Kimber Stainless Target II (9 mm)

[T.MAY]

Just bought one of these last night and was wondering if anyone has put a Fiber Optic front sight on one. I know Dawson Pre. makes one...anyone else?

[downtownv]

I had my smith put a white dot on the front sight Milled and glow paint $40 very much improved!

[Jordan]

When I was looking into a new site for a gold match I got a lot of feedback on here from people that have done that and been really happy with the results. Its likely the route that I take, too.

[T.MAY]

Originally Posted by T.MAY

Just bought one of these last night and was wondering if anyone has put a Fiber Optic front sight on one. I know Dawson Pre. makes one...anyone else?

I know you've got to have pics or it isn't real.

[jerseydevil]

Nice pistol. I have the same one. I put about a 1000 rnds through it so far and I absolutely love it. Shoot the loads on the heavier side for breakin. Lawman 124's or something similar. Mine would not lock open on last round with softer 115gr Blazer brass until the break in period was up.
Kimber offers a fiber front sight for around $35. Its on amazon, kimber, natchezss website.
Good luck with it, its a fine weapon.

[BYJO4]

The fiber optic works great. You can also just put whiteout on the back of the partridge sight. Both show up very well except in darkness.

[broadus123]

I have fiber optics on 2 of my kimbers I use dawson sights

[downtownv]

for $40 I had a milled and painted white glow dot put on which made a world of difference!

[T.MAY]

Thanks for the feedback.....

Put about 100 rounds through it yesterday. I used some factory PMC (115 FMJ) rounds as my 124 gr rounds are hand loaded light for USPSA. Gun functioned without any FTF or FTE. Slide did not stay open on the empty mag until after about 75 rounds...then it started to work as designed. Very pleased with the gun overall. It was a pleasure to shoot....definitely needs a new front sight

[Ausglock]

My STII in 38 Super came with a white dot front. I didn't like it, so I replaced it with a black front sight and now have no problems. F/O fronts don't do it for me either.

[Buckeye1]

I tipped the top few lines on the front site with some lime green hobby paint from Pat Catans. I have done this on several of my pistols and the sights show up great for me. They also have orange or red if your eyes prefer that color. With just the tip painted I have been able to get good accuracy from my 9mm and conversion kit sights. Best of all only cost a few bucks.

[jtaylor996]

I use the .090" width Dawson fiber front sight. Kimber used that as an excuse not to look at my gun for warranty work, though, so maybe you should just use whiteout until you've got more lead down range in case you find a chamber issue...

[T.MAY]

Originally Posted by jtaylor996

I use the .090" width Dawson fiber front sight. Kimber used that as an excuse not to look at my gun for warranty work, though, so maybe you should just use whiteout until you've got more lead down range in case you find a chamber issue...

I read that in another post.... hard to believe that Kimber would deny warranty work for changing a front sight..unbelievable

Thanks for the feedback on the Dawson.

[Kruzr]

The only reason they would deny a sight change for warranty was if the owner's complaint was the gun wouldn't shoot to POA.

Moral of the story: Never make a change to a gun until you know it is working as it should.

[jtaylor996]

Yeah, it was pretty crappy of them. That was the complaint, though.

I work at an aerospace manufacturer, and I had centered the front sight to within .003" of the center of the slide, and provided the measurements to prove it. They wouldn't even look at it... they just unpacked it, called me saying they refused to look at it, and charged me shipping for both ways.

I had discussed changing the front sight on the gun over the phone with them before shipping it to them, too. I would have never sent it out if I had any inkling they were going to do that.

[L.E.]

What was the reason for the requested warranty work? Just curious. They weren't concerned about how accurately your sight was centered, their position would be that the gun has had modifications done to it, they don't know to what extent, and don't want to be put in the position of possibly providing warranty service for someone else's work.
L.

[jtaylor996]

Before I get run out of here as a "kimber hater" (which I'm not), I'd like to say that I'm not trying to drag this issue out as a beef with kimber. What happened sucks, but I wouldn't be talking about it unless prompted.

