I know a few rifle snobs that won't buy a Kimber unless it is one of the Kimbers of Oregon. They say the New York ones are of much lesser quality. I've been thinking about buying a new one in a Roberts and they look like a pretty nice gun to me. What do you guys out there that own them think? The old ones are a bit out of my price range, but I don't one to buy a new one if it's going to be a clunker.

I honestly think that Kimber makes the nicest (as far as fit and finish) production rifles right now. I've owned an 84M Classic and an 84M Montana and the fit and finish on those rifles leaves my Winchester M70 Classic and Remington M700 XCR in the dust. Performance wise, I think they are at least average if not better. The ones I have owned were shooters.

I think most complaints stem from the fact that a rifle that costs between $900 and $1100 is fairly expensive for most folks. When they pony up and buy one, they expect lightening in a bottle with cloverleafs at 300 yards. When their $1100 Kimber doesn't shoot a whole lot better (or even as good as) their $550 Savage, they get disappointed. Just remember that you're buying a rifle that is expensive because of the fit, finish, and qualities that you can't find in a common factory rifle. They are much more trim and "gunny" feeling than anything else in their weight range and they are very handy.

Buy a Kimber for how well they are made and how sharp they look. They will perform plenty well enough to hunt, guaranteed. If the looks and feel aren't enough to get you to fork out the bucks, the Ruger M77 Hawkeye comes chambered in 257 Roberts and is a fine rifle in itself for half the price.

orion03,

As Dan360 points out you should compare the current Kimber to all other rifles and not just the old ones.

I happen to like the Kimber 84M and 8400's a lot. I have four of them now and I got them as I wanted/needed the lighter weight that they provide. I still have a battery of 99's, pre 64 70's etc.

What stands out on the current Kimbers for me in addition to their light weight is their design features. With a Kimber of NY I get the M70 type safety (which works better than the ones on the M70's by the way), a non brazed on bolt handle, CRF, a superior syn. stock with a great pad and more. To top it all off its made in the USA.

I only currently own one Kimber, but I am in the process to buy another. The one that I own is a gorgeous 84m Varmint with a stainless, fluted barrel in 22-250. I love this gun. It shoots great and most of the time, the coyotes I aim at die. It was easy to find the load it wanted to shoot, and it has not let me down. I was at the range with Ross and his buddy, Dan. I let Dan shoot my 22-250 and he was very impressed. I wont say what rifle he had, but I know it was worth more than I paid for mu truck and he was still impressed with the Kimber.

I bought two of the Oregon Kimbers when they were new. Still have one. Both were beautiful, but had functional probllems. My impression is that Kimber seems to spend more time on form than function.

I have a Kimber of Oregon .223, a Kimber of NY 7-08 and recently sold a Kimber of NY 300 WSM. I have no complaints what so ever about the Kimber of NY rifles. I sold the 300 WSM to friend, I just wasn't using it. I love my Kimber of Oregon .223, it's been my number one coyote rifle for about 10 or 12 years. The only issue I have with it is that every once in a while the extractor won't grab hold of the case and eject it after firing. It seems to me that I've heard of others that have had this same problem. I carry a takedown cleaning rod with me when I hunt, so I use that to push the case out. I have only had this happen maybe 4 or 5 times and have taken hundreds of coyotes with it.

If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that the new Kimbers are better than the old ones in regards to dependability and accuracy. That's not saying that some of the old ones aren't just as good or better. But, the new Kimbers seem to be more consistent. I have never heard of anyone who got a "klunker" Kimber of NY. That seems very unlikely. I really like the small action of the old .22 centerfire Kimbers though.

I am a fan of the Oregon models (Own 3) but would own the NY version if they ever make a left handed model. Both iterations of Kimber have gone through periods of having quality control issues, so it is difficult to make any across the board generalizations. Both were and are very fine rifles.

I would also look at a Cooper. Contrary to the rumors no Obama contributors have run the show for over a year. To my knowledge Cooper has never had the pronounced swings in quality control that both phases of Kimber have had. You would be limited to a long action Bob or a single shot, but a lot of Ink has been spread extolling the virtues of a long action Bob (Mod 52).

Here are some folks with opinions on the Kimber of Oregon models. It gets interesting about the sixth post down.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...&topic=0&Search=true#Post2519366

Beings that i worked in the front office for Kimber in Clackamas,OR
That's a story in itself...

The newer Kimber of America is the better firearm.

Also,
All those Kimber 45's that were stamped Clackamas, OR,
the first 7 to 8 thousand, were actually made in Yonkers, NY then shipped to Clackmas, OR.
So it could be said they were made in Clackamas.

The gun manager at the local money pit tells me that the last two Kimber 1911's they received were shipped from Kalispell. What's the story about that?

Rather than comment much again, I would suggest anybody interested in my opinion on this read the thread in the link that Jim in Idaho provided.

I think the Yonkers Kimbers are much better rifles than the Oregon Kimbers.

Call Kimber and ask for Dwight V. or Ryan B. they live there.

With Kimber who the heck really knows why.

I would generally agree with what Dan says;Kimber deserves an "attaboy" for design and great looks,and incorporates a bunch of really neat features that you would have to custom and pay a lot of money to get.The synthetic stock is great,one of the best,and the wood stocks are stylish and nicely made.

BUT when I have paid for such features in other rifles,I generally have received a corresponding step up in accuracy and consistency,and would say that in this regard, they are "about half".One will be absolutely fabulous in accuracy and another will be a turkey,dissapointing and disturbing.

