Kimber hunter or savage lightweight storm?

[Newtosavage]

Get a hunter! Just buy new.

Nice. How's the recoil on that .280 AI at 6 1/2 lbs.? Can't be any worse than my Tikka '06 shooting 165's at 7 lbs. I imagine.

 

[HNTR918]

Nice. How's the recoil on that .280 AI at 6 1/2 lbs.?

It SUCKS!
After 40 rounds I'm d...o...n...e...
But its a great thing this is my backcountry rifle and not my range queen.

 

[Newtosavage]

It SUCKS!
After 40 rounds I'm d...o...n...e...
But its a great thing this is my backcountry rifle and not my range queen.

LOL thanks for being honest! My first Tikka was an '06 and I had some stiff 180 grain Accubond loads for it. They shot well, but after a few trips to the range I found myself starting to flinch. I backed off to 165's and that helped, but like you said, it wasn't any fun to develop loads for where I live, which is usually T-shirt weather most of the year.

I was thinking some fast 140 monos out of that .280 ai would be tolerable by comparison. I think my "flinch" threshold is somewhere around 22 ft. lbs. of recoil energy. I really start to notice the recoil above that.

 

[freddyG]

So at some point down the road if I wanted to drop a Hunter barreled action into a Montana stock, that would be possible?

They won’t upgrade the hunter stock. Once you give them the serial number, they know it’s a hunter, and won’t sell you a Montana stock. The only way to get a Montana stock is to send them a Montana with a broken/cracked stock. It makes no sense, but it’s how they roll.

 

[Newtosavage]

They won’t upgrade the hunter stock. Once you give them the serial number, they know it’s a hunter, and won’t sell you a Montana stock. The only way to get a Montana stock is to send them a Montana with a broken/cracked stock. It makes no sense, but it’s how they roll.

Wow.

Makes me appreciate Savage a little more.

 

[Apollo117]

Thanks @freddyG for the info.

When I can afford it, I'll take my Savage LWH and see how light Kevin at Stockade can make one of his Savage stocks. I doubt it'll end up below two pounds, but that's good enough for me.

 

[Usi05]

Like my hunter so far. Picked it up for a mountain rifle for $600 @ Cabela’s few months back. Used the gift card trick and some club points to get a heck of a deal.

I was in same boat as you in terms of hunter vs Montana but i chose to save some $$$$ and put towards other gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marbles]

Yes, in the case you can find a Montana in the caliber you want for $900ish, that makes sense. I am struggling with the idea of paying $1300 for a rifle that basically differs from a $700 rifle by more or less just the stock. That's a $600 stock. LOL

Buying the Montana comes in cheaper than buying a hunter, getting a McMillan (uninleted as McMillan does not inlet for Kimber), then paying a smith to inlet it and fabricate a blind mag box. If you would not pay for a McMillan, than why pay for a nicer stock from Kimber. If you would pay for a McMillan, consider the Montana.

I like my Montana, but it is a gun for someone who wants to tinker, at least from the my experience with it. I'm tempted to get a hunter in 7mm-08 or 6.5 CM. Plan would be to shoot the barrel out and eventually use the action for a custom build at some point down the road. It is hard to argue that the Montana provides $400-600 in improvement function over the Hunter. I think it was worth the price difference, but worth is very subjective and accounts for factors other than functionality.

As I tinker with my guns (and about everything I own), and Kimber CS is not great (from what I hear, not direct experience) after the first few boxes of ammo to check function I committed to not sending my Montana back to Kimber for any reason. If someone else made a CRF action that was as lite weight and smooth I would certainly give them a try over Kimber.

My Montana is 30-06, the stock fits me really well. Consequently it feels like it has less recoil than the Sako it replaced which was 1 lb heavier (and also 30-06). I don't find recoil to be an issue, but that is also very subjective.

I have a friend who has a Savage with about $1500 dumped into it, he says it will only shoot one round accurately. So my impression is that you might get a Savage that needs tinkering too (you have much more experience than me in that department though as I have not owned a Savage).

That is a lot of words to say my vote would be the Kimber Hunter.

 

[Newtosavage]

I appreciate your perspective. One thing that draws me to Savage rifles is their consistent "no surprises" accuracy. Every one I've owned, plus all the barrels I've owned, would shoot under an inch either with factory ammo or with just a little load development. And if you have the tools and just a little mechanical ability, you can swap barrels in about 30 min. if you don't like what you have or change your mind.

I like to tinker too. Savage rifles are kinda dangerous for someone who tinkers. LOL

I do wish there were better stock options for Savage though. If I could ever find a stock that I really like for Savage rifles (like the Bansner stock I have for my Howa) I would probably just stick with them from now on.

The sale prices I've seen some of the Kimber Hunters for have me wondering though, as they are essentially the same price as a new Savage LWH.

The other advantage Savage rifles have is the slightly longer magazine. Short Action Savages have a 3.00" magazine, which helps a lot in load development. Being restricted to 2.80" just sucks IMO.

 

[Marbles]

Sounds like a lot of good reasons to go with the Savage. With reloading, depending on the cartridge you are looking at, COAL is reason enough to avoid the Kimber. I think the Kimber's stock is nicer, but that is just an impression from handling the two in a store.