Those of you that own one, could you give me some thoughts and experiences with it? I'm mostly interested in the 8400 in 300WSM.

Right now the Montana is more desirable with the features I'm looking for.
I'm looking for an all weather lightweight hunting rifle to do most of my out of state (meaning the West mostly, and Alaska, B.C. Yukon) hunting.

I have a couple of tang safety M77 Rugers in 270 and 338WM but I'm looking for something really light and in as all around caliber as possible. I'm not getting any younger and an illness has left me with Athsma making it a little harder to get around at higher elevations, so a lighter rifle would be a help.

Now I'm sure many here will advise a 30-06 or 300 Win mag, but neither of those is chambered in the Kimber. I've never had a 300 mag of any flavor, so I have no loyalty to any particular one. If the 300 WSM works, and I'm pretty sure it does, I'll use it.

Looking at various brands and models of rifles from Winchester, Ruger, Remington, Sako, etc. the one that seems to have the best overall quality for the price is Kimber.

Having said that, I've read lots of the posts on here (all that I could find using the search function) and elsewhere, it sems some had accuracy isues, and possibly feeding issues too. Hopefully those have been corrected.

So, tell me, do you still like your Kimber? And would you buy another, and recommend it to someone else?

What scope mounts/rings would you recommend?

Mark

Kimber does in fact now make the 30-06 and i think I have seen references that they will be making a 300 WM sometime soon.

The Kimber website shows only 308 family cartridges for the 84M and WSM's for the 8400.

Has anyone actually seen a 30-06 Kimber?

They appear frequently on Gunsamerica.com and gunbroker.com from reputable Kimber Master Dealers.

Gun websites can become outdated. The LA kimbers came out mid 2005 so the catalog and site need to be updated.

As a past owner of a Kimber 84M in 7-08, let me add a thought on the design and construction.

- The wood is good, nicely-figured or at least "not bad."

- Most examples I've seen have had the barrel squarely in the center of the barrel channel; some have not. I'd be cautious about buying sight-unseen.

- Actions are smooth and reliable these days, and the triggers are good, if not quite as good as they were a couple of years ago; Kimber's apparently made some changes to the sear.

- Accuracy is an odd issue. I could never get mine to shoot, and returned it to the factory for repair. I sold it, after warning the buyer of that fact, and he has done better with it than I, if not as well as the test target.

- The stock comb is too high to allow the use of iron sights, if that's important to you. Even with a small bell scope scope, I needed to use medium rings, leaving much room between the bell and the barrel.

- It had a fine recoil pad, and with the straight comb, it was pleasant to shoot, even at six pounds even (w/o scope).

- The action's rear bridge is short - one of its weight saving features. I was unable to move my Leupold VX-III scope far enough forward (power adjust ring blocked by scope ring) to allow a full sight picture if I kept my head in my normal shooting position. Had I kept the rifle, I would have replaced the VX-III with a Leupold 4X.

- I really like the trim feel of the pistol grip; it was almost like a palm swell.

- One major annoyance is the lack of good aftermarket scope bases. Basically, most that are avaialable are "Standard" (Redfield) bases, with the rear windage adjust. I consider these the least secure base available. I called Warne and asked why they had discontinued their fine steel Weaver bases; they replied it was at the request of Kimber. I don't know if Leupold is still making their good double-dovetail bases for the Kimber, but if they are, they'd be my first choice.

Jaywalker

Stevenson,

You and I have some things in common as I am up there in age too and I wanted lighter rifles for big game and why not SS/Composite as well!

I have Kimber Montanas in 243, 308 and 270 WSM.

The 8400 in 270 WSM is 3/4 of a pound less than an old "Featherweight" but thats not a big jump in weight. Also that 300 WSM is going to kick quite a bit.

Reconsider and get a 84M Montana in 308 Win instead. Thats the rifle that really appeals to me of all of them.

Paraphrasing Ray Atkinson "At some range every 300 Mag becomes a 308".

The Kimber Montana in 308 is a special landmark rifle. Get one.

For scope rings I would get the One Piece Talleys for now til someone makes some more Weaver style bases for them. I have got two sets of the Warne bases and one set is on the 308.

I have an 8400 in 300 WSM. Total piece of shit. I had to send it back to the factory for a new barrel, new trigger and feed ramp work. It would not fire 4 inch groups with factory ammo at 100 yrds, the trigger would fire at different pressures, and it was basically a single shot as it would not feed rounds from the magazine. I do have to say that they fixed it in less than a week which is good. But with such a complete lack of quality control I will never own another Kimber again.

Crl

quote:

Originally posted by m stevenson:
The Kimber website shows only 308 family cartridges for the 84M and WSM's for the 8400.

Has anyone actually seen a 30-06 Kimber?

Yes I have. Brightwater Ventures in Vancouver, WA has one 8400 in 30-06 on the shelf now.

I've put a lot into a Kimber 8400 in 300WSM. I had accuracy problems and sent it back to the factory twice. Both times it came back with a nice target with a tiny group, but I could never get any consitency with it. It might shoot one good group than a wild one. I sent the gun to PAC-NOR and had a new barrel put on it. A slightly larger contour than the Kimber as I thought the Kimber barrel was a little too light. The gun now has a better feel and shoots very well. I've had the gun coated with Gun-Kote.. All set, it's just over 8 lbs with scope.

The feeding from the magazine is a little rough. Not bad, but not great. It's just enough so I don't yet have full confidence in the rifle. I've taken lots of shots at the range with the magazine full and cycled through the entire magazine with no problems. My Remingtons are smooth as butter, but they aren't short mags either. With a little more time with the rifle I suspect I'll have the full confidence in it.

I like the feel of the Kimbers and the design of the action. Would I buy another, probably. Yes, I had some problems and spent extra money on this one, but I had fun with it and leaned a lot. Most of what I read about them is good and most that I have handled seem well built. In fact, like Savage, I'm wanting to get a 84M in 308...Classic or Montana I can't decide. I'd lean towards the 84M before the 8400 if I were buying a Kimber.

quote:

Originally posted by crl:
I have an 8400 in 300 WSM. Total piece of shit. I had to send it back to the factory for a new barrel, new trigger and feed ramp work. It would not fire 4 inch groups with factory ammo at 100 yrds, the trigger would fire at different pressures, and it was basically a single shot as it would not feed rounds from the magazine. I do have to say that they fixed it in less than a week which is good. But with such a complete lack of quality control I will never own another Kimber again.

Crl

I bought a 270 wsm Montana last year and it shoots great, but the same day, at the same store, my buddy bought the same rifle in a 300 wsm and it was a total POS. Briley, the dealer, ended up refunding his money and sending the rifle back to Kimber. It sounds like Kimber may have some quality control issues.

Here's 2 pics of my 8400 in 300WSM:





Here is the first group I shot out of this rifle. I boresighted fired one shot on paper, adjusted the scope and shot this group:




I was using some ammo that I had tried in another rifle and was just using it to sight in. Needless to say my load developement time for this rifle was very short. I currently have 2 other 8400's and have had 2 others that I sold or traded (one I was upgrading the wood to the one above, the other one was because I needed the cash at the time not because I didn't like either rifle). All of them have easily shot sub-MOA groups out to 200yds usually much better. One of my 270 WSM's has shot a number of 3 shot 1/2-3/4" groups at 200yds. Light rifles aren't the easiest rifles to shoot well off the bench but the 5 Kimbers I've had were all capable of very good to superb accuracy.
Working the bolt back and forth a few hundred times will greatly smooth one up, and the trigger is easily adjustable.
IMHO they are the best highest quality American made production rifle. Occasionally they have had a few bugs that I've read about but Kimber service seems to be excellent. I'm sometimes wonder if the examples claimed to have poor accuracy are due to the difficulties in shooting a light rifle well off the bench. Most of the people who have shot my Kimbers have ended up buying one for themselves, I highly reccommend them.....................DJ

I have two of them, and love them. My .243 Montana consistently shoots 5 shot groups of .8", and my .300 classic with french walnut stock shoots 3-shot groups of 1", with very little load development so far. I have sent them both back because feeding was rough, but now both feed flawlessly. I use the Talley light weight aluminum mounts on the .243, and standard Talley steel rings and bases on the .300.

Thanks for your responses, it seems it's kind of a mixed bag of satisfied and dissatisfied owners.
Rather like most production rifles I guess.

You folks that are/were dissatisfied with yours, were they early production models? Do the later ones seem to be better in regards to the accuracy/feeding issues?

I've still not decided if I'm going to purchase one, and if I do, it'll probably be an 8400 in 300 WSM, unless the long action 8400's in 300 Win Mag become available without a long wait.

I'd like to get one soon, so I can spend as much time with it as possible before this fall's trip to Wyoming. I don't like to go hunting with a brand new gun, a full summer of load development and field shooting practice makes me much more comfortable.

I have a local dealer that is a Kimber Master dealer, and after talking to the folks at Kimber, I could have one in a week or less.

Mark

I have a 300WSM Kimber 8400. I really like the rifle. I have a Leupold 2.5-8x in Talley mounts. Mine shoots 180gr Northforks & 180gr Nosler Partitions to the same point at 100 yards (both loads are <1"@100yards at just over 3000fps). I also have a Winchester M-70 in 30/06 and I prefer the handling charteristics of the Kimber better.

I really like the 300WSM cartridge. In fact it is probably my favorite "all round" load. It will do everything that the 300 Win Mag will do (I never cared for the short neck on the 300WinMag). I know some people don't think it was needed, but I'm glad I got one.

I bought the Monatana stainles about a year ago and overall like the gun. I have it in 300 WSM and it shoots about 1-1.25" groups with factory ammo so far. Last time out at the range the gun would not chamber a round in the full fire position for some reason. With the safety in the middled position it is slick as could be and worked flawlessly but if I chambered after firing without changine the safety position, I could not get the round chambered due to binding. I am sending it back to Kimber to be checked out as I am completely stumped. Conversely I have other stock rifles in Remington, Ruger & Winchester that I did not pay $1000. for the shoot better. I am not dissatisfied but feel that it probably isn't worth the extra money. I highly doubtr I would buy another.

Personally, I think the gritty bolt throw feel or bad feeding of 308-style cartridges on the M-84M was primarily a result of early miscalibration of their CNC machines. This has been documented previously, and has been corrected. I haven't seen a new one in several years with those problems.

Feeding the new "short-fat" 300 WSM-style cartridges is another story. This is a Controlled-Feed action, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the abrupt angles these cartridges need to follow while held in place by the extractor to feed into the chamber. With these cartridges, I believe, a Push Feed action would be a better choice, or, conversely one of Kimber's longer actions with a longer round.

Jaywalker

The Kimber 8400 has an excellent action that smooths up with use and the trigger can be easily adjusted to a crisp pull and a light one if thats what you want.

The stocks on the Montanas are the state of the art being strong and having an excellent pad and shape. They do not have checkering however and could use a finish with more grip.

The rough bolts on some Kimbers has been due to manufacturing tolerances that have been tight. Some changes have been made but as I said they smooth up with lubrication and use.

I would still buy one and work it out with them if necessary. They are light enough that one can put whatever high performance (big) scope on and still not be a heavy rig at all. One could even use a bipod at times.

As for myself I am intend to make my new Kimber Montana 308 do it all. Firm decision, subject to whim, gunbroker etc.

I liked the idea of a Montana untill I found out it has a blind floorplate. Don't like the idea at all that I would have to cycle the contents of the mag through the action every time I wanted to empty it.

Just reading these posts makes me think the Sako Finnlite maybe a more consistant performer as well. I don't think I have ever read a report of a bad shooting Finnlite.

I never use the floorplate to unload a rifle. Most of the time I have gloves on and the ammo falls out and.........

Then those little buttons get stuck sometimes. M99's don't have a floorplate either. Never missed the floorplate.

The Kimber 84M Montana's hold four shots down and not five as the catalog says.

I had a custom rifle built some years ago on a Remington action. I had a floor plate installed and in the 9 years since have decided it was a waste of money. I like the smooth lines of a blind magazine, and when I cycle rounds through my Montana to empty it, I don't close the action anyway. Don't let the lack of a floorplate keep you from owning a fine rifle like the Kimber.

I would not have a blind magazine anymore, though I've had them in the past.

I have a Winchester M70 Classic that, without a floorplate, would have required multiple removals of the stock. The magazine spring needed to be held firmly, motionlessly, in the floorplate to keep it from moving around. In my M70 it was not. Under certain common circumstances, the spring would slide to the rear, allowing the magazine follower to jam diagonally up/down in the magazine well, preventing the bolt from moving forward. I had the choice of opening the floorplate to clear the jam or removing the stock; the floorplate is much easier. Again, this is an M70, not a Kimber, but they do share some common characteristics, which leads me to prefer floorplates.

Jaywalker