Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Mountain Rifle Recommendation

Good evening,

I was hoping I could get some feedback on a rifle for my brother-in-law. He is starting to get into hunting out here in Colorado and beginning to realize that mountain hunting is a tough game. He is looking to get a good rifle to start but not looking to break the bank. Below is the email he sent me:

"I really understand the need for a light rifle now. I was hiking on some seriously steep terrain this weekend where I'll be elk hunting in October... could be miles to walk and a heavy gun is the last thing you want.

I did some research for a cheaper option to the Kimber Montana and found the Tikka T3 superlight, it's only about 1/2lb heavier than the Kimber but $500 cheaper, and it comes in a .300 Win Mag. Thoughts?"

If money wasn't an option, I love Mel Forbes' NULA or the Kimber Mountain Ascent. When I went on my sheep hunt last year in AK, the guides were all carrying Kimber Montanas in 325. If more than one guide in camp is carrying the same gun, that says something.

We got him a Leupold V3 with CDS turrets, so he is good in the optics department. What would you recommend in the sub $1,000 marketplace. He will be hunting elk and deer. He is a decent sized guy, so .300 Win is a good caliber for him. A muzzle-break would be a plus.

Thanks for your help and good luck this season!

An ultralight 300 is going to be pretty hard on a new guy. I'd buy something with a sporter barrel in 270, 7mm08 or 30-06 as he doesn't sound like a reloader. I would never own another braked rifle. Ruger American would be high on my list.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...cts_id/84839/Ruger+AMERICAN+7MM-08+MTBLK

Nothing wrong with a tikka t3. Have him go find one locally and handle it. While there he may find a few others to handle and make his own decisions.

Yep, and there is nothing at all wrong with a muzzle brake that a set of ear plugs won't fix.
I don't use one, but my petite wife has a braked rifle that she'll shoot (accurately) all day long.

Have never understood the disdain....

This above is good advice. I really like the t3 for the price point. Also really like the m70 fwts, but a bit more cash than the t3/

I think you can find a used Kimber 8400 under a grand.

Tikka in 300 mag with limb saver replacement recoil pad and Talleys would be hard to beat. 30/06 would also fit the bill with less recoil. I don't mind a brake on some rifles and have been happy with a KDF on a couple of them.

Go stainless....

Here you go
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth.../1/F_s_kimber_montana_300_win_mag#UNREAD

A Remmy 700 SPS in 7mm Rem Mag or 300 Win Mag, then throw it in a B&C Medalist Stock, bed the action/free float the bbl and drop a Timney trigger in it� All for right at around $1,100 if you DIY. Oh, and forget about the muzzle brake. under 9 lbs scoped and loaded with 3 rnds. Lite enough to carry all day, but enough weight to help mitigate the recoil of a non-braked magnum. Perfect mtn rifle (IMHO).

I'd push him away from the 300Win and toward something on the 06 or 308 case in a light rifle.

I've been down that road and did not enjoy it. Also went down the tikka road with the same rifle and ended up getting a Montana or 3 eventually anyway, but that's all personal preference.

On the other hand, how well do you like your brother in law? A nice light 300Win and a Leupold 6-18 would be good for a lot of revenge!

One of these, 700 Mountain ss in 280. Can load lighter bullets until he get use to recoil. Don't start him on a light 300.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=443518664

The only time you feel the recoil is at the bench� go .300 Win Mag all day and twice on Sundays� they don't have all that much recoil anyway� and the extra downrange energy is appreciated at extended distances on big animals. Rem 700 in .300 Wn Mag and he'll never need another rifle in his life for big game.

Handing a new guy a semi-lightweight 300 Mag as his first hunting rifle is beyond dumb.

Tanner

Broomd, I agree on the break. Our family friends who competitively shoot have breaks on all their guns. Wasp, I PMed him. Thanks for the lead.

Yes on stainless.

If we can buy a Montana right, I think we'll go that route and throw a break on it. My Jarretts have breaks and I'll just put plugs in, if in a position to do so.

He is likely going to use my sister's .270 this season if we don't round something up in the interim.

Keep the advice coming, please.

Kimber Montana is really the only factory "mountain rifle" out there that's worthy, IMO that is still in production. You'll have to go through the necessary "moves" to make sure it'll shoot, but once you've done those, you'll have something. A used shooter off the classifieds is how I'd go.