I bought a 223 Varmint rifle;it was so accurate I brought it to Wyoming and my rancher buddie loved it so much it is now HIS rifle.So, I bought another;by comparison it was a turkey.

Recently I bought a 257 Montana;it was an "on command" 1/2" rifle,but had a very tight chamber. I sent it back to the factory to repair the chamber.Mistake!! They rebarreled it,and it was a lemon.So I bought a Select 257, a heartbreaker,beautiful rifle that was good for double grouping in the 2-2 1/2" range at 100 yards;at 300 yards I could not count on reliably hitting a watermelon.

There have been others;I have owned several.Only my 22 rimfire remains.

Maybe I'm spoiled but I simply can't live with that level of inconsistency from a rifle.And spending a grand 3-4 times to get good performance from a rifle is a faustian bargain.

Like so many things today,modern consumers are fed "form over substance";the "sizzle" over "steak".Many times we are fed mediocrity; sold an expensive electronic devise,computer, TV,whatever,and at the same time offered a service plan(at extra cost),that tells us the damn thing is gonna break down....rifles are represented to shoot,,often they don't. Scopes are not supposed to break;they do. We tolerate it cause "warranties are great"....when I'm on a hunt,and equipment fails, warranties are worthless......

Marketing and packaging count more today than durability and reliability; we are fed %&^^% so we swallow it,accept it as consumers,so we get more of it.Contemporary marketing and packaging have given us such wonderful things as the Obama Administration....

JMHO,but Kimbers are just too much "sizzle",and too little "steak".If you get a good one, they are GREAT RIFLES,but I, for one, am a bit tired of sifting through them to get what I expect.

Can't add much to the above assessement, except to say the at the Kimber Montana is a real lightweight and this would tip the scales for me.

Like many others on these boards, I've been lusting for a Kimber 84M Select Grade in the Roberts. Two weeks ago, in a nearby city, I had a chance to fondle one. This particular rifle had a beautiful chunk of wood on it! Stunning, IMHO. From a distance, anyway. On closer inspection, however, the inletting of the stock was atrocious. It was bad even for a cheap rifle, much less a $1200 rifle. The first thing I noticed was the barrel channel was not straight, with the barrel touching the forend tip on the left side. Then I noticed the frong sling swivel stud had apparently been installed by a blind gorilla. But the worst, was the inletting around the floorplate. There was a large gap between wood and the floorplate on one side. Pretty pi$$ poor. While I would still like to get one of these, it will not be that particular rifle, and I have determined I will NEVER buy a Kimber sight unseen!

IMHO, I also think Kimbers are all about "bling", not substance. All sizzle and no steak, like Bob said. I hate to throw a firecracker in the campfire, but that is exactly my opinion about Kimber 1911's. Kimber made a big splash with their 1911's, because they were (are) essentially pretty and tight. Don't forget tight (what ARE we talking about here? ). Along with rave reviews in gun magazines, which is still going on. Coupled with usually two full page color ads in every issue. Curious, isn't it? But all the internal parts are MIM. Substandard, IMHO. If you like MIM, fine, go for it. I prefer real steel, hence all my 1911's are Colts, thank you very much! Colts are not as pretty or as tight as Kimbers, and Colt has QC issues from time to time, but I still think Colt has forgotten more about building 1911's than Kimber ever knew. YMMV

Have owned numerous 82's and 84's and can't say that I have had the bad luck others have reported. I have a first year 40XBBR in 6BR that came out of the custom shop in 1979 with a .268 neck and a few years later factory ammo was introduced for the XP100's that measured .271. Don't think Kimber was the only one trying to introduce a semi custom rifle built to benchrest standards without proper warnings. I often wonder how many people got into trouble with these early 40X rifles.
dan

I had good luck with the Mo.82`s.The BGR`s were a crap shoot.Some would not feed worth a damn and group worse.I had one in 338 that was a Treasure and an 06 that was a pretty canoe paddle.I currently have a NY Kimber 22 that shoots with the best.I think the Montanas are a great buy for the buck,but sometimes need to be tweeked or rebarraled.my 2 cents,Huntz

Awwww man Bob, I just hate it that your Select turned out to be a clunker. It really would get old sifting through a few to get a consistent, honest shooter.


Pretty sure I hit the rifle jackpot with my one and only little Kimber Roberts. Got off work early today and snuck out to the range. Little breezy but it shot a neat little 4 shot 4" horizontal group at 400. It just won't not shoot great if I do my part.

You suck Sammers... I have to go make plywood for The Man again today Of course I'll cry all the way to the bank with their 300 dollars, but I'd rather be fishing today...



Now for the topic. I never had an early Oregon Kimber. But I've got two Montanas. They had bugs and issues that needed to be worked out. Like Bob said in another thread, their gunsmiths that do their warranty work are retards. Once you get one working, you'll be an addict.

Oh yeah, their sales office is in Kalispell MT. I bump into more than one sales rep at the range.

Actually my opinion runs crossways to that expressed on here.

I don't think Kimber is all sizzle and no steak. Quite the opposite, I think it is all steak and, at least once in a while, no dessert.

The Kimber, and I own two of them, is a hunting rifle not a bench rest rig. A good percentage of the really nifty stuff is to make it a more reliable and functional hunting rifle. And, to be honest, the requirements, accuracy wise, for a really deadly hunting rifle are a bit less than what a lot around here will tolerate. Once you get enough accuracy to do the job that a sane hunter in normal conditions needs you are finished... if you are thinking as a hunter.

