Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters KIMBER old vs. new

I know a few rifle snobs that won't buy a Kimber unless it is one of the Kimbers of Oregon. They say the New York ones are of much lesser quality. I've been thinking about buying a new one in a Roberts and they look like a pretty nice gun to me. What do you guys out there that own them think? The old ones are a bit out of my price range, but I don't one to buy a new one if it's going to be a clunker.

I honestly think that Kimber makes the nicest (as far as fit and finish) production rifles right now. I've owned an 84M Classic and an 84M Montana and the fit and finish on those rifles leaves my Winchester M70 Classic and Remington M700 XCR in the dust. Performance wise, I think they are at least average if not better. The ones I have owned were shooters.

I think most complaints stem from the fact that a rifle that costs between $900 and $1100 is fairly expensive for most folks. When they pony up and buy one, they expect lightening in a bottle with cloverleafs at 300 yards. When their $1100 Kimber doesn't shoot a whole lot better (or even as good as) their $550 Savage, they get disappointed. Just remember that you're buying a rifle that is expensive because of the fit, finish, and qualities that you can't find in a common factory rifle. They are much more trim and "gunny" feeling than anything else in their weight range and they are very handy.

Buy a Kimber for how well they are made and how sharp they look. They will perform plenty well enough to hunt, guaranteed. If the looks and feel aren't enough to get you to fork out the bucks, the Ruger M77 Hawkeye comes chambered in 257 Roberts and is a fine rifle in itself for half the price.

orion03,

As Dan360 points out you should compare the current Kimber to all other rifles and not just the old ones.

I happen to like the Kimber 84M and 8400's a lot. I have four of them now and I got them as I wanted/needed the lighter weight that they provide. I still have a battery of 99's, pre 64 70's etc.

What stands out on the current Kimbers for me in addition to their light weight is their design features. With a Kimber of NY I get the M70 type safety (which works better than the ones on the M70's by the way), a non brazed on bolt handle, CRF, a superior syn. stock with a great pad and more. To top it all off its made in the USA.

I only currently own one Kimber, but I am in the process to buy another. The one that I own is a gorgeous 84m Varmint with a stainless, fluted barrel in 22-250. I love this gun. It shoots great and most of the time, the coyotes I aim at die. It was easy to find the load it wanted to shoot, and it has not let me down. I was at the range with Ross and his buddy, Dan. I let Dan shoot my 22-250 and he was very impressed. I wont say what rifle he had, but I know it was worth more than I paid for mu truck and he was still impressed with the Kimber.

I bought two of the Oregon Kimbers when they were new. Still have one. Both were beautiful, but had functional probllems. My impression is that Kimber seems to spend more time on form than function.

I have a Kimber of Oregon .223, a Kimber of NY 7-08 and recently sold a Kimber of NY 300 WSM. I have no complaints what so ever about the Kimber of NY rifles. I sold the 300 WSM to friend, I just wasn't using it. I love my Kimber of Oregon .223, it's been my number one coyote rifle for about 10 or 12 years. The only issue I have with it is that every once in a while the extractor won't grab hold of the case and eject it after firing. It seems to me that I've heard of others that have had this same problem. I carry a takedown cleaning rod with me when I hunt, so I use that to push the case out. I have only had this happen maybe 4 or 5 times and have taken hundreds of coyotes with it.

If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that the new Kimbers are better than the old ones in regards to dependability and accuracy. That's not saying that some of the old ones aren't just as good or better. But, the new Kimbers seem to be more consistent. I have never heard of anyone who got a "klunker" Kimber of NY. That seems very unlikely. I really like the small action of the old .22 centerfire Kimbers though.

I am a fan of the Oregon models (Own 3) but would own the NY version if they ever make a left handed model. Both iterations of Kimber have gone through periods of having quality control issues, so it is difficult to make any across the board generalizations. Both were and are very fine rifles.

I would also look at a Cooper. Contrary to the rumors no Obama contributors have run the show for over a year. To my knowledge Cooper has never had the pronounced swings in quality control that both phases of Kimber have had. You would be limited to a long action Bob or a single shot, but a lot of Ink has been spread extolling the virtues of a long action Bob (Mod 52).

