Kimber rifles

[Junkyard Hog]

Anybody have any experience with Kimber rifles?  I will be purchasing a new rifle soon and am thinking about one of these.

http://www.kimberamerica.com/rifles/model-8400-wsm-calibers/montana

[DeltaBoy]

They are very nice but IMO they are so expensive that I could not take them out in the woods to use.

[Hawgon]

I would get one of these instead:

http://www.forbesriflellc.com/

They don't come in WSM calibers but the WSM is dying anyway (except for the .300 WSM).  The early velocity claims were the result of factory ammunition loaded to ridiculous pressures.  They really don't offer much over standard calibers except for one less round in the magazine and rougher and less reliable feeding.

[DeltaBoy]

IMO I would get a Savage 110 or it's next generation in the Savage line. They shoot great and your not crying about scratchs and such.

[Flying Razorback]

I'd get one of these:  http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/catalog/category.asp?family=001C

I have the Extreme Weather SS and it is a very very fine rifle.  All your Win Short Mags are represented as well.

[Junkyard Hog]

Thanks guys.

Hawgon, what do you prefer about the Forbes rifles to the Kimber's?  I really don't know anything about Forbes pro or con.

[Hawgon]

Thanks guys.

Hawgon, what do you prefer about the Forbes rifles to the Kimber's?  I really don't know anything about Forbes pro or con.

The Forbes is a New Ultralight Arms (NULA) rifle, or a mass produced of it.  The NULA is THE classic ultra light rifle produced by Larry Forbes.  A NULA runs about $3,500 but the Forbes rifles only goes about $1,500.  They did this by mass producing the barrels and only producing a few calibers.

For long action calibers they run about 5 lbs. and for short action calibers they run a little more than 4 lbs..  The Forbes rifle is an almost custom rifle at a production price.  If you want a lightweight rifle, it can't be beat.

[Junkyard Hog]

The Forbes is a New Ultralight Arms (NULA) rifle, or a mass produced of it.  The NULA is THE classic ultra light rifle produced by Larry Forbes.  A NULA runs about $3,500 but the Forbes rifles only goes about $1,500.  They did this by mass producing the barrels and only producing a few calibers.

For long action calibers they run about 5 lbs. and for short action calibers they run a little more than 4 lbs..  The Forbes rifle is an almost custom rifle at a production price.  If you want a lightweight rifle, it can't be beat.

Thanks

[kodiakisland]

Nothing wrong with the Kimber.  The Winchester and Savage suggested by others are nice guns but not in the same niche as the Montana.  Until recently, the kimber Montana was the best bang for the buck when looking for an ultra light rifle without paying a custom price.  There were a few problems a few years back with poor barrel quality and feeding issues, which can be a concern for a WSM round.  Most of those problems have been fixed. 

Now, as already mentioned, there is the Forbes rifle to compete with the kimber.  It has a better quality barrel and stock.  Having played with both, they are both nice guns but I'd go with the Forbes if it is made in the caliber you want.

Either way, you should be happy with either.  The stocks are quite a bit different so go with the one that feels the best for you.

Depending on your wants and needs, Coopers are one of the best production rifles made today.  You may want to give them a look as well.

[kodiakisland]

The Forbes is a New Ultralight Arms (NULA) rifle, or a mass produced of it.  The NULA is THE classic ultra light rifle produced by Larry Forbes. 

Melvin.  He's a great guy and still answers the phone if you call NULA. 

Quite a few years back he partnered with Colt to do the same thing.  It didn't work out too well.  The actions were good but Colt used cheaper parts and they just weren't the quality Melvin was looking for.  That's when he started NULA.  Before the Colt partnership it was ULA.  You can still find Colt Light Rifles for sell if you look.  For the right price they make a great light rifle. 

[AllHog90]

I have the Kimber 8400 Montana in 270WSM. Love the rife, I am missing my right shoulder though...That thing KICKS.

[CallThemHawgs!]

For the money, go with something like a Tikka T3. I got the T3 in .300WM and its a monster, plus incredibly light and the smoothest action of any bolt gun I have fired.

Kimbers are great, but for the price I wont go near one. Way too many great options out there for 1/2 - 1/3 the price.

[Junkyard Hog]

Nothing wrong with the Kimber.  The Winchester and Savage suggested by others are nice guns but not in the same niche as the Montana.  Until recently, the kimber Montana was the best bang for the buck when looking for an ultra light rifle without paying a custom price.  There were a few problems a few years back with poor barrel quality and feeding issues, which can be a concern for a WSM round.  Most of those problems have been fixed. 

