Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Balance of the classic/select versus the Montana Kimber 84M/84L

I�ve just sold two 84Ms, a .257 Montana and a .338 Federal NRA special (blued with nice enough wood). I didn�t like the way the .257 balanced a 3.5-10x40, and the .338 federal was just two pretty for me. (I know that rifles are tools, but I�m a clutz that doesn�t know enough to get out of the rain, so down the road the NRA gun went to a happy home).

As a replacement I picked up an 84L Montana in 30-06. I hoped that the 84L would be able to handle the 3.5-10x40 better than the 84M Montana. It doesn�t. I know that Bigwhoop and Boxer agreed on the 3.5-10x40, but I don�t like the way it unbalances the Montana in 84M or 84L. But here is the strange part, I had a cigar with the guy I sold the NRA edition on which he has mounted a 4.5-14x44 Conquest. I asked him to bring the rifle along and this set up did not feel unbalanced like the 84M or 84L Montana with a 3.5-10x40. I don�t believe it was the Conquest, which is longer at 13.9 inches and heavier at 17.1 ounces compared to the Leupold at 12.6 and 12.6.

So, my question focuses on the balance of the classic/select versus the Montana. Has anyone compared the balance of the Montana vs the classic/select with the same scope? Is there a noticeable difference or am I psyching myself out because I like wood/blued rifles?

Kimbers in general are light... if you don't like the way the 3.5-10x40 balances on the 30-06 MT, I'm not sure what you might like.

Me, I use the 6x36 on the 84L Montana... I've had them on both the 84L 30-06 and 270 MT's (both barrels cut to 23")... balance is just right for me.

Can't help you on the wood/blue thing... only you can know that.

I have an 84M Classic in 243 Win. I really like how it balances with a Leupold 3x9 ultralight scope on it. I tried a Montana in 270 WSM at a store but didn't care for the balance of the rifle (sans scope) or the feel of the stock....FWIW

A Leupie 4x in light mounts never unbalances a gun.

400,
I read quite a few people who speak of a "balanced" rifle.
In all candor, I really don't know what they mean by that term.
Do they mean a little weight forward, weight rearward or just neutral? For discussions sake, I'd say something in "balance" is neutral in its weight displacement. Every scope is going to have some effect on the balance. I personally don't get that wrapped up in it although I am more attentive to how a shotgun is balanced. As we know, that is a whole different game.

As for a rifle, be it wood/blue or ss/kevlar, my choice of scope is based on what power I want and what looks reasonable on the rifle. I also try to use or improvise some sort of "rest" in a hunting scenario. That for me negates the need for balance. I'm not swinging the rifle freehand on some running game. Because of that, the 3.5-10x40 Leupie on my 84L's looks reasonable and yes, balanced.

Rifles are aimed which implies a degree of deliberation. A shotgun is pointed. Pick a scope that delivers the performance level you need and then go and learn to shoot the damn thing. Compared to a shotgun, a scoped bolt action is pretty ugly. Don't try and make it something which it is not. A rifle is for hitting targets with precision.

I have the Weaver K6 on my 84m .243 and the Leupy VXII 3-9X40 on my
Classic Select .308. both are in Leupy rings on Kimber bases.

I like the balance of both as is.

Yup, I agree. Pick the scope you need or want and learn to live with it.

Cutting to the chase - Does anyone presently have an 84M or 84L in both classic or select and a Montana that they can compare and comment on the handling?

�Balance� conveys too limited a meaning for what I�m trying to express. Rifles, like shotguns, handle differently. Virtually every thread on this board where someone asks for opinions comparing two or more rifles contains what I consider to be sound advice, which is that the person should find a dealer where they can handle the rifles themselves. While I understand that some of you don�t believe this is important in a rifle, I see no reason to settle for less when it is available.

If you have handled, of have the chance to handle, an 8400 and an 84M at the same time the difference is pretty pronounced. I don�t own, and don�t see myself owning, an 8400. I don�t like the way the 8400 handles, which is not to say that it doesn�t fit others, just not me.

