Does anyone out there have any knowledge or experience with these beautiful rifles I am considering one in 204 ruger, and was surprised that for about the same cost as a Remmington or Sako you can get a Kimber From what I know already, they are very high quality, light weight, accurate and have NO PLASTIC parts. The stock is grey laminate, the barrel 22" stainless fluted, match grade trigger & the action is blued chrome moly.
Any informed opinions or personal experience would be greatly appreciated.
I have one in 223 Rem. It's very nice, I have no complaints. The barrel is quite short (22" as you say), which suits me because it sits nicely across an ATV where longer barrels protrude and get knocked unless you are careful. It does mean maybe 100fps less velocity than a 24" but no change in accuracy. I love the trigger on mine, it is excellent, by far the best factory trigger I have used.
It has quite a "thin" bolt (.590" from memory), so you need a suitable rod guide for cleaning, or turn one down to suit. The same goes for action cleaners, the standard Dewey one works, but the Sinclair one needs a non standard head (though they do make one).
The takedown screws on mine were not fully tightened when it came from the factory, so check before you use it!
Compared to a factory standard Remington, the rifle feels so much nicer. Everything about it speaks of quality, the trigger feels nice under the finger where most Remingtons feel like they are made from old bean cans hammered in to shape. The bolt works smoothly and quietly, and the rifle has a nice balance.
According to my measurements the chamber is pretty much minimum sized for both trim length and datum length, which I view as a good thing.
Kimber USA are very quick to respond to questions (well, they were to me) and their answers make sense, where Remington simply quote a "company line" and advertising rhetoric.
Downsides? Well, none of the above really means it will shoot any better than anything else. Aftermarket parts are pretty much nonexistent - though unlike a Remington I don't feel the need to replace half the rifle before I even fire it, so I guess it doesn't matter as much! I seem to remember that it uses a specific scope base, but Leupold make suitable ones so that's not an issue unless you want quick release bases.
I have rifles by Anschutz, Kimber, Sako and BRNO (old BRNO) and I would say the Kimber is as good as any of them.
Cheers Zssssst, that was a very helpful reply & judging by your other rifles you obviously have good taste I agree with your comments regarding Remmingtons & personally I think they have a great action but are otherwise over rated & expensive. For $1800 bucks I reckon the Kimber craps all over a Remington with no modifications required.
One concern I have heard is that the stock on some Kimber models is a bit short (length of pull). Have you found this to be a problem (assuming you are of average build) Also what sort of accuracy have you acheived with your .223 pro varmint Kimber
I have not found the length of pull to be a problem, in fact I have never even considered it. Length of pull is more a concern to me on a shotgun. On a rifle I find the main constraint is eye relief on the scope and this defines where my eye has to be, and hence the cheek weld. The trigger finger and arm just do their thing whatever the length of pull may be.
As far as accuracy goes, I do not really know. Some people seem to spend hours shooting at bits of paper, with rests and sand bags and whatnot. Many of them shoot three shots groups, or sometimes five. Statistically speaking a seven shot group is the minimum that means anything, and how often do you see one? Then people pick the best group they have shot and state that their rifle shoots .xMOA groups. In fact it probably shot one statistically meaningless .xMOA group amongst a large number of far more open groups..... Note here that there most certainly ARE people who have rifles with which they can genuinely shoot tiny groups time after time but I suspect, like fishermen, the majority of shooters "optimise" their stories..... I once suggested that anyone who would like to demonstrate their rifles accuracy under field conditions (resting against a tree, unknown distance, slopes etc.) could come to my place and do so.... no takers!
My 84M? Honestly? Shooting from a Harris bipod resting on the toolbox on the front of an ATV, I would say that at 200m it will put every shot in maybe a three inch circle. That's field conditions, no wind flags, no concrete bench, no cast iron rest and no sandbags. The butt is on my shoulder and otherwise unsupported. I would guess that with all the benchrest gear and a better rifleman at the helm, it would shoot subMOA all day. As is, I would say that it is sufficiently accurate for me to know that if I miss anything it was my fault, not the rifle!
One other thing, my 223 has quite a fast twist (9") compared to many factory 223 barrels, so it will handle 60 or 65gn projectiles. I'm not sure what the twist on the 204 is.
the advantage of the 204 is velocity. Pure speed delivers the flat trajectory. If your right about the barrel length, how much speed will you lose in a 22 inch tube as opposed to a 26 inch of other 204 varminters?
trevort wrote:the advantage of the 204 is velocity. Pure speed delivers the flat trajectory. If your right about the barrel length, how much speed will you lose in a 22 inch tube as opposed to a 26 inch of other 204 varminters?
Kimber suggest about 30fps per inch, so I would guess 4 inches less tube would drop muzzle velocity by maybe 120fps. However, as always, a handload with perhaps a slightly faster powder to account for the shorter tube may to some extent recover this velocity.
Using the Hornady calculator for a 40gn V-Max projectile (bc .275), with muzzle velocity of 3900 or 3780, this equates to an extra 0.2" drop at 200yds (-1.6 vs. -1.4 with 100yd zero) or an extra 0.6" drop at 300yds (-6.9 vs. -6.3).
I have said before that whilst 0.6" seems to worry some people, I personally do not think that it has any impact in the real world when field shooting at a target 300yds away.
As far as accuracy goes, I do not really know. Some people seem to spend hours shooting at bits of paper, with rests and sand bags and whatnot.
Thanks zzsstt, but I am curious about your comment. Don't you handload & therefore experiment with different loads to acheive the best accuracy & velocity combination Assuming that you do, you would have punched holes in paper to test your loads "potential" accuracy & therefore know if it can shoot 0.5 moa for example.
That said every shot into a 3" circle at 200 metres under "field conditions" is quite acceptable in my book, & the minimal loss in velocity from a shorter barrel is a worthwhile tradeoff for the more user friendly barrel length I reckon.
Have you made any changes to your rifle from standard ie. bedding mods or trigger tuning
However, all my testing is carried out under the same conditions as my shooting, i.e. front of bike. This gives me an indication of whether the loads are working more or less well, but there is no way it can give an accurate figure as to the accuracy of the rifle. There are simply too many variables and built in robbers of accuracy. The suspension on the bike moves, the bipod slips about on the toolbox, handling of recoil is inconsistent etc. etc.
The only thing I can say is what degree of accuracy I get in the conditions under which I test, which is not a fair comparison with another rifle tested under "benchrest" conditions. If I said that I get 1.5MOA (3" at 200yds) it would be true, but not a reflection of the rifles ultimate capability. It would also look fairly crap against those who claim to get 0.25" groups at 300m. To establish the ultimate accuracy of the rifle would involve concrete benches, rests, sandbags, windflags and so forth, because the aim would be to remove all variability, all "user input", and to test the rifle in isolation. It would also (my statistician friends tell me) require the shooting and averaging of many groups of not less than 7 rounds. Now I know that many people shoot a bunch of three shot groups, pick the best and say their rifle shoots .xMOA where clearly it doesn't. This is applying the infinite number of monkeys principle, if I shot enough 3 shot groups eventually I would manage to get all three rounds in one calibre sized hole, but that doesn't mean I have a 0MOA rifle.
I would also question the relevance of such testing when applied to field shooting. I know that when I use my rifle in my normal way (bipod, ATV etc.) and look at a rabbit or roo or fox 200m away, the projectile will impact within 1.5" of my point of aim. To me, this is useful information. To know that if I had time to build a concrete bench, get out my rests and bags, set up my wind flags (without disturbing my quarry) I would hit within 0.5" of my point of aim is, well, useless. I also understand (from previous similar discussions) that people gain confidence from knowing their rifle shoots .xMOA, but for me that has no impact. I would prefer to know how it shoots under the conditions in which I will be using it. Knowing my car will, under ideal conditions on bitumen, stop from 100kph in x meters doesn't help me when I spend my life driving poorly maintained dirt roads.......
My rifle, by the way, is absolutely bog standard and had no modifications whatsoever.
zzsstt, I have been bitten by the accuracy bug so taking all the variables out to test the equipment and my ammo making skills is important to me.
I like the thread in your argument here and respect what works for you.
each to their own eh!
Oh and who started this post anyway? If you have only seen photos of the Kimber I can tell you I have held one in a shop, very light for a varmint rifle but felt like quality all over. As JB747 keeps stating you dont need a heavy 204 as there is no recoil. I just have a personal preference for heavy barrels.
Thanks zzsstt, I understand your arguement and am pleased you get acceptable field results from a "bog standard rifle". It demonstrates to me that Kimber got it pretty right with no further need to improve or change anything (not that I mind doing a few mods if required).
G'day Trevort, twas me that started this post as I was after some hands on info on one of these rifles & so far I've only read a few articles & seen photos. Nice to hear that you were impressed by your handling of a Kimber, but sounds like you prefer heavier canons. I already have a 10lb varmint outfit (Winchester coyote 22/250) which has had the treatment from Dave Stendle at Kopje custom rifles. It is very accurate, but is also loud, long & heavy. The Kimber appealed to me due to it's lightweight & quality build, and I'm hoping to handle one in the near future before I commit to the idea. I was also considering a CZ 527 classic in 204 which has the set trigger, and at $600 less it is a tempting alternative. I still reckon the Kimber is good value though when compared to a Remington of similar cost & lesser quality.
well i can help you there, i have 2 CZ 527s tho one has never been fired and went straight to Shane to use the action. The CZ barrels are supposedly lapped giving them a better finish than most factory barrels. My 223 out shoots my benchrest capabilities. I have no need for a 223 and have tried to sell it twice but cant bring myself to as its so accurate
Thanks Trevort, yes I have only read & heard good things about the CZ 527s other than a trigger tune is required. Do you reckon they are a better proposition for a lightweight but accurate 204 (considering the price difference of $600) than the Kimber.......
What are you having Shane do to the CZ action you gave him...... I reckon the 223 is an excellent all round calibre (have a tuned Ruger RBZ in one) for acccurate & economical varmint shooting out to 200 metres. Trouble is the critters are often further away & for that I like the sound of a 204......
I have a Kimber Long Master Classic in .223, which I believe is the same rifle as the Pro Varmint except for a walnut stock compared to a Laminated stock.
I find that this rifle handles great and the overall balance is very good for offhand and running shots. Whenever I have taken my rifle to the rifle range there has always been a number of comments from other people there sighting their rifles in as far as the quantity and appearance of this rifle.
Several of the people that I hunt with use CZ's and all have said that the Kimber is a better quanitity rifle. In my opion it is worth paying the extra and if/when I buy more firearms I will try and get a Kimber.
I am considering one in 204 ruger, and was surprised 
that for about the same cost as a Remmington or Sako you can get a Kimber 
From what I know already, they are very high quality, light weight, accurate and have NO PLASTIC parts. The stock is grey laminate, the barrel 22" stainless fluted, match grade trigger & the action is blued chrome moly.
I agree with your comments regarding Remmingtons & personally I think they have a great action but are otherwise over rated & expensive. For $1800 bucks I reckon the Kimber craps all over a Remington with no modifications required.
.......
