Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Inaccuracy with new Kimber 84M Montana 7mm-08

Nope an extra 5 or even 10 pounds on my back has never made or broke a hunt.

That said if you have the option leave an extra 2# at home why would you opt to take it anyway?

No. That is why I am asking. I have never hunted west of Kentucky.

When you are counting ounces, a couple of pounds makes a difference. My daypack weighs 20-30 lbs., normally. Those mountains seem to be getting steeper these days.

2# in a pack, or 1# in a slung rifle don't make much difference especially on the flats.

I had a T3 Superlight and it was nice to carry on flatland or rolling hills. But when hunting coastal brush, you can't carry it slung so its in your hand. That 1# difference in weight and slim stock (blind mag) make a huge difference with the Kimber. The coastal hills aren't that tall, but dang near vertical in many places with vines that grab your ankles, booby-traps in the ferns, slickery blow-down, prickly things, and loose ground.

The Tikka is fine, but I find the 84M a lot easier to carry in those conditions.

For the record, I had five Tikklers before getting an 84M and suffered "Kimber Denial" for years telling myself that Tikklers are almost as light, cost less, Kimber Roulette, etc.

I have zero interest in owning another Tikka, but understand why some people like them.

Gothcya.

Reality is a funny thing and is different from cognition in front of a computer screen.

What I've found is an extra 1-lb of rifle is about like an additional 5+ lbs on my back in a pack. Not all "pounds" feel the same.

Thing is, a rifle is carried at odd, differing, and irregular positions.

The weight in a pack, if it's loaded and carried correctly, goes right to your hips, and conversely, your legs.

A rifle is a more dynamic burden, carried in a huge variety of positions, hence its weight is experienced "differently."

That's why I asked if you'd done any backpack hunting... like the old preacher said, it's one of those "better felt than telt" kind of things (aka, if you have to ask you wouldn't understand)...

I hear the bulllchit comment, "just lose an additional 5 lbs off your waist" all the time. That's usually offered by those without a solitary clue.

Frankly, I don't have one spare pound to lose. Really. I'm in as good a shape as anyone at age 53 can be, and my friends refer to me as a "genetic freak." Ie, I can walk most people half my age into the ground.

But that doesn't change the fact I'd always rather carry a 6.5 lb rifle than an 8lb rifle.

So maybe there's something to a light rifle

Yup, rifle weight matters... like hell it matters.

I'll carry a rifle in my hand 90% of the time when hiking/hunting the rough little breaks around here.

An extra pound or two that way makes a very noticeable difference.

Thing about carrying a rifle as has been said is if its strapped to the middle of a good pack which has had some thought put to it in its making, and centres the weight perfectly to your spine holding the force low down on your hips. A really good pack makes weight seem to disappear some. But when still hunting quietly slipping along in good game areas my rifle lives on my shoulder not in line with my back. And that bit of weight torqueing away all day trying to drop your shoulder off line all the time starts to get noticed and noticed a lot in steep ugly ground which there's no shortage of here. To me that's where a light or ultra light rifle makes the day a lot more enjoyable and my back is thankful.

Shodd offered up a $1,000.00 challenge...

LOL, bring it on.

I'm not sure how this turned into a Kimber vs Tikka thread, but I have three Montana's (.223, .308, .300WSM) and two Tikka T3 Super-Lites (.223 and .22-250) and each has their pluses and minuses, but I like them all.

One thing I can't figure out about Kimber is, their stainless steel sucks and is more prone to rust than any rifle I've ever owned, including blued/walnut.

Agreed... that's because of the higher CM content. Not a bad thing, but it is what it is.

FWIW, Rugers are the most "rust resistant" rifles, but smith's hate to work on them because they're so "hard."

There's no free lunch when it comes to SS, and ever maker makes that compromise slightly differently...

There are definitely times when I'd rather have an 8-lb-something rifle than a 6.5 lb. rifle.

Like after all the walking is done, I have to make a long shot, and the rifle is in position laying across my pack and I'm just about to pull the trigger. For everything before that, I'll go 6.5.

And I'm not even an MMA fighter, mountain climber, or genetic freak.

That's the way I see it too.

Jordan;
Good evening to you sir, hopefully the weekend treated you and yours well and you're ready for the upcoming week.

So as not to drag this too far off the trail we're on - I've cometo believe that unless one has habitually hunts mountains it's tough to understand some of the fascination with weight those that do seem to have.

As you said too, when the pack is full of meat we take the straightest AND least dangerous route to the crummy. Speaking of loaded packs and pickups, I snapped this photo one morning coming down from a little few hour jaunt. We always laugh how good whatever pickup we've parked in some skidder landing looks.


For me and my personal experience, you, Brad, Sam and Salty all articulated why I prefer a rifle that's closer to 7lbs than 9lbs.

It wasn't always that way Jordan, but I do clearly recall the afternoon I quit taking "little walks" with my Ruger No. 1.

I was in my late 40's then and as you know I'm not a giant by any stretch and never have been which might be a factor too, but anyway that rifle felt like lead in my hands and there was no comfortable way to carry it anymore. It's different weight somehow isn't it?

Oh lastly those that know me here can attest that I really don't have 10 lbs to lose or even 5 likely so that's not the answer in my semi-old guy's instance.

All the best to you and the rest of our 'Fire friends in the upcoming week Jordan.

Dwayne

I guess I don't comprehend the rifle weight thing being a timber faller. My saw is in the neighborhood of 25 lbs and it gets packed 6 hours a day on steep ground all week in my hands and it doesn't have a sling. Packing a 7 1/2 lb rifle ready to hunt is almost not noticeable. I know a very large number of fellas well into there 50s that do the same thing.

Shod

Great photograph, thanks for posting.

Pieter

If you can believe it, Kimber charges less than $450 for a replacement Montana stock.

7 1/2 lbs is as you say almost not noticeable. As long as it's the only thing you're carrying.