Now, as already mentioned, there is the Forbes rifle to compete with the kimber.  It has a better quality barrel and stock.  Having played with both, they are both nice guns but I'd go with the Forbes if it is made in the caliber you want.

Either way, you should be happy with either.  The stocks are quite a bit different so go with the one that feels the best for you.

Depending on your wants and needs, Coopers are one of the best production rifles made today.  You may want to give them a look as well.

Thanks.  Good info.  I'll check into the Coopers as well.

[Hawgon]

Melvin.  He's a great guy and still answers the phone if you call NULA. 

Quite a few years back he partnered with Colt to do the same thing.  It didn't work out too well.  The actions were good but Colt used cheaper parts and they just weren't the quality Melvin was looking for.  That's when he started NULA.  Before the Colt partnership it was ULA.  You can still find Colt Light Rifles for sell if you look.  For the right price they make a great light rifle. 

You're right of course, I'm not sure why I said Larry.  I think I was just talking to a client named Larry when I wrote that.

[Junkyard Hog]

What about Sako?

[tophawg19]

it's still hard to beat the remington BDL 700 . These guns are more accurate than 95 % of the shooters are capable of .

[Hawgon]

it's still hard to beat the remington BDL 700 . These guns are more accurate than 95 % of the shooters are capable of .

The guns we are talking about are at least 2.5 pounds lighter than a BDL.

[CallThemHawgs!]

What about Sako?

You wont find a better gun.

Finnish guns, parent company of Tikka. One in the same. Tikka is their value line. If you have the dough, take a Sako over a Kimber every day of the week.

[Junkyard Hog]

You wont find a better gun.

Finnish guns, parent company of Tikka. One in the same. Tikka is their value line. If you have the dough, take a Sako over a Kimber every day of the week.

Thanks.

[tophawg19]

The guns we are talking about are at least 2.5 pounds lighter than a BDL.

in the calibers i use , no thanks . remington has mild recoil compared , which means your likely to be more accurate .

[grayhawg]

I have a 700ADL made in the 60's in 30-06 caliber that still shoots super accurate and I also have a 700BDL I got in the early 90's in a 7mm Mag that does also. I have killed several deer with both and a couple Elk with the ADL. I don't care to take either bone in the brush or bad weather.

   And the cool part is if I wanted tom sell either one there are at least 100 buyers for them to ever 1 buyer for the expensive guns.

Don't get me wrong the high end guns like SAKO and Kimber are great weapons but not necessary to have success for the average hunter.   IMHO

[DeltaBoy]

Bottom line to me is cost per return and a Remington will kill them just as dead.

[kodiakisland]

What about Sako?

Sako are good guns.  I like the older ones much more than the ones made today.  If it doesn't have a palm swell, it's hard to call it a Sako.  They are heavier than the Kimber and not meant to compete for the same use.  Great gun but you won't see many in the steep stuff.

[kodiakisland]

Bottom line to me is cost per return and a Remington will kill them just as dead.

I guess we'd all be driving datsuns and living in trailers if bottom line was cost.  Gladly it's not.  Nothing wrong with Remingtons but there are much better out there for those who want it.

[kodiakisland]

One more thought on cost.  Buying a gun is a lifetime investment.  Of the three guns I've hunted with this fall, the newest is at least 15 years old.  The other two are closer to thirty.  I've got a Sako almost 50 and still going strong.  A couple hundred bucks means very little for something I'll end up passing on to my grandchildren years from now.

If I had to make due with only one or two, I'd buy the best I could afford, not whatever WalMart had on sale.

[Junkyard Hog]

One more thought on cost.  Buying a gun is a lifetime investment.  Of the three guns I've hunted with this fall, the newest is at least 15 years old.  The other two are closer to thirty.  I've got a Sako almost 50 and still going strong.  A couple hundred bucks means very little for something I'll end up passing on to my grandchildren years from now.

If I had to make due with only one or two, I'd buy the best I could afford, not whatever WalMart had on sale.

These are my thoughts as well.  I haven't bought a new gun in close to 20 years.  Price is obviously a consideration, just a very minor one.  I don't mind spending money on a nice gun. 

As to your earlier comparison with Kimber and Sako, I don't necessarily need a lightweight gun.  I've just always heard of the high quality of those rifles.  I'm just looking for a very nice rifle to mainly deer hunt and maybe occasionally take on some larger game.  I am leaning toward a .270wsm but haven't made my mind up yet.

