Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Express Rifles and Big Bores Only Kimber Caprivi .375 H&H--Any Improvement?

hey the model70 are here in 375 416 and 458 win why would you pay that much for the rifle when you can buy the model 70 for around 1050 take 2200 and have a custom stock built for it i knoe i have a new model 70 with the new trugger in it was rather upset that they change the trigger well i tink the new trigger may be better sure is crisp

I have posted elsewhere on here about my experiences with the Kimber Caprivi in .375, which required two trips back to Yonkers, NY. First for a barrel band sling that came loose and then for recurrent misfires due to bad headspacing. Follow up: my father bought a Caprivi in .458 Lott which we finally took to the range to sight in yesterday. The V in the rear sight blade is cut so deep that the front sight cannot be lowered sufficiently far to zero the rifle. It shoots 8 inches low at 50 yards. We called Kimber and they immediately said to send the rifle back to them to have it fixed. This is just one person's experience, but two Kimber rifles with fundamental flaws right from the factory is highly suggestive of serious quality control issues at Kimber. Hey, Leslie Edelman and Dwight van Brunt: are you paying attention, or asleep at the wheel?

I haven't seen the new Winchester yet. Was in Sportsmen's the other day and they haven't had any in yet. Sounds like it could be a nice rifle. I looked at the old Express back when it was a $600 rifle, and was underwhelmed. I recently looked at the Ruger RSM, and it's way too heavy in 375 H&H. I thought the CZ was clunky and rough.

The Caprivi I bought is used, and I paid under $2400 for it. It still seems high, but better than the other options I saw. The trigger is good, the wood is nice, etc. We'll see how it goes. I called Kimber before purchasing it, and they said they would correct any defects in materials or workmanship so long as the rifle was unaltered, which it is. It wasn't quite as clean as the seller represented it, but he said he only fired three rounds through it. I think that's plausible, as he's a Weatherby guy.

It sounds like the rear sight isn't right on that Lott. It seems it would be easier to just meaasure the height and have them send you a replacement rather than sending the entire rifle back. How does it group? If it groups okay, raising the rear sight or lowering the front sight by ~.100", or a combination of the two should fix it. I don't have my rifle here, so can't measure the sight radius, but that looks close.

Mine also is a rather deep V, and not the shallow V of the classic Express sight. The other two leaves are completely flat, no V at all. That's not right, is it? It's not that important to me, as this one will be scoped. I'll check it once I get a load developed. If the rifle isn't right, Kimber will hear about it. I'll let guys here know the results.

I also have a barreled action in 375 H&H. It's a Shilen 5.5 contour on a Remington Model 30 Express action that I had built many years ago. The first 'smith kinda botched the job, but another guy fixed it. I'm going to try my hand at stocking it if it feeds okay. With that barrel, it should shoot.

Hey Paddler... on both of our Caprivis (.375 and .458) the flip up blades are completely flat, as with yours. I can only assume those are meant to be notched in a custom fashion in order to allow for zeros at further distances. But my .375 has a Zeiss 1.5-6, and I anticipate putting a Meopta 1-4 on the .458 Lott. I have no need for the flip up blades. But I would sure like to be able to sight in the fixed blade on the express sight at 50 yards just in case I ever need or decide to shoot without the scope.

I read the saga of your 375 H&H. How did that work out? Last I heard, the factory had it back and you were soon to leave for your safari. Did you ever shoot it with the iron sights? I'm surpirised your Dad bought one after your experience, or did he buy it before the problems surfaced?

It looks like one could simply swap out the blade assmbly on the rear sight of the Caprivi's after backing out the set screw. I haven't looked, but assume the front would be just as easy. Have you thought of doing that? Does Kimber have different sight assemblies?

While this isn't CRF correct, buy a Sako AV. They work and you don't have to do anything to them. Yes, they're push feed, but they work. Even if you stand on your head while you work the action.

Not that I'm trying to stir the pot, or anything. . .

Of course not. Why would you want to do that?

I think the Caprivi should be a good rifle. And a new Sako is $2100, so not much less than the Kimber. A simple solution the the problem would be a ramped rear sight. Though traditional, a leaf rear sight is of limited utility today, when most rifles are scoped. This is particularly true of the 375 H&H, which shoots flatter than most DG calibers. Sighted for 100 yards would be fine for this rifle with iron sights.

I'm not married to the Caprivi, though. If it's crap, I'll get it fixed or sell it. Life's too short to put up with inferior guns.

+1

As for the Sako, you can get a AV in excellent condition in .375 for well under $1500.

I understand the new Model 70's are supposed to be pretty nice.

Well, I'm into the Kimber right, at least I think so. The original owner appears to have put too much scope on, and there's a linear defect in the blue where the objective scratched it. The stock had some handling marks that I've steamed out, and I'm working on the stock finish. Factory oil finishes are generally pretty poor, IMO. I'm using some boiled linseed oil, as my Tung oil experiment failed miserably. The Minwax "Tung Oil Finish" really is more of a varnish, so I had to sand a bit.

My scope arrives tomorrow, and I got my Tally bases and rings yesterday. Unfortunately, Gary sent the screw lock instead of the leverlocks, so I'll have to wait for the correct ones.

I wouldn't mind a Winchester, but haven't seen one in the flesh. I've read nice things about the CZ and the RSM, but they're both too heavy for my taste. Glad I was able to handle them before buying, as it would have been a mistake.

I can tell you from experience, the RSM is much too heavy in .375 and nearly so in .416. That, and the forend feels clubby. They are well made, though, and accurate--at least mine is. Sure hope it all works out for you.

Yes, my dad bought the .458 before the .375 showed itself to be such a lemon. Believe me, there's been a bit of buyer's remorse there. As for the .375 saga, the rifle was back at Kimber just before I left for Namibia. They apparently replaced the barrel and chambered it appropriately. They then sent it back to me via FedEx overnight. (Hey, that's something they did right.) It arrived on a Friday, I mounted the scope on a Saturday, sighted it in on Sunday, and left for Namibia that Monday. I shot most of my animals with a very trusty Sako in .30-06, but I did shoot a kudu and gemsbok with the .375 using handloads with Swift A-Frames. Both were one shot kills. The kudu ran about 200 yards after the shot traversed the chest. The gemsbok dropped where he was standing and never moved again.

I agree, the rear sights could be swapped between the two rifles. That would be fairly easy to do. I may end up doing that, but first I'll wait to see what Kimber proposes.

A little more follow up on the Caprivi in .458 Lott. I was just cleaning the rifle, and when I wiped down the barrel, the barrel band came loose. That's the exact problem I had with the .375 when I sent it back to Kimber the first time.

So here's the run down:
A. Kimber Caprivi in .375
1. Loose barrel band.
2. Bad headspace in chamber.
B. Kimber Caprivi in .458
1. Loose barrel band.
2. Bad iron sights.

These problems make me wonder what else is wrong with the guns. I think it is especially important that a dangerous game rifle be completely reliable and inspire confidence in the hunter. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever be able to face down a cape buffalo with either of these rifles.

Sorry to hear of your troubles. When I called Kimber, they told me that the barrel band is a press fit, not soldered or brazed. Solder wouldn't hold up to hot bluing, and I don't know if brazing would hurt accuracy. They also said that they hadn't had problems with a loose barrel band swivel stud. Maybe heating/cooling cycles lets the press fit work loose. I'll see what this one does. I guess another solution would be to install a front swivel stud in the forend. So long as it was the two screw to match the rear, it would be okay.

How does your 375 shoot now?

How do Weatherby and Ruger attach the barrel band?

Paddler... the .375 shoots reasonably well now. It shoots well from a cold barrel, but the groups expand as the barrel heats up. The last couple of times I was at the range, my first 3 shots went through one ragged hole at 100 yards. But I couldn't duplicate that once the barrel warmed up.

I'm surprised that someone at Kimber told you that they hadn't had problems with the barrel band swivel stud. That person was either ignorant or lying. They fixed the barrel band on my .375 nearly two years ago, and the .458 is on its way back now. I can't imagine mine and my Dad's Caprivis are the only ones that have had barrel band issues. In fact, I'm pretty certain I came across a post somewhere else about the same barrel band problem.

All I can say is the Caprivi is a beautiful rifle, but I'm so fed up with Kimber, I'll never buy another. In fact, I'm planning to sell my .375 as soon as I come back from my black bear hunt on Vancouver Island in May. Currently thinking about replacing it with a custom rifle from Dakota Arms, Kilimanjaro Rifles, or even a Jarret rifle.

Sounds like maybe relieving some barrel pressure could help when the gun warms up.

What loads are you shooting?

Hope my barrel band doesn't fall off.