Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Kimber of Oregon

Can some one give some info on Kimber of Oregon.I am looking at a M-89 SuperAmerica square bridge rifle with drop dead wood.Are they accurate and reliable? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

imho,
It may be and it may be a nightmare. The Kimber of Oregon 82s tended to be VERY good. The 84s COULD be very good. The 89s were plagued by QC issues. The model shipped to Finn Aagaard for evaluation had the forward most scope mounting hole drilled all the way through to the chamber...

That said it could be a charm. They are quite attractive...

Regards, Matt.

Matt,

If that is the .416 Rigby that was written up in The American Rifleman , I shot the rifle 100 rounds before they shipped it to Finn. Greg Warne knew, or at least suspected, that Finn was a real gun writer and would actually shoot the gun, instead of look at it and make up stuff to write about.

Anyway, my shooting test was to see if it would actually hold together. By the end of 100 rounds, the front sight had slipped forward and off the barrel and the silly rib (held by one 6-48 screw, for pity's sake) popped off at about round number ten. The floorplate latch also failed about thirty rounds out and I had to duct tape the floorplate closed to complete the firing.

Soooo, I took the POS back and mentioned the problems (in my silver-tongued way <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).

Apparently, they wanted the rib to stick real good, so they added a second serew (still 6-48) and drilled and tapped the back one clear through and into the freakin' chamber <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And I believe the band-type front sight also fell off in Finn's test shooting; guess they didn't fix that little problem the first time.

The Kimber .416 Rigby was a prototype. I forget how much it cost, but it was over $50,000. Darwin Hensly's bill for the stock alone was amazing!!! For that kind of money, you'd think they would have gotten the simple stuff right. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

After suffering through one hundred rounds of .416 Rigby in a single sitting, I swore off shooting big rifles for fun. My shoulder wasn't right for at least two weeks and I had to go back to shooting .22s and .223s at the range for a while, to get rid of the flinchies.

Having been there all during the Kimber BGRs evolution, I would suggest that anyone interested in buying one should take a cold shower. Then, they should go out and buy a Remington 700. But that's just me.

Steve

Steve,
That was the rifle. You obviously have the straight poop. So much for readin... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

They were beautiful rifles. I've owned many 82s through the years. The only one I really regret selling was a Pre-Super America S series .22 Hornet. Owned two 84s that were not quite there but still quite good. Had enough experience with a pair of 89s that it cured my desire to own them...

The $64,000 question is did I learn anything? We shall overlook the 84M Pro Varmint chronicles...(grin) I don't think I can be accused of not giving Kimber, in all of it's MANY forms, a fair shot... Pun intended... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The two best Kimbers I own are Kimber of America Made in Oregon. An 82C 1 or 750 and a 84 stainless fluted .223 Varmint. And both have their issues...

Regards, Matt.

I have recently looked at a handful of 84's and I have seen some major QC problems with the guns. All seem to have the barrel pressed hard against the side of the stock on one side and a 1/4 space on the other. Has anyone else seen this with the gun.

One of my shooting buddies and I went throught the "Kimber Chronicles" in the mid to late 80's.

My 82 K of O rimfire rifles were all nicely finished and very accurate.

I had one Hornet that I could not get to shoot, period. I refused to rechamber to a K, and in retrospect that may have solved the problem.

My original 84 Classic in .223 was great, a newer 84C (like Matt's I think) stainless fluted Varminter was very good, but the 89 he owned (not me thankfully) was a real POS.

Can't tell you how many loads we tried before he took a deep loss on the rifle. When the humidity went up the stock twisted like a corkscrew. Damndest thing I've ever seen. It sat on a dealer's rack for over two years...

Roll the dice, be prepared to be disappointed.

Of course, I could go through the "Dakota Chronicles", but that's a story for another time.

JB

Elim,

I have read Finn's review of the Kimber (I filed a copy of it too). Even so I later found a Model 89 Big Game Rifle (BGR) in .375 H&H that I bought. The shop I bought it from is owned by a friend who stands by what he sells.

Mine is a slick barrel, round top action. It will shoot Remington Safari ammo with the 300 gr Swift A-Frame to one-half inch (3 shots). The last outing I took it to Zim and shot a Cape buff and a leopard (and a lot of leopard bait). That was its fourth African hunt, and I have owned it for a dozen years.

The wood on the 89s is usually their best feature. I have had no problems with mine. The poor QC seems to have been at times when orders had to be shipped to keep cash flow greater than zero.

So you might have a great rifle, and you might not.

jim

Some might find the following to be of some interest:

I was the guy who shot all rifles returned to Kimber of Oregon for about five years. Twice a week, I'd pick up all the returned rifles, take them to the rifle range and ascertain whether the customer's complaint was valid. During those years, I shot many, many hundreds of Kimber rifles. I still hate the friggin' .22 Hornet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The Model 82s in rimfire (.22LR and .22 Mag) gave very little problems. The Hornets and K-Hornets gave me absolute fits; sometimes using RWS brass (good stuff at about a buck per case) would make the rifle shoot, but most of the returned ones were garbage.

