Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles New Kimber Montana Question

Yeah that looks quite a bit darker than the olive green stock on the last model Montana's.....Hb

Yeah. I don’t mind it myself either.

I’ve seen some pics of the new Montana’s pictured with two swivel studs on the front of the stock, and some with only one. Can anyone with a new Montana confirm the configuration? Thanks!

Two.

Damn! Not good news for me, I dont care for the look..Hb

Yea it needs a bipod to make it look good.

Could you not just remove one?

My thoughts exactly. Seems a simple enough solution to a problem that is purely aesthetic preference.

Would also prefer a single stud, but would really just use the gun

If you removed one of the studs I wonder what you could use to plug the big hole in your stock? And why would anyone want to mount a heavy eye sore of a bi-pod on a svelte little Mountain rifle like a Kimber Montana?....Hb

My thoughts exactly. I feel the same way about the muzzle threads too.

The Ruger African models had two front swivel studs; one drilled into the forend as well as a barrel band. Ruger supplied a flush head cap screw to hide the forend hole when the barrel band was being used. It has a three letter code on the head which makes me think you could find one in the fasteners section of a hardware store or similar. I would bet you could do the same with the Kimber.

Yeah the abomination would be nearly complete if you screwed on a can along with a bi-pod Then to top it off you could mount a 2lb Nightforce 30mm scope, THEN your sleek little Montana would be perfect 😂....Hb

Makes you wonder about the people running Kimber. Now their third iteration of the Montana and the first seems to be the gold standard. Next version will have a 20MOA rail come standard.

How about that bolt slop?

Go back up in this thread and re-read greydog's post...

Thanks Brad. I did read and appreciate his post. I disagree, excessive bolt slop matters, to me anyway. I understand tolerances and how loose tolerances can stack up. None of which is evidence of quality machining. I am not beating up Kimber. I have seen very good ones and terrible ones. I just wonder where they land in current manufacture. I like the rifle.

I don't expect the factory rifle to be as tight as my custom actions but I also cannot accept a rifle sold under a quality guise to be put together poorly. I have known several that were so loose they rattled in hand. That is unacceptable slop.

Greydog is one of the finer smith's around, who also happens to understand crf actions (not all do). CRF's are built to have a certain amount of "slop" (think of the Mauser 98 or M70). They're made to cycle in crap conditions. If you're looking for benchrest tolerances, you'll do better with other actions, which also don't always work in the worst conditions.

Not sure about the slop, but mine locks up pretty tightly. I have a Defiance Deviant with CRF and the 3 POS safety and I can’t feel much difference myself between the two?

True and true. I agree with you. The term excessive is the key.

I own several model 70s. Factory and not so factory.
I just don't want the damn thing to rattle. None of my M70s do.

If everything is cut square it likely won't matter but it bugs the [bleep] out of me.