Kimber Montana vs. Tikka T3x Superlite vs. Savage 16 LWH (308)

[luke moffat]

No sir - the Kimber is indeed not a 5moa rifle, obviously. That was said as part of the larger point that it's Kimber's standard that's being violated, as you rightly observed. Thank you for your concern about what I put in an ad though - I'll make sure to consider your advice.

I did say that I can reliably shoot 1.5" groups with no magnification using my own handloads in my 6.5lb ARs. Earlier in the thread I also said that I was confounded as to how this could be so much easier with those rifles. I'm just estimating, but I do believe the total weight of the loaded AR is more than that of the loaded Tikka. In any case, I don't see the issue here, unless the goal of the statement is to try and cast doubt on the veracity of my claim. If so, say so outright.

I've also explained exactly why I don't wish to develop another load for another rifle, I thought, but in case not - I simply don't wish to go through the load development process, and I'd also simply like to be able to purchase a factory load that shoots well in a given rifle, for simplicity's own sake; I load enough ammunition, I don't wish to add more to that list that I have to do if I want to go shoot.

What is the point of this statement? "All in all both rifles are letting you down." I don't understand why you'd be so concerned about that, if that were indeed even the case. Thank you for the concern though

Bottom line is this: it appears that the Tikka is more accurate with the loads I've tried in it, and with the one particular load (HPH 178gr), it indeed comes very close to doing good enough for me. If the performance demonstrated is consistent/repeatable, it very probably that I can live with that. As for whether or not it's "letting [me] down", as you say - who cares what the answer to that is? The shots are there on paper. The Tikka's 3-shot <1moa guarantee is probably pretty soundly met (and possibly by more than one type of ammunition I fired over several range sessions), whereas, that of the Kimber hangs in some serious doubt.

I'd argue about the assertion that I've not found a sub-moa load for the Tikka if we're talking about what seems to be most people's standard of using a 3-shot group to ascertain this; the Hornady Precision Hunter load qualifies, as very likely does the FGMM 175gr.

I am sorry I bought you wanted a true sub MOA gun from factory ammo. Atleast that's what I thought you wanted. If that was not the case I apologize for missing your point. Therefore I felt you had been let down with both rifles as neither seems to get you there reliably. The Tikka with the scope you have on it should be around 6.75 pounds. Roughly the same as your AR so i believe we are both confused as to why both the Kimber and the Tikka with a scope don't shoot as well as your AR with a red dot.

The 5MOA rifle thing was a joke man hence the smilie face. I will check out from this thread now as all I do is seem to get you upset. Once again best of luck and I hope you find a rifle that consistently meets your expectation of a true sub MOA with factory ammo.
L

 

[luke moffat]

Man, you really want this rifle, huh?

I could have plans for it at the right price. But I certainly don't NEED it.

 

[Rorschach]

Naw man, don't worry about upsetting me - not upset in the least, nor have I been (it's just the internet, these are just guns). Your insight has been helpful along the way, and I appreciate it.

The question about why the ARs do so well, I don't know, nor - assuming I'm being truthful about that claim - can I imagine why it would matter that they do so well. They do, and that's that. The bolts haven't, and are more difficult for me at this point to shoot, so that's that as well. No riddle to solve there.

For one, I think my definition for what constitutes a 'true moa' rifle may have shifted slightly over the course of this testing. I think I've been able to see how little a 3-shot group can really reveal about the true ability of a rifle to hit a target of specified dimension and distance consistently. So, by that count alone, if I was relying on a manufacturer's claim of a rifle being able to shoot a <1moa, then that claim/guarantee is pretty worthless right off the bat.

Either way, as you pointed out, the Kimber does not live up to its accuracy claim. I think a good case could be made for the Tikka living up to the claims made by the manufacturer as to its accuracy, given that it's also a 3-shot group and with certain ammo, certain shooter, certain environmental conditions, etc.

Again, it's just the internet and these are just rifles. It seems like a lot of folks seem to have something personal tied to the outcomes and conclusions we are discussing in this thread. The sarcasm, passive aggressiveness, and pettiness displayed just escalate tensions and derail things.

I am sorry I bought you wanted a true sub MOA gun from factory ammo. Atleast that's what I thought you wanted. If that was not the case I apologize for missing your point. Therefore I felt you had been let down with both rifles as neither seems to get you there reliably. The Tikka with the scope you have on it should be around 6.75 pounds. Roughly the same as your AR so i believe we are both confused as to why both the Kimber and the Tikka with a scope don't shoot as well as your AR with a red dot.

