Kimber Rifles, any opinions?

I'd go with one of the new Winchester 70 models that are out there if you want that style of action. They're made by FN on new tooling and are actually better than the old ones from a tolerance/metallurgic standpoint. The same action can be found in FN's bolt action rifles it you're looking for a more tactical style bolt gun.
 
For the money, I've never seen a Remington 700 that doesn't shoot consistently well. I suppose that is why the military has been using them as the formation for their 7.62 sniper rifles for so many years. Other than that, Sako is as good as you can get in a production rifle. I'm partial to the pre-garcia Sako's in particular. Beautiful workmanship and little clovers all day long.

.
 
Grapeshot said:
I'd go with one of the new Winchester 70 models that are out there if you want that style of action. They're made by FN on new tooling and are actually better than the old ones from a tolerance/metallurgic standpoint. The same action can be found in FN's bolt action rifles it you're looking for a more tactical style bolt gun.
Click to expand...

I like the FN rifles, but any idea who else may use a Mauser style action with a more traditional stock? I dont mind the tactical macmillan stocks though. Definitely a possibility

kdstrick said:
For the money, I've never seen a Remington 700 that doesn't shoot consistently well. I suppose that is why the military has been using them as the formation for their 7.62 sniper rifles for so many years. Other than that, Sako is as good as you can get in a production rifle. I'm partial to the pre-garcia Sako's in particular. Beautiful workmanship and little clovers all day long.

.
Click to expand...

I will take a look. Thanks for the suggetsions.

It seems as though not too many people are fond of the Kimber rifles. At least not within this Busse cross section.
 
Most of the opinions you've received are second hand or word of mouth. As such, they're worse than useless. Kimber rifles and Kimber handguns are differnt beasts. Don't try to judge one against the other.

I own, and shoot, a couple Kimber rifles. My .22 is one that was delivered to the US Army. Those were guarenteed to shoot under 1/2 MOA and mine shoots about half of that. My old Super America .270 shoots a little worse, but still under 1 MOA. I've never had a problem with either.

I spent 15 years as a professional gunsmith. My Kimbers are, out of the box, twice the rifle of any factory Remington I've seen in the past 30 years. Yes, I can build a better rifle on a Remington action; I could also build one on a Shilen, a Dakota, an old FN Mauser, etc. But unless you want to spend custom rifle money you really don't want to go down that road.

Kimber.jpg
 
I wouldn't say "worse then useless". Some of them are first hand opinions based on ownership of the rifle. I value that. It wont make or break my decision, but it helps. It is kind of funny that I ask about their rifles and people chime in with second hand accounts of kimber 1911s. While I dont mean this to offend those who offered input, it doesn't really get me anywhere. I guess if the majority of people here favored Kimber rifles, it may have swayed me... doesnt seem to be the case though. Its kind of 50/50, maybe even leaning towards negative. I'm going to try to handle a few Model 70 rifles, to see if I like the feel of the action like I did the Kimber.
 
Kimber started out just making 22 rimfire rifles. as an earlier post says, guaranteed 1/2" grouping. They even include the test target with the rifle. I have a Kimber 308 and have shot the WSM 30-06. The are a light rifle great for hunting when your are walking deep into the woods. They are accurate, but have a pretty good kick because they are so light. I highly recommend.
BTW I have a Kimber 1911 and have never had a problem with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top