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

I have no opinion about the Kimbers that are now in production, but I surely shot a lot of the ones made in Clackamas ... Kimber of Oregon.

A lot of the Kimber of Oregon rifles shot very well. And a lot of them didn't. It was pretty much luck of the draw.

Greg Warne, the now-deceased president of KofA, was primarily concerned with how the rifles looked. Barrel quality, bedding quality (aside from looking good from the outside) and internal quality was totally on the back burner. As far as Greg was concerned, if it was gorgeous to look at, that was all that mattered.

He often quoted a demographic study that stated that 80% of Kimber rifles were simply collected and sat either in gun safes or bank vaults. The higher the grade, the more apt the rifle was to be a "collector."

This is the reason for all of the wildcat chamberings. Lots of collectors had a specific serial number reserved and if there was suddenly a .32-20, .25-20 or a 6X47 available, the collector would shell out another $4,500 for a Super America with skeleton buttplate, a skeleton gripcap and a cool hand-checkered bolt knob.

I shot most of the rifles that were returned with accuracy problems. If I determined that there was an accuracy problem, as opposed to user error, Jim McKinley would slap on a new barrel (still a stinkin' Wilson) and maybe mess with the bedding a bit. Then, it would be returned to the owner without a reshoot.

Literally all Kimber M-84s (.223 based action) had a recoil lug that was dovetailed into the receiver. And literally all M-84s had the recoil lugs bedded with 5-minute epoxy. The first thing I always did on a personal M-84 was to rip out the silly quick-drying epoxy and replace it with Steel-Bed.

I once asked Jim McKinley why they never free-floated at least the 84s. His answer was, "the wood we buy cheaply from Cal'ico is really, really green and if we free-floated the forearms would warp away from the barrels. So, basically the barrel was used as to keep the forearm straight."

My reply, characteristically was, "Holy Schit. Doesn't anybody care about the inside quality?"

Jim answered,"Nope, just as long as it looks date-rape gorgeous on the outside."

I used these years of shooting Kimbers as a learning platform. Heck, I shot .221s, .222s, .222Mags .223s, 6X45s, 6X47s, even the strange European 5.56 and the exotic .257 Kimber, plus .22 Hornets until I got sick, .22K Hornets, .218 Bees, .25-20s and .32-20s. Even, by golly, the prototypes chambered for .38-40 and .44-40.

And, I used a lot of this experience to start my writing career at Wolfe Publishing. The mid-1980s issues of Handloader are chock full of my stuff on the 6X45, the .221 Fire Ball and other exotics that Kimber offered. Why Wolfe never offered me an Contributing Editorship is still a mystery. So after a problem with the crappy editorship of Tom Gresham, I wandered off to greener pastures.

I had the first Kimber 6PPC self-destruct on me and luckily got out of the rifle detonation with only a pint of blood loss and some serious holes in my hide. It was with that adventure that I quit putting my face behind prototype products that were not engineered nor gunsmithed in any way.

Frankly, the Kimber of Oregon was run by a fool. Had the vision been to make the rifle perfect from the centerline out, it would have been a wonderful success. As it was, he had too many expensive girlfriends, too many fancy leased automobiles and paid way too little attention to making what could have been a fabulous rifle.

He literally bought writers, so the press releases and write-ups were glowing.

Once in a while, he would give me a rifle for my efforts. I'd always shoot it first, just to ascertain the accuracy. If it was a crap-shooter, I'd trade it for another. Maybe 70% of the .223s shot under inch and the remaining 30% would be worse; some by a large degree.

Actually, considering the technology and the absolute lack of a gunsmith on premises, it's amazing that the Kimber of Oregon rifles shot as well as they did. Some were spectacular and some were the worst possible POS rifles. Like I said at the beginning, totally luck of the draw.

Steve

Steve - thanks for the post. As always, not only informative but also interesting for its historical honesty. Best, John

Friend Steve,
What happened to you when that gun blew up in your face?

Glad I don't own any of the old ones. :p

Will

Great post Steve. That's about as straight a scoop as you will ever get anywhere, thanks...............................DJ

I had one of NY's. Model 84. Nice looking gun but shot like a blind man.

Got rid of it. I now wish I would have tried to sort the problem out.

From what others have told me and my own experience they still appear to be hit or miss as far as accuracy goes.

just my 2 cents.

My only Kimber is an 8400 in .300 WSM. When new, the gorgeous stock was so poorly inletted that there was about .015 of barrel channel on one side of the barrel and about .090 on the other side. They replaced the stock with one that wasn't nearly as pretty. Nicer job of bedding, however. It's still a great looking rifle (IMO), carries well, handles well, shoots well enough for a hunting rifle. If I want benchrest accuracy right out of the box, with nothing to complain about in that price range I'll stick with Sako.

I remember when Greg and I were walking through the SHOT Show, I think it was in New Orleans. There in the Sako booth was a cute little 6PPC with Sako ammo that would shoot little-bitty groups. Greg said, "Hell, we can make it prettier." And I'm thinking, "Yeah, right."

So, maybe three weeks later, on my desk is a new Kimber M-84 single shot chambered for 6PPC with a cool stainless barrel and ten boxes of Sako ammo. This, with about ten malcontent .22 Hornets were the days shooting.

Unbeknownst to me, Clymer called after the reamer order and asked one of the secretaries, "Do you want a target reamer or a field reamer?" Her answer was, "Gee, Kimbers are really accurate, so we will need a target reamer."

What Clymer was actually asking and what the lady did not understand had to do with neck turned cases versus ammo as it comes from the Sako box.

But I digress.

So, out to Douglas Ridge Rifle Club I go with my truck full of Kimber rifles and load gear and my ten boxes of Sako 6PPC ammo.

I was really anxious to see what type of accuracy the 6 showed, So I mounted a 6-20 Leupold, bore sighted, chambered a round and said, "Whoa, that really chambers HARD."

So, I safed the rifle and called the guy Kimber called an "engineer," which he wasn't. Don was his name and Don told me that it must have tight headspace.

OK.

If I'd been smart, I would have tied the rifle to a tire and pulled the trigger by a string-lanyard. Not me, I've gotta see how it shoots!!

At the shot, everything turned black. My face, right thumb and left palm felt like I set off a firecracker. And I could not see. I was on the ground, cursing and all alone at the range.

Eventually, I saw brightness around my glasses, so I took them off and ascertained that my eyes were OK, I was bleeding heavily from my face, I could see the blood running off and bouncing on the concrete, but at least I could see.

The laminated stock had split because of the M84s gas bleed hole in the lower locking lug recess. And, of course, nobody drilled a hole for the gas to escape the stock, so the laminated stock had taken the gas, split and opened up. My left palm went into the split and then the stock closed. Think of your hand caught between two laminations of a two-inch piece of plywood and you've got the idea. And it hurt like all Billy Hell.

So I limped, bleeding, over to my truck and inserted a large screwdriver into the split stock. Just try that when your hand is caught and every movement hurts like crazy.

Eventually, I got the stock off my hand and inspected the carnage.

The barrel blew downrange, I could never figger that one out. The receiver was split in half from front to back and was hanging in the stock (Thank the Lord). The bolt was in the receiver and the entire shroud was gone ... some of it remains to this day in my right thumb.

My glasses looked like they's been sandblasted. There were thousnds of little holes in my face, some of which held pieces of brass and some held steel shards. A "big chunk" cut a four-inch swath across my right palm and dug a hell of a hole through a 2X4 shooting bench top. I had one major steel piece imbedded high between my eyes and why it didn't penetrate my skull I'll never know.

I was a bloody mess.

My 6.5-20 Leupold was about fifteen feet behind the firing point, in the parking lot gravel. It apparently was released when the receiver split and flew over my head.