Here are some folks with opinions on the Kimber of Oregon models. It gets interesting about the sixth post down.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...&topic=0&Search=true#Post2519366

Beings that i worked in the front office for Kimber in Clackamas,OR
That's a story in itself...

The newer Kimber of America is the better firearm.

Also,
All those Kimber 45's that were stamped Clackamas, OR,
the first 7 to 8 thousand, were actually made in Yonkers, NY then shipped to Clackmas, OR.
So it could be said they were made in Clackamas.

The gun manager at the local money pit tells me that the last two Kimber 1911's they received were shipped from Kalispell. What's the story about that?

Rather than comment much again, I would suggest anybody interested in my opinion on this read the thread in the link that Jim in Idaho provided.

I think the Yonkers Kimbers are much better rifles than the Oregon Kimbers.

Call Kimber and ask for Dwight V. or Ryan B. they live there.

With Kimber who the heck really knows why.

I would generally agree with what Dan says;Kimber deserves an "attaboy" for design and great looks,and incorporates a bunch of really neat features that you would have to custom and pay a lot of money to get.The synthetic stock is great,one of the best,and the wood stocks are stylish and nicely made.

BUT when I have paid for such features in other rifles,I generally have received a corresponding step up in accuracy and consistency,and would say that in this regard, they are "about half".One will be absolutely fabulous in accuracy and another will be a turkey,dissapointing and disturbing.

I bought a 223 Varmint rifle;it was so accurate I brought it to Wyoming and my rancher buddie loved it so much it is now HIS rifle.So, I bought another;by comparison it was a turkey.

Recently I bought a 257 Montana;it was an "on command" 1/2" rifle,but had a very tight chamber. I sent it back to the factory to repair the chamber.Mistake!! They rebarreled it,and it was a lemon.So I bought a Select 257, a heartbreaker,beautiful rifle that was good for double grouping in the 2-2 1/2" range at 100 yards;at 300 yards I could not count on reliably hitting a watermelon.

There have been others;I have owned several.Only my 22 rimfire remains.

Maybe I'm spoiled but I simply can't live with that level of inconsistency from a rifle.And spending a grand 3-4 times to get good performance from a rifle is a faustian bargain.

Like so many things today,modern consumers are fed "form over substance";the "sizzle" over "steak".Many times we are fed mediocrity; sold an expensive electronic devise,computer, TV,whatever,and at the same time offered a service plan(at extra cost),that tells us the damn thing is gonna break down....rifles are represented to shoot,,often they don't. Scopes are not supposed to break;they do. We tolerate it cause "warranties are great"....when I'm on a hunt,and equipment fails, warranties are worthless......

Marketing and packaging count more today than durability and reliability; we are fed %&^^% so we swallow it,accept it as consumers,so we get more of it.Contemporary marketing and packaging have given us such wonderful things as the Obama Administration....

JMHO,but Kimbers are just too much "sizzle",and too little "steak".If you get a good one, they are GREAT RIFLES,but I, for one, am a bit tired of sifting through them to get what I expect.

Can't add much to the above assessement, except to say the at the Kimber Montana is a real lightweight and this would tip the scales for me.

Like many others on these boards, I've been lusting for a Kimber 84M Select Grade in the Roberts. Two weeks ago, in a nearby city, I had a chance to fondle one. This particular rifle had a beautiful chunk of wood on it! Stunning, IMHO. From a distance, anyway. On closer inspection, however, the inletting of the stock was atrocious. It was bad even for a cheap rifle, much less a $1200 rifle. The first thing I noticed was the barrel channel was not straight, with the barrel touching the forend tip on the left side. Then I noticed the frong sling swivel stud had apparently been installed by a blind gorilla. But the worst, was the inletting around the floorplate. There was a large gap between wood and the floorplate on one side. Pretty pi$$ poor. While I would still like to get one of these, it will not be that particular rifle, and I have determined I will NEVER buy a Kimber sight unseen!

IMHO, I also think Kimbers are all about "bling", not substance. All sizzle and no steak, like Bob said. I hate to throw a firecracker in the campfire, but that is exactly my opinion about Kimber 1911's. Kimber made a big splash with their 1911's, because they were (are) essentially pretty and tight. Don't forget tight (what ARE we talking about here? ). Along with rave reviews in gun magazines, which is still going on. Coupled with usually two full page color ads in every issue. Curious, isn't it? But all the internal parts are MIM. Substandard, IMHO. If you like MIM, fine, go for it. I prefer real steel, hence all my 1911's are Colts, thank you very much! Colts are not as pretty or as tight as Kimbers, and Colt has QC issues from time to time, but I still think Colt has forgotten more about building 1911's than Kimber ever knew. YMMV

Have owned numerous 82's and 84's and can't say that I have had the bad luck others have reported. I have a first year 40XBBR in 6BR that came out of the custom shop in 1979 with a .268 neck and a few years later factory ammo was introduced for the XP100's that measured .271. Don't think Kimber was the only one trying to introduce a semi custom rifle built to benchrest standards without proper warnings. I often wonder how many people got into trouble with these early 40X rifles.
dan

I had good luck with the Mo.82`s.The BGR`s were a crap shoot.Some would not feed worth a damn and group worse.I had one in 338 that was a Treasure and an 06 that was a pretty canoe paddle.I currently have a NY Kimber 22 that shoots with the best.I think the Montanas are a great buy for the buck,but sometimes need to be tweeked or rebarraled.my 2 cents,Huntz

Awwww man Bob, I just hate it that your Select turned out to be a clunker. It really would get old sifting through a few to get a consistent, honest shooter.


Pretty sure I hit the rifle jackpot with my one and only little Kimber Roberts. Got off work early today and snuck out to the range. Little breezy but it shot a neat little 4 shot 4" horizontal group at 400. It just won't not shoot great if I do my part.

You suck Sammers... I have to go make plywood for The Man again today Of course I'll cry all the way to the bank with their 300 dollars, but I'd rather be fishing today...



Now for the topic. I never had an early Oregon Kimber. But I've got two Montanas. They had bugs and issues that needed to be worked out. Like Bob said in another thread, their gunsmiths that do their warranty work are retards. Once you get one working, you'll be an addict.

Oh yeah, their sales office is in Kalispell MT. I bump into more than one sales rep at the range.

Actually my opinion runs crossways to that expressed on here.

I don't think Kimber is all sizzle and no steak. Quite the opposite, I think it is all steak and, at least once in a while, no dessert.

The Kimber, and I own two of them, is a hunting rifle not a bench rest rig. A good percentage of the really nifty stuff is to make it a more reliable and functional hunting rifle. And, to be honest, the requirements, accuracy wise, for a really deadly hunting rifle are a bit less than what a lot around here will tolerate. Once you get enough accuracy to do the job that a sane hunter in normal conditions needs you are finished... if you are thinking as a hunter.

There are other rifles that feature accuracy almost to the exclusion of everything else. The first and last word whenever one of their owners mentions them is what kind of groups they shoot. It seems that is all that matters to them.

But will the trigger foul up in a freezing rain like I dealt with on opening day last year? Is the thing really going to hold up to 30 years of field use and get passed down to the young 'en? Will it have to be zero'd if the stock has to be taken off it in the field? Etc, etc...

Accuracy is about the 4th or 5th thing I look at in a rifle. But then I am a hunter who shoots for fun and not the other way around. That stated my 30-06 Kimber is one of the most forgiving rifles I have ever seen accuracy wise. I am serious when I tell you that if I had an elk hunt scheduled and you worked out a bet with a guide service to knock $1000 off the cost if I would go in blind and shoot a suitable factory ammo of their choice without knowing ahead of time what it was I would take that bet and never give it another thought. I have shot so many of them without finding one that wasn't accurate enough for 30-06 ranges that I am 100% confident that it wouldn't crimp my style.

And to me that is a kind of hunting rifle accuracy that means ten times more than shooting the notorious 'half inch group' with three shots (snort) after working up loads half the summer to find it.

Will