Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Cerakote vs Stainless

I am gonna buy a new rifle this week and it has sort of come down to a Kimber Montana vs Weatherby Vanguard S2 Backcountry which has a cerakoted chromoly action and barrel.

Apart from a new Kimber being a crap shoot accuracy wise, I am curious as to the durabilty of professionally applied cerakote finishing such as would come on the Weatherby.

All thoughts / experiences appreciated.

I worry more about the condition of the bore than the exterior. I like stainless barrels for this reason. For humid/wet climates, a coating on CM steel is only a half-hearted attempt at weather-proofing in my opinion.

sns2,

this doesn't exactly answer your
question regarding finishes, but here's my two cents worth, absolutely free....

I have owned both models. the Montana was a nightmare that spent many miles and months back and forth to kimber for repair.

horrid build quality, abysmal accuracy, and lying lousy service from kimber. i'll spare you the long story.

the weatherby, which I still use, is a vanguard MOA. accuracy as advertised. great fit & finish for the money. no problems.

disregard the minute differences in the finishes you mention and consider the turd vs.trophy differences in manufacturers.

o.k. now let the bashing begin from those fortunate few of you who lucked into a decent kimber!!!

Maybe Eddie F will chime in...

Cerakote - tough, will withstand rubbing and sliding in gun cases, on the sling in the woods, and general rubs and buffs that will mark blued or stainless finishes. Will flake off if not applied correctly, and will chip and scratch off if abused. Think "leaning rifle sliding down a rock/rough surface", expect the finish to get roughed up.

Downside: If it does get damaged, the entire firearm "usually" needs stripped and recoated, it does not patch well. Most precision rifle builders will not coat the muzzle and crown, as the finish thickness can effect the accuracy.

I see and read enough Kimber stories that I wouldn't buy one without seeing it shoot first, YMMV.

I like Weatherby products, and I think they are decent about taking care of issues in their rifles, JMO.

I, too, had one too many bad Kimbers. I picked up a Weatherby Back Country in .300 Win Mag back in January and, so far, I like it a lot. It shot sub-MOA three-shot groups with factory Remington plain-Jane 180 Core-Lokts, and is doing a little better than that with 165 and 200 grain Nosler AB hand loads.

I guess I've been lucky with the Kimbers I've bought (7 of them). They are all very good shooters without a bad one in the bunch.

Should I run out and buy a lottery ticket since I'm obviously one of "those fortunate few of you who lucked into a decent kimber"?

In direct contrast, I bought a Vanguard about 6 years ago that would not keep three shots inside of 3" at 100 yards, even after a trip back to Weatherby where they admitted it did not shoot up to their expectations but only by a slight margin outside of acceptable to them. Nothing was done to change the situation and I later passed the rifle on to a new owner with full disclosure. After him messing with it for a few months more, I understand that it went to a gun show and never came back home with him.

They all make stinkers once in awhile.

As to the question at hand, I'd take stainless over Cerakote in humid conditions.

Like Jpro said, there is no way to coat the bore, so a chromemoly barrel is a crapshoot.

I have several cerakoted guns, and they do wear at the high points or contact areas, despite the claims.

Yes there is.

It's called Dyna-Bore Coat.

LOL

good call- I hadnt thought about it as a sealant but it must to accomplish what it does.

I have thought about trying this out. It almost seems to good to be true sometimes. Does it cure cancer by any chance?

This doesn't really address you question, but those seem like pretty dis-similar options... a relatively heavy Weatherby vs. a flyweight Kimber...

Yea, you are comparing an almost 8 lb rifle with an almost 5 lb rifle. By the time you coat the metal and upgrade to a comparable quality stock you'll have more money in a rifle that weighs almost twice as much. If you want a heavy rifle then the Weatherby is an option. Done right the metal coatings are not bad, just an extra expense. If I owned an older rifle that I wanted to protect it might be worth it. Can't see buying a blue rifle planning on coating it. I'd just buy SS and be done. Weatherby makes SS versions if you like them better.

I have no issues with my Kimbers accuracy.

I like the Howa action, but I don't see the added value in the Backcountry...a basic stainless Vanguard or Howa is about 1/3 the cost and the Backcountry doesn't add anything to that.

Compared to a Montana....there is no comparison...the Montana is a great lightweight package. Money spent properly bedding the Montana action is a good investment.

I haven't had a kimber so can't comment on the kimber vs. vanguard thing. I can say that cerakote while a good coating is no substitute for stainless. All my serious hunting rifles are stainless for a reason.

We have a stainless M70 Classic in 416 Rem. We also Cerakoted it. Also have a Rem XCR II in 375 Weatherby. It's stainless and Trinyte coated. We even CeraKoted our Talley QR rings on both rifles

Can't be too safe, still have to take care of them though

Yes, it does protect the bore from corrosion (just ask my friend who's rifles were in a house fire and looked like they spent a century at the bottom of the dead sea. Two patches and the bore was pristine, shiny steel again), and yes, it does cure cancer

That pic sealed it. Kimber ordered. Hopefully be here by Monday.

Hell, DBC probably causes cancer, but I still use it to rust protect the bore of my rifles.

I also don't quite understand why Cerakote or bluing over a CM barrel is so unacceptable here at the 'fire. Lots of animals have died after being shot by blued rifles. If one were that concerned and didn't take care of their rifle they could always coat with gun shield. Cerakote is tough stuff.