Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Feed/Function of Kimber Montana in WSM's?

I bet it would take at least 40 pages. I mean it's taken 74 pages to figure out if a 300 Weatherby will kill an elk without the bullets being blown back to Wisconsin in a full value wind.....


I've had 4-5 Montanas chambered for WSM's and they functioned fine. Much better than early NH M70 Classics which were mostly rubbish.

Mine feeds great (.325, then 7 WSM). It's a good WSM action- plenty of COAL available, 3-way safety, fantastic trigger, etc.

It'd be fun to build one with a little heavier barrel as Brad suggests. What to do about the stock is the obvious question. Ever open up the channel of a Montana stock, Brad? Bad idea?

I've had a few Montana 300 WSM's and all fed flawlessly.

My plan was to do something similar to the contour SAS had worked up for the 84M. Dupe of factory barrel until just past the forend, then go heavier. I think that'd be enough extra weight and one wouldn't have to modify the stock. Instead I sold it to help pay for two hunts to ID that year...

Yeah, Pointer, you've walked the walk when it comes to the philosophy of "hunts over guns"!

Some 'glass stocks really don't like having the skin broken. I'm remembering them as having "monocoque" construction, and I'm remembering that the Montana stock is like that. But I could be mis-remembering.

While I like the Monrana stock, the lack of other drop-in options (to my knowledge) for the Kimber action does hinder using it for builds that differ from the factory blueprint...

You're misremembering.

David

Jeff is actually quite right. The MT is indeed of "monocoque" construction, ie., a continuous structural skin.

Brad,

I have in my posession a Montaa that had a a lot of material removed to fit a larger barrel, the barrel channel went all the way through, the length of the stock. The stock is still stiff as a board. I'm not a structural engineer, but fairly certain that's not possible with a true monocoque structure.

Perhaps your sources are misinformed.

David

David, I think you're misunderstanding.

I'm agreeing with Jeff that the stock is indeed of monocoque construction as it leaves the plant in Costa Rica. You were disagreeing with that statement, at least in terms of how I understand the English language.

Beyond that, I'm not debating anything. I've never opened one up, though I don't see why it would hurt as long as the barrel channel is re-glassed.

Brad,

Someone may be calling it a moncoque structure, but it is not. A stressed skin / semi-monocoque, no problem. Certainly I believe that disrupting outer skin structure in places will have negative impacts on strength/rigidity. Opening the barrel channel does not, hence by my understanding it cannot be considered a true monocoque structure. Certainly in the context that Jeff was referring to, that the barrel channel cannot be opened up because it's a monocoque structure.

Pics, in case someone wants to see:

Factory barrel compared to my Hart barrel:



Generous free float:




David

David, I've sanded down a Kimber MT stock. It is indeed of monocoque construction as I understand the concept. Something can be considered monocoque and be joined, it does not have to be seamless, just contiguous.

And BTW, you were disagreeing with Jeff that his memory of the stock being a monocoque was wrong. It isn't.

Here's a cross-section of a Kimber MT stock showing the monocoque construction. It's the same in the forearm:

Brad,

I'm pretty f'ing sure what I was disagreeing with:



By definition the strenth of a monocoque structure is it's skin. Are you trying to imply that the fill in the stock does not supply a significant portion of the structural integrity? If that'swhat you think, you're clearly wrong. If you think that the fill does provide strength and still arguing that it's a true monocoque structure, well you're wrong again.

David

David, you obviously struggle with English.

Good luck.

Brad

Making a snide comment was your only real option at this point.

David

Opened barrel channel. Fill is painted to seal it, but no glass or resins have been applied. The fill is quite rigid:





Pretty sure my stock is no longer contiguous, yet there is no significant loss of structural integrity. Again, this meets the definition of a stressed skin or semi-monocoque design, not a true monocoque.

David

No problems with my 325 WSM, taking it to Alaska in September. Terry

Where in the fugg is Flave on this one?


All this talk about monocock and he's MIA..... He must be in rehab or maybe Minnesota.