Kimber 8400 beside 84L

Kevan I will say, present the 6.6 pound, loaded iron sighted 375 H&H and I will shoot it, maybe even more than once.

I think your point about the 35 whelen taking over the ,338's function in another thread may be closer to the truth for me.
 
conor_90 said:
Kevan I will say, present the 6.6 pound, loaded iron sighted 375 H&H and I will shoot it, maybe even more than once.

I think your point about the 35 whelen taking over the ,338's function in another thread may be closer to the truth for me.
Click to expand...

I'm going to weigh my old faithful 375 just to be certain but I think its shading 9 lbs. and I'd not want it an ounce lighter.
Right now I would like to have a dollar for every mile it has gone and for every animal its taken.
Being only days away from 70 I too have a passion for light rifles, that is providing they are not in punishing cartridges.
One of my all time favourite rifles was a little 7 lb. T3 Tikka in 338 Win. Mag. but even with a Limbsaver pad it was downright nasty.

As for the Whelen, I grew up with it and tolerated its hard plastic butt-plate right up until about 8 yrs. ago and rotator cuff surgery dictated less recoil..
 
One of my all time favourite rifles was a little 7 lb. T3 Tikka in 338 Win. Mag. but even with a Limbsaver pad it was downright nasty.
Click to expand...

Currently the only centerfire rifle I own. It needs a heavier brother in another medium bore, but a light rifle has its place for sure.

A light rifle in a magnum caliber may seem like an odd combination to some, but often the same environments that make you thankful for a light rifle hold larger animals (elk etc).
 
bearkilr said:
The 84M and 84L are the slimmer action, like the Mtn Ascent in the pics. The L is for long action non magnum and the M for short action. Before the 84L came around, only the short action (84M) was slim, and all others were the 8400 like the Montana in the pic. Current 8400's are magnum.

Yours will look like the Mountain Ascent in the pics. There's really not much weight difference between a current Mtn Ascent and Montana, 5 oz. in the same calibers.
Click to expand...

Thankya mate
 
c-fbmi said:
I must concur with Crazy Davey, light weight barrels do not necessarily wander when warm........
Click to expand...

And that was my point really. I have seen and owned some very accurate, lightweight rifles with skinny little barrels that didn't wander(within reason).

I was reading through some of the recent Kimber threads last night and it got me thinking about a few of the major internet myths about lightweight rifles. I wasn't picking on Ardent. :redface:

-Light contour barrels don't shoot after the barrel gets warm. (Not true, but can be the case sometimes)
-Lightweight rifles are obnoxious and nasty to shoot. (Proper stock fit and a good recoil pad make all the difference in the world when it comes to light rifles)
-Lightweight rifles need a muzzle brake. (Haven't seen or shot one that needed a brake)
-And my all time favorite, lightweight rifles and gear don't make a difference, just lose a few or have less cheeseburgers next time out for fast food. (Simply not true at all. A few pounds off the gut doesn't equate to pounds carried off the shoulders or in the hand. Put on a 50-60 pound pack plus a rifle in hand and climb up and down a few mountains, then tell me gear and rifle weight don't make a difference.)
 
Last edited:
Omenator said:
What are those two rifles chambered in?
I saw a Kimber 8400 Montana in 270 WIN for sale on the EE, but couldn't determine if it used the same action as its successor the Montana 84L. I didn't really feel like taking the gamble and the seller wasn't sure of the exact weight.
Click to expand...

If it was listed as an 8400 in .270 then it is not an 84L, they are different. The 8400 in .270 would be the old design Montana.
 
I've been getting 5 shot groups less than 1" with my Mountain Ascent. I have noticed the groups open up a little after the first 3 shots. I let the barrel cool for shots 4 and 5.
 
crazy_davey said:
And that was my point really. I have seen and owned some very accurate, lightweight rifles with skinny little barrels that didn't wander.

I was reading through some of the recent Kimber threads last night and it got me thinking about a few of the major internet myths about lightweight rifles. I wasn't picking on Ardent. :redface:

-Light contour barrels don't shoot after the barrel gets warm. (Not true, but can be the case sometimes)
-Lightweight rifles are obnoxious and nasty to shoot. (Proper stock fit and a good recoil pad make all the difference in the world when it comes to light rifles)
-Lightweight rifles need a muzzle brake. (Haven't seen or shot one that needed a brake)
-And my all time favorite, lightweight rifles and gear don't make a difference, just lose a few or have less cheeseburgers next time out for fast food. (Simply not true at all. A few pounds off the gut doesn't equate to pounds carried off the shoulders or in the hand. Put on a 50-60 pound pack plus a rifle in hand and climb up and down a few mountains, then tell me gear and rifle weight don't make a difference.)
Click to expand...

Not taken as such, you were very explicit in your disclaimer. :) Couldn't agree more on gear weight! I cut down on an awful lot of nice-to-have items to save an ounce or three, why I'd accept an extra pound or three is beyond me with the rifle. The same logic dictates my 8400 project likely will see many less days afield than the 84M, and L.
 
crazy_davey said:
The rifle I speak of is a pre 64 Winchester in .270 that was built for RickF by Bill Leeper. That barrel is a factory barrel from 1947 and turned down from there. I don't think I have seen anything slimmer posted anywhere, but yet it is still amazing how well it shoots. Why is it that this tiny little thin barrel shoots so well

Lightweight rifles are not the big, nasty beast they are made out to be on the interweb.
Click to expand...

It's because Leeper gave it his blessing.
 
Am I the only one having a hard time fathoming any useful application of a 30" barreled Kimber bolt gun? Should have the balance of a shouldered flagpole...

Whatever floats ones' boat though.
 
I was surprised how well balanced my 84L with a 24" barrel is. 6 more inches at an ultralight contour and 257 won't be bad
 
Last edited:
4,000fps 80gr TTSXs is the whole and only reason, sight in at 350 yards and you're point blank / dead hold to 400 yards, just over a foot low at 500. I hunt mountain goats for a good chunk of my living these days, and if I see a 12" monster for ten seconds at 430, it'll get him.

More importantly though, have a look at 4" on a ruler. It just ain't much more than a standard 26" magnum, and contrary to expectation a 4" tube 5/8" in diameter does little to the handling of a rifle, in shotgun circles we actually look for that little extra nose weight. Reality is when shooting off a pack, you'll never notice it.
 
Ardent said:
4,000fps 80gr TTSXs is the whole and only reason, sight in at 350 yards and you're point blank / dead hold to 400 yards, just over a foot low at 500. I hunt mountain goats for a good chunk of my living these days, and if I see a 12" monster for ten seconds at 430, it'll get him.

More importantly though, have a look at 4" on a ruler. It just ain't much more than a standard 26" magnum, and contrary to expectation a 4" tube 5/8" in diameter does little to the handling of a rifle, in shotgun circles we actually look for that little extra nose weight. Reality is when shooting off a pack, you'll never notice it.
Click to expand...


The Legendary Arms I have in 257 has a 26" tube in a Bansner stock and I can definitely notice it's nose heavy, but cancelled that out with a 9 round buttstock bullet band.
I'm pushing around 3850 with 80 gr TTSX and IMR4831 or RL19. Not sure if I'd like an extra 4" for 150 fps or so.

If nothing else, it's easy enough to cut it down to a length you feel comfortable with. Pretty hard to add on.

PS- aren't the big goats supposed to be for the clients? :)
 
I was getting a hair under 4000 with 75gr X - original style - out of 26" barrelled Mk. V using Weatherby brass, RL22 and 215 primers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom