Does anyone other than me think the Kimber
bolt handle leaves a little to be desired?
Or is it quite "good looking" as is?

To my eye it looks like they installed a Remington 700 bolt, cut it off, then installed
part of a Talley weld on bolt?

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976763111.htm

They look like utter shite....imho.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Soverns:
They look like utter shite....imho.

Finally! Someone with good taste and enough intestinal fortitude to voice his opinion!

Ha! I've been saying that all along. It looks good all the way up......then bam!! A hunk of square crap to attach. Too bad.

Mr. Soverns, have you had a chance to look one over? Would it be much work to attach a Talley or similar handle properly?

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
What would you change on a Kimber

Savage99,

Looks like we have differing opinions here
than the "clique" has over there.

There a a few good gunscribes over there too,
but here we have some extremely good gunmakers!
Apples and oranges to be sure?

But here we will see more pictures of high quality gunwork.

quote:

Originally posted by djpepper:
Ha! I've been saying that all along. It looks good all the way up......then bam!! A hunk of square crap to attach. Too bad.

Mr. Soverns, have you had a chance to look one over? Would it be much work to attach a Talley or similar handle properly?

Mr. pepper.

Click on the gunsamerica site in my first post.
That's all anyone with good taste needs to see!

If Mr. Soverns cannot help you, try Mark Penrod,Jim Kobe, Mark Stratton, Jim Dubell or several other posters here. I'm sure Ed LaPour would do a bang-up job!

I dont do bolt handles. Jim Dubell has been doing them for me for a while now. His work is top shelf.

quote:

Looks like we have differing opinions here
than the "clique" has over there.

Difference over there is people typically understand what makes for real hunting utility and aren't hung up on cosmetics... many here are armchair hunters and are hung up on "art rifles."

The Kimber Bolt is pure function.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
... many here are armchair hunters and are hung up on "art rifles."

I resemble that remark!

I like Kimbers mostly because they've combined excellent functionality with good craftsmanship and a pleasing understated style. That said, it wouldn't be hard for them to make that bolt handle look a lot better without losing any functionality.

I'm all for function, but I also enjoy a little gravy on my potatoes.

Come on Brad, you know that's not true. All gun nuts are hung up on cosmetics.

There are 'prolly' (campfire word) a lot more Savage/Stevens hunted than Kimbers, so that makes them pretty functional. Of course they aren't touted as useful for real hunting utility. Just cause the majority are touting Sucks/Mickys/Leupys/Turrets doesn't mean everyone thinks that looks cool. I know you don't subscribe to that theory.

I doubt anyone would argue the Kimber isn't a fantastic action/rifle. Of course the bolt funtions as designed. How does that have anything to do with looking funky to some people? I guess every action has to have some room for nit-picking. A worse offense (something Dakota gets trashed for) is lack of mounting options.

While we are at it, who else thinks the nose of the comb needs to be moved forward about 1/4-3/8"?

John

Forrest, your rifles are typically phenomenal. Particularly that little Mannlicher stocked 7x57! They're also functional. Me, I'd be nervous to hunt with them (grin).

To me, there's nothing appealing about the lines of the Kimber 8400 anyway. It's a pure-function, no non-sense hunting rifle. Everything on it, including the clunky lines of the stock, serve a purpose. Heck, the bolt reminds me exactly of what's on a friends Custom G33... big ball handle that works positively in your hand like a ball and joint.

If I want svelt lines I'll stick with an M70. I still prefer the Kimber's bolt to the M70 for function though!

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Forrest, your rifles are typically phenomenal. Particularly that little Mannlicher stocked 7x57! They're also functional. Me, I'd be nervous to hunt with them (grin).

To me, there's nothing appealing about the lines of the Kimber 8400 anyway. It's a pure-function, no non-sense hunting rifle. Everything on it, including the clunky lines of the stock, serve a purpose. Heck, the bolt reminds me exactly of what's on a friends Custom G33... big ball handle that works positively in your hand like a ball and joint.

If I want svelt lines I'll stick with an M70. I still prefer the Kimber's bolt to the M70 for function though!

Other than the well deserved compliments to Forrest B Brad's post does not make sense.