There are other rifles that feature accuracy almost to the exclusion of everything else. The first and last word whenever one of their owners mentions them is what kind of groups they shoot. It seems that is all that matters to them.

But will the trigger foul up in a freezing rain like I dealt with on opening day last year? Is the thing really going to hold up to 30 years of field use and get passed down to the young 'en? Will it have to be zero'd if the stock has to be taken off it in the field? Etc, etc...

Accuracy is about the 4th or 5th thing I look at in a rifle. But then I am a hunter who shoots for fun and not the other way around. That stated my 30-06 Kimber is one of the most forgiving rifles I have ever seen accuracy wise. I am serious when I tell you that if I had an elk hunt scheduled and you worked out a bet with a guide service to knock $1000 off the cost if I would go in blind and shoot a suitable factory ammo of their choice without knowing ahead of time what it was I would take that bet and never give it another thought. I have shot so many of them without finding one that wasn't accurate enough for 30-06 ranges that I am 100% confident that it wouldn't crimp my style.

And to me that is a kind of hunting rifle accuracy that means ten times more than shooting the notorious 'half inch group' with three shots (snort) after working up loads half the summer to find it.

Will

I have no opinion about the Kimbers that are now in production, but I surely shot a lot of the ones made in Clackamas ... Kimber of Oregon.

A lot of the Kimber of Oregon rifles shot very well. And a lot of them didn't. It was pretty much luck of the draw.

Greg Warne, the now-deceased president of KofA, was primarily concerned with how the rifles looked. Barrel quality, bedding quality (aside from looking good from the outside) and internal quality was totally on the back burner. As far as Greg was concerned, if it was gorgeous to look at, that was all that mattered.

He often quoted a demographic study that stated that 80% of Kimber rifles were simply collected and sat either in gun safes or bank vaults. The higher the grade, the more apt the rifle was to be a "collector."

This is the reason for all of the wildcat chamberings. Lots of collectors had a specific serial number reserved and if there was suddenly a .32-20, .25-20 or a 6X47 available, the collector would shell out another $4,500 for a Super America with skeleton buttplate, a skeleton gripcap and a cool hand-checkered bolt knob.

I shot most of the rifles that were returned with accuracy problems. If I determined that there was an accuracy problem, as opposed to user error, Jim McKinley would slap on a new barrel (still a stinkin' Wilson) and maybe mess with the bedding a bit. Then, it would be returned to the owner without a reshoot.

Literally all Kimber M-84s (.223 based action) had a recoil lug that was dovetailed into the receiver. And literally all M-84s had the recoil lugs bedded with 5-minute epoxy. The first thing I always did on a personal M-84 was to rip out the silly quick-drying epoxy and replace it with Steel-Bed.

I once asked Jim McKinley why they never free-floated at least the 84s. His answer was, "the wood we buy cheaply from Cal'ico is really, really green and if we free-floated the forearms would warp away from the barrels. So, basically the barrel was used as to keep the forearm straight."

My reply, characteristically was, "Holy Schit. Doesn't anybody care about the inside quality?"

Jim answered,"Nope, just as long as it looks date-rape gorgeous on the outside."

I used these years of shooting Kimbers as a learning platform. Heck, I shot .221s, .222s, .222Mags .223s, 6X45s, 6X47s, even the strange European 5.56 and the exotic .257 Kimber, plus .22 Hornets until I got sick, .22K Hornets, .218 Bees, .25-20s and .32-20s. Even, by golly, the prototypes chambered for .38-40 and .44-40.

And, I used a lot of this experience to start my writing career at Wolfe Publishing. The mid-1980s issues of Handloader are chock full of my stuff on the 6X45, the .221 Fire Ball and other exotics that Kimber offered. Why Wolfe never offered me an Contributing Editorship is still a mystery. So after a problem with the crappy editorship of Tom Gresham, I wandered off to greener pastures.

I had the first Kimber 6PPC self-destruct on me and luckily got out of the rifle detonation with only a pint of blood loss and some serious holes in my hide. It was with that adventure that I quit putting my face behind prototype products that were not engineered nor gunsmithed in any way.

Frankly, the Kimber of Oregon was run by a fool. Had the vision been to make the rifle perfect from the centerline out, it would have been a wonderful success. As it was, he had too many expensive girlfriends, too many fancy leased automobiles and paid way too little attention to making what could have been a fabulous rifle.

He literally bought writers, so the press releases and write-ups were glowing.

Once in a while, he would give me a rifle for my efforts. I'd always shoot it first, just to ascertain the accuracy. If it was a crap-shooter, I'd trade it for another. Maybe 70% of the .223s shot under inch and the remaining 30% would be worse; some by a large degree.

Actually, considering the technology and the absolute lack of a gunsmith on premises, it's amazing that the Kimber of Oregon rifles shot as well as they did. Some were spectacular and some were the worst possible POS rifles. Like I said at the beginning, totally luck of the draw.

Steve

Steve - thanks for the post. As always, not only informative but also interesting for its historical honesty. Best, John

Friend Steve,
What happened to you when that gun blew up in your face?

Glad I don't own any of the old ones. :p

Will

Great post Steve. That's about as straight a scoop as you will ever get anywhere, thanks...............................DJ

I had one of NY's. Model 84. Nice looking gun but shot like a blind man.

