I can pick up a brand new, kimber 8400, in either .270 wsm, or .300 wsm, OR an 84M in .338 Fed, or .308 for $1086 dollars out the door.

This rifle is going to be hunted HARD. Moose, black bear, and white tails are on the list for tags. It's going to be going up a lot of hills, and through a lot of swamps-- hence my reason for a lite weight.

It has been a long time going, looking for "the right one" and I am wondering if I should "pull the trigger" on one of these kimbers. I am very impressed by the fit an finish of these guns, however have been deterred in the past from the stories I have heard of the well known in-accuracy bug people seem to have in their kimber rifles.

So- is one of these worth it?

- What do you think the best caliber would be? Shots are no longer then 500 yards (In fields) for deer. Moose would be out of the question at that distance, however shots to 300 are definately possible.

I will be hand loading for this rifle.

The 84m's in the calibers available are right around 5 pounds- the short mags are just over 6. Still MUCH lighter then my weatherby's by 3+ pounds.

Thanks for your time, and any suggestions will be taken into consideration!

FMP

if i were in the market i'd buy one. i have a 300WSM MT and love it, it shoots well under MOA with 168 TSX's and Winchester factory 180 Ballistic silver tips.

750 bucks!!!!!!

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...mington_700_XCR_Kimber_8400_#Post3993759

said rifle with a medium dead bear.

i'd buy that one!

yep and put a 3.5-10x40 VX3 on it.....

They are worth it IMO. The 3 I have are as accurate as I could hope for in a factory rig. They all do sub MOA without question and at times if everything goes right they have all shot sub 1/2moa for 5 shots.

Nice thing about them is that if they shoot you don't need to change anything on them except for maybe adjust the trigger which is not hard to do. Worst case if it doesn't shoot to your liking just screw a new tube of your choice on there.

that's what mine wears.. that's one wicked little SOB!

my 7mm WSM Montana has the 3.5-10 VX3 CDS on it.

Paul that is a beautiful bear! Very nice...congrats!

That setup is a "NO NONSENSE" killing machine. From Alaska to Florida and all places in between it will get the job done....

thanks, it was aged by the Alaska F&G to be 17yo. wasn't a big bear, only a bit over 5' but it was a fun hunt..

you get what you pay for.

I'd buy that Montucky .300 WSM in the classifieds for $750.00 and never look back! I own three; .223, 7mm-08, and .300WSM. I have yet to fire the 7mm-08, but the other two easily shoot sub MOA with factory ammo.

I have 2, a 30 06 and a 325 wsm. Both are MOA or better, couldn't be happier.

Mike

Nice bear but he looks totally dead to me.

Here is a hunt I did with my Montana...
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1717873/1

The only Montana I own was one finicky SOB in the beginning. Had a helluva time finding a load it liked. Search enough threads on enough forums and you'll see a few references to "playing Kimber roulette." There's a reason for that, in my experience.

Here is the elk hunt I did this year with my 8400 Montana in 300WM. You don't make this shot with an inaccurate rifle.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3476509/1

And here is the deer hunt same rifle.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3444758/Got_the_wrong_one#Post3444758

If you get one that shoots well and feeds, you'll be one happy dude. I love my little 308, and after it had its bugs worked out, its turned into my favorite rifle.

The other one turned into a constant project, and I'm working out the details of its new home.

From my experiences, don't buy one off the used rack. I'll be buying one in 30-06 once the 84Ls hit the scene in Montana trim. I'd also like to buy one in 223.

Even if you have to put 2-300 into them, they're still the most bang for the buck in a mountain rifle today.

Kimbers are definitely worth it, but you pick your own caliber. For me in West Texas, it is a 257 Roberts for everything from prairie dogs to coyotes to whitetail. First 3-shot group with mine was less than 1/4" and I've never punched paper with it after that. But it has killed many animals without a single hitch.

And how does the weight compare to the Sako A7? That was my other choice, before seeing all these new kimbers.

FMP

Call me cheap and optimistic, but a $750.00 Montana in any flavor wouldn't scare me away if I were in the market.

Touche! grins

the Montana 84M is 5 pounds and some ounces in 308. The stock is better on the Kimber than the Sako. I have 3 Kimbers, two wood guns in 300WSM and 257 and one 308 in Montana. They all shoot as good as I can. I now really like the 257Roberts for WT deer. I am now thinking of a Montana in .223.

Are they worth the money?

I'd like to have one so I could find out.

Dober about has me convinced they are good rifles, but I kinda knew they were all along.