Other option include putting an Edge stock on a Rem 700 Mtn Rifle.

Don't put a brake on any mountain rifle.

Nice gun. Wish they got the weight down a little though.

It doesn't sound like he has much shooting experience remember it's hunting not long range shooting. Right ?

"Yep, and there is nothing at all wrong with a muzzle brake that a set of ear plugs won't fix."

"Have never understood the disdain...."

broomd,

At the range I agree! But you'll not always have the opportunity to put plugs in while hunting, and they definitely amp up the blast.

Assuming your brother in law is a new shooter, there are two things that will put a serious flinch in his shooting; muzzle blast and heavy recoil... start him on something pleasant, 30-06, 270, 308 or 7-08 and move up from there with experience, if need be.

Jerry

this X10 in stainless.
also don't need a huge scope. 2.5-10, 3-9 or 4-12 to keep the wight down.

I agree on the scope, Dre. We did the Leupold V3 3.5-10x with CDS turrets. It's the same scope I have on my mountain rifle and love it. I have the European glass on my whitetail and short hike elk rifles.

I have the Tikka T3 in 7mm-08 with Talleys and a Leupold VX-2 . I think it's just a hair over 7 lbs IIRC. Inexpensive setup as far as rifles go. Easy to shoot. No recoil issues at all and will easily group a 150 grain Nosler Partition in 1" all with stock parts.
Can't imagine the same outfit in .308 or 30.06 would add much weight or otherwise if he wanted something with some more oomph.

get him a Tikka t3 superlight . Around 6 ounces or so heavier than a TI or a 84L (if I remember right). And they shoot , can be found for around $700 bucks used. Cant go wrong. Spend the savings on bullets and shoot.

If a Nula is the goal, find a Colt ultra light rifle for around $500. and as money permits have Melvin turn it into a Nula.

Mel is a good dude. My .308 is built on his on his action with Jarrett doing the rest on it. My bolt came unsoldered prior to my sheep hunt last August. I sent it back to him and he took care of me promptly.

Unfortunately, my brother-in-law is on a budget. Otherwise, we'd probably go Kimber Mountain Ascent and not look back.

Just to throw a wrench into the discussion, you MIGHT be able to get one of the new Weatherby Vanguard S2 Back Country rifles for close to $1,000. Weight is 6 3/4 lbs., which is a bit heavier than some, but with that tradeoff there's much to like, most notably a 24 in. fluted, Cerakoted barrel and action -- and superb accuracy. I reviewed one when they were first announced and it shot so well I could not bring myself to send it back. Here's a link if you're interested (2 parts):

http://www.gunworld.com/the-bearable-lightness-weatherby-part-i/

Friend has a Colt Light Rifle he picked up in .30-06 for $450. Shoots fine as is.

+1


Id say a Kimber Montana 7mm-08 or a Remington mountain rifle also in 7mm-08 would be hard to beat.

Agreed, laker.... I just set up a faux-T.i. 7/08 and it's become my favorite rifle by quite a bit.

Tanner

6# 11.7oz in 308 with X-low Talleys and a 2.5x8 Leupold. That is what is listed with an empty mag and no sling yet. I plan to whittle on the stock some and get a Kampfeld flute job on the bolt.

If that ain't light enough for you, maybe you need to buy a good Pendlay barbell first.

Bear in mind those little gay-assed dumbells that Zero was waving around in his "workout vid" awhile back are each likely heavier than said T3 Superlight.

Roger that , and like others have said , magnum+super lightweight=bad

kscowboy01:

I wouldn't put much faith in those who say "the only one" or "the best". There are lots of good choices that will work just as well as others. I recommend that you continue to do research and comparison shopping before you make a final decision and lay out hard ca$h.

I also suggest that you should weigh the features and cost of the Thompson Center "Venture" along with the others that you consider. They are not pretty but they are lighter than a lot of other rifles, reliable, durable and guaranteed by the manufacturer to shoot MOA out of the box. You can find them on the retail market for less than $500 and one will last a lifetime with proper maintenance.

I hunt elk in Colorado with a T/C Icon Weathershield 30-06 using 180 grain Nosler partitions hand loaded to perform like a .300 magnum (62 grains RL22, 2,880 fps). I think that the middle calibers, anything from as small as .270 to as big as .338 magnum will work for North American big game hunting. Any legal caliber will kill a big game animal with proper bullet placement but nothing will work right with bad bullet placement.

IMHO the Leupold VX-3 is the best value scope on the market. You can spend a lot more on a rifle scope but you can't get a better scope at any price. You can spend less, but you'll get less.

BTW I wouldn't buy a used rifle. If someone is selling a rifle, there's a reason. Are you a skilled gunsmith who can evaluate the condition of a used firearm? If not, you should buy only new.

KC

I spend A LOT of time with a Pendlay bar (and bumpers)....but I still like mine less than 6.5 scoped. Must be my fragile frame....

To the OP, Kimber Montana is the way to fly. I'd go short action but some want more. The 8400 in a WSM would be my focus if I wanted more.

Forbes is another option. Just got my hands on a 20B but haven't spent enough time with it to say good or bad. I can say, just from a quick caress, I like it enough to consider one a gamble worth taking and if it didn't perform or was lacking I'd send it to Mr. Forbes for a barrel/bed/paint to have a NULA on the cheap.

Now be careful! She may never get it back from him after he knocks down a big 350" 6X6 with one shot from that .270 and he drinks the coolaid!

If you can't carry a 9 pound rifle up a mountain, keep your fat ass off the mountain.

Kimber Montana....mine is a 308....

Says the guy from Texas that takes his ATV hunting to Colorado and admits he rides it off trail...

That's probably the most ignorant statement I've seen here in a while. And that's saying something.

Reading this thread reminds me that "mountain rifles" have lost a pound or two since the days when JOC popularized the rifle and the term; or when Elgin Gates hunted up to 16,-17,000 feet in the Pamirs of Central Asia with a 300 Weatherby Magnum that must have weighed all of 8.5#s.Warren Page's 7mm Mashburn,Old Betsy,weighed "....an ounce over 8 pounds, scoped, slung, and loaded...".

Back then (in the dreaded days of blued steel and walnut) the target weight for a 270 or 280 (scoped) was about 8 pounds although some weighed a bit less.

Of course the people of those days did not have access to the technology we enjoy today,so made do with what they had and who knows what they'd carry today?. I do recall one Asian sheep hunter who felt that, when dealing with the huge, windswept basins of Asia, a guy was nuts to lug anything less than a 300 magnum of reasonable weight....that's how they dealt with distance and wind in those days.I bet a long shot would be easier to make with such a rifle than some of the anorexic designs out there today.

These guys were real trophy hunters of mountain game in some of the world's remotest areas,and their lifetime accumulation of exotic mountain game they made would make the bags of most of today's hunters look mundane by comparison.

There is no real reason to carry more than you need to up a mountain, but if you have a rifle weighing 7-8 pounds all up,you should be good to go.

I picked up a little Kimber Montana in .308 used off of her for less than $900 shipped to my FFL up here in Alaska. Got it for my wife to match the Kimber Montana in .308 I have. It shoots Nosler Custom factory 165 accubond loads inside .75" (granted only 3 shot groups) from her driving it from the bench....which is better than I can do with mine (mine averages just over 1" which is still plenty good for me as its strictly a hunting rifle and I don't shoot at long distances).

So keep an eye on the used market, there are gems to be found no doubt, but the Kimber Montana 84Ms can be trimmed to 5 pounds even (before scope and rings of course) with just about $150 which gets you sub 6 pounds all up easily if just using Talley rings and a standard VX-2 3-9X40 scope. Not a super flashy setup as some like but it works and a joy to carry no doubt.

+1......

Couldn't agree more. A Montana in 7-08 or 308 would be a much better start...

I seem to remember you had Kevin Weaver lighten yours up? Do you recall what all he did? Thanks.

Ironic, ain't it?

Anything up to approx 7.5lbs (w/scope) is a pretty good mtn rifle for the hills. I have done it with lighter and heavier. I have a 7.5lb 7 Saum that is a dream to shoot off a pack and those 162s buck wind rather well.

You can't refute my opinion so you automatically turn to personal attacks. Speaks volumes doesn't it?

An 8 pound to 8.5 pound rifle is pretty easy to round up. Most any Winchester or Remington in a common cartridge is gonna be in that range with a good kevlar stock.

My 30/06 with a Pacific research stock 3.5X10 Vxiii scope in Dual dovetails with five shells using a PacNor 23" barrel is just a hair over 8 pounds. Certainly not a feather weight, but much easier for me to shoot and hold steady then those lighter rifles I've tried out. I begin to struggle when the air is thin, the heart is racing and the rifle is 7 pounds or less.

I would not be driven to ultra light weight rifles at the expense of a steady solid hold. I have the same issue with Archery. Most new 3-3.5lb bows are very hard to hold steady compared to the 4.5 Pound models of 10 years ago.

With your criteria I'll add another voice for the Tikka 3 Lite (in .308). My sons and grandsons now own three of the Tikka 3 lites and if I were in the market that's what I would buy. The rifle weighs near 6 1/2 lbs. empty without scope etc. Quite light weight without breaking the bank for another few ounces, slick action, shoots well out of the box and my family of hunters like the detachable magazine. Get better rings than come with the rifle.

I'd lean to .308 to achieve the sweet spot of light weight, plenty for elk and acceptable recoil, especially with 150 grain Barnes bullets. The .308 is in a shorter action so should be a bit lighter than long actions and calibers smaller than .30 though the web site does not say that.

Unless something has changed in the last 5 years...

One of the complaints about the T3 is that there is one action size, from 223 to 300Win.

Surprised here but I think you are correct that there is only one action size. I misread the Tikka database that shows action/magazine and thought that short, medium, long etc. referred to action rather than to the magazine. Duh

Go for the 06 in 30 caliber, no advantage to the .308.

Save your money and call Melvin Forbes. The .284 he builds will last your lifetime, and outshoot most benchrest rifles. Paired with a 3.00" magazine, the .284 will drive 140gr bullets at 3000fps.

Another option is the savage ultra light in 6.5x284 or 6.5 creedmoor. My friend has the 6.5 creedmoor and it's extremely accurate.

For rough country backpacking consider a take down rifle.

There are a few break-open single shots that can serve as travel rifles. A couple versions are even available as a cased set with a quick detachable scope and mount. The Franz Jager break-action Merkel K3 Stutzen and the very similar Blaser K95 Stutzen, both made in Germany, come to mind. From U.S. manufacturers we have the H&R/NEF Hand-Rifle and Thompson/Center Encore and G2 Contender break-open actions.

Put a pair of 5 pound boots on and get back to me.

K

Reality is you're clueless about mountain hunting and should refrain from revealing that so openly.

Tanner

How much do those weigh?

http://www.hr1871.com/Firearms/Rifles/youth.asp

Look it up.

Weight 7 lbs.

I have a Merkel K1, not a Stutzen (don't know why anybody would want the extra weight of a full-length stock), with a 24" barrel. a 12-ounce scope in the provided mounts brings the weight to 6-3/4 pounds. It's a .308 Winchester and very accurate, and packs pretty nicely in rough country, especially for a rifle with a fancy walnut stock.

Never claimed to be an expert. Far from it. But you know what they say about opinions and ass holes.

What's the Kimber 280ai come in at with a scope for weight? I seem to recall my Kimber 7wsm being 7.5 with a 6x.

Thanks for the info., surprisingly light for a walnut stock.

Yup, ass hole opinions sound a lot like this:

I think we are going with a Savage Bear Hunter in .300 Win.

I agree on the Mel Forbes rifles though. It's his purchase, not mine. I have no problem spending good money on a great rifle. You can only shoot one at a time, so make it count.

If anyone knows where to track one of these down, let me know, please. I posted in the classifieds.

Oh, and Texas idiot, I'll elaborate a bit for you. You all (or y'all) do something once in your lives and consider yourselves experts, this guy is not a fat ass. He does mountain bike races in the MOUNTAINS on the weekends. Hard to do that and be a fat ass, jackass.

And you wonder why everyone hates Texans out West.

ks, I hunted with a guy just like that this year. He packed a load of elk meat off the mountain I could barely lift off the ground, and that ain't because I'm small.

Strangely enough, guys like that seem to understand the value of lightweight gear.....

Good luck to y'all.

Boy you Coloradans are a touchy bunch. I was making a general statement of my opinion (how ever wrong it may be) on people fretting over every ounce on their gun when most would be better served loosing a pound or two from around their gut.

If you think I was specifically singling your friend out I am sorry.

Losing weight on your gut is nothing like losing weight from a rifle.

Go play with your carburetor.

7 even with 6x, and 7.5 with SS 3-9.

The only place you develop a flinch is at the bench.

Bad advice..

WTF?

Further proves my sig line...

redfox
There is an ongoing thread with a quote of some professional hunters in Africa saying essentially that 2/3 of the clients that show up with 300 Magnums can't shoot them. Guides frequently post on here about clients that show up with Magnum rifles that can't shoot them. The Army has done studies that show that most men cannot tolerate recoil above that of a 30/06 with heavier bullets. Working the sight in day at the gun range, most people (probably above 80 %, certain way above 50%) that showed up with rifles of 7 Magnum or larger could not shoot them well enough to sight them in adequately. In over twenty years of seeing an average of 5 hunters a year come to hunting camp, not one magnum toter has killed an elk. The elk were killed with 7/08s, 270's and 30/06 class rifles.
To advise a newbee to purchase a 300 Magnum in a light rifle is ludicrous, and I can't imagine an experience shooter/hunter not knowing better.

Both of you silly MOFO's are too stupid to live.

In Colorado there ain't much that will bite you or fight back. I would recommend a Tikka T3 in 6.5x55. Will kill all the elk you want and they tend to be very accurate.

If stupidity disqualified people, your post would be nothing short of miraculous.

Correct, Kevin did some work to mine....cut and recrowned the barrel, skeltonized the action, and built an aluminum trigger guard. Right at 4 pounds 13 oz for the rifle now, which is 2 oz lighter than the obnoxious colored mountain ascent Of course I had my brother duracoat mine to give it a bit more personal touch.

What length was it chopped to?



Travis

20" barrel...the new Ascents are only 20.5" or so plus a muzzle break so they aren't even true 22" like they list

I could never argue that a smaller cartridge might be, and actually is the better solution but a lot of folks with opinions about lighter 300's have never shot one.

Not directed at anyone, just a statement.

6mmWASP, agreed!

I have a 325 WSM that is under 6 pounds scoped and shoots 200 grainers at 2800 fps....its not as pleasant to shoot as a lot of my rifles but some how we still manage to kill animals just fine with this ultralights. For a new shooter I wouldn't suggest it as these are very purpose built rifles, but if one gets to the point where they find a lighter rifle and can still shoot it accurately to harvest animals quickly then I don't see the problem.

I just spent the last week lugging a Tikka T3 lite around the Sawtooth area and will spend next week doing the same around Salmon,Id. The altitudes aren't bad but they are pretty steep. I am old and feeble and find a light, well balanced rifle to be amazing. I also tried one of those hook thingys that go on the pack strap to hold your sling in place and I like it a lot better than my kifaru Gunbearer. Weight of the rifle does make a significant difference in how you enjoy your days in the steep stuff.

mike r

I recently traded into a Win 70 Ultimate Shadow, mine is in 25wssm for open country deer and high country cougar. Will hunt it this year, so yet to be proven, but I am impressed with the weight and handling. If you know the 70 action you might have him give it a look.

That's about as accurately & as simply as it can be stated.

Pick whatever caliber spins your prop & you can handle, but 7-08 to 30'06 class rounds are plenty up to ((including moose) what can get ugly & bite back.

MM

One each mountain rifle. Only mod is the aluminum trigger guard. I have a Ti bolt handle for it, just have not figured out how to get the current one off. VX-2 3-9 w/CDS shooting either 160 TTSXs at 3020, or this year, 210 Partition at ~2600.

No thanks.
When I think "mountain rifle", anything over the six pound range is a poseur.
That isn't to say that there aren't some really fine lighter-weight guns out there, but for putting major boot-leather miles in really high country, I want a rifle
around 5+ pounds naked, 6.5 pounds and lighter with a fine lightweight eyeball on it.
To each his own, they say.

While I agree that a <6.5 lb scoped rifle is best, I've hunted with heavy barreled, heavy stocked magnums that weighed 9.5-10 lb & in that light, a 7.5 lb unit is a dream & is easily attainable today.

I have a 6.3 lb SA rifle & a 7.0 lb LA rifle, both with identical scopes & mounts; it's easy to feel the difference.

