way to do things now--and how in retrospect he'd of rather gone for the Colt WWI. The only MIM part on a Colt is the sear or some other small internal part.

I have an admiration for both Kimber and Colt. I especially like the Raptors with the internal extractors, the Raptor II.

Anyway, I had sold my Raptor II quite awhile ago when I needed to downsize and made the decision to keep the Colt.

Many have more than one 1911 for good reason. It is a great handgun. I feel it is okay for me to have weaned them down to only one in my case.

One could have just as easily decided to sell the Colt instead of the Kimber.

This discussion on carbon steel brought up my own experiences with many many 1911s.

I think opinions on different brands can be strong and adversarial. Funny how we all have the 1911 in common but can easily spin out of control over "which one is best."

[TheJ]

Some info I have found to add... (http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=278662)

Carbon steel last longer and machines better than stainless. See Will Schuemann's article on his website (http://www.schuemann.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=66qvYywiHmo%3d&tabid=67&mid=445) about stainless and the compromises it calls for.



Most makers of 1911s use carbon steel barrels. Colt, Kimber, SA and Les Baer to name a few. Kart barrels (http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=7615/Product/1911_AUTO_PRECISION_QUALITY_BARREL) (some of the best made barrels) are carbon steel....

[orionengnr]

Wow.
Not that I am discounting any of this, but...
I have owned eight Kimbers so far. I have had zero issues with corrosion (or anything else) on any of them. If you like, I will post pics of the barrels of any of the ones I own, from my 1996 pre-Series II Ultra CDP to my wife's brand new (in January of this year) Ultra CDP.

I have owned twenty-five or so 1911s in the past 25 years. I have had problems with every single brand, except for Kimber.

Yeah, that includes Colt, Springfield, Para, and Les Baer. I have owned from one to four of each...except for Kimber.

Eight and counting....for a reason. Because they are the only 1911 (so far) that is trouble free, and is a true value for the money.

And yes, I shoot mine weekly and carry them daily. :)

The ones that I shoot occasionally are cleaned with Eezox.

The ones that I shoot weekly are cleaned with good old Hoppes #9, nothing more exotic than that. And no corrosion whatsoever...

[TheJ]

I would think, simply from reading the Schuemann article linked to in my previous post, that there is much more to the picture in the decision to use carbon steel versus stainless steel barrels then just cost.

[Skans]

This is a little off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread because I think this might fit into this discussion. I've considered replacing the barrel on my AC556 (full-auto mini-14) with a heavier stainless steel barrel from Accuracy Systems; it presently has a carbon steel barrel.

My question is - is there any difference between a carbon steel barrel and stainless steel barrel with regard to rappid fire/full-auto fire and durability? Chrome lined barrels are not available.

[TheJ]

My question is - is there any difference between a carbon steel barrel and stainless steel barrel with regard to rappid fire/full-auto fire and durability? Chrome lined barrels are not available.
I believe that is addressed in the Schuemann article I linked.

[JasonWilliam]

Very good info. Thanks TheJ. As part of my research into this I had actually called and talked to Schuemann. Was a good and informative conversation... but also too you need to remember they're trying to sell their barrels. So while the info they post is almost certainly entirely accurate, its just as certainly presented in a way that hopes to sell you on their products.

As with most things, blanket statements like "its the best" or "its the worst" are hardly applicable here. This is obviously a deep and rich topic, and I'm glad I asked the question. I've learned quite a bit.

[JohnKSa]

The Schuemann article has very little bearing on the stainless vs. carbon steel argument. It is talking about the disadvantages of a particular type of stainless, not stainless in general. And after listing all the disadvantages of that kind of stainless, it turns out that they actually use that particular type of stainless in their own barrels, just with low sulphur content and good QC.

I have to agree with Jason, but would go a step further. It's always amazing to find that a particular maker/gunsmith can justify why his products (made of material X) are far better than his competitor's products (made of material Y). Then you go to the competitor and he has an equally compelling argument why material Y is worlds better than X.

Trying to get to the truth of the matter that way is very difficult.

[TheJ]

Getting to the truth is difficult. However, my point in posting the information I came across was not that it definitively answered any "which is the best" question. My intent was to address the OP's question as to whether Kimber's decision to use carbon steel barrels was only a cost based one. I think we all know that practically speaking every decision a manufacture makes has some basis in cost. That said I do believe the information I provided does seem to strongly suggest that there is much more to the picture then simply cost of material.

[Sturmgewehre]

We all draw different conclusions from the evidence we see.

Cost would be one of the primary motivators in Kimbers decision as I see it. As evidence of this, they leave the carbon steel barrel in the white.

There is absolutely no performance related benefit in doing this. There are one of three possibilities as to why Kimber does this.

1) To save money
2) To deceive the consumer making them believe the barrel is in fact stainless
3) All of the above

Unless someone can provide some evidence as to any performance improvements an in the white carbon barrel would provide vs. a finished/protected one, I would say the conclusions above are the only practical conclusions a reasonable person could draw.

[TheJ]

It is certainly possible that they leave in white for aesthetic reasons. Regardless of whether it is your belief, it is possible that they leave it in white because they believe it will be perceived as more attractive that way and not necessarily to deceive people. It literally only takes a few seconds to go to their website and check any model. Each model specs plainly state what material the barrel is made of. Additionally, I don't believe they are they only 1911 manufacture to use carbon steel barrels left in white..

[Rinspeed]

The Schuemann article has very little bearing on the stainless vs. carbon steel argument. It is talking about the disadvantages of a particular type of stainless, not stainless in general. And after listing all the disadvantages of that kind of stainless, it turns out that they actually use that particular type of stainless in their own barrels, just with low sulphur content and good QC.




Actually John if you know a little about stainless and machining it is a very good article to help understand why carbon steel is a better material for pistol barrels than SS. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I have worked with SS on a daily basis for a long time both welding and machining. What I believe the Schuemann article is trying convey is that regular 416 SS, which most 1911 barrels are made of, is not the greatest choice for barrels. This is because the sulphur content, sulphur is added to help the machinabilty but it also reduces the shear strength.

There are much stronger stainless steels that could be used for barrels but tooling is expensive and you can't spend $150 on tooling for a $200 barrel. I'm sure the 416R SS that Schuemann uses is much more expensive to buy, and to machine, than regular 416. They do get top dollar for their barrels, that's for sure.

[JasonWilliam]

I don't subscribe to your interpretation Sturm.

It seems to me the burden of proof is on the one making such dramatic claims; if you're going to make an accusation such as Kimber is trying to deceive its customers, its on you to prove it. Its not up to everyone else to disprove it.

But even so, for the sake of argument... consider TheJ's "aesthetics"; its as good an answer as any. There's one very easy counter to your absolute.

Barring any real evidence proving Kimber is out there willfully deceiving people, I think we need to seek other reasons.

[TheJ]

I'm not sure I would use those terms to describe what the post feels like... However, I think it does appear Sturmgewehre's logic is somewhat fallacious. I say that because his conclusion which he implies is "absolute" is based on a false premise.
First:
By implying that the reason for leaving the barrel in white MUST have a performance advantage in order to justify it. That's just not the case. Every manufacture makes all kinds of decisions about products that have no basis in 'performance' advantages.
Second:
By stating there can only be two reasons for the decision to leave the barrel in white. Obviously there could be other plausible reasons.

[JasonWilliam]

Fair enough J. I removed that last line.

Instead I'll just ask that Sturm provide evidence to back up the claims he continues to make about Kimber's apparent deceitful nature. BUT I also ask he provide that proof in a new thread, since this thread is about the technology of the metals in question; it is not about the moral issues he would seem to rather discuss.

Fair enough?

[natjohnb]

Sturm's reasoning makes perfect sense to me.

Obviously there could be other plausible reasons.

Okay. Let's hear some.

[Rinspeed]

So which is Les Baer trying to do, save money or deceive the consumer. :confused:






http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/Rinspeed/118.jpg

[JasonWilliam]

Okay. Let's hear some. Well since we're all speculating... Here's another one: tradition.

Military firearms were often left in the white, especially back in the flintlock and percussion days; the idea was the soldier responsible for the weapon was responsible for keeping his firearm in as clean and good shape as can be at all times... if he failed to do so, it would become readily apparent via the tarnishing of the parts left in the white. Maintaining your firearm was not only a requirement, it was a point of pride. And what better way to show that pride by keeping your firearm gleaming?

Maybe Kimber, Les and others leave it so as a matter of tradition.

[TheJ]

Sturm's reasoning makes perfect sense to me.I understand it may make sense to you. What I said was I think his logic is somewhat fallacious because it seems set up on a false premise as I previously outlined.
Okay. Let's hear some
Quite honestly this:
It is certainly possible that they leave in white for aesthetic reasons. Regardless of whether it is your belief, it is possible that they leave it in white because they believe it will be perceived as more attractive that way and not necessarily to deceive people. It literally only takes a few seconds to go to their website and check any model. Each model specs plainly state what material the barrel is made of. Additionally, I don't believe they are they only 1911 manufacture to use carbon steel barrels left in white..

I'm willing to guess that the appearance of the barrel left white is worth more to many then the additional protection of having it blued may provide. And NOT because they all want to trick onlookers into thinking they have a stainless barrel in their prized 1911 pistol but because they think it just looks better that way.

[Skans]

I don't see Kimber's use of carbon-steel barrels in the white as a big deal. On a gun that is going to get heavy use, this should be no big deal at all.

Assuming that it's a knowledgable person buying such a gun, AT WORST, all we are talking about is a tiny bit of surface rust or discoloration on the exterior of the barrel. This is purely cosmetic - and is going to be mostly hidden by the slide anyway. Have we all forgotten that most carbon steel barrels that have some coating on the exterior have no coating at all in the bore? A well used barrel is going to have plenty of wear marks on it, and unless its stainless it will probably wear some of whatever finish is applied anyway. In other words, the little bit of discoloration that might happen over time is not in any way going to affect how the barrel functions.

This is a little like me worrying that my disk brakes get surface rust on them after my car sits for several days in humid conditions.

[AZAK]

Regardless of whether it is your belief, it is possible that they leave it in white because they believe it will be perceived as more attractive that way and not necessarily to deceive people. It literally only takes a few seconds to go to their website and check any model. Each model specs plainly state what material the barrel is made of.

Well, I was "visiting" in a chain gun store the other day, and the folks behind the counter (when casually asked) did not know that the Kimber barrels were not stainless. They assumed that they were stainless; by the appearance. These folks have been selling Kimbers for a number of years assuming that all of the Kimber barrels were stainless.

Adding that Kimber's only "accuracy guaranteed" 1911 makes use of a stainless barrel, along with their other more "top end" 1911s, one can infer that Kimber is placing a higher value on their stainless barrels; while at the same time producing their "lower end" pistols with barrels that appear to be the same as their higher end pistols.

I'm willing to guess that the appearance of the barrel left white is worth more to many then the additional protection of having it blued may provide.

And that is it in a nutshell. Shiny. People buy "shiny". And Kimbers are "shiny".

1) To save money
2) To deceive the consumer making them believe the barrel is in fact stainless
3) All of the above
While you may or may not agree with this, in reality this is definitely occurring to some degree.

And let's not forget the original question OP:
Kimber: Is their use of carbon steel a cost savings measure?

Given that their "top tier" pistols make use of stainless, while their "bottom tier" pistols use carbon steel in the white, I would say that the question is answered.

This is a little like me worrying that my disk brakes get surface rust on them after my car sits for several days in humid conditions.
So, if you have a "lower end" Kimber, better get it out and shoot it every couple of days during those "humid conditions"!

[JasonWilliam]

When you buy a car and it comes with wood grain plastic, would you use the word "deceive" to describe what the manufacturer is doing to you, the customer?

How about carbon fiber inserts? Or vinyl on some seat parts rather than full leather? Or non functioning hood scoops, or fender vents, or...

Are you being "deceived" on purpose by the manufacturer? Are they tricking you with these devices?

[AZAK]

Are you being "deceived" on purpose by the manufacturer? Are they tricking you?

When the gun counter folk are telling a perspective buyer that the barrels are stainless, who is ultimately responsible?

"Let the buyer beware" is good advice; however, removing all responsibility from the manufacturer... "tricking"... or maybe "misleading"...

If it looks like a bee, sounds like a bee...

[JasonWilliam]

When the gun counter folk are telling a perspective buyer that the barrels are stainless, who is ultimately responsible?

"Let the buyer beware" is good advice; however, removing all responsibility from the manufacturer... "tricking"... or maybe "misleading"... I dunno. As an OEM who sells to a world wide distributorship, I can tell you no matter how much time or money or effort you spend in training a salesman, they will almost always still get it wrong. And those are the ones you talk to directly; you can forget the one's they train later.

Who's responsible? I think the buyer; as has been pointed out already, there is ZERO effort on Kimber's part to "hide" or "deceive" regarding what steel is being used in what gun, on their website or their literature or on the phone with the customer service.

Believe me, I would be leading the charge if Kimber didn't tell you which barrel was carbon; hell I really don't like they won't tell you what alloy they use. I'll seriously consider that next time I buy a piece; that omission has almost assuredly cost them a customer.

But lets not get carried away... you, the buyer, are capable of knowing if its carbon or stainless, just as you are capable if telling plastic from wood, or overlay from actual carbon fiber, or vinyl... And even so, if you didn't know, ask! If the sales guy gets it wrong, that's on him not on the manufacturer.

[TheJ]

So following your logic then companies like Les Baer, Kart barrels or others are all just out to do things on the cheap? That just doesn't follow.

The fact that people in the gun store didn't know proves nothing. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to an auto dealership and new more about the cars I was looking at then the guys running around there who worked there for years.

As far as the shiny people" swipe.. That's a little cheap. I think it is more accurate to say people who appreciate 1911s are less concerned about the barrel not being stainless then people who generally don't know much about 1911s.

[AZAK]

As far as the shiny people" swipe.. That's a little cheap. I think it is more accurate to say people who appreciate 1911s are less concerned about the barrel not being stainless then people who generally don't know much about 1911s.

And then why would Kimber make use of stainless barrels on their "top tier" pistols?

From what I hear, and have seen, a sub $500 RIA 1911 will punch holes in paper just like the rest of them.

Now put a RIA next to Kimbers lowest priced (same size) model. Which is "shinnier"?

Using your auto analogy, how many car dealerships really display their new autos dusty and mud splattered and then try to sell you on the mechanical marvels of that dusty auto; or slightly "dented", but with a great engine.

How many of us are put off by a 1911 with an "idiot scratch"? How about one that even traces a circle onto the slide and frame? Should function about the same I would think.

I do believe that there is an American company that makes a .45 that can punch holes in paper too, reputed to be a true Block (so I hear).

I would say that generally those that can afford a new 1911 in the $800 + range are going to be influenced by the "shiny factor" to some degree.

[JasonWilliam]

Well ya lost me AZAK. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

But never the less, this isn't what I wanted this conversation to turn into. I don't think the phrasing used by some to describe Kimber's motives is appropriate. It invokes a sense of wrong doing, or subversiveness, or underhandedness. None of that is provable. And even if it was, none of it is applicable to this conversation... IMHO all it does is feed into these "******* matches" the mods here are so tired of dealing with.

[AZAK]

Well ya lost me AZAK. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

It does not hurt KImber sales do to the fact that their barrels all appear to be stainless.

Appearance is paramount when selling to the American public; in certain markets and price ranges.

Many people do not educate themselves enough when buying.

To consider that Kimber's marketing department does not know all of this is a bit naive.

You might notice that there are no ugly mid to top tier 1911s. (Can of spray paint finishes, obvious external or internal tooling marks, rough finishing work...)

Shiny sells. And sells well. If all that we were concerned about was having an industrial hole punch in .45 auto, then we could all get rid of our 1911s and buy Hi-Points.

[Jart]

My personal conjecture would be that Kimber's use of carbon steel, in the white, on certain models is strictly a cost saving measure.

The Kart stuff is interesting but Bar-Sto seems to be running 30.00 higher on average based on Midway's listings. Assuming they're both decent aftermarket barrels the market appears to value the stainless barrel a bit more.

As far as competition goes, with wild variations based on class and sanctioning body, I see mostly Glock and STI. One is treated carbon steel the other is stainless.

In the absence of any perceptible advantage to carbon steel, with the notable exception of price, its use in 1911 pattern Kimber barrels would appear to be a financial decision uncolored by any other factor.


Not that there's anything wrong with that.


An STI 2011 will make most any Kimber appear as a raging bargain. The Glock is a different animal altogether. I have no real issue with in-the-white carbon steel 1911 barrels but cherry picking high end producers with carbon steel is a non-sequitur, most especially if said producer is using 4350 rather than the 4150 also dragged into the folderol in this thread. You've a slight reduction in Cr with an attendant massive increase in Ni. The differences can be fascinating but not really germane to the OP.

