Talk:Kimber Custom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kimber Custom article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale


Contents

[edit] Category:Firearms

Earlier today the category "Firearms" was added to the article. I've removed it. The reason is that, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines point #3, "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory." The article is already in category "Semi-automatic pistols", which is a sub-category of "Pistols", which is a sub-category of "Handguns", which is a sub-category of "Firearms", so according to this guideline, the "Firearms" category should not be added. Note however that this is not a hard and fast rule, which is also mentioned in point #3 of the general guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. I think in this case though the rule should apply. If anyone else has an opinion on this subject feel free to post it here. — Mudwater 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption -- Stainless or Stainless II?

In a recent edit, the caption of the picture in the infobox was changed from "Kimber Custom Stainless" to "Kimber Custom Stainless II", but I believe that's a picture of a Stainless, not a Stainless II. I'm pretty sure the Stainless IIs all say "Stainless II" on the slide, and this one just says "Stainless", which you can see clearly if you click on the picture to view it full size. For a picture of a Stainless II and its markings, check out this one on the Kimber web site. So, I think the caption should be changed back to "Kimber Custom Stainless", without the "II". — Mudwater 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I think the editor who changed it was using the image title, which is "Kimberstainlesscustomii.JPG" when he/she changed it. I think it's safe to change it back. Parsecboy 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. That guns belongs to me. I took the picture. It is a Stainless II. If you view the fullsize picture, as in, click on the picture and then click on it again, you can make out the II. It does not come in very clearly as it is just two vertical lines || very close together. I believe possibly the angle of the picture and perhaps the lighting played a part in this, but if you look closely (and maybe even squint a little--haha) you can see the II. Sorry for any confusion due to the resolution/clarity/lighting. KDR 14:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's really hard to see the "II". I think I see it now though. So, the caption should stay the way it is. Thanks. — Mudwater 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right. When you open the image and enlarge it completely, the II is clearly there. Thanks KDR. Parsecboy 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge articles

I am proposing to merge Kimber Custom TLE II into this article. I'm also volunteering to do the merge. I'll wait a week or so, and if there's general agreement, I'll go ahead and do it. I'm suggesting the merge per Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Variants, where it says, "Variants of a model of a firearm such as folding/telescoping stock variants, target versions, variants chambered in a new caliber, compact/carbine variants generally should not receive their own article, instead having a section to the variant in the parent firearm's article." I think this is one of the cases where it would be good to apply this guideline. — Mudwater 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of case WP:GUNS#Variants was meant for. I'm all for the merge.--LWF (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have already indicated on Mudwater's talk, I also support the merge, for the reasons stated above. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree this is a good idea. Arthurrh 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Good catch on the Kimber Desert Warrior article, Hayden120. I agree, looking at the Kimber web site, it's considered another variant of the Kimber Custom. Since there seems to be a consensus to merge these articles, I'll go ahead and do the merge soon. — Mudwater 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I Disagreed at first, but after thinking about it, I think it probably would be a good idea to merge Series I and II articles with a caveat describing the difference. However, the Desert Warrior doesn't have as much in common with these pistols as other Kimbers and should IMO stay it's own page due to the differences in firing pin and extractor operation. Flash176 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Custom page on the Kimber web site here, they do list the Desert Warrior as one of the guns under the "Custom II Family". That to me is the strongest argument that the Desert Warrior is a variant of the Custom. As far as series I and series II Customs being part of the same article, that's already the case -- the current article explicitly includes both and does talk about the IIs having the firing pin block, and also how some Customs have an external extractor and others an internal one. I'm against lumping together different models or types of guns just for the sake of consolidating articles, but I would favor merging the Desert Warrior article with the main Custom one, on the basis that it is a variant, despite its differences. — Mudwater 14:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that it's been almost 2 weeks since the merge was proposed, and there have been no objections to at least merging the TLE II article in, what say we at least do that? There also seems to be consensus to merge the Desert Warrior in as well, save Flash167's objection. I do, however, agree to merge that page as well, for the reasons listed by Mudwater (i.e., the Kimber website, etc.) One thing that we might want to consider is the possibility of moving the Kimber Custom II Family article to Kimber Custom Family, and using that as the article, and turning the rest into redirects. Thoughs? Parsecboy (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) Since most editors have agreed, I will merge "Kimber Custom TLE II" and "Kimber Desert Warrior" into this article some time in the next few days. (2) In my opinion, "Kimber Custom" is a much better title for the article than "Kimber Custom Family". I understand that the word "family" would emphasize that this is a group of guns and not just one gun, but that's not necessary, because, per the WP:GUNS#Variants guideline, an article about a gun is assumed to include all of its variants or sub-models. This would apply to many different gun articles, not just this one. Also, the title of an article should be the name that most readers would look for first, which in this case would be "Kimber Custom". — Mudwater 13:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Kimber Custom would be better. Flash176 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have merged Kimber Custom TLE II and Kimber Desert Warrior into this article. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and feedback. Special thanks to Parsecboy and to Flash176 for creating the Custom TLE II and Desert Warrior material, which substantially improves this article. — Mudwater 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oops, I forgot to check back on here. But anyways, I was just going to say that I thought about it and I think y'all are right. It does make more sense to merge the articles, including the Desert Warrior. So thanks, Mudwater. Flash176 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimber Warrior

