Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles So what exactly is wrong with the Kimber Hunter?

The new-ish Kimber Hunter seems to get no love from anyone.
I wonder why that is?
Sure, you don't get the ultra cool Costa Rican stock the Montana's get.
One of the most frequent objections is the integrally molded trigger guard.
Any injection molded stock is not going to be as strong or as light/rigid as a laid up stock, I get that.

The reason I'm asking is my local gun store that normally doesn't have the best prices on stuff, has Hunters for sale for $699.
Their Ruger M77's are priced at $910.
Remington 700's $880+
Winchester M70's $930+
Tikka's $700+

Can someone tell me why a Kimber Hunter isn't a better deal than the big 4?

I get that some people don't want to chance the mysterious Kimber Roulette, but my experiences with 4 Kimbers, a 2005 vintage 300 WSM Montana, 2005 300 WSM Classic, 2014 270 Classic Select and a 2104 7-08 Montana, I haven't seen any that I thought were "bad".
The worst of the bunch accuracy wise was the 300 WSM Classic.
Never could get better than 1 1/4"@100yds.
The rest will all do 1" or better with most loads, and the 7-08 will shoot just about anything under 1".

I don't love the stock, I would buy one though to drop into a lighter-than-Montana custom stock for a featherweight project gun. check out this post on another forum from a guy who is also on this forum (can't remember his handle) who dropped his in an MPI microlight stock:

http://www.rokslide.com/uberlight-kimber-rifle-build/

As for the comparison to the other 4, for the money, Tikka's have a better reputation for accuracy (I wouldn't know) but Ruger guys love theirs, but I have seen alot of them not shoot, and the last one I had wouldn't feed. the Remington you couldn't pay me $800 to own. and the Winchesters are good guns, but I haven't handled any of the new production rifles, just the FN ones. I'm a kimber fanboy, but I'd try to work their price down on a montana before buying a hunter as a complete rifle.

If I had money and time for another project Id take the hunter for the barreled action knowing I was going to drop another grand into it for a different stock.

For a beater/ loaner rifle, I'd probably get the Tikka or a Ruger American Rifle, or one of the Winchester XPR's CDNN had them for $199 last week... but I have too many guns already...

I purchased a Hunter and have a love hate relationship with it. I love how light it is and svelte it feels but hate that I can't get it to shoot better than 2 inches. A few months after I purchased the same caliber in a Tikka super light and it shoots great although slightly heavier and the stock seems a bit thicker and over all length is a little longer. If I had to do it all over I probably would have just purchased the Tikka. But since I still kind of love the Hunter I have her up on blocks right now to bed the recoil lug. Hoping this helps a little.

As far as the stock I don't care about the trigger guard. Sure it is different but not bad.

Oh yeah and there was a post on the same forum mentioned above about the Hunter stock being filled with a gel type silicone material. Guy removed about 5 oz of it from the butt so almost in the same ball park as a Montana.

If those were your only choices in the world,then I would say the Kimber might be the best choice. There's a whole world full of choices outside that local shop though. I've recently seen wood stocked Kimbers less than $750 and Tikkas for less than $500. You might even find a used Montana $750-$800.

It's not that I think the Kimber Hunter is a horrible rifle.I just think they took away most of the attraction and value for me when they took away they Kevlar stock. Now it's not lighter than other similar priced rifles with an even better reputation for accuracy,like the Tikka Superlight at Sportsman's Warehouse priced at $649. Personally,I think that's a better choice if you can find a Sportsman's Warehouse close to between here and there.

You buy a Kimber because you really want or need a super light rifle. Even the Montana is a bargain for a 5 lb rifle. The Hunter is a bargain if you want or need a 5.3 lb rifle. You are paying a premium in either one for weight reduction. No one ever claimed they were the best built, or accurate.

I have a Montana in 308. It is accurate enough, but I shoot my standard weight rifles a little better. That ain't on the rifle, it is fine, that is simply me. I'd seriously consider the Hunter if I needed another super light rifle. It is only about 5 oz heavier, but several hundred cheaper.

Most of the other rifles on your list are all standard weight rifles about 2 lbs or more heavier and do not belong in the same conversation as Kimber. The Tikka is still a standard size rifle,that splits the difference in weight. About 1 lb lighter than the others,and about 1 lb heavier than Kimber. And that ain't a bad place to be. Tikka is probably the most rifle for the money unless you really need that one pound less weight.

I agree with your reasoning but the Tikka Superlight may be closer in weight than you think. I didn't take a lot of time looking for exact ounces but a quick search says 5.2 lbs for the Tikka Superlight in standard calibers and 5.5 lbs for the Kimber hunter. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has both and an accurate scale ,factory weight statements being what they are.

JMR40 makes some good points.

I bought a Kimber Hunter for Mrs. Tide back in the summer. It is of course, chambered for the 6.5 Creedmoor. So far, I happened to have a recipe for Sierra 120 grain ProHunters that shoots lights out. It also seems to like the Hornady Precision Hunter with the 143 ELD-X. It shoots under an inch with the inexpensive Winchester 125 grain Whitetail XP. She shot one deer with the Winchester load this fall, and I took one with the ELD-X load. Both worked just fine.

The rifle is light. Just a joy to carry in the woods. The recoil is extremely comfortable, especially considering the weight of the rifle. If I thought I could buy another one, just like it, but chambered for 7mm/08, and it would shoot like the Creedmoor does, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I know my luck though. I'm just happy with the way this one worked out.

Well, I got one of the Superlight Tikka's too. Mine is a 260 and it shoots very good too. I don't have a scale to put them both on, but the Tikka is a fuzz heavier than the Kimber. Also, the Kimber has much slimmer proportions. Both are very comfortable in the hand, and both shoot better than average.

Buy a Tikka

People compare the Hunter to the Montana. The Montana has become a benchmark among lightweight factory rifles like the Model 70 FWT was 40 years ago, and when you look at what you actually get in a Montana, it's an outstanding deal. You may have to fiddle with it to make it shoot exceptional groups, but it's easy to carry and it will flatten big animals with ease all day long. The farther the Hunter moves from that standard, the more people are going to slag it.

Your LGS is charging unrealistic prices. Gunwatcher.com, gunsinternational.com, and gunbroker.com can provide a more realistic view of the market.


Okie John

Those aren't the only choices, in fact this shop sells a number of other brands.
Those were just examples that were in the price range, that a typical hunter person around here would be likely to be shopping for.

The reason I'm asking, is that friends and acquaintances always ask my advice about which brand/model/caliber should they buy for their uses.
Price is either the first or second on the list.
I've been satisfied with the Kimbers I own, and was surprised the Hunter model was less than the older, more popular brands.
Given the fact the Hunter is a Montana in ugly clothes, it seems a darn good deal.

My scale which is calibrated.

Kimber Hunter 7-08 5.48 pounds
Tikka Super Light T3x 7-08 5.97 pounds

So ball park the difference at 8 oz.

I got a Kimber hunter this past fall in 257 Roberts. I cut the barrel to 20 inches and put a small scope on it. The total package weight is 6 pounds 4 oz. I have other rifles with molded stocks but this one is much stiffer. I have resorted to carbon fiber shafts and other tricks to stiffen the forearm on others but it was not needed in this Kimber. As long as i do my part, it shoots factory and hand loads into about an inch for three shots. In my opinion it is a great tree stand gun and very easy to carry. I may not be like most people but I sometimes wonder why I bought the other Kimbers, Rugers Sakos etc. Is it less gun? Maybe. It does what I want and costs less and weighs less doing it. Nothing wrong with mine.

My son just bought a Hunter and I like it more than I expected. Don't need one, but might buy one some day just for the heck of it and the light weight. Tikkas are fine, but don't appeal to my sense of style.

His Hunter shoots fine, but like most lightweights, is tricky off the bench.

Appreciate that.

CHeap plastic stock, built in trigger guard, detachable magazine.

I absolutely love my Montana and my Mountain Ascent, Ive also had a few other kimbers over the years and never got one that wouldnt shoot, I never even bothered to do the montana tinkering thing with them, I just cont see the need to buy a low end kimber, it would fill no role for me. If I wanted a rifle in that price range, Id get a Tikka, if I just needed a cheap rifle as a loaner, Id get a ruger american.

I'd take a Tikka over that thing all day long.....

CHeap plastic stock, built in trigger guard.

Only Tikka I've owned was a 595 in 30awesome6. If I had the choices you mentioned, Tikka or Rem 700 with a new trigger, new stock, new barrel, bolt worked over........ If I was self loathing I'd buy the Ruger American then pay some Thai hooker to beat me in the balls for an hour.

A guy like you Jack, I’d have figured there’d be people lined up around the block to do it for free.