In the case of the particular Kimber models involved I am at a loss to speculate where the non-stainless alloy barrel brings anything whatsoever to the table apart from cost. It may still be perfectly suited to one's demands / tastes / maintenance regime / climate / circumstances but it has no advantage over Kimber's own stainless barrels. Doesn't matter what Kart, Bar-Sto, STI, Glock, Baer or Wilson are doing - not even a little bit.

[JasonWilliam]

@AZAK: Of course it doesn't hurt. Sales is all about how to attract customers.

But if that's the definition of "deceive", I guess I don't get why were pointing it out in this context. After all, we all dress up from time to time, we all (hopefully) take showers to stay clean, and put deodorant on, we avoid saying "yes" when asked if that dress makes her look fat... we all shop and buy products marketed in ways that appeal to us.

We live in a world full of lies and half truths and trickery and deceit... Why point it out here?

[Shane Tuttle]

Sales is all about how to attract customers

Sales is based providing heavily subjective focus on the product instead of giving an objective one. Buyer beware? Of course. But I would still lay blame to the salesperson on selling a lemon to the unsuspecting female persuasion that isn't educated in what vehicle is worth buying. Is the information there for the consumer to research and become informed? Yes. But it still doesn't make it right for a salesman to take the consumer "for a ride".

Kimber not providing a straight answer to the OP's question sure leads me to believe they're more than willing let the controversy spread like wildfire. Pretty deceiving to me that they sit in silence...

[TheJ]

And then why would Kimber make use of stainless barrels on their "top tier" pistols?

Top tier may be a matter of perception. SEVERAL Kimber pistols (which have a carbon steel barrel) are priced higher then any of Kimbers "gold match" stainless barreled pistols. So your assertion that only the "low-end" Kimbers have Carbon Steel and High end one have stainless isn't borne out by the facts.

[JasonWilliam]

Sales is based providing heavily subjective focus on the product instead of giving an objective one. Buyer beware? Of course. But I would still lay blame to the salesperson on selling a lemon to the unsuspecting female persuasion that isn't educated in what vehicle is worth buying. Is the information there for the consumer to research and become informed? Yes. But it still doesn't make it right for a salesman to take the consumer "for a ride".Again no argument. And the "salesman" should lose his job, in my opinion. And if that salesman was a "Kimber representative", in the direct employ of Kimber, then Kimber is bound to make it right with the customer. If that salesman was a representative of a distributor, the distributor needs to make it right with the customer.

I honestly don't get why we're discussing this guys. None of this is secret, nor is it unique to Kimber. If you're going to point at Kimber and blame them for this, we need to point at every other company that's ever made a profit from selling something elective. Its just part of the formula.

Kimber not providing a straight answer to the OP's question sure leads me to believe they're more than willing let the controversy spread like wildfire. Pretty deceiving to me that they sit in silence... On that we totally agree. As the OP (and person on the other end of the phone) it was pretty damn frustrating.

But, again in fairness, I have to ask... would any other manufacturer respond any differently? I don't know because I haven't called (got made fun of here for calling, which was also offputting). Has anyone else?

[TheJ]

But it still doesn't make it right for a salesman to take the consumer "for a ride"
I absolutely agree that salesman ignorance or fraud is not acceptable but how much training do you actually think most of the sale people in chain stores get on the many many firearms available...

Kimber not providing a straight answer to the OP's question sure leads me to believe they're more than willing let the controversy spread like wildfire. Pretty deceiving to me that they sit in silence..
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q49/thej_photos/Club%20Stuff%20to%20help/utracovrt2.jpg

It took me all of 20 seconds to find this info.

I doubt it. They don't have any responsibility to explain proprietary information like why the chose to use certain materials or what the exact make up of their alloy is. Another example would be to call Pepsi and ask them why they use the ingredients they do or for the recipe to make it and you will not get too far...

[JasonWilliam]

J, read the whole thread. I called and asked a 'why' they use carbon steel. I didn't get a satisfactory answer; basically I was told that it didn't matter why and that it was "match grade", which should answer any cost savings concerns. It doesn't, in my opinion.

[AZAK]

Top tier may be a matter of perception. SEVERAL Kimber pistols (which have a carbon steel barrel) are priced higher then any of Kimbers "gold match" stainless barreled pistols. So your assertion that only the "low-end" Kimbers have Carbon Steel and High end one have stainless isn't borne out by the facts.

For the sake of argument I am calling "top tier" what Kimber calls their "best" and also am including their one "accuracy guaranteed" pistol.

Straight from the Kimber site (I have previously posted this on page 2 I believe):
"The Super Match II .45 ACP is designed for action shooting or accuracy competitions, but most of them are carried for personal protection. Each one is guaranteed to have fired a 5-shot, 25-yard group measuring one inch or less center-to-center, and that kind of accuracy ensures confidence. Stainless steel slide, frame and barrel" ... "MSRP: $2225.00"


Get off of their "Custom Shop" page and even their "match grade" stainless barrels do not have this guarantee, even with "hand fitting by the custom shop" (But, they are stainless):

"The Gold Match II and Stainless Gold Match II are the finest production pistols offered by Kimber. Both feature a stainless steel match grade barrel that is machined oversized and then fitted by hand in the Custom Shop for accuracy. All flat surfaces are polished to a high shine that contrasts satin over the curves. The Team Match II is an “all go” version of the Stainless Gold Match, designed specifically for the U.S.A. Shooting Rapid Fire Pistol Team to use in action shooting competitions at national and international levels. Unique Team Match II features include 30 lines-per-inch front strap checkering and extended magazine well. ... MSRP: $1345.00"

I didn't find that guarantee with the carbon "match grade" barrels on their lower priced pistols. (And note that even on the Stainless model, the barrel is not stainless.)Emphasis by AZAK
I especially love the last part in Bold.

Now tell me, if you were buying a Stainless Steel model Kimber 1911 with a shiny barrel, would not you think that the barrel would be stainless along with the rest of the gun?

[JasonWilliam]

You're killing me AZAK. "Custom" isn't custom either, and a "Gold Match" isn't made of gold. Nor is a "LTD" limited, nor does an "Integra" mean integrity... (returning to Seinfeld :))

Ok so lets all have a collective roll of our eyes at marketing 101 and the geniuses behind these inspired names.

Can we move on now?

[AZAK]

You're killing me AZAK. "Custom" isn't custom either. Nor is a "LTD" limited, nor does an "Integra" mean integrity... (returning to Seinfeld )

Ok so lets all have a collective roll of our eyes at marketing 101 and the geniuses behind these inspired names.

Can we move on now?

And a Kimber Stainless Steel 1911 ain't stainless steel; at least concerning the barrel? Guess that I missed that memo, maybe because I have never watched Seinfeld?

Selling a "Stainless Steel" 1911 without a stainless barrel, but looks like it has a stainless steel barrel, does kind of reek of "misleading" to me. Call me old fashioned.

[JasonWilliam]

I guess they should put a sticker on their Gold Match pistols too then, warning they're not actually made of gold.

See what I'm saying? Its up to YOU to think and read the specs and study, no matter the brand. No matter the product. That's true of any company in any capitalistic society.

So why are we harping on this one teeny tiny example? Some of us, over and over and over again? I don't get it.

[TheJ]

I called and asked a 'why' they use carbon steel. I didn't get a satisfactory answer; basically I was told that it didn't matter why and that it was "match grade", which should answer any cost savings concerns. It doesn't, in my opinion.
That is frustrating but pretty typical for most businesses that size.
They don't have any responsibility to explain proprietary information like why the chose to use certain materials or what the exact make up of their alloy is. Another example would be to call Pepsi and ask them why they use the ingredients they do or for the recipe to make it and you will not get too far...

For the sake of argument I am calling "top tier" what Kimber calls their "best" and also am including their one "accuracy guaranteed" pistol.

Again, your asserting that stainless MUST be better... So then are Les Baer (http://www.lesbaer.com/barrels.html#) Match grade Competition Steel Barrel pistols (that come with accuracy guarantees too and typically cost more then Kimbers) a scam as well?

[TheJ]

I haven't seen anyone here provide any serious level of evidence that Kimber uses Carbon Steel barrels ONLY to save money (as has been alleged) or that they engage in purposeful deceit (as has been alleged) to make people think their barrels are anything other then Carbon steel.