[Hawgon]

I've reached the point where I think I need to thin the herd and maybe get some real quality guns.  But, it is so hard to do.  Further, my favorite rifle is a Husqvarna built on an FN commercial 98 from about 1950.  It has model 70 type safety and a Basner stock.  It is just about perfect...light but not ridiculously so, and handy.  It is really close to what one of the famous writers (I forget which one) called "A Rifleman's Rifle" years ago.  And the thing is, to get the kind of quality that rifle has in a modern rifle, it would probably cost $3,000.00.  Sure, a $400 Ruger American might out shoot it by a little bit, but it wouldn't be the same.

Since it is a 30-06, I could pretty much hunt probably everything in the world except for elephants and cape buffalo with that rifle and call it a day.  I'm thinking about just buying more ammo and components for the ones I have, instead of buying more. 

Oh, and I have a virtual twin to that rifle, except it has a thumb cut action instead of pure commercial, in 9.3x62.

[tophawg19]

you can pay a fortune , but in the real world few shooters are good enough to take advantage of the guns ability . Both my Remingtons will shoot groups under an inch at 100 yards , but i can no longer shoot at that level. both are over 30 yrs old . most of us in real world hunting don't have a bench rest available during the hunt so it's not that important if a gun shoots under or just over 1 inch groups . 300 yards is about the maximum range the average shooter can handle . any good quality rifle can more than handle that.

[Hawgon]

you can pay a fortune , but in the real world few shooters are good enough to take advantage of the guns ability . Both my Remingtons will shoot groups under an inch at 100 yards , but i can no longer shoot at that level. both are over 30 yrs old . most of us in real world hunting don't have a bench rest available during the hunt so it's not that important if a gun shoots under or just over 1 inch groups . 300 yards is about the maximum range the average shooter can handle . any good quality rifle can more than handle that.

It isn't about accuracy.  If it were, no one would need anything but the cheapest Savage.

[Junkyard Hog]

you can pay a fortune , but in the real world few shooters are good enough to take advantage of the guns ability . Both my Remingtons will shoot groups under an inch at 100 yards , but i can no longer shoot at that level. both are over 30 yrs old . most of us in real world hunting don't have a bench rest available during the hunt so it's not that important if a gun shoots under or just over 1 inch groups . 300 yards is about the maximum range the average shooter can handle . any good quality rifle can more than handle that.

No doubt you can find cheaper options.  There is nothing wrong with going that route.

I don't NEED an expensive gun.  I could hunt with the ones I have right now for the rest of my life. 

People also don't NEED expensive cars, shoes, houses, iphones, etc but there is nothing wrong with wanting nice, high quality items.

I don't like wasting money but I also don't mind spending it on quality things.

[kodiakisland]

These are my thoughts as well.  I haven't bought a new gun in close to 20 years.  Price is obviously a consideration, just a very minor one.  I don't mind spending money on a nice gun. 

As to your earlier comparison with Kimber and Sako, I don't necessarily need a lightweight gun.  I've just always heard of the high quality of those rifles.  I'm just looking for a very nice rifle to mainly deer hunt and maybe occasionally take on some larger game.  I am leaning toward a .270wsm but haven't made my mind up yet.

The kimber Montana is a great niche rifle.  Not many rifles will do what it does for about the same price.  Forbes being one of the few.  If you don't need or necessarily want a light weight rifle, there are more choices today than have ever been. 

They will all shoot about the same.  The difference is in the quality of materials, fit, and finish.  Do you want a tool or a piece of art or something in between.  Are you going to take care of it or leave it in the barn or under the truck seat?

I have reached a point that I am happy with fewer guns that are well built.  I don't worry about scratches while hunting as that's what they were made for.  I am currently looking for a cooper model 54 in .250-3000 and a Kimber super America in 7mm-08. 

[kodiakisland]

you can pay a fortune , but in the real world few shooters are good enough to take advantage of the guns ability . Both my Remingtons will shoot groups under an inch at 100 yards , but i can no longer shoot at that level. both are over 30 yrs old . most of us in real world hunting don't have a bench rest available during the hunt so it's not that important if a gun shoots under or just over 1 inch groups . 300 yards is about the maximum range the average shooter can handle . any good quality rifle can more than handle that.

Many people view a gun as a tool.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  As a tool, I can only think of one or two rifles I would not use.  Some people are gun people and prefer a gun that is more than just a tool.  A gun that has had some actual attention applied to it by a real person who knows what they are doing.  Just like everything else in life.  Golf clubs, cars, houses, clothes, etc., some people want the most basic and othesr want a little better.  Thankfully we have choices.

[Junkyard Hog]

The kimber Montana is a great niche rifle.  Not many rifles will do what it does for about the same price.  Forbes being one of the few.  If you don't need or necessarily want a light weight rifle, there are more choices today than have ever been. 

