Basically, these are "form without substance" rifles. Kimber went with investment cast actions that had a high rejection rate, cut-rate barrels, etc. Some of those barrels were so poorly contoured and polished that you could swear that they resembled ski moguls. Many of these rifles didn't feed properly, and many of them shot minute-of-foot groups. But a few did slip though the cracks that worked OK, most via dumb luck. But the Kimber BGR was built to LOOK like honest-to-gosh classic-style dangerous/big game rifle, which evidently was the general company objective.

In the old "Kimber of Oregon" days, their best rifle by far and away was their original rimfire job, which was an excellent, excellent little rifle. If they would have stuck with that and maybe eased their way into the centerfire field and did it right, as opposed to in a rush via slipshod means, they might still be around making rifles.

I wouldn't risk a dime on one of the Big Game rifles....

AD

Thanks for the email Harry.

Kevin,

"When they were good they were very good, when they were bad they were horrible."

I am paraphrasing here but that was my experience with one rifle. I had a good one, a M89 BGR in .375 H&H. My rifle was the slick barrel version. It shot .5" 3-shot goups with its best load. I took it to Africa on three hunts, and took Cape bugg, leopard and a lot of plains game with it. I bought it from a local gun builder and dealer who guaranteed it. They are handsome rifles, at lest those I have examined (which is not many rifles).

Because of all the trouble that Kimber of Oregon had, I would not buy one without some kind of warranty from the seller.

The action follows the M70 Winchester design with some changes. Finn Aagaard did an article on them once upon a time.

jim

Allen,
According to Cliff LaBounty, they used the best $7 barrel you could buy. I have one and it shoots very well but it is in one word, crap. They have collectors who pay quite a lot for them, go figure.