Will kimber honor there gaurantee if I bought one of there rifles. Ive been reading a lot about 3" 100 yd groups and folks having to try to fix the problems without any company support. If thats true can that really be considered a gaurantee? Im pretty old school and honesty is very important to me when dealing with a company. Thanks


Trystan

never buy a factory rifle without being ready to work on it to get 1 inch or better groups, regardless of their guarantee

3"? Where you been reading that?

They will honor it 100%. Buy with confidence.





Dave

"are designed to be capable of"

"highly skilled and qualified shooter"

No wiggle room there.

That does not mean it will shoot 1" with every type of ammo out there, just means it will shoot 1" with what they used in it. You might have to try a few different loads to find what it likes. It is the same with all rifle manufacturers accuracy guarantees.

If you want the best and cheapest 5 lb production rifle of the market then buy the Kimber Montana.

If you want a rifle guaranteed to shoot 1" groups at 100 yards with little to no work on your part, buy a 7 lb Cooper Excalibur.

Or buy the Montana and have PacNor rebarrel it if it doesn't shoot

I think the 1" guarantee is fairly new for Kimber, so try to get one of the new rifles. The older ones were definitely hit and miss on accuracy - some were fine, but my 7mm-08 needed a rebarrel. The .257 Roberts Classic Select I have seems good, though I have not shot it much.

Also keep in mind that you can get away with a lot of sloppy shooting technique with a 9 pound rifle package that will ruin your accuracy with a ~6 pound rifle package.

David

I'm really not sure this is true at all although it gets repeated here all the time. A guy can either shoot or he can't.

Ive had quite a few Kimbers;those that delivered good accuracy I did nothing special, and those that shot like crap no matter what shooting technique I tried, did not help at all. They were simply poorly assembled rifles that needed work.

I've never seen anyone who can shoot be unable to get good accuracy from a light rifle. You can't get sloppy with either one and get good accuracy.

I have two a 308 Montana and a 257 roberts select classic I am happy with. The poor old montana just shoots 3 of the cheap 150 grain WW powerpoints into about 1.5 sometimes 1 inch and I just don't care as it is a damn good hunting rifle. The select classic shoots better but I reload for it more. I am more than happy with both rifles and would not sell them. I had the classic 300WSM and wish I had not sold it, but again it burned a boat load of powder to do what I can do with a 308 win here.

If I am not mistaken they discontinued the Montana and you have to buy an accent something?? A 358Win Montana would be fun to own.

Congratulations Bob you're a savant.


There are people that "can't shoot" that can still get acceptable accuracy from a hunting rifle with some weight to it, that realize they have a lot of bad habits/poor trigger technique when they switch to a lighter rifle. I'm not advocating "special techniques", I'm saying if a persons fundamentals aren't sound it will magnify problems more when shooting a light rifle than when shooting a heavier rifle.

Certainly there are some problem rifles that need work. I believe that is a less common problem than shooters with poor fundamentals and lack of practice.


David

I see you edited your post while I was responding. That's idiotic, heavy rifles cover mistakes in technique more than lighter rifles. That's why there are weight limits in various shooting disciplines - the heavier the rifle, the easier it is to attain accuracy.

David

Heavy barrels also dissipate heat better, which helps group size.

I'm not at all convinced my shooting skills are exceptional,nor any more than average....certainly nothing special since I struggle just to keep up. So "savant" may not be a good description of me, whether you meant it n good faith or not.

If I can make a light rifle shoot I don't see why anyone else can't.


I agree with you on the technique thing but my exposure indicates if a guy sucks it doesn't matter what you hand him....he still sucks.

Put him in front of animal he gets worse....not better. I saw it happen last week.

There is no doubt the nut behind the butt is very important but I can't just dismiss a lot of sloppy rifle assembly and lay it at the feet of lousy shooters.

Which brings up a point.....if these light rifles are so hard to shoot why the hell are they so popular anyway?

cause us old farts with bad backs and Lumbago get winded with 20 pound snake boots, a 35 pound day pack and 20 pounds of hunting attire on our frame after hiking a city block.

Few seem to have much of a problem getting a Nula to shoot well. Must be a reason for it.

And Kimber seems to have found out the reason. Fewer threads on how to shoot the LW's are obvious.

Big kickers and a LW rifle change the rules some.

Mine shoot, from the bench and in the hand. In the hand is something many don't try before condemning a LW.

Yesterday, according to the phone app, put on almost 6miles and 13,000 plus steps. Up, down and around some good hills. Pass the LW.


Some are want to comment losing 10lbs would make a difference. It wouldn't, if one is in reasonable shape. Nor do I try to find the heaviest boots in the store.


Addition: Sunday before the opener the Cous and I were busting water jugs at 300 leaning out the truck window. Him with a .300WM Ruger boat paddle that went perhaps 9lbs. Me with a Kimber 84 Montana .300Savage. Change? No way.

Exactly. Because the NULA is a well assembled rifle that costs over $3500.....


OTOH the Kimber is a nice collection of quality parts that costs $1200 bucks and is frequently not so well put together. Maybe they are changing that.

I'm not dumping on it; I own one and have owned a bunch more . That's what you get for $1200 bucks!

And I had a new barrel put on the Kimber. It was just to much fun when it was a .338Fed. As a .338Fed it wasn't all that great off the bench, but it worked fine in the hand and out in the wood.

If enough objective people come forward with a reasonably representative number of similar complaints about Kimbers accuracy problems, at what point does it become valid?

Purely anecdotal, but reading about Kimbers doesn't inspire any confidence in them for me.

Yep. If you like the roll of the dice, buy a Kimber!

Understand your thought.


For myself, I come to the point that unless you have an absolutely horrible Kimber-admittedly, what's horrible to one, is not to another-then it makes little difference.

From the bench my Nula's will outshoot the Kimbers almost every day . Usually sub inch vs inch plus some. Sit down, kneel, shoot offhand and the targets say they are equals. Perhaps a better shooter could bring out the difference. I can't.

There's a reason competition rifles are as heavy as the rules allow. A lighter rifle absolutely reveals inconsistencies in technique greater than a heavy rifle at the bench. However, I don't think the difference are relevant for most hunting situations. Certainly not for quick off hand shots. Shooter variables are much greater than rifle in field positions. The benefits of a lightweight rifle far outweigh any drawbacks when in the steep terrain at high elevation. I'd rather carry my 84M to a tree stand 100 yds from the truck than my 10 lb heavy barreled rifle!

In my mind lighter rifles reveal bench inconsistencies more than heavy rifles. I wouldn't lump everyone into the 'cant shoot category' but do think light rifles require a very consistent bench technique. I'm no savant but can shoot a good group on occasion from my Kimbers. <G>

I think the other issue is the cumjlative effect of recoil from light rifles. After shooting for a bit, I find myself trying to control the recoil in my Montana 30-06. I grab the pistol grip tighter, try to snug it into my shoulder more, etc. My best groups usually come early in the session with the 30-06.

At the end of the day all my Kimbers shoot best with 'normal' bench rest techniques. I proved this to myself a few weeks back. I don't think it's light rifle specific but do think less mass in your hands makes it more sensitive to inconsistencies. At the end of the day, when I start shooting 2" groups with known loads, it's me. It seems to happen more often than I'd like with my Kimbers. Get off the bench and I find the same accuracy as my other rifles.

If you like your rilfe, you can shoot your rifle. Oh wait, new prez coming. Let's make rifles great again.

Well......sure you gotta hold the damned things steady as possible and be consistent to shoot good groups. I have no idea what is so hard about understanding that.

I sure don't know what is so hard about doing it either.

What i don't fall for is this notion that some Kimbers don't shoot because they are too light; that may be true for some folks but I think a lot of it is that the rifles are inaccurate.

I just don't understand what's so hard about shooting a Kimber.

Violent recoiling little bitches. Maybe they make flinchy shooters more flinchy. Dunno it's like the Tikka / Glock / 270 / Pepsi / Coke / Ford / Chevy thing.

There is no Kimber 1" accuracy guarantee. It is an accuracy standard - not at all the same thing!!

I have a new unused Kimber Classic Select.I noticed the barrel touched the left side of the barrel channel and the box magazine was tight.I called up CS and they emailed me a UPS label to ship it to them.They had it about 2 months( Middle of hunting season).The rifle came back a couple days ago.They put a new stock on it with slightly better figure than the original one.It is properly centered in the stock.The magazine box still seems tight to me.They also reset the trigger to 5 pounds.I decided to re do the trigger and look at the bedding.The screws were in farmer tight with red locktite applied.I guess they did not want me to adjust the trigger.The bedding looks good.They mentioned it was test fired 5 times.No mention of any accuracy guarantee or group size.I thank them for doing what they did,but probably will not keep the rifle.Huntz

What's the reason for not keeping it? Just curious.

I already have 3- 30/06`s.I acquired this from a trade for a nice superposed I had.If it was a 270 I would keep it.Huntz

People always looking for excuses Bob. We've heard all this chit before...

I heard somewhere that the Montana stock is lighter than the Accent stock?
Put a Montana handle on the factory skeletonise Accent and you end up with
a SA rifle approaching 4.5 lb.

He's right.

Trystan, buy with confidence. After holding a Kimber once, I knew I had to have one.

I came home and, like you, read some negative reviews- but to be sure, postive ones too. I took the chance bought a Kimber Classic select in .243 and let me tell you, it's a laser. I just point it at deer and they die .

Just to make sure it wasn't a fluke i went ahead and bought a Kimber Montana in .308. It shoots even better- better than my Remingtons, Brownings, Ruger and Sako Finnlight.

Back to what bea175 said- my other hobby is acoustic guitar. No one would ever consider buying a factory acoustic-Gibson, Taylor or Martin without having it "set-up" by a luthier before expecting it play right. So, if my Kimber had a problem, before the drama of sending it back to the manufacturer, I would without hesitation take it to my gunsmith and pay the $65 for him to check it out.

And lastly, just because you have the same make and model guitar that Eric Clapton plays, doesn't mean you can play like Eric Clapton .

We've certainly heard this chit from you before. This is where you pretend like Bob's experiences are your own. What's your excuse?

David

What do you use your Kimber for?

For my hunting the most frequent shot that gets the game is from a cold barrel.

If the bullet goes where I am it from a cold barrel I hit the game!

My target rifles get sighter shots!

Thus I am most concerned that my Kimber (and my other hunting rifles) hit where I aim them! They don't have to shoot groups, it's not a rifle match.

Guitars and guns, that's a damn good analogy. So many parallels it's not even funny.

Perfect analogy!! But, I didn't think logic was accepted in todays emotional drama entitled society??
Acoustic guitar is a hobby of mine too.

Just for the heck of it brought out the Nula 7mm-08 and shot it at the bench this afternoon.

First 5 out of a squeaky clean barrel went into 1. plus a little. Then the next 4 at 200 went into 1.25. Line it up on the bags and gentle on the trigger. Nothing hard about it and if I can do it.

Melvin may be getting cranky, but if you are after a LW that shoots then I can put up with a little cranky.

Melvin ain't cranky, just particular.

He and I went around once. Got a little tense, but we worked it out.

I've had/have a 223, 3-243's, 257 Bob, 260 Rem, 308, rebarelled 6.5 CM (couldn't wait) and 338Fed.

Every one of them killed stuff and most less than MOA.

Nothing wrong with Kimbers, I like them. Especially the safety vs Nula. I'm not a fan of the Nula safety and its very short, easy throw to off. You may have to mess with them. Even if you do, you end up with a great LW with a Kimber..

Got Kimber.
Shoots good.
Like it.

Biased!

It cracks me up that some believe the Montana should bughole or even be MOA when the rifle is not a custom or even a semi-custom, it's simply a factory rifle with *lightweight* as the primary selling point.

There are countless threads where people go to great lengths to get other rifles shooting 2-3" down to 1" and don't entertain the thought of sending it back to the factory.

In my experience technique makes a difference shooting a Montana, my groups tightened up off shooting off the bench, when I firmed my grip on the forearm and pulled it to my shoulder a little tighter than I do with heavier rifles. In comparison, my heavy ass Cooper 22 308 could be shot almost free recoil and bughole.

I agree with you completely ......except I don't regard pulling a rifle in tighter as a "special technique".

That's simply holding the rifle....

I do exactly the same thing with a 338, 300 magnum or 375 H&H weighing 8.5-9 pounds.

Pretty much it. Drop any factory action into the same class stock as a Montana and you're essentually at the same starting point, dollar-wise, tweak-wise, and likely accuracy wise.

Except a Tikka, which is a different ball of wax.

Kinda agree partially:

The sling should be off the rifle, but sometimes for whatever reason, it isn't. This year it wasn't.

Have both Kimber and Nula, and the Nula just shoots better and the dirtier it is the better it seems to shoot. Again for whatever reason. Kimber .300Savage, after the first couple it seems to settle in quickly. Both Douglas barrels.

As far as holding technique, when the Kimber was a .338Fed you had best hold the forend or it was going to jump erratically and the groups showed it. Now that it is a .300Savage I get best groups with a light hold of the forend. But you best not be applying pressure R/L. Straight back or down, and not much of it seems to be what works.

Nula 7mm-08 recoils straight back with less jump than the Kimber. I usually let it free recoil. Since both recoil about the same, it has something to do with the stock design.


Groups I mentioned previously with the Nula. Once it dirties up groups will usually tighten up some. But on average the Kimber is just over MOA and the Nula hangs at .75 or close.

With 1500-1600 rounds the Nula has dropped off a little. and a bunch of them were quick strings of 5 plus. Not very smart, but I always was suprised that rarely did the groups open up when the barrel was smoking hot.

In the field they are equals.

Again, no reason to pound out 10 shot strings. It's what it has been doing for 5-6 years. I could cherry pick out more than a few groups half that size, but that isn't what you will normally get.

You're cranky, he's just particular.

No, I'm particularly cranky.

I satisfied myself today firing 10 3-shot groups that averaged 0.9". I did fully float the barrel and bed the action, adjust the trigger, and work up a load. (-:

Do you have to wrinkle up your nose just right to get these things to shoot too? Say a dozen Hail Mary's, throw some salt over your shoulder. LOL

No. Just one shot last season at 250 yards with a puny 270. Pretty simple.

No - but it was 20F and wrinkled my willy a bit!


The post that ALMOST takes me to Tracker status.

There it is!

You may.
I don't.

It's hysterical that the Kimber is being measured against a NULA for accuracy. Really? Your $3500 custom shoots better than a $1200 factory rifle? Shocking!

If someone were so inclined, it takes far less than the difference in price between the two to get the Montana to shoot as well as the NULA.

David

I completely agree, except that I've never paid over $1100 for a MT, and generally less

This^^^
The newer Kimbers are consistently better. I owned and sold several about 6-8 yrs ago that shot crappy no matter what I did. Recently bought 3-4 that all were acceptable besides a 257 with a chattered chamber that Kimber found "within spec".
Now I can afford to rebarrel if I like the platform which I do Very Much!

Dave I am getting the impression that they are getting better. I know there is a stark contrast between a Kimber Select 257 that was a lemon for me, and a recent one that so far is behaving like a normal rifle.

For the record. Kimbers are a better than good LW. Have a good one and the better hunter/shooter wil win the race most every time. I have two and don't yet plan on letting them leave.

Mine has become my most accurate rifle with factory loads, as long as I start cold and keep it to 3 round groups. So far it is beating 3 Sako's for accuracy after I bedded it.

Why do light weight Tikka's(the ones with the fluted barrels,shoot so damn good right out of the box?Also my Forbes 24 B at $1,100.00 shoots like a NULA.Most model 7`s out of the box have shot quite well for me.Yes I think at $1,100.00 a rifle should not have to be tinkered with.JMHO,Huntz

The large majority wouldn't have to be if the tinkering occurred before they were boxed up.

Rumor had it the old Model 70 passed thru multiple inspection sign offs. Most problems were discovered before they were boxed. And my Fathers came with a 3 shot, 100yard tunnel verification target.


You no longer have a very good Smith putting it together or function testing. They fire proof loads. Just a couple minutes more down the line on QC and some extra shells. But don't hold your breath.

I think Tikka's tweaked out the tweaks by design, so no tweaka on the Tikka.

Argue the lug? Why? It's as tight as most bedded rifles.

Argue the barrel? Why? Evidently they are lapped like a mofo.

Argue the receiver? Why? More solid design, longer tenon on the barrel and nothing sandwiched between the barrel and receiver. As in one less joint.


But hate it all because it looks different and the mag is plastic and all the other stuff said around the 'fire.

I own several Tikkas and they do shoot but don't forget they are a full pound heavier than a Montana.
Dave

race car vs. daily driver.


Back in the IPSC days, a fella was always working on his schit. $3k on a custom that constantly got monkied with or $400 for a Glock that may or may not get cleaned on occasion.

Same same. Much a do about nothing. Either the tweaks or the extra pound.


I've come to the conclusion that no matter the rifle, there's somebody bitching about how it sucks and another praising it.


The only thing across the board, is the other side of the board.

I've owned 4 Montanas and all of them shot as good as one could desire. I've also owned 8 Tikkas and they all shot as well as one could desire. But if one wanted to level the playing field in equal componentry (i.e. Remove plastic) even if one spends $600 for an edge stock, another $180 for real bottom metal and shroud , you end up with a Tikka that cost $250 more than a Montana and you still have a plastic magazine and 1/2 pound more weight. Tikkas are great out of the box rifles and in their price range they are a good buy. But looking at cost,durability and weight the Kimber outshines it in every way. All depends on what a guy wants. If your ok with all the plastic you can get two Tikkas for the price of one Montana. Good to have choices!

Had 2 Montana's and they are bad ass, but I thought my XCRII / McSwirly was bad asser. Almost f'd up and sold it....

This!

Had the same chamber problem with a 257 and got the same answer.

IIRC you forewarned me....

I have not found a rifle comparable to a Kimber Montana.





Dave

Had three Kimber rifles, all went down the road. Some of the worst product service I've ever experienced came from Kimber. Rifles replaced by Browning, TIKKA and Sako A7 rifles.

Will disagree with you. All of my rifles will get the same results as a Montana.

Hook, line and sinker.

If you like your Montana, you can keep your Montana.

Ding, ding!!!! If there ever was a statement not worth the paper {in this case tag} it was written on it is the Kimber accuracy guarantee!!!!! I have a Mountain Ascent, which is where I read the useless blob of garbage. Not saying I don't like the rifle, certainly not saying it wont do the shooting...I am not "highly skilled" and don't know if I "qualify" for anything, yet the rifle will shoot under one inch...but that wording of the guarantee...why did they even bother????

Can you imagine how many 22-250 Montana's they would have sold if they hadn't screwed up the twist? Hell, I pre-sold 50 in less than 24 hours before they flip flopped. Thank God I didn't take any money up front!

A 1 in 8" 22-250 would eat up a big chunk of their rifle production capacity.

I'm kicking myself for not buying it!

Go back and read it again. Where did you see the word "guarantee"?? It ain't there!! Its an accuracy standard.

Do any of the executives at these gun companies shoot. Why is it so hard to get s barrel twisted faster, a recoil pad that doesn't feel like a truck tire, a decent trigger, a mag box long enough to seat bullets out in and a chamber throated accordingly. Or a barrel centered and floated in the channel of a stock that's at least stiff enough to keep it there.

And if you want to cut costs by only making rifles out of one kind of steel make them out of stainless and cerekote them black for the guys that want that color. Don't do like howa and go the other way and then try to claim that silver colored cerekote is as good as stainless. Some of us like corrosion resistance inside the bore. I know stainless would cost them a little more but so does lost sales.

If I ran a rifle company they'd all be stainless, faster twists, floated barrels in stiff stocks, even the plastic ones, effective recoil pads that don't stick to the bottom of your safe, trigger pulls that are lighter than the rifles they come on, and mag boxes with some room. Many mag boxes could have more room and then they block them out to make them too short. Seriously, do any of these guys shoot. I'm sick of 10 twist 243's and 14 twist 22-250's.

Bb

I don't know, my Kimber's pad is cushy, the trigger light and crisp, mag feeds match bullets into the lands, is twisted fast... Oh, about the bound-up magbox and cross-threaded takedown screw - nevermind...

I should have clarified that I wasn't just talking about kimbers they really are one of the best rifle kits going. A good collection of nice parts that usually don't take too much work to finish. It just amazes me how many factory rifles there are out there and how many don't get the basics right. In fairness some are getting closer which is frustrating to. I keep finding myself thinking if they would have just done a few more things they would have had something.

You must have one of the new creedmoors. Just guessing because you said it was twisted right and had enough room in the box. Can you load vlds to the lands and use the mag box. The creedmoor Montana has got to be the closest thing to right any factory is doing. Almost makes it hard to want to go custom.

