Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Kimber 84L Recoil Talk & Now Velocities

Holy "GG" (gun gack)....lets make this simple. A .270 doesn't have much for recoil. The 84L is a bit lighter than most rifles so...it's gonna buck and bitch and moan a skosh bit more than the heavier rigs....

Now wasn't that easy..

Dober

Bigwhoop,

You're right on with the weight. My Montana weighs 7 lbs on the nose. My Classic 7 WSM is 7 lbs 11 oz with same rings and scope.

IIRC I'm getting right at 3,300 (+/- 20) with the 140 NBT and 140 NAB with Federal factory ammo. That stuff is so accurate I've only worked up one other hand load, a 150 NBT and it's around 3,100.

Thanks!

I like Dober's take.

Marty,
With those numbers, the calculator shows 23.6 and 25.0ft/lbs respectively.

Yes Dober, its getting real cerebral. But rather than dealing with "I think", "it seems" "I feel", we have some real numbers to compare with impressions from the bench. Just an upgraded version of the buck, bitch and moan. I think we just coined a new technical rifle loony phrase here. The BBM Factor!

Since we're getting so cerebral anyway, how do we factor in the "Legendary Montana Recoil Soak Factor" (LMRSF) in these formulas when comparing them to non-Montanas?

We're going to have to come up with a value for this and plug it in....Grin.

Seriously, it does make a difference, but of course Montana to Montana it's a wash - but it deserves some consideration when comparing them to other stuff, IMHO.

DJ

no doubt.....how a stock is built affects felt recoil, raw recoil numbers dont tell the whole story.....rather shoot my Montana in 260 than the 270 i had that was a pound and a half heavier....skinny butts really make the recoil seem worse even if the recoil numbers show other wise.....

.....skinny butts........ well now.......I don't see it in the recoil equation anywhere!

I have never been one to recoil from skinny butts.

I am kind-of partial to them.

Yes, very cogent of you Whelen. However a "skinny butt" is usually firmer and thus delivers more felt recoil.

Yes, a "skinny butt", due to the less cushion, results in more pushin...

I've had Montana's in 257 Roberts,7/08,270WSM,and 7mmWSM....the LMRSF is a figment of imagination....they don't "soak" anything.......

The 7mmWSM with Fed factory ammo pushing 160's at over 3250 was an obnoxious little beast.It got better with handloads and vels around 3000 fps.

You couldn't run fast enough to give me one in 300WSM....

They are no different than the dozens of lightweight synthetic stocked rifles I've fired over the years.

For me Bob, I totally disagree... the MT stock is far ahead of recoil comfort than, say, a Bansner or McMillan Edge, even with those two on heavier rifles. I think it has to do with Kimbers negative comb.

But everyone's body is a different thing and works better with some stock designs over others.

Brad: I wasn't implying they are not good....I think they are the best factory synthetic out there.....only meant they do not really attenuate recoil for me to any great extent.

My take on the stock gack is that it comes down to what fits peoples bods. Case in point, I used to shoot a couple Red Labels. Had friends that love them, but for me they pounded the heck out of my cheek. So, I didn't like them.

In regards to the Montana handle, it's nice, and to me it handles recoil in the same manner in which other stocks do. To me, I don't find or see any magic to it and how it's recoil friendly. But, that's just the way I see it.

Most of the rounds that people are running in the Montana's are not very sparky. To me (and I'm pretty used to shooting sparky rounds like the 340 Wby and the 375 Wby) even the WSM's don't have much for recoil in any rig. Now with the Montana I do get a bit more mzl jump cause of the light tube. But, recoil wise it's no a bigga casa grande to me.

Then again to me I don't feel that the WSM's have much for recoil in any rig. But that's just the way this hard head see's it. And I do feel that my time with the sparkier rounds has modified my thinking about recoil in ways that others probably haven't experienced much.

I've shot the Browns, Bansners, McM's, Six and who knows what else. To me I've not noticed any diff, I have however noticed when the gun isn't built in a manner in which I wish it to be.

Lastly for me, the lines of the Montana look nice, and I can shoot it but other handles fit me more to my liking.

Just like picking cars/jobs/women there is no one size fits all and or absoltues.

Or at least this is the way this guy sees it.

Dober

Bob, that's why I said "for me"... for me, the Kimber stock absolutely mitigates recoil far better than the Bansner or McMillan Hunters Compact (Edge). It's VERY noticeable.

i ordered my 280AI today

woofer

i cant build them like that with no labor bills even...

woofer

I ordered my 257 Wby today...grin

Dober

I have a 300wsm in a montana and while it jumpw a little I don't find it unpleasent at all. It is my only mag? other than my 375HH but that rifle is much heavier and stocked well and it is more of a push. I've shot 300 wby's and don't like them even little bit.