The last thread on Kimbers and their issues got my curiosity up. Lot's of opinions. Not much solid data. What I hope this to turn into is a data point in the discussion. Statistically, the argument can easily be made that this is not a representative sample size, and there is a great deal of validity to that. That said, it beats out conjecture IMHO.
Here is the subject of the discussion (next to the reference point, a known reliable Wilson CQB Elite):
A comparison is necessary because standardized dimensions don't exist. Therefore, measuring against a known good reference is the next best option. Please don't construe this as a critique of Kimber. First, comparing a $1k kimber to a $3.5k Wilson isn't really "fair." What I intend on doing is comparing the critical dimensions of the Kimber to the Wilson. This includes extractor shape and tension, ejector shape, slide stop shape and geometry, feed ramp geometry and breech face geometry.
Some pictures of the parts:
First thing I noticed was corrosion on the barrel just forward of the chamber. Which means I'm going to be eating crow on another forum. It also means the stainless steel Kimber uses is a very low chrome steel. I'm unsure of the logic behind this, because 410 wouldn't have corroded in this case.
More tomorrow when I have both next to each other on the surface plate.
Thanks!