They will all shoot about the same.  The difference is in the quality of materials, fit, and finish.  Do you want a tool or a piece of art or something in between.  Are you going to take care of it or leave it in the barn or under the truck seat?

I have reached a point that I am happy with fewer guns that are well built.  I don't worry about scratches while hunting as that's what they were made for.  I am currently looking for a cooper model 54 in .250-3000 and a Kimber super America in 7mm-08. 

Probably somewhere in between a tool and a work of art.  I want a high quality good looking gun.  At the same time, I'm buying it to hunt with and I won't be scared to take it anywhere.

It will be well taken care of (in a gun safe when not in use).

Another consideration is that I would like a gun that allows you to open the action with the safety on.  I don't really like to have the safety off to work the bolt when loading/unloading.

[CallThemHawgs!]

Probably somewhere in between a tool and a work of art.  I want a high quality good looking gun.  At the same time, I'm buying it to hunt with and I won't be scared to take it anywhere.

It will be well taken care of (in a gun safe when not in use).

Another consideration is that I would like a gun that allows you to open the action with the safety on.  I don't really like to have the safety off to work the bolt when loading/unloading.

If you want a cheap alternative to the Kimber Montana that you can actually use,  not worry about, and know is going to go bang time and time again.... look no further...

http://www.tikka.fi/t3models.php?lite

Damn near as light, and I would trust it with my life. Smoothest action I have ever worked in a "value" gun too.

[Junkyard Hog]

If you want a cheap alternative to the Kimber Montana that you can actually use,  not worry about, and know is going to go bang time and time again.... look no further...

http://www.tikka.fi/t3models.php?lite

Damn near as light, and I would trust it with my life. Smoothest action I have ever worked in a "value" gun too.

Thanks.  No doubt these are fine guns, just not exactly what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for a gun a "notch or two" nicer than the tikka. I also don't like their safeties.

[CallThemHawgs!]

Thanks.  No doubt these are fine guns, just not exactly what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for a gun a "notch or two" nicer than the tikka. I also don't like their safeties.

Take a look at the Sako then. Beautiful guns. I also like Steyer products, but they are tough to find sometimes.

[kodiakisland]

For you CZ fans, the 550 is for the most part going away next year.  It's being replaced by a new push feed action.  According to distributors, the only 550s to be imported will be the FS models. 

[pigture perfect]

Savage or Remington for me. It's more the man behind the gun than the brand.

[Hawgon]

For you CZ fans, the 550 is for the most part going away next year.  It's being replaced by a new push feed action.  According to distributors, the only 550s to be imported will be the FS models. 

That is a shame.  I guess they're going to something easier and cheaper to produce.  They once were pretty cheap over here but the weak dollar means they are probably getting their clocks cleaned.

It really is crazy.  I picked up an angle eject 30-30 a month or two ago.  It is probably no more than fifteen years old or so, but still, it is like something from a different world...wood and blue, with well machined parts.  Don't get me wrong, all the rifles I really use have good synthetic stocks, but it sure is depressing trying to buy an off the shelf bolt rifle these days in a world where a Savage 110 with a wood stock is seen as a "nice" rifle.

[kodiakisland]

Yep.  I've really started looking at vintage rifles lately.  I wish I could afford a pre war british bolt rifle or a springfield Griffin & Howe.  The selection today is great where price and accuracy are concerned, but rifles used to be works of art and still designed for hard work.

The Cabelas in Rogers had a 1903 mannlicher Schoenauer carbine in 6.5X54 when it opened.  I was hoping it would have no interest and they would drop the price but it sold pretty quick.  I would have loved to have hunted that rifle.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

One more thought on cost.  Buying a gun is a lifetime investment.  Of the three guns I've hunted with this fall, the newest is at least 15 years old.  The other two are closer to thirty.  I've got a Sako almost 50 and still going strong.  A couple hundred bucks means very little for something I'll end up passing on to my grandchildren years from now.

If I had to make due with only one or two, I'd buy the best I could afford, not whatever WalMart had on sale.

Yes, but for some of us the best we can afford..... are not like the most expensive that others can afford.  Nothing wrong with Sako's, Kimbers, etc., very nice rifles. Just often out of the price range for the average guy....that's why they don't sell as many of those as Remington, Marlin, Savage, etc.  Guess I have always gone along with the idea, I would rather have 2 (or 3) good, dependable, affordable Remingtons.....than 1 great Kimber or Sako, that I would not want to scratch or get banged up out there in the field.

