Author Topic: Kimber 84m montana in .308 or.338 federal? (Read 3246 times)

festus45 · « **on:** December 26, 2007, 08:14:33 AM »

I am looking to purchase a new rifle. It will be a Kimber 84M Montana. I will use it for deer and hopefully some day black bear. I hunt primarily in NY dive hunting and sometimers in the Adirondacks again walking so I want a light weight rifle. I am not overly sensitive to recoil having grown up on slug guns. Looking for input on the accuracy capabilitiies of this rifle and this rifle matched to those calibers.

MagSav · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2007, 02:37:47 AM »

I have the Kimber Montana in 243 Win. I got it because of the weight. In my opinion though I get 1 inch groups at 100 yrds and even though most guys would be happy with that I would think with the money that you pay ($900-$1000) you should get better. I glass bedded the stock too which I think the ads say they are already glass bedded. I think you could get just as accurate a rifle in Savage and it won't thin your wallet as much. I'm not against Kimber (as I just bought a Kimber 22 yesterday) I just expected a little better. I hope this helps you out.

Mikey · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2007, 03:04:27 AM »

festus45: If you are going to hunt the Adirondacks you shouldn't need anything more than a 30-30 or if you want, a lever in a 35 caliber, 375 Winchester or 444. Oh yeah, 45-70, too.

Caliber wise you won't need anyting more than the 308 but it's up to you if you want to spend a grand on a bolt rifle. Kimber is a excellent quality rifle, but your shots are liable not to be farther than 100 yds in the Adirondacks - maybe a bit further if you hunt fields, but at those distances you sure don't need a 338 or even a 308 for that matter.

If the Kimbers shoot to one inch or better and that is the accuracy level you are looking for, then go for it. All the reports I have read on Kimbers indicate 1 inch or better at 100 yds and that is excellent out of the box accuracy. Of course, the quality of the Kimber is one element lots of guys speak to, being smooth with crisp triggers and easily manageable safeties - what more could ya want.

JMTCW. Mikey.

festus45 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2007, 05:06:30 AM »

My main goal is the weight savings. I would hope to get sub moa accuracy from a gun in that price range. Presently I have a few Winchester Featherweights that do all that I need from a deer gun. Probably the similarities between the model 70's and the Kimber combined with the lower weight are the main selling points of the Kimber.

ssghelmick · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2007, 06:12:08 AM »

I have a 84M in .308 and I love it. The recoil is not bad at all much to my surprise. I am getting 1 MOA accuracy with it however if you are looking for better than that I would look else where. To have a gun that weighs 6lbs with scope and mounts shoot sub-MOA is a tall order. With the light barrel contour it heats up quicker than one with a heavier contour and thus makes it harder to achieve less than MOA. A light rifle is for hunting for the reasons you point out and MOA is outstanding for a hunting rifle. Guns that achieve sub MOA are typically bench rifles and are much heavier and are few and far between as far as factory rifles go.

Everyone thinks that 1000 bucks is alot to pay for a rifle these days but have you looked around lately? What does a Sako cost or a Remington Titanium, or a TC Icon, or a Browning Mountain Titanium cost? You will pay for that type of quality no matter what you buy and 1 MOA is usually more than you can expect from any off the rack rifle no matter the cost. You can still buy rifles for less money but they wont be as light and wont be of the same quality.... You get what you pay for and that's all you get.

Graybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2007, 06:15:07 AM »

I was about to buy a Kimber in .260 Remington earlier this year and contacted them to ask about accuracy of the rifles as I felt too that for that money it should have some sort of promise of expected accuracy. I was told they offer no promises or guarantees and that with the light barrels on them I shouldn't expect real excellent accuracy from them. I tried real hard to get a likely level of accuracy from them and it just was not forth coming. I decided to buy a Remington Model 7 instead. Remington also offers no promises but I've owned darn few that wouldn't shoot less than an inch at 100 yards. The one I got certainly does shoot that well.