Additionally, I haven't seen anyone provide any serious evidence that simply using stainless steel for barrels is too much more then a "perceived value" by many. Simply by the fact that there are people who admittedly had never even noticed that there barrels were not stainless (I guess because they weren't stamped in big letters "CARBON STEEL" on the side lol), it can't be that big of an issue that they were not stainless.

[AZAK]

I guess they should put a sticker on their Gold Match pistols too then, warning they're not actually made of gold.

See what I'm saying? Its up to YOU to think and read the specs and study, no matter the brand. No matter the product.

A little thing called, "ethics".

Most reasonable people (sounds kind of like a legal term to me) would make the assumption that a "Stainless Steel 1911" would in fact be stainless. And if barrels for that gun came in either stainless or carbon steel as an option, most reasonable people would believe that a gun marketed as Stainless would in fact have a Stainless barrel.

Whereas most reasonable people would not assume that a Gold Match pistol was made out of Au.

Again, your asserting that stainless MUST be better...

I just have noted Kimber's use of stainless steel barrels in their (their words) "finest" 1911s.

Are you going to really argue that it is reasonable to market a gun as Stainless Steel and not have a stainless barrel?

Ultimately it is:
Caveat emptor

[Shane Tuttle]

Again no argument. And the "salesman" should lose his job, in my opinion. And if that salesman was a "Kimber representative", in the direct employ of Kimber, then Kimber is bound to make it right with the customer. If that salesman was a representative of a distributor, the distributor needs to make it right with the customer.

I muddled my points. Subective focus on sales is when you're looking at buying a car with 75k miles on it, has a few minor scratches, and is 4 years old. Sales tactics would be: "This car is in great shape. Seeing the overall condition of it, you can tell they probably used it for highway commuting. Those scratches there are hardly noticeable and is normal wear for the age of the car."

Now, if you were the one that traded the very same car in, this is the subjective focus the salesperson would use: "It's a nice car and all. But the odometer is tells the useful life of the car. It's high miles for the age and those scratches are going to make the car difficult to sell on our lot since we won't be able to buff them out. We're not going to be able to give you what the normal wholesale trade-in would have been."

It isn't illegal and the salesman shouldn't be fired. It's buyer beware. On the same token, people get taken that don't know any better. When a customer goes into a gun shop and sees "Kimber Custom" on the slide and the sales staff doesn't inform them it's a marketing gimmick, it mainly falls on Kimber as deceit.

[TheJ]

Are you going to really argue that it is reasonable to market a gun as Stainless Steel and not have a stainless barrel?
Yes. Just like some firearms that are marketed as blued steel may have stainless barrels. Is that a scam too?

[JasonWilliam]

@AZ: You're speaking from a position of knowledge. I propose most "reasonable" people who are not educated on handguns don't have the first clue that there's something in there called a barrel that's stand alone; that its not part of the "thing that moves back when I pull the trigger and it goes off".

Or to put it another way, from the opposite perspective, they might assume every part of the gun is stainless.

Or, worse yet (as seen here at TFL way too often), they'll assume stainless cannot rust. Its a bummer when they find out that assumption is completely wrong.

Those who are more educated than that, are not going to assume anything. They're going to ask. And if they don't, shame on them. They should know better than to assume.

Sure seems to me like we're going around and around about absolutely nothing.

[JasonWilliam]

It isn't illegal and the salesman shouldn't be fired. It's buyer beware. On the same token, people get taken that don't know any better. When a customer goes into a gun shop and sees "Kimber Custom" on the slide and the sales staff doesn't inform them it's a marketing gimmick, it mainly falls on Kimber as deceit. Well, I'm not sure how you run your company. But the way I run mine is like this: If you misrepresent our products for the purposes of "deceiving" our customer's, you're gone. There is no excuse for that, period.

You may not know something. You may misrepresent the product because you're misinformed or you misunderstood. All that's ok (once or twice), and I'll stand by you to make it right with the customer. But do it willfully? Turn in your badge and security will escort you out.

The context and frame of this accusation at Kimber in this thread implies these actions are being taken for the sake of ripping people off. I see no evidence that is true.

[TheJ]

For the record when I purchased my Kimber the salesman helping me (who had worked in the store for several years and allegedly shot competitively) had no idea that neither the Les Baer nor the Kimber 1911s I was looking at, had carbon steel barrels. In fact I actually had to correct him when he said they were stainless. I believe that anyone who does any research on 1911s would know this. I personally make it a habit to do some research prior to parting with my money for things. But that's me.

[AZAK]

Additionally, I haven't seen anyone provide any serious evidence that simply using stainless steel for barrels is too much more then a "perceived value" by many.

And would that include Kimber? By their own descriptions which I previously posted (twice now) they apparently believe that their stainless barrel is better/"finest".

Or do we believe that Kimber rep on the phone, who states that they are all "match grade" so what does it matter?

Or do we just say, "Hey they are in fact saving a couple of bucks by using carbon steel instead of stainless; even if they really do look like all of their barrels are stainless, and many people (including gun store clerks) think that they all are stainless."

In the end it really does not matter to me: I don't own any Kimbers and at this point plan on keeping it that way.

[JasonWilliam]

And would that include Kimber? By their own descriptions which I previously posted (twice now) they apparently believe that their stainless barrel is better/"finest".

Or do we believe that Kimber rep on the phone, who states that they are all "match grade" so what does it matter?
AZ, that was explained to me as well (I think I mentioned it in this thread, actually). The rep was very clear with me that the only reason they still deal in stainless barrels is because they have a large customer base who want them, and request them. They're moving to carbon across the board, with the exception of those models that their customer research shows still have a demand for stainless.

If all that's true, that should answer your question.

[AZAK]

They're moving to carbon across the board, with the exception of those models that their customer research shows still have a demand for stainless.

If all that's true, that should answer your question.

And following that train of thought, according to Kimber, their "finest" all have stainless steel barrels...

And who are they making these stainless steel "finest" pistols for:
accuracy guaranteed folk
competition folk
(Check their web site, I have posted this info twice now.)

So, if we follow this train any further, serious accuracy and competition 1911 shooters are "demanding" stainless barrels from Kimber; according to Kimber.

And that is why all of their models barrels look like stainless.

[JasonWilliam]

LOL okie dokie. You're drawing a conclusion from a pile of assumptions. That's cool. I think you're wrong, but I only have assumptions too. So there we are.

Which, by the way, is where I asked that we stay some time ago. We've just wasted an afternoon agreeing we don't know anything about the ethical motivations behind 'why' Kimber leaves their barrels in the white. And it doesn't matter in terms of this conversation.

Got something to talk about from a tech and performance perspective? Lets here it. Got something to talk about from an 'other' perspective? Fire up a new thread and lets see how long it lasts :rolleyes:

[TheJ]

And would that include Kimber? By their own descriptions which I previously posted (twice now) they apparently believe that their stainless barrel is better/"finest".

Yes it does include them. Are we to believe all Glock pistols are "perfection"... Seriously, marketing is marketing. I'm not sure if you missed the Les Baer carbon steel barrels I alluded to several times... the ones for the accuracy guarantee/competition folk...;)
Or do we just say, "Hey they are in fact saving a couple of bucks by using carbon steel instead of stainless
I don't think anybody here said stainless was cheaper or that cost isn't ANY factor in their decision to use carbon steel.
even if they really do look like all of their barrels are stainless, and many people (including gun store clerks) think that they all are stainless."
I would say that many salesmen may make that 'assumption' because the majority of the similar firearms that turn faster and the sales people probably sell/handle more, do have stainless barrels. That really doesn't mean too much and certainly isn't evidence of any conspiracy. I don't think it is reasonable to expect Kimber to stamp their barrels with the words "carbon steel".

[AZAK]

You're drawing a conclusion from a pile of assumptions.

Now does not that sound like life?

Hey, just kicking back what Kimber has stated is all. (Aside from the last half "tongue in cheek" line in my last post.) Which to me sounds like, profiting from other's ignorance.

Enjoy your evening.

[TheJ]

Now does not that sound like life?
lol It does.:)


Enjoy your evening.

Ignorance is bliss for many!;)
(I know this may not have been specifically to me but...)
I hope you all enjoy your evening too!

[JasonWilliam]

Aye, it sure does. I guess I just like to have a bit more fact in the mix of assumption, before I condemn a company for conspiracy :cool:

[JohnKSa]

Actually John if you know a little about stainless and machining it is a very good article to help understand why carbon steel is a better material for pistol barrels than SS.If that were true then they wouldn't be using SS and it's plain that they are.