Bb

1:8 243's would be nice. Seems that the Creed is about perfect though.





Glad you showed restraint!

Thanks for the chuckle this morning!

"Guarantees" remind me of the boy and his father sitting through a Sunday morning sermon. The preacher is nearing the end of his homily and proclaims "in conclusion." The boy tugs his fathers sleeve and asks; "Daddy, what does 'in conclusion' mean?" His father looks the boy steadily in the eye and says; "absolutely nothing."

Really? Can you name them for me?




Dave

BB, Yes on the Creedmoor. Agreed, a pretty good kit. Nosler 140 CC kissed with a bit of room to spare. Don't know how that'll compare to others. Agreed all around on the failures of the industry to get things spec'd right - not optimized. Some of the solutions would be caveman simple, like the 8 twist 22-250 and 243. And why can't we ditch the Weaver slot in favor of Picatinny? The design engineers really should consult this forum.

Probably never owned a Montana.

Can you imagine how dead other cartridges would become if all the manufacturers twisted the 22-250 correctly?






Dave

I totally agree. I bring this up at every show I attend and every meeting I have with manufacturers. They all look at me as if I'm a mentally challenged alien. Then I get the SAAMI speech, then the engineers tell me why it won't work and then I give them examples. Someday, somebody will get it all right and they'll own the market.

How damn hard would it be to increase the usable space in a mag box by 1/4 of an inch?

True story...

Last year at SHOT I had a meeting with a rifle manufacturer that we both like and is known for accuracy. They were showing me their new rifle that was soon to be released and they asked for suggestions and opinions on the product.

I suggested the mag box thing and brought up twist -- specifically the 243 and 22-250. One of their top foreign engineers -- with a bad haircut -- looked me straight in the eye and said, "Can't happen. Bullets will shred in midair!!". (In his foreign accent) I laughed and asked him if he was f*****g kidding me. He left the room. I guess I insulted his intelligence?

Major firearms manufacturers tend to be even more conservative than major automobile manufacturers. They often wait until new trends are OBVIOUSLY taking hold before making any changes. This is partly because tooling up for newer stuff, whether cartridges, barrels or whatever, costs a lot of money, and they want to be sure they make their investment back.

But partly it's because the majority of shooters, who buy most rifles, aren't really interested in new stuff either. If you suggest to somebody who just bought a new .22-250 with a 1-14 twist that it's not the right choice, because heavier, high-BC bullets only work in a faster twist, most will look at you like you have two heads. This is because the .22-250 became hugely popular with a 1-14 twist, and most factory ammo is made to work in a 1-14 twist. Their father and maybe their grandfather shot .22-250's with 1-14 twists and killed a pile of animals, so they cannot comprehend why it might not work.

And that's why rifle manufacturers sell a pile of 14-twist .22-250's every year. They might sell 10% more if 1-8 twist .22-250's were offered, but they might not sell that many. Real rifle loonies, like those who inhabit the Campfire, aren't nearly as common as many of us might think, mostly because we also tend to hang out with other rifle loonies. As we're doing here.

So manufacturers wait until sure things come along. The .300 WSM was one--plenty of interest in similar wildcats had built up to the point where smaller companies were offering rifles and ammo. And the .300 WSM outsold all their predictions; about 8 times as many rifles were sold in the first year than Winchester's marketing people had projected. The .270 and 7mm also did well, and the market was also primed and ready for a .338 WSM.

But then they tried to ride the trend into territory where few real rifles loonies had gone. Instead of the .338 WSM, they tried to sell the .325 as the same thing--when it was really essentially a .300 WSM. Then they tried even harder and brought out the WSSM's, and got their butts kicked, partly because they refused to go far enough with rifling twist, using a 1-10 in the .223 rather than a 1-8--which is what rifle loonies were using in .224/6mm's, essentially the same thing as the .223 WSSM in a longer cartridge. But real rifle loonies already had .224/6mm's, and the WSSM's required new super-short actions that couldn't be rebarreled to anything other than WSSM's--which rifle loonies didn't like because they're always rebarreling rifles. So Winchester lost a pile of money, maybe not as much as they made on the .300 WSM, but a lot, which made them more conservative again.

Those and other instances are exactly why manufacturers aren't leaping all over each other to make rifles like the ones WE all know they should: They mostly sell rifles to customers who don't really care about rifle-loony stuff, and keep buying the old stuff. And when major manufacturers try to invent stuff they think rifle loonies will buy, they miss it in one way or another--maybe because older guys are in charge, who aren't into newer stuff, and may not shoot as much as rifle loonies, partly because they're too busy.

Bill Ruger may have been the last head of a major rifle company to risk new stuff and be successful at selling it, but he actually made and marketed a mixture of new and old stuff. Winchester had a big hit with the "reintroduction" of a new version of the pre-'64 Model 70, but the really new stuff that's been successful more recently is cheaper rifles shooting that for the most part, shoot the same old ammunition accurately. None of this history actually encourages major rifle manufacturers to make trendy rifles. Instead it encourages them to make rifles for the same old cartridges with the same old twists, because they've been selling them for decades.

Tough to insult something a guy doesn't have.




Dave

Here's the catch though John...

The guys that don't know rifles ask their buddies that think they know rifles what to buy. Most of the guys that think they know rifles only know what they've been told by a guy that really knows rifles. The guy that really knows rifles doesn't take the time to tell his buddy why to buy brand "x", he just tells him to do it. It's the trickle down effect...I see it every day on the retail floor.

The first manufacturer that gets it all right will win big. Once it trickles down far enough, it'll take years for the others to catch up. Some may never.

It won't be the same old guaranteed sales for the next few years. Manufacturers need some innovation to maintain strong numbers. Why not take some chances and start appealing to rifle loonies? I bet their overall numbers increase if they get it right. Loonies won't be the only ones buying. They'll tell their buddies...

And maybe Kimber will actually produce a rifle someday that's sub MOA out of the box? Couldn't resist <grin>

I wish Kimber would just cut to the chase, in connection with Hornady, and introduce the 22 and 6 Creedmoor.

Make them 8 twist, though I would prefer 7.5 or even 7 (bullets ain't getting shorter ever), and with good brass.

Then they don't have to worry about old SAAMI specs for anything. And they could market them so easily--"as good as a 22-250, only better." "As good as a 243, only better." Buyers would snatch them up quickly.

After the success of the Creedmoor, we are set up pretty good for stuff to start moving in the right direction. I still have zero faith in the manufacturers to get anything right however.

Patience, it's going to happen. The LR boys are being heard. Or you can just re-barrel to what you want now and not wait.

My mistake fanboy...the fact is, bar, guarantee, standard, minimum code...you can hang any name on it you want they all mean the same thing and it is STILL NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON!!!!!!!

Well, if they all mean the same thing to you then there's your problem.

How much IS the paper worth? Seems somebody has a Kim-burr up their ass...

I think the entire notion of accuracy guarantees is amusing. I don't know why anybody pays any attention to it.

Low budget marketing and fuel for the 'fire...

Yup.

If you're talking Kimber, I agree.

If you're talking a company with a reputation for accurate rifles, it would mean something.

Just imagine how many Tikkas would sell it they put a 1/2 MOA guarantee on the label.

I hear you but I'm still with Bob. I guarantee I know people that couldn't shoot a 2" group with a rifle capable of beating the world accuracy record of any sort. Way too many variables to consider. Heck I shoot a couple pounds of powder and several hundred bullets finding 'The Load' when I'm working with a new rifle. I shoot plenty of 2" groups in the process to blame the rifle. And I bet I shoot more than 90% of people.

Darrik,

Yes, it is definitely a trickle-up effect, but what I've observed over the decades is the bigger the rifle company, the less likely they are to take chances on new trends. No doubt this is partly because it costs more for a big company (which makes and sells more rifles) to make a bunch of trendy rifles--and also costs more if the trendy rifles don't sell, in several ways. It also takes longer to respond to trends, because more factory changes are required to tool up, or even just make room for new tooling because they're already producing successful rifles.

In some ways they can't PHYSICALLY move fast enough to take advantage of new trends, but they also need to make money for stockholders, so are run by more people, including a board of directors and management staff that are normally at least middle-aged, and got where they are by making prudent, well-considered decisions. So they're not set up either mechanically or organizationally to make quick changes to accommodate current trends.

And the people that run them have seen plenty of trends come and go over the years. They've been involved in running major companies for decades, not gunsmithing shops or retail stores. They're looking at the big picture, not just what's happening this year.

This is why smaller companies owned, often owned by individuals or families, usually take the initial advantage in new trends. Back in the the late 1970's synthetic-stocked rifles, lightweight rifles were the hot deal among rifle loonies. The trend started growing, but for a long time only custom rifles filled the demand. Then in 1985 Melvin Forbes started making semi-production rifles on his own actions, and a few larger manufacturers started dipping cautiously into the market.

Remington eventually offered the 700 Titanium around 2000, but they still weren't quite as light as NULA's. Kimber was the first to make a production rifle in the same weight-range as Melvin's--20 years later. All of this is why mid-sized rifle manufacturers, like Kimber or Weatherby, will take risks on rifle-loony trends long before larger companies.

One of today's trends is heavier long-range rifles, especially "chassis" rifles--and like lightweight "mountain" rifles in the 1970's, the first were primarily custom rifles. This finally started to trickle up to major manufacturers like Ruger and Savage in the past couple of years.

This doesn't mean the major manufacturers are dumb. Instead they're playing a different game than NULA, Nosler, Tikka or even Kimber, so they play by somewhat different rules.

I want somebody to explain to me why Ruger can gamble on plastic revolvers, the most fugked up looking lever gun known to man, and the Gold Label, but they can't take one of their 8 twist barrels and chamber it in a GD 22-250!

And until I get an answer, I'm not posting any more.


Clark

Or Remington with the Etronx...

Can't really argue that, but why is it then, that there are numerous posts regarding the accurate shooting of Kimber's, that insist there is some special technique necessary to shoot a light rifle such as this? These are from Kimber fans, not the competition. It would seem to me it's another reason not to own one.

What I've found with the few Tikkas I've owned, is that you could pretty much grab a box of ammo while blindfolded, and it would shoot 1" or better. I've never seen less fussy rifles, and that includes customs.

Yeah but Tikkas suck.

Those that don't know will never know anyway. They can't tell you twist rates on anything they own.

