Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Kimber - How they can build the "perfect" hunting rifle.

That’s kinda the point of this thread, isn’t it? Hell I’d love to be part of a group buy. Who else?

$75 gets you the shorter barrel length you want. It’s a pretty easy process.

All I’d need them to do is offer the Montana with full bottom metal!

People collect Legos, baseball cards, stamps, miniature cars - some collect fungus and spores. Each individual has their own jam and it should only matter to the individual.

NO! Leave Kimber alone. Buy yourself one of the NewUltralightWilsonfuckedemup rifles if you want to add weight and a failure-point where it doesn't belong.

Agreed

I would be interested in a “proper rifle” designed for a suppressor. I don’t own a suppressor, yet, but it’s only because I perceived the paperwork hassle as more onerous than it probably is… but, my first ever new rifle is going to have a suppressor when I get it (starting with a .22 LR for plinking). After that, I'll be looking for a handy, scout-type rifle with a suppressor.

I like traditional, old-fashioned walnut stock and deeply-blued steel bolt action rifles. I think the OP is on to something suggesting that there is a market for higher end rifles that are built and designed to be suppressed. Not everyone wants a purely functional rifle. Not everyone’s ideal of beauty is the same. I carried tactical rifles throughout my military career. They have a definite use and appeal. But I don’t want to hunt with one.

If I could get a new bolt action, that looked, felt, handled, and shot like a 1950’s FN, BRNO, Winchester, etc., chambered for a readily available modern cartridge, for under $1000 (then add cost of scope, suppressor, ammunition, dies, etc.), I would be interested in it. But expecting a rifle manufacturer to offer an affordable rifle with a nice walnut (or even maple) stock seems a tall order these days. And just ordering the plastic stocked one and getting a new stock takes it right out of the price I am willing to pay for a new rifle. I priced out a Boyd’s stock to replace the plastic one on Tikka T1x I was considering purchasing and it would have been almost as expensive as the rest of the rifle.

Maybe my tastes are considered expensive, but the factory offerings from 70 years ago, even from the cheaper brands, look and feel better designed than all the new options I checked out at my LGS this weekend. Is it really impossible to make an affordable J.C. Higgins M50 or M51 equivalent today? But designed to take advantage of modern cartridges and ballistics?

I’ve got a custom .270 Winchester built on a K98 action sometime in the early 1970s. It’s very accurate and reliable, but probably my least favorite rifle (accuracy and reliability are basic characteristics of any acceptable rifle. There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s just the least favorite in my gun safe.). Because it has basically no collector’s value, that might be a good candidate to use as the basis to build the rifle I describe above.

CZ 600 Lux would be awful close to what you're looking for. Classic lines, blued (matte, not deep/shiny), walnut stock, walnut bolt-knob for a little panache, Bbl-length short enough to add a suppressor without it becoming a pole-vault and threaded for same from the get-go.

The street-price is just at or a little under your $1K ceiling.

In my police career I’ve used suppressors a lot on AR’s I’ve also hunted and shot a pard’s suppressed 220 Swift. I don’t see any benefit for my needs. That said I don’t have any problem with them and they should be unregulated.

First, I will say that I know Kimber only by reputation. I like their 1911s, but I never have checked out their rifles before. But one thing jumped off the page at me after reading this thread and looking at the Kimber website. The website is bad. This is not unique to Kimber, all the new gun manufacturer's websites which I have viewed recently are pretty terrible.

https://www.kimberamerica.com/montana

I cannot even look at a 360 degree view of the rifle on the Kimber website (or, if I can, the interface does not make that readily clear). The options are akin to the Model T's "you can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black." The options are not comparable side-by-side. Are they actually trying to sell rifles?

Compare them with any PC manufacturer's website and look at how much customization you can have when you order a new PC. Compare it with most automobile manufacturer's websites. I can go on the Ford website and select a ton of options if I wanted a new truck, then have it delivered right to my local dealer. Why can't I do the same with a rifle? It cannot be that much harder to stick on an 18-inch threaded barrel and a walnut stock on a rifle than it is include a 26" monitor and the latest graphics card or to throw in full leather seats.

It should not be that hard to make a basic model to sell to stores (the same as PC manufacturers make basic models to sell in stores or the truck on the lot down at the local dealership), but have the option to build and design your custom rifle on the website. And to see the changes in price, weight, length, balance point, etc. as you do that. If you want to add full bottom metal to a Montana, that should be an option. If you want it all stainless, that should be an option. If you want it with a shorter barrel and threaded, that should be an option. Is there some reason you cannot do this with a rifle?

Why does this matter? Because otherwise there is no way I am dropping the kind of money they want on a new rifle. This weekend, I went to a few gun stores around a major Virginia town to try to look at a CZ 457 and a Tikka T1x. Not exactly uncommon rifles these days. Nor are they expensive. Yet none of the stores - even the ones that are dealers for those brands - had more than one rifle of each kind in stock. They cannot afford to carry any real inventory. So, if I cannot handle the rifle myself before I purchase it, then why on earth wouldn't I at least be able to customize it from the website?

And I really don't understand the mentality that "Kimber shouldn't do this." If they are already offering a lightweight mountain rifle with a 26" threaded barrel in .308, why couldn't they offer the customer the option of an 18.5" threaded barrel in .308?

Yes, I know. I don't want to derail the thread, so I will start a new one if I want to discuss that particular topic further.

Cooper's Custom Shop will be your huckleberry when/if they ever get back up and running. But, it'll be about 3x over your $1K budget.

IIRC Palmetto State is working on a customizable modular bolt-action but I doubt Wood/Blued will be an option.

Sauer 404 is very customizable but about 5x over your $1K ceiling. Same for Blaser.

It's not like the Kimber rifles which are the topic of this thread are exactly cheap. For that price point on a basic rifle, I would want to be able to adjust at least some of the most basic features and get what I am willing to pay for.

The OP has some very solid ideas about what he wants in a perfect hunting rifle. A number of other people have quibbled with his choices. Everyone's idea of the "perfect rifle" is different. With the variety of options out there in the aftermarket and the way rifles are made these days, it's absurd that customizable factory rifles are not a normal option. It's as if rifles are still being made on an older business model, unlike cars, computers, houses, etc. Unless I am buying a used item, I should expect to have some choice these days. Even if I want a basic Ford F150, I can pick the color out of a dizzying array of colors.

Again, the issue is not what I want per se. The fact that the OP has different ideas than I do is the point. If Kimber wants to sell more rifles, then offering more options (within some basic limitations), seems to be a reasonable business decision. Not just more set configurations, but a true, "start with this action, select your caliber, cartridge, stock, etc." And the rifle should not cost more with a 20" threaded barrel vs 18" vs 26". Unless, of course, some of those lengths are truly niche and therefore an extra cost is justified by needing to offer it. But it makes sense that if I want to get the rifle with a walnut stock, I should pay a premium. Telling a customer, "if you want a rifle with a walnut stock, go find another brand," seems a bit silly with the way rifles are made today.

It's a crowded marketplace. I used to assume that companies were intelligent. That their marketing departments were data driven. That they were making rational decisions with what they offered. But I don't think that is always the case. There are too many half-baked ideas that get released and flop for that to be the case. When selling $2000 rifles, it makes a lot more sense to sell each consumer the rifle they want - within reason - than to count on an everyman consumer walking into the LGS and choosing your rifle versus any other brand and going away satisfied (and therefore becoming a potential repeat customer). If a company could see through its sales department that people are being offered a range of cartridge choices, but everyone and their dog is ordering the 6.5 CM, that should tell them something.

A while back, I was considering purchasing a new-built house. I was leafing through the catalogue and playing on the builder's website to see my options. One option was a fireplace. I tried to select it and it said, "no longer available." I called the builder to ask why. His answer was "less than 10% of buyers chose that option, so it wasn't worth it to us to keep that option available." I told him that while I might be in the minority, a fireplace was really important to me and I was willing to pay for it. He still wasn't interested in adding it. That annoyed me, but his position was supported by actual data. It helped cost him a sale (and I am glad, in hindsight, that it did, since I am very happy where I now live). To him, keeping the materials and workforce on hand to offer a fireplace that 90% of people didn't want just didn't make business sense with the way houses are built today. But rifles are not built like houses. And offering a wider range of options, rather than trying to force feed the customer, gives the company real consumer preference data.

One of the problems for manufacturers would be that people aren't always rational in what they want when it comes to rifles. People get wedded to an idea because it has worked in the past and don't take the time or don't have the opportunity to try something different. Rifles are expensive. It can be tough to get a different version of something just to see if it works. Not everyone has the opportunity to put a rifle in a situation that challenges their current status quo. I spend as much time as I can out doing my version of hunting. I spend the rest of it thinking about what I want to do and what rifle and bullet I want to try the next time I go. I am blessed to live on a ranch large enough I can practice my unique style of hunting. What I do is closer to an African plains game safari than what is normally though of with Texas style box blind hunting. I push my rifles harder because of that.

