Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Kimber Montana vs. Tikka

At one time I was all set for a Kimber Montana until I had the chance to interact with and shoot a few that friends had bought.

They are a nice looking and good feeling rifle but the best of the ones I messed some with would shoot was around 2-2.5 MOA.


All of them needed a good bit of bedding and other work (i.e. action screws, mag boxes etc.) to get them shooting 1-1.5 MOA.


Conversely, the Tikkas I have owned and shot have all been sub MOA out to the 300 yard line (the furthest distance I have available at the range) with multiple bullet weights and loads.

The only thing any of the Tikkas needed was a trigger pull weight adjustment.

The actions are as smooth running as any you will ever see and they feed and function flawlessly from the detachable magazines.

The triggers are the best of any factory rifle I have encountered.

The synthetic factory stocks are plenty stiff too. Not a McMillan by any stretch but light years ahead of anything Remington, Savage, etc. use.

For me, I cannot find an upside to a rifle like the Kimber that costs at least 50 - 75% more than a T3 and then still needs a lot of work, whether done yourself or sent out to a gunsmith to make it shoot well.

I have also never bought into all the "its a long action only in short action caliber stuff." But then I have no trouble running a bolt gun in any action length from the shortest to the extra long one used for things like .338-378's.

I also don't buy into the the Kimber is so much lighter theme either and I hunt some pretty steep rough mountain country.

The 7 lb all up T3 works very well and I can't see a 6 -6.5 lb all up Kimber being that much better. Maybe if I was at the highest elevations after something like sheep where every ounce is critical the Kimber might offer a bit of an edge.


Bottom line give me a Tikka over the Kimber any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I own a bunch of Kimbers and they all shoot extremely well. A Kimber that shoots 2-5 MOA is unusual and a likely cause is someone who thinks a light rifle can be shot just like a free recoiling varmint rifle.

Any light weight rifle requires a bit more steadiness and hold from the shooter to get good results from a bench.

And more funny math:

"......the Kimber that costs at least 50 - 75% more than a T3".

Funnier than schit,that a buncha dumbfhuqks are clamoring to stand in line and await their turn,to "brag" how something as fhuqking simple as a gawddamned rifle...whooped their ass.

There's (2) fasteners on the belly and (4) on the hood,which really seems like a lot,but prolly ain't. Laughing!

Brokedick Turd Polishers' "justifications" are funnier than fhuqk.

Bless their hearts.

The Montucky simply has no equal and is an absolute STEAL,when talking bang for the buck.

Hint.

I'm but (4) hops away,from breakin' in a shot out Montucky 223,rebarreled 6x45 and reckon it'll be spillin' blood tomorrow.

Hopin' more Dumbfhuqks,feel compelled to list even more things they can't do,as they attempt to Whine themselves happy.

Laughing!......................

The lunkhead from Alaska was later than most of us to the SWFA SS game and the Kimber Montana game; but, he is still correct.

Price out what it takes to get you to what you get with a Kimber Montana and you will see it's a bargain, even if you feel you need to "tinker".

I've got several Model 70 classic stainless rifles and several Model 700s, with aftermarket stocks and aftermarket triggers that each cost me more to get to that point than any of my Kimber Montanas.

This is dead nuts true. Another point is the cost of mods on a cheap rifle are worth nothing if you sell the cheap rifle. The next buyer doesnt care how good of a gunsmith you think you are, all it is is a Tikka that has been molested. You put $500 into a Tikka and its trade in value still will be $400-475.

Very true. I just bought my first Tikka last week. An SS 8T. 223 in a B&C stock, atlasworx dbm and an MDT TAC mag. For the first buyer to get to this point in Canada he had to spend...

1100 for the rifle
150 bottom metal
350 for the stock

1600 total plus taxes to get rid of all the plastic crap. I paid him 900 for it used

That being said now that I owe it I can say it's a cheap POS that compares in no way to the 3 Montana's I've owned. Accuracy is ALL it brings to the table.

I don't see this rifle staying

Kimber - 18

Tikka - 7

When I've handled the Tikka I throw up a little in my mouth. 16+ Kimber MT's later, I'm still a fan.

Tacticool and fine hunting rifles are not the same thing.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I will say it would be hard to leave my Montana 308 behind when long hikes in steep country is on the agenda.

Edit to clarify: I will take a Montana every day of the week and twice on Sunday over a Tikka. Tikkas are tough, even if plastic, but I just can't love 'em.

Based on this thread alone.....I'd take The Kimber Montana. Personally I'd opt for the Kimber Super America.Tikka has gone so plastic it is deplorable.

I have owned three Tikkas - a Model 558 Whitetail Hunter in 243, a Model 695 30-06, and a T-3 Lite in 7mm-08. All three shoot great. I have been a Remington guy since my first rimfire in 1959. I prefer Tikkas to Remingtons now. I had one CZ, and it was a stinker. I'm looking hard at another Tikka now. Kimber? Expensive, and too light for me.