I am looking into buying a Kimber Ascent and I'm having a hard time deciding what caliber to purchase. I could use some help on this topic, but first here are my thoughts on this.

The Kimber ascent is only available in 270, 280AI,308,30-06.

I already own a Browning TI in 300wsm. 5lbs 8oz. I have taken elk and mule deer with this gun. Great gun, but overkill.

I like the Kimber and I would like a smaller caliber/lighter gun for deer, ram, elk... basically an all around gun for the west.

The 270 is nice since it is a popular, flat shooting and easy to obtain ammo if needed anywhere in the US. recoil is moderate

The 280 AI has great ballistics, however very limited on factory ammo. hard to find.

The 308 is extremely accurate, has the least recoil, easy to obtain ammo, wide factory ammo selection, but it is not a flat shooter, but has long range capabilities.

The 30-06 is a great round, popular, easy to find ammo, semi flat shooting, wide selection of ammo, however it has a healthy kick to it.

What are your thoughts??

I think you need to spend a LOT of time perusing load data on EXBAL or the like not to mention the RANGE if you think there is any meaningful difference between 150gr loading in a 308 and a 30/06. Spend your money on a reloading outfit if you don't have one. If you do, buy some supplies and get to the range.

whoa, I'm simply looking for other hunters opinions. Reason I did not include range was that in most hunting situations at least, what I consider hunting... all of these will kill an animal well over the 400 yard mark and very accurately, especially with todays cartridges. just wondering others experiences with overall accuracy and handling.

Thanks

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AccuracyFacts.asp

The .308W will be the lightest and most compact, if by only a small margin.

In the field 98 of 100 times I doubt that anyone could even tell the difference among those rounds on that game. In the 2 the .30-06 might edge out the others.

If I were to write-up a list of the top 10 best performing rounds, the 280AI would be at the top of that list.

If I were to make a list of the top 10 best rifles, the Ascent wouldn't be on it.

I do like that 280AI however if I were to fly to Alaska or some other remote region to hunt and my ammo were to get lost. I would probably not be able to find more ammo for that caliber compared to any of the other rounds. That is my biggest concern. I am not sold on any particular round yet and I'm not completely against it.

What is the reason behind the Kimber no being on your list?

Thanks

yes the 308 is lighter by a small margin

I also agree with the fact that any of those calibers will get the job done well. and yes the 30-06 is hard to beat

Here's my take on it. You didn't ask about Kimber Montanas, but a Montana in .308 is what I'd be looking at, and it's still a little lighter than an Ascent in '06. I've owned a few Montanas and handled an Ascent. I just didn't like the feel of the Ascent, plus you're stuck with a muzzle brake if you get one. The Montana just felt more solid, and as far as the trade-off between light weight for carrying vs. more recoil, 5 lbs. and change for a .308 is about my cut-off. I just don't see a need to go lighter than that, especially with a chambering that'll have more recoil than a .308. It just gets to the point where it's bordering on unpleasant to shoot much at the range.

I'd go Montana in .308 (or 7-08), for the following reasons:

1) Looking at the MSRP, you can get a new Montana, shoot out the barrel or just decide to have it re-barreled with a premium after-market barrel and pay the same as an Ascent.

2) I hate loudeners and lengtheners (muzzle brakes).

3) You already have a lightweight 300 WSM, a lightweight '06 doesn't get you much that's different.

4) For practical hunting purposes, a .308 will do what the '06 will.

PS, if you've made up your mind on the Ascent and are worried about ammo availability, get a .270.

+1 on the Montana .308

Kimber Montana in 257 Roberts or 7mm-08. The others are too close to your current rifle to show any difference in the field.

I wouldn't bother with an Ascent, it's more expensive than it's features warrant. It's too light for good shootability, and the loudener should get chucked into a river.

You might look at a Forbes as well.

Also, buy a reloading setup.

I agree with your observations about the Ascent. It just felt like a toy. It actually kind of rattled when I held it. I don't know if it actually made a sound or if just felt like it but the combination of the fluted bolt and the extractor with cutouts in it gave the perception of rattling. And it didn't balance well either.

That's a good way to describe it, "rattling."

If the Ascent doesn't balance well bare, the balance will be really poor once a scope and mag full of rounds are applied.

Buy it, spend time with it and make up the difference with your skills in what it lacks for flat shooting. However, with a 150 gr bullet you give up nothing. The 308 is the ballistic twin to the 280 Remington with which, I have killed two or three truck loads of animals with 150 gr CoreLokts.

The Ascent feels like a toy and I am not sure I would pick it for a remote hunt. It does not feel very durable. If I was buying a Kimber, it would be a Montana. The caliber will not make much difference on anything Elk on down. Get a Montana in 308 or 7-08 and have fun.

Funny, it's nothing more than a Montana with a fluted barrel, brake, and some machining done to the bolt and action. Your logic, fails.

The new Kimber Ascent weighs 4 lbs 13oz as advertised. I'm going for all out light weight. I like to hunt the toughest terrain and go further than most do when hunting. I will be hunting Montana's unlimited sheep unit next year. Unit 502 and it isn't called Hellroaring for nothing!

I was holding back all bias on these rounds till I heard some opinions.

The muzzle break is removable on the Kimber. I normally don't like muzzle breaks at all, however some of the reviews on this one are impressive. I would still take it off more than likely.

I agree that recoil in these light weights is not for the faint and the 300 wsm with a 150 grain does kick like a mule! I liked the rounds offered in the 300 wsm ( 130 grain all the way to 180) so it has many uses. and is an extremely flat shooting caliber!

With much practice I have been able to bear the recoil and shoot extremely accurate even freehand. once comfortable and accurate it should only take one shot to take game down.

I also agree that the 06 is not much different in the available loads and has a healthy kick along with the 300. The 308 is similar in loads but with much less recoil and will do just as much as a 06.

I am leaning heavily towards the 270 for the availability point, and relative flat shooting, but talking to a few people they have said this round can be a little fussy when trying to finding an accurate round. I don't put much stock in that statement with todays loads.

Good luck with your Mountain Ascent, UPhunter!

