Thread: Kimber Montana 7mm-08

Originally Posted by Tahr

You are quoting exceptions here. What you say is not supported by the science or general practical experience. Talk to any farmer about noise induced hearing loss - but you will need to shout. Me - I was a farmer and commercial hunter - 50% hearing loss at age 70.

And, if you can go a life time of hunting without some Wally firing when you were in front of the muzzle you have led a charmed life.

If you reply, please shout (use the cap-lock).

Spot on Bruce

The other week my boy turned 11 on a Sunday so off we went hunting on Monday to the West Coast where I loaded up 20 rounds of a recipe of 120 gr Sierras I typically run in other 7mm-08's which I figured would work in the Kimber.

On the way over we stopped and sighted in the rifle with three shots to zero scope 2 inch high at 100 mtrs and then my son to fire a shot to see how he likes the recoil which he didn't mind.

We didn't have time to sit around to check grouping potential so left it at that.

That afternoon we flew in with James Scott, got camp set up and went for a look where my son shot his first Bull Thar at 147 mtrs with the 7mm-08

So far it's only fired 4 shots in it's current setup... it's a nice rifle to carry.

Originally Posted by Sarvo

I watched a UTube clip just last night hunting Tahr in the Landsborough River - great vid
All Tahr were down low in the bush/scrub guts etc
One guy had no SUP and the other guy had one that must of made his rifle like a post - he was young and was also very fit and he hauled that thing through some awful tangles
I did notice on last day it was off.

If I was in that country an was using my Kimber - even given the fact its been shortened and SUP is right back near against forestock - I would have it off
Most times you have enough time to screw it back on

I do not go along with the hearing thing sorry (unless on range) my hearing is perfect and have had 1000's of shots around my ears.
What about all the WWII - Nam guys etc - as far as I recall the only ones who suffered hearing prob after were from artillery? My father died with perfect hearing at 90 and he spent over 4 years on the front lines in N Africa and then Europe in WWII
There is no way anyone should get damage from an occasional shot - unless they forward of muzzle
Game scare - yes SUP make a diff there - but who these days is after more than 1 animal unless you are a culler
Recoil - was unaware of that - but do know if you shoot with it off (and it sighted in on) aim at the knee cap

Going by that last paragraph theres not much point in trying to explain anymore to you. I found out I had a small amount of hearing damage when I was 18 from un suppressed firearms.. Your logic is backyard he said she said. Suppressors reduce the impacts on your hearing. Every single shot damages your hearing.. fact. Suppressors make every shot do less damage but doesn't stop it all together unless you wear muffs or plugs. I work with many people who are half deaf or wear hearing aids from the loose military days training with no ear protection. Its science...

I found out in a pre work medical that Iv lost a significant amount of hearing in my left ear
i put it down to my right ear being squished against the rifle/shotgun stock

Originally Posted by Bill999

I found out in a pre work medical that Iv lost a significant amount of hearing in my left ear
i put it down to my right ear being squished against the rifle/shotgun stock

What side of the bed do you sleep on ?
Sure its not "da Mrss" ear bashing the left ear

my parents always told me id go blind if I played with it too much

apparently i just went deaf in one ear

Originally Posted by stagstalker

Going by that last paragraph theres not much point in trying to explain anymore to you. I found out I had a small amount of hearing damage when I was 18 from un suppressed firearms.. Your logic is backyard he said she said. Suppressors reduce the impacts on your hearing. Every single shot damages your hearing.. fact. Suppressors make every shot do less damage but doesn't stop it all together unless you wear muffs or plugs. I work with many people who are half deaf or wear hearing aids from the loose military days training with no ear protection. Its science...

Duck shooters ??
Fire more shots in one morning than most rifle shooters do in a year (and most times squeezed in beside each other)
So all of us over 50 should have hearing problem who have shot all our life ???? (as SUP's only been in prevalent use last 15 odd)
Hearing damage issue - "perhaps" from work related or congenital origin and possible would have even if you had never touched a firearm.

"Suppressors reduce the impacts on your hearing""
Yes - that's not science that's a simple fact - BUT- is it worth unbalancing a balanced designed rifle - added weight/length etc - for the odd shot ???
That's logical questioning - IMHO

By the way I hated Science at school (school period) and I have no intent to take to it now
Reminds me of an old "cliché"
"if you can't baffle them with BS - dazzle them with brilliance"
I will repeat - (for the hard of hearing) I have two rifles suppressed - an addition, not for hearing protection - but to each their own.
Was hoping to hear other reasons for use (but then maybe my hearing is damaged and I just do not know yet

Someone mentioned accuracy is better - is that on Bi-pod target shooting ????

soon youll be arguing the necessity of socks

Originally Posted by northdude

it looks like a budget howa

I have both rifle and they are both good shooters !

Howa 1500 .308 WIN - NZ$750 - bush and farms

Kimber Montana .270 WSM - USD$1200 - tops and other open country

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Someone mentioned accuracy is better - is that on Bi-pod target shooting ????

Accuracy is definately better with suppressors.