The Model 84s, all based on some form of the .222 case, generally shot well with decent handloads.

Actually, the average Kimber of Oregon rifle shot better than it had a right to because the internal emphasis was on making the rifles gorgeous on the outside.......and they didn't care about anything beneath the stockline.

They used Wilson Arms barrels, some of them shot and a lot of them were simply steel with a hole drilled kinda through the middle (when they were shortened to make Kimber Predator hundguns, the hole could be anywhere but center). The recoil lug onthe 84s was dovetailed and the negative areas ripped out the "glass bedding" if the action was removed.

Speaking of glass bedding, all Kimber of Oregon rifles were bedded in 5-minute epoxy. Jeez, I'm not even going to go there.

I asked once, "Why dont you free float barrels for accuracy?" I was told that most of the wood (came from Cal'ico Wood in California) was green and the forearms would warp. So this left the barrel to hold the warp. No kidding.

I asked, "Why not add to the accuracy and prestige by using Shilen, Hart or some other form of GOOD barrel?" I was told that the highest priority went into outside finish and the customer could not tell the difference between a high-grade barrel and a low-grade one. Nice.

I received a couple of rifles in payment for my shooting services, but I damned well shot the barrels before I took them home. I still own two. My .22 LR is the Brownell Edition (serial number "Steve's .22) and is probably the most accurate sporting .22 LR I've ever shot....and with a mannlicher stock, no less.

The other rifle is probably the most elaborately hand-engraved Kimber rifle ever to leave the plant. The serial number is "Steve's .223" and the gold work and engraving are a sight to behold. I did a full-length article on it a couple of years ago and the readers raved about the rifle. It's a shooter, too, and I've killed many hundreds of critters with it.

Oh, before I forget it, Greg didn't pay his wood bill for a long, long time. One day, when the BGR was fairly new, the wood guy at Cal'ico sent up a truck with orders to TAKE a bunch of BGRs back to California. He sold them on the cheap, just to recoup his investment, and for a long time you could buy a BGR for WAY under $1000.

The BGRs actions were cast locally by Precision Cast Parts, here in the Portland area. The castings were great, but the design was a disaster and the assembly was worse (mis-timed 3-position safties, crappy barrels, messed-up forearm bedding and, of course, the wonderful 5-minute epoxy recoil lug bedding).

I finally gave up in disgust, when a 6PPC blew up on me at the rifle range. Hurt me bad and nobody at Kimber gave a sh1t. I told them, in bandages, to stuff it, just plain stuff the whole thing up the collective a$$es, the very next day.

Kimber of Oregon? Yup, some of them shot and some didn't, but I can honestly say that I tried to act as the customer's omsbudsman with all of my heart.

The company would have survived if they had been as beautiful inside as out and if Greg Warne hadn't squandred money like a drunken sailor. Mismanagement and poor quality control finally killed them. And that, my friends, is a darned shame; Kimber sold a dream, but the dream often was a nightmare.

Steve

DZP'er - thanks for the refreshingly honest and detailed information on KofO. That is exactly the kind of information that I (and I would surmise lots of other folks) crave and have little luck finding. Have a good day.

I was wondering if you thought wilson barrels in general were good quality? I know that's what cooper puts on their rifles. I was wondering if you had an opinion on cooper rifles? Thank's

Yeah, actually a lot of the Kimbers shot really well. As I said in the original post, most of them shot better than they had any right to.

Having said that, if I was buying one today, I'd want the right to shoot it before making the decision of buying. if you get a good one, and they far outnumber the bad ones, they are really nice rifles that commonly shoot very well.

Steve

XP100,

Personally, I'm not much into Wilson Arms barrels. Sorry, I've just seen too many with bores off-center and absolute screw-ups. At the same time, I've seen them shoot consistent half-inch groups. By buying a great custom barrel, Krieger, Lilja and such, you are taking a lot of the chance out of the equation.

I honestly don't have an opinion on Cooper rifles. They had some problems with chambers and extractors early-on, but I've heard some really good things about them, too. I have never owned one, so I cannot honestly comment.

Dan Cooper, of course, worked at Kimber of Oregon. I mostly worked with the assemblers and the guy in the stock shop (Dennis Smith). Cooper worked in manufacturing, different building, and I never met him.

Steve

Steve

Thanks for the reply. I guess on a kimber of oregon 22, there's know way of knowing whether good or bad? Thank's for the help. Steve J.

If the rifle is a Model 82 in .22 Long Rifle or .22 WinMag, the rifles were generally wonderful shooters. I saw very few problem rifles.

Model 82 .22 Hornets were an entirely different matter, most of them shot just OK, a very few were superb and some of them were real dogs. If I was looking at a Kimber Hornet, I'd want to shoot it before buying it. Maybe 10% were sub MOA, 80% were just OK shooters and 10% sucked in the extreme. Just my wild-assed guess at the percentages. I just know that I took a heck of a lot of el-problemo Hornets to the range and returned without solving the problems by recision handloading.

Steve

Well, thanks for making me wake up from my dream!

Just kidding. I have a pair of left hand Kimber of O's with matching 3 digit serial numbers, a M82 .22 and a M84 .223, both numbered LH 13X.

The .22 is beautiful and accurate. I keep looking at other .22's and trying in vain to make up an excuse to "need" one, but that K of O M82 is definitely the be-all and end-all of .22's for me. Been the "end-all" for a bunch of ground squirrels as well. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The .223 has lesser wood, which is not to say it's shabby just not up to the beauty of the .22. The bolt throw is not as smooth as one would wish and it will pop the top round out of the magazine prematurely if you load 5. It's made to hold 5 but if you only load 4 it works just fine. The good news is that apparently it does indeed shoot better than it should. It will generally shade 3/4" for five shots, occasionally breaking the 1/2" mark. The barrel is inletted perfectly into the stock so if there has been warpage since going from Oregon to my home in South Florida to upstate NY and finally here to dry Idaho, I've never noticed it nor has it affected the rifle's accuracy.

I've retired the .223 pretty much as it's function has been replaced by a M700 VS but that M82 .22 is still very much in use and is definitely, positively, absolutely the very last rifle I would ever sell. If I could trust my survivors to do so I'd have it buried with me.

I had two in the 80% category. A right handed M82 .22 Hornet sporter, serial number H95 and another M82 heavy barrel Hornet. Both would go into right at an inch for 5 shots but that's about it. Had the sporter rechambered by the factory to K-Hornet but it was still just a "right at an inch" shooter.

I went through a Hornet phase in the mid eighties, had at least four that I can remember and maybe one other, so I got pretty good at handloading the cartridge. As you state, all my techniques and enchantments never got those two to much below an inch.

Wish I still had ol' H95 however, it ought to be worth a few shekels these days no matter what it shot like.

I love the looks of kimber 22's. I was reading the thread on kimber reliabilty with interest. I guess i got lucky but i have a kimber montana in 300 wsm. It seems like a good rifle so far,shoots and feeds good. Steve. J.

Steve,

Thanks for the excellent history.

It was a crying shame, could have been such a great rifle company.

I had lots of folks tell me that I didn't know what I was doing in trying to get my Hornet to shoot. I have been a serious shooter since the late sixties with handloading experience in many different calibers. I never could find the magical load that would consistently shoot under an inch, and I tried a bunch. Since it was left handed, I wanted the rifle to shoot in the worst way.

I ran across another early LH 82 Hornet about six or seven years ago, it looked unfired. The shop owner would not let me shoot it, so I took a pass. I understand the guy that bought it was thrilled with it. Once bitten, twice shy.

Regards,
JB

Guys,

A great rifle is a great rifle and Kimber of Oregon made a lot of them. One I remember was a Super America with all the bells and whistles in .223. The complaint was that it wouldn't group five under 1�-inches.

I took it out to the range with my "standard" load, 25.0 grains of H-335 behind the 50-grain Sierra Spitzer (#1330) with Winchester cases and Rem 7�s. The rifle shot half-inch without even blinking an eye. And again, and again, and again. Well, you get the picture.

So the rifle was returned to the client. Then, it came back again, with the same complaint.

So, I took it out to the range and it shot little bugholes.

The owner was a professor at the University of British Columbia. I called him at home that evening. We had a long, long talk about shooting from the bench, especially "returning to battery."

I had him put a piece of electrical tape on his forend and slide the rifle back to the same position every time. We also talked about "shoulder mirage" and all of the little tricks that will make the point of impact the same shot after shot. He might have been a professor and a PhD, but he was now the student...and an excellent one.

I got a call a couple of weeks after the rifle was returned to him and he was ecstatic. The rifle SHOT WONDERFULLY and he now owned the rifle he'd always wanted.....correction, he had a terrific rifle and about thirty minutes of phone instruction on how to use it properly.

Anyway, he was a very happy guy and I have always been glad that I was there for him. Had it been the typical factory phone answerer, he would not have gotten the help he so desprately needed.

He later purchased a Super America Model 82 in .22 Long Rifle and it was a fabulous shooter. He called several times while I was in-plant, just to tell me about the adventures of his wonderful Kimbers and the excellent personallized help he got. Again, it makes a fella feel great to hear from folks that have gotten just that little extra degree of help.

Hey, all hunters and shooters are brothers and the best thing we can do is to help one another.

Steve

I have a Kimber 82 that Has been a great little rifle from day one. It's a Custom Classic, couldn't afford a SA and didn't see why a .22 needed iron sights. I used it squirrel hunting extensively it's first few years but took very good care of it!

This was 1986, I gave the store owner 500 and he gave me 4 cents back. That was for the rifle, scope rings and an extra clip. I think it was a pretty good deal.
I bought an 89 SG in 96 new in box. One of those buy on the moment deals. Didn't feed right. Got that fixed for 35$. It will shoot 3/4" with Ballistic Tips, it's a .270, what else?
It doesn't have the finish my 82 does but in my opinion is still way ahead of todays M70 Supergrades.