Soliciting opinions on a new firearm

jables said:
If you want to go light, from the factory, a kimber Montana is as light as you're going to get for under $2500 (as far as I know). The 2.5-8x36 will also help to keep the weight down somewhat and it will allow for a better cheekweld (for most) having the smaller objective diameter. I recently picked up a ruger m77 mkii ultralight in 308 and topped it with the 2.5-8, it makes for a light, compact, and fine fitting setup for me. At the end of the day you're the boss, and with your said budget you basically have the pick of the litter.As far as the kimber being "better", I'm just looking at the weight and how they seem to fit me in the gun shop, have yet to shoot or use one in the field. Most of my hunting involves shots 100 yards or less as well and I don't think any scope over 8 or 9 power gives you any practical advantage when taking shots around 100 yards.
Click to expand...

Nice....well reasoned and balanced....thanks...
 
I was looking in to Kimber and Sako carbin light but came to the conclusion I was heading down the wrong road it was not going to realy save me any real waight saving but I can make big waight saving in what I carry into the bush on my back my single shot T/C Encore is 7lbs total with scope it's short makes it ideal for bushwalking it would be nice if it was lighter
but I concentrating on my gear I can literally save 25 to 30 lbs and that not a small waight saving

There are lots of choices in your pice range for rifles and scopes but less choices the lighter you go interms of rifles the lightest is the Kimber
 
For cartridge I would select a 6.5x284 in a long action with an 8 or 8.5 twist 24" minimum barrel in 416 stainless.
 
7.62mm said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Like you, I like the 6.5 caliber. I think it is the ideal trade-off between long range performance (high BC) and acceptable recoil for a non target weight gun. It is popular and there are lots of good bullets in the 130-140 grain range. I have had two .264 WM's but I really cannot recommend it. They pack too much powder for the bore and don't make for a long accurate barrel life. Some may beg to differ, but that is my experience. I am currently waiting for a 6.5 Remington Magnum barrel to be delivered, which I think has a much more efficient case capacity of 68 grains instead of the .264's 82 grains. You can get quite close to the same velocity along with better barrel life. However getting good brass or even any brass for the 6.5 RM is a problem, and I can't recommend it for that reason. The 6.5x284 has become quite popular in the long distance target shooting world because of the lower recoil and long distance ballistic performance. Lapua makes brass for the 6.5x284 for that reason. The ironic part is that if you want .284 Win standard brass from Lapua you have to neck up the wildcat to get the old original cartridge!

The reason I say long action is because those 130-140 grain bullets are getting longer and longer to achieve the low drag long distance performance. Some are now nearly 1.5" long. The nose sticks out a long way from the ogive, and if you want to seat to the ogive your COAL is very long. I expect my 6.5 RM loads to be around 3 3/8" overall. You need a long action for that, and my new barrel will go in a long action Remington 700 (that used to be a .264 WM). For target shooting you can single feed to somewhat get around that, but for hunting you want your rounds to fit the magazine.

You need 8 to 8.5 twist for these new long bullets to stabilize. 24" is to preserve your velocity, and 26" would be better. 416 stainless provides a bit better barrel life, and the 6.5x284 is still not going to be a 3000 round .308 type life.

Hope that helps some...
 
Ron AKA said:
Like you, I like the 6.5 caliber. I think it is the ideal trade-off between long range performance (high BC) and acceptable recoil for a non target weight gun. It is popular and there are lots of good bullets in the 130-140 grain range. I have had two .264 WM's but I really cannot recommend it. They pack too much powder for the bore and don't make for a long accurate barrel life. Some may beg to differ, but that is my experience. I am currently waiting for a 6.5 Remington Magnum barrel to be delivered, which I think has a much more efficient case capacity of 68 grains instead of the .264's 82 grains. You can get quite close to the same velocity along with better barrel life. However getting good brass or even any brass for the 6.5 RM is a problem, and I can't recommend it for that reason. The 6.5x284 has become quite popular in the long distance target shooting world because of the lower recoil and long distance ballistic performance. Lapua makes brass for the 6.5x284 for that reason. The ironic part is that if you want .284 Win standard brass from Lapua you have to neck up the wildcat to get the old original cartridge!

The reason I say long action is because those 130-140 grain bullets are getting longer and longer to achieve the low drag long distance performance. Some are now nearly 1.5" long. The nose sticks out a long way from the ogive, and if you want to seat to the ogive your COAL is very long. I expect my 6.5 RM loads to be around 3 3/8" overall. You need a long action for that, and my new barrel will go in a long action Remington 700 (that used to be a .264 WM). For target shooting you can single feed to somewhat get around that, but for hunting you want your rounds to fit the magazine.

You need 8 to 8.5 twist for these new long bullets to stabilize. 24" is to preserve your velocity, and 26" would be better. 416 stainless provides a bit better barrel life, and the 6.5x284 is still not going to be a 3000 round .308 type life.