Had a CZ .17 HMR without suppressor that shot great with Remington ammo and was more expensive than Hornady. Put on suppressor and the results were the other way around... worked out cheaper.

I like to test all of my rifles with and without suppressors just in case your ever caught having to use a rifle without a suppressor so i know where POI is and i still find suppressors produce tighter groups.

Another interesting point is speed!

Plenty of people chop their barrels down 2 inches to assist with balance of having a suppressor where people always quote you'll loose 50 fps per inch as a general rule of thumb which is BS for example.

My Tikka .223 which i think is 19-20 inch barrel shooting 55 gr Sierras with 26 gr AR2206H
Without suppressor - 2933
With Suppressor - 3005

The same results have occurred with other rifles with suppressors on them where velocity increases. someone said Robbie Tiffen wrote an article explaining this prior to his passing.

So... benefits of suppressors for me show, less hearing damage, less game being spooked, improved accuracy, more retained speed with shorter barrel.

Ive got suppressors on all my rifles now except the .22lr which has long barrel and with subsonics is very quiet anyway.
IF I have a brain fart and fire a shot unsuppressed (to show difference) my ears ring all day...how the hell I shot wallabies with the .270 with its 21" barrel unsuppressed for so long I dont know....what I do know is that I NO LONGER ENJOY hunting around unsuppressed rifles....far too many ringing headaches from shot going off slightly behind me....and yes got it opening weekend of duckshooting...nearly made me cry it was so intense...Ive tried wearing earmuffs when after ducks,my electronic ones are mono so I can hear ducks but cant pick where they are....

Lol. That fact is based on science... waste of time discussing the point further.

Cool project by the way @Seventenths . One of your older 16" 284 projects was amongst those that inspired me to eventually do my own. Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Seventenths

Accuracy is definately better with suppressors.

Had a CZ .17 HMR without suppressor that shot great with Remington ammo and was more expensive than Hornady. Put on suppressor and the results were the other way around... worked out cheaper.

I like to test all of my rifles with and without suppressors just in case your ever caught having to use a rifle without a suppressor so i know where POI is and i still find suppressors produce tighter groups.

Another interesting point is speed!

Plenty of people chop their barrels down 2 inches to assist with balance of having a suppressor where people always quote you'll loose 50 fps per inch as a general rule of thumb which is BS for example.

My Tikka .223 which i think is 19-20 inch barrel shooting 55 gr Sierras with 26 gr AR2206H
Without suppressor - 2933
With Suppressor - 3005

The same results have occurred with other rifles with suppressors on them where velocity increases. someone said Robbie Tiffen wrote an article explaining this prior to his passing.

So... benefits of suppressors for me show, less hearing damage, less game being spooked, improved accuracy, more retained speed with shorter barrel.

Interesting - thanks @Seventenths

What is the difference of POI between on versa off
My Mini 14 was for memory 20 inches high off at 40m - I needed to know this as SUP spent most of time in Bumbag and got caught short a few times so aimed at kneecap (I was bush hunting - under 50m)
Yes - I have substantial shortening to accommodate SUP on Kimber (they call it a name I hate which does not do it justice as its sure no swine :-)

Speed - that sounds more science that former scientific statements :-)

Originally Posted by Seventenths

Accuracy is definately better with suppressors.

Had a CZ .17 HMR without suppressor that shot great with Remington ammo and was more expensive than Hornady. Put on suppressor and the results were the other way around... worked out cheaper.

I like to test all of my rifles with and without suppressors just in case your ever caught having to use a rifle without a suppressor so i know where POI is and i still find suppressors produce tighter groups.

Another interesting point is speed!

Plenty of people chop their barrels down 2 inches to assist with balance of having a suppressor where people always quote you'll loose 50 fps per inch as a general rule of thumb which is BS for example.

My Tikka .223 which i think is 19-20 inch barrel shooting 55 gr Sierras with 26 gr AR2206H
Without suppressor - 2933
With Suppressor - 3005

The same results have occurred with other rifles with suppressors on them where velocity increases. someone said Robbie Tiffen wrote an article explaining this prior to his passing.

So... benefits of suppressors for me show, less hearing damage, less game being spooked, improved accuracy, more retained speed with shorter barrel.

I have a very scientific(read completely made up) theory around supps and accuracy. I think in hunting weight rifles, a lot of accuracy is sacrificed to poor recoil management and follow through. A suppressor doesn't change the amount of recoil energy much but it does lengthen the period and lower the peak force. I believe this change makes for easier follow through and a straighter recoil motion, which in turn aids accuracy.

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Interesting - thanks @Seventenths

What is the difference of POI between on versa off
My Mini 14 was for memory 20 inches high off at 40m - I needed to know this as SUP spent most of time in Bumbag and got caught short a few times so aimed at kneecap (I was bush hunting - under 50m)

Good question but each rifle & suppressor to their own!

The mini 14 from my experience with using them weren’t overly accurate but I never got to shoot any with a suppressor.

Ask “The Bomb” here on the forum what worked for him with his mini 30 as from memory he was using something to help balance out the harmonica on his setup... check with him

As for suppressors, I run all my guns with DPT suppressors & have been more than happy with them.