Here's a few pics of a better looking bolt handle for a Kimber. Unscrewed the other one, welded a plug in the hole and stuck on a Talley knob.

looks pretty nice.....

could things be easier if you had a threaded bolt handle that could screw in and then fill with the tig welding?

I have a few around here that would fit that description.

I just got back from Gunmakers place. The pictures dont do the work justice. 1st class all the way around.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Soverns:
I just got back from Gunmakers place. The pictures dont do the work justice. 1st class all the way around.

Yup, I agree

Very well done! Much improved over the O.E. handle.

Superb craftsmanship but it won't fit the stock now. I would rather make one from titanium with a smaller knob and just screw it back in which is what I may do. I would rather not have a weld anyway.

Hope that knob does not hit your finger on recoil because if its an 8400 knob I think it will.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
Superb craftsmanship but it won't fit the stock now. I would rather make one from titanium with a smaller knob and just screw it back in which is what I may do. I would rather not have a weld anyway.

Hope that knob does not hit your finger on recoil because if its an 8400 knob I think it will.

Well gunmaker we are really in a pickle now. Guess I will have to restock it.

Concerning the bolt hitting your hand....how could it? Are you suggesting because of the sweep in the bolt it will bump the shooters hand?

Yes it may bump a right handed shooters index finger. I happen to have WSM's in both M70's and Kimber 8400's. The original position of the Kimbers bolt is as far back as the swept back M70 bolt. Sweep a 8400 back and its too close.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
Yes it may bump a right handed shooters index finger. I happen to have WSM's in both M70's and Kimber 8400's. The original position of the Kimbers bolt is as far back as the swept back M70 bolt. Sweep a 8400 back and its too close.

The new bolt knob is not that far from the old position. If Kimber had a better, more open, grip shape on the rifle your knuckle wouldn't get whacked. Sounds like you need a new stock. I know where you can have one made!

That looks good, those production Kimber bolt handles are about as goofy looking as they get, except maybe a 17 Endfield.
Nice bases too.
Timan

Now, I just might consider a Kimber!




Why the hell couldn't this be what came from the factory?

This is more of what I was thinking of.


Certainly a fine custom can be made from a Kimber and I am all for it. However until a Fibregrain composite stock becomes available again I am keying on the functionality of my Kimbers with the Montana stocks and SS metal. This titanium bolt show above and below helps clear the scopes eyepiece and even saves weight.



Link to the above

With the size of a Kimber action the weight you are saving is negligable.

Custom bases Gunmaker?

I wouldn't worry about the stock, it needs a new one anyway.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Custom bases Gunmaker?
Terry

Terry, Yes I made the bases too for Talley rings. Here's a pic of the front one. Have you made any progress on your minix?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Soverns:
With the size of a Kimber action the weight you are saving is negligable.

This bolt is better looking, weighs less and most important clears the scopes ocular much better which is the primary reason for it.

There is some talk of bending the end of it some.

Good grief.
It may clear the ocular better, but it's still as ugly as before and only shaved an ounce.

How can you compare that to what Gunmaker produced? A bit insulting I think.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Custom bases Gunmaker?
Terry

Terry, Yes I made the bases too for Talley rings. Here's a pic of the front one. Have you made any progress on your minix?

Very nice! I love the bolt handle too. What caliber is going back in? I hope you're going to re-stock it. I can see an open grip, slender forearm and maybe a schnable tip.

My mini mauser has been in limbo for awhile now. You can't a thing out of these gunsmiths during hunting season

I talked to Shane about a week ago and he said after the show he was going to knock out all his back log work. I've got the stock and your bottom metal. I'm ready to go.

Terry

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Soverns:
With the size of a Kimber action the weight you are saving is negligable.


This bolt is better looking, weighs less and most important clears the scopes ocular much better which is the primary reason for it.



Man, that is AWSOME to shave a full ounce!!! Seriously, when you are building fly-weight rifles, you literally cut a quarter ounce here and a quarter ounce there until you get to the weight you need. If it were me, I would dril some holes in the ball of th ehandle to take off a little more.

I fully understand that only a very small percentage of the population needs or wants a fly-weight rifle, but to those who do, a full ounce of savings on the bolt handle is GREAT! Just because you may have no desire or need for it, don't knock it for those who do. Not eveyrone drives to the deer lease, unloads the 4 wheeler for a 300 yeard ride to the deer stand, parks underneath it and climbs a 12' ladder. Truth is, the overwhelming majority of big game hunters hunt just about like that.

WHen living out of your backpack for a week at a time with no contact with the outside world, every single ounce counts.

Remember, the end goal is to hike out with a pack that weighs significantly more then when you hiked in from your drop-off point!!!