All that to say, its easy to hold to an idea if its never challenged. People want what they want until they learn differently. I did not want a rifle like I posted up here until the paradigms I believed were challenged. A year ago I would have told you my Winchester classic stainless featherweight in 30-06 with 22" barrel pushing a 208 grain ELD-M was the ultimate. Its in a Mcmillan featherweight stock and it is comfortable to tote. It kills like a lightning bolt. However, it kicks like mule being that light and pushing heavy bullets that hard. I have to carry ear muffs with me. The recoil jars you off target and it takes longer to get back on. The rifle has a lot of positive qualities. I still love the rifle and carry it some.

However, playing with the Howa pictured earlier in the thread, experimenting with a 6.5 swede I have, and stumbling up on the other Kimber Hunter in 6.5 creed I had challenged things that I previously held to be true. Prior suppressors I had told me a suppressor was either ineffective as a muffler or too long and heavy to place on a bolt rifle without messing up its handling characteristics. New suppressors have come out that gave options for light, short AND effective. All these things changed the factors in my calculations. Thus, a new project that I am happy with and is encouraging me to continue down this path.

Basically, new information has told me I can have an even smaller, lighter rifle, that shoots less heavy recoiling rounds that still kill quickly and effectively, just more efficiently while also wearing a suppressor that lets me leave the muffs in the truck and not get a sweaty head and a headache. I believe everyone's perfect rifle depends on the hunting they are doing. However, I would invite everyone to take the opportunity to try a rifle configured similar to what I have done here. I doubt at the ranges most hunters shoot, they will find this configuration lacking in killing power. At least, until you get beyond 500-600 yards, your rifle will not fail to kill because of a lack of velocity if you are choosing the right bullets and matching them to the quarry.

Enough animals have died to .243s and .30-30s that anyone suggesting the OP's rifle lacks killing power at normal hunting ranges needs to have his head examined. The limitation holding back most modern weapons is what is behind the rifle, not in it or on it. My unit captured an Afghan sniper who was reliably pinging .303 rounds into my Marines' chest and back plates at 800 yards with an Enfield rifle that looked like it had been dragged from England to Afghanistan and stored under a rock pile for almost a century, using ammo that I probably would have thrown away if someone gave it to me. We captured him when he crawled right into the hide my snipers were using for overwatch. Tell that dude that he needs a high BCE bullet going 3000 FPS and he would laugh at you, at least until he cut your balls off and fed them to you.

Growing up as a kid, I was frequently exposed to reloading conversations that could all be summed up as "faster is always better." If your bullet wasn't going "Mach 3 with its hair on fire," it wasn't going fast enough. And rifle companies and component manufacturers catered to that. People around the literal campfire would argue that the .30-06 was obsolete because it wasn't a X magnum.

The current discussions of BCE have taken on much of the flavor of the old "faster is always better" debates. Even back then, people knew that bullets with a high BCE were better at long distances. I remember when I first got my .25-06 being super impressed with the .435 BCE of my favored 120-grain bullets. It was the best affordable option I had available 25 years ago. A simple Sierra spitzer boat tail accounted for many, many deer, even if I never really stretched the rifle's capabilities. But if I chased the new hotness, I would be trying out 135-grain bullets to get marginally more performance that I will almost certainly never need. Because apparently anything less than .6 BCE is utter trash.

Back then, my father taught me that it usually wasn't worth it to try to get the extra 50 FPS and certainly not at the expense of accuracy. That our goal was to tune the round to match the rifle's harmonics. All things being equal, at our hunting ranges, the bullet going 2700 or 2800 FPS made zero difference. That the most important thing was to minimize as many controllable factors as possible from the equation, but never to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The only people who really benefit from the "must have maximum in all categories" mindset are the people who sell rifles and components.

I remember watching an interview with a seal about them. He said if he didn’t require it for flash suppression he wouldn’t use one.

How about a Snickers candy bar? Damn.

Despite the BEST efforts of Blue Haired Cat Ladies telling Bedtime Stories,bullet always have and always will matter more than headstamps. Read that again. Now one more time. Hint.

I rather like .620 BC's at 2820fps in my 21" Dasher,with 3fps SD and 32grs of powder. Perhaps that's due to all the Bob's,Better Bob's,25-284's,25-06's,25-06 AI's and 257 Wby's I've had/have? Hint.

Just sayin'...............

I’ll tell you, in a gas driven AR they really foul the action. You spend a lot more time cleaning than usual.

You can. You hire a gunsmith. Other option, you order a rifle from a manufacturer that specializes in customization. Just be prepared to pay 3x-5x+ what your $1K ceiling is.