Hope that helps some...
Click to expand...

Wow! Thanks for that. Definite some food for thought.
 
7.62mm said:
Really??? I thought I asked about a rifle and scope opinions....how that morphed into tents and sleeping bags is just wrong!!!
Click to expand...

You brought weight into the discussion, nothing wrong with suggesting that weight can be saved in other areas... buy the M70 Supergrade and lay off the donuts for a month...
 
How about an ATRS modern Hunter in .260 and a scope that you like that fits the budget. Mines wearing an old vari-x iii long range (with the "black ring" ohhh!) I picked up at a gun show for 350$, I love that scope, I have nicer glass but it just feels right on there. It's my do everything gun, but mines in .308.
 
I'd build a 260ai on a slabbed rem la with a wildcat stock. Topped with a Swarovski z3 3-9x 36
Why the rem action? Because it's simple, cheap and parts are easy to get. Long action so I could seat the bullets long and still feed in the magazine.
Barrel would be a jury or benchmark.
Scope would be the lightweight Swarovski because it's clear and light.
Talley lightweight one piece rings
I would run the wildcat stock because there light and strong
Timney Calvin elite trigger
 
I prefer the .260 to the .270....... but it's not an elk gun and doesn't meet your criteria.....

I will just throw this out there, but with the budget you have, you can buy two good rifles..... why spend a lot of money one one rifle just to have compromised?

It's like buying a Swiss Army knife to fillet fish and whittle with IMOP.......
 
There's a Kimber montana in 257 Roberts in the EE right now. Might be a bit light for elk mind you...but if a .260 is good enough then the roberts should be as well.

At 5lb 2oz and what 9oz for a 1-6x and couple oz for rings...should finish at 5lb 13oz give or take.
 
pete dobinson said:
Kimber Montana 84L, 270 win, Swarovski Z3 3-10X42.
Click to expand...

jables said:
I think we're on the same page here. The kimbers topped with as good of a scope as you can afford would be my suggestion, in 270 or 270wsm. I have to agree with Hoyt too, you could save a lot of money by getting a leupold vx3 2.5-8 and be looking at a little over $2000 for the rifle/scope combo, spend the rest of a good hunt.
Click to expand...

Or use the loopy 3.5-10x40 VX3. Exact same magnification as the swaro, lighter, better eye relief, longer body tube and superb warranty service center in canada. Oh, and just about exactly half the price. Plus it'll fit in talley low rings.

The 270 (84L) is a lot lighter and nicer feeling than the WSM (8400M).

You could save an extra $800 and go hunter instead of montana, and get a detachable mag in the bargain.
 
Superbrad said:
I prefer the .260 to the .270....... but it's not an elk gun and doesn't meet your criteria.....

I will just throw this out there, but with the budget you have, you can buy two good rifles..... why spend a lot of money one one rifle just to have compromised?

It's like buying a Swiss Army knife to fillet fish and whittle with IMOP.......
Click to expand...

I am not seeing the compromise....6.5 is not good enough for Elk????
And what's wrong with having one good Rifle?
 
You guys with the 3.5x??? Or 2.5x???
What magnification are you doing you hunting with....or in other words, what magnification are you using when you press the trigger on game?
I only ask, as being from SW Ontario, and hunting the way I do for Whitetail deer, 90% of the deer I harvest are well within 100 yards....the other 10% are well within 300 yards....having a scope that starts at 2.5 or 3.5x would be severely limiting
 
7.62mm said:
You guys with the 3.5x??? Or 2.5x???
What magnification are you doing you hunting with....or in other words, what magnification are you using when you press the trigger on game?
I only ask, as being from SW Ontario, and hunting the way I do for Whitetail deer, 90% of the deer I harvest are well within 100 yards....the other 10% are well within 300 yards....having a scope that starts at 2.5 or 3.5x would be severely limiting
Click to expand...

How is 2.5X limiting? I have shot deer at 10 yards on 2.5X and at 200 yards, I would vastly prefer the 8X top end.
 
7.62mm said:
I am not seeing the compromise....6.5 is not good enough for Elk????
And what's wrong with having one good Rifle?
Click to expand...

I, like you, live in Ontario and experience the same things you speak of.......

I have actually hunted elk....... and can tell you it would be a hunt I would do annually if time and money wasn't an issue...... (I have so much more I want to explore).......

The .260 will do the trick for all...... I love the cartridge...... but it's heavy for yotes and light for elk in my opinion........

I have hunted and harvested many cervids...... but I have never seen anything as tough as an elk..........

If you are laying down coin for an elk hunt, I strongly suggest you have a rifle chambered in something that delivers significant energy at impact ......... they cover acres in seconds unless completely disabled......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom