I've been on the fence about getting a lightweight rifle for some time, and only recently have I started looking at Kimber rifles. I've never spent more than $400 on a rifle before, so this could be a little painful for me - but I've been saving and have the budget to probably be able to afford a Kimber Montana if I can find one. I am thinking a short action caliber, most likely either 6.5 creed or 243.
It seems that the only difference between the Hunter and Montana is the stock - is that correct? I've read that the stock on the Hunter is very good as far as injection molded stocks go. But it seems like if I might ever want to upgrade the stock, I should just go with the Montana. I definitely like the looks of the Montana better, but if I painted the Hunter stock green or gray I could probably trick myself into thinking it's a Montana.
Do you think the Montana is worth the extra cost? I am willing to spend more if it's worth it.
