Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Kimber Montanas and Husqvarna

Need to crowd source some opinions here. Unfortunately, due to inflexible work commitments and short local rifle seasons I spend much more time archery and muzzleloader hunting than rifle hunting. I have two Kimber Montanas - a 257 Roberts and a 280 Remington. They are great rifles, but expensive rifles to be basically gathering dust in my gun safe.

The Husqvarna 1600 (4000) series are readily available here in Canada and are considered by many to be a very high quality lighweight rifle. I can get a very good condition 1600 (4000) for about $500 Canadian. I could buy a couple of them and have quite a bit of $$$ left over after selling the Montanas.

I do a lot of still hunting, backpack hunting, etc. so I do need a lightweight rifle.


Would I be crazy to sell the Montanas and buy a couple Husqvarnas?

The Huskies are great guns

The Huskys are great rifles, but you’ll be giving up a fantastic synthetic stock for wood, and SS metal for blued CM, if that matters to you.

I have three of one and two of the other and I like em all. The weight difference is not substantial but I prefer
the Kimber trigger. One of my Huskies has the timney trigger and that is an improvement for sure.
The Husqvarnas usually benefit from bedding.

I wish I had access to as many Husqvarnas as you do in Canada.

If you only need one rifle, I'd keep whichever Kimber you prefer and sell the other ... done. But if you are just foolishly insistent on getting rid of both Kimbers, I would sell the one you like least first, buy the Husky, shoot it and PROVE it is up to snuff, and only then sell the other Kimber. I've made the mistake you are contemplating, swapping known good rifles off in favor of merely hopefully good rifles, and really really sucks.

Tom

A 257 R Montana is pretty slick. I lucked into one pretty reasonable. I really like it.

Tom, I’ve made that same mistake, and shamefully made it several times. No more!

Keep what you have. Buy the Husqvarna and enjoy it and compare the way the different rifles handle and shoot. Learn from the opportunity. Join a rifle club and shoot more.

Husky's are good, but definitely a step down from a Kimber Montana. And, this is the first time I've heard someone call a Husqvarna a "lightweight" rifle. If you desperately need the cash, then I guess it makes sense to sell. But, you'll be wishing you still had at least one of the Kimber Montanas long after whatever money you make has slipped through your fingers.

Sell the Kimbers and buy the Huskies.

If it shoots well, keep the kimber in 280 and be done.

Good counsel here.

Huskies are fine rifles! I wouldn’t sell any of them. Buy more rifles. Everyone need at least 50 deer rifles.

If you like the Kimbers, think long and hard before you sell them. They're paid for, and who knows what your situation will be in the future? One thing's sure, it'll cost you more to replace them. An old Husky will be a crapshoot. All I've seen on 98 actions have had crappy triggers and split stocks at the tang. By the time you fix that stuff, a lot of that extra Kimber cash will be gone, and you'll still have an old heavy rifle. I love 98s, but lightness ain't their strong point.

Besides, everyone needs at least two rifles. Stuff happens.

I’ve had several 1600s with 20.5” and 22” barrels. They’re a small-ring Mauser action, so they’re a lot lighter than a large-ring 98 but they haven’t been a true lightweight since about 1970. Stocks can be beech or walnut.

PRO
Minve have been accurate.
I find geometry of the Monte Carlo stock ideal for offhand shooting, especially with a 22" barrel.
They’re relatively light.

CON
They need to be glass bedded because they tend to split their stocks at the web.
They need aftermarket triggers.
The ejectors come loose in time. LocTite the retaining screw in place and you’ll be OK.
They’re blued/wood versus the Montana’s stainless/synthetic.
They’re long actions, so they’re great for 30-06-length cartridges but less so for others.

I wouldn’t replace a proven stainless/synthetic rifle with a 1600 that's 60 or 70 years old. Once you add the cost of glass bedding, trigger work, scope mounts, and components required to work up new loads, they’re not such a bargain.

Let me know if you have questions.


Okie John

Thanks everyone. I took both Montanas to the range today and was reminded how much I enjoy them. Even though I'm not able to use them afield as much as I would like, I definitely would miss them if sold. They are the perfect rifle for how I hunt in many ways. They'll be staying in my gun safe.

My 1600 in 30-06 weighs in at 6.3 pounds.
My 4100 in 30-06 weighs in at 6.4 pounds
the Kimber Montana in 30-06 is listed at 5.7 pounds

Wow, an actual gun store located in Hollywood, CA. Looks like it was a good one, too. Those were the days . . .

I’m very fond of my Montana’s and 700 Ti’s.