What the article helps you understand is that if you aren't willing to go to the extra expense and hassle of purchasing and dealing with machining high-quality stainless steel then it's true that it's better to make the barrels from carbon steel.

What it also helps you understand is that it's EASIER and CHEAPER to make barrels from carbon steel than from really good quality stainless steel.Here's another one: tradition.

Military firearms were often left in the white, especially back in the flintlock and percussion days...Those days have been gone for a century and then some. No one has traditionally provided firearms in the white for at least 100 years. Some PARTS are provided in the white but only to facilitate fitting/customization by the purchaser.It is certainly possible that they leave in white for aesthetic reasons.Yes and no. Aesthetics may provide part of the reason for leaving it in the white, but it's pretty obvious that there are more expensive ways to achieve the same aesthetics but without the increased risk of corrosion. In other words, aesthetics may call for a silver colored barrel, or one that the finish doesn't easily wear off due to wear, but it doesn't dictate that the barrel be left in the white. That's merely the cheapest way to achieve the desired look.Kart barrels or others are all just out to do things on the cheap?This has already been dealt with on this thread. A company that is providing barrels that are intended to be fitted will usually provide them in the white if they're not stainless steel. Finishing them when you know that the customer is going to have to damage the finish to fit them properly doesn't make sense.

And it's fairly common to find small shops or custom makers that don't want to deal with stainless steel for the reasons outlined in the Schuemann article. Good stainless is expensive and hard to deal with and cheap stainless isn't as good as carbon steel.I guess they should put a sticker on their Gold Match pistols too then, warning they're not actually made of gold.Not remotely analogous. "Gold Match", "National Match", and "Match" are terms used to denote the possible or intended USE of the pistol. "Stainless Steel" is a term used to denote the material that the pistol is made of. Selling a pistol as "stainless steel" when one of the three major components made of unfinished NON-stainless steel is very close to misrepresentation, in my opinion.Again, your asserting that stainless MUST be better...The PERCEPTION is that is is better in at least some respects to at least some buyers. If that perception didn't exist no one would be willing to pay extra for the feature.Additionally, I haven't seen anyone provide any serious evidence that simply using stainless steel for barrels is too much more then a "perceived value" by many.Even if we accept this, it's still a perceived value that costs the buyer extra. The problem is that providing the appearance of a feature that normally adds a premium to the price but without actually providing the feature is somewhat shady at best.You're drawing a conclusion from a pile of assumptions.That's pretty much what everyone on the thread is doing since no one has hard evidence of Kimber's motive.

The question is whether the assumptions and conclusions make sense in light of what we all know to be true.

The problem is that it's possible to muddle things up so that the question and answer isn't so obvious. ;)Aye, it sure does. I guess I just like to have a bit more fact in the mix of assumption, before I condemn a company for conspiracy.I haven't really viewed this thread in that light.

The initial question was whether or not the carbon steel barrels were a cost savings measure. Every company uses cost savings measures of one kind or another. It's certainly not grounds to condemn them.

Not everything done to a product is done exclusively for the benefit of the customer. Some things are done to save the manufacturer money so that he can make/sell his products better than his competitors can.

The bottom line for any company is the bottom line. If you're not in business to make money and you're not independently wealthy you won't be in business long.

[JasonWilliam]

I haven't really viewed this thread in that light.You're the boss, boss.

(I thank you for pointing out that flintlocks haven't been used for a 100 years though. I was confused :rolleyes: :p)

[JasonWilliam]

One more question John

Not remotely analogous. "Gold Match", "National Match", and "Match" are terms used to denote the possible or intended USE of the pistol. "Stainless Steel" is a term used to denote the material that the pistol is made of. Selling a pistol as "stainless steel" when one of the three major components made of unfinished NON-stainless steel is very close to misrepresentation, in my opinion.By your own argument, how is the term "stainless steel" acceptable at all, then? After all, stainless isn't at all stainless. Is it?

:confused:

[JohnKSa]

You're the boss, boss.I was merely stating an opinion. I hadn't viewed the thread as a trial (and possible condemnation) of Kimber, rather just a discussion of why they would take a particular action.

Short of an admission from Kimber that they are trying to mislead the consumer, I think it would be overly aggressive to condemn them for conspiracy based on this particular decision. On the other hand, while condemning them on the basis of the evidence presented here is unjustified, there is certainly sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to call their motives into question.I thank you for pointing out that flintlocks haven't been used for a 100 years though. I was confused.Your argument was that in-the-white firearms were traditional. My response was that while they may have been traditional once, that was over a century ago. For the last 100+ years it has definitely NOT been traditional to provide in-the-white firearms.

The point being that it since Kimbers are being marketed today, not 100 years ago, the assertion that they might be marketing in-the-white barrels out of a sense of tradition is not reasonable.By your own argument, how is the term "stainless steel" acceptable at all, then? After all, stainless isn't at all stainless. Is it?Stainless steel is a term commonly used to describe any of a number of alloys of steel that are much more rust-resistant than typical carbon steel. Kimber didn't come up with the term nor do they have anything to do with it's coming into common usage so they can't be held responsible for using the term ACCURATELY to describe guns that are made of any one of the number of steel alloys that fit the definition that is generally held to be applicable to the term "stainless steel". If they use that term in a manner inconsistent with its normal usage then it is would be wise for them to note that they are using a special definition for a common term so as to avoid the appearance that they are misleading consumers.

In contrast, the term "Gold Match pistol" is not commonly understood to have anything to do with the materials from which the pistol is made, it is commonly understood that it refers to the application or possible application of the pistol.

So saying that a pistol is a "Gold Match" model does not suggest to anyone who is even moderately well-informed about firearms that the gun is made of gold. On the other hand, saying that a pistol is a "stainless steel" model definitely suggests to the consumer that the major components of the pistol are made of some alloy of steel typically referred to as and fitting the common definition of "stainless steel".

[JasonWilliam]

the assertion that they might be marketing in-the-white barrels out of a sense of tradition is not reasonable.Its as reasonable as the assertion that they're willfully deceiving customers. Which is the context in which I made my comment.

Stainless steel is a term commonly used to describe any of a number of alloys of steel that are much more rust-resistant than typical carbon steel.Well, again, we're talking about 'the common folk' here that might be susceptible to Kimber's marketing deceits. I would suggest those 'folk' hear stainless, and they figure it aint gonna stain.

John, with all respect, I have the feeling you and I are debating for the sake of debating, at this point. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're not saying anything that hasn't already been said.

Is there any hope of this thread getting back on track? As a staffer here, I would hope you'd help us get there, rather than further distract. But if we just can't, then as the OP I ask that you close it down. These conversational circles are making me dizzy.

[Jart]

Again, your asserting that stainless MUST be better... So then are Les Baer Match grade Competition Steel Barrel pistols (that come with accuracy guarantees too and typically cost more then Kimbers) a scam as well?

...

I haven't seen anyone here provide any serious level of evidence that Kimber uses Carbon Steel barrels ONLY to save money (as has been alleged) or that they engage in purposeful deceit (as has been alleged) to make people think their barrels are anything other then Carbon steel.

In the face of Kimber's reticence, a natural assumption would be that their barrel is fabricated from 4150. Your several links to Les Baer indicate a 4350 alloy in use. While they are both "steel alloys" one should not infer that they are the same.

In the absence of evidence that Kimber doesn't use in-the-white SAE-tradesecretmysterysteel as a straightforward cost saving measure, its use as exactly that is a reasonable hypothesis.

In the absence of actual data on Kimber's steel and our collective lack of clairvoyance into the motives behind material selection a "serious level of evidence" will not be forthcoming. The consensus will be, of necessity, conjecture and conclusions drawn from the available data.

Concurrently, however, I've seen zero "serious level of evidence" that Kimber's use of 4150(?) is anything but a cost saving enterprise. An assertion that there's a yet to be named advantage outweighing the disadvantage would be equally conjecture and speculation with, just perhaps, a dollop of wishful thinking thrown in before stirring and being left to simmer.

Again I find myself somewhat mystified by the, shall we say, "enthusiasm" evident in threads such as this. If the in-the-white steel barrel serves one well and does not manifest corrosion issues in one's specific circumstances, who cares if it was a simple and straightforward cost cutting exercise?

Still, not only has there been no evidence offered that it's not a simple cost cutting maneuver, there hasn't even been any plausible speculation as to what advantage other than cost might be inherent in the choice.