The 5MOA rifle thing was a joke man hence the smilie face. I will check out from this thread now as all I do is seem to get you upset. Once again best of luck and I hope you find a rifle that consistently meets your expectation of a true sub MOA with factory ammo.
L

 

[luke moffat]

And how is any of that germane to the conversation? Your not even in the ball park when you start comparing variables ( rifles ) that aren't a part of the test.
Yea we get it. you want the lighter of the two rifles no mater how the they shoot. You could have ended your search at the website spec sheets.
However that does not negate that the OP very specific objectives. Objectives that despite your insinuations of being trivial should be some what realistic consider both rifles are sold with the pretense that they will perform to 1moa.

Haha yes I ended it at the spec sheet.

While the Kimber is a pound lighter than the Tikka the main reason I prefer it over a Tikka goes beyond weight.

I do like and prefer the 3 position safety. I do like the blind mag box. I do like being able to go 4+1 over 3+1. I do like the feel of the stock over the Tikka.

Yes it's all personal preference but I am willing to give up a .5 MOA in accuracy (if that given what I have found with handlaoding the Kimbers actual shot better than my Tikkas.) I have owned and killed critters with a Tikka and wouldn't complain about owning another one. In fact I just picked up a Tikka in 6.5 creedmoor two days ago.

But to say I only prefer Kimber over Tikka is because of the weight would be grossly incorrect. Again it's personal preference and we each have the freedom to buy what we feel works for our needs the best. No sense in getting all worked up man.

Happy shooting!

 

[Rorschach]

Since I have the scope mounted on the Kimber for the time being (considering trying Federal Fusion again), I may just try taking the action out of the stock and re-torquing it also.

 

[JWP58]

Have you let anyone else shoot these rifles? The groups appear to be fairly consistent, could it be....the shooter?

 

[luke moffat]

Naw man, don't worry about upsetting me - not upset in the least, nor have I been (it's just the internet, these are just guns). Your insight has been helpful along the way, and I appreciate it.

The question about why the ARs do so well, I don't know, nor - assuming I'm being truthful about that claim - can I imagine why it would matter that they do so well. They do, and that's that. The bolts haven't, and are more difficult for me at this point to shoot, so that's that as well. No riddle to solve there.

For one, I think my definition for what constitutes a 'true moa' rifle may have shifted slightly over the course of this testing. I think I've been able to see how little a 3-shot group can really reveal about the true ability of a rifle to hit a target of specified dimension and distance consistently. So, by that count alone, if I was relying on a manufacturer's claim of a rifle being able to shoot a <1moa, then that claim/guarantee is pretty worthless right off the bat.

Either way, as you pointed out, the Kimber does not live up to its accuracy claim. I think a good case could be made for the Tikka living up to the claims made by the manufacturer as to its accuracy, given that it's also a 3-shot group and with certain ammo, certain shooter, certain environmental conditions, etc.

It's just the internet and these are just rifles. It seems like a lot of folks seem to have something personal tied to the outcomes and conclusions we are discussing in this thread. The sarcasm, passive aggressiveness, and pettiness displayed just escalate tensions and derail things.

I agree with everything you said above.

Shame they can't make a reasonable priced AR-10 that comes in at 6.5 pounds. That may be the ticket for ya. I am the opposite of you. I suck with every AR I have shot and shoot bolt guns much better. Funny how we all have different preferences which it comes to guns all the way around. I don't feel one preference superior to anothers so long as it works for them.

Best of luck man. It seems you have found what you have needed certainly and ready to buy a pile of ammo for it and hunt too you are content. Glad to see you are satisfied with the Tikka and look forward to seeing some the critters you tip over with it. The 308 is a great cartridge and you'll be doing just fine with it for anything on this half of the world.

 

[16Bore]

Hotdog, Luke's outta line for the Kimber, does that make me next??

I'll trade you the tent that I've got in the classifieds for it. Considering it doesn't shoot, maybe $20 on your end.

 

[Rorschach]

Are there agreed upon torque specs for the front and rear action bolts?

 

[16Bore]

I did 50# front, 45# rear. Why I don't know...

 

[Rorschach]

Wait just a minute, half of this thread has been people saying that it does shoot and the only thing wrong are my expectations!

