I have a Kimber 84M Montana in jail (10day CA wait). I have a Leupold 3.5-10x40 1" scope coming too. What height talley light weight rings will clear this scope? Will lows clear or do I have to get mediums?

Lows

...and plan on trimming a little off the front screw for the front base or it will probably be bottoming out on the barrel threads, causing accuracy problems.

David

Thanks, lows it is!

Had a couple of Montanas years ago and used lows with 2-7x33 Leupolds.

Just FYI.....You can use extra lows with up to 36mm objective diameter (I used them with Swaro Z3 3-9x36). 40mm will need lows as suggested above.

Lows worked with an FX-3 6x42 with enough room for a BC cap. I trimmed the front screw a tiny bit as the mounting hole is over the barrel shank as mentioned earlier.

The Talleys did crack and I don't know the root cause at this point but am leery of ever using them again on an 84m.

Link to cracked Talley

You cracked steel mounts on that rifle also. Something is up other than the Talleys.

Yep, that is why I said I don't know the root cause just yet. But both the Talleys and DD fit the rifle with no gaps or glaring problems.

The DD front base is THIN, at least for the Kimber. BobinNH also had a split DD so I don't think its unheard of.

The Kimber/Talley combo had hundreds of rounds through it over the past year and has been driven hard into the ground numerous times while hunting steep/slippery terrain. I have no doubt the mounts were stressed.

Its possible that the hardware was overtightened, but as I described in the link its not easy to get much leverage on the Torx key.

Still "leery" but not jumping to conclusions just yet.

The clearspan design of the Talley creates a 3-point bend when the hardware is tightened. There is no contact between the area under the screw and the receiver.

Geez

I've had something like well over 20 sets of Talley's, including over a dozen on Kimber MT's. I've never cracked one.

Anything can fail, and I've no doubt yours did (obviously), but I'd suggest something else is up if you've broken two very different types of rings on the same rifle.

To the OP, yes lows.

To others, if you use X-lows on the 84M/L the bolt will drag on the ocular, except with the small ocular found on the compact line of Leupold's and those with the same small ocular diameter.

Brad,

Not sure what's left since the radius of the receiver matches the mounts and screw holes appear perpendicular to the receiver. Could be a problem with the Talley alloy with my rings as someone mentioned in the other thread. Hardness test would be interesting to eliminate that variable. I'll see if I can run alloy with steel ball next week.

Jason

Jason, would like to see that.

Again, not saying at all you didn't get a bad set of rings (anything can happen), just find it odd the same rifle swallowed two different types of ring/bases.

And I'd not stay away from Talley Lwt's based on one failure. While they can and do fail, there are far more singing their praises than the reverse.

I'll try to test the material on Monday if the lab techs are in next week.

Yeah, I'm not jumping to conclusions just yet with the Talleys... just leery. Most pics I recall of cracked Talleys are the caps and not the mounting portion.

There are a few things in rifledom that some people seem to have problems with and others don't...

- Bolt handles falling off Rem 700 rifles
- Talleys cracking
- Howa bolt stops failing
- X-Mark Pro triggers snapping in half

I'm sure there are others but the above examples sometimes turn into bitter arguments based on individual anecdotal evidence. Some never have a problem, others have repeat problems. Luck?

Been tempted to build a test fixture to get to the bottom of this. I'm interested in the results but not motivated to design, fabricate, test, and analyze

You easily get all the torque you need and much more with the Torx Key. I used to figure I wasn't getting them tight using the key by hand, seems I was underestimating my strength as I could tighten and snap the screws right off which takes about 75 to 100 inch lbs of torque to break them or snap/twist the wrench off, they shouldn't be tightened more than about 40-45 inch pounds for the bases and no more than 25 for the ring tops. It's very easy to over torque them with the little wrenches that come with rings and bases.

I agree if using the long end of the key. Using the stubby end as instructed by Larue or US Optics (don't remember which suggested this now), its hard to really over-tighten by a large amount. I use the long end to snug a little more and that's it.

When I installed the DD on the rifle I used the method above and was within 2-3% using a torque wrench I had checked on a calibration fixture. Not saying its always this accurate, but with the DD they were definitely not over-torqued.

Edit to add: I'm not ruling out over-tightening the Talleys. I don't think its likely but I didn't check with a torque wrench. If they were over-torqued, I can't imagine them being off by much. I've done at least 15 rifles this way with no problems.

Of interest, I've been trying to collect different torque wrenches for testing. From what I've seen in the past they aren't always accurate and sometimes not even close. So if a mount is really super sensitive to fastener torque then even a good wrench may over-tighten.

Jason,
After your experience I would use a file or dremel to fit the bases to your receiver. Aluminum doesn't have much structural integrity (compared to steel) and if the mounting process "bends" the mount to fit your receiver, the aluminum has basically failed. Maybe in the case of Kimbers the bases need to be "lapped"?
Could be the issue with the DD's also, maybe your receiver is just a tad oversize.

Good idea. If I use Talleys again I'll just bed them just to be safe. I'm going with Warne steel bases next and will see how they fit the receiver and go from there. May bed those too.

Not sure how best to measure the receiver. Both mounts appeared to fit perfectly without any gaps or light between the mounts and receiver. Don't see how it gets any better than that.

We do have a FARO arm at work and I could measure down to 0.0025", but firearms are now frowned upon at work so that is a no-go.

