Kimber Montana 84M vs Remington 700P LTR

A

Artie Fufkin

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What do you think?

Kimber Montana 84M vs Remington 700P LTR?
Both in .308.

Idea is for a carry rifle. Hands down the Kimber is 2 pounds lighter but I've read too many mixed reviews on this rifle. Have read very little bad stuff about the LTR. Already have the LTR on the way and looking forward to owning it. Frankly, the ONLY reason I'm also looking at the 84 is weight. It seems pretty hit and miss and don't want to chance getting a miss.

If you had to choose one of the two, which and why?
Thank you.

Artie Fufkin
 
I've owned an 84M - mine was definitely a "miss".
Never owned an LTR - not a fan of heavy rifles, probably never would.


My recommendation is, that I'd skip both and grab a Tikka T3, a set of Talley rings, and a scope of your choice, and call the gun-search over and done. That's what I finally ended up doing after owning a variety of guns I was dis-satisfied with. I have been very very happy with the Tikka's (I own two of them now).


YMMV.
 
Why are you comparing these two rifles? Like asking if you should buy a truck, or a car. I hunt with an ltr, and use it for high volume range sessions. It is a great rifle if you want to do both. If you want a better target rifle, you probably won't be carrying it, and if you want a better cary rifle, you will probably want something like the 84m.
 
carbonrod said:
Why are you comparing these two rifles? Like asking if you should buy a truck, or a car. I hunt with an ltr, and use it for high volume range sessions. It is a great rifle if you want to do both. If you want a better target rifle, you probably won't be carrying it, and if you want a better cary rifle, you will probably want something like the 84m.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but why not compare the two?

- both are fairly compact
- approx. same price range
- same caliber

one is CLEARLY a carry rifle and other I suppose could go either way. Really, the main difference is weight. Have always liked 700's and like the idea of this being a bit lighter 700, esp. attracted to the shorter bbl length. The main thing I'm concerned about with the Kimber is the large number of bad experiences.
Basically looking for any input and I appreciate your thoughts.

AF
 
Just in case I wasn't clear in my first post in this thread - I had some REALLY nasty experiences owning a Kimber 84M (SKS class accuracy and feeding problems both), and after enough reading on the 'net to find I'm far from alone in the exact problems I had with mine, I would highly recommend you don't touch one with a ten foot pole.
 
brotherjack said:
Just in case I wasn't clear in my first post in this thread - I had some REALLY nasty experiences owning a Kimber 84M (SKS class accuracy and feeding problems both), and after enough reading on the 'net to find I'm far from alone in the exact problems I had with mine, I would highly recommend you don't touch one with a ten foot pole.
Click to expand...

Didn't you have all sorts of problems with a Savage and a Tikka, too?
 
Gatehouse said:
Didn't you have all sorts of problems with a Savage and a Tikka, too?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have had some "interesting" experiences in firearm ownership, tis true. However, the Tikka it turned out just needed something other than factory Winchester ammo, and the Savage had a warped crown (which Savage happily fixed for free).

The Kimber, on the other hand, after 10 times the work it took to get the Savage and the Tikka figured out - it never did smarten up to any more than 2MOA (though by the end before I got rid of it, it was turning in a very consistent at 2MOA with careful handloads). Also, the Kimber had feeding problems which I finally resolved by playing with pliers and the mag box - but I was (and still kind of am) livid that a gun that goes for pushing $1500 new would require such tomfoolery to make it work right.
 
and yet mine was a wicked awsome gun out of the box
it has shot the win grey box to deadly accuracy
and with handloads it shoots just fine
my gun is pretty light and handles recoil very well
it has taken a pretty bad fall off of a mountian (hunting goats) and due to the quality of leupold and kimber the gun still shot just fine
the kimber is also a CRF and that I think is a good deal
 
Artie Fufkin said:
Fair enough but why not compare the two?

- both are fairly compact
- approx. same price range
- same caliber

one is CLEARLY a carry rifle and other I suppose could go either way. Really, the main difference is weight. Have always liked 700's and like the idea of this being a bit lighter 700, esp. attracted to the shorter bbl length. The main thing I'm concerned about with the Kimber is the large number of bad experiences.
Basically looking for any input and I appreciate your thoughts.

AF
Click to expand...
OK. I hunt with an ltr 308. I have regularly shot it out to 900m, and regularly hunt with it. I am going to be rebarrelling it this year as it is not shooting how it once did. That is after a very large number of rounds, however. The new barrel will be the same length, and similar profile. When I bought it, I wanted something short, but heavy enough to shoot strings at the range without being concerned about the heat. The LTR does this really well.

There have been a couple of times during mountain hikes, or when the snow is deep that I wish I had bought a mountain gun, but in reality, the 2 lbs that I would loose on the mountain gun is easily made up be me running a couple of extra miles on the off season.

If I were rifleless, and looking to buy something to fit my style of shooting, it would without a doubt be an LTR. That said, when I am on the dirty hikes wishing for a lighter rifle, it is an 84m that I tell myself I will buy when I get home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom