Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Fieldcraft - Montana - Forbes compare

Got rained out of bushhogging today so I took a little time for a quick and dirty show and tell on these three. I compared the Montana and Forbes a while back and I'll try to put some of those pics in. I think that post was originally here:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...s/9208537/Re_Tale_of_the_tape_84M_vs_20B


The Kimber and Forbes had base/rings, DNZ on the Kimber, TLW's on the Forbes so a couple of oz's either way.

Fieldcraft (6.5 Creed), 5 lb 0.6 oz:


Kimber (243), 5 lb 5.0 oz:


Forbes (.308), 5 lb 6.8 oz:



Barreled action weights

Fieldcraft, 3 lb 7.4 oz:


Kimber, 3 lb 9.2 oz:


Forbes, 3 lb 14.2 oz:



continued.....

Stock weights (with trigger guards)

Fieldcraft, 1 lb 9.2 oz:


Kimber, 1 lb 11.8 oz:


Forbes, 1 lb 8.6oz:

Narrowing it down to just the Montana and Fieldcraft barrel contours.

Barrel contours. The Montana is slightly heavier and has a noticeably longer shank.

Field craft at 21":


Montana at 22":


Fieldcraft shank:


Montana shank:

A note on the Forbes stock and the Fiedlcraft stock. They are very close but are different stocks. The Fieldcraft has an ~1/2" longer forend. The Fieldcraft is also more radiused on all edges such as the cheekpiece and grip cap. As best I could tell the drop, etc are the same between them. Both the Fieldcraft and the Forbes have a tighter/more closed grip than the open grip of the Montana.

Notice the sharper outlines of the Forbes:


The Fieldcraft is full-length bedded. It is individually bedded as is easy to see since the serial numbers show up in the bedding. Mine isn't as clean as the bedding job that Tennessee posted pics of and the pillars can't be seen (if they are there), but it's a great bedding job, better than anything coming out aside from a custom:




After market trigger...straight from the factory. I haven't adjusted it, it is clean as is.


One place where the Fieldcraft went backward from the Forbes was the follower. It's a plastic piece that I'd like to replace:


The Forbes came with a nice (but noticeably heavier) milled follower...Kimber on left, Forbes on right:

I'm waiting on brass right now but I picked up a box of factory and ran a couple of mag fulls through just to function test...pointed in a safe direction. With 4 down, the first round feeds a little rough. Everything after it was nice. I'll probably only carry 3 down so it's not a big deal to me.

Bolt is smooth, safety is smooth. Very nice.

Finish on the rifle is excellent. I really like the stock. If it's AG Composites that makes it I'm considering picking one up for a 700. Great pattern.

That's all for now. Gotta put a base on it and mount a scope.

Nice comparison work.

For more accuracy, here's a 7mm-08 MT bare with no bases/rings unlike your 243 MT pictured. The stock sans trigger guard is exactly 24.0 oz's on this one, which is the lightest of any MT I've owned. Most are in the 25.5 oz range on average...

Now wait just a second...

Did you have a Forbes dipped Muddy Girl?

JC - thank you for taking the time! Great work and very helpful.
One point of clarification - .243 kimber should not mic 0.66 at the muzzle if it is a factory tube - any chance the wrong pic slipped in there?
Thanks JCM!

Good job on the comparison. I'm curious how the Barrett shoots. Is the action a PF or CRF?

Don't judge me by my color.

That's the way it came to me. The Muddy Girl pics were from a previous post when I compared the Forbes to Montana. I sent it to Mr. Forbes for a rebarrel and Maple Leaf paint. My FFL at the time was the brother of a guy that trains MMA with me. His mom did the transfer and lectured me on being secure in my manhood when she saw the stock....I think she got worried about me rolling around on the mat with her son.

The Kimber used in the pictures with weight, etc are all from a .308. The one I used for measuring the contour was a .223. It was done with calipers so wasn't perfect. There may also be some tape residue on the end of the barrel. I'll try it again later today measuring both the .308 and the .223 which should have the same contours I'm assuming.

I'm curious about how the Fieldcraft is going to shoot as well. It is a push feed. It is a very smooth action. From what I understand, the action is stainless, but the bolt is not stainless. The bolt is coated in NP3. I'll say again, it is very smooth. I've not had a firearm NP3 coated before but basics of it can be found here:

https://robarguns.com/custom-firearm-finishes/np3/

I think Tennessee made a few posts on the Fieldcraft thread about the bolt with good pics.

Thanks Brad. I didn't pull the bases on the Montana for Forbes so it's not a true comparison...but close. There is always some variation on stock weights and you've had enough of the Montana's to know. I only weighted the .308 stock, I should do the .223's as well.

JCM,
The Montana barrell should mic right at 0.56. I just checked a couple.

looks like his very-near calipers show .566", so pretty much spot on.

I've yet to see a factory 84m Montana that wasn't .565" (or dang close) at the muzzle.

Jay, why is it that the strongest man at the fire has the most fly weight rifles? NULAs, Montanas, Forbes, now Fieldcraft. Am I missing any? You should be a good judge of it. Looks like a nice, well put together rig. Cant wait to see how it shoots for you.

I'll make no claim at being strong...especially right now, I have a flat tire on my right foot. I can say I'm carrying extra weight on a .223 Montana due to excess tape residue...

I measured the 2 Montana's again and they were both ~.56+/-...after I cleaned tape residue off. The .308 was pretty clean but the .223 (which the original measurement came from) was THICK.

The Montana's have a noticeably longer shank and just slightly larger muzzle contour.

This is helpful thanks. Im trying to decide between a montana or a Barrett in 7mm08. Leaning more towards the Barrett presently.

Yeah, this is where I am. I think the accuracy is going to be more consistently there in the Barret over Kimber.