I too have a serious hankering for one of these. I just wish they had some stock options available (no pun intended). The Kimber stock design does not fit me AT ALL! I'm also afraid to take the Kimber accuracy gamble again, being burned on more than one occasion in the past. I wonder if i could talk them into selling me just the action, and have a custom barrel and stock installed to my specs...

Over-the-counter availability in a remote area is a valid concern. The 308 and 30-06 are high on my Top 10 list too, and would be just as effective within 600 yards.

The 30-06 was my first rifle choice, and I'm still impressed with it's capabilities after many decades. While the 280AI might shade it slightly in the ballistic arena at long range and with some loadings, for practical effectiveness the 30-06 is the standard everything else is compared to.

The 30-06 will do anything the 300WSM will do with less recoil, and loaded with a 165 GMX or Accubond, it's a go to combo for me these days. Those bullets can be bought over-the-counter, and there is no shortage of equally good factory loadings.

The same case could be made for the 308. As shot placement is more important than paper ballistics, in good hands the 308 is just as effective and with even less recoil.

While the Kimber Montana would be near the top of my rifle list, the Ascent version would not. The dis-advantages of a brake on a standard caliber far outweigh any advantage in the field, and none of those rounds need a brake. I would happily trade that feature for a shorter barrel, and the Montana is already as light as I want a rifle to be. If you're recoil sensitive, add a little padding for long range sessions.

I'm also not a fan of fluted barrels. Fluting can easily damage an otherwise good barrel and can cause erratic accuracy issues in a lightweight profile barrel. It's not worth taking the risk for an essentially useless feature that contributes very little benefit in weight savings.

I am a Kimber Montana fan. For rugged simplicity, the Montana is one of the best. For overall dependability, I would place more focus on light reliable glass, and on that rifle my only choice would be a 6x Leupold FX-II with a turret. An LRF will add another 8oz to your burden, but don't leave home without it.

That Montana 308 combo could easily win First Place on my Top 10.

If you are hunting Montana next year and don't already have the Mountain Ascent in hand, then you won't be hunting it with that rifle (likely). Backorder is about 18 months.

The bolt has considerable machining, especially the handle and is to the point where it feels flimsy. Just my impression, to each their own.

Just wanted to thank most everyone on the great posts!!!

It may not be the rifle for a remote back country hunt or for me. However, until it is actually put to the test I won't know. on a side note, my Browning TI may not be the best either as the bolt is actually encased in a composite plastic. This was scary at first, definitely seemed like a strange thing to put on a gun of this magnitude! That gun passed the test!

Here is my logic on the weight of this gun. yes it is extremely light weight and may feel less durable, but this could be tested at the range far ahead of a hunt. Ounces to me are somewhat important especially for a solo trip. If all my gear weighed extra OZ. it could add up to lbs. yes I know I could compromise on a few important things, but when you are climbing a mountain to hunt this is important.

I have done remote hunts with archery equipment, which to me can be more sensitive than a gun. I took extra care. Just my opinion.

I am aware the barrels can be extremely sensitive, especially to heat on these guns.

I do like the Montana and is very close in weight, but I would like to give this gun a shot.

The Kimber Ascent is available on Gunbroker.

The Wby Mk V Ultralight is hard to beat for a lightweight totin' rig.

In case you weren't aware, you can shoot .280 Rem ammo in the 280AI if you lose your ammo on a remote trip. Not saying that .280 Rem ammo is that easy to find in a remote location, but you'd be more likely to find that than the .280AI.

depends, unlike one of the other posters the Montana's stock fits me very well......not sure i could find rings tall enough for me to use the Weatherby with ease.....for some damn reason due to some combination of features of my neck and face even with the classic Kimber stock i need high rings to make stuff line up without having to work at it....

Good luck, UP'er, with whatever you choose.

You could probably get by just fine with no rifle on an unlimited sheep hunt for the first few years, unless you're intimate with the area. Though you should probably bring one in case you run into a wolf.

Another vote for the vanilla Montana, get in on the buy on a ti bolt handles going on in the classifieds. Put on an aluminum trigger guard and you're within 2 ounces of the Assent, with enough left over to cover the scope.

My Montana .280ai shoots pretty much everything pretty well.

According to the Kimber website the Ascent is only nine ounces lighter than the Montana.
And the Ascent retails $700 higher than the Montana.

That could be the most solid piece of advise offered on this thread...

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/112237-quot-Poor-Mans-quot-Kimber-Mountain-Ascent

UP, If you are committed to the Ascent, that is your choice. From that point, I'd give the nod to the .270 over the .308 for down range ballistics. I'd be pursuing the .277 bullet lineup for some of the top BC values and checking what the Ascent likes. A cursory glance shows the 140 and 150 gr Accubond as being close to .500.
Good luck

That makes no sense. If you're going LA, and choose the .270 for downrange performance, you've chosen the worst of the three options in the LA for downrange performance. Either the .280AI or the .30-06 offer better downrange performance options than the .270 when factoring in BC. In short action, to save weight (and if you're getting the KMA, then you are counting grams), the .308 offers sufficient downrange performance based upon the BC options in 168-180 grain offerings.

If you read his posts, he already is leaning towards the .270Win.. He is going sheep hunting and doesn't need a the AI or 30-06. He seems committed to the two combinations. I put in the .308 for the "inherent accuracy" factor.
If it were me, I'd go Montana in 270Win..
He already has a 300WSM, so he has that upper end covered.

I read his posts. I also read yours.

It doesn't seem like he "needs" another rifle at all, and is simply trying to justify the KMA in .270. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't due to "need".

If it were me, I'd go with a Montana, easily, as well (though a different chambering).

You really like to argue, don't you?

No, not really. I agreed with almost everything you said, differing only in what choice of chambering for the Montana and the real reason the OP is getting a new rifle. He wants one; there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't see the argument here, nor any need for one.

UP,
That Unlimited hunt concept is a high speed adventure that can end anytime.
Sheep hunting is unique adventure that will always be at the top of your memory bank.
Good luck with your new rifle and post some photos as you can.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

A bit envious, too.

I differ from many on the Mountain Ascent. I find it loaded down with excessive and expensive gimmickry that add up to a small amount of weight loss not really needed or wanted... my standard is if you need a muzzle break, you need to step down in power. And if 4 ounces make a big difference to you, you have no business on a mountain. I actually wish the Montana's had no.2 contours and 6-8 ounces more weight, not less.

YMMV.

Having said that, I'd pick an 84M 308 MT or 84L 270 MT... I've used both on elk, deer and antelope here, as well as the 84L 30-06 MT.

I find the 30-06 a bit too much of a good thing. Talking with those that have the 280 AI, it's similar in recoil (sharp and brisk).

The 308 is my all-time favorite Montana, and have used it on antelope to just past 400 yards. Works well on elk too.

The 270 MT is the most power I'd go in a light platform. I loaded mine with a variety of 150 grainers, but were I to do it again I'd go with 130's or no more than 140's, which are more than enough for all Western game.

BUT... the 308 is just so eager to please. Recoil is a non-issue. Works on game farther than any of us should be shooting BG.

Use the money you'd save sticking with a standard Montana, and stick a fine piece of glass on it with dots or turrets.

At the end of the day, cartridges are more alike than different, and the ability to compensate for drop levels the playing field between various "standard" cartridges. I'd rather have something I enjoy shooting, than something I have to "deal with." "Dealing with" starts right above the 270 Montana for me, so I'd call that particular chambering the end of the game, but only with lighter bullets... for me.

To for the new Kimber Adirondack in 7mm-08. It gets you the higher BC of the 7mm bullets and the same weight as the Ascent. I believe the rifle comes with both a muzzle brake and a thread protector for the barrel so the brake can be removed.

Again, inside 500 yards, BC means essentially squat.

For me, the Kimber ADK is as gimmick laden as the Ascent... but at least it has a short barrel

Brad, you're not kind to the marketing guys are you?

Nope. But I'm all for Kimber selling as many rifles as they can... as the used car salesman said, "there's an azz for every seat!"

+1 on the Adirondack in 7mm-08.

I have shot a few lightweight rifles including the Ascent so I have my own opinions. I own a Rem700 Ti in 7mm-08 Ackley which is a tack driver. I also own and am currently re-barreling and restocking a Savage 11 lightweight hunter in 6.5 creedmoor. The Savage, to ME is a horrible rifle. The idea was good but the finished product sucked. It now has a Shilen #2 BBL and I am waiting for the McMillan Edge stock to arrive. The accu-trigger will also be replaced. These two I consider my mountain rifles.

The Ascent I shot was a 308 and it shot 1 moa with factory 155 Hornady Amax ammo very easily. If I would have been able to spend a little more time shooting it I am sure the groups would have been smaller. Very nice rifle.

Now to address some earlier comments.

Thinner barrels are not necessarily any less accurate than heavy barreled rifles. Yes, they heat up quicker and if there is any stress induced flaws in the bbls metallurgy they will walk once they heat up. My 700 Ti is a legitimate 1/2 moa gun. The problem with some skinny barreled rifles is that the barrels were probably not heat treated correctly after the machining process or stresses were induced in the machining process and never addressed. This is easily fixed. Just send it to 300 Below and have them cryo treat it. I have done this with a couple of factory bbls and have been happy with the results.

Now the comments about weight. Those who say that 4 ozs. of weight saving is not worth it obviously have not spent much time on the mountain. 1 day is not 10 days and every oz. does matter. Getting out of your pickup and climbing up the hill for a day is not a real high mountain hunt. A true high alpine hunt requires specialized equipment to be successful. My equipment and rifles differ depending on what and where I am hunting. My AZ elk rifle can be a little heavier because the physical requirements are not as demanding as my Utah mountain goat rifle. Spend some TIME on the mountain and then ask yourself if ozs. matter.

My buddy is looking for one and trying to decide the same thing. Losing your ammo is a really a non-issue. Put a couple of boxes in the hard case and IF you have your rifle, you have your ammo. My biggest concern with them is how fragile they are. A barrel that thin is not very strong and you would have to be careful with it. Although there isn't a lot of difference in these chamberings, if you can handle the recoil, the 280AI is certainly the Thoroughbred of the bunch. My lightest rifle is a 700 Mtn rifle in 260AI. It is a joy to hunt with and quite accurate but not as easy to shoot as my much heavier 6.5-284. Strapping a rifle on your back makes the weight savings a moot point, hanging onto it in rough country makes a huge difference.

Myself, I would get a Montana but since you want an ascent, I would suggest the 280AI. As reported, you can always shoot factory 280 ammo in it but you will lose about 100 fps fireforming.

4 ounces doesn't matter.

And I've spent plenty of time in the mountains.

Now that right there is funny.

That's an amazing amount of bullchit into such a small space. Well done.

Yup. I know where to save weight, and where not to. It's not rocket science. Those who say a 4 lb. 30-06 is a good idea obviously don't shoot much.

Yes, a lot like saying that toting a 20oz hatchet across the largest wilderness area in the lower 48 is, how did you say it? Stupid?

I agree with Brads assessment on the Montana vs. Adk/Ascent comparison. I personally would carry a Montana. But 4ager indicated his commitment to the rifle style so I didn't go there. Having spent a fair amount of time behind a variety of 84M's I have proven to myself that lightweight can be a liability if you are a true rifle loony. Saving overall weight on a backpack hunt is a necessary pursuit that becomes a series of trade-offs. Certainly 4ager realizes that fact and he is going to be a "minimalist" on the mountain.
Short of a Kifaru Rambing Rifle, the Adk/Ascent style is a good middle ground for his journey.
Which rifle scope to use is another viable topic as weight is also a factor.
I would be reaching for a proven Leupold 6x36 LR in Talley LW's. I also would consider a duplicative scope in the event of an unforeseen event. There are a lot of weight variables to consider besides the rifle/scope package.

When you are going to live out of your backpack, you need to spend time with a digital scale.

As much as 4 oz may or may not matter to some folks, IMHO, the way a rifle fits in my hand when I'm carrying it makes more difference than 4oz's.

