i have limited experience with kimbers... never laid eyes on a NULA...

i grasp the differnce between CRF and push feed... looking for more subjective "feels like", "seems like", and "i like" type differences...

Don't have ether so I may be way off base here but it seems that a Nula cost what about $3000. Vs a Kimber a little over 1 grand, I'm betting that theres a reason for the big price difference.

true enough, as far as that goes...

still,
the nula, being a full custom, low production action will cost more regardless of how well it's made, or how it performs...

i'd guess that there is not $2000 difference in the quality...
i'd still like to hear which one that guys with both prefer, and why...

Have been around and own both. The Kimber Montana represents a lot of value for the money spent if you get a shooter. Imo however, the Nula is on another level.

The advantages I have seen are:
The Nula balances better. Recoil is straight back with little face slap. At least with my 7mm-08 no light rifle gymnastics are required to make it shoot off the bench. Light left hand hold on the forend to steady things is all that I do. The consistent accuracy is on a par with many custom rigs that weigh more. .5s at 100 are not uncommon. The same with 1.5 and slightly under at 300. Not always, but often enough to be repeatable. Much easier to workup a great load and most any combination within reason has perked. So far it shoots 140gr nbt, ttsx and accubonds to essentially the same poi with essentially the same level of accuracy. Barrel clean-up has been extremely easy. Overall build quality is and should be better and I would be surprised if any problems would arise, that they would not be handled to your satisfaction.

The Kimber gives great value for the dollars spent. IMO the Nula will be consistently on a higher level with regards to customer satisfaction.

Will the animals know the difference? I doubt it. Is the Nula worth the extra dollar sacrifice? To me yes.

Addition: If you want to see one scary accurate rifle, then you should shoot one of his .22LRs on a still day with match grade ammo. At 50 yards it just keeps laying them on top of one another. Again on a still day it will keep them at an inch at 100.

With a Nula you are getting a known product that should give few surprises other than consistent excellence.

Have had several Kimbers;have none now. No NULA,but have shot them,and seen them shot.Differences?

JMHO but the NULA is obviously custom made with one of the best high tech stocks in the industry.Mel Forbes is where Kimber went to learn how to make stocks.mel Forbes "invented" super light weight rifles.

Being custom, I will bet the action is more precisely made,fitted, machined,and barreled than a Kimber,having all the little "touches" that are largely below the surface and maybe not visible to the eye, but go a long way to making the rifle shoot and perform consistently.

You might get this stuff in a Kimber and you might not....you WILL get it in NULA,which is why they cost more in the first place.And if something is wrong with a NULA(unlikely),Mel Forbes reputation speaks for itself,and Kimber is.....well......Kimber.

Worth $3k? To me it would be, because you can blow through $3k just trying to get one Kimber that performs the way you want.I know; I've tried.Likely, you will buy a NULA once and it will perform right away..

i have two Kimbers. would dearly love a NULA.

but i would NOT trade my two Kimbers for one NULA.

Bob,

You're right about the unseen differences. Like many gunsmiths, Mel Forbes started out (over 30 years ago) making light rifles on Remington 700 actions. Eventually two things happened: he grew weary of fixing dimensional problems with 700's, and he pin-pointed action weight as the biggest problem in making light bolt-action sporters. So he started making his own actions, and making them as dimensionally perfect as humanly possible.

When he started making actions and synthetic stocks, he recruited to help of friends who were actual rocket scientists at the nearby Hercules facility. His stocks were so far ahead of the curve in 1985 that as far as I know nobody else has ever quite caught up in syn-stock construction. So are the actions.

I believe he also had rocket-engineering help when he designed the lightweight NULA scope mounts. Talley now makes these, both for NULAs and for other rifles, the Talley Lightweights that have become so popular in recent years.

Partly as a result of the stock, after considerable experimentation he found that the best accuracy in his rifles resulted from full-length barrel bedding. Because his stocks are so well-made, I have never seen a NULA's accuracy go wonky after a few years, as I've seen in some other syn-stocked rifles.

In fact, my wife's first NULA was a .270 Winchester Model 24 with a #1 Douglas barrel. It shot a bunch of loads extremely well, even though it weighed 6 pounds on the nose with a 2-7x scope. After trying a few loads, we settled on the 130 Nosler Partition and 56 grains of IMR4350. This always shot under 2" at 300 yards on a calm day--which also shows what Partitions do in good rifles.

Every year Eileen would go to the range a week or so before hunting season and shoot one shot with that load. It always landed 2" high and dead center, the way she sighted in the rifle in 1991.

The same thing happened every year for over a decade, even though the rifle got hunted hard and went on several airplane trips around North America. It never shifted point of impact at all--until the scope eventually went belly-up. Even then POI didn't really change, the groups just got larger. When the scope was replaced the rifle went right back to shooting 1/2" groups.

The full-length bedding also does tend to make different loads shoot to the same place, even with very light barrels. The first NULA I had was a .300 Winchester Magnum. I worked up loads with various bullets between 165 and 200 grains, and noticed that all seemed to shoot pretty much to the same place
at 100 yards. Eventually I fired three shots of three different loads using the 165 Hornady Spire Point, 180 Speer Grand Slam and 200-grain Nosler Partition at the same 100-yard target, and the nine shots made a 1" group. Even most custom rifles won't shoot a 9-shot, 1" group with the SAME load, let alone three different loads.

Didn't Melvin call BS on this?

John,

Knowing that you have had a ULA in .30-06 and Eileen has a .257 Roberts, how would you compare them to your Kimbers - maybe a comparison between the ULA Bob and your Kimber Ultimate Bob for our purposes?

Like others have said the Nula is on a different level in terms of balance, and finish but that comes with a cost. As far as accuracy goes I have no doubts that the Nula's are great. I happen to get one that is pretty finicky eater. Very few loads produced MOA in my Nula I did find one that would group right at .7-.8" consistently for 5 shots but overall I was disappointing with the accuracy of the Nula and I am considering sending it back for a rebarrel. With all the praise that they get I was surprised that the accuracy was not better.

On the flip side the 3 kimbers that I own, with all the problems you here about them, have been great in the accuracy department and flawless everywhere else as well.

This is how I see the two in a head to head comparison

Fit/finish NULA
Balance NULA
Accuracy NULA (overall not just my sample of one)
Value Kimber

Somewhat off topic, but it might help the OP make a decision. I am more of a handgun guy than a rifle guy, and I have always loved M1911s. I have always wanted an Ed Brown, but am hesitant to buy one. My favorite 1911 is a Colt CCO I bought for $600 NIB back in 2000. Thinking it wasn't enough, I later bought a Colt Gunsite for around $1400. Now, even though the Gunsite is by all measure a better 1911 for volume shooting, it isn't for carry, and I always prefer to carry the CCO, because of its light weight and because its "hand karma" is just right for me. I am afraid that if I spent $2200 for an Ed Brown it still would not displace the CCO as my "goto" pistol. So, years later, I still have not dropped the coin for an Ed Brown.

I have a half dozen hunting rifles in various chamberings, and I have tried to convince myself that I should sell most of them and put the proceeds into a NULA... if only I could decide on the chambering... do I go 7x57, or 280, or 270, or 30-06? I can't decide...

so... back to the OP, if I was settled on the chambering, and settled on the ergos of the NULA, I would gladly pay the extra cash hands down for the NULA as opposed to the Kimber, because of all the subleties the other posters point out... unless of course, there is another rifle that is your "goto" fav. Then it might not be such a wise expenditure of funds.

all right then...

first, thanks to all who answered... i am considering a kimber montana primarily because it is all stainless...

as to the nula, i'd never really taken much notice of them, and, to this day, have not seen one...

then, in 2003, i bought my 99 savage, and sometime later bought a williams foolproof for it from another campfire regular on the savage forum... Jed1899 is probably as knowledgeable a guy as you'll find, concerning model 99s...
his enthusiasm for them is contagious... and he owns quite a collection... posts pictures to make a guy drool....

i do not recall, now, whether it was a telephone call, or a campfire thread, but i asked jed what the last rifle that he would ever part with would be...
and my question was clearly oriented, in my mind, towards savage 99s, the only rifles that i'd ever associated him with...

i was a bit floored when he named his nula .308 by way of an answer...
he left an impression....

as i mentioned, the stainless kimber is an attractive option... and easily achieved...
the nula can be had with a stainless barrel... but it'd be a piggy bank buster, for me...

reckon i'll save a while and reconsider....

Have a Kimber Montana in 260 and a NULA in 30-06. On paper you can compare them but once you use/own a NULA - really they cannot be compared. NULA just in a differnt class. If the budget stretches to a NULA get than and never look back. You will understand why its one of the bargains out there.

regards
JohnT

an nula in 284 or 280AI (had an early one. stupid moment, sold it) would be the first last rifle i need. i cant afford to hunt things that would need a bigger hole or more poop.

if you keep your nula for 15 years that is less than $20 month

woofer

I bought a NULA model 20 in 308 from a lady whose husband had leukemia and passed away before receiving the rifle.