First of all he seems confused that a rifle has to have a "no nonsense look" to be functional or somehow better. Just like any art something can be both beautiful and functional.

Second is that the big ball handle does not work positively in my hands. Now if a person has tiny fingers and no gloves then perhaps one can keep his fingers on the 8400 bolt but I can't. The pre 64 M70's are about the same as the Kimber 8400 by the way. On the other hand the M70 Classics bolt has more clearance and the 84M more yet.

The bolt lugs on the 8400 are about .040" thicker than a M70 Classic so they must turn a little more. The bolt handle also goes deeper into the stock mortise on the M70 as compared to the 8400 as infered in my post on 24hr.

I think Brad is talking about 'palming' the bolt up and back through the cycle. You can work it much better that way than holding betwix thumb and forefinger, with your pinky extended.

The lugs are opposite each other, I can't see the bolt rotating more than 90 degrees, same as all other Md 70/Mauser 98 types. If the Lug is thicker, they would make the races wider as well to accomodate. I think the handle sits deeper because it's straight and not curved/swept.

Whoops...see you said Md70 sits lower. Probably cause the stock is way thicker on Winchesters. Just a guess.

Thats not the way I operate a bolt action.

Here is a link for you How to operate a bolt action

"Open-hand method:

Disadvantages: If there is little clearance between bolt handle and scope, the base of the thumb can strike the rear of the scope on the forward stroke. Because of the arm movement required this method doesn't work as well from the prone position, as most shooters find it necessary to shift from and then re-acquire the shooting position."

I like more clearance than the 8400 provides.

"Closed-hand method:
Disadvantages: As with the open-hand method, when shooting from prone the shooter usually has to shift position slightly while cycling the action. Theoretically it is slower since the hand has to close on and then release the bolt handle.

Because the shooter has full control of bolt movement at all times he may he more likely to stop retracting the bolt as the case ejects, beginning forward movement without picking up a fresh cartridge."

To each his own I guess. I'll use whatever method feels good and works the best under the conditions. I have a few different actions that seem to like different strokes. My main hunter is a Dakota with a low mounted 6x that the bolt barely clears. Using my palm, my thumb is no where near the scope. The heal of my palm brushes the scope and naturally moves over/around it. If the thumb is hanging on the scope, your hand isn't rotated enough (your palm needs to face the scope more). More rotation puts your thumb up/away from the scope. From there you follow the bolt knob down, your hand is in perfect position to jerk the trigger for the 4th shot at the vanishing whitetail.

I think you'd be best served by a 60 degree action similar to ABolt, Weatherby, Sako 75 Schultz and Larsen etc. Then you'd have no worries about bolt/scope clearance.

quote:

Originally posted by djpepper:
I think Brad is talking about 'palming' the bolt up and back through the cycle. You can work it much better that way than holding betwix thumb and forefinger, with your pinky extended.

Exactly...

And of course the link says that way (open hand method) requires more scope to bolt clearance! So that makes my point.


For those with normal or large hands the Kimber 8400 bolt is too close to the scope for good manipulation by any method. With gloves on it's even worse. I am just making an observation that in the long run perhaps some improvement might be made.

The Kimber bolt handle is just screwed into the bolt body. It would be very easy for Kimber to upgrade the handle with something nicer looking that would add to the pride of ownership and at the same time help clear the scope.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
And of course the link says that way (open hand method) requires more scope to bolt clearance! So that makes my point.

Not for me. Works fine. An open palm is the "proper" way to handle a bolt and my Kimber works fine handled thusly...

Way back when I was a 'youth' I went to a running deer match. They had a deer target wheeled across at maybe 50 yds and three shots were fired. I still remember Don Bush shooting his M70 220 Swift there. For some reason there was a visible trail all the way to the target. Don was a well know target shooter who was skilled at rapid fire and off hand shooting. He was winning each match.

It was just one of those things that stick in your mind. Don was a big tall man with long grey hair combed straight back. He looked somewhat like a tall Robert Mitchum.

I mentioned this to a good buddy and it turns out that he was there too! There was quite a crowd watching Don.