I'd gladly add 4oz's to the 84M's barrel.

Same here.

Would really help the balance.

Agreed, or as I said:

I just got a NULA (260) with a #2 for that very reason.

TAK, per usual you're out of your depth.

The Bob isn't the largest wilderness in the lower 48. It's the 5th largest.

And yes, toting a 20 oz axe in summer Montana is beyond stupid.

Does that help for clarification?

Can't fault that thinking... I'm just a died-in-the-wool crf man.

If my 308 with the Lilja contour ever gets finished we'll be able to compare that weight. He's supposed to weigh the take-off and the new chambered/threaded barrel for comparison.

Darrik, looking forward to that info!

For the cartridges I like, 308 & 338 Fed, I don't mind taking off as much weight as possible. If I could take a few ounces off the center of my 84M Montana (mag, bolt, trigger guard) and then put it on the end of the barrel that would be a win-win.

LOL
Not sure what I started on here, but again thanks for tarring it apart and rebuilding it!
This started with one gun and four possible calibers. I now have a grocery list on here from reloading supply's to enough rifles for an army. I am not a loony gun nut. I have a dozen rifles.

I will be giving the Ascent a try without a doubt. I know this angers some, but if one wants a Montana I say buy it, I want an Ascent. I don't need one, but I want to try one. For me if a guy wants a corvette and the salesman tries to sell him a Camaro because he likes them, that really bugs me. As hunting is my passion, I take it seriously when it comes to gear. The price is not a huge factor. I have that much into each of my archery rigs.

Lightweight guns are not for everybody. As I said before I may or may not like the gun, it might not be good for a remote hunt, but I won't know till I try it. I do know that I can handle a light weight gun very well and accurately and I enjoy them.

Caliber: I do not need a bullet any larger than 150gr as I have a small cannon already (300wsm in Browning TI). I am leaning towards the 270. Factory loads from 110-150 should do the trick. For me I like to get close to the game or it is not what I would call hunting. Most shots are 200yds and under. I do not need to shoot across a canyon. Jack O'Connor did alright with this caliber and it is 2nd in popularity ( 2nd most ammo sold) to the 30-06 if I'm not mistaken!!!

Weight: My first elk hunt was with archery in the wilderness. I packed in 62lbs with a smile on my face for 4.5 miles the crows path, probably 6.5 with the switchbacks. Elevation starting point was 8000, basecamp was 11500. My pack weighed 62lbs. I weighed 175 before the 8 day hunt and was in great shape. I needed a new belt when I got back. My addiction brought me back the next year but my pack weighed 38lbs. While I can and did carry many heavy loads , I just choose not to do that unless it is MEAT. I weigh everything in my pack and scrutinize my gear.

I'm not going to say who or what people do and don't belong on a mountain but, to say that one should not be on the mountain if someone has to consider 4 OZ is a stupid remark. I would gladly take a 10 lb rifle if that's all I had, and I would do it with a smile. I would not even notice a 4 OZ difference of weight. Once again I would like to give this gun a try.

It may not be legal to transport ammo inside the case with your rifle in every state. not sure of the law on that part. I am aware there are ways around losing the ammo, like sending an extra box of ammo to the area you will hunt. I would even have a spare rifle. but that's not the point. I'm looking at the overall access to ammo available and bullet weights. I'm not against reloading but with todays ammunition available it is not a huge deal.

I hope my hunting in the Sheep Unlimited Units are not going to be just an armed nature walk, but either way it will be amazing just to be there with a light weight rifle in hand and enjoying the views.

Thanks to all

Yeah, I know nothing about mountain hunting living Montana... the photo below is 110lbs of elk and bone packed out on a solo Backpack trip in 2012 at age 51, and farther that 4.5 miles... 270 MT BTW.

Lecturing someone who has backpacked and climbed their entire life is, well, amusing...

I was not lecturing or bragging about anything as you seem to keep doing. I never once said you know nothing about hunting, only reading. This was a fun thread up till now.

You obviously cant read, the thread was started about the Kimber Ascent and four different calibers!

Probably a ranch hunter anyways. You can go find another thread for your two cents and arrogance!

Uh, yeah you were.

I shared an opinion. Most of which I clearly stated was for me alone.

Speaking of an inability to comprehend the written word... I have a mirror for you.

Ranch Hunter... too funny. Try solo, wilderness area backcoutnry hunts.

That's all that counts.

I love the sheep hunters, they think it's so tough. The average Montana Wilderness Area elk hunt is far tougher, navigating snow covered blow-downs and 35* - 55* slopes with a heavy pack. I've spent more than a fair share of time in "sheep country" (and higher) and I'll take public land, wilderness sheep hunting any day over public land, wilderness elk hunting for difficulty (They're both demanding).

Getting out of the timber makes most things far simpler. Despite the rantings of the he-men, if you have a modicum of climbing ability, it's easier to be above timberline on a sheep hunt than similarly constructed timberland.

Here' a little coulier I climbed up on a recent highcountry backpack... tent is just visible below at the lake. I'll take this over navigating similar timbered slopes any day...



Some sheep at the top of the coulier...

Definitely "ranch" country...

UpHunter,

If you have already decided on the rifle and are worried about every ounce then why would you pick a long action. You have only one choice and it is the 308. The other calibers are 8 oz heavier. Not sure why you are asking your original question if weight is your deciding factor. Their is a lot of experienced hunters on here that are offering good advice.

If price is no object then build a custom rifle off of a pierce Ti action and get exactly what you want.

He wants everyone here to tell him what he wants to hear apparently.

But hell, I've only had 16 Kimber Montana's and had a tiny hand in their design refinements with the former Chief Design Engineer at Kimber, who is a friend... but I'm a flatlander, so what do I know?

This was a classic example of a "I've already made up my mind, but I'm going to ask anyway" post. These occur frequently on the 'Fire.

I'm quite happy with my Kimber 8400 Montana in 300WSM. It's 7lbs with Talley rings and a 2.5-8x36 Leupold. I don't want any less weight on that rifle as the recoil is quite enough when doing load development or sight in. It's not really that bad in the field.