I have no input on whether the practice might be deemed deceptive by some.

[JohnKSa]

Is there any hope of this thread getting back on track?How is it off track? :confused:

The ongoing discussion is right in line with the OP.

[TheJ]

Still, not only has there been no evidence offered that it's not a simple cost cutting maneuver, there hasn't even been any plausible speculation as to what advantage other than cost might be inherent in the choice.
It's not too hard to find people who espouse the belief that generally carbon steel is better than stainless for accuracy and longevity in barrels. However, I have no hard data right off hand to point to either.


I do understand that conjecture is mostly all that is possible here. Thats said I'm not convinced it's reasonable to assume that just because generally stainless steel is typically more expensive then carbon steel, that it is the only reason Kimber uses carbon steel barrels. However, as pointed out so succinctly by Jart an others I'm not convinced it really matters too terribly much either. :)

[JohnKSa]

It's not too hard to find people who espouse the belief that generally carbon steel is better...That's probably true. You'll also find that the folks who are saying things like that sell carbon steel barrels...

Actually, based on actual testing vs. manufacturing claims, the nod is usually given to stainless steel barrels for longevity and I've not heard any evidence that using a stainless steel barrel incurs an accuracy penalty. As nearly as I can tell, the benchrest rifle crowd prefers stainless steel overwhelmingly, and they're certainly highly concerned with both accuracy and longevity.

HOWEVER, I don't believe there's a good case to be made that there's a practical difference in pistol barrels when comparing stainless vs. carbon in terms of either longevity or accuracy. The theoretical benefits of stainless over carbon which are definitely a practical consideration in the rifle world are overwhelmed/dominated/swamped by other factors in the world of pistol shooting.

[SHAMUSPI]

In my desire to acquire a Clark Custom 460 Rowland conversion in a 1911, they state they prefer carbon steel over stainless for being "stronger," and not prone to galling as with SOME stainless steels. Perhaps this is the mindset of Kimber also.:confused:

[JohnKSa]

...not prone to galling as with SOME stainless steels.Galling is a well-known problem with stainless steel that has a well-known and very simple solution that has been employed very successfully for many years....carbon steel over stainless for being "stronger,"...Some of the strongest pistols and rifles on the market are made of stainless steel. Freedom Arms wouldn't use stainless if it wasn't strong enough to contain the .454 Casull which is a much higher pressure cartridge than the .460 Rowland.

I've run into custom shops who make similar excuses for the fact that they don't like to (or aren't equipped) to work with stainless steel.

[Shane Tuttle]

On that we totally agree. As the OP (and person on the other end of the phone) it was pretty damn frustrating.

The context and frame of this accusation at Kimber in this thread implies these actions are being taken for the sake of ripping people off. I see no evidence that is true.

So, after all of that, you still don't think Kimber is deceiving on their products? I go back to the "Custom Shop" roll marks all over the guns that aren't from their custom shop. They don't even HAVE one. You know that. I know that. But the average consumer may not. When you have the norm of other companies that place "Custom Shop" or the like on their guns, they have one. Springfield and Les Baer come to mind at the moment.

But, again in fairness, I have to ask... would any other manufacturer respond any differently? I don't know because I haven't called (got made fun of here for calling, which was also offputting). Has anyone else?

YES. Les Baer was VERY specific on where every piece to his firearms came from. If the information was proprietary, he would say so up front. If it was made by him he would say so. There was NO political speak of his products.

See what I'm saying? Its up to YOU to think and read the specs and study, no matter the brand. No matter the product. That's true of any company in any capitalistic society.

So, no matter what a company implies or claims, it all lays on the consumer 100% to research every single product they buy or be damned. Yeah, like I have the time to do that out of my not so busy schedule in my life. :rolleyes:

So why are we harping on this one teeny tiny example? Some of us, over and over and over again? I don't get it.

You basically answered your own question...you don't get it and we're apparantly wasting time trying earnestly to get the light bulb to turn on.

Is there any hope of this thread getting back on track? As a staffer here, I would hope you'd help us get there, rather than further distract. But if we just can't, then as the OP I ask that you close it down. These conversational circles are making me dizzy.

Um, YOU were the one asking all the questions and now you have several members trying to discuss and answer them. I don't think we need suggestions from you on what to do how to do it, thank you. If you're not liking the direction the thread is going, then do the best thing for yourself....DON'T POST ANYMORE. Others have a pretty well informed opinions of varying views that can be beneficial to other readers.

[AZAK]

Still, not only has there been no evidence offered that it's not a simple cost cutting maneuver, there hasn't even been any plausible speculation as to what advantage other than cost might be inherent in the choice.

How about "appearing" (as in our barrels are shiny too! And many of the gun store clerks and many Kimber owners and many perspective Kimber owners think that we use stainless steel barrels in all of our models because they are shiny just like the stainless steel barrels in our competitors products!) competitive with their competition without actually having to provide the stainless steel barrels.

Springfield Arms, even starting with their lowest/base model 1911 the GI, when offering the stainless steel version includes a stainless steel barrel.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=15

Funny thing, SA continues to use only stainless steel barrels in the models offered in stainless, not to mention that the two EMP models also come with a stainless steel barrel.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=137

Oh, and look at this a park'd with:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=4

After checking all of SA 1911 offerings (I think) I could only find 1 that did not have a stainless steel barrel and it is their least expensive of all of their offerings:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=1
And this barrel is NOT "in the white".



Well, again, we're talking about 'the common folk' here that might be susceptible to Kimber's marketing deceits. I would suggest those 'folk' hear stainless, and they figure it aint gonna stain.

You might be surprised at just how many gun store clerks, Kimber owners, and perspective Kimber owners that I have talked with that stated that Kimbers have stainless steel barrels.

And sometimes what "the common folk" can figure out, is that the word "stainless" breaks into: "stain less"; they are not called stainnever steel barrels.

[TheJ]

I go back to the "Custom Shop" roll marks all over the guns that aren't from their custom shop.
What? I'm pretty sure "customer shop" Kimbers are all meticulously hand made by one guy named Mr Kimber... No?
:p


After many posts I can appreciate that perhaps some things Kimber does like this may make some feel uncomfortable. I suppose I just look at it from the angle, that this sort of thing happens in many industries so I really wasn't put off or think anything they do is really beyond the pale in any way. Like when you go to buy a water heater by some companies that are labeled "self cleaning"... it doesn't actually clean itself... Or a company that sells "self-priming" paint doesn't actually prime the wall itself. I guess I'm just somewhat desensitized to that type of marketing so I may not be very quick to make note of it as anything particularly troubling.

[JasonWilliam]

@Tuttle: What point are you trying to make? I have already acknowledged that Kimber, along with every other company who's ever sold an elective product for a profit, uses marketing devices to attract customers. Hell I thought it was so obvious that we don't even need to talk about it.

What is YOUR point?

@AZAK: I wouldn't be surprised at all. But you're walking both sides of the line. Are we talking about educated customers, or not?

[AZAK]

Well, again, we're talking about 'the common folk' here that might be susceptible to Kimber's marketing deceits.

But you're walking both sides of the line. Are we talking about educated customers, or not?Emphasis by AZAK

Well, if you drive a Volkswagen you qualify; as the first and possibly also the second; it is possible to be both.

If you go back and re-read the posts, I would say that "the common folk" as well as the "educated customers" can be, and many are, influenced by Kimber's marketing.

Is their marketing strategy effective? Who annually sells the most 1911 pattern pistols in this country?

The question is, are their business practices "ethical"? (And this is a personal question that only each individual can decide, especially when voting with our dollars.) And yes of course every 1911 company wants to sell their pistols. But, (Behold the Underlying Truth) how many of these companies have a "non-existent Custom Shop pistol" or ship pistols with barrels "in the white" when their competitors use stainless steel barrels?

I go back to the old: If it looks like a bee, sounds like a bee... it's a bee.
If it looks like a stainless steel barrel, ...

Regardless of how well educated some 1911 pistol buyers are, there are always those who are "taken in" by the appearance of the pistol. And then there are those "educated customers" that are so well "educated" that they have come to the conclusion that "it's "match grade" so does it really matter what it is made of" (sound kinda familiar)... it really is "the fitting of the barrel that is important"; while continuing to pay for the "appearance" of a stainless steel barrel.

I do applaud Kimber for producing an "accuracy guaranteed" pistol. Kudos also for having a highly effective educational, opps I mean, marketing division.

