What are the differences between these two rifles?

Montana has a $500 Kevlar stock with a blind magazine.

Hunter has injection molded stock with removable magazine. Barreled action is the same. The stock on a Montana is as good as they come IMO. They're thin in the belly and carry very well being a blind magazine.

I can't see going Hunter when one of the best attributes of the Montana is the stock.

Thank you.

X2
For the price and weight without the better stock,I would be looking at a Tikka Superlight instead of the Hunter.

I handled the Hunter, and it wasn't bad at all. If prices settle down, or used ones hit the market, I'll get one in 308. Knowing me, if I do a hunt where I want the 308 and ounces count, I'd probably swap stocks with a Montana I have and lighten it up a bit. Sounds like a Hunter will drop right in a Montana stock.

Either makes a fine rifle.

But the Montana is one of the best guns made, IMO.

When you need one, that is.

Are the feed rails the same between the two? I thought there was something different there.

I thought I read that SAS had dropped a Hunter into a Montana stock and all was good.

I was thinking that there was a difference since one is blind mag and the other box mag.

It will.

Same/same.

So just to clarify, the blind magazine of the Montana stock accepts the Hunters magazine box, spring and follower without modifications?

The Hunter is DBM.

As Reminton goes, you can't ADL a DBM, but you can DBM an ADL but not with Remmie DBM parts.


Another reason blind mags rule for me.

No. Accepts the barreled action. Need to use the Montana's internals.