For the guys that have both or have had both;

Which one wins?

Kimber is a lot more $$ of a rifle as well as better built. Not really a fair comparison. Tikka's shoot nice but they are built at a price point with their plastic trigger guards, plastic stock, etc....

Summary of the posts to follow:

Tikkas are plastic POS and Kimbers will shoot if you can!

Kimbers don't shoot and Tikkas weigh pretty much the same!

Both.

You can't just make a blanket statement on one vs. the other. I have some hang ups about both. My 270WSM barked like a mofo. My 1:8 223 shoots like a mofo. I don't like detachable mags so the Montana would be my choice for a hunting rig. Tikka's don't take schit to make them shoot.

Dunno, somehow I end up with Remingtons as a mainstay. Personally, 270Win is all the Montana I'd want. Were I picking a SA, it'd be a 243 Montana over the Tikka and my beloved Faux Ti 260.

Its a mystery wrapped in a conundrum. End of the day, pick what you like, like what you pick. None of it amounts to 2 schits....

This might be a popcorn making thread but my experience is that most Tikka's shoot very well out of the box. I've also come to automatically bed my Kimber Montana's and they then perform like a Tikka. Maybe some of those Montana's didn't need it but I wouldn't know that.

The comparison between the two reveals quite a difference in actions, designs and yes - co-polymer parts on the Tikka. Remember that the US military and LEO's across the land have a lot of "plastic" on their rifles and pistols too.

But in general, what you purchase depends on how adamant you are to have Win. Mod. 70 style action features as opposed to the features on the Tikka. Three position versus two position safeties as an example.

Detachable magazines versus a blind magazine, large versus small load port, tupperware versus kevlar. You have plenty to choose from between $600 and $1150 - give or take.

If you don't care and just want a reliable rifle at the least cost, than the present Tikka T3 is your choice. There is talk that the T3 is changing - to what no one who knows will tell, so you'd better act now.

Good luck with your decision. There is a good chance this will become a lively thread here in short order.

An A7 is as low as I will slum.

T3's are right now there with Remingtons.....grin



Kimber all the way for a true walk around rifle.


And yes they can be a little tricky but the end result is worth it.

"Kimber all the way for a true walk around rifle.


And yes they can be a little tricky but the end result is worth it."

I have both and the Kimber is my pick!

I've owned four Kimbers, three Montanas and a classic. I've also owned four Tikkas, three T3 lite SS and a T3 SS SL.

I really like a lot about the Montanas. But I read (here) that in the event of a case rupture, they don't handle the gas well.

I also read (here) about a guy who put a 308 in his 270 Tikka T3 and was fine.

I don't plan on having any problems like that, but just to be safe, I sold my Kimbers. (I also don't do any big back packing trips anymore.)

I started thinking what if one of my kids puts a 243 in the 7-08, or a ...

I know I'm being weird and it probable won't happen and common sense and training would make the chance of a gas event even more remote, but I still got rid of them.

With the same scope, my T3 SL is fourteen ounces heavier than the same caliber Montana. To make the comparison fair, I need a cheek riser on the Tikka but can get by w/o one on the Montana, so that adds another four ounces.

My Tikkas shoot so great, the only thing I miss is the cool factor of the Montanas.

I'll probable come to my senses later and stop worrying so much and get another Kimber sometime, but I'm really liking the Tikkas. They are just erally easy for me to get shooting well.

Almost like trying to compare an apple to an orange. Eat the one you like the most.

I've just acquired my first Montana, currently have 3 T3's.

All my Tikkas shoot, hands down and they are not really picky. The one real issue I have with them is that I can't unload the chamber when safety is engaged...

The Montana is an engineering marvel...weight is unreal, but I can say that a T3 in SL sitting in a McMillan edge will get you close if weight is a concern...then again your right back at the cost of a kimber out of the box.

It's a crap shoot and neither of these shoot like crap.

Even if it were apples to apples, it's akin to a man's preference for Granny Smith or Golden Delicious.

I can appreciate the Kimber and I have owned a grand sum total of one. For me, the Tikka is a sweet spot.

I have had more Tikkas than I care to remember. They are a great rifle, they all shot exceptional. That is where it ends for me though. I could never get "attached" to a single one of them. Now the big question is why the huge jump? You have skipped a wide range of fine rifles from the price point of a Tikka to the Kimber. I know you just asked about these two rifles but I would throw the M70 fwt into the mix or even the M70 Extreme Weather since you are in that price range. Or add a few more bills and get the "Real Tikka". But between those two, Kimber gets my vote everyday of the week.

I agree with this. Tikka's were a appliance to me almost a disposable rifle with no emotional attachment to them at all. I got it so cheap I had to buy it and try it. It shot good but no better than a comparable Winchester, Savage, or Remington in that price range and certainly didn't have any of the feel or build quality of my Sako's. I had the Tikka for about a month and took a huge beating on a trade in for classic 1955 Winchester. My buddy that owns my LGS showed me what the mark up on the Tikka was and that explains why you see so many sales and promotional's on Tikka rifles and why trade-in was deplorable.

Look at a CZ. They are great shooters with a quality build at a outstanding price. They have the feel and quality of the earlier Sako's of the early 1980's. They are undervalued at this point in time and a good rifle to invest in now.
The new Winchester Model 70 is the best version of the legendary 70 in its evolution. Savage better models are great shooters at a affordable price point if you can get use to the accu trigger.
I own a few Sako's and still prefer the build quality of the Kimber over my 75 and 85. The synthetic stock on the Sako's isn't up to par for a gun in that price range. The Montana synthetic stock is as good as you can get. My Montana and the other 3 I shoot with at my gun club are under 1" MOA rifles. I am a M70 fan so the Montana's design has everything I am looking for in a rifle. If your a crazy Winchester Model 70 fan, then the best Flyweight Model 70 is the Kimber Montana if that makes any sense.

The Montana and Mountain Assent are the platinum standard in synthetic mountain rifles in my neck of the woods.

So far...

Kimber - 4

Tikka - 2

I wouldn't throw in an EW because you get a crappy stock and at the same price as the Montana, it just isn't cost effective to buy it over the Montana.

Put me down for Kimber Montana...

bsa, I agree about the EW, mine is wrapped in an edge and I didn't shoot it much in the B&C.

Of course the Ruger American kicks both of their azzes.

Lefty C

Let's focus on what the OP asked.

I'll vote for the Kimber.

I like and have both but I lean toward the Kimber. I have played with six Kimbers if memory is correct and all would go MOA or better consistently with most going 3/4 MOA or so. The Tikkas I have played with have been even better except one instance that was an 1" to 1.25" rifle at 100. I give the accuracy edge to the Tikka. I like the stocks on the Montanas better. I greatly dislike the enclosed top on the Tikka action and that in itself is enough to make me look elsewhere.

Kimber - 7

Tikka - 2

Have 6 kimbers and 6 tikkas, when hunting time comes the kimbers get the nod.

I have both, and they both serve my purposes extremely well. In my view, the Tikka is a hunting tool and the Kimber is a hunting rifle. They both lock down the bolt when in the safe position, which is an absolute must-have for every hunting rifle that I own. Arguably, the Tikkas I have purchased have been more accurate out of the box than the Kimbers. The worst performer of the lot for me was a 280 AI Montana, but even that particular rifle delivered acceptable hunting accuracy. On the other hand, I have a Kimber Classic Select 06 that will run with my Tikkas at the range. With Kimber offering a Sub-MOA guarantee on their current production (read-we at Kimber are now paying more attention to accuracy issues with our rifles), I will be buying another Kimber in the near future. However, I still like both and have a need for both. CP.

Bingo...

The detachable magazine is a joke, but still a nice rifle for $370. Like mine. However, pass the Kimber. Tikka offers me nothing with Kimber rifles in the safe.

Kimber - 8

Tikka - 2

I'm a practical cheapskate. Tikka all day long. There's nothing it won't do that the Kimber won't at 2/3 the cost.
I use Craftsman instead of Snapon.
Buick instead of Mercedes or BMW.
Costco coffee instead of some foo foo bean freshly groud.
On and on.

Have you ever owned a Kimber?

I own 3 kimbers- 260, 7mm-08 and 280 AI, they have beautifully made stocks, great triggers, slim, light, great handling rifles that shoot very well when held appropriately.

I own 4 Tikkas- 223 1-8 twist, 260, 6.5x55, and 308win, they all have slick actions with ok basic stocks, good triggers, and shoot well and are twisted correctly.

I shoot the Tikkas more at the range, but carry the Kimbers more in the field.

I like them both for what they are, but they are not in the same class.

All that slappin of the jaw and no vote???

Hig,

You chumming the water ?

I've had 5 of the Tikklers and only 1 of the Kimbers. But, I'd give 2 of the T3's for one Montana, and basically did just that when I sold my Tikkas.

But the Tikkas are half the price of a Kimber. And shoot great, with a good trigger and the best plastic stock in their price range and more.

Still, it's hard to argue with the Canadian Rangers. As you may know they chose the Tikka and run in the harshest of conditions. I'd rather have the No. 4 Mk. I myself but it's hard to argue with the Rangers.

A New Rifle For The Rangers

Some of the elite, the Canadian Rangers...




On the 8th of May 2015, The Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC, Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, visited the 4th Canadian Ranger Patrol Group Basic and Advance Canadian Ranger Training. Her Honour had the opportunity to meet the Canadian Ranger Staff and Candidates at CFB Albert Head (near Victoria, BC) and observe a portion of their training.

The Canucks tested the T3 to NATO standards for Ranger use. This included temperature extremes. Any doubts to it's suitability should be put to rest.

Milt,

My opinion is that neither the T3 or Montana are that great at handling stray gas. We had a local guy get gas and metal in his face from a T3. And similar anecdotal reports for the Kimber.

If I wanted a safer action, I'd be looking at a Salvage, Remington, or Ruger American. But that is just my opinion based on simple observations. And I could be flat out wrong.

Jason

The only way I would take a Kimber is for re-sale if I got it cheap enough. $hittiest factory gun I ever dealt with (accuracy) and expensive to boot.

I've owned both. Kimber all day long. Too much plastic on the t3.

I have only owned 1 Tikka personally but 4 Kimber Montanas....(still own 3).

Tikkas are a great gun for the money, but I prefer the Kimbers.

Tikkas are roughly 20% heavier than a Kimber Montana and I don't appriecate the fact that TIkkas aren't on a true short action when one orders a T3 in a short action chambering so you really aren't saving any weight there other than it comes with a shorter barrel.

Honestly, can't really go wrong with either as they both work. However if I lost all my Kimbers and didn't replace them with new Montanas then I would likely replace them with el cheapo Ruger Americans than the Tikka personally....but yes I do realize that Kimbers are nearly 3X the cost of a Ruger American

Did you buy it or did it belong to someone else?

Kimber -10

Tikka - 2

I've owned to Kmbers and they both were a POS.

My TIKKA T3 Superlite and Sako A7 all produce sub MOA groups and are consistent shooters with factory and my best hand loads. I just returned from an expensive Montana guided hunt. The TIKKA went and performed as expected. Days expensive deer by the way. Had to leave that sucker with a taxidermist.

I'm going on another guided deer hunt in a few days. Guess what rifles are going. A RARR in 300 BO will be one. Gotta hammer something with that sweet little rifle.

I don't consider them comparable.

But the Kimber wins regardless.




Travis

I've had 2 Montanas and a Kimber Tactical. I've had a T3 lite, a T3 Superlite and a T3 Sporter. Similar good performance/accuracy/reliability for all in my experience.

The substantial price difference swings my vote to Tikka.

Though I'd rather have an early serial number Forbes than either. (and I do)

Don't want to sound mean, but that gal needs a "fashion friend" to help her pick out her outfits. I can almost hear the calliope.

Here is a good Kimber Montana torture test.

Kimber Montana torture test

I thought my comment was clear about them not being in the same class. If I had to choose one it would be a Montana.

I don't own both but am more than pleased with my 270 Montana. Two range trips playing with the 140 TSX got it consistently inside an inch. At an ounce over six pounds it is light, balances well (particularly with the pad replacement done) and worked on its first fire at a critter. I am sold on this piece.

You have to type really slow for some.

That was stupid. So shooting a gun with another gun is the new torture test?

Kimber - 13

Tikka - 4

Bought 2 different montanas in 270 WSM. Both went back both came back shooting like crap. Also worked on a buddy's montana. No dice on accuracy

I agree. They aren't even in the same league. But, for whatever reason, anytime a Montana is brought up, somebody always makes the recommendation to just buy a Tikka. Now, I have both and have hunted extensively with the Tikka, and I do like them, but I sure can't see any reason to consider the Tikka an alternative to the Kimber.

My guess is that most guys that would recommend the Tikka as an alternative have not ever handled, owned or even shot one. But hey it's the fire, and when given a choice between a Kimber and a Tikka, we get several votes for the Ruger American Rifle.

Go figure...

If your Kimber shoots, all is rosy. If it patterns like a shotgun, you may want to go with Tikka.

Experience will make your decision.

G

I usually stay out of these types of discussions. However, after owning quite a few of both...

I say get the Tikka as well. Every rifle is a compromise of some sort. There is a reason there is a multi-page thread on Montana Tinkering and not on Tikkas.

The Kimber can be a good rifle. However I have found - in my experience - that there are some things that are not an easy fix. Like what if the barrel isn't floated correctly? You can't just sand away some barrel channel - it's too thin of material. So, that means either canting the action up and rebedding, or lifting the whole action up and rebedding. Or full length rebedding.

Most all of what you do with a Tikka is preference. If the barrel isn't floating - easy fix - remove material - no need to rebed. If you want a new recoil pad - put on a prefit limbsaver. Add scope and mounts. I have found them to be day in and day out more accurate overall.

You can be in a tikka - that WILL shoot - all in for the price of a kimber too. It will be light enough as well.

Just my humble opinion of course.

SC

A simple bedding job to fix an improperly floated barrel should not be the deciding factor.

Montana all the way for me.

The Tikka only enters the conversation if I want a removable magazine for pure truck hunting, but then the RAR is just as good.

For hunting, get a Montana and be done with it. Further, if for some reason you dislike it, you can resell it quickly with very little loss.

A simple bedding job is only an example - for a rifle that is "bedded" already. Don't forget all the other tweaks, and fitting, and load development, and don't forget to take out the set screw that maintains the firing pin adjustment and loctite it. And....

Pass the Tikka and just f'in' shoot....

SC

I have had both.
Tikka T3 Hunter 6.5SE (traded for a Sako)
Kimber Montana 270wsm (sold to 16 Bore)
I bought the Tikka new.
I traded a Sako for the Kimber.
The Tikka was the first rifle I got the wow factor with.Out of the box,factory ammo,sub MOA.My first one hole group.Fit me pefect and was a nice carry rifle.
The Kimber was a little harder to group but had great accuracy as well.The Tikka won that battle there.
The Kimber did not ballance as well and pondered shortening the barrel,as it was front heavy.Not that bad but noticable compared to the Tikka.
Both carried well although the Kimber was probably a pound lighter.I think only my scale knew that because in the field I did't recall all that much difference.I had been lugging around a 10 pound Marlin for 20 years.
The Kimber became a safe queen because the Finnlight next to it always was the one to go out to play.
If I were to buy any of the two again I would go Tikka

Agreed.

Frankly, there is not a single rifle on the market that is comparable to the Kimber.



Travis

This schit is ALWAYS fhuqking funny. The ONLY thing Tikka "brings" to the table,is an entry fee that grants Turd Polishers opportunity and that is it.

In dozens and dozens of Montuckys,I've yet to see a "bad one". Have seen 'em assembled incorrectly and with fastener woes(namely front base screw burrowed into barrel shanks),puked scopes and broken mounts,but that is hardly a Manufacturer's "fault". Getta kick out of the Serial Number Scare too! Pardon my having them all.

Would LOVE to see specimens that "didn't shoot",just for the hilarity associated with rubbing a Dumbfhuqks nose in their Stupidity. Rifles are exceptionally simplistic mechanical devices and it is plum fhuqking amazing,how many folks can reliably fhuqk one up! All of these "difficulties" are fhuqking hilarious.

Joe Average sure as fhuqk ain't very bright and it's tough to top the humor of a bunch of Clueless Fhuqks racing each other,to relate stories of their gross ineptitude and how that is somehow deemed a badge of "honor". FUNNY schit!

Then people wonder aloud,how Obama got to drive for two terms...as they obliviously corroborate the inherent "sweet satisfactions" of Dumbfhuqktitude?!? You "hard charging" Dumbfhuqkers are a hoot!

Wow....................











(Addendum: for yet another perpetually Whining Kchunt)

Taco,

You Drooling CLUELESS Dumbfhuqk,your Imagination and it's Pretend are again taking you places that simply do not exist. It is funnier than fhuqk,that you copiously frost your Stupidity with the fact that you are forced in weighing your "abilities","means" and comprehension"...which is of course,THE most slippery of slopes.

Congratulations?!?

1,000,000 MPAJ Laughing Words

Bone stock over the counter Montucky,fed false shouldered positive headspace a 162 smooch and mad treeger skeelz,ala 6x.

Closer look,for you Whining Clueless Kchunts...just so you know what sub .5MOA looks like at 700yds+. Hint.




GREAT time for you to dangle pics of the Splendid Beasties that have met their demise,via your Tikka "prowess" and I ASSURE you,that it will be funnier than fhuqk. 'Nother hint. Laughing!

You Brokedick Turd Polishing Do Nothing Dumbfhuqks are a hoot and ESPECIALLY when you are doing your best! Looking forward to your next Whine,as you flaunt your Imagination and Pretend,yet again.

Do not let the cat get your tongue,nor the couch your kchunt.

Just sayin'.

Laughing!.....................

You can complain about the platform but can't argue the results. Actually not true, your dumb ass will. Somehow.

No but I don't see at all how it can be 2 or 3 times better since it cost 2-3 times more than my Tikka.
Am I not qualified to answer?

You're so money. And you don't even know it.

Kimber - 15

Tikka - 7

Since you can buy 2 Tikka for every 1 Kimber, makes it dead heat

Kimber by a nose at the wire

It's twice the rifle.


Don't try and skew scientific facts.

HAHA....I often hear that.

But whenever I look on gunbroker average retail for a Montana is roughly $1050-$1150 (yes you can find better deals at times) while average retail on a stainless Tikka T3 seems to be $650 to $750....so not exactly 2 for 1 unless my math is fuzzy.

Stick, what is your preferred caliber in the Montana?

The tikka just looks to be a classless pos. .
Never touched nor would.

Travis a lot of hand holders tell me some guy named Echols is the best.

Echols?

Never heard of him.




Travis

I didn't see one at bass pro.

That's where I buy all my camouflage and Browning stickers.




Travis

Had Tikka Stainless T3 Lt in 300WSM. Traded for Kimber Montana 8400 300WSM. Wouldn't trade back!

Jim

The .257 Roberts.

LMAO

Wait... was it the .270WCF?

Let me know who that guy is. I will go buy a couple of Tikkas and trade him for some Kimbers. Heck, I'll even throw in some factory Tikka scope rings.

Pardon my ignorance. If Kimber is such a wonderful machine, why we don't see them pimped out among the snipershide crowd? Those guys are rather anal about their equipment. A whole sub forum is dedicated to the T3 and aftermarket modifications.

I think of the Kimber as more a hunting rifle and the T3 as more of a shooting rifle.

But that's just subjective as I don't like mags and plastic.

And the small port would annoy the hell outta me as well.

Can you load a T3 from the top down?


I would take a MOA Montana over a .5MOA T3 any day of the week.



That said I know of a couple guys who hunt/shoot way more game than me and they love their chitty Tikkas.....grin

I'm guessing it is because most of the snipers hide crowd is mostly dedicated to long range shooting and "sniping". The Kimber Montana is designed to be a very lightweight, specifically contoured hunting rifle. That's almost the opposite of that for which one looks for long range shooting, either competition or hunting. That's my guess. I could be wrong. If you don't believe I could be wrong, just ask the Alaskan Homunculus.

The same reason you don't see if you can fit a cord of wood in a Corvette. The Montana is a sports car of a rifle. It's a fly weight rifle used for spot and stalk hunting usually deep trekking into the woods or mountains. It's too light weight to make it a ideal long distant gun. That's not to say the Montana can't take those long distance poke shots. I am rather good with mine out to 300 yards which is usually twice as far as my normal hunting shots.

What's a Teeka stock worth, 40 bucks?

I own 3 Kimber's, a 7-08, a 308, and a 270 all Montanas. I just picked up my first Tikka, it's a T3 CTR Stainless in 260. For range use the CTR may get the call but for hunting and which one I wouldn't part with my vote is Kimber....

Well, if you price the Sako Carbonlite ($2,800 ) compared to a Finnlite, Beretta must think a good stock like the Montana comes with is worth $1,200 or so.

So, a Montana stock ALONE is worth two Tikkas

The
Lots of cowboys ride plastic saddles in today world.

Oh, I don't know....the last Kimber I worked with involved getting a scope screwed on straight, grabbing ammo loaded for a different rifle, and shooting 5 shots in an inch @ 100.

It's Kimber Denial for some of those Tikkler owners. They're tempted by the Montana but won't commit and justify the Tikka. They just don't seem to realize it.

Others have had both and still choose the Tikka. I don't understand it but at least they realize that the two designs are in completely different classes.

As has already been said, if you get a good one - all is well.

I'll stick with my pos tikka.

SC

BTDT, Kimber 84M Montana wins hands down.

Tikka's have without a doubt earned a reputation for accuracy at an affordable price. The actions are extremely slick, feed flawlessly, and have good triggers that are easily adjustable. They're fairly light and balance well IMO....

I can see where many would feel there's a lot of value for the $$, even if they aren't beauty queens and despite the extensive use of plastic.

However, after owning a few and handling/shooting several others, I simply couldn't warm up to the extensive use of plastic parts (and got rid of them in short order) as well as a few other aspects that turned me off.

1. Liberal use of plastic parts (trigger guard, mags, bolt shroud) {shrouds cracked on a couple rifles I owned}
2. Detachable Clip (not my cup of tea on a hunting rifle)
3. Hard to load from the breech
4. Action Length..... only 1
5. Plunger ejector and a hook style extractor

And the synthetic stock in particular exhibits too much flex and feels flimsy....

After owning and hunting with them I came to the conclusion that the Tikka's simply weren't what I wanted and desired in a hunting rifle.

YMMV

I've never even seen or heard of a Montucky Bob.

Last "bad"one I saw/shot,had front base issues...in regards to the barrel shank. But that's been a "whole"few weeks ago and perhaps they've "changed".

Laughing!








You gals REALLY "know" your stuff.

Pardon my being afforded the luxury,of not being forced to guess. Hint.

Wow +P+!.......................

We were inches away from having a couple of fun Montana's straight from the factory. They said no to the 8" twist Montana, no to the Creedmoor and they nixed the 7-08 from the line.

I guess they're banking their future on the Bob and the 270WSM?

Darrik, dropping the 7-08 just seems beyond stupid.

Bad enough they quit the 260.


A fast twist 22-250 MT would be uber.

Yep, glad I found one this past weekend at a great price!

I can't like the Tikka either, too cheap/plasticky/etc. I started out with Savages, so I know all about cheap/ugly/plastic rifles that shoot. But neither has the "character" I prefer.

I've never owned one, but guess my vote counts anyway since folks who never owned a Montana seem to think their Tikka votes should count...

i have a Hunter model tikka. i think i liked it a little more when i first got it. i agree about the plastic and all. the detachable mag is ok. wish it was easier to load from the top also. never held a Kimber but im wanting to buy another rifle next year and may check em out a local shop carries some

These "vs" threads crack me up.

I'm certain the Montana is more than a nice rifle.

What I want to know is, what will the Montana offer me that my Tikkas don't? If I can come up with a realistic value I'll gladly take the Montana plunge. The Tikka mag is a non issue for me. I always carry a spare mag loaded and ready.

Just to be clear I'm not saying there isn't a real world advantage to the Montana vs the Tikka T3. I've certainly not ruled the Montana out. If anyone would expound more on what the advantages are I'm all ears.

One thing is certain. I'm going to have to see some real world advantages to make the leap because the Montana does cost twice as much.


Shod

Have you handled a Montana? If you can't tell any difference then you might as well stay with Tikka.

It's lighter.



Travis

Montana can be had on gunbroker for $1,100, Tikka for $675, not twice as much, math don't lie.

I paid full retail for my .223 Montana and not once have I wished I had two Tikkas...

What would you do if Mary Alice was leaning over your shoulder flexing all of her 175 pounds with the "stare" telling you to buy the cheap one or you're cut off for 6 months?



LOL...it lies if you know Mary Alice. Then anything cheaper can be justified as being better, even with funny math.

As for me, I don't know Mary Alice but I know she exists. In the future I'll continue to cull that "special" type of women and I'll continue to buy Kimbers.

At one time I was all set for a Kimber Montana until I had the chance to interact with and shoot a few that friends had bought.

They are a nice looking and good feeling rifle but the best of the ones I messed some with would shoot was around 2-2.5 MOA.


All of them needed a good bit of bedding and other work (i.e. action screws, mag boxes etc.) to get them shooting 1-1.5 MOA.


Conversely, the Tikkas I have owned and shot have all been sub MOA out to the 300 yard line (the furthest distance I have available at the range) with multiple bullet weights and loads.

The only thing any of the Tikkas needed was a trigger pull weight adjustment.