[JasonWilliam]

Your sarcasm aside, you and I do not disagree at all. We totally agree.

So, what now?

[AZAK]

So, what now?

Not sure about you, but I am seriously considering going out and shooting a few of my Colts.

[JasonWilliam]

^^Hah agreed. I was thinking the same thing. Although I admit to being in more of a trap mood this afternoon. Perhaps chased with a little 30/30 lever action practice? We'll see :p

Cheers! :)

[AZAK]

Or going out and buying a Hi-Point in .45 auto! Lifetime warranty. Kimber's warrantee is how long?

[veloce]

AZAK, Look at some high end 1911's A large portion of them have white carbon steel barrels.

Rock river, Les Baer, etc
Kart barrels are all carbon, and I've never seen any match pistols with blued barrels.
The blueing would wear away quickly due to the metal to metal contact.


My opinion: Why don't they use carbon steel in Kimber barrels?
It's an unecessary cost. Carbon steel is 1/10th the price of stainless steel. It is substantially cheaper and easier to machine.

Kimber's are inexpensive 1911's anyways, if you want stainless, pay more and get a stainless barrel. You get what you pay for with a kimber 1911. IMO they are not bad pistols for the price, but nothing compared to a good Rock river or Les baer.

I've had 1000's of rounds through my Rock River with a Kart Barrel. Properly cared for they won't rust.
Why do the gun shop kimber barrels have rust on them? Because gun shops have so many guns they don't properly clean them.


Stainless steel or Carbon steel are not inherently harder than the other. The hardness comes from the heat treatment. Carbon steel can be potentially hardened more than stainless, but at that point, it is too brittle to be useful.

Stainless steel is harder to machine because of its machining characteristics, not because of it's hardness. Some alloys of carbon steel are also very difficult to machine.

Ask yourself, would you rather have a 150 dollar barrel that is stainless or carbon steel? I would rather have a carbon steel Kart barrel becasue it's probably better quality. An equivalent stainless barrel would cost more. So you should be happy that kimber offers a package that has a high quality barrel at a low price.

[AZAK]

AZAK, Look at some high end 1911's A large portion of them have white carbon steel barrels.

Rock river, Les Baer, etc
Kart barrels are all carbon, and I've never seen any match pistols with blued barrels.
The blueing would wear away quickly due to the metal to metal contact.


My opinion: Why don't they use carbon steel in Kimber barrels?
It's an unecessary cost. Carbon steel is 1/10th the price of stainless steel. It is substantially cheaper and easier to machine.

Kimber's are inexpensive 1911's anyways, if you want stainless, pay more and get a stainless barrel. You get what you pay for with a kimber 1911. IMO they are not bad pistols for the price, but nothing compared to a good Rock river or Les baer.Emphasis by AZAK

Now we are talking apples and oranges. A better comparison in my opinion is with Springfield Armory's offerings.

As Sturm said back in post #80:
Cost would be one of the primary motivators in Kimbers decision as I see it. As evidence of this, they leave the carbon steel barrel in the white.

There is absolutely no performance related benefit in doing this. There are one of three possibilities as to why Kimber does this.

1) To save money
2) To deceive the consumer making them believe the barrel is in fact stainless
3) All of the above

[Rinspeed]

Now we are talking apples and oranges. A better comparison in my opinion is with Springfield Armory's offerings.



No, I thought we were talking stainless versus carbon. Do you think the Kart barrels have some magic anti corrosion properties the Kimber barrels don't. :confused:

[AZAK]

No, I thought we were talking stainless versus carbon. Do you think the Kart barrels have some magic anti corrosion properties the Kimber barrels don't.

Actually, I thought that we were talking about Kimber's use of carbon steel barrels in most of their products and their possible motivations for doing so.

As per the OP:
Kimber: Is their use of carbon steel a cost savings measure?

By Kimber's own admission, see their website and pertinent info which I have already posted twice and referred to multiple times now, their "finest" pistols have stainless steel barrels.

Kimbers are not top shelf; not in the same league as hand fit custom pistol makers 1911s. Kimbers main competition would be SA in my opinion. I prefer Colts myself, and they are also in competition, but for the sake of argument SA is an easy apples to apples comparison.

It is all about perceived value. And how Kimber is/has marketed their product accordingly.

Even stainless can rust.

If you want to start up a discussion/thread on who makes the best 1911 barrel out of what material, have fun!

And how about the "lowly" stock Glock barrel. It is not even "in the white".
But, in the right hands, seems to do OK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFd3kF6LHz4

[AZAK]

And If I offended any "delicate sensibilities" by linking a Glock vid in a thread devoted to 1911s, watch this one instead:
http://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/19/v2cnop15VA8

Not really all that convinced that the barrel matters as much as people might think; at least after watching Hickok45's shooting makes me wonder, considering that he can do the same with a stock Glock.

[veloce]

AZAK, It seems like you enjoy arguing :p

I mentioned the more expensive guns to show that Barrel finish is not a matter of quality, but rather preference.

SA likes to blue their barrels. Kimber does not feel it is necessary. Personally I think a blue barrel looks out of place on a stainless gun.

I have to respectfully disagree with Sturm's reasoning on several of his posts, it seems he has a pessimistic view of Kimber's decisions or perhaps a grudge against kimber.

If Kimber is leaving barrels in the white to save money, than it seems every major 1911 manufacturer is trying to cut corners. Even the original WWI WWII issue 1911's :eek:

And if they are trying to deceive people by making them think the barrels are stainless, I guess Colt, Remington rand, etc were trying to make GI's think their barrels were stainless.

I guess that means every other major gun manufacturer that leaves the bolts and barrels in the white on their guns is trying to steal our money and trick us into thinking that our gun parts are stainless! :eek: :eek:

Or perhaps maybe there is a more logical explanation. Notice that these parts: bolts, barrels etc, are all moving and, and have bearing surfaces, that are visible. So Gun companies choose to leave them white because blueing will quickly wear away.
Or is beretta trying to save 1/10th of a cent by leaving the breech block on my new O/U white?!!!


I believe that Kimber is marking their high end guns as having stainless barrels for the same people that are questioning Kimber's use of carbon steel. They see Stainless, and go oh! This must be better, so i'll buy it. Then again, these people probably rarely shoot their Kimber, and a normal carbon steel barrel would probably rust from inactivity.

You have the tough side of the argument because an overwhelming majority of 1911's have white barrels.

To answer the OP's question: Carbon steel barrels are cheaper. Is it a cost saving measure that compromises quality? NO Are they doing it to make a bigger margin? Considering that they are still made in the US, Kimber probably passes on the savings to the consumer. If they really wanted to make money, they would have had them made in china by now.

[JasonWilliam]

AZAK, It seems like you enjoy arguing Ya think? :rolleyes:

AZAK, I think you missed a couple dozen posts in the middle. My original question has been answered, and in fact I said that I think it wasn't the question I meant to ask anyway. Post #58:
On this end of the conversation, I think my question wasn't a good question. Its not really what I wanted to know. What I think I wanted to know was this: setting aside corrosion issues, does it matter if a "match grade" barrel is carbon steel or stainless? Thanks to all the explaination here... I think the answer is "no", even though there is no standard answer as to what the heck "match grade" is. So if you want to keep argui... erh... discussing, please address that question since its really what I'd like to know. :p

(And that should answer your question John; notice how there's nothing in there about Kimber's ethical motives?)

[GoingQuiet]

I'm going to derail this thread with a bit of personal experience.

I've owned many Kimbers in the past - none for store inventory, not out of an aversion to the brand but because I'm not placing a big dollar order with Kimber when I can sell plenty of other brands just fine. Also the photos of the barrels starting to show rust is a common sight to me.

In Florida, I've seen brand new stainless steel Kimber 1911's showing of rust. My first 1911 was a Kimber, it was a carbon steel blue TLE II that had a MASSIVE extractor problem. The gun turned into a very expensive hammer. After sending the gun to them at my expense and having them fix it, after about a month or so of so so 1911 ownership - the finish began rusting. Badly. For a new gun I was not a happy camper at all.

I've owned other Kimber products that have performed flawlessly - but their reputation for "quality" in my past experience is checkered at best. Also worth noting, they have a fellow in the warranty department named Dennis who seems to have an interesting thing going on. Every time you talk to him the words "We fired your gun and we cannot replicate the problem" come out of his mouth.

Unless popularly demanded by customers, I do not plan on being a Kimber dealer.