When I bought it, I really wanted the 84L Montana in 30-06. However they were brand new and not yet available in Canada. Besides, at $1050, how could I leave a new Montana on the shelf?

I have thought about going to the 84L 30-06, but realize I wouldn't be gaining a lot (9oz in weight loss), I'd be dropping down in power and trajectory (not a big deal) and the recoil would be very similar because of the lighter weight of the 84L. If I need less recoil, I can load the 300WSM with lighter bullets or slow it down. With the 30-06, I would be tempted to load it to the gills. So recoils would likely be very similar between the two rifles. Besides the 300WSM has proven to be very accurate,



So in my opinion, the Montana is about perfect for ME. The Ascent is way too expensive for ME as I am happy with the Montana. I would be buying features I don't need or want or appreciate. IMO it is like the guy who buys a new truck every year because the new one has more horsepower or navigation. I'm the guy who drives a vehicle until it no longer works for me. I don't need the newest of the new.

For the OP, he wants an Ascent and I think he is on the right track going for a 270 or a 308.

Brad, I envy your ability to get back there and hunt at your age. I'm just turning 50 and due to a back injury that has left my left leg gimpy, I can't do that. I'm not sure I ever could or was ambitious enough to do it. My hats off to you! I value your opinion on the Montana.

Personally I'm lusting after the 25-06 84L Montana just because I want one. I would also like a 308 84M Montana also some day. If I'm smart, I just keep my current 25-06s and get the 308.

Beats me as to why ANYBODY would ask other people what rifle, scope, or caliber I should buy.

And then some of the answers are just as far out as the question.

He wanted to hear a bunch of people respond to his thread and confirm that his idea is absolutely 100% right. Instead those that have more experience than he are telling him he's wrong and it bothers him even though he knows they are right, hence, the "ranch hunter" dig.

Dead on assessment.

My thoughts are I'd buy the Montana or the Ascent depending which way the wind blows...on the short list would be the 270 or 280AI, no concerns which one.

A little sensitive about the weight comment?? It was not directed at anyone in particular. If you had read the entire paragraph the point was that ozs. add up. 4 ozs - no big deal but when you start compromising, ozs. turn into pounds real quick. I noticed in Brad's pictures he was using what looks like a Montana. What was the reasoning there - weight??? If not then why wasn't he carrying a sendero? That is the only point I was making.

And to all, if uphunter does not take your advice who gives a rats ***? All of your comments and suggestions may help someone else.

Great discussion. I really like the pics!!

Thanks rifleman

There seems to be one thing that is certain, that the Kimber M is popular, comparable in weight and accurate. I never once denied that.
I was simply looking at purchasing the Ascent. and its four offerings. I would like to try it with and without the break, and I happen to like the engineering of the rifle. It may or may not work out and I'm willing to fork out the extra bucks to try it. A rifle is an investment and most do not lose money when well taken care of. If it does not work out with this gun, I will definitely be buying a Kimber M.

I agree that there is a lot of great info on here and I learned much. also thanked everyone no less than two times on here. I made a statement about someone's disrespectful remark... we are all hunters on here... I don't think it appropriate to be bashing one another. while Brad made a statement about the weight, I threw a rock back at him to make a point...he also took it as disrespectful. looks like a lot of resentment from the people in MT... just saying, we are all hunters.
I know any of these rifles will be great, I simply wanted experience as I only have 2 out of 4 calibers. my original question was for accuracy and handling as some calibers can be a little fussy.

Thanks again

I'm not sensitive about the comment.

I'm telling you that you are completely full of schit.

I don't think that any of the 308, 270, 280AI or 30-06 can be termed "fussy" especially with todays bullets.

Pick one and go with it. There really is no wrong answer.

Most sane people take another throwing a rock at them as disrespectful... actually.

My Old man used a model 54 in 30-06 for everything including Mt.Goat and Dall Sheep in Alaska.He hauled a M1 Garand around for 4 years in all kinds of terrain and weather and figured just about anything was light weight after that.In the late 40s there was not any specialized equipment for hunting Mountains and Cold weather hunts.He had his Army Down sleeping bag and that was as high tech as he was.So what I am saying is 4 oz don`t mean chit.

I can understand folks being concerned about the 4 oz business.

In and of itself 4 oz's doesn't mean much, but if you ignore 4 oz's, 4 times, you now have a pound; and you sit there looking at the rifle on a scale saying..."Where'd that extra weight come from!!!".

In short,it's the cumulative effect of 4oz here and 4 oz there that makes an 8 pound rifle , a 7 pound rifle....and so it goes.As you juggle, you can lose or gain weight anywhere from the action, or barrel,or stock , or scope and mounts.

Working with standard stuff like M70's and Rem 700's you have to pay more attention....but to me Kimbers are built right and balanced about perfectly as they come...I don't really care too much for a rifle that is very heavily weighted forward.They handle like railroad ties..

Lose some body weight. Cheaper and easier to do. If you lost only 4 ozs you wouldnt even notice. Lose a couple of lbs and it can be a game changer on the ascents/descents. My experience is only in the WV 4500 footers.

My last comment as this topic spirals downward is that while its fun to talk about rifle options, what is key is the total weight on your back, not just the rifle.

Brad, did you take the leash off before or after you shot him?
All kidding aside. Nice Bull!

Doesn't everyone tether a ranch animal before they shoot it?

I principle I agree. However, I always carry my rifle in my hands and the difference between carrying my Montana all day vs. a typical 7.5lb rifle is significant to me. Ounces add up in that case, just like they add up in the pack for back country hunts.

The "lose body weight" argument is a non sequitur. I really have no weight to lose, yet I'll ruthlessly pare weight away anywhere and everywhere I can.

BUT, there are intelligent ounces to lose and unintelligent ounces... the latter ounces are those lost to a performance detriment.

Primary examples:

Packs with compromised suspensions... this is the latest fad, and generally a pretty bad one. A decent suspension requires some weight. The added comfort of an extra pound+ of suspension doesn't translate directly to fatigue being heavier. In fact, and more to the point, the better suspension offsets its extra weight by less fatigue due to superior comfort and better ability to carry weight.

Rifles... The entire discussion on this thread is not about heavy or even midweight rifles... it's about LIGHTWEIGHT rifles (sub 6.75lb all-up). To me, the Kimber Montana 308 is right at the ragged edge of too light, and losing a few more ounces off an already incredibly light rifle could be viewed as a fools errand. At the end of the day a rifle has to settle-down for the shot. Further lightening an already light rifle, and that at a substantial price, decreases its performance in my view.

So, long way to say, not all ounces are created equal... in some areas, added ounces can even be advantageous.

Could be, his post wasn't directed at you.

I didn't take it as directed at me. I just used the sentence as a jumping off point to bring up a larger issue.

Good Post, Brad.

Thanks Billy. I believe it to be true, at least in my experience.

A few ounces in the center of the rifles mass are not even the same as a few ounces at the end of the barrel for the purpose of steadying for a shot. Just like a long stabilizer on a bow.

To a point, I don't disagree... but you sound like a rabbi dissecting the Torah... I'm talking in general terms. Ounces in the center mass of a rifle still DO help settle it down and do translate in recoil absorbing mass.

If you truly believed the above, you would have opted for a 7-08 over your 338 Fed, as the 7-08 has several ounces more barrel weight... or better yet, even a 223!

Blasphemy!!

(My Montana did start out life as a 7-08. It's better now!)

Old Grouse hunters have an often repeated line. "Legs kill more Grouse than any particular shotgun." I expect it also applies to mountain hunts for BG.

Spoken like a real Rabbi

Kidding aside, the 338 Fed is a great round, and I had no idea yours started as a 7-08!

im a big Kimber fan though i dont mountain hunt, knees cant handle that county though ild love too.....im a fan of the Kimber cause i like having the rifle off my shoulder and in my hands inthe broken country i hunt in the east end of the Breaks.....extra pound of weight in a pack and most of us wouldnt notice(hard core back pack hunters aside), extra pound on slung on the shoulder and we would all notice but for the most part wouldnt slow any of us down.....extra pound in the hand means a hell of alot and everyone notices....

but as Brad said take the weight off in the wrong place on the rifle and it does more harm than good....prolly why i love my Montana in 260 so much, has a lil more meat in the barrel than the 308 to put the balance just a bit farther forward....

I love packing my little 308 MT!

Hunting I really don't even know its there, and it balances superbly.

I've had Montana's in 257, 260, 270, 270 WSM, 7-08, 308, 30-06 and 300 WSM.

The only one I regret selling is the 260...

The thing about shaving weight from gear other than your rifle is, for the most part, making it lighter doesn't make it less enjoyable to practice with. Not that a tent or sleeping bag requires much practice.......

Smoke, agreed. Hence abominations like muzzle brakes as a requirement on uber light, hard kicking rifles.

However, at the end of the day the OP only has himself to please, and this is all fun and games any way.

Just trying to share a bit of my own hard won experience, as it relates to me alone, and not intended to be the last word on the subject...

I would maintain the best way to ensure success on a mountain hunt is done in the gym on the squat rack.Secondary would be HIT cardio of some type.

This!!

If you are carrying it, every ounce matters. That said, I find you give up things in other areas, things that I am not willing to give up.

Anyone who claims that the .308 is "50% to 80% more accurate" than the 30-06 is spouting science fiction, especially if they claim that the reason is that powder fills the .308 case. It's easy to select powders that fill a 30-06 case. The .308 is only slightly more accurate, which is what you would expect from a lower velocity round.

I agree with the crowd that suggests buying an 84M versus an Ascent. The Montana is a better rifle.

I own a 280AI and a 257 Bob. Either will do but I've been eyeing a 308 as my next Montana.

I think the argument of not finding ammo is BS. Loosing ammo hardly ever happens and if it does, I'm sure the guide would have a back-up rifle. Plus, if you loose your ammo, you also probably lost all of your clothing.

I haven't read the whole thread, and maybe this has been mentioned, but before you decide, I'd suggest handing both the long and short actions (Montana, Classic, or ascent, doesn't matter too much). The long actions have a little longer length of pull, and even though I like my 30-06 Montana just fine, the 308 gets the nod as it handles better for me. Might be the opposite for you, but they are definitely a little different.

As far as ascent or Montana, I'd also go with the Montana. I have an aluminum trigger guard and Ti bolt handle on my 308 and the weight is only 4# 14oz. My 30-06 Montana would be about 5# 5oz if I were to do the same.

Mostly this is absolutely correct.

I have had it happen more than once....in Alaska where I had ammo and clothes but no rifle. Then twice where I had rifles but no duffel and ammo.I try to get to a hunt 24-48 hours early,but sometimes it doesn't help. In Alberta the stuff did not show up for 72 hours.

You travel enough, it's gonna happen.

I've taken a 7mm Dakota and a 300 H&H to Alberta....might as well have a wildcat for lack of factory ammo.

It's dawned on me that it's pretty dumb to take a rifle chambered for an odd ball cartridge to out of the way places, but I sometimes do it anyway. If I end up borrowing an unfamiliar rifle, I get what I deserve.

Your chances of finding 280AI factory stuff in Peace River or Medicine Bow are about "zero".

Yep, that's certainly the most likely scenario for being without ammo. A lot of people think about losing ammo in the sense of a guy misplacing it during the trip, but travel issues are usually the culprit. If possible/practical, a guy might be well served to ship up some ammo ahead of his travels just to decrease the odds of a problem.

Having available ammo on a shelf could also be of limited help. Something is definitely better than nothing, but accuracy is going to be a roll of the dice when slinging random boolits out of a rifle.

I've owned a bunch of rifles, over the last 50 years. I have a Montana in 7MM/08, that will be in the safe when I die. It's at Fosnaughs right now, being cera-koted. As someone once said on here, when they designed the Montana they got it right. Personaly i don't feel the need for any thing lighter, and I hate muzzle brakes. Buy whatever floats your boat, but give the Montana consideration.