My first Kimber was the NRA special in .338 Federal. I picked it up because I wanted to try out both the cartridge and the rifle. I mounted a 1.5-5x20 and was very impressed. My .257 Montana didn�t handle as nicely, but I attributed the difference to the 3.5-10x40 that it was wearing. The 84L Montana does not handle as well with either of these scopes. I hope this weekend to try the 84L Montana with either a fixed 6 or 2.5-8. (All Leupold scopes).

The Montana is definitely a solid rainy day, rough country rig for anyone, especially someone like me. But I suspect that an 84M classic/select is on the horizon to check out the handling. If my hunch plays out, I�ll just have to deal with the down sides presented by blued/wood rifles, because the NRA Kimber�s handling was addictive.

The question now is whether I wait for Kimber to start turning out the new 7mm-08 and .260s, or do I pick up a .308?

For me other attributes over shadow "balance". Things like the all weather features of the Montana, the "lop", the "drop" and excellent recoil pad. I don't overlook the 3 position safety, "crf" plus the blind magazine. These features fit my requirements. I am not so sensitive to detect any real world difference between a 2.5-8x36 vs. a 3.5-10x40 sitting on top of an 84L.
For me, that would be dependent on what magnification range I want. Other folks are sensitive to other aspects of "balance" it appears. To have options is a beautiful thing.

Balance for me is when the moment of truth comes about.. That second your heart is racing and you got a buck or a bull standing there and it's time to make the shot.

Recently sold the only rifle that at that moment in time those cross hair's just stood there anchored in near perfection. Problem being i hated carring that rifle all day.

I'm to the point where I think I'd rather carry a hog all day that makes a shot easy. Lightweights have cost me some very nice critters.. Hell for me trying to hammer a yote offhand with a lightweight is near impossible..

Obviously a rifle that when shouldered and doesn't waver all over the damn place is a better balanced rifle for me..


400,

Have you heard that Kimber is going to offer the .260 again?

Shaq,
That I heard the rumor is a fact, but as to whether there is any fact in the rumor that Kimber was going to restart distributing the .260 and 7mm-08 84Ms I cannot say.
As for giving up that one perfect rifle, I might have just done the same thing when I sold that 84M .338 federal. Let�s hope that we can both find another. And may I suggest you try an 84M classic or select. I've owned two, plus a kimber hunter .22, which all appeared to have the balance and a nice light weight.
Good luck to you.

Close as I can get to your question. Montana in 257 AI, Classic in 7-08. Both with 2.5-8s in Talley Lwts.
The Montana balances right at the front screw, while the Classic about 1 3/4" closer to the butt.

Savuti,
Thank you. When you pick up, walk with, and shoulder these rifles, do you notice any difference between them?
Have you had the chance to compared the handling of these rifles to that of the 84Ls?

Thanks again.

I have an 84L classic .30-06 and an 84M classic in .243 win. The 84L has a more balanced feel with it's longer barrel and slightly longer LOP and stock. At first I thought my 84M was a tad too small for me but now I like it. I would say tie goes to the 84L by a hair. The 84M I have in .243 is heavier than my 84L because if the extra weight in it's small bore barrel. The extra weight in the .243's barrel also makes my 84M balance different than say an 84M in .308.

If I were in charge at Kimber, I would make the 84L's with a 23" barrel.

The Montanas have a substantially thicker pistol grip because they need to maintain strength through that part of the stock.

I personally like the feel of the thinner pistol grip on Kimber's walnut stocks.

Bingo! It's hard to think rifles when dove and clays are on my mine. But I've got to get ahold of another classic/select.

Off hand the Classic seems to hold steadier, but that may be the overall weight difference (14 oz) more than the balance.

Haven't seen an 84L yet.

Pete

Finally made it out to Cabelas and was able to handle an 84L and 84M at the same time. The handling was noticeably different. However, neither was unpleasant and I can see why some have a slight preference for the 84L.

Then it hit me, the reason I prefer the 84M was my Kimber .22 Hunter! I�ve been shooting it like crazy the last year or two. The balance was almost a match for my 84M.

Mystery solved.

You have good karma with the 84M vs. your .22 Hunter. Imagine coming from a 7 - 8+ lb. rifle and picking up a 5# 2oz. Montana?
The first time I did, it reminded me of a Mattel Shootin' Shell rifle I had in my "yute". Like Brad has said, it presents a problem for some in the accuracy department and they might not even realize it.