Got rid of it. I now wish I would have tried to sort the problem out.

From what others have told me and my own experience they still appear to be hit or miss as far as accuracy goes.

just my 2 cents.

My only Kimber is an 8400 in .300 WSM. When new, the gorgeous stock was so poorly inletted that there was about .015 of barrel channel on one side of the barrel and about .090 on the other side. They replaced the stock with one that wasn't nearly as pretty. Nicer job of bedding, however. It's still a great looking rifle (IMO), carries well, handles well, shoots well enough for a hunting rifle. If I want benchrest accuracy right out of the box, with nothing to complain about in that price range I'll stick with Sako.

I remember when Greg and I were walking through the SHOT Show, I think it was in New Orleans. There in the Sako booth was a cute little 6PPC with Sako ammo that would shoot little-bitty groups. Greg said, "Hell, we can make it prettier." And I'm thinking, "Yeah, right."

So, maybe three weeks later, on my desk is a new Kimber M-84 single shot chambered for 6PPC with a cool stainless barrel and ten boxes of Sako ammo. This, with about ten malcontent .22 Hornets were the days shooting.

Unbeknownst to me, Clymer called after the reamer order and asked one of the secretaries, "Do you want a target reamer or a field reamer?" Her answer was, "Gee, Kimbers are really accurate, so we will need a target reamer."

What Clymer was actually asking and what the lady did not understand had to do with neck turned cases versus ammo as it comes from the Sako box.

But I digress.

So, out to Douglas Ridge Rifle Club I go with my truck full of Kimber rifles and load gear and my ten boxes of Sako 6PPC ammo.

I was really anxious to see what type of accuracy the 6 showed, So I mounted a 6-20 Leupold, bore sighted, chambered a round and said, "Whoa, that really chambers HARD."

So, I safed the rifle and called the guy Kimber called an "engineer," which he wasn't. Don was his name and Don told me that it must have tight headspace.

OK.

If I'd been smart, I would have tied the rifle to a tire and pulled the trigger by a string-lanyard. Not me, I've gotta see how it shoots!!

At the shot, everything turned black. My face, right thumb and left palm felt like I set off a firecracker. And I could not see. I was on the ground, cursing and all alone at the range.

Eventually, I saw brightness around my glasses, so I took them off and ascertained that my eyes were OK, I was bleeding heavily from my face, I could see the blood running off and bouncing on the concrete, but at least I could see.

The laminated stock had split because of the M84s gas bleed hole in the lower locking lug recess. And, of course, nobody drilled a hole for the gas to escape the stock, so the laminated stock had taken the gas, split and opened up. My left palm went into the split and then the stock closed. Think of your hand caught between two laminations of a two-inch piece of plywood and you've got the idea. And it hurt like all Billy Hell.

So I limped, bleeding, over to my truck and inserted a large screwdriver into the split stock. Just try that when your hand is caught and every movement hurts like crazy.

Eventually, I got the stock off my hand and inspected the carnage.

The barrel blew downrange, I could never figger that one out. The receiver was split in half from front to back and was hanging in the stock (Thank the Lord). The bolt was in the receiver and the entire shroud was gone ... some of it remains to this day in my right thumb.

My glasses looked like they's been sandblasted. There were thousnds of little holes in my face, some of which held pieces of brass and some held steel shards. A "big chunk" cut a four-inch swath across my right palm and dug a hell of a hole through a 2X4 shooting bench top. I had one major steel piece imbedded high between my eyes and why it didn't penetrate my skull I'll never know.

I was a bloody mess.

My 6.5-20 Leupold was about fifteen feet behind the firing point, in the parking lot gravel. It apparently was released when the receiver split and flew over my head.

So, what happened? That is easy. The Clymer "target" reamer was made for turned case necks. I chambered a single round of Sako 6PPC and there was no case neck expansion room to release the bullet.

Quite literally, I shot off a bomb in my hands and it probably came close to what ballisticians call "detonation," which means that it could have been worse ... much, much worse.

(Think of it as a "Roadside Kimber" )

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, that when I drove back to the Kimber plant, nobody really gave a crap about me. And seeing Kimber serial number 6PPC-1 in parts brought on a somber note. But my bleeding .... not so much. Must have stained the carpet, I guess.

Not long after, I told Greg that he and his firm was dangerous to my life and livelihood. Don't forget that I was a Certified Master Watchmaker, a GIA Graduate Gemologist and a journeyman goldsmith and there is not too much demand for a blind and/or maimed jewelry craftsman.

Making rifles without the aid of an engineer or even a gunsmith is pure folly, especially when the president of the firm is chasing skirts like a fiend and making guns is not really where his head is.

Anyway, I could not afford to waste my time with fools, so I quit my non-paying job of shooting Kimber rifles.

I retired at age 48 a few years later and Greg ended up dead in the jungle of Costa Rica (don't ask). Funny how life is.

Steve

DJ,

You'll never get anything but honesty from me. THAT I promise.

Steve

Great Day,

Sounds like that Bunch was stupid and dangerous. Thanks for the story.

Sorry Dogzapper, I didn't see the don't ask about Greg.

Ditto on BobinNH comments. I have a 7-08 Classic that is an older 2 position safety model and try as I like it is VERY inconsistent. I have owned 5 or 6 and if they shoot they are great but about half are duds in the accuracy dept.

Anybody want a 7-08 Classic for $600 plus shipping???