Bush and his lovely wife Rachel were very active shooters in CT for years and were gun dealers as well. On the next call to my buddy I will ask him if he remembers how Don operated the bolt. I have seen it done both ways of course. I am comfortable with the way that I do it.

I guess I have to agree with Bill:

quote:

They look like utter shite....imho.

I think the Kimber's are really nice rifles, but for the life of me I can't understand why they take such a sleek action and make everything around it pregnant or clunky.

The stock from the grip forward is too thick and the forend square. The bolt handle is blocky. The contour from the barrel shank to the barrel is squared off.

I'll be honest that I never noticed the bolt handle until Bill Sovern pointed it out to me.

If you get the handle altered, please post a pic. I'm curious how it will look.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Forrest, your rifles are typically phenomenal. Particularly that little Mannlicher stocked 7x57! They're also functional. Me, I'd be nervous to hunt with them (grin).

To me, there's nothing appealing about the lines of the Kimber 8400 anyway. It's a pure-function, no non-sense hunting rifle. Everything on it, including the clunky lines of the stock, serve a purpose. Heck, the bolt reminds me exactly of what's on a friends Custom G33... big ball handle that works positively in your hand like a ball and joint.

If I want svelt lines I'll stick with an M70. I still prefer the Kimber's bolt to the M70 for function though!

Plenty of EGO and intestinal fortitude , but utterly lacking in appreciation of aesthetics
and good taste! Well, 50% isn't that bad?

quote:

Originally posted by gasgunner:
While we are at it, who else thinks the nose of the comb needs to be moved forward about 1/4-3/8"?

John

Sorry for the oversight, John. I agree!
And I suspect so would Phil Pilkington!

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:
I guess I have to agree with Bill:

quote:

They look like utter shite....imho.

I think the Kimber's are really nice rifles, but for the life of me I can't understand why they take such a sleek action and make everything around it pregnant or clunky.

The stock from the grip forward is too thick and the forend square. The bolt handle is blocky. The contour from the barrel shank to the barrel is squared off.

I am currently having one reworked to create my once in a lifetime dream custom rifle.

I'll be honmest that I never noticed the bolt handle until Bill Sovern pointed it out to me.

Good for you SDH! Let us all see how it comes out. The basic rifle is there alright, it
just needs "refined" a little!

And "refinement" is what custom gunmakers do so well, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by djpepper:
Come on Brad, you know that's not true. All gun nuts are hung up on cosmetics.

There are 'prolly' (campfire word) a lot more Savage/Stevens hunted than Kimbers, so that makes them pretty functional. Of course they aren't touted as useful for real hunting utility. Just cause the majority are touting Sucks/Mickys/Leupys/Turrets doesn't mean everyone thinks that looks cool. I know you don't subscribe to that theory.

I doubt anyone would argue the Kimber isn't a fantastic action/rifle. Of course the bolt funtions as designed. How does that have anything to do with looking funky to some people? I guess every action has to have some room for nit-picking. A worse offense (something Dakota gets trashed for) is lack of mounting options.

DJ, You've got it just right, buddy! Not bad
for one of us "arm chair hunters" that like rifles to have both aesthetics and functionality. I hate to admit it, but he is right about the model 70 being more svelte.

SDhunter is going to correct that problem on his Kimber though, and I sure hope he posts
some pics for the rest of us...uh..uh...real hunter wannabes?

quote:

Plenty of EGO and intestinal fortitude, but utterly lacking in appreciation of aesthetics
and good taste!

Don, your inability to grasp the idea of function over form lets me know how little you've actually done beyond an armchair...

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:

quote:

Plenty of EGO and intestinal fortitude, but utterly lacking in appreciation of aesthetics
and good taste!

Don, you're inability to grasp the idea of function over form lets me know how little you've actually done beyond an armchair...

Never claimed otherwise! I hunt for recreation, not bragging rights! Just have
an opinion on what is ugly!

Gentlemen,
Really this is a blonde vs redhead argument. They both serve the same function, however one is more pleasing to the eye. And that is very subjective to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by djpepper:
Gentlemen,
Really this is a blonde vs redhead argument. They both serve the same function, however one is more pleasing to the eye. And that is very subjective to say the least.