JM

John you are a scholar and a gentleman...I am still laughing!

jimmy,

I am the most hated man here with the exception of Jeff O. So let's make sure he sticks around.

In Mississippi, that merely means he passed third grade and can count to ten... if he uses his toes.

if you are in Kentucky, you can count to ten using one foot. LMAO.

They do have some excellent banjo players though...

I'd think long and hard about the A7. Lots less roulette going on with them it seems. They are very smooth and come up to the shoulder well.

It's worse. I'm in California. We can only count to ten in rare moments of lucidity.

I think dober posted once a Montana in 300 wsm is a touch heavier then an a7 300wsm.

I am looking for the lightest handiest rifle out for around a grand.

For 750 bones I'd buy it and if it gave me issues I'd rebarrel it with a 4 weight Schneider cut to 23".

Dober

I have a good shooting 84M Montana in 7-08. There is not another mass produced rifle on the planet I would trade it for. Not one.

Is it worth the money? For me it is, but I didn't really ~spend~ a dime on mine. I had the infamous coffee can savings account going and in the 3 years it took me to decide on the cartridge I had the $1200 price saved up. :p

For a young guy starting out I'd say buy two Kimbers: one nice weather classic and one bad weather montana. Choose both in all around cartridges and make one in 84M and the other in 84L. Top them with good glass and then never spend another dime on rifles. Ever.

Will

don't they use polygonal rifling? I have heard of them but know nothing about them.

I think they are.

I bought one in .308 last fall. It does not shoot as well as some I hear about but it's more than ok. I've shot the hell out of it seeking accuracy. It's good at 200 I haven't had a calm day to try it at 300 yet. I don't believe, with the load it likes for accuracy, it has the velocity remaining at 400 yards to expand my bullet reliably.

I've never shot a moose, but if I were serious about a moose and really thinking 300 yards was possible, I'd skip the .308 family, 84M, and go to the 8400M in a WSM.

If I were to go buy a Kimber montana 8400 in a WSM as a general purpose hunting rifle, I would go with the .325 WSM, not the .300.

Boy, at the same time, I know a couple people who have had Kimbers that did not shoot worth a crap and Kimber didn't want to stand behind their product too badly, so while a good idea they are a little bit of a gamble. I can't suggest anything better, though. I've had real problems with Remington lately, Ruger before that .. long runs of good guns, then all of the sudden it seems like the whole brand goes sour.

Tom

Will -

That's good advice I think. If I went home and found my safe empty, I'd grab an 84M in ... not sure if it'd be .257 Roberts or 7mm-08 ... and an 8400M in probably .325. Done.

I wonder, if I post my address and hours when I'm not home, whether someone would help me get that insurance claim started? (No, I wouldn't really do that. But I'd think about it.)

Tom

Its the light weight and good shooting Kimber 84M Montana's that have won my heart. I have them both in 243 and 308 and I go to them for varmints or game more than the heavier guns now.

I used to say that the 84L should have come out first however I don't want a 24" barrel all that much.

Monday I shot the 243 Montana at the range to check its zero. It put two shots into an inch at 200 yds right on. No adjustments needed and staying sighted in with a cold fouled barrel is most important. Its the first shot that counts and a 1" group at 200 yds is outstanding.

I have other guns including 270 WSM Montana. If the ranges were really long I might carry it but the 84M's have won me over. Thats what I would get first.

You already have heavier guns and so do I. The 84M Montana is a landmark rifle.

Maybe one of the .338 fed would be the ticket!

..or a .308.

Tough choice..

ive got a Montana in 260.....love it so much that i kinda lost interest in looking for most hunting rifles(still want a drilling or a cape gun though).....ive got bad knees and every pound i dont have to carry is a good thing.....seems to like to put the first two shots out of a cold bore into damn near the same hole and opens up to about an inch at 100 for 5 shots....wouldnt sell it for anything.....i put a Leupold 6x36 on it and it is still lighter than my daughters Rem 7 Youth before you put mounts and a scope on it.....

I'm a Model 70 guy through and through. But if I had to start over from scratch, I'd buy a Classic in 308 and not look back.


Okie John

I sure like my .325. From the choices you mention, FMP, I'd go 300 WSM.

A nice light scope in Talley LW's, a quick trigger adjustment, and you have a heckuva package.

