DJ, I'm not effin complaining, simply asking a question about an action type I have no experience with. This ain't no conspiracy as some of ya'll seem to think. Kimber has had a bad run with QC and if the dang Montana wasn't such an appealing design, I'd never think twice about them. Maybe I should have used the word "tinny" that someone else used instead of cheap but it is what it is. So if I want to ask a few questions I will.
bigwhoop, Savage 99, Kimber7man, thank you that is basicly what I wanted to know.
TWR, I reread my post and it indeed was worded far too strongly for the point I was making. My apology's for any offense.
The point I was tactlessly making was that sometimes there's no free lunch. If you make a gun tight as a drum to please our like for great machining you can end up with a gun that's too tight -which can be even worse. Old military Mausers can be loose as a goose with the bolt drawn back and have a heavy slow firing pin fall - but they will work in just about any conditions. For a hunting rifle you want tolerances somewhere between old military bolt gun sloppiness and benchrest rifle tightness. IIRC Kimber actualy loosened some of the tolerances found in the first rifles to get better all-around functioning.
Also some Kimbers do have real issues. TC1 posted some pictures of one that had a ridiculously bad stock that absolutely should have been replaced before it left the factory. Others have certainly had real problems too but I still think that most of them out there are darned good rifles...............................DJ
