Just curious. I've read, on a couple placed on the internet, that the Kimber 84M action is not strong enough for use with 284 Win based rounds. The NULA model 20 handles the 284 win just fine, and with a magazine length that's just a tad over 2.9", bullets have a little extra breathing room. Anyone happen to know the critical reason why the Kimber 84m cannot safely handle 284 Win? A comparison between the Kimber and NULA's front ring and barrel shank diameters might prove enlightening. Aside from that, perhaps the problem is in the metallurgy? I have no idea, but would like to know. Thanks.

I have no idea why not.... the M is a 2.8 the L is a 3.3

The .284 Win is rated at just under 64,000 max pressure

Kimber chambers the .280AI in the 84L and it is a very high pressure round and the 84L action is exactly the same as the 84M at the bolt lug/recoil lug area with 1/2" added at the tang

I'd bet anything the metallurgy is identical of the M and the L

I also can't figure why Kimber would chamber the. 284 Win

They chamber the 7-08 and the .280AI

I assumed the 0.030" less metal in the 284 chamber might be the issue, as the 84M and L were supposedly engineered to be minimum for .470" base diameter cases. I figured that Kimber took dimensional cues from NULA, but that might not be correct.

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

I also can't figure why Kimber would chamber the. 284 Win

They chamber the 7-08 and the .280AI

I agree. Melvin Forbes says that the 284 win has been a popular chambering in NULA's because it's like having a short action 270 or 280. The NULA's longer magazine length allows more flexibility with bullet seating. The standard 2.8"-ish short action magazine length is somewhat of a handicap for the 284. I have a Rem 721 in 7mm-06, and love it. I like the "idea", of a lightweight mountain rifle in 284. I would prefer a Douglas #2 barrel contour, over Kimber's, and 24" barrel length. If I were more practical and rational, the Kimber 84L line in 270 through 30-06, is a dandy mountain rifle.