Currently messing with a Swarovski scope on mine, but a Leup 2.5-8 sure didn't suck in '08:

If you get a Kimber that shoots great and feeds great, they are simply hard to beat. This is how I see the Kimber, you get a lightweight rifle with a kick azz non tupperware stock. The $1000 or so cost would easily be exceeded with most any other lightweight barrelled action combined with say a McMillan Edge. Thats the part that some guys dont understand, you cant compare a Sako A7 ot a Tikka T3 (both which weigh near the same weight as the Montana), simply because the stock on either would be considered junk compared to the Kimber stock. No to say that a guy cant be happy with an A7 or a T3, just that its not apples and apples.A couple of my favorite Kimber photos







From where the shot was made






Here is the Kimber posing with som Blacktails on Kodiak Island

Fantastic photos. Thanks for posting them.

I opened this thread thinking "here we go again", but it was nice to see civil discourse on the Kimbers...

As for me, I went the "one Classic, one Montana" route but in two different calibers: the Bob and also 7WSM. I guess I could have just stopped after the 7WSM but the Bob holds some type of fascination for me for some reason...

Anyway, after buying those, I'm set. But like a loonie I picked up a pre64 Bob, with no real need for it - anybody need one???

Good choice on the muzzle tape color, AlaskaCub <grin>...

your askin for it now

They're worth every penny. Even the ones that don't shoot sub moa.

Thanks for everyones help. I am leaning toward the .300wsm Montana.

Good choice. If I were you I would hit the Classifieds and pick up the one listed there if it's still available. Please, do it quick as my temptation is starting to get the best of me.

George

I'd say yes they are worth the money.

I went to order a Classic in 260. Dealer calls and says no more 260's. So I ordered a 257 Classic Select. While waiting I come across a Classic, slightly used, in 260. Then I decided the 257 CS is too pretty to take out in bad weather so now I also own a 257 Montana. So now I've got a 260 and two in 257. All shoot good, feed perfect, have great triggers, etc.
Out of the three of them I'm liking the Montana the best.

I guess I won the "Kimber Roulette" game.

Montana in .325 is my go to rifle, Steyr Mod. M is in retirement.
300 WSM would be a good choice.

I was a Montana fan until I played with the new Winchester Extreme Weather - I see one in my future!

Lots of folks say the Kimber stock is what makes the rifle. I guess I don't get it - if the A7 is guaranteed to shoot a five shot group MOA or less than clearly the stock on the A7 is not a problem. If the stocks on the Kimbers are so much better, and I am not sure why everyone seems to think they are, then why can't Kimber guarantee a five shot MOA group out of the box? I don't have anything against Kimber, I just don't see how there is an advantage to their stocks if the "cheaper" stocks are good enough to guarantee an accuracy level that Kimber doesn't.

Montana is a good rifle. Personally, give me a SS 700 with an Edge. I've got 1 Montana, and it'll probably be the only one I'll ever get.

They are well worth the coin$ now IMO, as it does seem like Kimber have ironed out all their bugs.
Now it's just a waiting game on a freshly made 84 . Going to be one sweet trim little rig.

The accuracy of the A7 (or the T3 or a Finnlight, for that matter) and how it relates to the stock isn't the issue. For many of us, the feel of the stock is the issue. The synthetic stocked Sakos shoot great, but feel like crap. I wouldn't want one without a stock replacement, and then they don't seem like such a good deal.

Frito,

To me it's just the opposite. I love the feel of the A7 stock. The rifle balances well and it just feels good to me. The Kimber stock on the other hand is the worst feeling stock I ever put to my shoulder. It just doesn't fit. The only Kimber I ever owned I sold without ever shooting it because it felt so crappy to me and I knew I could never love it. I bought it from someone off the fire used and so I didn't have a chance to feel it before I bought it. I showed it to my brother and he shouldered it and said "oh, that feels like chit".

I don't see anybody putting new synthetic stocks on their A7's and haven't heard a singe report of them not shooting well. Can't say that about Kimbers and of course you also have to worry about feeding issues with them as well. For half the price, I'd say the A7 is by far the better deal - at least you know it will shoot and even if you wanted to add a different stock to it you would still have less $ into the investment than a Kimber that may or may not shoot and may or may not feed properly.

You dont seem get it,rifles with quality stocks like the one on the Kimber,McMillans and others compared to the A7 or any other factory tupperware stock is not really a fair comparison. They are not the same creature, one is tupperware plastic (A7) and the others are fiberglass, or some composite fiber other than plastic. Its just a personal feel thing for guys that prefer to stock their rifles with quality stocks. My first Kimber was the deal breaker for me, I fell in love with the way that stock felt, how it didn't have the hollow plasticy noise to it when you bumped something, and the texture feel to it. I bought 5 McMillans after I bought my Kimber.All I had ever owned was tupperware plastic stocks. It is just preference thing, a good shooting gun is a good shooting gun, but having one that feels good, is made of quality materials and also shoots good, well thats the best of both worlds.