I've never traveled anywhere that I couldn't put a factory box of ammo in the guncase, with the gun. Maybe some foreign countries won't let you but I have traveled to Alaska, Canada and Mex with no issues. The TSA has no prohibition against it.

Hmm...overwhelming support for the Montana.

I wonder if that means anything to the OP?

American Rifleman has a Write up on a ASCENT in the latest issue.

My buddy just took delivery of an Ascent in 280AI this week. I am putting a March scope on it for him and we will see how it does. Not my first choice in a scope for a lightweight rifle but I guess it's his.

That is a rather interesting combination of scope and rifle. I hope he's pleased with it and look forward to hearing your impressions after a range session or two.

I saw the scope today for the first time; a very nice scope indeed. It is too heavy for that rifle but he's set in his ways!

Yes, how 'bout that stellar accuracy report. Only 2K for a SOLID 2 MOA rifle. PT Barnum was right....

You surely read the potential reasons behind that 2 MOA accuracy, right?!?!? I know they don't support your crusade against Kimber, but telling half the story isn't really the right way to go about making your point.

Did he go for the 2-25x42? I've never handled a March scope and would like to do so at some point. People really seem to like them.

So have we heard back from UPHunter on what he has done?

Kimber groupies always have a "reason".....

I've posted this pic here before, But I wonder how a budget-minded guy can rationalize spending anything more in a superlight RH rifle--and aside from a lw TG, Ti bolt knob, and brake (it's wife's gun) it's a turn key Montana .308.
A $1K bugholer as it sits.

No, it is a 3-24 FFP scope with illuminated reticle. Has a 42mm O.L. though. Not sure the exact model number

He fell in love with the dorky camo...

I can't think of another reason than that either....

Since the brake, and possibly shortening of the barrel is in the equation, can you tell me exactly how much weight the TG and Ti bolt handle saved? I would also like to know who did the brake and if it was a production unit please?

I bought this gun here a couple of years ago from smalljawbasser, I never did ask him if the brake was from Kimber or not. It looks like a factory setup.

Also appears that the barrel wasn't shortened at all, rather just the crown was threaded.
Gun weighed 5lbs 1.5 ounces before t/g and Ti bolt handle...so about 3oz were saved.
Balance is quite good.

You must love just making things up. Show me at any time when I have been in the Kimber fan club. I don't own a single Montana/Mountain Ascent and have no reason to pull for them. Just tired of seeing you whine constantly and tell half-truths to "support" your crusade.

Dip job would have kept a few Franklins in his wallet.

I've no dog in this hunt, but after seeing the comments here I re-read the article about the Kimber Ascent in the Rifleman

The first time I read it, I skipped over the accuracy column and simply read the GLOWING report. And, of course, the Ascent was on the cover of the mag with another glowing comment.

How the author could make such comments after the horrible accuracy showing is beyond me. I've done a tad of scribbling and can honestly say I've never done anything like that.

The one poster was on-target; why would anyone pay two thousand dollars for a 2MOA rifle?

kd

Keep in mind that American Rifleman's accuracy test is much more stringent than the cherry picking of a single 3 shot group that so often goes on in Internet Land.

I just skimmed thru the 14 pages... but it seems like you've already got the "lightweight rifle" thing covered.

I'm with Brad on the regular Montana in 308/7-08 being on the ragged edge for carry weight-vs-recoil. I shoot 120gr bullets in my 7-08 Montana and the recoil is fine but I honestly don't want more. I've debated going to a heavier bullet, but for ~500y shooting there isn't a whole lot to be gained for what I'm looking for... except more recoil. The 84M isn't impossible to shoot, but I think one needs to spend time with it to stay proficient. And not from a concrete bench or off the hood of the truck

The next closest rifle I had to the 7-08 was a T3 Lite in 270 Win. Compared to the Montana, it got obnoxious after less than 10 rounds from prone. And I consider myself a reformed recoil junky.

My 7-08 has a 6x42 on it, and I've considered a slightly heavier scope for a few reasons and wouldn't mind the extra weight for the reasons Brad stated earlier.

Jason

Prairie Goat,

Several years ago, I was given the task of shooting a (Famous Brand) .416 Rigby rifle for 100-rounds. The idea was to see if everything was just fine and dandy before they sent it off to the American Rifleman.

By the end of the 100-rounds, the three-blade standing rib rear sight was off (it was attached by ONE 6X48 screw), the floorplace would no longer hold closed, the front sight ramp was also off (again, one 6X48 screw) and there was a crack behind the tang.

I wrote up my findings and gave the rifle back to the manufacturer.

They told me that they'd patch it up and send it to the NRA ... No problem, they like pretty rifles and never shoot the rifles.

I thought it was funnier than Hell when Finn Aagaard found that the standing rib rear sight went flying off of the rifle upon firing ... and the front sight flew off, as well ... and the hinged floorplate was dangling.

The Darwin Hensley stock was really pretty in the photos. Too bad the metal part wasn't worth a $hit.

It just might have been a smart thing for them to have used a couple of screws on both the front and rear sights, maybe even BIG ones

I love an honest test and I believe that most serious hunters do, as well.

kd

I am going to mount a scope on one in a few minutes and hopefully we can take it out and break it!

Carried a Tikka T3 past two days in some nasty rough country. Only thing that doesn't hold up are the Butler Creek scope covers. I have NEVER made it back to the truck with both covers still intact, NEVER.

I will say this, once I mounted the Talley lightweight rings with the rifle clamped in the vice, I found that both rings were exactly level at the same time, something I haven't seen in a long time! The machining on this action was well executed. Normally, I can level one ring half (for leveling the reticle) but not both so some type of compromise is necessary.

What is happening to the BC covers that continue to fail you? I have had great success with all mine.

They get ripped off by the brush, never to be seen again. I won't own them.


Going through this stuff

I wish they'd offer "no muzzle brake" as an option.

How would that be a lot different than just replacing the MB with the thread protector?

Do they come with a thread protector? If not, then it's more money and time for the solution. I hate muzzle brakes.

Hiking through the warm side of the hill through the manzanita to glass the cool side of the hill again Dennis?

grin...