[AZAK]

I believe that Kimber is marking their high end guns as having stainless barrels for the same people that are questioning Kimber's use of carbon steel. They see Stainless, and go oh! This must be better, so i'll buy it. Then again, these people probably rarely shoot their Kimber, and a normal carbon steel barrel would probably rust from inactivity.

Seeing that Kimbers one accuracy guaranteed 1911 has a stainless barrel and their other "finest" 1911s (developed/built for competition national and international - for the umphteenth time refer to Kimber's website and my posting the relevant sections twice here) also have stainless barrels, are you stating that out of all of their models, these are the likeliest to see the most inaction?

You have the tough side of the argument because an overwhelming majority of 1911's have white barrels.

You may see it that way, but not if you own a SA, (who I consider to be the best example of a parallel competitor although it could also be Colt - but Colt is still the original - whereas Kimber and SA are not), or many other makes of 1911. Wait, Oh, let me see, Kimber sells the most 1911s, so they must set the standard today. Which brings a quote to mind:

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."
Mark Twain

Quote:
AZAK, It seems like you enjoy arguing
Ya think?

AZAK, I think you missed a couple dozen posts in the middle. My original question has been answered, and in fact I said that I think it wasn't the question I meant to ask anyway. Post #58:
Quote:
On this end of the conversation, I think my question wasn't a good question. Its not really what I wanted to know. What I think I wanted to know was this: setting aside corrosion issues, does it matter if a "match grade" barrel is carbon steel or stainless? Thanks to all the explaination here... I think the answer is "no", even though there is no standard answer as to what the heck "match grade" is.
So if you want to keep argui... erh... discussing, please address that question since its really what I'd like to know.Emphasis by AZAK

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that I most recently addressed this, in posts #149 and #150. Including:
Not really all that convinced that the barrel matters as much as people might think; at least after watching Hickok45's shooting makes me wonder, considering that he can do the same with a stock Glock.

Have you watched the two videos?

Regardless," lowly" stock Glock and Kobra Carry did about the same at 230 yards; both quite well actually. In reality, Hickok45 is the one who did very well; equipment is a distant second.

You guys continue to support Kimber, if that is what you want to do.

And Jason, do you still believe this?

Your sarcasm aside, you and I do not disagree at all. We totally agree.

[johnbt]

Support Kimber? I thought we were just answering the question about whether or not they are open about which guns have a stainless barrel and which models don't. The answer is: They are honest, it's listed right there in the spec chart, year after year, for all the world to see. I still have the 1999 catalog from the year I bought mine. The others I've seen on line.

All of their barrels seem to be accurate from what I've seen and read on line since 1999.

Everything in manufacturing is a cost saving measure somehow. They don't waste a penny they don't need to. It adds up.

John

[spodwo]

I thought we were just answering the question about whether or not they are open about which guns have a stainless barrel and which models don't.

Actually - that wasn't the original question...

The original question/s:

Is their use of carbon steel a cost savings measure?


Does Kimber use a carbon steel barrel to "cut corners"? Are there other reasons, advertised or not, that Kimber might use carbon steal instead of "stainless"?


Based on the lengthy discussion and some of the other things Kimber does along with some of it's marketing tactics - I do think it's a cost savings measure...

[JasonWilliam]

You guys continue to support Kimber, if that is what you want to do.
Support Kimber?...Bingo. And there's the problem; some folks see this discussion as "support [for] Kimber" and others see it as an attempt to learn. I've asked the former to go away. And as for the latter, thank you.

AZ, not to pick on you, but unfortunately you've summed up in one sentence my frustration with this thread, the members that continue to derail it and the staff here that supports the derail: "You guys continue to support Kimber, if that is what you want to do." If you cannot see how this thread is nothing of the sort, I have to discount your answers as being totally biased, and therefore not on topic or on point with the goal of this discussion. AKA a total derail.

Do you and I "agree" AZ? Yep. But what we agree on has nothing to do with this discussion. At all.

[AZAK]

the members that continue to derail it and the staff here that supports the derail

Perhaps, you could get us back on track then:

OP
Kimber: Is their use of carbon steel a cost savings measure?
Which has been discussed.

to Your "restated/better" question:
What I think I wanted to know was this: setting aside corrosion issues, does it matter if a "match grade" barrel is carbon steel or stainless?
Which has been discussed.

And with other's quotes like this on this very page:
I believe that Kimber is marking their high end guns as having stainless barrels for the same people that are questioning Kimber's use of carbon steel. They see Stainless, and go oh! This must be better, so i'll buy it. Then again, these people probably rarely shoot their Kimber, and a normal carbon steel barrel would probably rust from inactivity.
how is this thread not about Kimber, Kimber barrels, and stainless versus carbon steel barrels?

You state:
If you cannot see how this thread is nothing of the sort, I have to discount your answers as being totally biased, and therefore not on topic or on point with the goal of this discussion. AKA a total derail.Emphasis by AZAK

"I see", said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.

You also state:
and others see it as an attempt to learn

"Derailing staffer" states:
You basically answered your own question...you don't get it and we're apparantly wasting time trying earnestly to get the light bulb to turn on.

I am leaning toward the "derailing staffer" at this point; as I do not see that this thread has "derailed" as it has followed your OP and your restated question.

Just what exactly are you questioning now? At this point, according to you the OP just what is, "the goal of this discussion"?

[JasonWilliam]

Perhaps, you could get us back on track thenGood plan!
Just what exactly are you questioning now? At this point, according to you the OP just what is, "the goal of this discussion"? From post #152, which quotes post #58
On this end of the conversation, I think my question wasn't a good question. Its not really what I wanted to know. What I think I wanted to know was this: setting aside corrosion issues, does it matter if a "match grade" barrel is carbon steel or stainless? Thanks to all the explanation here... I think the answer is "no", even though there is no standard answer as to what the heck "match grade" is.
So, we've apparently heard your opinion on that AZ. How about sitting back and letting others offer theirs, if they so desire?

Thanks!

[AZAK]

Jason William states:So, we've apparently heard your opinion on that AZ. How about sitting back and letting others offer theirs, if they so desire?
And I am stopping them how?

Jason William stated:Quote:
Is there any hope of this thread getting back on track? As a staffer here, I would hope you'd help us get there, rather than further distract. But if we just can't, then as the OP I ask that you close it down. These conversational circles are making me dizzy.
Tuttle replied:Um, YOU were the one asking all the questions and now you have several members trying to discuss and answer them. I don't think we need suggestions from you on what to do how to do it, thank you. If you're not liking the direction the thread is going, then do the best thing for yourself....DON'T POST ANYMORE. Others have a pretty well informed opinions of varying views that can be beneficial to other readers.All Emphasis by AZAK

Definitely leaning toward "derailing staffer" now.

[JasonWilliam]

John Williams? I love his music, but I'm not sure he'd appreciate being misquoted like that. :rolleyes:

You're right. I'll fire up a new thread and ask my questions there. You can have this one. Enjoy :)

[AZAK]

Originally Posted by JasonWilliam
On this end of the conversation, I think my question wasn't a good question. Its not really what I wanted to know. What I think I wanted to know was this: setting aside corrosion issues, does it matter if a "match grade" barrel is carbon steel or stainless? Thanks to all the explanation here... I think the answer is "no", even though there is no standard answer as to what the heck "match grade" is.

AZ, not to pick on you, but unfortunately you've summed up in one sentence my frustration with this thread, the members that continue to derail it and the staff here that supports the derail: "You guys continue to support Kimber, if that is what you want to do."
As Kimber manufacturers and sells more 1911 pattern pistols than their competitors, and the majority of their models use carbon barrels "in the white", advocating carbon barrels can translate to "supporting Kimber"; as was mentioned earlier in this thread, Kimber listens to its potential customers. (Even though they look like stainless, and many people think that they are.)

[JasonWilliam]

For those interested in continuing the discussion of "match grade" as it relates to stainless and carbon barrels, lets carry on over here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416789

[Jim243]

My, my, my 163 post that might be a record. Quite a heated descussion.

Usually I jump both feet in when it comes to a post on Kimbers (yes, I like them) but this one I have stayed away from till now.

It is my uneducated opinion that carbon steel barrels tend to be more accurate than stainless steel. This is due to my opinion that the rifling is sharper and more distinct and gives a better stablization to the bullet. (may or may not be true).

All I can say is God bless Kimber for whatever they are doing, it is my best shooting handgun.

Jim

[Shane Tuttle]

What once WAS a thread on topic for the most part as judged by Staff here has now turned for the worse.

Closed.