The Kimber might have also but they were just so evasive and so obvious in pleading the case that thin barrels aren't or shouldn't be expected to shoot well. I don't buy that as thin barrel guns are mostly what I own and when the Remington name is on them the shoot with the best in my experience. I'd still like to have that light weight Kimber but not if it's not gonna shoot.

keyway · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2007, 02:41:37 PM »

festus45 : I have a Kimber Montana in the 308 and love the gun. It truly likes lighter weight bullets such as 125grain and has shot a 5 shot group of a 1/2 inch. Last year I bought a 338 Federal Tikka T3 and prefer it over the Kimber. It does not shoot as well, but the gun is a much better value for the money. I would take a 338 Federal over the 308 for the fact that it performs great for me. Three deer harvested and all 3 droped in their tracks without taking another step. Also the one deer was taken through 35 yards of thicket that you could barely see the deer. The 338 droped it before the deer had a chance to move. I am a person that don't believe in owning two rifles when one is all I need, so I tried to sell the Kimber. After 90 days no luck, one dealer that sells alot of Kimbers offered me $400 trade-in so I guess I have to change my beleives. Hope my reply helps you.

Zachary · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2008, 03:17:24 AM »

Graybeard is right. When a rifle such as the Kimber is so lightweight, and also has such a thin barrel, one should not expect great accuracy.

That said, I have a Kimber Montana in .300WSM. I have only shot 2 factory loads. Federal 180 Nosler Partitions, and 180 Barnes TSX. With the Partitions, I got about 1" groups. With the Barnes TSX, I got about 1.25, maybe a bit more. So my gun likes the Partitions, and I was actually surprised that it shot them in 1" groups. For me, 1" groups are not stellar, but in such a lightweight gun, I was pleasantly surprised.

Zachary

The Sodbuster · « **Reply #8 on:** January 01, 2008, 06:50:02 AM »

Quote

I get 1 inch groups at 100 yrds and even though most guys would be happy with that I would think with the money that you pay ($900-$1000) you should get better.

I agree, for $1,000 a rifle should be accurate and put at least some loads inside an inch at 100 yards from a bench. But there's a lot more that goes in to a rifle's manufacture that affects the price but might not do much for accuracy:

For wood stocks, the quality and figure of the wood and the finish
For synthetics, is it injection molded plastic or hand laid fiberglass or other fibers?
Quality of the trigger. I've got a pre-accutrigger Savage model 12. It's got a heavy, creepy trigger. I can shoot very tight groups from a bench but can't shoot it worth a darn from a field position
Fit and finish of the parts and quality of the machining: is the bolt sloppy? Was the action inletting gnawed by a beaver or carefully machined and finished?
Does it have a quality recoil pad or a cheap, thin, hard one?

Savage/Stevens and other manufacturers have proven you can make a very accurate rifle for $4-500. And if accuracy and cost are your only criteria, then go with that. Other factors have more to do with appearance, shootabillity, fit, and finish. In addition, some folks consider resale value as a factor (I don't). I s'pose that's got more to do with brand name and cartridge choice.

Graybeard · « **Reply #9 on:** January 01, 2008, 08:14:39 AM »

I did not say one should not expect good accuracy from a thin barrel rifle NOR do I believe it. That is why when Kimber told me that I elected NOT to buy Kimber.

Most of my bolt guns have been Remington Mtn. Rifles and Remington Model 7s both of which have rather pencil thin barrels. In spite of this almost all other than that very first M7 have been MOA or better guns with a variety of loads. Some of them began to move POI when the barrel heated and some did not.

A properly made barrel will NOT walk the POI when it heats up. If it does it means the barrel is stressed and is an indication it was NOT made properly. To me that's what Kimber is saying, they are admitting they do not make their rifles properly and are more concerned with looks than shooting ability. I on the other hand am more concerned with how a gun shoots than how it looks. Still there is no reason you must sacrifice one for the other.

NULA guns are super light and all barrels are pencil thin yet they are some of the most accurate rifles made. IF Kimber wanted to badly enough theirs could be also. Since they are not they are not likely to get any of my business.

Zachary · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2008, 03:07:38 AM »

I went to NULA's site; pretty impressive. Not necessarily the website itself, but the information contained therein, particular with respect to their barrels. I certainly can agree that a lighter/properly made barrel can shoot more accurately than a heavier/cheaply made barrel. However, I think that we can all agree that, everything else being equal, heavier rifles shoot generally shoot more accurately than lighter ones, primarily because the added weight reduces felt recoil. Again, one thing should be emphasized, and that is "all else being equal."

On a related note, I forgot to mention in my previous post that, since my Kimber Montana is so light, it has some fierce recoil in .300WSM with 180 grain bullets. I definately did not enjoy zeroing that gun at the range.