A new subsection should be set up for the Warrior, it is the commercial version of Kimber's MARSOC pistol. Hayden120 (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? It appears to me to be the same pistol in a different finish (i.e., the difference between the Custom II and the Stainless II). Is there anything mechanically different? I think it would be sufficient to just mention in the Desert Warrior section that the Warrior is the same weapon in a matte black finish. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few differences[1]. If anything, the Desert Warrior is a variant of the Warrior, and should come under the heading Warrior. Hayden120 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I must be interpreting differently the link you provided. I think that's just features the Warrior has, not necessarily differences it has with the Desert Warrior. For example, a lanyard loop is listed, but both models clearly have loops. In response to Mudwater's question below, according to the Kimber website, they both have the standard "Enlarged firing pin stop...". That's what we're talking about, correct? Parsecboy (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about the differences from the standard Custom II to the Warrior. The Desert Warrior is a variant of the Warrior, not the other way around. Hayden120 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I was just misunderstanding what you were saying. Yes, I do agree that they're different from the regular Custom II and should have their own section, and that the section should be just "Warrior", not "Desert Warrior". Parsecboy (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do the Warrior and Desert Warrior have the Kimber "series II" internal firing pin block? The two Soldier of Fortune articles by Gary Paul Johnston both seem to say that they do, although the USMC ICQB pistol on which they're based did not. This one says "the pistol comes with Kimber’s firing pin safety system." This one says, "But unlike the USMC pistol, the Warrior comes with Kimber's firing-pin safety." — Mudwater 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Kimber Warrior does have the series II firing pin safety, while the original MARSOC pistol does not. Have a read through this forum thread[2], it might answer some of your questions. -- Edit: I just noticed that the Desert Warrior entry in this article says it does not have the firing pin safety... maybe contact Flash176, he might have a better idea than me. Unless of course, he is misinformed. According to Kimber's website, both the Warrior and the Desert Warrior have an "enlarged firing pin stop locks the extractor in position for absolute reliability." Hayden120 (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hayden, like you said, I could be misinformed, but I've always heard that the Warrior series comes without the firing pin block. That's actually the reason most people buy them, so they can get a Kimber without one. I'm checking my source right now to make sure. *EDIT* Ok, according to the author of this thread, the (Desert) Warrior is without the firing pin block, aka Swartz safety. Also, included in this group is the newly-released SIS model (basically a Warrior with different cosmetics). Flash176 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a press release from Kimber regarding the release of the Warrior.[3] It appears you are right; the text says 'the Warrior does not incorporate the Kimber Series II system.' Some websites seem to say it's series I, and others say series II, but I think the official Kimber website would be the most reliable. I don't understand why you wouldn't want the firing pin safety, what could it possibly affect on the pistol? It would only add safety wouldn't it? Also, am I getting the firing pin stop and firing pin block mixed up, or are they the same thing? It seems there are so many terms for the same thing. Hayden120 (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the Warrior could be considered a 'hybrid' of I & II, but I associate it with II because an external extractor is a bigger difference than a firing pin block.
A firing pin stop is what goes behind the firing pin. If you look at the back of a 1911 with the hammer back, that flat piece of metal the pin's poking through is the stop. The block is a hunk of metal about the size and shape of a pencil eraser that prohibits the pin from moving forward. Kimber uses the original Swartz design by working the grip safety. While Colt patented the Swartz design originally, they've since used the trigger to release the pin block. The reason people don't want the firing pin block is it's just another part to break/malfunction, as the 1911 already has 3 safeties. The only reason it was put on in the last few years is because California decided that they wouldn't allow guns to be sold without it. That help? Flash176 (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, that was very informative. Even though the firing pin safety is another part that can break, at least it prevents the chance of the gun firing when dropped. Shouldn't that be a main concern? Hayden120 (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's nearly impossible to get a 1911 to fire if dropped on its barrel. It's not that people don't want more safety from a gun, but this was put on chiefly due to politics and in the 90+ years 1911's were around before Kimber started using this system, you never heard of any discharges in this manner. When various people were testing 1911's for this supposed problem, they had to build a special rig just to get the 1911 to land on its barrel and it had to be dropped from a height of more than 20 feet. A much more effective solution is to use a titanium firing pin with a slightly stiffer spring. Also, another problem with the Swartz system is if you're depressing the grip safety (basically holding the gun like you normally would) during assembly, there's a good chance that you'll shear off the system's actuator when you put the slide on. Flash176 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So, do you know for sure whether or not the Warrior and Desert Warrior have the firing pin block? If they don't, that would apparently mean that the two Soldier of Fortune references that I quoted above are mistaken, as they seem to be saying pretty clearly that the guns do have the block. — Mudwater 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
After looking around on the internet some more, I've got a new guess about this question, which is that the Warrior and Desert Warrior do not have the firing pin block. The list of California-approved handguns is at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/. As Flash176 said, the reason for adding the firing pin block was to get onto this list. If you search the list for all Kimbers, you will see that "Warrior II" is listed, but not "Warrior" and not "Desert Warrior". When I googled "Kimber Warrior II", I got a lot of hits. One was a discussion forum thread that included a picture of a gun that definitely said "Warrior II" on the slide. On another discussion forum thread, someone else said that the Warrior II had the firing pin block and the Warrior did not. To me, all this is circumstantial evidence that the current Warrior and Desert Warrior don't have the block. — Mudwater 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the Desert Warrior section so that it also includes the Warrior, and expanded the section by a few sentences. — Mudwater 19:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)