The actions are as smooth running as any you will ever see and they feed and function flawlessly from the detachable magazines.

The triggers are the best of any factory rifle I have encountered.

The synthetic factory stocks are plenty stiff too. Not a McMillan by any stretch but light years ahead of anything Remington, Savage, etc. use.

For me, I cannot find an upside to a rifle like the Kimber that costs at least 50 - 75% more than a T3 and then still needs a lot of work, whether done yourself or sent out to a gunsmith to make it shoot well.

I have also never bought into all the "its a long action only in short action caliber stuff." But then I have no trouble running a bolt gun in any action length from the shortest to the extra long one used for things like .338-378's.

I also don't buy into the the Kimber is so much lighter theme either and I hunt some pretty steep rough mountain country.

The 7 lb all up T3 works very well and I can't see a 6 -6.5 lb all up Kimber being that much better. Maybe if I was at the highest elevations after something like sheep where every ounce is critical the Kimber might offer a bit of an edge.


Bottom line give me a Tikka over the Kimber any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I own a bunch of Kimbers and they all shoot extremely well. A Kimber that shoots 2-5 MOA is unusual and a likely cause is someone who thinks a light rifle can be shot just like a free recoiling varmint rifle.

Any light weight rifle requires a bit more steadiness and hold from the shooter to get good results from a bench.

And more funny math:

"......the Kimber that costs at least 50 - 75% more than a T3".

Funnier than schit,that a buncha dumbfhuqks are clamoring to stand in line and await their turn,to "brag" how something as fhuqking simple as a gawddamned rifle...whooped their ass.

There's (2) fasteners on the belly and (4) on the hood,which really seems like a lot,but prolly ain't. Laughing!

Brokedick Turd Polishers' "justifications" are funnier than fhuqk.

Bless their hearts.

The Montucky simply has no equal and is an absolute STEAL,when talking bang for the buck.

Hint.

I'm but (4) hops away,from breakin' in a shot out Montucky 223,rebarreled 6x45 and reckon it'll be spillin' blood tomorrow.

Hopin' more Dumbfhuqks,feel compelled to list even more things they can't do,as they attempt to Whine themselves happy.

Laughing!......................

The lunkhead from Alaska was later than most of us to the SWFA SS game and the Kimber Montana game; but, he is still correct.

Price out what it takes to get you to what you get with a Kimber Montana and you will see it's a bargain, even if you feel you need to "tinker".

I've got several Model 70 classic stainless rifles and several Model 700s, with aftermarket stocks and aftermarket triggers that each cost me more to get to that point than any of my Kimber Montanas.

This is dead nuts true. Another point is the cost of mods on a cheap rifle are worth nothing if you sell the cheap rifle. The next buyer doesnt care how good of a gunsmith you think you are, all it is is a Tikka that has been molested. You put $500 into a Tikka and its trade in value still will be $400-475.

Very true. I just bought my first Tikka last week. An SS 8T. 223 in a B&C stock, atlasworx dbm and an MDT TAC mag. For the first buyer to get to this point in Canada he had to spend...

1100 for the rifle
150 bottom metal
350 for the stock

1600 total plus taxes to get rid of all the plastic crap. I paid him 900 for it used

That being said now that I owe it I can say it's a cheap POS that compares in no way to the 3 Montana's I've owned. Accuracy is ALL it brings to the table.

I don't see this rifle staying

Kimber - 18

Tikka - 7

When I've handled the Tikka I throw up a little in my mouth. 16+ Kimber MT's later, I'm still a fan.

Tacticool and fine hunting rifles are not the same thing.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I will say it would be hard to leave my Montana 308 behind when long hikes in steep country is on the agenda.

Edit to clarify: I will take a Montana every day of the week and twice on Sunday over a Tikka. Tikkas are tough, even if plastic, but I just can't love 'em.

Based on this thread alone.....I'd take The Kimber Montana. Personally I'd opt for the Kimber Super America.Tikka has gone so plastic it is deplorable.

I have owned three Tikkas - a Model 558 Whitetail Hunter in 243, a Model 695 30-06, and a T-3 Lite in 7mm-08. All three shoot great. I have been a Remington guy since my first rimfire in 1959. I prefer Tikkas to Remingtons now. I had one CZ, and it was a stinker. I'm looking hard at another Tikka now. Kimber? Expensive, and too light for me.