While I greatly respect your knowledgeable opinions, Mr. Day,
I simply do not like model 70s.
A few others have voiced disdain for the Kimber 89 also,
most without giving any reasons as to why. Chic Worthing,
a quality artist to be sure, cites a lousy Wilson barrel and the
fact the action was "cast". The barrel is easily replaced and
we should be beyond the "it was cast" stage by now. Besides,
I want to make it a 7mm-08 which should make the "cast"
issue moot.
What I like best is the smaller ring profile of the model 70
coupled with mauser breeching. Most importantly, the model
89 has a very nice gas flange ala mauser along with the 3
position safety. The bolt handle is a great improvement
over that ugly-ass, bent barn spike on the model 70.
As for cost, the $1100.00 spent for shorteneing my Kimber
89 is a far cry from the multi-thousand dollar granite mountain
action.
To me, yes ignorant ole me, the Kimber 89 has the best of
both the model 70 and the mauser. The mistake made by
Kimber when making this action is a common one for American manufacturers. They started with the H&H length
and used blocks to shorten for other cartridges. Of course,
they made no short action at all.
Mr. LaPour will open up the feeding port 1/4"+ then shorten
for the 7mm-08 cartridge. There is no action available this
short that will accomadate the 308 length cartridges, with
exception of the Dakota action. (or the Kimber 84) My arguement with the Dakota action is that it is still a model 70 since it has a
crappy gas sheild that leaves much to be desired. Little
"thingys" in the race way don't impress me at all!
And yes, for $1100.00 I could buy a Dakota action. I just
think a shortened Kimber 89 is a better action! You can keep
the new model 70 actions. I don't have one and I don't want
one!
Now I'm not looking for an arguement. Nor do I wish to
match my mechanical skills against yours. But I would
like to hear why the Kimber 89 is not a good action. And
most of all, I'd like to hear it from someone who has actually
handled and shot one!
And to be quite honest, Mr. Day, I find those who would
recommend a newer model 70, yet disparage a Kimber 89
either biased in favor of Winchesters or sorely lacking in experince with the Kimber 89?
OK, so I'll concede the Wilson barrel complaint. I plan on using a Krieger cut rifled barrel next time around. But if
the only complaint is that the action is "cast", forgive me for
believing a finely cast action is better than a poorly ground
forged one anyday!
You might keep in mind, good sir, that the era of I'm who
I am and this is my opinion does not work anymore. Today's
experts must quantify their assessments, or risk being
ignored as opinionated blowhards.
This has not been a flame, but actually a quest to find WHY,
WHERE, WHEN, WHO and HOW? Answering these questions
results in intellegent decisoin making. Anything else becomes
foolishness.
Now this is only MY OPINION. But then again only one opinion
counts, that of the person spending the money! And that's
how it should be. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
And yes, I am very sincere about wishing to hear the
reasons why a current model 70 is better than a Kimber 89.
Of course Id' like mechanical engineering reasons rather
than opinions. The metalurgical reasons I don't need. Cast
receivers are here to stay, like it or not.
Anyone can chime in here. This is not a debate of opinions
between me and Allen Day.
Give me your reasons for liking or disliking either the model
70 or the Kimber 89. Opinions are nice, but please give me the reasons behind those opinions!
Regards,
Don
![[Linked Image]](http://www.westleyrichards.com/img/wr_gr02/25109_sec_2.jpg)