Those that do know have more control on buyers than most believe.

FWIW -- my 8" 223 American shoots 40 grain bullets at 3800fps in tiny little clusters. They reasoning is utter crap...

Its funny that an 8 twist would do NOTHING but increase sales? but they wont do it.

The guy that dont know chit wont know any different if it was 14 or 8..No downside.

I know i'm preaching to the choir.

And agree with Bobnh, accuracy guarantees are for window lickers. I dont know anyone that doesn't tweak a factory rifle or fix it to their liking.

It'd have to be pretty screwed up to even consider sending it back to the manufacturer, even then it'd just as likely be sent to the local gunsmith.

People crack me up

I just received a new 84L Montana in 30-06 from Euro Optics. Went through the tweek checklist and found none of the tweeks from the past neccessary. Mag box fits correctly, barrel float alignment perfect in stock. Trigger quickly and easily adjusted to a crisp 2.5-3 lbs. bedding is actually pretty damn snug though I will probably fill the lug area with a bit more material. Waiting on some DD's to arrive and will shoot it in the coming days. This rifle replaced same cal Tikka T3, in hand the difference is quite appreciable. Glad I went this route rather than dropping the $633 for an McM edge for the Tikka.

You've got three scenarios-

1) Company #1 offers an accuracy guarantee/warranty/standard, whatever you want to call it, semantics. Problem is, they suck and don't stand behind it or they make excuses for their products rather than remedies. You send the rifle back, they keep it for 6 months, return it, same sheit. They get pissy on the phone. They deny the rifle even has an issue. Falls within specs, etc Blah blah blah.

Bottom line, worthless. Nobody respects that. This ring any bells?

2) Company #2 offers an accuracy guarantee and actually cares enough to answer the phone, promptly deal with the issue, replace a stock, replace a barrel, kiss your ass, scrub the floors, whatever it takes to make the rifle shoot. A true no excuses "our products must work" guarantee. Not a rifle company, but I think most would agree Leupold falls into this category.

Bottom line- all but the most jaded of the world appreciate a company that stands behind what they sell like this. Companies like this are called "great". Everybody loves to buy their products. You don't feel like you need to show up with lube to buy Company #2's products.

3) Company #3 offers no accuracy guarantee. You know what you're agreeing to, so there's no illusion you're buying something you never received. People don't feel tricked, stolen from, cheated. They weren't promised anything, and they knew it going in, so if it doesn't work out it's on them. Of course, if something is blatantly wrong, say the bolt handle falls off, you hope the company will understand and rectify.

Bottom line- people can respect a company that shoots straight with you and tells you up front what you can and CAN'T expect from them.


The moral to the story is that the only company people can't stand doing business with is the one that lies, cheats, and jerks their chain if there's a problem that falls under warranty and isn't dealt with right.

Screw those companies, there's plenty of others willing to stand behind their products and not make excuses. Again, I've not owned a Kimber rifle, but reading all the sob stories, I can't see myself going there. Why would I? FWIW.

More estrogen from the PNW

So does this mean everyone should shoot a Savage with Vortex glass?


Which, interestingly enough, I don't really hear a lot of praise or bitching about Savage.

Great warranty!

You're free to buy all the Kimbers you want.

A great warranty means that either the product is so good they don't care or that it's so cheap to replace they don't care.

Eef da tweest wuzzent zo tight, Zey would shoot holez, not zee kluster you fool!!!!

I think Kimber's issue is they really do a fine job with design - both pistols and rifles, but then it comes time to actually execute them, they cut corners to save money. Hence Montanas with lousy barrels, and pistols that jam and break parts. They took a lot of heat over barrels though, so I suspect they now have better barrels than they did 10 years ago.

Knowing something about manufacturing, it's worth pointing out that tooling costs can be significant. Tooling can be anything from casting patterns, to machining fixtures, to forging dies, plus all the time to redesign them.

I can see the issue though, if Joe Average buys some 40gr factory .22-250 loads, or even his own reloads, and shoots them in a 1 in 8" twist barrel. If they blow up in flight he's likely to blame the rifle.

The .280AI seems to be modestly popular - maybe the .22-250AI could be "domesticated" next, with a 1 in 8" barrel as standard.

I don't accept that because there have been stipulations put on bullets for a long, long time.

The SPSX isn't made for the 22-250. And the 80gr. A-Max isn't made for a 14" twist.

2017 is fast approaching and firearms manufacturers simply aren't keeping up.

Last post.



Dave

That right there tells me that guy doesn't shoot much.

Thanks for you thoughts, SAS and JB.

I am thinking the slow down in the gun market may give manufacturers time to get their fingers on the pulse of loonies. For too long damn near anything they made, no matter how cheaply or nonsensically, was all but guaranteed to sell.

Back before I ordered my Creedmoor, I did a lot of research. The common theme with the Creedmoor is that the longer magazine box is what gives it its advantage. Thousands of people acknowledge this. So like Darrik said, wouldn't it stand to reason that a longer magazine box is a good thing with other chamberings as well. Why hasn't the success of the Creedmoor taught manufacturers a lesson?

How often do you hear "I wish this rifle had a slower twist?" How often do you hear the opposite? You'd think someone would take note. Is it really that big of a financial risk to speed up the twist of a few rifles to see how they do?

Again, guns sold so well for so long that maybe manufacturers didn't have to care. With our national binge buying slowing, they are going to have to do something to spark more interest.

JG - I 'tested' some of the special techniques 'required' for light rifles and they didn't pan out for me. I shoot my Kimbers like I shoot everything else.

I do find that the Kimber Montana causes some inconsistency issues - at least for me. While shooting my 30-06, I start with my standard technique and end up grabbing it tighter anticipating recoil. Groups go from 1" to 2" as a result. I wouldn't say its Kimber specific but with the lighter mass, its not hard to tweak it.

I'm must be really lucky. I have 4 Kimbers and they will all do less than an inch with various bullets. I've not shot a factory shell through any of them so can't comment. I've never shot a Tikka either so can't comment. I like the Kimber platform and don't find the extra tweaks bothersome - but I do something to every rifle I've ever owned.

Talking about twists. A puzzle to me in the .224 barrels, this 9 inch twist thing. Why do they almost get there but just not quite. Granted a 9 helps but and 8 inch twist would cover any .224 bullet.
And like SAS I'm not buying they won't shoot light bullets thing. I've shot too many good targets with a 40 grain bullet in a 6 1/2 twist barrel to believe they will not shoot.

PaulBarnard,

The 6.5 Creedmoor does NOT involve a "longer magazine box." Instead it's designed to fit with a little room to spare in the STANDARD short-action magazine, which is a little more the 2.8" long.

This is exactly why it's successful. Rifle manufacturers don't have to do anything to their present rifles except screw on a 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. They don't have to use a longer magazine box, or modify their stocks or actions to accommodate one--which is what rifle loonies often do with other "short action" cartridges that with high-BC bullets are too long for 2.8" magazines.

Ruger is making me angry.




Travis

Except for pure target shooing exercises, I'm having a hard time trying to figure our why a 6.5 CM would replace anyone's 7-08 on game.

MM

Except for lighter recoil, I'd have to agree. They're really quite similar.

Thanks for cleaning up after me John!

This is exactly why I do not have a 6.5CM.

Because it's better, ya big silly.....

Guess I'm just not looney enough.........or perhaps it's because I can read ballistics data for what they are.

MM

BINGO...

😎

I have both. Sure dont shoot the 7/08 much anymore..Nor does anyone I know that has bought a creedmoor. funny how it all works.

I recommend them to people I used to recommend 308's to. Not one of them has regretted buying one..Same thing time after time, most are amazed at the little cartridge.

Too bad manufacturers cant take a damn hint.

Poor lil'Creedmoor. It's always Creedmoor vs this, Creedmoor vs that....

Spot on.

of course everyone misses it. It aint that it sets the world on fire..Its just that there is a modern factory round that they actually got right, start to finish.

As long as people talk like they are here, the longer it will take to see more like it..it seems the 22-250 has been a pretty big hit for awhile now, same case as the creedmoor, but hamstrung in the LRF days with lazy twists..why? I still want to do up a 300 savage geared towards the 155 scenar, i think it would blow minds at pressures the modern actions can hold.

carry on

So now that all is well in the cartridge world and we finally have the ONE perfect round, the loonies can sleep.


6mm Creed will be the next hot ticket and 2017-2018 there will be 400 threads titled "6mm Creed or 243 Win, what to buy?".

Then Stick will put together a few with 18" barrels and the fights will be on like donkey kong.

Ditto

In the case of my Creedmoor, it wasn't replacing anything. The rifle was filling a gap in my coverage. I wanted a rifle and a cartridge capable for longer distance target shooting and stand hunting (not that I do much of either.) I had a 257 Roberts Ruger Ultralight for woods hunting and close in work, but accuracy is only so-so and that thin barrel heats up pretty quick at the range. I also wanted to avoid heavy recoil. There were a number of cartridges in that class that would have worked. The Creedmoor seemed to hit the sweet spot based on my research. My first trip to the range with the Ruger Hawkeye Predator confirmed that I had made a good decision.

I'm pretty much settled on the fact that vehicle innovations come from racing and weapon innovations come from competition and the military.

If all we had were Model A's and muskets we'd still hunt, maybe just a slower pace.

Men are unrested explorers. It's how we are wired. There will be something to "top" whatever is hot today. It's just a matter of whether or not you wanna monkey with it and to what extent you'll justify your reasons for doing so.

Count on it.

The Creedmoor offers something no other cartridge does. For $26 a box at any decent gun store you get factory ammo capable of winning national championships, excellent external ballistics, and low recoil. To frost it- factory guns are almost universally setup correct with regards to twist, throat and by design- magbox.


Of course other cartridges could do this as well.... but no one has.









For the last 50 or so years nearly 100% of innovation for weapons has come from the competition community. The military is a stagnant decaying beast.

Creedmoor replaced a lot, IMO.

I'd have a lot more money left in my pocket if I could have bought a 6 Creed Montana twisted to shoot the 105s, rather than have gone the route I did to make it happen.

A properly twisted 6 Creed would be much better than any factory 243 that I am aware of.

None of that explains why one would replace a 7-08 with it...........everything you've said about the CM applies as well to the 7-08.

Not knocking the CM, just saying it ain't really any different except in the mind...............for hunting purposes.

MM

THe hell it don't. If you just shoot partitions in everything it doesn't matter. The point which you simply missed is the creed has good factory ammo good price ready to go.