So, what happened? That is easy. The Clymer "target" reamer was made for turned case necks. I chambered a single round of Sako 6PPC and there was no case neck expansion room to release the bullet.

Quite literally, I shot off a bomb in my hands and it probably came close to what ballisticians call "detonation," which means that it could have been worse ... much, much worse.

(Think of it as a "Roadside Kimber" )

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, that when I drove back to the Kimber plant, nobody really gave a crap about me. And seeing Kimber serial number 6PPC-1 in parts brought on a somber note. But my bleeding .... not so much. Must have stained the carpet, I guess.

Not long after, I told Greg that he and his firm was dangerous to my life and livelihood. Don't forget that I was a Certified Master Watchmaker, a GIA Graduate Gemologist and a journeyman goldsmith and there is not too much demand for a blind and/or maimed jewelry craftsman.

Making rifles without the aid of an engineer or even a gunsmith is pure folly, especially when the president of the firm is chasing skirts like a fiend and making guns is not really where his head is.

Anyway, I could not afford to waste my time with fools, so I quit my non-paying job of shooting Kimber rifles.

I retired at age 48 a few years later and Greg ended up dead in the jungle of Costa Rica (don't ask). Funny how life is.

Steve

DJ,

You'll never get anything but honesty from me. THAT I promise.

Steve

Great Day,

Sounds like that Bunch was stupid and dangerous. Thanks for the story.

Sorry Dogzapper, I didn't see the don't ask about Greg.

Ditto on BobinNH comments. I have a 7-08 Classic that is an older 2 position safety model and try as I like it is VERY inconsistent. I have owned 5 or 6 and if they shoot they are great but about half are duds in the accuracy dept.

Anybody want a 7-08 Classic for $600 plus shipping???

I had an 8400 in 300 WSM and it shot like crap, went back to the factory twice and never was fixed. I would buy another though, seems most of the Montana's shoot OK and I have had a few of there 22's and they ALL shot great.

I think it is a hit and miss but there is alot to like about the Montana.

The only Kimber I own now is a NY Kimber Hunter 22LR, although I have owned several Oregon rifles over the years.

Experiences like we are sharing here are why I still don't own a Select Grade 257 Bob. God knows I want one! I have no problem laying out a thousand plus for a new rifle, and don't mind if I need to rebed, tune the trigger, recrown, etc. But needing to rebarrel or send it back to the factory to fix fundamental flaws? Not acceptable. And try as I might I can't talk myself into rolling the dice.

Conversely today I had two old M70 fwt's at the range. That Greydog stocked 30-06 I posted under the "favorite rifle" thread a couple days back? With a handload of 150 TSX's at 2950 fps, it consistently shoots under an inch at 100, and put two groups into 1 1/2" at 200 yards today. It won't do anything wrong.

And a 1958 fwt 270 I recently picked up? Completely stock other than a trigger job. Fed 140 TSX's and a bunch of RL22, it puts them into an inch at 3000 fps. No unexplained fliers, no surprises. All it does is run exactly and consistently, just like it is supposed to.

If 50+ year old rifles can do it, why can't Kimber?

Prezactly.

I have only shot mauybe 4-5 of the NY Kimbers, and have gotten satisfactory hunting accuracy from all of them. By that I mean it was fairly easy to find loads that shot 1-1/4", 3-shot groups at 100 yards. I know from quite a bit of experience that THAT sort of "mediocre" accuracy is plenty for shooting big game at 400+ yards. Most of the rifles could beat that.

I published the results of my handloading for my 84 .338 Federal in a magazine. Some of the loads shot in the 1" range, others up to 2". I reported all the resulrs rather than cherry-pick. I thought they were all fine for a rifle that would probably never be shot at any big game animal past 300 yards, and even then one of the better loads (with the 210 Nosler Partition) beat 1-1/4 inches.