I had an 8400 in 300 WSM and it shot like crap, went back to the factory twice and never was fixed. I would buy another though, seems most of the Montana's shoot OK and I have had a few of there 22's and they ALL shot great.

I think it is a hit and miss but there is alot to like about the Montana.

The only Kimber I own now is a NY Kimber Hunter 22LR, although I have owned several Oregon rifles over the years.

Experiences like we are sharing here are why I still don't own a Select Grade 257 Bob. God knows I want one! I have no problem laying out a thousand plus for a new rifle, and don't mind if I need to rebed, tune the trigger, recrown, etc. But needing to rebarrel or send it back to the factory to fix fundamental flaws? Not acceptable. And try as I might I can't talk myself into rolling the dice.

Conversely today I had two old M70 fwt's at the range. That Greydog stocked 30-06 I posted under the "favorite rifle" thread a couple days back? With a handload of 150 TSX's at 2950 fps, it consistently shoots under an inch at 100, and put two groups into 1 1/2" at 200 yards today. It won't do anything wrong.

And a 1958 fwt 270 I recently picked up? Completely stock other than a trigger job. Fed 140 TSX's and a bunch of RL22, it puts them into an inch at 3000 fps. No unexplained fliers, no surprises. All it does is run exactly and consistently, just like it is supposed to.

If 50+ year old rifles can do it, why can't Kimber?

Prezactly.

I have only shot mauybe 4-5 of the NY Kimbers, and have gotten satisfactory hunting accuracy from all of them. By that I mean it was fairly easy to find loads that shot 1-1/4", 3-shot groups at 100 yards. I know from quite a bit of experience that THAT sort of "mediocre" accuracy is plenty for shooting big game at 400+ yards. Most of the rifles could beat that.

I published the results of my handloading for my 84 .338 Federal in a magazine. Some of the loads shot in the 1" range, others up to 2". I reported all the resulrs rather than cherry-pick. I thought they were all fine for a rifle that would probably never be shot at any big game animal past 300 yards, and even then one of the better loads (with the 210 Nosler Partition) beat 1-1/4 inches.

All of this was from a rifle that weighs 6-1/4 pounds WITH scope, partly because it has a thin little barrel--with a BIG hole in it. This isn't a recipe for benchrest accuracy, and I thought the rifle shot just fine for the purposes it was made for.

Yet I got an e-mail from a reader who wrote something like, "I see your .338 Federal Kimber shot as lousy as mine."

Maybe we have finally reached the stage where hunters really don't know that sub-inch accuracy isn't required to kill animals with lungs the size of basketballs--or, sometimes, beach balls.

Evidently, too, we are starting to expect a lightweight rifle with pretty wood that will shoot like a benchrest rifle--and cost only $1000.

Thanks JB. I would have no problem if my new Kimber would just shoot into a 1 1/2". I just don't want one that shoots 3 or 4"s. I don't shoot game very far away so .5" rifles don't mean much to me unless it's a praire dog rig.

It's more than that John, it's a fetish!

I have actually read an absurd discussion on these forums where one guy proposed that a MOA rifle was insufficient to the task of being a reliable killer where he hunted... His shots were usually in the 100 to 200 yard range, but it seems he had the need to be able to thread a bullet through the thick stuff and an honest inch rifle just isn't up to the task. Worse, nobody on the thread actually named him for a jackass. :p

I have been getting my new Kimber Montana off the ground for the last couple months. In that time the rifle seems to be the only thing that isn't suspect. I've had a bad batch of primers which made me think the rifle was the worst I had ever seen. Took about 4 range trips and a complete accident to figure out that one. And I have a scope from my favorite manufacturer show up with and honest 3 to 4 inches of parallax at 100 yards.... that's before you start seeing black around the edges. It's back at the factory now being brought up to snuff.

Through it all the rifle has fed perfectly and, if you could stand the 15 second process of centering your eye in the scope, shot pretty damned well. I guess what I'm saying is that the rifle isn't the only thing to worry about nowadays. I think this run on ammo and guns has a whole lot of suspect equipment hitting the racks. Else I've just had a run of bad luck this time.

Will

I've got a .22 Kimber and a 25-20, which I shot today. It'll pu them into about 1" +- (which ain't bad for a 25-20) and the quality is very good, a very good to great trigger, but the rifle is nothing extra fancy...just plain walnut and blued steel.

Both my rifles are Oregon models. I remember passing up on a .22 Hornet WAY back when, wish I'd bought it then for a reduced price as no one wanted a Hornet in the early 80s.

I've not seen new Kimbers, but they look good. I don't know why an expensive rifle shouldn't shoot well, but see it all the time in magazines like "Rifle" and "Rifle Shooter." And especially if someone takes a factory rifle and roll-stamps another logo on the barrel. Looks like if you pay 1K plus change the maker should at least fire a couple of rounds through it to make sure it's put together properly.

I agree with you Gene, even a $400 Vanguard comes with an 1 1/2" garantee and most will do better than that.

By the way, and waaaay off the subject: When shooting the rimmed cartridges that Kimber chambered for, it really helps accuracy to short both rim thickness and neck thickness. I had to sort through a bunch of cases to get 100 great .25-20 cases and a bunch more for .32-20s that were just passable.

My cases for testing .22 Hornet rifles were RWS, which were the finest I could find at the time. They cost Kimber a fortune, like a buck a case, but at least I was testing the rifle, rather than the schitty American brass.

Maybe .22 Hornet cases are better today. Probably, methinks, because I've seen Johnny B. shoot his Hornet T/C rifle right along with my .223s.

Nuther crazy thing. Prolly the finest shooting .22 Long Rifle rifles KofA made was the Lenard Brownell Edition. The Brownell had a Mannlicher stock and a butterknife bolt handle and was gorgeous in every respect.

I finally had to break down and have one made from what I still think of as the finest piece of claro that ever came in Kimber's back door.

That rifle, with the serial number "Steve's .22" and every other Brownell Edition I shot is an incredible shooter. Great accuracy out of a full-stocked rifle ... go figger!

Steve

I admire the Vanguard no end, and have a couple that are among my favorite rifles. But these days, guaranteeing 1-1/2" groups with at least one kind of factory ammo is sort of like guaranteeing that a new Ford pickup will get at least 15 miles per gallon.

Accuracy guarantees are pretty much hype.Every Kimber of Yonkers rifle I have fired has gotten 1-1/2" 3-shot groups with some kind of factory ammo, so would meet the Weatherby guarantee.

I assume that whoever brought up 50-year-old rifles shooting so well was talking about the pre-'64 Model 70. I have a 50-year-old pre-'64 Model 70, a.30-06, made in 1959 that will shoot like most "custom" rifles are supposed to.

Winchester lost money selling it in 1959, and had been losing money making Model 70's for a few years.

One more note: A few people have complained about walnut forends not being exactly straight on Kimber rifles. This is common when ANY company decides to sell wooden-stocked rifles with free-floating barrels. The problem isn't bad workmanship, but walnut itself, which tends to warp when exposed to air with different degrees of humidity. If the rifle is made in Yonkers, then the forend will probably warp in a few days when the rifle is shipped to, say, Montana.

This is one reason that MOST rifle companies use some variation of the pressure-tipped forend when stocking walnut-stocked rifles. The stock may warp a little, but the barrel tends to bend with the forend, and unless things get really bent out of shape the rifle shoots pretty well and the average customer is satisfied.

It's also one reason Winchester used the forend screw in the pre-'64.

The last info I had was that the kevlar and walnut stocks are made in Honduras and shipped to New York. While my experience with Kimbers has been quite good, there were a couple of bad ones. I had a beautiful hunk of walnut on a 30-06 that, after 4 months, I could lay a farmer match on the right side barrel gap. It was tight to the barrel on the other.
I sold it but in retrospect, I should have purchased a kevlar stock and used it that way.

Steve's remark about the barrel of his exploding Kimber winding up downrange prompted me ask about that video of the Browning splitting its barrel because of a mud plug. I was curious as to its three-petal split. I would have guessed that an obstruction would have caused the barrel to rupture at the point of the obstruction rather than splitting for that point on forward. (Not disputing that that was what happened, just exposing some more of my confusion about things scientific.)

I have a question regarding a used Kimber of NY I picked up at Shedhorn Sports in Ennis, Mt. It's a Model 84M in 7mm-08 with a two position safety and serial #KM032XX. The rifle has by far the prettiest piece of wood I've ever seen on any Kimber or other factory gun. It's not exhibition quality, but it's close. After reading through this thread, I wondered if this was an early Kimber of NY made with left over Kimber of Oregon parts and one of those outstanding pieces of wood Dogzapper was talking about. By the way, the gun shoots pretty good. It hoovers around an "inch at a hun-urd" with 140 TSXs and Accubonds.

One other thing with this 7-08, it had a blued stainless steel floor plate. I had the rifle re-blued by Rocky Cushman and he could not blue the floor plate. He sent it to Kimber and they couldn't do it either. They sent a new one and told Rocky that they have never seen a stainless floor plate before and have no idea where it might have come from. Another left over from Kimber of Oregon?

Pretty sure all the Shedhorn rifles leave the shop with good karma.

Some artsy-fartsy writer will one day write a glossy, coffee-table book about Kimber Of Oregon. It will talk about the glorious Kimber and the Dream of the Fabulous Rifle and the photos will be magnificent. Simple Elegance and all that schit.

A lot of the KofA stuff will never become common knowledge. It was just so bizarre.

Greg didn't pay his bill at Cal'ico Wood and I guess it was a hefty amount. One afternoon, a huge truck showed up and Greg was told either to pay the bill in cash (no checks!!!) or pay in BGR rifles.

The BGR (Big Game Rifle) was fairly new and was selling pretty well. Anyway, the long and the short of it was that the Cal'ico Wood truck went away with a crapload of BGR rifles.

This was the source of the flood of Kimber BGR rifles on the market. Originally, they were priced at $1,000 and the price went down as time went on. The owner of Cal'ico Wood was simply trying to recover part of the debt that Kimber owed him.

The Kimber of Oregon factory was shut and padlocked by the Feds shortly after that. Rumors flew; either non-payment of Federal Witholding Tax or funny stuff with receiver serial numbers (there were many duplicate numbers) or problems with firearms transfers ... or all three. I'd believe all three.

Eventually, they got open again. And were closed and padlocked again.

Finally, there was the Kimber Auction, where the remaining assets were auctioned off. Cooper Arms bought some, Cascade Arms (Butch Whatshisname) bought a little, local folks cherry-picked through the remains.

It was a sad end to what could have been a thriving and proud part of the American firearms heritage.

I have many catalogues (which I helped write), internal memos, little booklets on cartridges that Layne Simpson wrote, rough drafts of articles by that phony asswipe Clay Harvey and stuff like that. It's kinda fun going through this rogue's gallery of insider information of the company that was vitally alive and then, through mis-management and stupidity, failed in a most spectacular fashion.