May just put some clay between the receiver and mounts to see what comes out

Open to other ideas for checking mount-to-receiver fit too...

Same experience here with Kimbers and Rem 700. Quite a few of them and no problems. For the most part, I'll go and keep going with my experience because there's nothing left unknown with first-hand experience. I know what I did and don't know what others do/did.

The ocular on the Swaro's, I thought, were pretty large compared to some others. But the Montana I used the extra lows on has one of the titanium bolt handles....so that might have something to do with the clearance?? Not sure.

257, you may be right about the titanium handle. I had one and IIRC it was of smaller diameter. If that's the case, it's likely the best (and maybe only) argument in favor of putting one on an 84 MT.

Regarding the Talleys... I always bed mine to the receiver top in JB Weld. JB's is not an overly "hard" epoxy and a light kiss to the rings with a Benzomatic torch will soften the stuff sufficiently to back the base screws back out and break the bond between bases and receiver. The JB's fills the "Talley Void" and creates, what is in practical terms, is a monolithic mount.

Brad, that sucks that you have to put JB weld under your talley bases. I've never had to do that with my rifles. Never had a talley or Leupold DD crack either. Knock on wood...

"Sucks"? How so?

I don't "have to" bed Talley's that way, I bed every type of ring/base on every type rifle that way, and have done for decades.

It's the best way I know to make a bombproof mount, apart from a full integral mount like Ruger. And it may actually be better than the Ruger...

I wonder how many Kimber accuracy problems have been caused by Talley supplying the wrong length screw.

Just a thunk

Brad,

I think bedding the mounts is smart with little to no downside. Seems like standard procedure with many comp shooters. I'm a big fan of the cookie dough cold weld, but it's a lot harder to remove than the JB from squeeze tubes.

I wonder if you'd have the same results if those 20+ rifles weren't bedded?

Interesting stuff.

Jason

Interesting Brad. I like keeping things simple. Enjoy accurate rifles like everyone else here, never had to do that is all I'm saying. One of those "trick moves" we hear about I guess. Since this is about Montana's, I'll concede that you definitely know your chit about these rifles. Some talley lightweights I've had have been switched around so much that I worried more about stripping the threads than anything else I guess. They have always been flawless and Dave Talley is a great guy to deal with. The only time I had problems was when they sent me a set with one Remington base and one Winchester base in it. I was stumped and had to call and talk to Dave at Talley and he sent a new one out immediately.

They speak very highly of their lightweights for being one of the strongest set up's on the market. They also want to hear your story if you break a Talley ring/base:

I don't "have" to do it, I "get" to do it.

It's VERY simple, nor some "trick move" (whatever that is).

It's just one more measure to get the most out of a rifle, especially a backpack/mountain rifle (all mine except my 22lr are).

I'm struggling to grasp how what amounts to a monolithic mount has any downside, and only upside...

Funny, until shortactionstroker pointed it out, I never noticed the "problem" and never shortened mine. All my MT's have had Talleys, and all of them have shot something sub moa, and more than a few shot many things sub moa.

However, starting with my last couple I've shortened the screw, more because now knowing about it would bug me rather than anything I'd experienced.

BUT, bedding my rings to the receiver may have made the difference.

Still, I'm willing to bet the #1 reason for all those poor shooting Kimber MT's is the operator can't deal with the light weight at the bench, and/or is trying to force the damn rifle to "like" a bullet it doesn't.

I like "qick steel" as well and see that as being easier to deal with than runny JB weld. It would also set up faster and be stronger. Brads suggestion is a good one. However, I'm just stating I've never done it before as I've never seen the need to. A montana may need this treatment???

The only thing I've ever needed to do with my Kimber's was add scope rings and scopes. Seems to be working so far.

My 84M 308 in Talley lows and wearing a 3.5-10x40 VX3.

always check every screw length, regardless of make...

I've never used LWs on other rifles. Might be differences in the mount designs for different makes/models of rifles?

The ones that best fits your head, neck and shoulder. Everyone chases the lowest. Never understood why.

for me, that is the lowest. I've never had optics too low on a bolt gun.

but on my Montanas, even the Ti bolt knobs scuff the ocular bell with XLs, unless using the compact/Ultralight Leupolds.

Not to hijack but would a 50mm Leupold require mediums on the same gun??

You're right. The titanium bolt handle is dragging along the ocular of the Swaro Z3. I measured and was surprised to find that the Swaro ocular diameter was less than the Leupold 2.5-8. But only by a tenth or so.

I tried to make the bolt catch somewhere on the scope by putting pressure different ways in different places and I was able to work the bolt every time. But I may go ahead and order some lows to replace these. If something bad is going to happen, it would probably happen in the field when least welcomed.

Yeah, kinda though it'd be dragging.

X-Lows will drag on the VX3 and the smaller VX2's, but not the smaller yet VX2 Compacts.

To me, there's no function issue, just a matter of whether you want to scrape your scope and bolt. Personally I don't, but I'm a bit fussier than the average about that sort of minutia. I don't mind a HARD used rifle, just don't like wear I could have avoided.

Ran the hardness test today. Rather than clutter this thread anymore than I already have, I'll just post a link for anyone interested.

Hardness test

Thanks Brad. I'll probably order some lows and change them out before I take this one to the range.