Zachary

ssghelmick · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2008, 11:41:59 AM »

I know of very few companies that guarantee that their factory rifles will shoot 1 MOA or less regardless of price. I haven't seen any guarantees from Remington and their Titanium costs more than the Kimber So does the Browning Mountian Titanium and no guarantee of accuracy. The model 7 is a nice rifle I have one, but it doesn't compare feature wise to my Kimber and therefore wont put them in the same class, and still no guarantee of accuracy.

I would however expect a custom rifle like Nula for 3 times the money of the 84M to shoot 1 MOA or better. And your right Kimber could do the same but then the price would have to be the same as the Nula. You get what you pay for! While I agree you can still buy cheap rifles that shoot you are still dealing with Tupperware stocks, less than desirable triggers, and they weigh more than the 84M and the fit and finish aren't even close to the same.

1sourdough · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2008, 11:17:34 PM »

I didn't see if you reload but of those 2 choices even if you do reload I would get the 308. For NY deer & possibly bear hunting & just about anything else you would be all set. I have 3 308's & a bunch of other guns but if it came to one chambering I'll take a 308.

David Carey · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2008, 08:54:10 AM »

I won a Kimber 84M 338 Federal at a Friends of the NRA dinner last year, I love the rifle my daughter shoots it as her favorite. It has about the same perceived recoil as my Remington 270. I am not a big spender and probably would have never shelled out the money to buy it. I reload but the initial purchase of ammo is around $35.00 per box of shells. We have only shot it out to 100 yards but it is very accurate.

Dave

safetysheriff · « **Reply #14 on:** January 12, 2008, 04:37:34 AM »

i'd buy a model 700 sps in stainless and chop the barrel to 20" in length. i'd buy it in 7mm-08. it comes in at 7 1/4 lbs from the factory. taking 4" off the barrel and re-crowning it would bring it in under 7 lbs i'd expect. it would cost a lot less than a Kimber which is such a fragile rifle, in my opinion, both by weight and by way of a button-rifled barrel on such an expensive firearm! yes, button-rifling is even being used on many models by Weatherby today. but i consider it to be a mistake.

the ballistic co-efficients (bc) of 7mm bullets are oftentimes rather impressive. that's why i'd go with the 7mm-08 ahead of the .308 caliber. the 7mm is a great compromise diameter for a projectile. where some weight is needed the 7mm 'bc' can still make up for velocity lost with the heavier bullets.

interestingly, i have read from jack o'connor's articles about the .270 Win' (one in the 8th edition "Handloader's Digest" on page 32) that he got 2,885 fps velocity with a 130 gr' bullet out of a 19" barrel .....using the original h4831 which is no longer to be had i don't think. today's h4831 is somewhat faster. but the point is.......a .270 win' can reach out and touch something with a 20" barrel such as i am recommending. jack's writing did indicate a 19" barrel for his use, however.

ss'

ssghelmick · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2008, 06:59:08 AM »

Quote from: safetysheriff on January 12, 2008, 04:37:34 AM

i'd buy a model 700 sps in stainless and chop the barrel to 20" in length. i'd buy it in 7mm-08. it comes in at 7 1/4 lbs from the factory. taking 4" off the barrel and re-crowning it would bring it in under 7 lbs i'd expect. it would cost a lot less than a Kimber which is such a fragile rifle, in my opinion, both by weight and by way of a button-rifled barrel on such an expensive firearm! yes, button-rifling is even being used on many models by Weatherby today. but i consider it to be a mistake.

ss'

Are you saying that you believe a factory hammer forged barrel to be more accurate than a button rifled one? If you cut down the barrel on an SPS wouldn't you be further ahead to just buy the Model 7 as mentioned earlier? I'm also curious what is it that makes Kimber a fragile rifle?

At 7lbs without scope you will still be 2lbs heavier than an 84M.

safetysheriff · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2008, 05:23:10 AM »

i think that although button-rifled barrels oftentimes start out being accurate, they do not maintain their accuracy as long as hammer-forged barrels. the metal doesn't handle the pressure and temperatures of high-intensity cartridges. they also can be relatively rough compared to hammer-forged units. that's why some people complain about their being "foul-o-matics" and so on, picking up a lot of metal fouling.

i honestly think that for the price of a Kimber a cut-rifled barrel could be part of the package. it would be closer to the standards of a competition barrel such as Krieger sells to the match competitors. why? because remington's price for a hammer-forged unit, with its well-documented, well-known accuracy is cheaper by $250 to $350 dollars. the difference in the cut-rifled unit, if one was provided by Kimber, could be included in the rifle's already-high price tag.