Nothing else does all that in factory form......price recoil rifles etc

Bullets. 6.5 is leading the way in bullet selection IMO, which applies to hunting. From the 100gr Mono at 3200 out of a Creed, to 120s at 2900, to the 143/147 ELDX at 2700. Lots of versatility.

The 7-08 has the 120gr TTSX at 3k, which is an amazing combo, but you don't want to start talking wind and longer shots with that bullet. The 140s are good, but the BC edge goes to the 6.5s.

Maybe if Hornady loaded some factory 162gr. Gay-Max. But they don't.



Dave

Where's' all that's world class factory long range hunting and match ammo for $26 a box for the 7-08?

Yep. Bought my first Creedmoor, a Ruger Hawkeye, in 2010, when it was getting to be the hot thing, along with a few boxes of factory ammo. All I did to the rifle was work the trigger over, otherwise it was bone-stock. First 5-shot group at 100 yards with Hornady 140 A-Max ammo was .63", in far from ideal conditions.

I definitely don't think bullet selection favours the 6.5, though factory ammo certainly does. The 6.5 is gaining headway in bullet options, but the 7's and .30's had a pretty massive head start.

In handloads you can get a 110gr TTSX at 3275 in the 7-08, all the way up to a 195gr Hybrid at 2520fps, and several stops in between.

Though in factory guise with factory mag dimensions, I'll agree the 6.5 Creed is more versatile with bullet options that work at mag length.

Which is why it exists.




Dave

6mm CM has been done for awhile ....it's a 6XC

Just to keep a comparison apples to apples, run the data on a 6.5, 140 gr Accubond, BC .509, at 2750 from the CM vs. a .284 140 gr Accubond BC .485, at 2800 through JBM, be honest about what you find & get back to us.

But here's what you'll find:

Given a 10mph 90 degree crosswind, at 500 yards, the calculated windrift difference is 0.2 MOA.........not exactly a deal breaker, from a hunting perspective.

But maybe the real life difference is bigger.........I don't know.

Yeah, comparative BC's will favor the CM, but given similar, but marginally lower, BC bullets in the 7-08, the performance differences are marginal.

But, if one is starting from scratch & has no 7-08, yeah, the CM makes some sense, but in the end, the 7-08's bullet selection & ability to handle heavier bullets, makes it a better overall choice for HUNTING.

Just my view; surely, data can be compiled to support whatever view you might want to take.

MM

So many are missing the point. Can you buy a factory rifle in 6xc and pick up good ammo at the store?

Exactly, and at $26 a box right now. Good factory ammo for my 7mm-08 starts at nearly twice that. I know that's not a big deal when you reload everything but it can never be a bad thing.

You can buy a factory 6mm CM?

Factory Nosler BT ammo for 7-08 with 120's is $29.99 everywhere...

Yessir! If a guy can run binderless AICS mags at 2.950", the tables turn a little. I'll be interested to see the final numbers on the 7mm 180gr ELD...

$20 if you catch it on sale at SPS... 😉

WTF man........that would be the beauty of making the other creeds standard. That's all hypothetical but obviously going over heads.

I love ballistic tips but please stay with us. Shoot your 29 dollar 708 ballistic tip ammo against some 143 hornady ammo. Good high bc ammo is available for the creed and they're all twisted to work.

Hell I don't even have a 6.5 creedmoor because I have custom barreled/twisted guns I handloads for. The whole point is a turn key setup over the counter.

Oh man, this is epic. Or maybe uber. Or maybe epically über. Or überly epic.


I got some 7Mag Corloks for like $22 that shoot all day long if I do my part.

MontanaMan,

In the real world, the .509 BC of the 140 6.5 AccuBond is correct, but the .485 for the 140 7mm AB is BS--it's really more like .430.

Ok, that would be enough difference to be significant.

Just going by what Nolser publishes, guess you'd have to shoot it & measure it to know differently.

MM

Which is why I recommend Bryan Litz's book of range-tested BC's. Many shooters would find it kinda pricey, but it saves plenty of ammo and time.

I admit I am at a loss. Has this thread has turned into an "I don't like the 6.5 CM and that's why it isn't going to be popular regardless of how popular it is or is becoming." thread? Additionally I think it's funny that once you put a 6.5CM in a standard length action, it suddenly becomes "worthless" or there is no point in owning it. Why? Rhetorical question.

Why not toss the 143 eldx or 140 Berger into the mix? Or the 123 scenar?


And, a steady 10mph 90 degree crosswind would be convenient, but rarely happens.

Hell I have an 8.7 twist custom 7-08 and I still want a Creedmore to play with.

Yep.

Many of Litz's BC numbers are included in JBM's database of bullets, but not for the .284, 140 AB, but his BC's are included for the BT's & Partitions.

MM

Exactly. For custom rifles and hanloadeers the creed idea isn't the end all be all. For all over the counter it's pretty cool. Nothing more nothing less

I doubt I'll get rid of my McWhorter 7-08 for a 6.5CM anytime soon, as it is a very effective killer out to 600 with 140AB's. It's fun to crunch numbers and speculate though.

Got my first Montana about 5 weeks ago. I put two small spacers made from a business card at about 7:30 and 4:30 on sides of front receiver to increase float of bbl. then tighten screws. Mount Leupold 3x9 ultralight scope using Burris rings with floating inserts.
WW cheap bonded bullets...first three into a ragged hole at 100. Then Fed Classic blue box...same but now about .300". Both 130's.
Shot gong at 400 about 10 shots. 100% hits.
Went and had lunch!
Bought alloy bow and Ti handle...KEEPER!

That sounds good! Congratulations!

So Rick, how much has your cartridge choice and rifle weight changed since about 15 years ago when you swore off being a rifle loony, and bought a rifle from a certain well-known maker? And how many rifles and cartridges have come and gone in between? :-)

John,

Isn't that being a bit cruel to make a rifle looney do some introspection about gun buying habits?

I can't wait for the answer to this one!

tAG

Ha! LOL!

Brand spankin new Montana 84L 30-06. Adjusted trigger, bedded lug. Didn't know I had a guarantee, but I'll take it.

Factory 165 gr Core-Lokt




Factory Barnes 150 TTSX

Wow!
Did you just stick some bedding compound in the recess to take up the slop?

I just did a pseudo bedding job on the lug area. I found the lug to be smaller in width than the hole it had to go in, the stock had space on both side of the lug that IMO needed filled in. Nice tight fit now and barrel was floated well and aligned well from Kimber so didn't need to mess with any of that. But I could move the barreled action in the stock in a rocking fashion the way I received it, not anymore. She's a goodin, but IME all 4 I've owned have been. The fretting that goes on over these rifles is way overhyped IME.

Typical. Thanks!

It did not like my 155 gr Scenar loads (1-1/2" groups), but I'm working on that.

Your luck is better than mine. I've had 3, none I'd truly consider keepers, 2 already gone, the third with one leg on a banana peel. The two which have already been sold could not be counted on to produce a 5 shot 12 inch group at 300 yards. The current one is not much better, but it is some better. I can't see getting rid of it 'til I have something that works better. Despite that, I like them, and I'm still pondering another as my next rifle, I have not given up.

Tom

the montana I have in 308 if you rest it out towards the end of the forearm not shoot well because the forearm is weak enough at the end to touch the barrel pressed firmly. I guess this is the price you pay for the light weight. If you bench it back by the action, it shoots cheap 150 grain factory ammunition acceptably 1.5 inches for 3 shots or more if you wait 10 minutes between shots. This is my special LW rifle technique.

I also have a select classic roberts as well, which shoots as well or better and the 308 shoots handloads better but I forget what I worked up. Now I am just more interested in hunting.

I would not part with either, but could be interested in rebarreling the roberts into the Ackley improved version, I shoot 47 or so grains of H4350 in it now with 100 grain bullets, the TSX bullets at this speed flatten the 50 yard deer I shoot it at.

Like someone said what do you expect for a $1200 rifle, if you want cheap get a Ruger American, or spend more money on the Cooper etc. I just cannot be disapointed in a rifle that is this light, works and shoots acceptably.

Believe it or not, there are lightweight rifles that don't have bendable forends, and shoot consistently no matter where you rest the forend.

I've never had a problem with a Kimber forend bending.

That's real news to a Kibler shooter!

smokepole,

Yeah, neither have I. But if it did, I sure wouldn't put up with it!

I have a generous float and I can shoot my Montana any which way. To include using a bipod.

I think the lightweight "techniques" are nothing more than guys concentrating harder when they shoot a rifle that light. And if that works for them that's great, but I think all that front rest over here, fingers positioned there, wiggle your left toe three times bullschit is just that. Bullschit. A properly floated and bedded rifle isn't going to be finicky.

And how could you possibly hope to have those type of conditions in the field anyway? You gotta take the shot you're given.





Dave

Agreed. Common sense is refreshing.


In the Internet age,there is a tendency for people to micro manage everything associated with shooting a rifle and making simple [bleep] seem difficult.

Capturing the lug is the first move to make, IMO. You can't screw it up, it costs pennies, takes no time, and it's worked every time I've done it.

Shooting a 6#7 oz Montana side by side with an 8#9oz M70 (same ammo, 270) the Montana has quick snappy recoil in comparison.

A flinchy shooter is only going to be flinchier with a super light rifle.

Either way, if you suck you suck.

Yep.

Anything under 7lbs gets pretty tough to shoot IMO. Under 6 gets more tougher.






Dave

Most interesting part is how the Montana soaks it up though. Took a few back and forths to figure it out, but that damn stock and pad are impressive.

X3
When I first got my 7-08 Montana I was getting erratic groups. I tried the techniques guys talked about here and groups got better. I kept messing with it thinking it was all me and my technique. Sometimes it shot very well and sometimes not. I chalked it up to my mistakes in technique when it didn't group as it should.

This past fall I bedded it and changed my scope and mounts to a more solid system. The rifle suddenly became easy to shoot well with my old style target techniques of as little input from me as possible. I no longer had to hold it down or any of the other light rifle garb you hear preached. Now it has produced some of the smallest groups I have ever shot with a hunting rifle, and I am suddenly able to shoot it well every time.

Amazing ain't it! No way I would have believed before that my Montana would have less felt recoil than a same caliber rifle shooting the same loads two pounds heavier, until I experienced it for myself.

My 270 is a puzzycat.

The uber cush pad makes a big difference.

