Printable View
So I have always been interested in them, but have heard from a lot of people that if you get a good one they are great, but you can just as easily get a lemon. I am after one in 270 win, then suppressing it. Worth the risk? or should I just get a tikka super light and be guaranteed good accuracy?
I had a Kimber montana 260 and it was crap accuracy wise , I recently got a montana 243 and its a good shooter 15 mm groups with federal fusion ammo . I like the concept of the Kimbers but if you really want the chance of getting an accurate off the shelf rifle go for a tikka.
I had a provarmint 22-250 , with a tailored hand load it could hold it's own against anything I've ever shot.
Just buy new then your covered under the consumer guarantees act
Would Consumers guarantee accuracy? Kimbers don't come with a guarantee so would be hard to argue wouldnt it?
I like the idea of them too. Well bedded, strong stocks and light weight. But if its not accurate whats the point in buying it.
I always wonder many of the 'inaccurate Kimber' stories are really just bad shooting technique being exposed by lightweight rifles.
Never tried one myself but I like the idea of them, and they are very pretty.
Theres a kimber 270 been sitting on the shelf in taihape sports for about 3 years and down to $1900 i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcche171
Talk to giles or alana on 063881762 if interested
Thanks mate, much appreciated. Especially timely as I could have sworn the montana was at $2,200 last time i checked at hunt fish, now they are up at $2,500!
And Ben, I can definitely see the merit in your shooting technique statement.
There is a clause it has to be fit for purpose. The purpose of a gun is to be accurate. The excat level of accuracy required will be the hardest part.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcche171
Easy to cover yourself by simply emailing the importers and ask them what accuracy should you expect as they offer no factory guarantee.
That way ot sets a benchmark.
I had a long action Kimber. Was a safe shooter but nothing super accurate. Nice and light and a good rifle to handle. Better stock than the Tikka.
I did a lot of research on the Kimber and there are quick fixes if it doesn't shoot. Basically the receiver touching the stock and possibly rocking to an extent, the first thing to check. There is something to this Shooting technique stuff though. Some days the same load would go 1.5MOA and the next 1/2.
I like them; would I buy another tomorrow?
Nope... Definitely not in a 270.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have a highly modified custom Montana in .260, MPI stock, rebore from .243 to .260, etc, its plenty accurate, about an 3/4-1" at 100m, but is hard to consistently shoot well, and boots like a mule, but its only 5lbs all up.
New ones come with Sub MOA guarantees
Does the stock fit you?
I find the kimbers great to shoot in the bush, but hard to get behind when shooting prone.
So, my 2c if you are bush hunting they are perfect.
If you sit and wait and watch clearings at 200m+ then get something else.
That's exactly what I do. River beds and clearings in south Canterbury.
QUOTE=Freezer;386682]Does the stock fit you?
I find the kimbers great to shoot in the bush, but hard to get behind when shooting prone.
So, my 2c if you are bush hunting they are perfect.
If you sit and wait and watch clearings at 200m+ then get something else.[/QUOTE]
I have had two kimber 84M - both in .308. Both of them were boringly accurate (if your into load development) and quite unfussy what they were fed. Sold the first one to pay for another rifle on a whim then realised my mistake quick smart and tracked down another.
@mcche171 a new 270 new here for $1800. I could possibly ask (mate) to throw in some Talley lights I gave him, in the deal.
It's new.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mate has a Montana in 204 with heavy varmint barell and it will happily drill the same hole at 100 all day long. But you wouldn't want to carry it far
That doesn't sound like a wise use of a MontanaQuote:
Originally Posted by Pengy
I had a .260 that shot well under MOA great for a very light sporter only sold it cause I hate there safety, very hard to get of quick and quiet.
I'd take a sako 75/85/finnlight any day for the type of hunting you want to do. Montanas are perfect chopped short and suppressed for thick scrub though.
85 Finnlights were a $1000 more and 1lb heavier when I bought my Kimber. Am happy with mine in 708 (will do moa no probs).
Im think im going to have to get behind one before I buy now. One of my hunting buddies has one but never has it with him (always has his tikka in senator stock, maybe a sign????) so ill let you guys know how I get on.
I would tend to agree. Which is nonsensical considering you're looking at the 270. Be ok in 243, 708 or in 308.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freezer
I wanted to suppress so the longer action calibre's weren't as much sense. I had the 280Ai.
I would try to find and shoot one and I would also 'consider' another caliber.
Not helping your thinking I know [emoji86].
I am a big fan of montanas my 243 feels like a .22lr it is so light
first group with factory winchester 80gr was .6 of an inch at 100m
It is so light that you take it when you otherwise wouldnt want the hassle of a rifle
270 will boot like heck for a light montana. a can or something might help
243 with a supperssor is extremly easy to handle recoil wise