model Seven's are somewhat pricey, too. i've held a Model 700 SPS in stainless steel and it's relatively light. the Kimber's lightweight approach to building their rifle gives us a thin barrel in the Montana edition, and a thinned-out stock. AND, the guarantee of accuracy with a much-less-expensive Weatherby Vanguard tells me that Kimber is not really interested in giving us much for the money.

a cut-down 20" barrel on an SPS in Stainless Steel would probably be a lot stiffer than the 22" barrel on the Kimber. i'd expect it to outshoot the Kimber for accuracy. AND, the Remington trigger is adjustable. i've seen great pull-weights from Model 700 ADL's , etc. with trigger work done at home, sometimes using Wolff Gunspring replacements, sometimes just adjusting the factory Remington spring.

my sincere opinions,

ss'

ssghelmick · « **Reply #17 on:** January 18, 2008, 07:57:30 AM »

It seems to me that there is some confusion between factory and custom. I know of no factory rifles of any price offering a cut riffled barrel. That's probably because it's not feasible. I don't want to get into the manufacturing costs of making rifle barrels but a cut riffled barrel is among the most costly to produce.

As far as button rifled barrels being inferior to hammer forged barrels I know of a ton of barrel makers who would argue that your opinion is flawed. I have looked through many Remington barrels with a bore scope and have always wondered how any of them shoot as well as they do. I will not argue the point that Remington's shoot because most do, but as rough as thier barrels look in the scope I am still amazed that they do.

To each their own in opinions though after all that's what makes this country great and why I'm proud to defend it.

Somewhere along the line I think people are getting confused that Kimber is a custom rifle when in fact they are a factory production rifle. Yes they're cost is more than some but still less than some others as far as fit and finish goes and a very well designed crf action is concerned I think a 1000.00 bucks for one is about right, and in line when comparing other products of like workmanship. I'm sure others will complain about the price of the TC Icon which is more than the Kimber along with a bunch of others including certain models form Remington and Browning. I have also heard that the new model 70's will be up around that price as well but only time will tell.

Bottom line in my opinion is an SPS with a plastic stock and a cut off barrel could be a rifle that someone might want, but not me.

longwinters · « **Reply #18 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:09:22 AM »

Well, back to the original question about caliber. I have not looked much at the 338 Federal but if I could get the components, at a reasonable price I suppose it would be an option. I have a 308 that I use for deer and really like it. It is not my only deer caliber rifle but it seems to be the one I take most often. If you don't reload the ammo for the f-338 is probably quite expensive and restricted. The 308 has neither of these problems. Accuracy wise the 308 is a proven caliber. I understand that it is not an exciting caliber. None of the posh that surrounds a new caliber, but I think that the Fed 338 is another caliber that makes a bit of a stir on the internet, but won't be popular with the general hunting public, hence it may be somewhat short lived.

Just my opinion of course.

Long

jvs · « **Reply #19 on:** January 18, 2008, 11:41:20 PM »

Festus,

Why does a hunting rifle have to weigh 6 lbs to hunt Deer and Black Bear with?

Hunting in Pa is close to what you outline, and for what I know about it, a light weight rifle would barely hold up over time.

I have been out in all kinds of weather on all kinds of terrain, and went for some long walks. There were some bumps and some slips and falls. I can tell you that by the time I got back on some days, I was glad to get that Monkey Off My Back. But... I would also hate to see what I'd have left of a pretty 6 lb rifle after over 30 yrs of hunting.

As far as caliber, I would choose the .308 hands down, if that were the only two calibers to choose from. Bigger calibers for Bigger Bear. What you need to do is ask yourself is what would you do if you cross paths with a State Record Black Bear one day. Will your caliber down a 900 pounder before it runs away and in front of some other hunter with 3 of your bullets in it? Our state Record Black Bear was taken by a .30/30. It had 5 other bullets in it, but the one that was last was a .30/30. Does that mean a .30/30 is the best Bear caliber? No, it means that a .30-06, 2 - 12 gauge slugs and a shot from a .444 didn't do the job, for whatever reason.

I suppose it is the way you hunt that dictates what style of rifle you seem to want to use, not the game animal you are seeking. I think you are seeking a Deer Rifle. A rifle for Bear is another, seperate purchase. There is NO all around caliber for hunting the two different and distinct animals you named.