Terry
The rifle is going to be a 270 Winchester and Bill Soverns is going to build a superb stock it with an open grip, slender forearm and a schnable tip.

Marc
I think what Bill was eluding to was the action on the Kimber is not very light weight. So if the intention is to hunt with a light rifle starting with a lighter action and using a scope that weighs a few pounds less is a more effective way to build light. The small weight savings of a "better looking???" bolt handle pales in comparison to a different choice of action and lighter scope. As far as clearance goes for the scope, the knob is in about the same place as the original maybe a few degrees closer to the stock. This gives more clearance not less.

An ounce is a lot in the Tour De France bicycle frame, but it means about squat on a hunting rifle....IMO of course.

I'd would say none to very few on this forum are in good enough physical condition that they couldn't afford to loose an ounce. If they really were, then obviously the once wouldn't be slowing them down, regardless of the hunting conditions.

I think gunmaker's bolt handle is a class-act and I'd honestly pay more money to have my Kimber not have the swiss cheese bolt.

Different strokes for different folks, but "life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun", even if it does way less.

We have two separate discussions here. At least in my view. We have this custom that may have a walnut stock in 270 Win. While its not mentioned it must be a magnum length 8400.

Now the custom bolt shown is not only very good art but an enormous improvement looks wise over the factory Kimber 8400 bolt.

Enough of that discussion however. There are far more, maybe thousands more Kimber 8400's, with bolts that come too close to the scopes ocular. There was a topic here on that not long ago and the handle shown is indeed an improvement function wise and to my taste looks wise. The fact that it weighs a little less is not a bad thing either.

Back to a 'custom' Kimber for a moment. I have been thinking of one and I am not enamoured of Kimbers stocks in particular the deep forends.

If I had a custom walnut stock Kimber made up it would be on the 84M action and it would be a far handier rifle than one on the magnum length 8400. Such a rifle in say 308 or 7mm-08, if commissioned by myself would have a forend similar to the Ruger Ultralights with the taper to a much less deep forend and a black tip. I would also have the magazine capacity reduced thin it at that point. Three shots would be plenty for me but I would estimate that four would do it.

And of course a new bolt handle would be far better looking. I would not have it brazed or welded however but screwed in.

I almost got such a project started but I could not fit the 284 Win into the 2.81" Kimber magazine seating Ballistic Tips or AB's.

It's OK everyone, stay calm and no name calling please. I sure did not intend to start anything even remotely controversial. I was just commenting on a segment of the cutom rifle world that does care about every ounce. I see things on this board every day that I personally think look worse than dog puke, and read ideas that are to me of the same or lesser quality as the dog puke guns. But I never criticize some one for having different taste than me.

Well, i take that back-I have repeatedly said that the .395 cartridge idea on the Big Bore Forum is way out in left field. But even with that crazy idea, I have donated a not-insignificant amount of my time to help out with the first rifle after they get to a certain point in the project. EVen though I think it is crazy, I am still going to help them realize the custom rifle they want.

I guess I am more surprised and shocked than anything else about this Kimber response. Just becuase you are not worried about an ounce does not mean no one else does. An ounce off of a sheep rifle is of equal importance to a sheep hunter as is an ounce off a race bike to the racer.

The hollowed bolt handle was on what I thought was a short action Kimber 8400 Montana. Those ARE very light wieght rifles, as far as factory rigs go. When looked at in the context in which I wrote it, an extra ounce off matters. I know very few people want and need a light rifle, and even FAR fewer are capable of making a lightweight rifle that shoots. Mel Forbes and Mark Banser, among others, have done quite well catering to Alpine hunters and making fly-weight rifles.

If my wish were granted we would all play nice and not resort to name calling and belittleing each other over this issue, but you do as you see fit. There are lots of ideas, styles, tastes, and talent levels out there, and hopefully we can be a little more tolerant of those with differeing opinions. But if not, it really is no skin off my nose.

BTW-I am 5'10" tall and weigh about 145# with my clothes, boots, cell phone, wallet, pistol, speed strip, ink pen, and other things I have on my person. I'll put my BMI up against anyone else on the board if you want to play that game. Anyone who has ever climbed a sheep mountain, or worse yet a goat mountain, knows that losing a pound of body weight has no relationship on how a rifle carries. Maybe you know this and were making a joke, or maybe you do not and were just speaking out of ignorance. When people ask why I have hunted on 4 continets but have not been to Africa and have no intentions of going in the next few decades always get told the same answer-I know A LOT of old, fat men in the worst possible shape who drink too much, smoke tons of cigars, and go to Africa and kill everything they are after. I know a few old sheep hunters, but I have NEVER seen a fat man on top of a sheep mountain. If I ever do see a fat man on top of a sheep mountain, I will bet money right now that he will value losing an ounce off his rifle as much as a skinny man.

Good post Mark and yes I've hunted in goat and sheep country for Mulies, not all the other critters I saw.
Having a light-weight rifle is definately handy for sure on bad ground, steep terrain, heavy brush, and the rocky elements.....not denying that in the least.

It is good that we all have a different way of looking at things in rifles.....it's what keeps the industry alive.

I've been asked countless times, "what does your bottom metal weigh?" My answer is first the weight of course, then it's more along the lines of what I mentioned earlier.....I couldn't tell at the end of the most grueling hunt I've ever experienced an extra ounce on my rifle over another.....It's true....I wouldn't notice it. You shave off 8oz to a pound....now you've got something I can feel.

gunmaker's bolt is a class-act IMO, but it doesn't save weight. I think it's a great trade-off, since I'm willing to sacrifice that ounce for a more functional, cosmetically appealing bolt handle.

Holes in bolt handles make my stomach turn, even if they were made of gold.....well especially if they were made of gold.

But, like I said earlier, that's the beauty of our hobby guys....Everybody has their own ideas and opinions and it's keeping our industry going.

I don't like magnum cartridges....short, fat, long, or belted. Don't need em for anything I kill on my limited budget. A trip to the "dark continent" would change my mind, but that's not happening anytime soon.

I don't care for recoil...hence the above statement.

I won't own a rifle that won't shoot less than 3/4MOA with factory fodder, but it had better impress me more with reloads.

I cut crowns on a lathe.

pillar bedding has yet to convince me, but I'm not close minded.

aluminum bedding blocks still need to be glassed.

Most any barrel with a good chamber, regardless of its maker will shoot well within varmint hunter standards.

I'm a favorite of CRF guns, but can like the features of a push feed for killing little critters.

I like to hold onto a piece of wood, rather than composite plastic, fiberglass, or carbon on my hunting rifles.

Barrels should be free-floated. I'm not a pressure bedding advocate.


Now all of these are my opinions, but I respect others for theirs. We'd sure be awful boring if we didn't have them that were different.

A guy's gotta do what floats his boat because it's his money in the boat....Not mine or anybody elses'.

Mark, I saw no name calling on this thread, but the thread was started because a very talented custom gun maker wanted to show a few idea's he's pursued on a rifle very few have given any thought to customizing. For Savage99 to even suggest that a simple screw in part was even comparable was rude at best. Savages screw in bolt handle is a unique idea, what actual purpose it would serve is very debatable, it should be on a thread all it's own.

Terry

Im not about to start any name calling. No reason for it. My point is.....if you are looking to save an ounce and build a really lightweight rifle, pick a different action, get a small scope etc etc. There are lots of ways to shave off ounces on a rifle but you need to start at the ground level. On this project an ounce will never get noticed.

gunmaker, very nice looking. Has Bill got a pattern for that open grip style stock? I for one really like the looks of a rather long open grip.

Jimmy,

In a manner of speaking yes.

Both bolt handles are much better than the original and very well done -just a different approach to the same problem I believe. It's not as easy as it looks to do . Great work!
Very few can weld a piece on but the titanium one cold be easily installed by most and is a definate improvement to the original in all ways .
Glenn

If you really want a light weight bolt handle without the ugly hole, there was a discussion 2 or 3 years ago on this forum with pictures and a description of a hollow bolt knob. The handle was lathe turned, the knob cut perpendicular to the axis of the handle, threaded and hollowed out. A second piece was hollowed, and screwed on, then the external knob contour was turned. Externally it looked solid, but it was hollow. It might have been the work of Jack Belk. I tried a search but could not seem to find it. I remember it seemed like a lot of work for little weight, but you had to admire the craftsmanship.

Roger

quote:

Originally posted by RogerR:
If you really want a light weight bolt handle without the ugly hole, there was a discussion 2 or 3 years ago on this forum with pictures and a description of a hollow bolt knob. The handle was lathe turned, the knob cut perpendicular to the axis of the handle, threaded and hollowed out. A second piece was hollowed, and screwed on, then the external knob contour was turned. Externally it looked solid, but it was hollow. It might have been the work of Jack Belk. I tried a search but could not seem to find it. I remember it seemed like a lot of work for little weight, but you had to admire the craftsmanship.

Roger

You are correct. It was Jack, and he called it "Sovern's Knob" for one reason or another.

Another example of a hollow knob is the good old G.33/40 knob, which is hollow to the rear side instead of the bottom.

Jim, nice work, all the way around.

Do a Google search on "Hotater", go to Jack's web pics and click on "Sovern's Knob". It's all there....

MKane160