A 5lb 13oz 84M shooting 210 Partitions is snappy at the bench for sure!

RH : My experience has been that when you have to resort to all sorts of special techniques, searching high and low for special loads, etc to get a rifle to shoot, the problem is usually a mechanical one where some aspect of the rifle is assembled like a POS....loosey goosey at best.

All the other stuff we talk about here getting a rifle to shoot is mostly an attempt to over come some assembly or component deficiency.

Fix the mechanics nd the rest will fall into place. Stick calls this "starting at the start" but the concept is simple and lots of people look right past it.

You can use the best components in the world; sloppy assembly negates them all. A Kimber is no different.

Couldn't agree more Bob. My favorite and best gunsmith, now retired,screwed together my first 'build' for me, and load development consists of simply putting cartridges in the gun....

If a guy wants the warm and fuzzies of itty bitty groups on paper IMO the triggers have to be very light....safe....but light. It's just such a light rifle that it can be steered left or right with just the trigger pull if you don't really hold down the fore end. None of which is an issue killing something that gives you a pie plate of forgiveness through vitals but if you demand those little groups on paper there's definitely some variables you have to be aware of in an all up 6lb rifle. If I don't hold it a certain way i swear it moves from my breath!....grin

Pulling a trigger without moving the gun off target in the #1 key to accuracy.It doesn't matter if we are talking rifles or handguns. Until you can pull the trigger without moving the gun off target ,nothing else matters.A very light trigger,or a very heavy gun makes that easier but it can be accomplished with practice in any case.

Inge:Exactly....... Fighting my way past so many rifles built like slop eventually sunk in. But Im a little slow and had to figure some of this stuff out on my own.

When it's made of good components but won't shoot there is only one possibility left....it's broke and needs to be fixed.

I LMAO at all the "load development" with groups scattered merrily across inches of targets and just know it's [bleep] barrels,actions not trued, hacked bedding,who knows what else,along with clueless shooters.

Your smith is a smart guy.



Here's what happens to "load development" when the rifle is fixed and components properly assembled, before we start reaching for magic powders and bullets, and wasting time and components .

First hand load fired through that 7 Rem Mag.

So Bob, you're an experienced rifleman. Since there are so many hit and miss Kimber accuracy issues, is Kimber a well built rifle from the factory, sloppy, poor quality control, or what? The lightest rifle I owned was a Nosler Patriot 7-08. It shot like a dream from the start.

And weighed what with scope and rings?




Dave

Exactly. The Kimber may require some work to be perfected as it comes from the factory, but if a total newby to bedding like me can get it right the first try, then it's well worth the price of admission. It's not like it's the only factory rifle that requires a little work.

I guess it's just expected that you need to change the trigger, barrel, stock, and bed a model 700, so no one complains. After all the model 700 costs so much less.LOL Why does no one count the full cost plus parts and complain about that?

this is the first 100 yard group I shot after bedding my POS Kimber. Factory Accubonds no less.


second group

So 6lb rifles are harder build than 6.7lb rifles?

Nice shooting RH. I've had 5 Tikkas that shot just like that, factory rings, out of the box, factory ammo.

You've either shot light rifles or you haven't.

Have you or not?




Dave

Nosler weighs 6.75lbs naked . . . but these Montanas are going about 6lbs scoped.



Yes . . . much.

The Tikkas are great,no doubt. If they weighed 5.2 lbs rather than 6.7 Kimber would be out of business. That either matters to you or it doesn't. I'm happy either way,even if I have to bed the Kimber to get it to shoot.

Which brings us back to the same thing that's been stated 1,000 times to the same people.

There is NO RIFLE COMPARABLE TO THE KIMBER MONTANA.





Dave

I thought the superlite Tikka was 5.8 lbs?

If you are packing beer thats minus 1/2 a beer and could potentially be a deal breaker 😀


Trystan

No Dave, they are not greater than sex!

I've had 8400's,84L's and 84M's almost all shot well with some tinkering. If you want to start betting against guys shooting 700's with factory stocks and barrels your going to lose a lot of money.

My Kimber currently goes 4.5 pounds (72 oz)...so thats even more beer I can bring along.

Does a Tikka SL count? Not sure what you call a "light" rifle. I wouldn't own a Kimber if you gave me one.

+1

He has not.

If a Tikka SL counts, I've shot light rifles. Since it doesn't take any special technique to shoot light rifles, according to many here on the 'fire, then it is a moot point. therefore, if a guy can shoot, he can shoot. I have little trouble hitting what I shoot at.

+1 (for the thousandth time)

Get a Tikka or Steyr Pro Hunter both will easily do 1" or better!

Glad to hear it. Leaves more of the good stuff for the rest of us.

As far as issues are concerned, they happen with all mass produced factory rifles - you can get a lemon with any brand. The last Remington I bought shot 8" patterns at 100 yards (crooked chamber not remotely parallel to the bore). I just traded off a Tikka 7-08 that was good for 1.5" at 100 yards with the loads it liked most (it had an insanely long throat). I once owned a Winchester that had a barrel that walked all over as it heated. These things aren't supposed to happen, yet there they were.

I had a short firing pin on a Kimber. Kimber sent me a new one quickly and for free. Good luck getting decent customer service from Berretta (who imports Tikka/Sako).

There isn't anything else off the shelf as light, not to mention with a rigid stock and great trigger. They can't be beat for the price, especially if your hunting involves hoofing it over rough country and elevation.

Much agree. A NULA is a custom rifle that is turn key, for which, it starts with a custom price.

When starting off with production guns, they are to varying degrees, a project in a box, for which it starts with a lower price. You can start off that project in a box with a production Winchester, at a lower cost, but you will always reach limits with obtaining cost effective light rifles.

Enter Kimber. If you start off that project in a box with a Kimber, you start out the gate with more cost, but you come out the box beyond the limits of the Winchester, and you start with all the parts needed in the box to build a good light rifle. With the only exception, being if the barrel needs replacing as some, not me, experienced. Otherwise, along the lines of Brad's thread, of going through the rifle; once done, you have a decent light gun, beyond that of starting with a production Winchester.

I'm of the opinion, if you expect a newly purchased Kimber to come out the box, and perform turn-key, along the lines of a custom, then you may be unhappy. On the other hand, you go into it prepared to go through the rifle, via Brad's thread, you likely would then know what you are getting into, and would end up happy when done.

Yep, the Montana is not a custom, it's a factory rifle with "light" as the selling point. Folks seem to fix POS rifles other than Kimber's, even creating entire threads on the quest and get back to having fun.



SUB MOA ACCURACY STANDARD

Made in America, Kimber rifles are extremely accurate. The premium-quality and precision you have come to expect from Kimber can be found in the craftsmanship and many custom features of these very special firearms.

Kimber rifles are designed to be capable of shooting a 3-shot group of .99” or less at 100 yards by a highly skilled and qualified shooter using factory ammunition.

Kimber should add the following line,

The accuracy standard will not apply to those who can bury a bone without digging a hole but have to sit down to pee.

Whew, I just finished reading this entire thread. In the mid 90s I bought a Ruger RL ultralight in the 257 Roberts. I had it rechambered to the Ackley improved. With factory ammo my groups were 4 to 6 inches. It took me a while but I finally got the groups under an inch. It seems the twist was too slow for the heaver bullets. As it turned out the twist was 1 in 10 3/4" not the 1 in 10 as advertised. So I dropped down to 100 grain bullets.

Last year I bought a Kimber 84M in 257 Roberts. The stock is AAA French Walnut. When I get around to it I'm going to have it re-chambered to the Ackley improved. Because I'm already set up to reload that caliber. It's glass bedded and the barrel is free floated. So I'm saving the expense of having that done. And I'm looking forward to shooting it.

Kimber test fires inside the 50 yard indoor range with just the barreled action inside a fixed machine rest.

It's the same setup they used with their now discontinued rim fire rifle line.

I had the pleasure of experiencing the top shelf, product backing Kimber customer service dept in 2004, 2011 and 2014

They suck X100

Sako Accuracy Testing


I did not think anyone tested production gun accuracy, with the barrelled action in the stock, except for Sako, who tests the completed rifle. Even those CZ targets are shot with a barrelled action, in a machined rest. Sako, on the other hand, actually tests the gun. It goes through a proofing station where it is inspected and shot five times. Then it goes to an accuracy station, where they use two marksman, who have freshly rotated out of their military service, to independently shoot, confirm, and verify that the gun shoots sub-moa 5-shot groups at 100meters. Then it goes to the final inspector station, who inspects everything for approval, before it is boxed up for shipment.

I am glad, however, the Kimber is being tested, even if only a barrelled action at 50 yards. Hope that reduces the chance of one getting through with a crappy barrel. I would then have more confidence, if they do a bad job of assembly, and it shoots bad, that I could go through the gun and make it shoot, without having to replace the barrel.

I do not wish the costs to go up, but I do, however, wish they would stop using temp workers from the day labor staffing place on the corner, to assemble the rifle. They could box up the tested barrelled action, at reduced cost, with a parts kit, throw in a bedding kit, and stickers. Then I wouldn't have to go through the crap of figuring out what the homeless person did to screw up the gun when they put it together while smoking crack. 😯

After reading many Kimber roulette stories mostly here on this forum, I decided to do an experiment about a year ago. Ordered a NIB 7-08 Montana. Topped it with a Swaro Z-5 5-25x52(trying to shoot tiny groups with anything less than an 18 power is just dumb). Went and bought some Barnes vor-tx 120g factory loads. Best 100 yard groups off bags were 1.25 inch. Pretty disappointing by my standards. My Cooper shoots those at .4 inch at 100 yards.

Next I bought some 139g matchkings, and set the FL sizing die(RCBS which is not even match grade) according to the instructions. I assume this is how most people reload. After a quick ladder test, I loaded the most promising loads and the best was about .75 inch at 100 yards. Getting better, but still not that great.

I ran out of the matchkings, and the only 7mm bullets I had left were 100 grain Sierra Hp varminters. One day I was bored, so I loaded some using the same RCBS dies, but this time I also used a case gauge. After a ladder test, I loaded 5 rounds each of the two touching shots. Both 5 shot groups shot at a caliper measured .1 inch. Pretty good.

I'm willing to bet that most recent Kimbers shoot decent, but expecting factory ammo with a 3x9 scope to shoot tiny groups is not going to happen. One also has to hold down on the front of the gun when shooting, because shooting mine free recoil opens the groups up to between 3-4 inches.