Exactly!

I will post pics, but it is going to be awhile.

I can wait. Always good to have someone else pave the way!

I should clarify my comments a little bit.

I think the Kimbers are wonderful rifles. They are without a doubt the best off the shelf rifles available right now. No one would go wrong with owning one.

As fate would have it. Bill Sovern moved to my neck of the woods in western South Dakota. That got me thinking that I would like to have a rifle stocked to fit ME perfectly.

I had many actions to pick from. FN's, Heyms, Springfield, Yugo 48, 700's, 98's, MRC's, CZ's even a new Model 70. I

I chose the Kimber because of all the CRF's. That action is the cleanest, sleekest and probably the lightest. I want this gun to be sleek, lightweight, handle and point like a shotgun. I want it to have smooth, trim flowing lines. But most importantly I want this rifle to fit ME like a glove.

As far as the factory Kimber stock, my personal opinion is that from the grip back is it really nice and trim. From the grip forward it is pregnant, sqare and out of proportion.

I'll be honest and say that my first idea was to buy the Kimber and have Bill do the stockwork to fit me and leave the metal original.

But this is going to be my one and only dream/custom rifle. I have always dreamed of having an O'Connor style 270 Win rifle.

I want it to be similar to the famed Biesen rifle My whole life I have looked at everything from a pure function perspective. I am going to splurge a little on this one.

I changed my mind and am going to have some metalwork done. Part of that being a functional but aesthetically pleasing bolt handle. I am also going to have the barrel contour reshaped. I think the shank to barrel taper looks square. The bolt looks square and clunky, so do the factory bases. I am going to have the barrel shortened a little from the 24" factory length.

A comment was made on anthother thread about having too many rifles and that a person would be better served by having fewer, but much nicer rifles. I have been selling rifles/pistols left and right to finance this project. By the time it is all said and done, I will have sold eight firearms to finance one.

So, I think the Kimber bolts are very functional, but eathetically they leave a little to be desired.

To clarify this I am talking about the 8400 bolt handle only. Lets leave the 84M out of the discussion for a moment.

My primary complaint about the 8400's bolt handle is the scope clearance at the ocular eyepiece. The 8400 does not clear as much as a M70 Classic or many other rifles including the 84M.

The 8400's bolt is rather plain and for the money we pay some effort could be made to make it easier to look at. That should not change the function and it makes the point that the argument that the 8400 "Is pure function" or whatever someone wrote is a falacious argument.

I have compared the 8400's handle to a M70 Classic and a Ruger 77-2 over and over again. There are subtle differences in them and the Kimber does not go quite as deep into the stock mortise as the others. Nor does it have any shape or curve to it to clear a scope underneath yet reach the end of the handle knob clear of the scope.

In plain words its an ugly, plain less functional handle. Perhaps an investment cast handle could provide the shapes needed? That would mean extra cost however in particular timing it in it's threads.

All this discussion is valuable as Kimber is in my view by far our best American rifle now and the company cares.

Kimber 8400 bolt handle clearance with a Swaro 4-12x50:







...............DJ

I'm thinking a little artfull reshaping and maybe a 4 panel checkering job wouldn't hurt..............DJ

DJ,

Agreed.

Here are pictures of a Ruger 77-2 bolt handle closed and open and finally a Kimber 8400 SA. The more I look at the attractive Ruger bolt the more I like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
Here are pictures of a Ruger 77-2 bolt handle closed and open and finally a Kimber 8400 SA. The more I look at the attractive Ruger bolt the more I like it.

Your post is a perfect illustration that we all have different and diversified tastes. I personally like the Kimber bolt as it is. I have a 84M in 308 and other than put a set of Warne Premier rings and bases on it, I wouldnt change a thing.

To me, the ruger bolt handle lloks cheap and all bent out of shape. It looks like a wannebe home gunsmith ran the bolt handle against their bench grinder to get it to clear the scope. But you like it and that is just fine.

I guess what I am saying is that we all have our personal tastes and nobody is right or wrong for what they like. We all just like different things. So if someone thinks it is perfect or whether they want to put a new bolt handle doesnt really matter. As long as the person who owns and shoots the rifle is happy.