All of this was from a rifle that weighs 6-1/4 pounds WITH scope, partly because it has a thin little barrel--with a BIG hole in it. This isn't a recipe for benchrest accuracy, and I thought the rifle shot just fine for the purposes it was made for.

Yet I got an e-mail from a reader who wrote something like, "I see your .338 Federal Kimber shot as lousy as mine."

Maybe we have finally reached the stage where hunters really don't know that sub-inch accuracy isn't required to kill animals with lungs the size of basketballs--or, sometimes, beach balls.

Evidently, too, we are starting to expect a lightweight rifle with pretty wood that will shoot like a benchrest rifle--and cost only $1000.

Thanks JB. I would have no problem if my new Kimber would just shoot into a 1 1/2". I just don't want one that shoots 3 or 4"s. I don't shoot game very far away so .5" rifles don't mean much to me unless it's a praire dog rig.

It's more than that John, it's a fetish!

I have actually read an absurd discussion on these forums where one guy proposed that a MOA rifle was insufficient to the task of being a reliable killer where he hunted... His shots were usually in the 100 to 200 yard range, but it seems he had the need to be able to thread a bullet through the thick stuff and an honest inch rifle just isn't up to the task. Worse, nobody on the thread actually named him for a jackass. :p

I have been getting my new Kimber Montana off the ground for the last couple months. In that time the rifle seems to be the only thing that isn't suspect. I've had a bad batch of primers which made me think the rifle was the worst I had ever seen. Took about 4 range trips and a complete accident to figure out that one. And I have a scope from my favorite manufacturer show up with and honest 3 to 4 inches of parallax at 100 yards.... that's before you start seeing black around the edges. It's back at the factory now being brought up to snuff.

Through it all the rifle has fed perfectly and, if you could stand the 15 second process of centering your eye in the scope, shot pretty damned well. I guess what I'm saying is that the rifle isn't the only thing to worry about nowadays. I think this run on ammo and guns has a whole lot of suspect equipment hitting the racks. Else I've just had a run of bad luck this time.

Will

I've got a .22 Kimber and a 25-20, which I shot today. It'll pu them into about 1" +- (which ain't bad for a 25-20) and the quality is very good, a very good to great trigger, but the rifle is nothing extra fancy...just plain walnut and blued steel.

Both my rifles are Oregon models. I remember passing up on a .22 Hornet WAY back when, wish I'd bought it then for a reduced price as no one wanted a Hornet in the early 80s.

I've not seen new Kimbers, but they look good. I don't know why an expensive rifle shouldn't shoot well, but see it all the time in magazines like "Rifle" and "Rifle Shooter." And especially if someone takes a factory rifle and roll-stamps another logo on the barrel. Looks like if you pay 1K plus change the maker should at least fire a couple of rounds through it to make sure it's put together properly.

I agree with you Gene, even a $400 Vanguard comes with an 1 1/2" garantee and most will do better than that.

By the way, and waaaay off the subject: When shooting the rimmed cartridges that Kimber chambered for, it really helps accuracy to short both rim thickness and neck thickness. I had to sort through a bunch of cases to get 100 great .25-20 cases and a bunch more for .32-20s that were just passable.

My cases for testing .22 Hornet rifles were RWS, which were the finest I could find at the time. They cost Kimber a fortune, like a buck a case, but at least I was testing the rifle, rather than the schitty American brass.

Maybe .22 Hornet cases are better today. Probably, methinks, because I've seen Johnny B. shoot his Hornet T/C rifle right along with my .223s.

Nuther crazy thing. Prolly the finest shooting .22 Long Rifle rifles KofA made was the Lenard Brownell Edition. The Brownell had a Mannlicher stock and a butterknife bolt handle and was gorgeous in every respect.

I finally had to break down and have one made from what I still think of as the finest piece of claro that ever came in Kimber's back door.

That rifle, with the serial number "Steve's .22" and every other Brownell Edition I shot is an incredible shooter. Great accuracy out of a full-stocked rifle ... go figger!

Steve