I want to redo this test with a known Kimber dog rifle, and I think I have located an early 260 that fits the bill. Hopefully I get a chance to test it soon....

I'm not sure of your definition of tiny groups for a lightweight sporting rifle. With an appropriate target I maintain a quality scope of 9x will show pretty much all of what such a platform can reliably and repeatedly produce.

Kimber Montana 7mm-08 - bought used on Gunbroker, mounted a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36 in Talley Lightweight lows.



And no one will probably believe it, but that was at 300yds.

Riiiiight. Lightweight has nothing to do with the ability of shooting tiny groups. Sure not everyone can do it, but it can be done. Look up the Cooper M92, same tiny groups as the rest of the Cooper line. Using a 9X scope trying to gauge accuracy, is like cutting trees down with a butter knife trying to gauge cutting speed. Bad idea...

I agree...

You just don't know how then... sorry.

Apparently not. I prefer to use the right tool for the job.

Just because you can't shoot for chit, doesn't mean the rest of us are like that...

Now I see how so many Montanas here are labeled as shiiit shooters. Common sense isn't so common here.....

[/URL]

Here's my Kimber.

[/URL]

Here's my Kimber.

Please post your .1 or better group using a 9X scope. After reading this site for a few years, I thought stick was too harsh on some here, but after posting and getting some of the above replies, it's clear he was being way too nice.

Tikka Superlite, 7mm-08 140 Partition handloads.




120 Ballistic Tips





Rifle prep included inserting the bolt and mounting the scope.




P

1/2 pound heavier . . . 1/2 ton uglier

The problem with a Tikka is at the end of the day, it's still a pos tikka that looks like it's made by Mattel....

Beautiful rifle Leonten!

Are you referring to those three shot Cooper groups fired indoors at 50 yards? Big deal.

If you can reliably and repeatedly shoot that Kimber "in the ones" for five shot groups with any magnification you choose you need to take that rifle on tour and clean up at some benchrest matches.

I didn't think you were this stupid, but I guess I was wrong. A pencil thin barrel isn't winning any matches. No shooting event is going to wait for you while your barrel cools. Furthermore, Cooper does shoot their targets at 50 yards, but it really doesn't matter. I would bet money that a dumbass like yourself cannot duplicate their target at 5 yards. Have you ever shot a rifle? Your posts make it sound like you might have not. It looks like you spend your life posting nonsense on here instead of taking that time to actually be pulling the trigger.

The person posting nonsense is the one thinking he shot a .1" group with a lightweight Kimber because he used a 25x scope. It's hard to believe you've done very much shooting if you believe that group is anything other than a fluke.

It isn't hard to kill deer inside of 200 yards - the test for most American hunters with a rife shooter combination that shoots 2.5" groups. When you hunt with guys who grew up shooting and are over 40 you take for granted that guys can shoot. Youngsters now are more worried about tacticool items than basic fundamentals of pulling a trigger, and there is so much more cool stuff it is easy to get distracted.

We have 2 new younger elk hunters this year and I have to take a turn on their rifles if I want to see if the reloads in their 30-06's are capable of good accuracy. My 12 year old grandson shoots more consistent groups. I got the TC Venture to shoot a 1" group at 225 yards but right now the young man can't take advantage of a 1" accuracy guarantee, getting better but not enough trigger time yet. I'm thinking the Remington CDL may need some tweaking to shoot well.

I'd love to give a Kimber a try but I'd be more likely to buy the 2 Tikkas since these days Rifles are more like tools for me than sentimental objects,

The Montana i had in 30.06 wouldn't do better than 1 1/2" for three shors at 100 yrds. I tried 5 different kinds of factory ammo. Maybe handloads would have worked but sine i no longer handload that was moot. I went back to a Ruger Compact in 308. It may be a pound or so heavier but it shoots under an inch wich factory ammo.

Well sheeit, just get yourself a 25x scope and start cutting some tiny groups!

Yeah that's why all competitive shooters use a cheap leupy 3x9 from Walmart. You must be a libtard.

You're proof that obtuse isn't just for angles.

If you weren't so dense you would understand that a lightweight Kimber sporter isn't precise enough to demonstrate the aiming superiority of high magnification scopes the way a purpose built competition rifle can.

Not near as pretty as the Montana, but she shoots.

Changed the primer in the 120 BT load





And half a pound? Take a pee before you leave the truck.





P

For a backpack hunter, 1/2 pound is huge.

Surprised to hear that you pee in your truck. I always leave my truck first.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mathman may have shot more rifles than you have groups. As Stick says you should be doing more reading than giving advice.

What advice have I given? It's pretty obvious to anybody past 1st grade that better magnification shrinks groups significantly. If one disagrees with that, they are either retarded, or argue just for the sake of arguing.

Read it again..

Just for giggles....

Here's a three shot group at 100 from a Kimber Montana 223. I posted it years ago here, but can't remember if it was a fixed 6x or a 2.5-8. Didn't duplicate it, but I did it once!

I can't have you giggling and I'm not.

Leupold 1.5-5. Last three down for the final Deer Season tune-up. Best of three, but a bunches of extra xxxx's wouldn't have significantly changed anything.

Your comprehension skills are nonexistent. I simply stated why in my opinion most Kimber accuracy stories are probably due to idiot shooters, and shared my Kimber story Mathman and a few others likely confirmed my theory.

I never said to go out and buy 25x glass. But throwing a cheap 9X leupy in order to test the guns accuracy is just idiotic. Just for kicks, I threw on a vx3 10x scope one of my rifles today, and at 100 yards the crosshairs are bigger than the 1/4 inch bullseye. How in the fuuuck are you supposed to hit in the same spot multiple times, when you cannot even see the bullseye? The scope is fine for big game at short to medium distances, but that's about it. Apparently mathman is too facking cheap to buy a decent scope, so he has no idea what the difference really is.

Anyway, there is no point of arguing this further for me. If some of you would actually spend some time trying this [bleep], instead of typing tens of thousands of posts, you would actually know something....

Or maybe, just maybe -- some of us shoot a bunch and have tried it all. And maybe some of us know what we're talking about.

Use a different target dumbass!

6x42 fine duplex.




3x with 2.5min dot.




6x





Read it:




6x-good chance a post and duplex.
read it.

I kinda like this.

In a nerdy way.



Dave

PS- There are NO rifles comparable to the Kimber Montana.

None. Zero. Nada.




Clark

fixed it for ya

That problem is easily avoided by choosing an appropriate target, which I do and was mentioned in an earlier post.

To demonstrate this point to a friend a while back I mounted a Leupold Mark AR Mod 1 1.5-4x20 (actual top magnification 3.9x) on a Remington 40X chambered in 308 Winchester. The aim point of the targets I used was a large + symbol with the line thicknesses scaled to match well with the reticle at 300 yards. Using a box of factory Hornady 168 grain match ammo I sat down and shot a set of groups averaging below half moa.

As to knowing the difference with using a "decent" higher magnification scope, I suppose I might have done a bit better with my Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40LR, my VX-III 6.5-20x40LR, my VX-3 6.5-20x40LR, my VX-6 3-18x44, my Swarovski 4-16x50 PV, my Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44, or another I'm forgetting. However that wasn't the point of the exercise at the time.

Yep.

So you argued this big time, and now you are admitting that magnification does make a difference? Gotta love flip floppers....

Doesnt make a bit of difference. This is should be apparent after you think about it a bit....

BTW, I'll be at the Cooper one shot in Hamilton this July. You bring your low power scope, and some cash. You game? Run your rifle not your mouth.....

God you are dense.

Ho Lee [bleep], I'm rolling here. One shot at 150, closest to the X. You're going to a Turkey shoot for rifles. What a hoooot 😳

While I agree that a higher magnification scope could help one shoot smaller groups, I've never had a problem getting a 9 or 10x scope to shoot small enough groups that confirm great accuracy from a particular load. This group was shot yesterday with a 3-10 Leupy, it'll work. Montana 30-06 shooting 168 TTSX's.

Thank God.

I don't know if this is the place to post this... but...

Can I call first right of refusal for all these [bleep] kimbers that can't shoot that the owners want to dump???

I'm happpy to dispose of them properly for you (in my safe) I'll take your word for it that they can't shoot and will pay a fair amout of money for a poor shooting rifle. Low powered lightweight scopes and mounts will be considered if they are offered in the deal as well.

Thank you,

Mjduct

Nope

When I dump mine you can bet on two things

Low Low Low shot count.....or unknown but low

If you do your part and feed it ammo that it likes it will shoot

You must have graduated from special education. A simple google search would have told you that in the morning, there are shots fired for friendly wagers. If you did as much shooting your rifle as you did your mouth, you would have posted some pics of better groups. Some of those are downright embarrassing. I would just throw my rifle away, and use a slingshot.....[bleep]

I found out about the friendly wagers. It's the equivalent of a Turkey shoot and little more. Set up so some can get lucky and win vs the top shooters taking home the prize. And oh ya, have to shoot a Cooper.



Make it at 300-500 yards bring what you may and it would be serious competition.

Turkey shoot with a big dinner to promote Cooper to the masses. Nothing more.

Most everyone here could enter and shoot at 150 with a tuned up rifle and be competitive.

Be sure and have fun, Turkey.

You have 19 posts and the majority are insults and generally negative. Even if I could outshoot you with a worthless Nikon or Leopold low power scope or heaven forbid a bushnell I wouldn't attempt it(not claiming that I could by the way). Why would I throw away precious time trying to win an internet argument with someone so energy draining and fun sucking. Lighten up and contribute to the general campfire experience instead of trying to bring everyone else down with you. It's a choice to respond a certain way, not a necessity.

MM

Suggestion: Take your dog and pony show over to the long range forum, where the big boys play, and see what they have to say. Should be interesting.

I'm guessing you still don't own one.




Dave

Are you from west Texas?




Travis

Never had much a problem shooting MOA at 700 yards with a 6x scope.

That's the thing, I did come in here with a positive attitude, posted my experience and why I thought a lot of Montana's get condemned so quick. Then I got the, "all you need is a cheap Leupold" line. A low power Leupold is a decent cheap scope. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a reason competitive shooters use big magnification, high $$$ scopes. If they didn't outperform low magnification scopes, nobody would bother wasting money on them.

Shooting MOA with a low power Leupold is not that hard. I have no problem doing it. The thing is, MOA is not good enough for ME, and a lot of others. I thought I made that pretty clear in my post, but some must not read before they post nonsense.

