What happened to all the Kimber owners saying the reason for all the complaints with Montana inaccuracy... is because "light rifles are hard to shoot".....?
I get what you're saying..... Of course, heavier are easier to shoot (all other parameters being the same). I do think the grip design of the Fieldcraft/NULA stock allows for a trigger pull that seems to effect the hold less than the more open grip of the Kimber. Also think the butt/cheeckpiece design of the FC allows for more contact and a more natural hold resulting in a steadier hold than the Kimber. But...this is just for me, stock fit and grip are personal. Long way of saying the FC is easier for me to shoot than the Montana...and I'm a fan of the Montana.
None of that really effects anything off of a bench. The problem isn't "light" rifles, the problem is crappy built guns. The reality is that Kimber has no quality control and assembles junk rifles.... with excellent components. And I like Montanas. I just find it funny that thread after thread is about Kimbers that don't shoot and everyone runs around saying it's because "light rifles are hard to shoot", yet no one has a problem getting the Barret to shoot. Quite the opposite, actually.
Probably close to a year ago in one of the hundreds of threads about Kimber issues, I posted that no one would have problems getting the Barret to shoot because they'll be assembled correctly.
Give me a little time, I bet I can make one of them shoot poorly.
I'm with you on the assembly and build. Disagree on the statement "None of that really effects anything off a bench". For my built and technique, the FC (and NULA) is easier to hold steady both off hand and from the bench. I can see it dry firing...it's for sure gong to show up when shooting.
I feel the same way about the Nula stock. My favorite hunting stock.