The saddest part is that Greg's father, Jack Warne, was the finest kind of man. He was president of Omark Industries (think sawchain and eventually Blount), was a master of the Just-in-time system and marketed his videos world wide. Jack was also a sort of advisor to Kimber.

If Jack had been at the reins, Kimber would be thriving today. I greatly respect Jack Warne.

Steve

Steve, I think you should beat the artsy-fartsy writer to the punch and write the true story. Just your posts on this thread have provided me some of the most entertaining/interesting firearms industry reading I've had in a long time. I'll bet you could get enough of the campfire gang to order upfront to pay for the first printing.

Steve,
The bolt didn't close hard on that tight neck round? Been thinking something else could have been afoul. Sounds like I was the oddball cause I actually shot lots of dogs with a custom classic 6x47 HB. Barrel was rough on it and cought copper extensively, but it shot good for about 40 rounds. Kimber did have some good dealers. Always enjoyed the visits with Lawrence Friestad in SD. Sold the guns to a collector in NM and all I have left is an 82 22lr. About half the 82's I've owned had the recoil lug dovetail looking like it was done by a shaky caffein addict. This ones ok.
dan

Dan,

The round was quite difficult to chamber. For that reason, I called the "engineer" at Kimber and he informed me that the rifle was set up with a really tight headspace. At the time, it was believable

Hindsight is always 20-20 and in retrospect, I should have tied the rifle to a tire and fired the first several rounds by lanyard.

The diagnosis of the rifle destruction, of course, was done later. It was discovered that the neck section of the reamer was either 0.000" to -0.001" from the Sako loaded round neck dim.

The neck simply could not open to release the bullet.

We all know that a .003" neck release is standard, although many custom chambers work on a .001" and .002" release ... but at those numbers, the shooter would be wise to watch the neck thickness like a hawk.

Rounds like the .220 Swift have necks that typically thicken with repeated firings and this makes a dangerous situation just waiting to happen.

And there are "fitted necks," where the benchrest shooter is working with extremely tight tolerances, all in the search of that last few bits of accuracy.

The Kimber 6PPC had none of this ... it was a flippin' roadside bomb. Simply a matter of inattention to detail and nobody actually monitoring the specific project.

Kimber worked on the Toyota System, where dunderheads operate machinery and the operations are checked occasionally by a machinist. They simply cranked out the parts under little supervision.

On the upside, my shooting at Kimber gave me several lifetimes of range and exotic cartridge experience. I became intimately familiar with that great cartrige, the .223 Remington, and all of the children of the .222. The .221 Fire Ball was an especial pleasure.

And the people that drifted through; some of them were fabulous and some were slimeballs. I gained a lifetime friend, Ted Curtis, at Kimber. Ted probably knew more about the time/pressure curve than anyone living or dead, past or present. Ted and I shared many a toddy after hours and he reminised about shooting prairie dogs with Townsend Whelen (shot a, '03 offhand and killed quite efficiently) and hunting qrouse with Captain Charles Askins (the father, who was a gentleman, not the son who I was later to meet and who was a full-fledged azzhole).

Lenard Brownell drifted through and he was the finest of men. And, in my opinion, he has no equal in the custom rifle.

Layne Simpson was there a couple of times and Layne never treated me with anything but respect. Layne is a hard-working writer and I later had the pleasure of sharing a caribou trip on the Ungava Penninsula (near the Canipiscau River) with him. Wahtever one thinks of Layne, he is a hard hunter and a superb rifleman.

Anyway, for all the frustrations I had about the product and what it might have been, there were more bright spots than bad. Greg frustrated me no end. Here I was running my jewelry store as an incredibly tight ship and Greg wasted money like a drunken sailor and managed by crisis.

It hurt me to see a company not run efficiently and being all it could be.

Steve

Steve - I have enjoyed your posts in this thread greatly. I would second the motion that you should write a book on Kimber. It is extremely refreshing to see someone in a position where he can kick ass and take names (as well as name them). I have always enjoyed Layne Simpson's writing. Looking back over old material, I find a number of things he had to say that were very solid and to the point. Always my best, John

As a matter of fact,

That book was written by Greg Warne himself and was sold to many
a Kimber customer.
Problem was that Grego promised the book to his customers but never went to print. He/they Kimber had to return a lot money if they ever truly did.

I read the original book manuscript.

I always thought it sad when a very well known gun writer like Layne Simpson would request a rifle or new 1911 to do a write up.
Gunsmith Dave would go to work making sure they picked the most accurate one in the pile and making sure it worked perfectly to send to the writer. Of course the writer was none the wise because he just knew it came off the line randomly.
At least that is what he had been told, (by montana.)



Much, much more to that three ring circus but I'll leave it be.




Yes, he was.

Jacks wife, Greg's mother, had full control of the purse strings of anything Jack or Greg ever did.

She bankrolled everything.


Last time I heard from Greg he was Lost in Space down in
Costa Rica. He could not get a passport to return to the U.S.

This is great stuff, "the rest of the story" info. I would get in line to buy the book. Sounds almost like a mini series could be written.

Steve, I am just glad your still around after the pipe bomb incident.

I googled this up about Greg Warne.

I had no idea what had happened to him

http://www.amcostarica.com/061606.htm

San Pedro entrepreneur Gregory Warne loved Costa Rican hardwood
By the A.M. Costa Rica staff

San Pedro businessman Gregory Warne died last weekend, officials have disclosed.

Warne operated Armas Deportivas S.A. in Grandilla, San Pedro, where he made custom gun grips from Costa Rica hardwoods.

Warne was found dead in a downtown hotel Friday, but identification was not made until an autopsy was conducted at the Morgue Judicial in Heredia. The initial finding is that he suffered a heart attack, a morgue employee said. His family here had reported him
missing. Warne, who was in his late 50s, was a
well-known figure in downtown circles, and he would relax Friday evenings and discuss business at several bars frequented by North Americans.

Services were still incompleted Thursday, but they are expected to be today in Granadilla.

Warne had an Australian accent, but much of his career was spent in the gun business, first in North American and later here. He identified himself as the retired president of Kimber, the rifle and pistol manufacturer in Clackamas, Oregon.

It was while at the Kimber firm that he became interested in the hardwoods found in Costa Rica, mainly cocobolo. He used the wood in some Kimber products and later moved to Costa Rica and opened up his firm specializing in producing custom wood grips for pistols. His firm had contracts with major gun manufacturers, he said.

A manager at the San Pedro firm said employees there range from 20 to 22.

Glad some hear of some good coming out of the Kimber days. sounds like the friends made there was almost worth it all.I miss Kimber of Oregon as I have yet to see a modern production rifle with custom features and woodwork as nice as those old Kimbers for the money. Coopers are close though, and boy do they shoot.
dan

Steve,
This has been a very interesting thread, I would also encourage you to write the book! AWESOME KNIVES IN THE OTHER THREAD!!!!! I believe you have the greatest collection of Herron knives in history. I wish I had ordered one way back when Petzal wrote an article about trout and bird knives and had a photo of one of Georges knives that I drooled over.
Hindsight......

If "Steve" does end up writing a book on Kimber, he may want to check his facts.

Obviously, he's got a bone to pick with Greg (and apparently a few others like his former editor LOL). For starers, the Portland, Oregon "Oregonian" details the history of Kimber of Oregon from 1979 to 1991 in a number of well written, factual articles.

The Warne family (and a group of investors) sold the company to WTD Industries' Bruce Engle in 1990 - who then promptly filed C11 and liquidated in 1991. The Warnes were completely out of the pictue at this point. So not sure where Steve gets his story about the "feds" showing up?

Greg started Kimber back up with Leslie Edelman in 1995 as Kimber of America. Edelman then took it over completely, merged it with Jericho, and moved the Kimber operations from Oregon to NY.

This is not to say that the Kimber era didn't have some stories...it certainy did. They also didn't end with Greg moving to Costa Rica. Edelman's mob was just as entertaining!

Out of the ashes the Phoenix.....:)

Are Kimber rifles now made in New York or Kalispell, Montana?

Yeah, I just wish dogzapper would consider returning with this thread...

New York

Have they closed the Kimber Manufacturing plant in Kalispell or is it still operating in some fashion?

DJS

Where did you ever hear that any Kimbers were made in Kalispell,MT?

They had a marketing /distribution office there and that is all they had, to my knowledge..

I have never heard of any Kimbers ever actually being made in Kalispell, nor have I have seen or heard of any Kimbers with Kalispell markings.

I thought there was (is) a Kimber Manufacturing located at: 2590 Mt Highway 35, Kalispell, MT. I did know that the sales and marketing was located in Kalispell and (by extension) assumed the manufacturing was co-located.

If I am wrong, thanks for setting me straight..

Yep! We lost a good one IMHO

I live in Kalispell, I always thought it was just Kimber's marketing and sales guys here, but I'll check it out.

Regarding Kimber of Oregon, this has been a very interesting and enlighting thread. Back in the mid 90's I noticed a very pretty used .270 Model 89 BGR Super America on the gun rack down at Ronan and Sprts and Western. I lusted after that rifle for more than a year before trading an old Spanish double for it. If I had read this thread first I probably wouldn't have made that trade, but my opinion of Kimber back then was they were a high quality product.

Anyway, that rifle which I still have and love, did not disappoint. It shot MOA groups with factory ammo, functions flawlessly and best of all, comes up to my shoulder like a fine English game gun. One time hunting Antelope back in eastern Montana we were heading back to camp in my friends pick up. I was in the back seat with my Lope in the bed of the truck, when my buddy who was driving and had a spare doe tag noted a small herd running full tilt along a fence line a couple hundred yards off. His rifle was cased up, but I was holding my Kimber in my lap. He jumped out of the truck with a few .270 rounds in his pocket, I tossed him the Kimber, he was able to chamber one round, brought the Kimber up, swung through a nice doe and shot her through the heart running full speed at 200 yards.

That was the only shot he ever took out of that rifle but to this day he want's me to leave it to him. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones who got a shooter, but I wouldn't trade that rifle for anything.

John

djs,

I have visited the Kimber offices in Kalispell and there are not manufacturing facilities there, and never have been. The firearms are made in Yonkers, New York.

I have a 300WSM Montana. Like it, much. Had to polish the underside edge of the rails to help it feed well. Ten minute job. It's a keeper.

Jim

Jeez another Kimber thread resurrected? Its hard to keep track. Other than the manufacturing facility being in New York, the stocks are made in Costa Rica and shipped north.

Here's a new question: do you reckon that Greg Warne had a hand in arranging the manufacture of the Montana stocks there in Costa Rica?