No problem Cub, but lots of guys on this site infer that you have to have a McMillan or other top quality stock to have a quality rifle. With the accuracy guarantee of the A7, I just don't buy it. If you prefer the feel of a McMillan or other stock, that's fine, but the A7 would still come out cheaper than a Kimber if you added a McMillan to it and would be guaranteed to shoot well. But hey, if you would rather spend more money to have a Kimber and take that chance that it won't shoot that's your choice. I'd rather spend less money and keep the A7 the way it is or put another stock on it and have a guaranteed shooter.

and the Kimber stock fits me perfect and is of better quality than the A7.....all i find says the rifle averages 6.5 pounds empty no scope(BTW unless im blind Beretta is the only rifle manufacturer ive seen that doesnt list weight in the specs on their website, had to skim through 6 reviews of the rifle to find the weight)....my Kimber with steel mounts, a 6x36 Leupold, 4 260 rounds in the mag and a sling comes in at 6 pounds 14 ounces.....the A7 may be a nice gun but its still not a fly weight, empty it weights only 7 ounces less than mine ready to hunt.....

if the Sako fits you better and you like it better by all means buy it, use it, hunt with it but it still isnt in the same class as the Kimber.....only two other rifles in the Kimber class that i can think of, the Remmy Ti after you put an McMillian Edge one it and a NULA......for the money the Kimber is a hell of a deal....if you want fly weight AND great accuracy you fork over the cash and get a NULA....

my Kimber puts the first mag worth of hunting rounds where i need it to go, weights less than anything else ive hunted with and the gun fits me perfect and balances nicely in my arms when thin barreled Remington 7's and Ruger Compacts dont...

hunt with what you like but trying to defend the A7 against the Kimber when your comparing an injection molded plastic stock to one that is Kevlar and carbon fiber and starts off a pound lighter than the other.....they are different animals.....if yah like one over the other, buy it and hunt with it but your not comparing apples to apples....

I don't think you could go wrong with a Montana or A7 with edge McMillan. Look at both and go with whatever turns you on. Go out and kill chit, easy enough.

I have to get a 6 x 36. The diavari 3x9 on my gun must weight 6 ounces more than one of those things. I want the one with dotz in it if I can find it.

i really like the 6x36......first non variable i have ever used.....no worrying that i have it set on 9 instead of 3 or 4 for a close up snap shot....6x isnt enough power to make the close up snap shots difficult.....i want to buy a couple more....

I think the Kimber Montana is one of the great bargains going.

I like the A7 and the T3 - own and use both, but the Montana is a different animal.

There's a bit more to the stock discussion, IME. The Montana stock not only has a better feel than tupperware, it is also much stronger - if I'm on a lifetime hunt in a rough area, I'm a lot more confident a Montana or a McMillan clad 700, etc. is going to survive whatever comes - if I fall with one, give me quality every time.

Moreover, the Kimber stock tames recoil like nothing I've used. My Montana 300 WSM is significantly lighter than my T3 270 Win, but does not seem to recoil any more - even with the limbsaver I put on the T3. My 7-08 literally feels like I'm shooting a 243 - all in packages so light that they should really stomp you.

The Kimber is devoid of plastic, has the 3 position Model 70 style safety, has the best trigger I've found on any factory rifle, and all of mine shoot sub MOA with multiple loads. They are beautifully balanced and handle like a dream - especially the 84M's.

If they need some attention, usually bedding solves any problems - hardly unique or difficult in most cases - and QC seems to have improved - one doesn't hear many stories about bad shooting newer Montanas.

They are fantastic rifles - especially if a guy can pick them up for $700-800 used like I did on two of mine - proven shooters with low round counts off the 'Fire, of course.

There are not many ways to get as light as a Montana, if one is truly seeking a lightweight rifle - and getting there is very expensive.

Even at full price, I think they are an excellent value.

DJ

My 260 Montana is way nicer to shoot than my nine pound Mod70 Classic 270 in a HS Precision stock. 129gn SST at nearly 3000fps in the 260, not much more for a 130gn SST in the 270, but the 6lb 2oz scoped Kimber has less felt recoil to me, especiialy shooting prone.

Due to the feel of the Kimber and less heft for my rotten knees, guess which one is going to go hunting with me!
Cheers, Chris