I've since put 40-50 rounds through the rifle. Definitely, the most accurate rifle I've shot.

However, I had two different types of ammo that did not fire. All of the cases appear to have light dimples on the primer, including those that did not fire. The rifle also has a difficult time extracting Hornady ammo. Sometimes it simply leaves them in the chamber when opening the bolt.

It has been sent back to Melvin Forbes six weeks ago, and I am yet to hear anything. I hope he takes care of it. I'll let you know.

Kimber7Man,

The Kimber .257 has been on loan for a while. I extended the loan period for a couple of articles, but after that I'll be returning it to Kimber. It's a nice rifle, but....

.........you wish it were a 257 Improved..

John,

What is the OAL and the LOP on Eileen's NULA?

Thanks.

heavywalker

You may have already tried this, but have you really cleaned your Nula. The only thing I don't like about mine is that it likes to be fairly clean. After about 50-60rounds it starts to open up. Clean it good give it 3 or 4 to foul the barrel and things are good again. Mr. Forbes told me to clean it after each time I shoot it after a range session. I didn't believe it was necessary. I've since found out with this rifle anyway it is.

I don't think it's the caliber.

Yes it has been cleaned a couple of times during load development, and it actually starts shooting better after it has been shot about 20 times.

I have both. A 86 vintage ULA in 257 AI and a Montana in 7-08 of uncertain vintage.

I bought the Montana because its stainless steel, light weight, good stock, light weight. I ended up buying used after waiting for Kimber to make 7-08s for about 10 months. This was in 2008. To say that they were unresponsive to my questions about production is an understatement, despite my $1k deposit. However, the rifle I ended up with is as advertised: light, accurate, good stock fit(for me). My only real complaint other than poor customer service is that the stainless does stain quite easily. After one day of wet rainy weather rust started to frost on the surface. My stainless ruger 77/22 can take the rain with no problem. Perhaps this is just my Montana or they use a stainless with less corrosion resistant properties.

I ended up buying the ULA model 20 from an auction primarily because I felt I could do better than the Montana. I got a great deal on it and encourage you to shop around. There are some great deals both here and at the other internet gun sites. The gun was practically brand new and shoots very accurately as long as I do my part. I am still working up loads for it. The differences were discussed better by JB and BobinNH than I can, but I will say that I would definitely buy another ULA or even a NULA, rather than another kimber.

Thanks John,

I figured I knew the answer, since the "ugliest stock" winner seems to still be in use...

Reckon once my boys grow up and start stealing my rifles, I will buy a NULA in 7x57, or 280, or .30-06 and consider myself to be well-off...

The new 84L Montana will no doubt be a lightweight cracker, but, Melvin has poured sweat n tears over his NULA.........

I will buy an 84L Montana, just to compare & play

Good luck with it all

I have owned a Kimber 8400 WSM and currently own a NULA model 24 so I can give a comparison based on experiece. The Kimber is a nice rifle, I enjoyed the one that owned, but like other posters have stated is not even close in quality to the NULA. The 2 biggest difference to me are in the rifles Balance and accuacy. the NULA feels so good in the hands that I tend to keep it uslung more than any rifle I've previously owned. It is also the easiest rifle to load for that I have every owned, almost any load Ive tried shoots acceptably, and the loads the rifle likes shoot amazingly. The Kimber that I had grouped well enough but took quite a bit of load development to make it happy. Its a factory rifle vs. a custom rifle, you have to decide if the advantages of a custom rifle are worth the cost. For me the NULA is easily worth the price difference

When I spoke to him on the phone, Mel called INCREDIBLE BS on having any involvement with the Kimber stock design.

I have a Kimber 308 and a NULA barreled action in a non-NULA stock. My Kimber is plenty accurate and shoots a lot of loads sub-MOA, but the NULA is easier to load for - I've not found any bullet that won't -easily- go under 1" - but some get lucky with their Kimber barrels and get similar results.

I like the bolt handle clearance and safety on the Kimber better (less clearance with the NULA). As far as ultralight, the Kimber barreled action is actually slightly lighter than the NULA (mine is anyway). I aslo prefer the total stainless of the Kimber.

I've owned Kimber & NULA. The NULAs were more accurate, balanced better, functioned better and had better triggers. When I had any issues Mel was helpful while Kimber was not.

Maybe Noslers stock?

I would propose that perhaps the difference between the Kimber Montana and the Sako Carbonlite might also apply



Trystan

Nice old post with good info and opinions no bickering or name calling!!!! What the fire used to be