Originally Posted by Brad
I think a Kimber 84M or L MT rebarreled with a no.2 contour (same shank, but tapering to .618" @ 22 to avoid opening the barrel channel) at Pacnor is a better hunting firearm than the Forbes. If they were the same price I'd still think that, but the rebarreled Kimber will be 1/2 the price. Better action. Better safety. Better trigger. The only thing the Forbes has better is the stock. "There's not enough there, there."

My .02


Those are debatable points. I'm running multiples of both and like them both.

Better action? I think you'll have a hard time finding that a Kimber action is as true as a NULA. Folks can go back/forth on CRF vs push feed, it doesn't matter to me. I do like the stainless of the Kimber, but the stainless barrel is a bigger concern for me. The short action mag box of the NULA can be really nice.

[Linked Image]

Safety? Neither really matter to me, preference.

Trigger? The Timney trigger on the NULAs seem great to me. Kimber's are fine as well. Both work great and I can't call one better.

I like the fit of the NULA stock better, but fit is individual. Both are good stocks.

The follower in the NULA is much better quality than the Kimber...but if there's not a problem with feeding it doesn't matter.

Barrel and chambering... This is where the NULA really pulls away. Exactly what you want contour, length, chamber, twist, etc...all bedded perfectly.

Kimbers are great but to say they are "better" is a hard line to defend.