So, I'm guessing no one else is in the least bit put off at the weird metal gun barrel, incomplete instruction sheet or the customer service rep's meaningless rambling and blatant disregard for my concerns on any of these points? The kit is otherwise terrific.

Those are valid points. The barrel isn't the biggest concern for me as most of my kits are the old plastic barrel dinosaurs but if including it is affecting the price greatly then I would be upset and rather it not be in at all. The instructions might be workable for someone who has built enough Pz IVs that you could probably suss it out but not having seen them firsthand I don't know how incomplete they are. As it is, I am only missing the Ausf B and F2 (my G kit is later in the production line) from the lineup. The Pz III is where I have the most holes.

This might going off a tangent, but hopefully we can put a long held myth to rest (as has already been done regarding the first batch of Krupp turrets on early Tiger IIs). I myself was totally confused regarding the versions of the Panzer IV in the transition period from short-barrelled (L/24) to long-barrelled (L/43, L/48) KwK. Having read up on the subject, I think we could avoid a lot of confusion if we would just be speaking of versions F and G, period. Sure, for a time period of 3 months or so, the short-barrelled F was redesignated F1 (7./BW), and the long-barrelled got the label F2 (7./BW Umbau). However, this was retroactively changed in September 1942, where the long-barrelled version was henceforth called version G. Of course there have been changes during production, like omitting vision ports that weakened armour protection and were obstructed by the schürzen anyway, just to name an example. And there were frankentanks like the one I mentioned earlier: F hull with vorpanzer plus G turret. In other words, it makes next to no sense to talk about late F2, early G and the differences between them. I wish model manufacturers would stop adding to the confusion. It should only be of interest to readers of combat reports and such. To reiterate: Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf F = 7./BW = Sd.Kfz. 161, KwK 37 L/24, Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf G = 8./BW = Sd.Kfz. 161/1, KwK 40 L/43 and L/48.

See above for my complaint about the decal sheet. And the instructions are odd with some lines not properly printed due to using a spot color, so the arrows showing where to put a part are invisible. But at least it's not the tangled mess of a Dragon sheet, showing the parts in the wrong place so you misaligned everything and don't find out till you are perplexed as to why nothing fits. Dragon M4A3 105mm HVSS I'm looking at you. And we all have heard all kinds of horror stories about apathetic to nonexistent customer service from model companies. If it's not a domestic company, I don't even try anymore. I'm certain there will enough customers lambasting them in their native language.

Thanks for the information. For me I will be using the F1 and F2 designations anyhow. F2 brings to my mind a specific tank made before all the extras were removed.

To reiterate my point: the "new" Pz IV Ausf "F" is simply the current "G" without the extras and a short barrel. Big deal. Could do the same thing by opting for an aftermarket short barrel or dipping into the spares stash. The "G" also can easily be remade into an "F2" (I like the designations) the same way as it already comes with both the L43 and 48 barrels. Choose the L43 for an F2. Making this release sound new is really stretching the point as what next a "new" Ausf "E" based on the "F" kit? News flash: virtually no differences there either. As parts were used from from existing stock and all tanks returned to the depot for repairs were automatically brought up to current standards it quickly becomes problematic to identify a "true" variant. "New" kits should really be just that and offer something that you can't easily cobble together from the existing kit. Same way the "G" could easily be made into an early "H". Ad nauseum.

There are clear differences between an F and a G, or at least the way Border models depicted theirs. There will have to be two different sprues to contain all the And an "E" has a totally different top hull from a "F". The "G" has a number of differences from the "F2" ( early globular muzzle brake on an F body) I know all of you are much smarter than I am so am I missing some sort of secret panzer code thing? There's this duck quacking away and you're claiming it's another goose. Like saying the Dragon M4 105mm isn't new because it's only a new engine deck and exhaust on the M4A3 105mm.

I agree with what you are saying. However, the short 75mm on the PZ IV F used a different recoil housing than the long barreled tanks, so you can't just slap a short 75 in the kit. Border is just following the same path as Dragon. Making as many variants as they can get away with.

To me there's nothing wrong when a young company specialises on a certain topic. For a first kit, the G was very good! Remember Rye Field's first Tiger (DAK) and where they are now. There are, however, very different ways to handle version changes in a series of kits. A company can do it correctly, using different sprues where appropriate and/or clever engineering to easiy adapt those kits without sacrificing accuracy and ease of assembly. Or they can do it on the cheap, leaving most of the work to the modeler, as Dragon has sometimes done in the past: cut this part off , putty these holes (good luck with that tread plate pattern), try to marry upper and lower hulls having different lengths and so on. Ideal would be instructions with such details as: for building a vehicle produced by factory X in YYYY-MM, use parts A, B and C. One can always dream... Which path Border chooses only time will tell.