Bought my 2nd Rem 700 back in 1979.  It has killed a bunch of game. Never needed a repair, is very accurate, looks great & is still going strong. This gun will be passed along after I am gone.  In fact, every Rem 700 that I have owned, never needed a big repair or replacement job.  Had trigger jobs, stocks modified, etc.  Things I wanted, but didn't have to do...but really only one, that had something minor done to, that effected the firearm operation.  I have owned about 12 Rem model 700's in different calibers & configurations, half of those I bought back in the 80's.  I still have several.  Some were sold to friends that still have them. Every one was/is reliable,  very accurate, in good shape & will last many more years if taken care of.  All of the Rem 700's that I have, or have owned....would last a normal person that takes good care of his firearms....a lifetime of hunting, or more.  The ones I have...will all shoot 1/2" groups at 100 yds with the right load & bullet.  This is more than adequate as a hunting rifle for the average joe....which is who I am.

[kodiakisland]

Maybe not you, but I hear this all the time.  People claim to have to buy cheaper stuff becasue they can't afford better.  Those same people have boats and 4 wheelers they don't use and a new vehicle every couple of years.  I'm averaging a truck every 10 years and have no expensive toys taking up space in the garage. 
As for guns, I'd rather save for an extra year and buy something nice.  After all, I will be using it for many years and hope to pass it on once I'm gone.  My average hunting rifles see at least 150+ rounds a year through them so I want something I'm going to enjoy for the next 30 years or so.

As far as remingtons, I have 4 so I have no ill will against them.  I haven't been impressed with anything I've seen in the last 10 years or so from the company and probably won't buy another unless it's a great deal on an older model.

And as far as scratches and banged up guns from hunting, I've yet to wear one out.  Fine wood holds up just as well as cheap wood.  Sometimes better.

It doesn't matter to me what people shoot.  Some people have a gun because they feel they need one but really have no use for it.  Others shoot theirs once or twice a year or maybe only every couple of years.  Some peple would rather be out playing golf.  That's fine with me.  I'm glad we have lots of choices.

[CallThemHawgs!]

Maybe not you, but I hear this all the time.  People claim to have to buy cheaper stuff becasue they can't afford better.  Those same people have boats and 4 wheelers they don't use and a new vehicle every couple of years.  I'm averaging a truck every 10 years and have no expensive toys taking up space in the garage. 
As for guns, I'd rather save for an extra year and buy something nice.  After all, I will be using it for many years and hope to pass it on once I'm gone.  My average hunting rifles see at least 150+ rounds a year through them so I want something I'm going to enjoy for the next 30 years or so.

As far as remingtons, I have 4 so I have no ill will against them.  I haven't been impressed with anything I've seen in the last 10 years or so from the company and probably won't buy another unless it's a great deal on an older model.

And as far as scratches and banged up guns from hunting, I've yet to wear one out.  Fine wood holds up just as well as cheap wood.  Sometimes better.

It doesn't matter to me what people shoot.  Some people have a gun because they feel they need one but really have no use for it.  Others shoot theirs once or twice a year or maybe only every couple of years.  Some peple would rather be out playing golf.  That's fine with me.  I'm glad we have lots of choices.

I think if you are constantly looking out, and being smart about your money, you can get great guns at a great price.

Guns are something that dont really go down in price, but sometimes people need cash more than a gun. These are the situations I look for.

Just because a gun is cheap, does not mean it is not great. I have a cheap Marlin 917v with a factory bull barrel that will go damn near same hole all day using 20gr loads. Its a friggin $200 gun.

[DeltaBoy]

I used a 760 in 30-06 for 25 years and with 150 grain Remmington ammo it gives me sub inch at 100 and a 2 3/4 group at 300.

[CallThemHawgs!]

Saw a Kimber .22lr bolt gun for $980 + tax earlier today... GTFO...

[kodiakisland]

That would be a Kimber of Oregon rifle.  Anything under $800 for one in good shape would be a good deal.

[CallThemHawgs!]

That would be a Kimber of Oregon rifle.  Anything under $800 for one in good shape would be a good deal.

Absurd.. you can get an AMAZING CZ for half that...

[kodiakisland]

The CZ is a good rifle, but the fit and finish is better on the Kimber.  Personally, for that money in a 22lr I'd rather have a winchester 52B.

[Hawgon]

Absurd.. you can get an AMAZING CZ for half that...

The Kimber is a lot nicer rifle than the CZ.  Now, the CZ will shoot as well or getter than anything out there, but it isn't exactly high end.

[CallThemHawgs!]

The Kimber is a lot nicer rifle than the CZ.  Now, the CZ will shoot as well or getter than anything out there, but it isn't exactly high end.

Yeah but nice wood CZ bolt guns are not trash... I mean, for the money it would be a no brainer... unless you were just trying to find things to spend cash on.