MM

I guess it depends on how you do your mountain hunting. A kimber wsm will be 7-7.5lbs, depending on how you scope it. No flies on that rig for mountain hunting. The last thing I want in mountain terrain is a lightweight, compact eyeball.

Hey, haul away. If you dig carrying 7.5 pounds, more power to you. My
last scoped nula was close to 5.5lbs., to me that is an optimal MR.
And I never said " compact", but a lightweight quality scope is exactly what I want.
An oversized objective isn't necessary high above treeline, light transmission is usually not an issue.
Clarity, durability, and lightweight is where it is at unless a guy is into extreme long range shooting, which I am not. I'm not hiking in 20 miles to take a shot longer than 250 yards...just personal preference.
I've been blessed (and lucky) with a scrap book and room full of sheep, goats and high country moose.

Tough to beat a Vx-3 2.5-8x36mm or a leupy 6x36mm on a 5 pound Kimber, Nula or forbes.

If you feel a need to pack around heavy glass, the best place to put that weight is in your spotting scope & bino's.

You give up nothing going with a Leupy 2.5 - 8 or something in that weight / quality range.

Making the shot is easy, not so much finding the animal.

I fully agree with you on the 7.5 lbs. rifle being about the perfect balance of light weight and shootability. 7-8 lbs scoped, loaded, slung, and ready to hunt is what I like. Get much lighter and it's tough to shoot well when the heart is pumping or the position is less than rock steady, get much over that weight and it's not much fun to pack.

Funny thing.....someone a long time ago came up with very similar criteria. I believe his friends called him Jack.

7.5lbs. should make for an ideal balanced package, but we're talking mountains, and mountains means ultralight to some.

Been reading some Jack O. lately, Jack was old school and personified practicality, gotta love the .270...
He died in '78 before the age of "edge" and "poundr" innovation, but me thinks he would have embraced the accuracy, and featherweight technology these things offer.
Would he opt to carry 6.5lbs rather then 7.5 in the really high country? Heck yeah, I think so, but we'll never know.

Gotta go with Jack on the .270 for mountain game.

I think he would have liked the new Forbes 24B in .270. I find it better balanced than the Pre-64 Model 70 lightweight he made famous.

Much depends on where that weight is. No point in packing a heavier action or scope than is necessary. I am happy with a bit of extra weight in the barrel though.

Did some side by side position shooting with the Kimber 84m 7-08 and Forbes 24B in .270. For me, the Forbes is easier to control as the weight is further forward.

Sold the Kimber & kept the Forbes.

Wow, just wow. I have a lot of scopes and there are definitely better scopes than a VX3! They may be a pretty good scope in that $500 price range and they do have great eye relief but there are much better scopes! Much better!

As far as selling rifles. I have bought and sold a couple dozen rifles and NONE of them were because something was wrong with them! Either I needed cash, safe room or just didn't like the rifle. I bought a new Hawkeye in 257 Roberts and shot like 10 rounds through it. I decided I would never carry it on a hunt so I sold it here in the fire- it was basically brand new.

I sold an "ULA" as well that I got from Mule Deer only because I hate fire-forming 257 brass. I could go on.

As far as muzzle brakes (not B R E A K S) I would only put on on a rifle that I was to let my enemy shoot. Who has time to stuff ear plugs in when the deer pops up in front of you?? Same reason I don't handgun hunt.

Muzzle brakes are for prone rifles that have little or no opportunity to be used in haste.

A Tikka in 7-08 is a great little elk rifle. A Tikka in 300 Mag is no fun to shoot. I don't see the point in a rifle that isn't designed for long range stuff anyway!

dennisinaz, I would agree that a Tikka or other rifles in 7-08 would be a great rifle for elk. My brother has one that I've shot many times and would love to own. But, I will have to disagree with your thoughts on a 300 Win Mag. Mine is a light weight Browning X-Bolt and while it is not particularly fun to shoot more that 10 or 12 rounds from the bench, it is one sweet round for larger game a distances longer than I'm willing to shoot. When I draw down on a deer or hog, I never notice much difference from my other rifles. Mine is going elk hunting in CO once again this year

I figure he'd like the light weight, but would not have liked the synthetic stocks.

I'll bet he'd have liked a Kimber 84L in 270 or 280AI,Select Grade, but like you said we'll never know