Hotdog, Luke's outta line for the Kimber, does that make me next??

I'll trade you the tent that I've got in the classifieds for it. Considering it doesn't shoot, maybe $20 on your end.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Looks like you're a little low and to the right Randy. Maybe with a little help you can fix that problem, or you could just try and trade it in on a Kimber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are killing me! But I don't support Kimber as they are leftist................as in "no makie lefty action"..............
Tikkas Rule!

Randy

 

[16Bore]

Wait just a minute, half of this thread has been people saying that it does shoot and the only thing wrong are my expectations!

Oh. Then $40 for high expectations!!

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I would still put them both in the sled tontake as much of the human error out of it as I could. Then you would have a better idea of weather it's you or the gun.

I've shot/owned both of these in the same caliber as yours and had much better results so I'm wondering what would happen fired from the sled.

 

[16Bore]

Broken stock

 

[luke moffat]

Broken stock

I doubt it I shot my 308 Kimber with 200 grainers for a 100+ rounds at 2500 fps or higher without issue to the stock prior to seeing the light and going with a bipod and rear bag.

 

[mt100gr.]

Since I have the scope mounted on the Kimber for the time being (considering trying Federal Fusion again), I may just try taking the action out of the stock and re-torquing it also.

Just for fun, if you tear it down, look closely at the mag well in the stock to see if there are any obvious signs of contact. This unintended torque is one of the "tinkering" fixes for the Montana. Not that tinkering should be required when the rifle costs what it does and claims what they claim. -- that's been established.

The reason I am curious, and have been thinking about, is that the Kimber Hunter models have a DBM. This may eliminate that variable, require no tinkering, etc. Could Kimber have built a better out of the box rifle in the Hunter and unintentionally bested their $1100 dollar product with one that demands the approximate cost of a Tikka?

 

[Rorschach]

Will check this out, and agree with everything else, strongly.

Are the Hunters generally better shooters than the Montanas?

Just for fun, if you tear it down, look closely at the mag well in the stock to see if there are any obvious signs of contact. This unintended torque is one of the "tinkering" fixes for the Montana. Not that tinkering should be required when the rifle costs what it does and claims what they claim. -- that's been established.

The reason I am curious, and have been thinking about, is that the Kimber Hunter models have a DBM. This may eliminate that variable, require no tinkering, etc. Could Kimber have built a better out of the box rifle in the Hunter and unintentionally bested their $1100 dollar product with one that demands the approximate cost of a Tikka?

 

[mt100gr.]

That I am not sure of. And the Hunter is still pretty new so I haven't found a lot of info/data on them.

Personally, I couldn't resist one in 6.5 creedmoor last fall. I pulled it apart and re-torqued the action screws. I slapped a scope on it, ran a patch through it and proceeded to feed it 4 different factory loads ranging from 129gr SST to 143gr ELDX during break in and If memory serves, POA was consistent across all the loads and all shots, probably 24 or so that day were into a circle no greater than 3 inches. Definitely not magic or mind blowing but consistent.

This was prone, bipod, rear bag.

Certainly not a huge sample size, no range data recorded, and "layin' in the road shooting guns" kind of range session but it's some food for thought and interesting to me.

I do not want to derail your thread here, and definitely do not want to detract from your very in depth analysis of your rifles but I am curious why tinkering is requisite to a consistent Montana.

 

[Rorschach]

Just pulled the action off of the stock..

1) Looked to see if the inletting showed signs of magazine binding: there were some wear marks in the bottom of the channel, but not sure if those are there from the ears on the mag well simply lightly touching the bottom of the inletting, or what - the paint wasn't worn off or chipped away at all, just slightly shinier than the paint not touched by the ears/tabs on the mag well. There was also no sign that the action was shifting in the stock under recoil - no residue, wear marks, etc.

2) Checked to see if the front action screw showed signs of being too long and bottoming out on the shank area: it didn't appear that there was any wear in that area at all.

3) Re-torqued the action screws when putting it back together to 45in*lbs/30in*lbs front/rear, respectively.

We'll see what happens next time out if I can pick up one more box of Federal Fusion 150gr, and try another couple of ammo types just for confirmation.

Quick question to the experts: does anyone put thread-locking compound on their action screws? It did not appear that any was on there to begin with, so I did not feel obligated to replace it when reassembling.