Just got me a very light Forbes 30-06 + an Ultralight Leupold scope...

I'm just glad the Forbes is cost competitive now with Kimber, albeit significantly heavier. My choice would be the Kimber Mountain Ascent, review below, or a Montana over a Forbes, as in my opinion you end up with a nicer rifle / features. Given the 24B is even slightly cheaper than the Mountain Ascent now though instead of the up to $4,000 of years passed, it's down to personal preference now.

http://www.morrisonarms.com/2013/07/the-kimber-mountain-ascent-the-lightest-production-rifle/
 
bearkilr said:
I thought you were in France?
Click to expand...
Came back last week for a Blokbuster Real estate deal, miss caramel is spending the last 2 weeks over there, i did send my mother in law for a 2 weeks vacation with her daughter, i will go back after turkey hunting ( hopefully, i fill my 2 tags in the first 10 days of May... JP.
 
"...It won't feel like a 22lr when you fire it..." Nope. Fortunately, other than when sighting in, hunting rifles are carried much and shot little. Still wouldn't want a .30-06 that light though.
 
Ardent said:
I'm just glad the Forbes is cost competitive now with Kimber, albeit significantly heavier. My choice would be the Kimber Mountain Ascent, review below, or a Montana over a Forbes, as in my opinion you end up with a nicer rifle / features. Given the 24B is even slightly cheaper than the Mountain Ascent now though instead of the up to $4,000 of years passed, it's down to personal preference now.

http://www.morrisonarms.com/2013/07/the-kimber-mountain-ascent-the-lightest-production-rifle/
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I really was hoping to see a price tag of around 1400-1500$ for the new Forbes to be competitive with the regular Montana. Being blued only, it's clearly a no-brainer as to which is the better value at this point especially since Kimber Q.C. has shown a marked improvement from 10 years ago.
Anyone who thinks that Forbes LLC will not experience some initial teething problems is delusional. I think they will be successful and with high demand comes growing pains.
They are not using Mels equipment, and they do not have Mel in the shop during production and final assembly. They are a fledgling company and I wish them success, glad to have them on-board.
 
Last edited:
Something else worth noting about the Forbes Rifle company is the out-sourcing of their barrels. Now this could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't make me a bit nervous, Ruger comes to mind and the constant problems they had in the '80's until they finally produced them in house.
It is simply one part (an important one at that) of the manufacturing process that adds unnecessary variables to the finished product IMHO.

But hey...why worry? Caramels gonna have that baby pokin' one holers by the end of the week, right?
;)
 
Last edited:
Sun_and_Steel_77 said:
Something else worth noting about the Forbes Rifle company is the out-sourcing of their barrels. Now this could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't make me a bit nervous, Ruger comes to mind and the constant problems they had in the '80's until they finally produced them in house.
It is simply one part (an important one at that) of the manufacturing process that adds unnecessary variables to the finished product IMHO.
Click to expand...
I'm a little concerned about that too, but isn't ER Shaw at least a known barrel maker? :)
 
scott_karana said:
I'm a little concerned about that too, but isn't ER Shaw at least a known barrel maker? :)
Click to expand...

I've never run an E.R. Shaw barrel myself, but it seems there's some positive comments about them on the 'net. I have no idea as to the capabilty of their facility to fill a bulk order.
I'm not trying to make an issue where one doesn't yet exist, I'm simply saying it's something to think about and adds to the x-factor.
 
I bought a bunch of E.R. Shaw barrels back in the 80's for sporterizing Mausers. They all shot acceptably well for the purpose. Wood stocks; bedded, hunting contours and cartridges. Usually hovered around 1 MOA, certainly close enough for hunting. I wouldn't think of them as a premier barrel maker though. FWIW - dan
 
dan belisle said:
I bought a bunch of E.R. Shaw barrels back in the 80's for sporterizing Mausers. They all shot acceptably well for the purpose. Wood stocks; bedded, hunting contours and cartridges. Usually hovered around 1 MOA, certainly close enough for hunting. I wouldn't think of them as a premier barrel maker though. FWIW - dan
Click to expand...

I always thought of them as a budget barrel maker.
 
1899 said:
I always thought of them as a budget barrel maker.
Click to expand...

So did I, but a couple rifles I have with Shaw barrels are consistently excellent shooters with almost anything I load.
I don't know if it means anything or not but they also seem easier to clean than most other rifles in my stash..
 
Not even worried, when you get good stuff, usually no problem... And if ever a problem show up, Clay will just take care of it... Peace of mind is priceless... JP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom