Brian, I have had a fair amount of Kimbers(1911s, 22LR, and various centerfires- I just had to send my 325WSM Montana into Kimber because of a cracked stock. I imagine they will take care of it, but if I could not send it in to them, I would be in trouble!
I have no personal experience with the Sako's but I like what I see and hear about them.
"For joy of knowing what may not be known we take the golden road to Samarkand." James Elroy Flecker
1.25" at 100yds. Factory 210 NosParts at 2505fps.,Factory 200 Fusions at 2699fps (faster than advertised!),Factory 185TSXs at 2640fps and Factory 180 Accubinds at 2730. Yes, I went to the expense and bought at least two boxes of each and played around alot. However, I've found 308 W-W cases reform with one easy pass and hold a good bit more powder with a drop tube.
Yes that is a fine Kimber. I've never bought into the 'Kimber is junk' camp. My hunting partner has hunted for 3 seasons now with one in 308 and I've been jealous every time I see him packing in hand and my 35Wh is strapped to my shoulder. No wonder he accounts for more game than me. I now carry a Montana in 338 Fed. Have one in 308 but haven't hunted with it yet. I think everyone should get one (or two).
340, Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 in Talley low 1pc mounts. Bolt rubs the rubber eyepiece just a paper thickness. I'd go with medium next time. Scope looks out of proportion to the gun but it's oh so bright compared to my 3x9 Leupold Compact that I just can't bear the thought of removing it. Gun weighs 6#1.4oz just like that weighed on a postal scale. Would easily be under 6# with diff scope.
Actually, on further investigation, I see Kimber lists it's long magnum Montana's as having a magazine capacity of FOUR.
I see they list their 325WSM magazine as FIVE, in contrast to all the other WSM cartridges that are supposed to hold THREE - and with all other weights and rifle measurements being identical to the other WSM's - so, I'd bet that is a mis-print on Kimber's website.
Darn it.
I do KNOW that the Sako holds FIVE - even in .375 H&H - and in the synthetic stainless version, their rifles in the bigger cartridges weigh basically the same as Kimber Montanas.
Brian
Vernon BC Canada
"Nothing in life - can compare to seeing smiles on your children's faces."
I haven't tried any 180's out of mine, yet. I probably won't, either. The 165's will do everything I'm going to need them to do for a long time to come. With that, I'm certainly going to stick with the 165-grain Sierra GameKing loads from Federal.
What are your thoughts on Kimber quality control compared to Sako?
If you were buying a rifle you couldn't return - what would you buy?
Well, I can tell you my thoughts on question one above. My little 84M Montana is more or less flawless from the visual quality control perspective. I mean there is absolutely nothing to not like about it or the way it has been assembled. I cannot say the same for a new Sako 85 I recently looked at a SW in Nevada. I posted about it in another thread a week or so ago. Long story short, a couple of pits in the metal work and the stock was definitely not on par with that of the Montana.
As far as question two is concerned, that is a bit harder to determine; especially since I am currently thinking very seriously about taking a chance on a new Sako 85 Hunter. FWIW, the one I mentioned that I looked at over in Nevada was the SS flavor.
Yeah, 3 rounds in the belly of my .325 Montana, four total.
But that's not real important to me. I can't even imagine getting more than four shots at a head of game anyway. Only time I've shot more than twice was to kill two bucks in about 5 seconds, a spike and a big fork. The fork was coming right towards me after being shot once, all confused and wobbly, but only about 20 feet away when I shot again.
Problem with Kimbers is- you can't own just one! I can't/won't buy one without selling something buuuut... I cannot think of a reason that my M700 MR shouldn't be sold for another Montana in .308 (or 338 Fed just to be a PITA gadfly).
It may indeed be true that .308 and 7-08 kill equally well; I wouldn't know. I know that in my case, due to the circumstances in which I kill deer, I put a premium on a bigger hole and more likelyhood of a DRT deer. To my perhaps Neanderthal way of thinking, a 150-gn 30-cal bullet at 2900 is probably gonna make a bigger hole, if nothing else, than a 140-gn 7mm bullet at 2850 fps. If I'm wrong then so be it, but that's what would steer me to the .308- that and the possibility of using 180's for up close serious penetration if need be.
But what do I know- my experience is more or less solely based on the one type of hunting I've done enough of to be pretty good at, which is blacktail, in the jungle, in the RAIN.... and indeed it's led me to the .358 and really big holes. So there. <g>. There's whole worlds of hunting I've yet to experience and I value hearing just about every word you guys type! Thank you for that.
Here's a pic of mine. By the way, I still haven't figured out how to post pics directly in the body of a message, rather than as an attachment (like this one). Would anyone mind sharing their knowledge on the process? Thanks...
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/IM000059.jpg)