KofO BGR...... Wasnt there something about one of the sight screw holes being bored clear through in to the rifling? It were purty though.....

D in AZ,
Ok I see that all the oak brush and what not is going to do a lot of grabbing.
I guess I would come up with a carry system where the entire rifle is protected while negotiating that maize.
The Eberlestock would protect the rifle as most of it is slid into its compartment.
Otherwise, I see your point.

I have avoided this thread so far, but feel compelled to make some comments:

1) I agree with prairie_goat on the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN's accuracy tests. Five, 5-shot groups in a row, with three kinds of factory ammo, is a more stringent test of basic accuracy than the typical 3-shot groups with a best handload usually cited by most Campfire members. This is exactly why most AR accuracy tests aren't all that impressive to hunters used to firing 3-shot groups.

While statisticians argue about the potential difference in 3-shot and 5-shot groups, in my experience 3-shot groups average around 6/10ths as wide as 5-shot groups. The best load in the accuracy test would then average about an inch for 3-shot groups, which is plenty for shooting big game out to 500 yards. I know this because I've done it, repeatedly, with rifles that would "only" average an inch (or even 1-1/4") at 100 yards for 3-shot groups.

In fact, statistically 3-shot groups at 100 yards are pretty useless for testing the ACTUAL accuracy potential of hunting rifles at various ranges--or even point of impact. I'm working on an article on what really helps statistically in range testing for AR, which will go a long way toward explaining why this is so.

2)The AR testing protocol requires FACTORY loads. There's a bunch of good factory ammo out there these days, but generally very light hunting rifles are more load sensitive than heavier rifles. My bet, based on the results, is that handloads could be easily developed for the test rifle that would average under 3/4" for 3-shot groups, which would make even most Campfire nit-pickers happy.

3) A lot of the comments here indicate that, once again, many people didn't read the whole article, or even do much except look at the photos and accuracy chart. That's typical today, when most people spend a lot more time reading their smart phones than magazine articles, much less books.

I haven't shot an Ascent and probably won't, and if I did probably wouldn't was as enthusiastic if I wrote a review. But there is a difference between shooting MAYBE three 3-shot groups with handloads developed for a rifle, and five, 5-shot groups with factory ammo. The first is for bragging, and the second is for reality, for most hunters.

I guess I am missing something. When my rifle will consistently shoot decent three shot 100 yard groups (for me that is around 1 1/2") such as those of my 338-06 with the 225 gr AB below it isn't for bragging rather hunting, which I did taking both a nice black and grizzly bear a few months later. That load was first try out using VV-N550 so I called it done. Better still is the fact that zero has never changed on this rifle since I put it together in 1995.

Ed,

Yes, you're missing something. I just stated that repetitive 5-shot groups with factory ammo are not the same as 3-shot groups with handloads. If you fired 5-shot groups with the same rifle, using three varieties of factory ammo (hard to do in the .338-06, admittedly) then they wouldn't look as nice as the ones in your photo. They would also measure around 1-1/2 times as wide--though their effectiveness is the field wouldn't change. THAT'S what I'm saying, and is exactly why judging the Kimber Ascent's accuracy on the group sizes in the article isn't valid.

But you're not missing the fact (unlike some others who've posted in this thread) that 3-shot 1-1/2" groups at 100 yards are plenty for all but the most extreme-range big game hunting.

However, MOST Campfire members are looking for the smallest 3-shot group (often one of out several, since all exceptions are called "fliers") so they can brag about it.

And I would be willing to bet serious money that the very same Kimber Ascent in the article would average much better than 1-1/2" for 3-shot groups at 100 yards, given minimal work-up with handloads.

Give me some Lapua brass, a Redding or Forster "competition" seater, a pound of 4895 or 4064, some 165 gr. Sierras, and I bet it would.

And in the same month of the same magazine they tested a Weatherby Vanguard Back Country that went 6 libs 12oz. Again in a .30-06.

Group size: 1.74-1.92-2.22 for and average of 1.96.

MSRP: $1399.

Greg- I was actually on top of a ridge when I took that photo. Climbed up an old burn to look into the next canyon and north slope. Luckily the north face was mostly burned so the manzanitas were smaller.

BW. The plant in the photo is a manzanita bush- they are typically fire re-growth plants between 4500'-6000'. Above that and you start seeing locust. There are places where is a solid field of manzanitas for several miles. It is basically impenetrable. I can bust through a little to get past a bad area and that is what usually rips the covers off. I often have the rifle in my hand because it sticks up to far to even get through the tunnels in the brush otherwise.

Here is the backside of that bush



All that to get here!






I will shoot that Ascent next week- maybe (they've closed our forests) and see how it does. Spent $900 today at Bruno's on bullets and powder- gotta stay away from there!

Neat spot! Ever worry about big cats sneaking up behind you?

Found it interesting that the author of the article stated he didn't allow time for the barrel to cool down between shots or even groups of shots. Hadn't been stated here...

Thanks D in AZ.. Reminiscent of the cursed willows/alders and devils club of AK..

I do hate that Devils club!

Uphunter,

I handled a Kimber Ascent again today. Kimber is doing the right thing bringing out new products. They have really established that with the Montana rifles.

If you need something that light ok with me. For me the Kimber 84M Montana is the landmark rifle.

Here is the Kimber with a March S 3-24 on it.



Here is a little better of just the scope

Well...you did a great job mounting that scope...I'd have assumed that combo wouldn't have a happy ending....

Kinda big! Is it a sunshade that effects the scale? But if it works!

Sunshade makes it bigger than it already is!! It uses 8-40 screws so I think the mounts will hold that big scope and the recoil. I wish it didn't have the muzzle brake.

Hacksaw will fix that.

I'm sure it screws right off-not my call. Maybe I can "lose"it

I thought they're supposed to come with a cap for the brake threads.

They do. The Ascent I had for a bit was shot mostly with the thread protector on.

Maybe it did? He didn't say anything about that. I should ask him. He knows I hate them and he loves them. Probably didn't say anything so wouldn't make him take it off.

It came with a cap. Your buddy knew to keep that part quiet, it seems.