The complaint was that the gun is shooting left pretty significantly, even from a rest. I can adjust the rear sight to compensate when the front is centered, but it leaves the sight hanging "off the side of the gun", which looks weird, and messes with how you index your grip for shooting quickly. On a good gun point of aim should match point of impact (POA=POI). This gun does not.

As noted on these forums, there were some 9mm barrels that have been doing this due to something funny going on just past the chamber inside the barrel. The wouldn't even look at anything involved (barrel, bushing, slide lockup) b/c the front sight was changed, even though it was easily measurable as being not the cause (it was like .003" from center, in the opposite direction, meaning it was correcting for the problem somewhat). I included the measurements, and they could have confirmed them for themselves in 10 minutes.

The problem existed before I replaced the front sight. Due to the difficulty in pushing a kimber front sight, it was going to be easier to replace the sight completely than to recenter the original (new one could be sized so it doesn't require a 10 ton arbor press to make a fine adjustment). I wanted a Dawson sights anyways, so this is the reasonable route I took to diagnosing the problem myself. Once the new sight was on and centered, I was able to determine that the problem was in no way connected to the front sight position, which means it's time for Kimber to fix the problem.

The takeaway is that it seems that Kimber will take any possible excuse to get out of doing actual warranty work.

After they had the gun 5 weeks, they called and said they wouldn't do warranty work on it b/c of the front sight change. They wanted $200 to just fire it (plus another 5 weeks), any actual fixes would be extra if they were then found to be unrelated to the sight. After that $200 there was a chance they may decide that something was covered by the warranty. However, since they were already being completely unreasonable, I didn't think it likely they would change their mind later. So I had them ship the gun back to me instead (after they made me pay for the shipping both ways, about $150).

So, why am I still here? Well, I'm not buying a new Kimber ever again, 'cos to me, their warranty is not worthless. However, a kimber is still a lot of gun for the money, especially when purchased used. Most of the actual problems with a kimber are easily or cheaply fixed, even if there was no warranty.

I've had a much better experience with the actual gun than I've had with the company. I'll keep the guns, pretend the company doesn't exist.

Since then, I've done a lot more mods to my Kimber, and it's way better than ever before. It's still doesn't shoot POA, though. There's no way they'd consider warranty now, but I've already written the warranty off.

[Kruzr]

The takeaway is that it seems that Kimber will take any possible excuse to get out of doing actual warranty work.

BS, their policy is the same as any other gun company. If you make a change that affects what you are sending it back for, you have voided the warranty.

It is the same if you bought a car that pulled to the left and you changed the wheels to something else and then brought it in for warranty service to the dealer. You would pay for the inspection and any work needed, even if your wheels were misaligned when you bought the car. The maker doesn't know that any longer.

Here is how they say it:

Kimber assumes no responsibility for product malfunction, physical injury or property damage resulting in whole or in part from criminal use, or negligent, improper or careless handling, unauthorized modifications, use of defective, improper or hand-loaded ammunition, abuse, neglect or any other influences beyond Kimber’s control.

Nonetheless, if you changed the sights and were having feeding issues, they would have still done THAT work under warranty.

You created your own warranty problem and you don't seem to want to take responsibility for your actions.

[L.E.]

Thanks for the reply.
L.

[jtaylor996]

I took complete responsibility, and cut my losses on it. I acted reasonably and expected them to act reasonably. I work in customer support.

I had a problem with the barrel, not the sight. How different is that from your feeding issue/sight analogy?

[Kruzr]

Originally Posted by jtaylor996

I took complete responsibility, and cut my losses on it. I acted reasonably and expected them to act reasonably. I work in customer support.

I had a problem with the barrel, not the sight. How different is that from your feeding issue/sight analogy?

They would have had to shot it to determine that. Your complaint was it wouldn't shoot POA without the sight being moved well off center. If you had left the Kimber sight, they could have determined that on their dime. Since you changed it, they would charge you to see if it was the sight or the barrel.

You never gave them the chance to correct the issue before you made a material change that from their perspective could have been the problem.

[jtaylor996]

Just on principle, I'm not paying anyone $200 for $2 with of ammo down range, especially on a new gun. Besides, this is all moot an entirely off topic here. If you want more info, pm me instead.