Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 18 ounce 30mm diam scope too much for Kimber Montana?

I get your message. Who made the knife in the hat picture?

Farmboy, I am not worried about shooting a 25 yard animal at sunset plus 15-20 min. Most of the leaves are still on the trees and on the east side of a slope at sunset plus 15-20 still not worried about it. I am worried about shooting a doe or button, or a short spike buck when I don't want to do so. I am glad you replied its nice to meet someone with your exuberance and I am sure natural almost Danial Boone like hunting skills.

If my high quality bino can't tell me doe, button, or short spike, my rifle doesn't even get picked up.

I now have 3 Kimber Montanas. My wife's 308 84M Montana wears a simple Leupold 3-9X40mm VX-2 (Just over 11 oz). My 308 wears a 3-9X33 VX-2 compact right at 10 oz. My .308 weighs in at 5.56 pounds with the scope mounted on it. My wife's is a shade more than that.

Both work great. However for my 338-06 Montana I am having cobbled together I am going for a bit more FOV as hunting big brown bears will be on the menu for this rifle and up close and personal for big brown bears I wanted more FOV so I am going with the Leupold VX-6 2-12X42.

Its just under 17 oz (5 oz more than a standard VX-2 3-9X40). This rifle still should come in at around 6.3 to 6.4 pounds scoped. But figure taming the beast of a 5 pound 4 oz rifle that shoots 210 grainers at 2700+ fps a few extra ounces couldn't hurt and neither will the extra FOV and eye relief.

I'm not Stick obviously, but I think that's an Ingram Fighter.

Link:

http://asrealasitgets.net/forums/ub...Words=fighter&Search=true#Post172765

Keep your ultralight rifle just that...find a lighter, more compact scope.
Or...do what you want, but you asked...

Have you actually owned a Kimber Montana?

Yes. To think that a few onces added betwixt the hands and in the center of balance of the rifle will turn it to "dog chit" is amusing.

Clearly you don't have the first phugging clue what you're talking about, but continue on. Wound and lose any elk lately?

Sure as scheeit felt fine to me when I had my SS 3-9 on my Montana .308. That scope is now on another rifle, but not because it didn't work great on the MT....

Tanner

Don't recall anyone saying it would transform a Montana into dog chit, but if you've owned a Montana and shoot it from various field positions instead of prone off a bipod you'll appreciate the handling characteristics of a rifle that is slightly muzzle heavy.

Well, in the sake of "uber" clarity, he did say POS, not dog sheit! lol

Gotta just grin and laugh at the sheit that's argued about in the Optics Forum.

It seems some here, spend more time dissing optics and
the weight of the rifle combination, than they do actually
hunting.

I find that interesting. Get out there and hunt.

Exactly. If all a guy does is shoot off his stomach, a heavy bulky scope isn't going to be a bother. A really top heavy rifle with weight back is not doing anybody any favors for position shooting.

Tanner,

What's the Montana wearing now? I can't get over the eye relief on the FX3 6x42, seems to go with the Montana's "throw around" feel. I could care less about the weight - I've actually thought about changing out the rings to the Talley steel quick release, but so far haven't done anything.

My 3-9x42 is destined for my Ruger American (I don't think Steelhead approves) - I just received a new 3-15x42 SS from SWFA and I think it will take over duties on the Creedmoor.

David

I stole the 3-9x42 for a 7mm Rem Mag and put an M8 6x42 with an M1 on top of the 308. Both feel great on that rig to me.

FWIW, my brother borrowed my .308 and shot a Mulie with it offhand, at 85 yards this past weekend, while it was wearing the SS. I don't know if that counts as a position shot or not but it sure worked fine.

tanner

Heck if I know - I thought prone was considered position shooting...

David

Well, it is, but "balance" in the terms we are discussing here wouldn't play nearly a important consideration. Just to be clear, I'm not say that scope choice is going to turn your rifle into something a Sporting Clays champ would swoon over, but IMO, a slightly muzzle heavy rifle works better for me than a rifle that is light and whippy.

Very true. What I've never really understood was why folks argue so aggressively about glass quality in a riflescope as opposed to the optics in their bino's. That argument, at least for me, would make much more sense. I'm certainly guilty of getting to involved in some of those arguments, but for me it was more of an argument with our old friend Eremicus about Leupold and scopes he's never used or even seen. On top of that he would "quote" John Barsness in an attempt to validate his stance, and Barsness would always have to say that Eremicus was mis-quoting even to the point of making fun of ol Eremicus for some of the ridiculous claims he would make. One of the funnier statements John made about someone elses posts was...." that post was more FOS than one of Eremicus focusing posts......".