Just curious, but what do 25x scopes and shooting in the .1's have to do with lightweight hunting rifles?

So 0.2-0.75 MOA groups are embarrassing? Best to check the distance of the target before judging the holes in the paper...

A few years ago a rep from Kimber was hunting in Utah with, I believe, Lee J. Hoots. The rep shot a 3-4" group at 100 yards. They were very happy with that.

I hope they can do better than that now. I want a .257 Roberts. The Kimber and MRC are the only ones I see that list it.

Nothing. I just simply pointed out an experience. If one is after consistent accuracy, it's better to spend the money on glass and get a cheaper rifle. For some reason, most here go the opposite way. Makes little sense.

Where did I say that? Instead of putting words in my mouth, try reading what I posted a few times before you post a response. Some of the groups posted weren't anywhere near that.

I bet most Kimber rifles can shoot MOA. You just have to be prepared to do the tweaks posted on this site, and as the worst case scenario, be prepared to re barrel. In the end it's hard to beat the value that Kimber has to offer in the Montana/Hunter Models.

I have a 10x scope that is parallax adjustable and has a fine reticle. Using an appropriate target and a precise enough rifle it is no problem to shoot far below MOA with that scope.

For the present purpose I'll assume you're pretty good at shooting a rifle.

Here's my point: If you mount this same 10x scope on the Kimber, you use an appropriate target, and you shoot it with your best form, consistency, and without bias, you'll find that scope sufficient to reveal all of the precision the rifle can reliably and repeatedly produce.

It's like a base model four banger in an economy car set up for 87 octane gas. Putting in 93 octane gets you nothing.

I see (1) group that is about 1 MOA. All the others are about 0.75 MOA or under. Some are well under. That is not too shabby at all for a lightweight rifle, regardless of scope magnification.

Totally agree, but magnification has little to do with it.

Again, totally agree.

Yessir. I've posted some of these pics before, but guys still insist that things like this can't be done with Kimbers or 6x/3-9x scopes. Somehow I doubt a 25x scope would shrink these groups by very much...

Montana 7WSM w/3-9x scope.



Same rifle with 6x scope.


R700 7WSM w/10x scope.





Montana 7-08 w/6x scope.

That's the thing, you don't know if a higher x scope will shrink groups until you try it. It sure does for me.

Oh, I've tried it plenty. Some of my rifles, including my comp rifle, have had higher-powered scopes. But strangely enough they usually sit around 10-12x, despite going up to 20x and beyond. After about 10x I notice little to no marginal utility for shooting groups at any distance out to about 1000 yards.

Post some targets...........

Are we still discussing shooting at game from lightweight rifles in field positions?

Still? I don't think we even got started on that.

Have posted this before, but will again:

The optical rule-of-thumb is that the average (20/20) unaided human eye can resolve about an inch at 100 yards. That means it can see the difference between alternating 1/2" black and white lines. Beyond 100 yards the lines will appear gray.

With good optics the resolution correlates directly to magnification: a 4x scope will help us resolve 1/4" at 100 yards, a 10x scope 1/10", a 20x scope 1/20", etc. If we use an aiming point where the reticle can be pretty precisely applied, and there's no parallax in the scope at 100 yards, then a rifle will the ability to average .5" groups at 100 with a 20x scope should average .7" with a 4x scope, since .25" (4x scope resolution error) minus .05" (20x scope resolution error) is .2".

So yes, a higher-magnification scope SHOULD result in smaller groups at 100 yards, but the difference isn't nearly as much as many people believe. The difference in optical error between 10x and 20x scopes is only .05"--less than 1/16th inch at 100 yards.

If somebody's shooting groups at 100 yards with a 10x scope several times the size of groups shot with a 20x scope, then the error lies elsewhere than magnification--perhaps in parallax, but more probably in shooter error, including using an aiming point inappropriate to the reticle and magnification.

And this small difference is what I don't believe a typical Kimber sporter can reliably resolve.

Your facts and logic have no place here.
These are not the droids you're looking for.
Move along.





P

You mean like this?

Truth will out.

Tikka superlight.....end of discussion.

No "tweaking" necessary.

They ain't as pretty, I'll grant them that, but they shoot.





P

He's from Chicago so what does he know anyway. Only thing they shoot up there is brothers, booze, and dice.

I've owned both.

End of discussion.




Dave

You are a liar.

I'm not from Chicago.




Travis

They're also not comparable to a Kimber Montana.




Travis

Or some eraser dots.

Apparently that has something to do with something.



Dave

That "thunk" sound you heard after reading this post was Mule deer droppin' the mic.

We've officially been taken to school.

LOL

That's how liars from West Texas say "You're right, I don't own one."




Travis

Not only do I not own one, I wouldn't own one if you gave it to me and I most definitely wouldn't waste money buying one. Only advantage to the Kimber is the stock looks better. Other than that it can't carry Tikka's jock strap.

What level of fugking idiot logs onto the internet every week, to berate a rifle he has never owned?

I mean I know you're fugkin' stupid, but JFC.




Travis

I just spent 33 days hunting in the field hunting mule deer, along with a friend of mine who has one. It proved to be of no interest to me for obvious reasons. My $199 Ruger American shoots way better than his freaking $1000 Kimber.

More brilliance.




Travis

Thanks, but it's not really brilliance, as it was easy to see how overrated the Kimber is.

The Kimbers are criminally underrated by most folks. IMO.

Yes.

Clearly the Ruger American is on par with the Kimber Montana.

Anybody that hasn't owned either knows this.

Thanks again for sharing.




Travis

Your welcome. Accuracy wise, it's just one of many that outpaces the Kimber.

BTW, you ought to be keeping that Sako you'e trying to sell and ditch that Kimber trash. Even with the 50 year age difference that Sako is ten times the rifle. I get it that Kimber's are lightweight, require tinkering, and are superbly inaccurate, but pull your head out dude.

It's pretty obvious you don't "get" anything about the Kimber at all.

But by God, you sure seem to enjoy talking about a product you've never owned.




Travis

Certainly no factory rifle.

The Tikka ain't bad but the Kimber has no peer. I'm not guessing. I've owned multiples copies of Kimbers and Tikkas.

Forget the gun talk let's see the pics of the bucks!

I guess I just got lucky, 3 times...

First Montana I traded for was in 204 Ruger from a member here, maybe he done all the tricks but it didn't look like he touched it. Bought a box of 40 grain V-max's and went to see how it shot before I ordered dies for it. Put 3 shots in .75" at 100 yards so I went back and bought all the ammo they had left. It now shoots those same factory rounds, 35 gr Berger reloads and 40 gr Berger reloads almost to the same point of aim. Close enough I don't re-zero.

Bought a 243 and sent it off for a new barrel in 22-250-AI and it shoots just as well but I guess the Douglas barrel doesn't count.

Bought one in 223 and sent it off to be set back and punched AI, it shoots about the same.

Yes I clipped the magazine box on the 204 and 223, bedded all 3 of them, ordered a new follower and spring for my 22-250AI but that's it. I don't even look at other brands anymore.

Look in the deer hunting forum.

Don't do it, it will only give you low self-esteem.





P

I have one of those! It's a Kimber Montana .308

Been watching this entertaining thread; what a laugh. Sitting round a real campfire with you folks would be real interesting, mouth guards and all...


I've never owned a Kimber so I'll refrain comment there.

Have owned a few Sakos though and still have one, albeit a cheapy A7.

Had an L46, 461 and a 75. Not trying to provoke argument but I always thought they were a little overrated. Maybe I should say over priced really, because while they're good rifles, I couldn't ever see the value in them at the price they fetch.

I mean they're 5 times the price of a Howa, and if you're lucky they might shoot groups 10-15% smaller. Is that worth the money on a hunting rifle?

Not for me.


At least for the extra money you spend on a Kimber Montana you get something really light which you don't get in any Sako, except for those CarbonLight things which for the money, I wouldn't go near.

Mind you these days there aren't a lot of awful new hunting rifles. Most of them can outshoot me. Matter of preference more than anything I think.

I would not be afraid to buy a new Kimber, if I otherwise wanted one. A used one I'd avoid unless I could test fire it, or otherwise know for sure it shot well. Or got it so cheap I could afford to rebarrel it.

I guess in JG's defense, Texas is flat and they sit in recliners that someone hoisted up into a box blind. I would probably think Kimbers were dumb if I hunted over a corn feeder too.

Here is my tikka T3 lite 30-06. Stock is painted and foam filled($25 total), makes a big improvement in my opinion. Some see value in price, some are more prone to look at performance. It's a personal preference and neither of which is wrong. This gun easily shoots sub moa, is lite just like the name and the action is the slickest I've ever run. For the extra pound I have no reason to part with the extra $600 bucks because it performs very very well. I am sure a kimber is fantastic but the difference in any actual measurable performance is minimal if at all , the rest is preference. We might as well argue who's better blondes or brunettes.

MM

I have both Kimbers and Tikkas. Love them all. None of them are original as supplied out of the box. If I'm hunting on foot, I usually grab a Kimber for its light weight, resistance to elements and the added safety of the 3 position. If I'm hunting in or on stand, I'm more likely to use a Tikka.

How did you know? These mule deer flock to corn like you do to dumbassery.

I only have the one, but the trigger on my Kimber 8400M is the best trigger I've personally ever used, to include Jewell and Timney CE and worked on Walker M700's...... I just love it. I've got it set really light right now for the purpose of chasing down flyers from prone, maybe even a bit lighter than I'll hunt with this fall but for now, it's killer.... I'd be surprised if it's over a pound. Like a wee little glass rod breaking, and the same blessed wee little rod every time. If I could retrofit this trigger into my M700's for $250 I'd do every one of them.

They get less chatter, and nobody will ever call them slender, but the WSM Montana's are nice rifles. Mine is a 7 WSM currently so it's basically a really light 7-mag. A guy can do a lot with a light 7-mag. Combined with an excellent stock and superb trigger, all that's left is having a barrel that shoots, and that can be arranged without too much trouble.

To truly get full potential from such a rifle is non-trivial, though that's partly because the potential is so sky-high <g>..... It will show you your ass. Great platform to train with, though, as heavier rifles are then a breeze to shoot well. As always, light rifle, light trigger.

The new Open Country is interesting! A new CF/Kevlar Kimber stock.... with a bigger barrel channel.... oh my...

I would never throw rocks at the Kimber, as I have no experience with them. I just really like my Tikkas.





P