Author Topic: Kimber 8400 Montana 300WSM (Read 1286 times)

Big Game Hunter · « **on:** January 19, 2005, 05:52:18 AM »

I am bouncing around the idea of buying a Kimber 8400 Montana chambered in 300 WSM. I am needing a new sheep/mountain gun and I can't decide on this gun or having a gun built. I really don't want to spend $2k plus on having a gun built if this gun will do the job. Does anyone have any experience with this gun and if so, what is your opinion? Any comments will be appreciated.

Zachary · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2005, 06:41:30 AM »

I ordered the exact same gun. Guess how long ago - over a year and a half!! I still don't have the gun. Thanks for reminding me. I'm gonna give the dealer a call.

Still, why are you talking about 2k for it? I think mine was about $850 or so. Yes, I got a good deal on it, but MSRP on it is about 1K or so, but certainly not 2k.

Zachary

Big Game Hunter · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2005, 07:02:51 AM »

I said,
"I really don't want to spend $2k plus on having a gun built if this gun will do the job." The Kimber is about $1k. That is $1k difference ion the two rifles. If the kimber will do the job for $1k and I can have it now, that is what I will do and save $1k.

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2005, 08:02:08 AM »

The Kimber really is a nice gun and VERY light in weight. Should make an ideal rifle for your needs. I have held one so chambered at my local dealer. Since I don't do magnums it was of no interest to me in that chambering tho. Zach if your dealer hasn't gotten one in that time he isn't trying. My dealer has had several in the last year's time.

Zachary · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2005, 08:46:23 AM »

I just got off the phone with the dealer - Elliot's Small Arms in Louisiana. I noticed that I put a deposit on the gun on 7/14/03 - yup '03. Even the guy I spoke to over there was shocked.

Even they themselves told me that other customers got their Kimbers a while back. Kinda scatchin' my head as to what the heck is going on with my order. They'll call me back today or tomorrow and I'll find out.

Zachary

Zachary · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2005, 03:27:35 PM »

I spoke with the dealer today. He apologized for everything and told me that he just received 2 Kimber 8400 Montanas in .300WSM. I told him to hold one and I'll send him the balance and contact the FFL dealer to send his FFL license. Hopefully I should get the rifle in relatively soon. I'll keep you guys posted.

Zachary

Carl l. · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2005, 02:59:05 AM »

I got a chance to hold a Kimber this past weekin that a friend brought me to look at. That is one nice gun. The bolt and trigger works the smoothist that I ever had in my hands. He had a Swarovski scope on it also. the weather was so bad that I didn't get to shoot it but he said he could hold a good group with it.

If I was going to buy another gun I would have one of those's. Like Greybeard said it is a little light in weight. Carl L.

Zachary · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2005, 07:38:35 AM »

Carl, I'm curious as to what swarovski scope he actually had mounted on it. Do you remember? The reason I ask is because Swarovski scopes tend to be kinda heavy (depending on model) which defeats the purpose of a light rifle.

I love Elite 4200s, Zeiss Conquests, and Nikon Monarchs. However, when I get my Kimber, I think that I'm going to mount either the Leupold VX-III in 2.5x-8x-36mm or, at the most, the 3.5x-10x-40mm.

I'm sure Graybeard will be surprised, if not pleased, to hear that I am intending to mount such a "lower magnification" style scope.

But hey, that's what such a lightweight rifle was intended for - a lightweight, and kinda short and compact scope.

Zachary

Graybeard · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2005, 07:56:51 AM »

Yup Zach, I'm pleased you finally see the light at least on this one rifle. A light weight rifle should wear a light weight scope. And honestly that's an area I wish Bushnell would work on. Their scopes are for the most part on the heavy side for their power range. The Leupold line has them beat all over the place in light weight. I'd not go to the 3.5-10 personally on such a rifle. I'd lean toward the 2.5-8 which I have on a couple of my rifles. If 8X isn't enough magnification then you probably shouldn't be taking the shot anyway.

Questor · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2005, 08:02:27 AM »

I'd get one with a synthetic stock instead. It really is an improvement over wood.

Zachary · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2005, 08:58:48 AM »

Quote from: Graybeard

Yup Zach, I'm pleased you finally see the light at least on this one rifle. A light weight rifle should wear a light weight scope. And honestly that's an area I wish Bushnell would work on. Their scopes are for the most part on the heavy side for their power range. The Leupold line has them beat all over the place in light weight. I'd not go to the 3.5-10 personally on such a rifle. I'd lean toward the 2.5-8 which I have on a couple of my rifles. If 8X isn't enough magnification then you probably shouldn't be taking the shot anyway.

Yea, I'm leaning towards the 2.5x-8x myself on the Kimber. Not only is it lighter than the 3.5x-10x (although not by much) but also shorter by almost an inch or so. Again, from what I have been told, when you hike up these big mountains for elk and sheep, every ounce counts.

Remember that I put an Elite 3200 1.5x-4.5x-32mm on my .375H&H. That's the smallest magnification ranged scope I have, but it's perfect for use on the .375H&H.

I'm going to wait until I get the kimber, and then put scope mounts on it. Then, I'll take it to a store and see how she weighs and handles with both scopes, but I have a feeling that the 2.5x-8x is probably what she will be wearing eventually. Still, regardless of which scope I decide to buy, I'm going to buy the scope from one of our optics sponsors. :grin:

Zachary

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2005, 09:19:55 AM »

The 8400 ain't exactly light weight---get the scope you want.

Now the 84M Montana is whole nother ball of wax----VERY light weight there.

Carl l. · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2005, 12:53:07 PM »

Zachary,

I am pretty sure he had the swarovski 2.5x10x42 on it. I thought it was pretty well balanced. I like and have heavy guns and use 50mm scopes on most of them, but i really liked his set up on the Kimber. That's just my personal thought's. Carl L.

Zachary · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2005, 01:04:17 PM »

Carl,

I too generally like higher magnification and 50mm scopes on my rifles too - ask anyone on this board.

Still, if you think that the Swarovski 2.5x-10x-42 was pretty well balanced, then a Leupold VX-III 3.5x-10x-40mm should be just as balanced, if not more since it is lighter and I think shorter.

I'm still kinda leaning towards the VX-III in 2.5x-8x-36mm, but, like I said earlier, the best thing to do is take the gun to a optics store and try out both scopes.

Thanks for the reply Carl.

Zachary